Steve Van Zanen

Thanks for correcting me Wendy.  I see that Mark used the right terminology when he edited his blog. 

Understood. Blessings, Steve

I should have added a seventh point.  As part of the process of paring down the number of relationships, deepen the financial commitment to each of the remaining missionaries.  That way, instead of having 15-20 supporting churches, you missionaries might move toward having 8-12 churches with whom they could maintain a deeper connection.

Thanks Al.  what I mean by doing missions through others rather than with is seeing those we are working with as a means to accomplish our priorities rather than really engaging with them and choosing the priorities in that dialogue, so that they are really ours.  We don't want to be ugly Americans (ugly Canadians?) in the way that we deal with international partners.

Thanks George.  I have a lot of respect for our recently departed administrators and for the board members whom I know personally.  I don't know what went on in full and I don't feel the need to speculate.  The advisory committee and synod will address this on our behalf.  I'm grateful that a proven leader like Joel Boot is willing to step into this difficult situation and provide some much needed transitional leadership.

Victoria,

 I think you hit the nail on the head here.  If I only knew the administrators, I would be wondering what was wrong with the board.  If I only knew board members I would assume that they were in the right and the administrators were all wrong.  Knowing people on both sides, I am puzzled as to how things could have gotten this far off track.  If I knew neither, that would be even more difficult. 

We live in a world where a lot of one-sided information comes our way.  It is very easy to grab onto one bit of data and run with it.  There is usually another side to the story.  Proverbs 18:17 says,

"In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right,

   until someone comes forward and cross-examines. "

If we are going to say that the BOT misled the membership, we will also have to say that Jerry misled the membership since the wording of the statement was mutually agreed to.  I think everyone recognizes now that this wording was an error in judgement since it invited speculation.  Synod Advisory report 1C tells us what we need to know about this matter.  It is time to move on in my judgement.

Then he wrote

I don't think "presuasive speech" can be put under one big rubric and considered the same, even by post-modernists.  Saying "Jesus is Lord of all the earth" is quite a different kind of statement than, "This pencil is red."  The second term will not be objected to in the same way as the first because they are on quite different levels of significance. 

 

It isn't just post-modernism that objects to the absolutism of the "Jesus is Lord" statement.  Opposition to such claims to truth received from revelation have been resisted throughout human history by most of mankind.  It is mainly only the Abrahamic religions which hold they have the right to make such universal truth claims.  

The grey hymnal did have multiple versions when it first came out.  It certainly seems like this could be considered now too. 

The Belgic Confessions and the Canons of Dordt do have a limited number of churches attached to them.  The Heidelberg Catechism has always had a much broader appeal.  It is included in the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s Book of Confessions.  Actually, it has been advocated as presenting the Christian faith in such an attractive fashion that it could be the basis for broader ecumenical relationships.  It certainly has had much more usage in the Christian Reformed Church than the others.  I'm concerned that dropping it from our songbook will only accelerate the decline in reference to it.  I would suggest that at least the ecumenical creeds and the Heidelberger ought to be in the new songbook.  Versions with and without the whole would also be a good option.

A colleague of mine who is not registered here, and I, have been having a conversation on this topic.  Here is his first response.

Thanks for your blog about "Who am I...?" 

 

I think you are right that fundamentally mission is a matter of justice--it is doing what we can to give God the glory which is his due.

 

That's convincing to believers, but I think that for many what is behind the "Who am I...?" question is the belief that there is no authorative and universal revelation, so all our perceptions are partial, culture and time-bound.  It is not just "Who am I? " but "Who are We as humans to think we can know universal Truth?"  

 

The implication is that mission is inevitably and inherently imperialistic because it can not escape from the abusive power dynamics of what happens when individual meets individual and culture meets culture. 

I replied.

That is the post-modern critique of any kind of persuasive speech.  Of course, the irony is that post-modernists try to persuade us about their rejection of persuasive speech.  That is why I think it is ultimately self-defeating. 

 

If Christianity is at its foundation a system of beliefs built by people, then this critique would certainly apply.  If, despite the twistedness of how it is conceived and lived, Christianity is ultimately founded on revealed truth that comes from God, we have a different ball game.  

Hi David,

This is a great story about using technology to better connect.  Thanks for sharing.  Steve