"A refugee is a person who has been forced to leave their home country due to a well-founded fear of persecution, war, violence, or other circumstances that seriously endanger their life or freedom. They are unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin because of these dangers."
According to this definition of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Jesus was NOT a refugee. He returned to Galilee.
The gospel message is not "be kind to strangers"(this could be construed as works will justify you). It is "repent and believe."(Mark 1:15) Nor is faith "rooted in displacement," it is rooted in God. (Mark 11:22).
Also, the Holy Family never left the Roman Empire. They left the Roman province of Judea to seek sanctuary in the Roman province of Aegyptus. This is comparable to fleeing Arizona for California. In no way should this be considered in your understanding of a refugee. You are trying to make a political point by using the modern lens of borders and situations on antiquity. I feel it's necessary to correct this error.
The parable is about showing mercy to those we encounter... individually. Yes! Conversely, it is not an invitation for our government to open its borders to the world and invite strangers. We have laws regarding this, which are debated upon by the citizens, and Christ also demands that we obey the authorities. We can discuss our immigration policies(which seems to be Sarah's desire in this post), but my point is not to use biblical examples as a cudgel to national policies. I would gladly discuss that.
You signed the document, "The Rev. Dr. Darrin Roorda". Is there a fake Rev. Dr. Roorda out there?
"We urge all people in Canada to listen and follow attentively the directions of our public health officials and government leaders. We, as religious leaders, pledge to lead by example." The challenge to you is. 'Do you sanction the Canadian government's policy with the murder of babies?' That falls under your HGS paradigm and I would assume you would not sign on to that notion. So we should not always follow the directions of public health officials and this may be a case here as well. In politics there are tradeoffs and in this instance could be more harmful to society than the solutions our officials offer. I see this document as nothing other than a wish list of programs you could never get through with honest debate and legislation in ordinary times: the Socialist agenda. This is exactly what the Democrats in the US are trying to do under the guise of the Wuhan coronavirus legislation: reparations, illegal immigration funding, more welfare programs, Planned Parenthood funding, etc. Really, I believe this document comes off as somewhat preachy and nothing more than a Socialist manifesto.
As to your appeal to Augustine and kin, regardless of your interpretation of some sort of common grace, our Patristic and Reformed fathers were very clear in achieving salvation and to where to find our hope: it's Jesus Christ. I don't see that testimony here.
When you say "now giving us alternatives(AE) to accomplish the same thing that our better for our environment" , how do you define accomplishing the same thing? Same space? Same construction costs? How do you define better? In a 2016 report by Cambridge University Engineering professor Michael Kelly, he reported "A 1000-megawatt (MV) wind farm would use up to 360 square miles of land to produce the same amount of energy as a 1000-MV nuclear plant." Which is better?
Maybe someday AE will become either cost effective or market available to the average consumer. One should remember with AE that fossil fuel power plants are STILL needed to be built to backup AE power grids. Current AE is strictly supplemental sources. Even Las Vegas, which brags about being 100% alternative-based energy. limits alternative usage only to residential customers. And we haven't discussed the costs of AE-without gov't subsidies AE wouldn't even be discussed. In this article the author points out that price matters. That should be a very important consideration when we then discuss being good stewards of God's Creation. Here is the link to the article. It is a good read. https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Renewable-energy-cannot-replace-FF_Lyman.pdf
Monogamy and monogamous will be the linguistic engines moving forward. This is evidenced by my challenge to Chong's Banner article of a few weeks ago when I ask editor Chong as to whether homosexual relationships were covered under his definition of monogamy and he removed the article. This all comes down to Deconstruction and the CRC's failure to combat it.
What is gracious listening? Why is a story of the Bible on equal footing with a story of today? How is faith about answers? The word "monogamy" doesn't appear in the Bible, yet you use this term as to give it such weight. I believe your usage of the term has more of a 18th century Age of Enlightenment flavor to it. And finally, your sentence " Anyone who has taken the time to understand this group would see that they love God, value Scripture, and affirm monogamous relationships, and that they are motivated by love." is loaded with sophistry. You draw many conclusions that are not necessarily there.
