Once again, your pastoral heart and wisdom are evident. Thank you for a poignant and timely call to eschew all ideological allegiances that place us in opposition to our ultimate allegiance. There is no love in degrading others. Our current climate contains far too much degradation and not nearly enough statesmanlike and neighborly love and respect.
Thanks David. I've been the troublesome kid that people didn't give up on. I didn't have pain, trauma, or neglect behind my penchant for trouble, just a rebellious heart that God penetrated and renewed.
Thanks for joining in conversation with me. I appreciate your perspective. I did try to explain in the article how I came to believe as I do on this matter. I'm a little unsure what part of what I've written you disagree with. If we were to take my last paragraph as a bit of a summary, can you identify something in that paragraph that you disagree with and help me understand why you disagree (if you do)? Thanks.
Thanks for joining in conversation. No, I do not think that the question of the type of government we are living under impacts our moral imperative or changes the mission and focus of the church.
If you read my second-to-the-last paragraph again you will see that I am not standing in opposition to our Contemporary Testimony, nor arguing against Christians speaking against injustice.
You will note that my thrust has to do with compelling others to speak and act when, why, and how we might prefer when it comes to questions of injustice broadly speaking. I hope that you can join me in believing that this does not build unity in the church and is not defensible or practically attainable.
Hi again, Karl. I will assume since I asked you to consider what in my closing paragraph you might disagree with and you offered no disagreement, that you must be in agreement. You will note that nowhere in my OP did I say that the church should be silent.
You mischaracterize the HSR when you say it is a litmus test. It is a theological position or understanding, and nothing more. The church has doctrine - that is inescapable. And the leaders of that church must agree to that doctrine if they purport to lead - that is neither novel (new) nor inconsistent for the CRC.
Thanks for joining in conversation. I think you make very helpful points in your reply. In addition to what you say there I would add that the Heidelberg Catechism speaks directly to the question of drawing quick conclusions and speaking according to those hasty conclusions.
Q&A 112 Q. What is the aim of the ninth commandment? A. That I never give false testimony against anyone, twist no one’s words, not gossip or slander, nor join in condemning anyone rashly or without a hearing. Rather, in court and everywhere else, I should avoid lying and deceit of every kind; these are the very devices the devil uses, and they would call down on me God’s intense wrath. I should love the truth, speak it candidly, and openly acknowledge it. And I should do what I can to guard and advance my neighbor’s good name. (emphases added)
Bev, thanks for this encouraging and challenging post. Yes, so blessed! And yes, blessed not so that we can hoard but so that we can in turn bless others!
It is for good reason that traditional Reformed liturgy has as its concluding element the benediction (the invocation of a blessing).
Numbers 6:22-27: The Lord said to Moses, “Tell Aaron and his sons, ‘This is how you are to bless the Israelites. Say to them:
“‘“The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face shine on you and be gracious to you; the Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace.”’
“So they will put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them.”
I appreciate this reflection, Dr. King. It seems inescapable that each person has things about which they are not sure. It seems to me that both the subject/object and degree of that lack of surety are key to understanding if an officebearer can serve while having a lack of surety about something. I've never heard a single Christian say "I'm absolutely sure about absolutely everything." To that extent, it seems as though the author of the recent article obliquely referenced herein would do well to acknowledge that we all both accept and reject a lack of surety depending on the subject/object and degree of that lack of surety.
"Can Jesus really save?" is a completely different doubt than "How does the Trinity work?" "I'm not sure I understand the balance between God's Sovereignty and human responsibility" is a completely different doubt than "I don't think God is really sovereign like the Catechism describes".
When it comes to sexuality it seems as though those who believe doubt and officebearing can/should coexist overlook the pastoral ramifications of that doubt. We know that an elder must be "able to teach" (1 Tim 3:2). How can an elder teach if he does not have a settled conviction about the doctrine of the church? Suppose a young man comes to his pastor or elder and seeks pastoral guidance about his struggle with lust and pornography. Is it pastorally coherent, helpful, or loving for that pastor or elder to shrug in response? What if that pastor or elder says "You know, I'm not really sure myself, so I really can't give you much direction." Or perhaps that pastor or elder would say "God may want you to find outlets for that lust, so perhaps you should pursue that - I really can't be sure what God's will is here." We can't be pastorally helpful and loving if we cannot start from a base of conviction that God has expressed his will in a way that we can understand, and from that understanding we can resist temptation by his strength and in his wisdom, as he promises us (1Cor. 10:13). Pastoral guidance rooted in a lack of conviction is no help in charting a God-honoring path from temptation to mortification. The "not sure" option sought by some is pastoral poison.
