Rob Toornstra

Thanks Jonathan -- I tried looking the other day for how to do that, but I couldn't find it under my account settings (however, now I saw the link in the email).

And I apologize if I came across as being negative -- I don't want to discourage the conversation, as it's a worthwhile one to have.  I just thought this one might have worked better via email after it came down to just the two people.

I have to admit that I haven't read every exachange above... but with that said... this might add something to think about.

Synod is going to be in an interesting spot this year.  The BOT is asking that Synod approve their new mandates for racism training and sensitivity.  This includes setting quotas for minorities in leadership, and on search committees for new leaders.  This is entirely contradictory. 

Out of one side of hte mouth, we are promoting a confession that insists that race should not be used as a defining factor in any part of the life of the church.  Race shouldn't be used to determine membership, leadership, involvment, etc. 

Out of the other side of our mouth, we are imposing a limit on how much one race can be involved, and how much other races must be involved. 

This is embarassing.  We're trying to use a form of "law" to bring about the gospel of reconciliation.  We can't have it both ways.  Either we don't use race as a determining factor, or we do.

I don't see how they mesh at all.  This is a form of legalism -- trying to change behavior through rules and mandates. When we do this, we will elevate the rules (and by rules, I mean the quotas that are being mandated).  That will be our primary objective; "do we have the proper percentage of minorities?"  I guarantee that that will become the focus here.  That only masks a deeper problem; "In our hearts, are we seeking true reconciliation with other races?"  We can fool ourselves inot thinking that we are, by looking at quotas and numbers, and policies and procedures.  Following rules can't change hearts. 

And suppose I applied this practice here in our church.  "25% of new members must be minorities."  Would that fly?  I doubt it.  It flies in the face of hte gospel.

I'm not sure how I feel personally about this -- I go back and forth -- but one of the ideas that is "missing" from the new covenant is the "defending" of the truths of the confessions & of scripture.  I can see the reaon behind excluding that language: Defending is a confrontational approach, an effort that seems aimed at quieting dissent from within and out.  In this day and age, where "engagement" and "conversation" are so highly valued (among those who disagree, among those of different denominational and even differing faith/religious backgrounds) it seems off-putting to have officebearers be required to defend their understanding of truth.

On the ohter hand, is it possible that, by not requiring the leadership (at the very least) to "defend" our view and understanding of scripture, could it be that we are weakening our confessional heritage?  Could it be that we are accommodating ourselves too much to the Spirit of the age?

As I said, I go back and forth...  I must say though, that the COOII is much better than the original Covenant of Officebearers, presented in 2008.  It iwll be interesting to see what Synod does with this -- I'm reasonably certain that this will be adopted as it is written.

Good thoughts, thanks Al.  I sometimes wonder if the CRC was (intentionally or not) trying to get away from Reformd/Calvinist distinctives at the same time that so many seemed hungry for Reformed theology.  Incidentally, I've been preaching through the Canons of Dort for the Last few months, and so the answer to your question is that "Tulip" was mentioned by name just two weeks ago... :)  However, I'm with Randy -- there are a number of problems with the acronym TULIP -- not least of which that it does not match well with the Canons themselves.

I wholeheartedly agree -- great reflection.  I echo a similar thought on a Synodical level; attending Synod gives one a nuanced perspective on issues, especially those that can be theologically/pastorally complex.  It can be easy to be suspicious of our denomination, seeing conspiracies and hidden agendas behind every Synodical agenda (ha ha!) but working together at Synod, being a part of deliberations and discussions on the floor helps us see that this usually isn't the case (though, sometimes it is).  After attending Synod, one may still hold their same convictions but they will hold them with greater humility.

I find that statement from the "Guest Ministry Director" apalling.  "If A Disruption arises"? "Assess the situation"?  "Suggest alternate viewing options"?  That speaks volumes about WC ecclesiology.  I do'nt know what else to say.

There are legitimate "disruptions" in church that need to be dealt with.  In my experience, those are usually cases where people know better, or parents who won't enforce proper, age appropriate boundaries.  A baby crying in worship is not a disruption.  A 6 year old getting up, walking down the aisle to change seats several times during the sermon Is (both of these happened in our worship this past Sunday -- maybe I needed a Guest Ministry Director?!).

Mark, I appreciate what you are trying to get at -- it's dangerous to make foregone conclusions about a person's mental illnesses in the wake of a tragedy like this. 

However, I wonder if it's fair to assume that Chief Belk was actually making that connection in the first place.  It seems to me that he may have been actually trying to avoid such a conclusion -- and here's why.  I can imagine a reporter asking a question -- "Was Dantzler suffering from Bipolar disorder? Or Schizophroneia?"  And rather than affirm a conclusion, the chief replies, "I don't know about mental illness; but he was obviously a troubled individual."  It seems to me from the quote you cite, he was NOT speculating about mental illness -- just the opposite.  He was trying NOT to make a firm conclusion on that.

RdB, I don't disagree with the first part of what you're saying;  obviously this person was extremely troubled.  On the other hand, I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusion that "anyone who is capable of calloused, cold-hearted criminal behavior...has a mental health problem."    Certainly, that COULD be an explanation.  But I wonder where a theology of sin and total depravity fits in here.  Isn't it possible that our sinful nature can sometimes so harden us that individuals are led to commit heinous acts such as this?  That wouldn't make it a mental illness, though, would it?

And Mark, may I raise a hot-button question, by challenging your assumption that it's not relevant whether or not he was mentally ill, or black or anything else. 

Could it be that those qualities ARE relevant?  Is it at least a fair qustion to ask whether or not those with mental illnesses have a highter tendency to commit offenses than those without? And, I think that race may in fact BE relevant.  For example, if we see that one racial group is more likely to be locked up (as African Americans are) we see injustice.  Now, we have to ask why; are African Americans locked up with greater frequency because they commit a higher proportion of crimes?  Or because they are targeted more?  Or because they commit the sort of crimes that are more easily "caught"?  And, if we see, for example, that African Americans commit crimes at a higher rate, then again, we ask why?  Is it a system of broken families?  Poverty?  Some combination?  And if it's because they are targeted by police, then we can see that the injustice is found in law enforcement.  The same could be said about mental illness.  If we find that those with the forms of mental illness described are more prone to committ offenses, we ask why?  Inadequate access to healthcare?  Unawarenes of the problem on a broader level? 

It seems to me that seeking justice (and by that, I mean broad-based, biblical justice -- "shalom") demands that we at least ask these questiosn if we want to address them.

Mark -- now I see what you're saying. Thanks for clarifying!