I think questions of uniformity and diversity are not parsed well without context. Diversity of what? Uniformity in what? By definition a confessional church seeks uniformity in the doctrines spelled out in her creeds and confessions. As such, uniformity is inescapable for the CRC and quite desirable. This is consistent with the biblical call to guard the good deposit and watch our doctrine and life closely. But a church is also by definition a diverse place, because we are all unique, and we are all gifted differently (1 Cor. 12). In that way the church is indeed akin to a choir with a full harmony of parts. Neither diversity nor uniformity can be a pure goal unto themselves.
It seems then that synod's work is both/and - pursing and embracing both uniformity and diversity as each is commended to us in Scripture.
Where we go wrong, it seems to me, is when we prioritize uniformity in people and diversity in doctrine. Seeking uniformity in people/giftings/background/ethnicity leads to unrighteous judgments, sectarian impulses, and devaluing of image bearers. Seeking diversity in doctrine leads to false teaching, immorality, and unfaithfulness to the witness of the Word. Different notes of doctrine do not necessarily create harmony, but create dissonance when not concordant with God's Word. For better or worse there will be seasons when one of synod's primary tasks will be rooting out dissonant notes of doctrine. And as in the past with kinism, synod also had much to say about the wrong kind of sought uniformity, namely the uniformity of persons.
May God grant that both uniformity and diversity shine in all the right ways in and through synod and indeed also in our churches and homes.
I would offer that the job of equipping and empowering younger generations is likely a much more local duty/gift/opportunity than it is a synodical role. From my experience here are some ways I think we can accomplish the goal you highlight at the local level:
Prioritize discipleship. This is a multi-faceted and includes a robust catechetical program in the church and also character forming, with opportunities and encouragements to serve.
Consider mentoring. This can be formal or informal, but taking youth "under our wing" is consistent with the Titus 2 call.
Relatedly, identify gifts in young people and encourage their development.
Listen. Youth who are attended to and listened to will find and develop their voices. Listening to youth does not necessarily mean doing everything they want, but it does require attentiveness.
At the appropriate time nominate qualified individuals for formal leadership (recalling Timothy's relative youth while weighing biblical qualifications).
Pray for and with our youth, that God may equip them for service and call them persuasively.
Provide pure preaching of the whole counsel of God and bring our youth to evening and morning worship services. We understand preaching of the Word to be one of the ordinary means of grace. If we desire our youth to be equipped for leadership and theological discernment, we will do well to have them blessed and formed through the ordinary means of grace.
Similarly, as appropriate, regularly and faithfully participate in the sacraments of the church with meaningful explanation and instruction attending.
That is far from an exhaustive list, but I think begins to offer some ideas. What I think we can know for sure is that we must be intentional in raising and equipping the next generation of leaders. The world is ever seeking to catechize them, and we must be diligent in countering that catechesis with a pure and God-glorifying vision of the world. Disciples don't fall out of trees, but must be formed.
Hi Sarah, I'll start with a couple suggestions: 1) When seeking volunteers for various service opportunities in church and community, prioritize personal contact. Bulletin announcements seeking volunteers are typically necessary but quite inadequate. More effective is identifying and approaching individuals personally with a request, or even better a suggestion that a service opportunity would fit them well. 2) Picking up where the first point left off, it is important to fit the skills and abilities to the opportunities (to a degree, though not rigidly). If we see giftings in people we will do well to lead them specifically to opportunities to use those gifts. 3) Provide encouragement and support to those who do serve in various ways. Setting people off on a task without support and encouragement can lead to failure and disillusionment. 4) Include encouragements and challenges to serve from the pulpit in preaching. We understand the Heidelberg Catechism to be ordered as Sin-Salvation-Service or Guilt-Grace-Gratitude. We must tie our gospel message of sin/salvation to a life of gratitude and service. This is part of the discipleship that will lead to more mature and more serving church members. The key here, though, is to keep law and gospel distinct. We are not works-righteousness people and haranguing our members will not lead to sanctified service. 5) Pray for God to work in the hearts of church members and equip them for the various tasks (yes, this should have been point number one by priority). 6) Lead by example. Leaders who step beyond the minimum can inspire others to follow their example. 7) Show appreciation, and not necessarily or always in formal ways (like telling the church secretary to send a thank-you). Personal notes of appreciation or a step-aside to quickly thank and commend a person for their service can and will motivate to further service. 8) Use times of family visitation to discuss service and to encourage members in using the gifts and abilities God has given them to serve others. Family visitation allows this encouragement to occur in relationship, and not just as a convenience when we corner someone at church. Elders, deacons, and pastors who don't know their people won't know their giftings and won't know how to encourage them, nor will they have the relational capital to do so effectively. A great way to know families and individuals is to visit them. 9) Don't ignore singles. Singles sometimes feel out of place in the family-centric culture of church. Singles can slip through the cracks in more ways than one. Value singles, but not for how they can serve - value them for who they are as individuals with their own calling. Valued singles will experience the nurture of a congregational family and will be apt to serve those who are pouring into them.