1) Posted on the justice blog of the CRC. 2) Recognizes the pitiful outcomes of fatherless families. 3) Does not even attempt to address the spiritual/cultural breakdown at the core of that problem. 4) Instead, this article only posits government policy and handout social programs as the solution.
Note, in particular, this quote: "Above all, what I have learned during my CPJ placement is that these experiences of poverty are neither natural nor inevitable; they are the result of policy choices, and we have the knowledge and the tools to choose better."
More specifically, note where blame is placed for all poverty: "the result of policy choices." This is simply and demonstrably not true in the totalizing way in which it is stated.
Interestingly, this article and so much of what passes for justice conversation in the CRC is anti-Kuyperian. Kuyper recognized the concept of sphere sovereignty. The church has no expertise in housing policy, economics, tax policy, etc. The church does have expertise in the gospel, family structure, reaping and sowing, morality, etc. So then why do we see the church calling for significant church voice into the former and little to no church voice on the latter when it comes to poverty and solutions to it?
One type of poverty not mentioned by the author: Spiritual poverty. And it is spiritual poverty that so often leads to a host of other poverties, including often a direct line to material poverty. The church's proper and more effective role would be to acknowledge its proper sphere and redouble its efforts within that sphere rather than assuming expertise in areas well outside our calling and strength.
Posted in: Political Dehumanization as a Strategy of Power: A Theological and Pastoral Reading
Christian,
Once again, your pastoral heart and wisdom are evident. Thank you for a poignant and timely call to eschew all ideological allegiances that place us in opposition to our ultimate allegiance. There is no love in degrading others. Our current climate contains far too much degradation and not nearly enough statesmanlike and neighborly love and respect.
Posted in: I Don't Believe in New Year's Resolutions
Kennedy, this is a helpful reflection. Thanks for sharing.
Posted in: Changing Things
Thanks David. I've been the troublesome kid that people didn't give up on. I didn't have pain, trauma, or neglect behind my penchant for trouble, just a rebellious heart that God penetrated and renewed.
Posted in: What If I Remain Silent?
Hi Karl,
Thanks for joining in conversation with me. I appreciate your perspective.
I did try to explain in the article how I came to believe as I do on this matter. I'm a little unsure what part of what I've written you disagree with. If we were to take my last paragraph as a bit of a summary, can you identify something in that paragraph that you disagree with and help me understand why you disagree (if you do)? Thanks.
Eric
Posted in: What If I Remain Silent?
Hi Douglas,
Thanks for joining in conversation. No, I do not think that the question of the type of government we are living under impacts our moral imperative or changes the mission and focus of the church.
If you read my second-to-the-last paragraph again you will see that I am not standing in opposition to our Contemporary Testimony, nor arguing against Christians speaking against injustice.
You will note that my thrust has to do with compelling others to speak and act when, why, and how we might prefer when it comes to questions of injustice broadly speaking. I hope that you can join me in believing that this does not build unity in the church and is not defensible or practically attainable.
Posted in: What If I Remain Silent?
Hi again, Karl. I will assume since I asked you to consider what in my closing paragraph you might disagree with and you offered no disagreement, that you must be in agreement. You will note that nowhere in my OP did I say that the church should be silent.
You mischaracterize the HSR when you say it is a litmus test. It is a theological position or understanding, and nothing more. The church has doctrine - that is inescapable. And the leaders of that church must agree to that doctrine if they purport to lead - that is neither novel (new) nor inconsistent for the CRC.
Posted in: What If I Remain Silent?
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for joining in conversation. I think you make very helpful points in your reply. In addition to what you say there I would add that the Heidelberg Catechism speaks directly to the question of drawing quick conclusions and speaking according to those hasty conclusions.
Q&A 112
Q. What is the aim of the ninth commandment?
A. That I never give false testimony against anyone,
twist no one’s words,
not gossip or slander,
nor join in condemning anyone
rashly or without a hearing.
Rather, in court and everywhere else,
I should avoid lying and deceit of every kind;
these are the very devices the devil uses,
and they would call down on me God’s intense wrath.
I should love the truth,
speak it candidly,
and openly acknowledge it.