Is homosexual behavior a sin? Christianity for millennia has said "yes". Settled theology and biology supports this traditional view. Now you and others are saying no. You develop a new hermeneutic with terminology like gracious listening(inferring that the opposition to A1B and similar voices is not nice) and monogamy(appears nowhere in the Bible). Who is ungracious in their listening?
What I find disingenuous about your whole argument is that Dan W reported the facts of the meeting and you are ascribing all kinds of feelings and attitudes to the author. He never editorializes in the article and yet you accuse him of "ungracious" listening. As a longtime CRC member he is concerned about events such as these( I assume that is why he went) with strategies such as this to undermine CRC tradition. In no way does he cast A1B in a bad light- they did that themselves.
Simply put, to Josh's point, its all about some members wanting the CRC to affirm the gay lifestyle. Listening, wrestling, lots of humility, a pound of gender-neutral monogamy, sprinkled with gracious , and stirred in with community makes for just the right CRC soup- for A1B. For most Christians, that soup would be overcooked and over-seasoned. You should graciously accept that.
I remember 30 or so years ago when I was on the council and the Women in Office debate came up, I commented that the if the CRC allows this, homosexuality is next. I was met with great howling and derision. My logic was pretty simple; if Scripture can be manipulated or contextualized to sanction WIO, then SS marriage is not far behind. The cultural forces evident then, were not nor have been kept in check. We use to sing "Onward Christian Soldiers". It's been a long time since I've sung the verse,
"Like a mighty army
moves the church of God;
Brothers, we are treading
where the saints have trod;
We are not divided;
all one body we,
One in hope and doctrine,
one in charity"
My prayer is that the CRC comes to unity in faith.
Posted in: We All Carry the Story of Displacement, Part II
"A refugee is a person who has been forced to leave their home country due to a well-founded fear of persecution, war, violence, or other circumstances that seriously endanger their life or freedom. They are unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin because of these dangers."
According to this definition of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Jesus was NOT a refugee. He returned to Galilee.
Posted in: We All Carry the Story of Displacement, Part II
Sarah,
The gospel message is not "be kind to strangers"(this could be construed as works will justify you). It is "repent and believe."(Mark 1:15) Nor is faith "rooted in displacement," it is rooted in God. (Mark 11:22).
Also, the Holy Family never left the Roman Empire. They left the Roman province of Judea to seek sanctuary in the Roman province of Aegyptus. This is comparable to fleeing Arizona for California. In no way should this be considered in your understanding of a refugee. You are trying to make a political point by using the modern lens of borders and situations on antiquity. I feel it's necessary to correct this error.
Posted in: We All Carry the Story of Displacement, Part II
The parable is about showing mercy to those we encounter... individually. Yes! Conversely, it is not an invitation for our government to open its borders to the world and invite strangers. We have laws regarding this, which are debated upon by the citizens, and Christ also demands that we obey the authorities. We can discuss our immigration policies(which seems to be Sarah's desire in this post), but my point is not to use biblical examples as a cudgel to national policies. I would gladly discuss that.
Posted in: A Message to Canadians From Religious Leaders in Response to Covid19
Rev. Dr. Roorda,
You signed the document, "The Rev. Dr. Darrin Roorda". Is there a fake Rev. Dr. Roorda out there?
"We urge all people in Canada to listen and follow attentively the directions of our public health officials and government leaders. We, as religious leaders, pledge to lead by example." The challenge to you is. 'Do you sanction the Canadian government's policy with the murder of babies?' That falls under your HGS paradigm and I would assume you would not sign on to that notion. So we should not always follow the directions of public health officials and this may be a case here as well. In politics there are tradeoffs and in this instance could be more harmful to society than the solutions our officials offer. I see this document as nothing other than a wish list of programs you could never get through with honest debate and legislation in ordinary times: the Socialist agenda. This is exactly what the Democrats in the US are trying to do under the guise of the Wuhan coronavirus legislation: reparations, illegal immigration funding, more welfare programs, Planned Parenthood funding, etc. Really, I believe this document comes off as somewhat preachy and nothing more than a Socialist manifesto.
