Skip to main content

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."

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?

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).

Thank you, Sarah Joy, for speaking the truth with power, boldness, and clarity. May God continue to hold you up and guide your path!

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.

Unity is a command that comes from Scripture. Reducing CO2 production is not. So the prioritization seems pretty simple there.

As for effectiveness, it's not a false choice. The reality of a CO2 tax is that:

1) The earliest it could possibly go into effect is 2021 (as the current Senate and President are not in favor of it).

2) It does not reduce CO2 production...it simply makes coal, oil, and natural gas more expensive, and hopes that higher price forces people to switch to other energy supplies.

On the flip side, if everyone who says they believe in global warming took drastic steps today to cut their CO2 emissions, and started putting as much money as possible into wind & solar, you would have a definite and immediate effect on CO2 emissions (which would clearly be more effective than a theoretical effect sometime in the theoretical future...which is what you get with a CO2 tax).

Which leads us to something that baffles me more & more, as I learn more about global warming ideology. Perhaps you can help me understand it. Why aren't believers in global warming taking more drastic steps in their own personal lives to curb CO2 productions? If it is true that CO2 is already causing devastation all over the world, and CO2 production is going to have catastrophic effects on life as we know it on planet Earth, where is the personal urgency?

Hmmm...it's almost like men should teach their sons to cherish and protect the women in their lives. To honor those women. To hold the door open for them. To speak to women respectfully, and not like they would to "another guy." To practice modesty and act in a chivalrous manner. To treat women better. In other words, to act like a real man.

And then to expect the same honorable behavior from their brothers, friends, and fathers.

Roger, we can't confuse acceptance with effectiveness. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only effective solution to the problems being discussed at these interfaith events. But that does not mean it will be accepted by all those present, particularly by the leadership in charge of such events (and invited back to the next event). Think of Paul preaching to the Jewish leaders.

The religion that you have said you practice is more likely to be accepted by politicians, liberal Christian leaders, and leaders of other religions, because it does not ask them to repent or change. It is seen as inclusive and non-judgmental. On the other hand, a clear presentation of the Gospel of Jesus requires people to submit to His authority. That is not very popular with the leaders in these circles!

The irony is that even those who have rejected the Gospel of Jesus benefit from the peace and tranquility the Gospel brings to humanity.

 

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post