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.
Doug, I agree that it is not the Church's area of authority to wade into the topic of CO2 taxes. But let me play devil's advocate here...
Synod 2018 was overtured by 2 different classes to stop CRC agencies from political lobbying. (You have very close knowledge of that...your overture was extremely well written, by the way).
Synod 2018 chose to allow CRC employees & agencies to keep using CRC funds to do political lobbying. Thus the employees at OSJ essentially have a blank check to support or oppose any legislation they decide to, correct?
Eric, thanks for sharing that information. It is fascinating. I had not seen this before, or even heard of Dr. Judith Curry. I don't agree with everything she said there (what human being does agree with everything someone else says), but I love her approach.
I particularly celebrate the idea of identifying courses of action that can have benefits from multiple angles. Maybe it reduces CO2 production. But it also provides other tangible benefits (just in case this global warming thing turns out to be minor and/or completely natural).
So...until and unless Synod starts applying CO Article 28 to these issues, the reality on the ground is that CRC employees are permitted to use CRC resources to support (or oppose) specific, one-sided political policies.
As you correctly point out, "permitted" does not equal "required." Given this reality, denominational EMPLOYEEShave 3 options available to them:
1) The "99% Agree Option"
2) The "50% Disagree but Get Along Option"
3) The "Divided Option"
The "99% Agree Option" would work like this...when it comes to socio-political topics, CRC employees would use CRC resources to support policies that 99% of CRC members generally agree on. Example...on the topic of environmentalism, they would support policies toward reducing objectively harmful pollution, good stewardship of natural resources, conservationism, and thankfulness for God's creation. They would avoid controversial, one-sided policies like CO2 taxes.
The "50% Disagree but Get Along Option" would mean CRC employees DO use CRC resources to support controversial, one-sided policies, but only in a very GENERAL manner, and they emphasize PERSONAL action as a matter of personal conscience. Going back to our example of environmentalism...CRC employees could encourage individuals who believe in Global Warming to reduce their personal CO2 production, but not go so far as to support CO2 taxes. 50% of the members of the CRC might disagree with the position, but the soft-sell approach allows us to still get along.
Finally, the "Divided Option" would mean that CRC employees go all out in supporting controversial, one-sided policies. The issues are very complex & nuanced, allowing for TONS of differing viewpoints, all vying for supremacy. Following our example of environmentalism, this would mean CRC employees use CRC resources to support CO2 taxes, and encourage members to contact politicians to ask them to pass specific CO2 tax legislation.
Hi Roger. No worries. I do not take your statement as crass or mean-spirited at all. You simply missed my point. That is my fault for not explaining it well.
I completely understand that the Gospel of Jesus is different than all man-made religions, the man-made religions being based on completing enough works to earn "right-ness." The Gospel of Jesus requires our submission to the reality that our works are never adequate to earn right-ness.
Thus followers of man-made religions would readily accept deism (subjective moralism) as a non-threatening, kindred spirit. "I'm good with god, and you are too" is not a threat to Muslims, Hindus, atheists, or followers of earth-based indigenous religions. The organizers of inter-faith religious events are happy to include that sort of ideology.
***Side note*** Your choice of South Africa is an interesting one. Not much peace and tranquility there right now. The people of South Africa definitely need more of the Gospel of Jesus.
The advances of "secular culture" are precisely what I was referring to. Such advances were only possible because of the civilizing and peaceful influence of Christians following the true Gospel. Remove Christianity from the last 2000 years (going further back...remove the Jewish religion from the last 4000 years) and the world is a dark, deadly, terrible place. There would be no advances in civilization in such a world.
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: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Doug, I agree that it is not the Church's area of authority to wade into the topic of CO2 taxes. But let me play devil's advocate here...
Synod 2018 was overtured by 2 different classes to stop CRC agencies from political lobbying. (You have very close knowledge of that...your overture was extremely well written, by the way).
Synod 2018 chose to allow CRC employees & agencies to keep using CRC funds to do political lobbying. Thus the employees at OSJ essentially have a blank check to support or oppose any legislation they decide to, correct?
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Eric, thanks for sharing that information. It is fascinating. I had not seen this before, or even heard of Dr. Judith Curry. I don't agree with everything she said there (what human being does agree with everything someone else says), but I love her approach.
I particularly celebrate the idea of identifying courses of action that can have benefits from multiple angles. Maybe it reduces CO2 production. But it also provides other tangible benefits (just in case this global warming thing turns out to be minor and/or completely natural).
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
So...until and unless Synod starts applying CO Article 28 to these issues, the reality on the ground is that CRC employees are permitted to use CRC resources to support (or oppose) specific, one-sided political policies.
As you correctly point out, "permitted" does not equal "required." Given this reality, denominational EMPLOYEES have 3 options available to them:
1) The "99% Agree Option"
2) The "50% Disagree but Get Along Option"
3) The "Divided Option"
The "99% Agree Option" would work like this...when it comes to socio-political topics, CRC employees would use CRC resources to support policies that 99% of CRC members generally agree on. Example...on the topic of environmentalism, they would support policies toward reducing objectively harmful pollution, good stewardship of natural resources, conservationism, and thankfulness for God's creation. They would avoid controversial, one-sided policies like CO2 taxes.
The "50% Disagree but Get Along Option" would mean CRC employees DO use CRC resources to support controversial, one-sided policies, but only in a very GENERAL manner, and they emphasize PERSONAL action as a matter of personal conscience. Going back to our example of environmentalism...CRC employees could encourage individuals who believe in Global Warming to reduce their personal CO2 production, but not go so far as to support CO2 taxes. 50% of the members of the CRC might disagree with the position, but the soft-sell approach allows us to still get along.
Finally, the "Divided Option" would mean that CRC employees go all out in supporting controversial, one-sided policies. The issues are very complex & nuanced, allowing for TONS of differing viewpoints, all vying for supremacy. Following our example of environmentalism, this would mean CRC employees use CRC resources to support CO2 taxes, and encourage members to contact politicians to ask them to pass specific CO2 tax legislation.
We seem to be leaning toward Option 3, correct?
Posted in: Where Are the Evangelicals?
Hi Roger. No worries. I do not take your statement as crass or mean-spirited at all. You simply missed my point. That is my fault for not explaining it well.
I completely understand that the Gospel of Jesus is different than all man-made religions, the man-made religions being based on completing enough works to earn "right-ness." The Gospel of Jesus requires our submission to the reality that our works are never adequate to earn right-ness.
Thus followers of man-made religions would readily accept deism (subjective moralism) as a non-threatening, kindred spirit. "I'm good with god, and you are too" is not a threat to Muslims, Hindus, atheists, or followers of earth-based indigenous religions. The organizers of inter-faith religious events are happy to include that sort of ideology.
***Side note*** Your choice of South Africa is an interesting one. Not much peace and tranquility there right now. The people of South Africa definitely need more of the Gospel of Jesus.
The advances of "secular culture" are precisely what I was referring to. Such advances were only possible because of the civilizing and peaceful influence of Christians following the true Gospel. Remove Christianity from the last 2000 years (going further back...remove the Jewish religion from the last 4000 years) and the world is a dark, deadly, terrible place. There would be no advances in civilization in such a world.