Steve, thanks for your comment about "refugees" (asylum seekers) and "immigrants." I'm glad you brought it up, as there is an unfortunate trend in conflating the two. Sometimes this is done intentionally, to add emotional power to pro-illegal immigration arguments. Other times the confusion between the 2 terms is totally unintentional. But the 2 are completely different situations.
If the US/Mexico border had no legal points of entry, and if the US had no embassies or consulates in Mexico, where refugees could seek asylum, you would have a valid point in saying that refugees are forced to attempt dangerous, often times deadly, illegal border crossings into the US. There certainly are places on earth where such crossings are the only option for refugees.
Thankfully, the southern border of the United States is not such a place! People seeking asylum are 100% able to do so safely and legally, rather than dangerously and illegally.
And as pointed out by others, there is growing evidence that people who are not refugees are being encouraged to give false information in order to claim they are. Encouraging false asylum claims lessens the ability of true refugees too seek asylum. That is an injustice to genuine refugees.
A secure border, including physical barriers where appropriate, is definitely part of comprehensive immigration reform, and immigration justice. Border security does not criminalize asylum seekers in any way. Rather, it protects them.
Hi Peter, thanks for your comments. To determine whether or not Jesus is a "rebel" or a "conformist," we first have to determine what is God's ORIGINAL design and created order. If Jesus is bringing things in line with the original design and created order, then He is conforming to that, correct?
Was Satan a rebel? Or a conformist? Nuff said...
Secondly, Scripture does indeed instruct us Christians to show care & concern for the material state of our neighbors. But why? Is it to earn our salvation? Or is it out of gratitude to God for saving us? And is care & concern for the material state of humanity the primary purpose for Jesus' mission on Earth?
Did Jesus have the power, when he was here on Earth, to eliminate all sickness, poverty, and "oppression"? Did He do so?
These are all things which the author of "The Rebel Jesus" misses. And I think the clear reason he misses them is because the Holy Spirit is absent in his life. He wishes to use Jesus to promote a certain political worldview. Thus he misses the Truth.
Good points, Jason. One of my goals in writing this was to demonstrate that open borders does not equal "justice" in this situation.
It would be helpful for CRC denominational staff, particularly at OSJ, to weigh in and clarify how they interpret Synod's instructions on immigration: 1) the US government does have the moral authority to place limits and deny entry even to people who are simply seeking a better life, or 2) Scripture requires that we welcome any and all who seek a better life
Thanks for the comment, Brett. I did not miss the message that Browne promotes in his song "The Rebel Jesus." I intellectually understand the worldview that he is trying to promote. It's just that Scripture does not agree with Browne.
Did Jesus have the power, when He was here on Earth, to end all material poverty, sickness, and political oppression?
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.
Thanks for your comments, Edwin. I think what you are missing is the underlying, foundational, created order. It would be helpful if we started with this question:
Thanks for sharing your ideas, Brett. It sounds like you (like the author of the song) prefer a Leftwing, socialist economic & political system. That is fine...it is your opinion. But it certainly is not in line with Scripture or with Jesus' life here on earth. He had the power and means to END poverty worldwide. Yet He chose not to. He had the power to implement "northern European" models of democratic socialism. But He chose not to.
The author of this song is trying to tell us who Jesus is. (Actually, he would say "was" because the author believes that Jesus is dead.)
So answer this question: Should we give credit to someone who claims to speak for Jesus, who does not even believe that Jesus is the living, eternal Son of God, and Savior of the world?
Don Baxter5, rather than focusing on your subjective measure of inflammatory, wouldn't it be better to try to figure out whether this account of A1B's goals is accurate?
If it is accurate, I would hope that CRC members who stand for the truth of Scripture would be inflamed with a desire to stop A1B's desire to transform the CRC.
Daniel Zylstra, you included the word "ALL" in your rebuttal. I did not include that word in my statement of A1B's goals for the CRC. That's a very critical difference.
My statement of the event is completely accurate, A1B's website (obviously designed for public consumption) notwithstanding.
Had you been at the event, you would have witnessed almost no emphasis by the A1B presenters on the concept of committed gay/lesbian monogamy (not that such a commitment magically transforms sin into righteousness...I'm not aware of any Scripture where God tells us that if we engage in sinful behavior with the same person all the time, it's OK, but sinful behavior with different people all the time is not OK...so I'm not really sure where you are going with that one).
A1B's main focus, occupying almost all of the time, was on transforming the CRC into a "fully-inclusive" denomination, along the lines of the UCC. And convincing their fellow CRC members to embrace personal anecdotes of feeling better about themselves if they convert to LGBTQ+ ideology. A1B's main focus was on the behavior itself, not the context in which the behavior occurs.