As to your appeal to Augustine and kin, regardless of your interpretation of some sort of common grace, our Patristic and Reformed fathers were very clear in achieving salvation and to where to find our hope: it's Jesus Christ. I don't see that testimony here.
Posted in: A Message to Canadians From Religious Leaders in Response to Covid19
Don, Do you support Canadian health officials sanctioning abortion?
Posted in: Thank God for Fossil Fuels!
Hi Ken,
When you say "now giving us alternatives(AE) to accomplish the same thing that our better for our environment" , how do you define accomplishing the same thing? Same space? Same construction costs? How do you define better? In a 2016 report by Cambridge University Engineering professor Michael Kelly, he reported "A 1000-megawatt (MV) wind farm would use up to 360 square miles of land to produce the same amount of energy as a 1000-MV nuclear plant." Which is better?
Maybe someday AE will become either cost effective or market available to the average consumer. One should remember with AE that fossil fuel power plants are STILL needed to be built to backup AE power grids. Current AE is strictly supplemental sources. Even Las Vegas, which brags about being 100% alternative-based energy. limits alternative usage only to residential customers. And we haven't discussed the costs of AE-without gov't subsidies AE wouldn't even be discussed. In this article the author points out that price matters. That should be a very important consideration when we then discuss being good stewards of God's Creation. Here is the link to the article. It is a good read. https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Renewable-energy-cannot-replace-FF_Lyman.pdf
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Monogamy and monogamous will be the linguistic engines moving forward. This is evidenced by my challenge to Chong's Banner article of a few weeks ago when I ask editor Chong as to whether homosexual relationships were covered under his definition of monogamy and he removed the article. This all comes down to Deconstruction and the CRC's failure to combat it.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Jodi,
What is gracious listening? Why is a story of the Bible on equal footing with a story of today? How is faith about answers? The word "monogamy" doesn't appear in the Bible, yet you use this term as to give it such weight. I believe your usage of the term has more of a 18th century Age of Enlightenment flavor to it. And finally, your sentence " Anyone who has taken the time to understand this group would see that they love God, value Scripture, and affirm monogamous relationships, and that they are motivated by love." is loaded with sophistry. You draw many conclusions that are not necessarily there.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Jodi,
Is homosexual behavior a sin? Christianity for millennia has said "yes". Settled theology and biology supports this traditional view. Now you and others are saying no. You develop a new hermeneutic with terminology like gracious listening(inferring that the opposition to A1B and similar voices is not nice) and monogamy(appears nowhere in the Bible). Who is ungracious in their listening?
What I find disingenuous about your whole argument is that Dan W reported the facts of the meeting and you are ascribing all kinds of feelings and attitudes to the author. He never editorializes in the article and yet you accuse him of "ungracious" listening. As a longtime CRC member he is concerned about events such as these( I assume that is why he went) with strategies such as this to undermine CRC tradition. In no way does he cast A1B in a bad light- they did that themselves.
Simply put, to Josh's point, its all about some members wanting the CRC to affirm the gay lifestyle. Listening, wrestling, lots of humility, a pound of gender-neutral monogamy, sprinkled with gracious , and stirred in with community makes for just the right CRC soup- for A1B. For most Christians, that soup would be overcooked and over-seasoned. You should graciously accept that.
Posted in: Thinking About a 'Third Way' – Is the CRC Uniquely Qualified to Forge a Middle Path?
Eric,
I remember 30 or so years ago when I was on the council and the Women in Office debate came up, I commented that the if the CRC allows this, homosexuality is next. I was met with great howling and derision. My logic was pretty simple; if Scripture can be manipulated or contextualized to sanction WIO, then SS marriage is not far behind. The cultural forces evident then, were not nor have been kept in check. We use to sing "Onward Christian Soldiers". It's been a long time since I've sung the verse,
"Like a mighty army
moves the church of God;
Brothers, we are treading
where the saints have trod;
We are not divided;
all one body we,
One in hope and doctrine,
one in charity"
My prayer is that the CRC comes to unity in faith.