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?
Great question, Jenny. Ecclesiastical issues are those issues that fall objectively within the sphere of church authority and the core doctrines of the Christian church. Thus, a country's immigration policy is not an ecclesiastical issue. But helping refugees and immigrants get connected to a local body of believers IS an ecclesiastical issue.
Hi Kris. I'm glad to see someone from OSJ participating in the conversation. You're always welcome to give input!
Would you say that OSJ's positions on the Farm Bill, DACA, and the Paris Climate Agreement are the only morally-appropriate positions that could be taken by sincere believers of the Reformed persuasion?
The answers to those questions depend on how you define those terms.
If we ask clearer questions, perhaps we can arrive at clearer answers...
Should individual Christians get involved in politics, and allow Scripture to guide and inform their personal political actions? Yes! If you believe there is Biblical support for the Senate Farm Bill or the Paris Climate Agreement, by all means call your Senators and tell them so!
Should CRC pastors and local churches get involved in political activity, as their local members see fit (once again, informed by Scripture)? Of course! If you want to get organized at the local church level to install solar panels, or join a march in favor of the Dream Act...go for it!
Should the CRC as a denomination (through The Banner, social media, and denominational office activities) look for ways to speak Biblical truth about social and moral issues, and foster discussion of socio-political issues from ALL sides that are represented in the CRC? Yes again! The Banner can publish articles supporting respect for and value of all human life. OSJ can share resources to help all of us welcome immigrants and share the love of Jesus with strangers.
Should denominational employees have the freedom to speak for or against specific political positions, as long as there is a clear SCRIPTURAL mandate on that specific action? I say "yes." Some would say "no," and I respect their opinion.
Should denominational employees have the authority to speak on behalf of the CRC, based on their own subjective political preferences, and use denominational resources to call on all members of the CRC to support the employees' preferred piece of legislation, even though sincere Christians can have room for disagreement on that issue?
It is that final question that we are talking about...
I would offer that your #4 falls into my #3. If government specifically targets the freedom of churches, or tries to impose taxes on them, an overwhelming majority of members would support efforts to oppose those government actions.
To clarify my #3...I'm not saying the denomination MUST support any policy that a vast majority of members support. I'm just saying that any social/political/economic issue supported by the denomination MUST meet one of the 3 criteria (preferably #1 or #2...#3 would only apply in rare cases like the things you mentioned where government is infringing on the specific rights, or trying to exercise control over them).
Nick, thanks for contributing this thought-provoking blog to the discussion.
If I could summarize:
- You interpret Scripture and the teachings of Jesus to favor open borders and the dissolution of nation-states, and replacing them with a one-world government.
- You are also in favor of CRC employees being allowed to use denominational resources for political advocacy.
- Presumably this is because you want the CRC as a denomination to push for the immigration policies you read in Scripture (no more borders, and one-world government).
- That's why you oppose Overtures 13 and 14...because you want CRC employees to continue pushing for open borders.
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?
Posted in: Overtures, Politics, & Justice
Yes! Holy cow, thank you. You know me...I'm such an ecumenical guy I can't help but confuse the two words.
Posted in: Overtures, Politics, & Justice
Great question, Jenny. Ecclesiastical issues are those issues that fall objectively within the sphere of church authority and the core doctrines of the Christian church. Thus, a country's immigration policy is not an ecclesiastical issue. But helping refugees and immigrants get connected to a local body of believers IS an ecclesiastical issue.
Posted in: Overtures, Politics, & Justice
Hi Kris. I'm glad to see someone from OSJ participating in the conversation. You're always welcome to give input!
Would you say that OSJ's positions on the Farm Bill, DACA, and the Paris Climate Agreement are the only morally-appropriate positions that could be taken by sincere believers of the Reformed persuasion?
Posted in: Overtures, Politics, & Justice
The answers to those questions depend on how you define those terms.
If we ask clearer questions, perhaps we can arrive at clearer answers...
Should individual Christians get involved in politics, and allow Scripture to guide and inform their personal political actions? Yes! If you believe there is Biblical support for the Senate Farm Bill or the Paris Climate Agreement, by all means call your Senators and tell them so!
Should CRC pastors and local churches get involved in political activity, as their local members see fit (once again, informed by Scripture)? Of course! If you want to get organized at the local church level to install solar panels, or join a march in favor of the Dream Act...go for it!
Should the CRC as a denomination (through The Banner, social media, and denominational office activities) look for ways to speak Biblical truth about social and moral issues, and foster discussion of socio-political issues from ALL sides that are represented in the CRC? Yes again! The Banner can publish articles supporting respect for and value of all human life. OSJ can share resources to help all of us welcome immigrants and share the love of Jesus with strangers.
Should denominational employees have the freedom to speak for or against specific political positions, as long as there is a clear SCRIPTURAL mandate on that specific action? I say "yes." Some would say "no," and I respect their opinion.
Should denominational employees have the authority to speak on behalf of the CRC, based on their own subjective political preferences, and use denominational resources to call on all members of the CRC to support the employees' preferred piece of legislation, even though sincere Christians can have room for disagreement on that issue?
It is that final question that we are talking about...
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
There are 3 instances where denominational employees should be allowed to take a particular political position:
1) Whether Scripture specifically states which position to take (example: murder (i.e. abortion) is always wrong).
2) Whether our confessions and catechisms state which position to take.
3) Whether an overwhelming majority of professing members support a particular position.
If none of these 3 are present, our employees should not use denominational resources to support the position.
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
Thanks for your input, Doug!
I would offer that your #4 falls into my #3. If government specifically targets the freedom of churches, or tries to impose taxes on them, an overwhelming majority of members would support efforts to oppose those government actions.
To clarify my #3...I'm not saying the denomination MUST support any policy that a vast majority of members support. I'm just saying that any social/political/economic issue supported by the denomination MUST meet one of the 3 criteria (preferably #1 or #2...#3 would only apply in rare cases like the things you mentioned where government is infringing on the specific rights, or trying to exercise control over them).
I hope that helps. Thanks!
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
Nick, thanks for contributing this thought-provoking blog to the discussion.
If I could summarize:
- You interpret Scripture and the teachings of Jesus to favor open borders and the dissolution of nation-states, and replacing them with a one-world government.
- You are also in favor of CRC employees being allowed to use denominational resources for political advocacy.
- Presumably this is because you want the CRC as a denomination to push for the immigration policies you read in Scripture (no more borders, and one-world government).
- That's why you oppose Overtures 13 and 14...because you want CRC employees to continue pushing for open borders.
Is that an accurate summary?