Had the presenters pounded home the message "commit, commit, commit", I would have reported as much. They did not. Although like I said earlier, sin in the context of "commitment" is still sin, is it not?
Laura, I identify the impasse being where A1B "interprets" Scripture that is not vague. An abstract painting that has no objective definition is open to interpretation. A set of blueprints is not. If you creatively "interpret" blueprints, you end up with a building that is unsafe and collapses under its own weight.
Some passages of Scripture are open to interpretation...what do John's visions in the Book of Revelation mean, for example. On other things Scripture is intentionally and unambiguously clear. Marriage and sex being proper only in the context of male/female, for example. I understand this upsets many people, because it hits close to home. But God himself is the author of this blueprint, and it is not our place to argue with Him. It is our place to submit.
Of course, when Scripture doesn't say what we want it to, sinful human beings will turn to other things for justification, such as the affirmation of others and the comfort of meaningful personal stories. I don't doubt that many people who struggle with LGBTQ+ temptations have found personal "peace" and "freedom" by giving into those temptations and finding spaces that are generous enough to affirm their actions. The same thing happens with other sins that so easily beset us. Our call as believers is to encourage each other and hold each other accountable to Scripture, not help each other embrace sin.
Of course. I'm sure every Scripture verse on sex and marriage has been discussed at one time or another.
So, let's take a different angle. I said that A1B elevates personal stories above Scripture. You said that's not the case.
Would this be an accurate statement: A1B believes that Scripture alone is inadequate for informing the Church on marriage and sex, and for a full understanding of those topics the Church must rely on peoples' personal experiences and stories.
Is All One Body "interpreting" the Bible? Or are they ignoring the plain and simple meaning of Scripture?
Laura, if a universalist (someone who believes all religions lead to salvation) came to you with a story of being rejected and hurt by "legalistic" Christians, and offered an "interpretation" of the Bible to support their universalism, would you support a transformation of Church doctrine to remedy their hurt and recognize their story? Or would you remain faithful to the truth of Scripture?
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Steve, thanks for your comment about "refugees" (asylum seekers) and "immigrants." I'm glad you brought it up, as there is an unfortunate trend in conflating the two. Sometimes this is done intentionally, to add emotional power to pro-illegal immigration arguments. Other times the confusion between the 2 terms is totally unintentional. But the 2 are completely different situations.
If the US/Mexico border had no legal points of entry, and if the US had no embassies or consulates in Mexico, where refugees could seek asylum, you would have a valid point in saying that refugees are forced to attempt dangerous, often times deadly, illegal border crossings into the US. There certainly are places on earth where such crossings are the only option for refugees.
Thankfully, the southern border of the United States is not such a place! People seeking asylum are 100% able to do so safely and legally, rather than dangerously and illegally.
And as pointed out by others, there is growing evidence that people who are not refugees are being encouraged to give false information in order to claim they are. Encouraging false asylum claims lessens the ability of true refugees too seek asylum. That is an injustice to genuine refugees.
A secure border, including physical barriers where appropriate, is definitely part of comprehensive immigration reform, and immigration justice. Border security does not criminalize asylum seekers in any way. Rather, it protects them.
Posted in: "The Rebel Jesus" - Worst Christmas Song Ever?
Hi Peter, thanks for your comments. To determine whether or not Jesus is a "rebel" or a "conformist," we first have to determine what is God's ORIGINAL design and created order. If Jesus is bringing things in line with the original design and created order, then He is conforming to that, correct?
Was Satan a rebel? Or a conformist? Nuff said...
Secondly, Scripture does indeed instruct us Christians to show care & concern for the material state of our neighbors. But why? Is it to earn our salvation? Or is it out of gratitude to God for saving us? And is care & concern for the material state of humanity the primary purpose for Jesus' mission on Earth?
Did Jesus have the power, when he was here on Earth, to eliminate all sickness, poverty, and "oppression"? Did He do so?
These are all things which the author of "The Rebel Jesus" misses. And I think the clear reason he misses them is because the Holy Spirit is absent in his life. He wishes to use Jesus to promote a certain political worldview. Thus he misses the Truth.
- Dan W -
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Good points, Jason. One of my goals in writing this was to demonstrate that open borders does not equal "justice" in this situation.
It would be helpful for CRC denominational staff, particularly at OSJ, to weigh in and clarify how they interpret Synod's instructions on immigration: 1) the US government does have the moral authority to place limits and deny entry even to people who are simply seeking a better life, or 2) Scripture requires that we welcome any and all who seek a better life
Posted in: "The Rebel Jesus" - Worst Christmas Song Ever?
