Skip to main content


Why don't you grieve for the 40% of Black children that are murdered in the womb?

Why don't you grieve for the Black people that are murdered every weekend in Chicago and other large cities? Blacks make up 35% of Chicago's population and account for 76% of the homicides. Looks like a cultural problem.

Why don't you grieve for the 60% of Black children that live in single households?

Why don't you grieve for David Dorn, the Black retired St. Louis cop killed by rioters?

Where is the systemic racism? Name the policy that specifically targets Blacks for unequal treatment? 

What statistics do you base your racism on? Last year, according to the Washington Post database on police shootings, 1004 people were killed. Of them 9 were unarmed Blacks and 19 unarmed Whites. Of the 9 Blacks, five were shot while attacking the officer, one had a weapon is his car, one used a car, and in two cases the officers were charged with a crime. Where is the systemic racism?

Breonna Taylor was involved with a drug dealer who shot at police when they entered the house. The police returned fire and Ms. Taylor was unfortunately killed. Many details are in question. The address, the no-knock policy, the warrant. Tragically sad. Racism?

George Floyd was arrested for a counterfeit $20 bill. While some details are missing and there are conflicting autopsies as to how he died, what the officer did is unconscionable and criminal. He was arrested within hours. Racism?

Ahmaud Arbery was killed on video. Hunted? Chased? The trial will show the details. The DOJ is investigating for possible hate crime. Perps are possibly racists. Would systemic racism investigate? 


So without statistical evidence about "racism", without an ounce of evidence that in any of these killings was based on the perpetrator/officer being a racist, you have publicly past judgment on these individuals and society without due process. Hardly the Christian route of justice.  In other words this statement is nothing more than virtue signaling. Shame.


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.

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.

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.

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post