Eric Van Dyken

 "Our denomination seems to be crumbling even faster than our former denominational office building."

I don't believe this is the case at all.  On the contrary, I would offer that our denomination is recovering its footing, placing itself again on solid ground.  This leads to stability, not crumbling.  Our denomination has been solidifying itself for a future that is sustainable, as opposed to denominations that crumble after following the world.  

Susan, 

Thanks for this reflection.

Ryan, thanks for your testimony to the grace of God working through God's people.  May you continue to bless and be blessed by the church.

Hi Virginia,

Thanks for opening a conversation.  I will try to answer your questions directly and perhaps add a bit of commentary that gets at the broader conversation.  

If I may begin by noting a couple things about myself for context.  I am heavily Canadian influenced, as my Dad was from Canada (though not a citizen) and much of his family remains there.  This led to a lot of Canadian visits and Canadian influence from a young age.  As I got older I had additional reasons to visit, with two married siblings settling in Canada and my Mom eventually remarrying a Canadian after the passing of my Dad. Politically I am usually what someone might call conservative, but likely not fitting in a neat box.  I did not vote for President Trump and find him in many ways highly objectionable.  

With that context, to your questions (beginning with the title question).

"What Does It Mean to Be a Bi-National Denomination When the Rhetoric Between the Two Nations Becomes Bitter?"  For me it means first and foremost that we are reminded that the reasons for and base of our historic union is not geographic, political, social, or cultural, but rather spiritual - we have a common confession.  In other words, national rivalry does not change or damage our union, because our union was never based on a congenial national relation, but a much deeper spiritual union.  In that spirit we can view the passing cares of geo-political machinations with a settled confidence in our mutual commitment to spiritual union.

"Do our American siblings believe the things the current administration has said about the Canadian border?  Or who exploits whom in terms of trade?"  Of course, I cannot speak to the totality of thinking of American CRC members, so I will offer my own perspective, colored by those I am familiar with in the CRC.  Some the answer to that question depends on what statements or policy positions you are thinking of.  Regarding trade, many U.S. CRC members will agree to an extent about the thrust of Trump rhetoric regarding certain Canadian protectionist trade practices.  Now, all countries seek to protect their own interests - that much is fairly plain.  Many U.S. CRC members are involved in agriculture, and it is not a secret that Canada has highly protectionist policies and tariffs for agriculture.  In this Trump is not wrong.  In true Trump fashion he overstates the matter for effect.  It has often been said: Don't take Trump literally but do take him seriously.  He's a showman at heart, and he does and says things for dramatic effect - always has and always will.  Sometimes this has worked for him, sometimes it has failed.  To that degree, his rhetoric on trade with Canada is overheated and not always accurate, though it contains some underlying realities.  

As for Trump's rhetoric on the 51st state, most Americans think of that as a joke, and it mostly is.  I say "mostly" because here again Trump is exaggerating and being over-the-top, but with intended purpose, and it plays right into certain historic Canadian self-perceptions.  Is Trump's style of diplomacy odd and abrasive at times?  Most definitely.  Is the U.S. going to invade, annex, conquer, or otherwise subsume Canada against their will?  Most definitely not.  Interestingly enough, though many disapprove of Trump and his sabre-rattling style of international engagement, Trump has not been the cause of international conflict or war.  Trump's actual record is surprisingly one of peace.  Personally, I have a great love for Canada and do not desire to see Canada degraded or disrespected.  I do, however, also realize that the vast majority of daily concerns for Canadians are not Trump-caused, but products of Canada's own political decisions.  It is partly for this reason that Canadians are being told by their government that Trump is the cause of what ails them - it distracts from Canada's own internal failures, which are legion.  

I recently visited Canada and found myself quite literally under verbal attack in several situations once it was known that I was visiting from America (despite the fact that I am not a Trump voter).  It was clear to me that for a certain segment of the population the government and an attendant press have done a good job of re-directing their anger from the ruling liberals to America or Americans, or at least anything related to Trump. Having said that, my Christian, CRC, and family connections in Canada make abundantly clear to me that Canadians are by no means of one mind regarding the seriousness of or damage caused by Trump rhetoric or policy.  Many (including CRC members) are not at all looking for sympathy, solidarity, or the like in light of current geo-political happenings.  

"Do we share faith without being willing to share worries and concerns?"  Not at all.  Certainly we seek to bear each others' burdens, rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. But we also must be aware that worries and concerns vary greatly.  The CRC recently did put out a pastoral letter recognizing pain, hurt, concern among many Canadians.  For some this statement was unnecessary and unhelpfully reactive.  For others this statement was far short of adequate.  Therein lies some of the challenge of denominational statements that attempt to represent a broad constituency with widely varying political, social, cultural, and economic perspectives.  At the congregational level you may be surprised to know how many U.S. churches are praying for healed national relations.  These things happen organically and without the sounding of trumpets or the publication of letters. 

Thanks for raising these questions, as they make for interesting conversation and opportunity to understand each others' perspectives better.

This posting raises in me some thoughts/ponderings:

• I am thankful that denominational staff have called the church’s attention to this important day of remembrance.
• The past number of years have seen the institutional CRC exhibit an “all lives matter” approach and message concerning Sanctity of Human Life Sunday.  I find this unhelpful.  Sanctity of Human Life Sunday originated specifically to call national attention to the wanton destruction of unborn human life.  A day of remembrance, petition, and lament loses some of its effectiveness if it is expanded broadly.  Yes, all life matters.  But making Sanctity of Human Life Sunday into a catch-all detracts from its original purpose. Adding disability concerns to Sanctity of Human Life Sunday detracts from due attention to the plight of the unborn in the same manner as if we broadened Disability Awareness Sunday to include the value and inclusion of the abled.  Consider this: if everything is special, then nothing is special.  A birthday is special to a child (in particular) because it is their birthday.  To say to your 4-year-old daughter that all of her siblings will be celebrated and given gifts on her birthday because all are special and were born at one time will be to solicit a quizzical or perhaps frustrated and angry response - the child understands this phenomenon.
• Perhaps not unrelatedly, the “all lives matter” approach lends tacit approval to the common slander that pro-life Christians only care about children being born and don’t care about them afterward.  By pivoting Sanctity of Human Life Sunday to a broad approach one gives credence to the slander in a “the lady dost protest too much, methinks” manner.  In other words, the proper response to this slander is to repudiate it, not to dilute the pro-life message of concern for the unborn. The slander that pro-life Christians only care about the unborn for partisan political reasons (wedge issue, culture war) and stop caring after a child is born is simply meant to delegitimize the pro-life message and distract from the horror of what abortion is. 
• There is language in this prayer that I find unhelpful, even morally deficient.  The sentence in question is this sentence: “For the unborn, grant strength, wisdom and compassion to women and men who face hard choices about ending pregnancies.”  Suppose we change this sentence up a bit for rhetorical effect so that it reads as follows: “For the children, grant strength, wisdom and compassion to women and men who face hard choices about killing them.”  About what other forms of murder would we speak in this manner?  Do we posit that it’s a “hard choice” whether or not to kill our parents, our neighbor, our spouse?  By using language like this the church lends credibility to the idea that it may be morally acceptable to in fact terminate a pregnancy.  This language introduces moral ambiguity where moral clarity is required.  It’s not a hard choice whether or not children should be killed.  Underneath any troubled pregnancy often exist very hard circumstances, and we should rightly acknowledge that and pray for strength and wisdom to deal with those hard circumstances. We ought rightly to pray and act on behalf of those facing difficult circumstances. But we can and should do this without introducing moral ambiguity into the question of murder.