Just a few top-of-mind thoughts to start conversation. Thanks for raising this topic.
Thanks for your heartfelt cry. Broadly speaking we have indeed done a disservice to many of our youth, and in a significant number of ways. As a Christian scientist I am quite comfortable believing God over man - one of these has proven to be infallible, and the other has proven to be at best oft-mistaken and at worst suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. That does not necessitate discarding science. On the contrary. It respects science as a fallible enterprise (true scientific discovery relies on the reality of error) and does not stretch science further than it can go. It also recognizes that science is a naturalistic enterprise and we believe in a supernatural God. Apparent contradictions will arise when these two realities butt up against one another. The question then becomes whether we will worship the Creator or the creation. Thanks for challenging us.
"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.
Thanks for your engagement. It is indeed a staggering number, one that I'm afraid we've corporately become all too comfortable accepting as reality. I'm not sure what the modern-day equivalent of sackcloth and ashes is, but it seems like your call to repentance is a good start. Thanks for your supportive and encouraging words.
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.
You ask: "But should I conclude that you think he is basically truthful in his assertions about Canada?" I'd say that I would not go further than my original conclusion, that Trumps rhetoric "contains some underlying realities". Again, to support that general statement I note that Canada indisputably has highly protectionist trade policies regarding agriculture. Whether some of these policies have been negotiated or not, they are undoubtedly protectionist. I neither intend nor desire to parse all of Trump's statements and have gladly stipulated that many of Trump's statements are at best hyperbolic and at worst untrue. I'll let it stand at that.
As to your second paragraph, I'll reply to this idea: "If you mean that our first loyalty is to Jesus Christ and his Kingdom, then Amen." I mean that, but not only that. As a binational denomination we are located in the broader church in more specific and concrete ways that just our unity in Christ. You ask: "Doesn’t it mean something solid to share cultural, historical, creedal and social connections as well as ministries under a denominational umbrella?" Yes, indeed it does, and I would add "confessional" to that list, because it is our common confessions (beyond just our creeds, and much more importantly that cultural, historical, or social connections) that unite us spiritually/theologically. My point is that our national politics do not prevail upon or disrupt that union. We can stand astride our border as essentially meaningless in light of our common confession. None of that denies the challenges currently occurring but rises above those challenges. Many times Canadians misunderstand Americans and Americans misunderstand Canadians. We can live with those misunderstandings, and we can continue in commonality because what unites us is so much more meaningful than anything that might come between us. That is how I view our binational denomination. Thanks for the interaction, and my prayer for your is also for shalom.
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.
Hi Jim. To be sure my characterization is understated, but it is not meant to minimize the "disturbance" we are experiencing. I was instead hoping to avoid sensationalizing our current moment by describing our moment in sober and simple terms. I hope that the use of that one word does not distract you so much that you miss the content. Perhaps you are already in agreement that the work of Synod 2024 has been improperly impugned.
No doubt I weep with you over any division in the church. I appreciate your perspective - thanks for sharing it.