Thanks for the comment, Brett. I did not miss the message that Browne promotes in his song "The Rebel Jesus." I intellectually understand the worldview that he is trying to promote. It's just that Scripture does not agree with Browne.
Did Jesus have the power, when He was here on Earth, to end all material poverty, sickness, and political oppression?
- Dan W -
Posted in: Violence against Women – It’s a Men’s Issue
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.
Posted in: "The Rebel Jesus" - Worst Christmas Song Ever?
Thanks for your comments, Edwin. I think what you are missing is the underlying, foundational, created order. It would be helpful if we started with this question:
Was Satan a rebel? Or a conformist?
Posted in: "The Rebel Jesus" - Worst Christmas Song Ever?
Thanks for sharing your ideas, Brett. It sounds like you (like the author of the song) prefer a Leftwing, socialist economic & political system. That is fine...it is your opinion. But it certainly is not in line with Scripture or with Jesus' life here on earth. He had the power and means to END poverty worldwide. Yet He chose not to. He had the power to implement "northern European" models of democratic socialism. But He chose not to.
The author of this song is trying to tell us who Jesus is. (Actually, he would say "was" because the author believes that Jesus is dead.)
So answer this question: Should we give credit to someone who claims to speak for Jesus, who does not even believe that Jesus is the living, eternal Son of God, and Savior of the world?
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Don Baxter5, rather than focusing on your subjective measure of inflammatory, wouldn't it be better to try to figure out whether this account of A1B's goals is accurate?
If it is accurate, I would hope that CRC members who stand for the truth of Scripture would be inflamed with a desire to stop A1B's desire to transform the CRC.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Daniel Zylstra, you included the word "ALL" in your rebuttal. I did not include that word in my statement of A1B's goals for the CRC. That's a very critical difference.
My statement of the event is completely accurate, A1B's website (obviously designed for public consumption) notwithstanding.
Had you been at the event, you would have witnessed almost no emphasis by the A1B presenters on the concept of committed gay/lesbian monogamy (not that such a commitment magically transforms sin into righteousness...I'm not aware of any Scripture where God tells us that if we engage in sinful behavior with the same person all the time, it's OK, but sinful behavior with different people all the time is not OK...so I'm not really sure where you are going with that one).
A1B's main focus, occupying almost all of the time, was on transforming the CRC into a "fully-inclusive" denomination, along the lines of the UCC. And convincing their fellow CRC members to embrace personal anecdotes of feeling better about themselves if they convert to LGBTQ+ ideology. A1B's main focus was on the behavior itself, not the context in which the behavior occurs.
Had the presenters pounded home the message "commit, commit, commit", I would have reported as much. They did not. Although like I said earlier, sin in the context of "commitment" is still sin, is it not?
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Laura, I identify the impasse being where A1B "interprets" Scripture that is not vague. An abstract painting that has no objective definition is open to interpretation. A set of blueprints is not. If you creatively "interpret" blueprints, you end up with a building that is unsafe and collapses under its own weight.
Some passages of Scripture are open to interpretation...what do John's visions in the Book of Revelation mean, for example. On other things Scripture is intentionally and unambiguously clear. Marriage and sex being proper only in the context of male/female, for example. I understand this upsets many people, because it hits close to home. But God himself is the author of this blueprint, and it is not our place to argue with Him. It is our place to submit.
Of course, when Scripture doesn't say what we want it to, sinful human beings will turn to other things for justification, such as the affirmation of others and the comfort of meaningful personal stories. I don't doubt that many people who struggle with LGBTQ+ temptations have found personal "peace" and "freedom" by giving into those temptations and finding spaces that are generous enough to affirm their actions. The same thing happens with other sins that so easily beset us. Our call as believers is to encourage each other and hold each other accountable to Scripture, not help each other embrace sin.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Of course. I'm sure every Scripture verse on sex and marriage has been discussed at one time or another.
So, let's take a different angle. I said that A1B elevates personal stories above Scripture. You said that's not the case.
Would this be an accurate statement: A1B believes that Scripture alone is inadequate for informing the Church on marriage and sex, and for a full understanding of those topics the Church must rely on peoples' personal experiences and stories.
???
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Is All One Body "interpreting" the Bible? Or are they ignoring the plain and simple meaning of Scripture?
Laura, if a universalist (someone who believes all religions lead to salvation) came to you with a story of being rejected and hurt by "legalistic" Christians, and offered an "interpretation" of the Bible to support their universalism, would you support a transformation of Church doctrine to remedy their hurt and recognize their story? Or would you remain faithful to the truth of Scripture?