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?
Jodi, fortunately you don't have to speculate about the author's attitude in attending the A1B meeting. Because I'm the author. No need for speculation.
8 - )
I attended the meeting with an attitude of 100% gracious listening. Just think about it...I took time out of my busy schedule to attend the event. I listened attentively for almost 2 hours. I even took notes...that's how closely I listened. I knew going into the event that the presenters agenda is to transform the CRC into what they call an "inclusive" denomination. I knew they probably would not allow any other perspectives to be presented. Yet I listened respectfully the entire time. Who is more gracious: the one who listens for 2 hours to ideas that he disagrees with, or the one who does not allow opposing viewpoints to be given?
Had the All One Body folks presented a convincing case using Scripture, they would have won me over. As Martin Luther said when he was commanded to change his ideology...if you can refute me from SCRIPTURE, I will be the first one to burn my books.
Well, if All One Body can convince me from Scripture, I will be the first one to go along with inclusiveness. But they cannot. They presented a false ideology of feelings, built on a quicksand foundation of personal stories.
I hope the CRC will be courageous enough to make the same statement Martin Luther did: HERE I STAND.
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...
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?
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.
The priesthood of all believers is a crucial aspect of our Reformed faith. Those who are paid for their work by the CRC have no greater or less a calling than people like me who work for welding companies. We are ALL ministers of the Gospel. Reformed churches are not hierarchical (contrast this with the Roman Catholic church). I am an employee of the company I work for. That is not demeaning to me or any other employee. In fact, hard work and productivity are praised in Scripture, right? "Employee" is an accurate term, is it not?
But are those things woven intimately together because they are the same thing? Can we use "mercy", "justice", and "righteousness" interchangeably? Are we egalitarian linguists now?
Or is it true that each of these have distinct meanings, even if they are complementary of one another?
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: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Jodi, fortunately you don't have to speculate about the author's attitude in attending the A1B meeting. Because I'm the author. No need for speculation.
8 - )
I attended the meeting with an attitude of 100% gracious listening. Just think about it...I took time out of my busy schedule to attend the event. I listened attentively for almost 2 hours. I even took notes...that's how closely I listened. I knew going into the event that the presenters agenda is to transform the CRC into what they call an "inclusive" denomination. I knew they probably would not allow any other perspectives to be presented. Yet I listened respectfully the entire time. Who is more gracious: the one who listens for 2 hours to ideas that he disagrees with, or the one who does not allow opposing viewpoints to be given?
Had the All One Body folks presented a convincing case using Scripture, they would have won me over. As Martin Luther said when he was commanded to change his ideology...if you can refute me from SCRIPTURE, I will be the first one to burn my books.
Well, if All One Body can convince me from Scripture, I will be the first one to go along with inclusiveness. But they cannot. They presented a false ideology of feelings, built on a quicksand foundation of personal stories.
I hope the CRC will be courageous enough to make the same statement Martin Luther did: HERE I STAND.
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: 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: 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?
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
Thanks for clarifying, Nick.
Regarding "employees":
The priesthood of all believers is a crucial aspect of our Reformed faith. Those who are paid for their work by the CRC have no greater or less a calling than people like me who work for welding companies. We are ALL ministers of the Gospel. Reformed churches are not hierarchical (contrast this with the Roman Catholic church). I am an employee of the company I work for. That is not demeaning to me or any other employee. In fact, hard work and productivity are praised in Scripture, right? "Employee" is an accurate term, is it not?
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
Regarding immigration law:
I thought you said Jesus supported open borders, correct?
Or are you arguing from silence, saying that Jesus did not say anything about borders one way or the other? Therefore borders are bad?
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
But are those things woven intimately together because they are the same thing? Can we use "mercy", "justice", and "righteousness" interchangeably? Are we egalitarian linguists now?
Or is it true that each of these have distinct meanings, even if they are complementary of one another?