Posted in: Synod 2025: A Quick Intro
Hi Andi,
I think questions of uniformity and diversity are not parsed well without context. Diversity of what? Uniformity in what? By definition a confessional church seeks uniformity in the doctrines spelled out in her creeds and confessions. As such, uniformity is inescapable for the CRC and quite desirable. This is consistent with the biblical call to guard the good deposit and watch our doctrine and life closely. But a church is also by definition a diverse place, because we are all unique, and we are all gifted differently (1 Cor. 12). In that way the church is indeed akin to a choir with a full harmony of parts. Neither diversity nor uniformity can be a pure goal unto themselves.
It seems then that synod's work is both/and - pursing and embracing both uniformity and diversity as each is commended to us in Scripture.
Where we go wrong, it seems to me, is when we prioritize uniformity in people and diversity in doctrine. Seeking uniformity in people/giftings/background/ethnicity leads to unrighteous judgments, sectarian impulses, and devaluing of image bearers. Seeking diversity in doctrine leads to false teaching, immorality, and unfaithfulness to the witness of the Word. Different notes of doctrine do not necessarily create harmony, but create dissonance when not concordant with God's Word. For better or worse there will be seasons when one of synod's primary tasks will be rooting out dissonant notes of doctrine. And as in the past with kinism, synod also had much to say about the wrong kind of sought uniformity, namely the uniformity of persons.
May God grant that both uniformity and diversity shine in all the right ways in and through synod and indeed also in our churches and homes.
Posted in: Synod 2025: A Quick Intro
Hi Anna,
I would offer that the job of equipping and empowering younger generations is likely a much more local duty/gift/opportunity than it is a synodical role. From my experience here are some ways I think we can accomplish the goal you highlight at the local level:
That is far from an exhaustive list, but I think begins to offer some ideas. What I think we can know for sure is that we must be intentional in raising and equipping the next generation of leaders. The world is ever seeking to catechize them, and we must be diligent in countering that catechesis with a pure and God-glorifying vision of the world. Disciples don't fall out of trees, but must be formed.
Posted in: How Can You Encourage Your Church Members To Serve?
Hi Sarah,
I'll start with a couple suggestions:
1) When seeking volunteers for various service opportunities in church and community, prioritize personal contact. Bulletin announcements seeking volunteers are typically necessary but quite inadequate. More effective is identifying and approaching individuals personally with a request, or even better a suggestion that a service opportunity would fit them well.
2) Picking up where the first point left off, it is important to fit the skills and abilities to the opportunities (to a degree, though not rigidly). If we see giftings in people we will do well to lead them specifically to opportunities to use those gifts.
3) Provide encouragement and support to those who do serve in various ways. Setting people off on a task without support and encouragement can lead to failure and disillusionment.
4) Include encouragements and challenges to serve from the pulpit in preaching. We understand the Heidelberg Catechism to be ordered as Sin-Salvation-Service or Guilt-Grace-Gratitude. We must tie our gospel message of sin/salvation to a life of gratitude and service. This is part of the discipleship that will lead to more mature and more serving church members. The key here, though, is to keep law and gospel distinct. We are not works-righteousness people and haranguing our members will not lead to sanctified service.
5) Pray for God to work in the hearts of church members and equip them for the various tasks (yes, this should have been point number one by priority).
6) Lead by example. Leaders who step beyond the minimum can inspire others to follow their example.
7) Show appreciation, and not necessarily or always in formal ways (like telling the church secretary to send a thank-you). Personal notes of appreciation or a step-aside to quickly thank and commend a person for their service can and will motivate to further service.
8) Use times of family visitation to discuss service and to encourage members in using the gifts and abilities God has given them to serve others. Family visitation allows this encouragement to occur in relationship, and not just as a convenience when we corner someone at church. Elders, deacons, and pastors who don't know their people won't know their giftings and won't know how to encourage them, nor will they have the relational capital to do so effectively. A great way to know families and individuals is to visit them.
