You're saying "white privilege" is undeniably true and exists all over the United States in obvious ways.
I'm saying that's a theory of yours, and it's a bad one.
So let's see if we can understand each other better. You reference banking as an area where someone is at a disadvantage simply because their skin is slightly darker brown than somone else's. I do not believe you are correct in that. So, could you please offer 1 example where that is the case in banking today in America.
Aha! Now we are getting somewhere. So there is no actual banking policy that looks at a person's skin tone and requires them to pay more for a loan. Instead, the OUTCOME of a particular activity (in this case, loans) appears unequal, thus the belief of White Privilege is that there must be some inherent racism in the system which causes the unequal outcome. Is that a fair summary?
Jeremy Oosterhouse makes a very good point. A lack of an official, clinical diagnosis does not necessarily mean all is well.
Mark, are you saying that people who commit mass murder are mentally stable? I would say the very fact that a person is willing to randomly maim and murder other human beings, as many as possible, indicates that the person is very troubled spiritually, mentally, and emotionally, correct?
I thought we were talking about RANDOM mass murders...the ones in the headlines recently. The ones that the President was referring to. I didn't think we were talking about mass murderers who are robbing people (like Bonnie and Clyde), or protecting their political turf (like Herod).
But even in the case of Herod (or murderous bank robbers), I would make the case that there is CLEARLY something that is wrong mentally. Would you say that Hitler, Stalin, etc. were of sound mind?
Ken, I think you might be speaking sarcastically. But I agree with you that it would be prudent to expand our definitions of mental illness, in order to include people who randomly murder and injure other human beings. As the author of this article stated, we don't know all the factors involved, so it is wise to keep an open mind. One thing I think is blatantly obvious is that anyone who would commit such heinous crimes is suffering from extreme spiritual, mental, and social problems. Not all people who are mentally ill are mass murderers. But all mass murderers are mentally (and spiritually) ill.
Ken, thanks for the clarification. And more importantly, thanks for engaging in this discussion in a meaningful way. I think it's important for us CRC members to be able to disagree with each other and talk about it. I sincerely appreciate the folks at The Network creating a place for that to happen!
Also, thank you Mark for sharing this article. I think we all have more areas of agreement than disagreement, and it's important to remember that. While I have no issue with the President identifying metal illness as a key factor, I understand your perspective and I respect it.
In the end, I think we can all agree that all of us have various strengths and limitations. And those of us with strength in one area need to be mindful of those with limitations, treat them with dignity, and facilitate each others abilities wherever we can. Our greatest limitation is shared by all of humanity: our sinful nature. To deal with that we can only rely on the strength of Jesus Christ our Savior. The good news of His Gospel is the greatest thing we can share with anyone, regardless of "ability."
Especially in the Church, procedural rules are only as good as their ability to guide us to be faithful to Scripture.
And even worse than "following" man-made technicalities to undermine Scripture, is turning around and ignoring those same procedural rules when circumstances flip and they threaten to stand in the way of "progress."
May we remain faithful to Scripture first and always. Then we can endeavor to apply subordinate procedural rules fairly and appropriately (and not to the exclusive advantage or disadvantage of one side).
Eric, your point about this already happening is sad but true.
Perhaps it's time for us to use ARTICLE 30 of our Church Order?
Article 30 allows for any CRC classis, church council, or even individual member "to appeal to the assembly next in order if they believe...that a decision conflicts with the Word of God or Church Order." You, I, our church councils, or our classis are allowed to petition the Council of Sherman Street CRC and ask them to clearly state that All One Body is in violation of the Word of God. If the Council of Sherman Street CRC refuses, we may invoke Article 30, and even require a Judicial Code proceeding.
As far as I know, this has not been done. Perhaps it is time for that.
The only way to end prejudice and racism is for all of us to view each other in the way God views us: as individuals. May we look past the relative brown-ness of each others' skin, and see the individual being created by God.
I propose 2 main reasons that we don't see Jesus proclaimed boldly at inter-faith events such as the one you discuss:
1) "Thou shalt not offend" has become one of the great commandments of Western culture. This goes hand-in-hand with wanting to fit in. Thus we see many evangelical denominations, including the CRC, focusing more on social justice than the Gospel. Being a "climate witness" is not offensive to the world. In fact, you get praised for it by people of all faiths! But being a witness of the Gospel is offensive. You said the Christian leader who spoke focused on solidarity and justice. These are the things being emphasized to leaders in evangelical denominations, as part of their training & education. Thus when a "leader" is invited, you end up getting a totally different message than if the event organizers invited a non-leader, "lay-person" like me to the event.
2) In the rare case where the event organizers happen to invite a Christian who (unlike the "leaders" mentioned above) IS willing to boldly proclaim the message of the Gospel of Jesus, that person is pretty much guaranteed to be a one-hit wonder. They will never be invited to speak at an inter-faith solidarity event ever again. It would be wonderful if someone stood in front of an event like this and said "Christians mourn with those who mourn...but let me tell you about the One who can turn your mourning into dancing...the risen Christ!" Yeah, that person would not be invited to the next event. The event organizers would scratch that person's name off their list and go back to inviting the "social justice" Christian for the next event.
Posted in: We Must Not Go Back to Normal
You're saying "white privilege" is undeniably true and exists all over the United States in obvious ways.
I'm saying that's a theory of yours, and it's a bad one.
So let's see if we can understand each other better. You reference banking as an area where someone is at a disadvantage simply because their skin is slightly darker brown than somone else's. I do not believe you are correct in that. So, could you please offer 1 example where that is the case in banking today in America.
