Lambert Sikkema

It is simply not the place of the denominational leadership to write ministry plans period. The denominational leadership is not the church. Churches write ministry plans. The denominational folks could provide a great service if they provided expertise in assisting the local church write effective and viable ministry plans in the local context. The church isn't located at 1700 28th Street Grand Rapids MI...it is located in neighborhoods all across the fruited plain coast to coast...This, I believe, is the whole point of the discussion. We simply no longer need most of the functions and personnel located in GR in order to carry out the mission of the local church. This is the paradigm shift we've been processing as local churches. All the assistance we need to formulate, train and carry-out our work is available "off-the-shelf" for pennies on the dollar from a broad spectrum of the "church" writ-large. These are relentless facts and we need to account for them. 

Staci: The whole point of this article is precisely about who is undermining whom. The ministry belongs to the local church. The administrative office personnel don't speak for the church. They're supposed to facilitate the ministry of the local church, not supplant it. Local churches in our current paradigm are essentially nothing more than a funding source for the agenda developed at 1700 28th. Street G.R. MI. The fact that there is a ministry plan originating from that address is precisely the nature of our problem. Our system is up-side-down. Too much money is moving in the wrong direction. The local church's own ministry is subordinated to national and international agenda. The current model is simply not sustainable. Sam is asking us to rethink and re-imagine our options while we still have critical mass. 

Wendy, the denominational offices do not constitute the church of Jesus Christ. The local church is where the ministry is supposed to happen. The local church could use help in crafting ministry plans with stated goals and objectives that are then matched with appropriate budgets. Instead, we are left to work that out on our own....which we do. Then the 'administrators' show up with their ministry plan and ask us to sign to that as well. Now we've changed the original logic of the administrative offices . I realize we did that gradually, over a long time, but we did change! I think we need to get back to basics and make a whole series of moves that leave the local church in the best possible position to thrive. The current model doesn't. Our membership numbers in 1985 compared to 2015 tell a dramatic story. Our leaders are responsible for it. Change something. 

One thing I"ve learned in 59 years on the planet is that when someone tells me they aren't advocating for this or that position it's time to pay close attention. It's almost always not true. They most certainly are advocating. The analogy in this article is ever so sly. We're supposed to believe that, as far as Presbyterians in the deep south circa 1850s are concerned, the bible is uncertain about the notion of freedom, but that the abolitionists knew better so they keep championing freedom for slaves on the basis of biblical uncertainty regarding such freedom. This is a nonsense argument. The bible is not uncertain about freedom. The bible is not uncertain about the nature of our brokenness either. This is article employs literary slight of hand and claims it isn't advocating for anything in particular. Really? 

How is it that we keep thinking that our Administrative offices at 1700 28th Street GR are 'higher''? They are not. They are different. The local church is the highest authority center in our system. One of the problems we keep bumping into in the CRCNA is thinking of GR as HQ and that its staff is in leadership over the local church. It doesn't work that way. How many local churches take their leadership cues from GR? Very few I suspect. We certainly don't. Nor did my previous two congregations. With regard to staffing our administrative offices, we ought to find best qualified...nothing else matters...and if it does, we still have a problem. 

What exactly are the 'biblical stewardship' and civil - legislative issues being alluded to in this post? If a local congregation of Jesus Christ decides it wants to share facilities with other brothers and sisters in Christ, is it not free to do so? By the way, how many local congregations in the CRC are bound by the Safe Church guidelines? What exactly is the legally binding relationship between local congregations and the CRCNA in Michigan?  

Our relationship with this group of folk is simply our strategy to advance the cause of Christ for the Spanish population in Kings County. Our insurance underwriter is fine with these arrangements. We have enjoyed 4 years of mutual joy and encouragement in advancing the cause of Christ here in Hanford and look forward many more years together as faithful stewards of the resources entrusted to our care. 

I thought I would share this up-date. The folks sharing kingdom space with us are growing rapidly. They started worshipping in our upper room auditorium. They rapidly out-grew that space and moved downstairs to our fellowship room. For a number of weeks now this group has seen 'standing room' crowds and asked to use the sanctuary. The photos from Sunday morning show an almost full house. We couldn't be happier for these dear brothers and sisters in Christ. Their youth group is thriving as is their couples club. God is obviously blessing this group and we rejoice accordingly. 

It has always intrigued me that we created Classis Pacific Hanmi precisely because of the issue of 'affinity'...It seems to be working for them. Why not for others? 

There is no conversation or dialogue that leads to peace between Muslims and Christians because Muslims do not desire peace between Muslims and anyone. They desire everyone to be Muslim by any and all means necessary. Christians who believe otherwise are being played for fools. Islam is a missionary faith and the Mecca based (later) writings of the prophet Mohammad make it quite clear that anything goes so far as it advances the dominance of Islam worldwide. We do not have a shared ethic with Islam because our standard begins and ends with Jesus, the Christ of God. They are devoted to the moon god Allah. 

Always fascinating to read how modern authors use contemporary psychological/clinical categories to interpret ancient texts. Acknowledging that we all have biases is not a breakthrough in understanding ourselves, let alone the authors of sacred texts.  However, unless you know someone well, you would be hard pressed to delineate precisely how or what exactly the biases of someone are. How anyone could ascertain John's thought process in determining how he would strategically approach the spiritual biases of his readers is mystifying to me. It seems purely speculative at best. It's not possible to proffer a psychological analysis of someone you have never interviewed in person. We only have the 21 chapters of his gospel, his letters and the apocalypse. I think it's more helpful to simply focus on exegeting the text rather than psychologizing the authors.