9) Don't ignore singles. Singles sometimes feel out of place in the family-centric culture of church. Singles can slip through the cracks in more ways than one. Value singles, but not for how they can serve - value them for who they are as individuals with their own calling. Valued singles will experience the nurture of a congregational family and will be apt to serve those who are pouring into them.
Just a few top-of-mind thoughts to start conversation. Thanks for raising this topic.
Posted in: What Are We Doing To Our Youth?
Hi Justin,
Thanks for your heartfelt cry. Broadly speaking we have indeed done a disservice to many of our youth, and in a significant number of ways. As a Christian scientist I am quite comfortable believing God over man - one of these has proven to be infallible, and the other has proven to be at best oft-mistaken and at worst suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. That does not necessitate discarding science. On the contrary. It respects science as a fallible enterprise (true scientific discovery relies on the reality of error) and does not stretch science further than it can go. It also recognizes that science is a naturalistic enterprise and we believe in a supernatural God. Apparent contradictions will arise when these two realities butt up against one another. The question then becomes whether we will worship the Creator or the creation. Thanks for challenging us.
Posted in: Are We Out of Our Minds?
"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.
Posted in: Gaslight Village
Susan,
Thanks for this reflection.
Posted in: How A CRC Helped Save My Life
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.
Posted in: The Injustice of Abortion
Hi Bonnie,
Thanks for your engagement. It is indeed a staggering number, one that I'm afraid we've corporately become all too comfortable accepting as reality. I'm not sure what the modern-day equivalent of sackcloth and ashes is, but it seems like your call to repentance is a good start. Thanks for your supportive and encouraging words.
Posted in: What Does It Mean to Be a Bi-National Denomination When the Rhetoric Between the Two Nations Becomes Bitter?
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.
Posted in: What Does It Mean to Be a Bi-National Denomination When the Rhetoric Between the Two Nations Becomes Bitter?
Hi again, Virginia. Thanks for your response.
You ask: "But should I conclude that you think he is basically truthful in his assertions about Canada?" I'd say that I would not go further than my original conclusion, that Trumps rhetoric "contains some underlying realities". Again, to support that general statement I note that Canada indisputably has highly protectionist trade policies regarding agriculture. Whether some of these policies have been negotiated or not, they are undoubtedly protectionist. I neither intend nor desire to parse all of Trump's statements and have gladly stipulated that many of Trump's statements are at best hyperbolic and at worst untrue. I'll let it stand at that.
As to your second paragraph, I'll reply to this idea: "If you mean that our first loyalty is to Jesus Christ and his Kingdom, then Amen." I mean that, but not only that. As a binational denomination we are located in the broader church in more specific and concrete ways that just our unity in Christ. You ask: "Doesn’t it mean something solid to share cultural, historical, creedal and social connections as well as ministries under a denominational umbrella?" Yes, indeed it does, and I would add "confessional" to that list, because it is our common confessions (beyond just our creeds, and much more importantly that cultural, historical, or social connections) that unite us spiritually/theologically. My point is that our national politics do not prevail upon or disrupt that union. We can stand astride our border as essentially meaningless in light of our common confession. None of that denies the challenges currently occurring but rises above those challenges. Many times Canadians misunderstand Americans and Americans misunderstand Canadians. We can live with those misunderstandings, and we can continue in commonality because what unites us is so much more meaningful than anything that might come between us. That is how I view our binational denomination. Thanks for the interaction, and my prayer for your is also for shalom.
Posted in: Prayer for Sanctity of Human Life Sunday
This posting raises in me some thoughts/ponderings:
Posted in: Did Synod 2024 Ignore or Violate Church Order?
Hi Jim. To be sure my characterization is understated, but it is not meant to minimize the "disturbance" we are experiencing. I was instead hoping to avoid sensationalizing our current moment by describing our moment in sober and simple terms. I hope that the use of that one word does not distract you so much that you miss the content. Perhaps you are already in agreement that the work of Synod 2024 has been improperly impugned.
No doubt I weep with you over any division in the church. I appreciate your perspective - thanks for sharing it.