Posted in: We Must Not Go Back to Normal
Aha! Now we are getting somewhere. So there is no actual banking policy that looks at a person's skin tone and requires them to pay more for a loan. Instead, the OUTCOME of a particular activity (in this case, loans) appears unequal, thus the belief of White Privilege is that there must be some inherent racism in the system which causes the unequal outcome. Is that a fair summary?
Posted in: The Network Turns 10! Two Giveaways
Yum. Timbits!
Posted in: A Foolish and Dangerous Assertion
Jeremy Oosterhouse makes a very good point. A lack of an official, clinical diagnosis does not necessarily mean all is well.
Mark, are you saying that people who commit mass murder are mentally stable? I would say the very fact that a person is willing to randomly maim and murder other human beings, as many as possible, indicates that the person is very troubled spiritually, mentally, and emotionally, correct?
Posted in: A Foolish and Dangerous Assertion
I thought we were talking about RANDOM mass murders...the ones in the headlines recently. The ones that the President was referring to. I didn't think we were talking about mass murderers who are robbing people (like Bonnie and Clyde), or protecting their political turf (like Herod).
But even in the case of Herod (or murderous bank robbers), I would make the case that there is CLEARLY something that is wrong mentally. Would you say that Hitler, Stalin, etc. were of sound mind?
Posted in: A Foolish and Dangerous Assertion
Ken, I think you might be speaking sarcastically. But I agree with you that it would be prudent to expand our definitions of mental illness, in order to include people who randomly murder and injure other human beings. As the author of this article stated, we don't know all the factors involved, so it is wise to keep an open mind. One thing I think is blatantly obvious is that anyone who would commit such heinous crimes is suffering from extreme spiritual, mental, and social problems. Not all people who are mentally ill are mass murderers. But all mass murderers are mentally (and spiritually) ill.
Posted in: A Foolish and Dangerous Assertion
Ken, thanks for the clarification. And more importantly, thanks for engaging in this discussion in a meaningful way. I think it's important for us CRC members to be able to disagree with each other and talk about it. I sincerely appreciate the folks at The Network creating a place for that to happen!
Also, thank you Mark for sharing this article. I think we all have more areas of agreement than disagreement, and it's important to remember that. While I have no issue with the President identifying metal illness as a key factor, I understand your perspective and I respect it.
In the end, I think we can all agree that all of us have various strengths and limitations. And those of us with strength in one area need to be mindful of those with limitations, treat them with dignity, and facilitate each others abilities wherever we can. Our greatest limitation is shared by all of humanity: our sinful nature. To deal with that we can only rely on the strength of Jesus Christ our Savior. The good news of His Gospel is the greatest thing we can share with anyone, regardless of "ability."
Posted in: The Sin of Process?
Especially in the Church, procedural rules are only as good as their ability to guide us to be faithful to Scripture.
And even worse than "following" man-made technicalities to undermine Scripture, is turning around and ignoring those same procedural rules when circumstances flip and they threaten to stand in the way of "progress."
May we remain faithful to Scripture first and always. Then we can endeavor to apply subordinate procedural rules fairly and appropriately (and not to the exclusive advantage or disadvantage of one side).
Posted in: Life, Life, and More Life
Thank you, Sarah Joy, for speaking the truth with power, boldness, and clarity. May God continue to hold you up and guide your path!
Posted in: The CRC and LGBTQ - Part 2
Eric, your point about this already happening is sad but true.
Perhaps it's time for us to use ARTICLE 30 of our Church Order?
Article 30 allows for any CRC classis, church council, or even individual member "to appeal to the assembly next in order if they believe...that a decision conflicts with the Word of God or Church Order." You, I, our church councils, or our classis are allowed to petition the Council of Sherman Street CRC and ask them to clearly state that All One Body is in violation of the Word of God. If the Council of Sherman Street CRC refuses, we may invoke Article 30, and even require a Judicial Code proceeding.
As far as I know, this has not been done. Perhaps it is time for that.
Posted in: Fragile Beauty and Racism
The only way to end prejudice and racism is for all of us to view each other in the way God views us: as individuals. May we look past the relative brown-ness of each others' skin, and see the individual being created by God.
Posted in: Where Are the Evangelicals?
Thanks for raising an important discussion, Greg.
I propose 2 main reasons that we don't see Jesus proclaimed boldly at inter-faith events such as the one you discuss:
1) "Thou shalt not offend" has become one of the great commandments of Western culture. This goes hand-in-hand with wanting to fit in. Thus we see many evangelical denominations, including the CRC, focusing more on social justice than the Gospel. Being a "climate witness" is not offensive to the world. In fact, you get praised for it by people of all faiths! But being a witness of the Gospel is offensive. You said the Christian leader who spoke focused on solidarity and justice. These are the things being emphasized to leaders in evangelical denominations, as part of their training & education. Thus when a "leader" is invited, you end up getting a totally different message than if the event organizers invited a non-leader, "lay-person" like me to the event.
2) In the rare case where the event organizers happen to invite a Christian who (unlike the "leaders" mentioned above) IS willing to boldly proclaim the message of the Gospel of Jesus, that person is pretty much guaranteed to be a one-hit wonder. They will never be invited to speak at an inter-faith solidarity event ever again. It would be wonderful if someone stood in front of an event like this and said "Christians mourn with those who mourn...but let me tell you about the One who can turn your mourning into dancing...the risen Christ!" Yeah, that person would not be invited to the next event. The event organizers would scratch that person's name off their list and go back to inviting the "social justice" Christian for the next event.