And I should do what I can
to guard and advance my neighbor’s good name. (emphases added)
Posted in: We Are Blessed
Bev, thanks for this encouraging and challenging post. Yes, so blessed! And yes, blessed not so that we can hoard but so that we can in turn bless others!
It is for good reason that traditional Reformed liturgy has as its concluding element the benediction (the invocation of a blessing).
Numbers 6:22-27: The Lord said to Moses, “Tell Aaron and his sons, ‘This is how you are to bless the Israelites. Say to them:
“‘“The Lord bless you
and keep you;
the Lord make his face shine on you
and be gracious to you;
the Lord turn his face toward you
and give you peace.”’
“So they will put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them.”
Posted in: A Pastoral Statement on Venezuela, Justice, and Truth
Thanks for this, Christian. I hear your pastoral heart coming through.
Posted in: In Search of Wisdom in the Midst of Doubt
I appreciate this reflection, Dr. King. It seems inescapable that each person has things about which they are not sure. It seems to me that both the subject/object and degree of that lack of surety are key to understanding if an officebearer can serve while having a lack of surety about something. I've never heard a single Christian say "I'm absolutely sure about absolutely everything." To that extent, it seems as though the author of the recent article obliquely referenced herein would do well to acknowledge that we all both accept and reject a lack of surety depending on the subject/object and degree of that lack of surety.
"Can Jesus really save?" is a completely different doubt than "How does the Trinity work?"
"I'm not sure I understand the balance between God's Sovereignty and human responsibility" is a completely different doubt than "I don't think God is really sovereign like the Catechism describes".
When it comes to sexuality it seems as though those who believe doubt and officebearing can/should coexist overlook the pastoral ramifications of that doubt. We know that an elder must be "able to teach" (1 Tim 3:2). How can an elder teach if he does not have a settled conviction about the doctrine of the church? Suppose a young man comes to his pastor or elder and seeks pastoral guidance about his struggle with lust and pornography. Is it pastorally coherent, helpful, or loving for that pastor or elder to shrug in response? What if that pastor or elder says "You know, I'm not really sure myself, so I really can't give you much direction." Or perhaps that pastor or elder would say "God may want you to find outlets for that lust, so perhaps you should pursue that - I really can't be sure what God's will is here." We can't be pastorally helpful and loving if we cannot start from a base of conviction that God has expressed his will in a way that we can understand, and from that understanding we can resist temptation by his strength and in his wisdom, as he promises us (1Cor. 10:13). Pastoral guidance rooted in a lack of conviction is no help in charting a God-honoring path from temptation to mortification. The "not sure" option sought by some is pastoral poison.
Posted in: Is the CRC Afraid (Corporately) to Talk about Family and Fatherlessness?
Exhibit A: How we can Travel the Pathway from Poverty to Rights and Well-Being | Christian Reformed Church
Notice several things about the article:
1) Posted on the justice blog of the CRC.
2) Recognizes the pitiful outcomes of fatherless families.
3) Does not even attempt to address the spiritual/cultural breakdown at the core of that problem.
4) Instead, this article only posits government policy and handout social programs as the solution.
Note, in particular, this quote: "Above all, what I have learned during my CPJ placement is that these experiences of poverty are neither natural nor inevitable; they are the result of policy choices, and we have the knowledge and the tools to choose better."
More specifically, note where blame is placed for all poverty: "the result of policy choices." This is simply and demonstrably not true in the totalizing way in which it is stated.
Interestingly, this article and so much of what passes for justice conversation in the CRC is anti-Kuyperian. Kuyper recognized the concept of sphere sovereignty. The church has no expertise in housing policy, economics, tax policy, etc. The church does have expertise in the gospel, family structure, reaping and sowing, morality, etc. So then why do we see the church calling for significant church voice into the former and little to no church voice on the latter when it comes to poverty and solutions to it?
One type of poverty not mentioned by the author: Spiritual poverty. And it is spiritual poverty that so often leads to a host of other poverties, including often a direct line to material poverty. The church's proper and more effective role would be to acknowledge its proper sphere and redouble its efforts within that sphere rather than assuming expertise in areas well outside our calling and strength.
Posted in: Guidance on "Affirming the Confessions"
Hi Paul,
General Secretary Zach King also has some helpful words regarding the question of "not sure".
In Search of Wisdom in the Midst of Doubt | CRC Network