I'm a Pastor of Sunnyslope Christian Reformed Church, in Salem, Oregon. I was born in Western Canada, and attended Reformed Bible College (now Kuyper College) in Grand Rapids, and then later, Calvin Seminary.
Correct me if I'm wrong -- but if matters are being addressed that have already been decided by Synod, can't they be ruled by the body (or president?) not legally before Synod? In other words, since our Church Order addresses the fact that matters already ajudicated in previous synods cannot be brought up again unless they are proven to be in conflict with the word of God, can't the body determine that things like requiring a majority vote (or whatever else) are deemed out of order, and then not address them?
This quota proposal is a major problem waiting to happen. I just learned this morning that the BTGMI already is asking Synod to reject this plan, and I am glad for that.
Quotas or affirmative action, or whatever else you want to call it are not gospel but a form of law -- it's works-based. If we are serious about addressing the problem of a lack of diversity (and I believe that it is a problem that should be addressed) the way to do so is not by arbitrary percentages or regulations. This only addresses the symptoms, not the root problem. Change happens as the gospel unfolds in our hearts. When Peter was struggling with his own racism against the gentile Christians, Paul told him that he had "forgotten the gospel." Not -- "Peter, you don't have enough minorities working with you." or "Peter, don't be a racist; go and build bridges to the Gentiles." Paul told him to remember the gospel. Obviously, by remembering, Paul didn't mean, "go back in history, and remind yourself of these historical facts," but rather, "Peter, take the gosepl to heart again! Believe what it means!" Now, how do we facilitate that? That's a little harder to "do." It certainly involves preaching. As our hearts are changed by the good news that Christ has brought together those who were near and those who were far off, "diverstiy" will begin to happen.
Dominese Blacketer states the point well. The question is not whether or not we should do something -- in my post, I acknowledge there is a problem (though the degree of that problem is probably a matter of perspective). We of course need to strive for and desire increased inclusion of hte variety of different ethnicities and backgrounds. No question.
The question up for discussion is how we go about that -- or, maybe more accurately, what is it that motivates us. How is the church different from the world when it comes to multiculturalism? How do we recieve unity/diversity, instead of achieve it? How does the gospel change not just what we believe ("diversity is important") but how we go about bringing that reality about?
Quite the contrary. I think it is incredibly condescending to say to a minority person, in essence, "You're on this committee/board/position not primarily because you are qualified, but because you are black/Asian/Latino." I think it's incredibly condescnding to say to someoone, "You lack the means to change the struggle" -- and since you can't do it, I'll do it for you.
Veronica, you make some good points about portraying the gospel in such a way that it is not "dumbed down" but I think you also make a couple of mistaken assumptions that might change the way this issue is approached.
A couple thoughts. Paul was talking about Jews and Gentiles when he said that he is "all things to all people" and that mean that he had a different starting point when it came to presenting the gospel; it didn't mean that he became a pagan to pagans, or an idolatror to idolatrors... So, we need to keep that in mind. When we present the gospel, we will do it with an eye towards our audience, BUT, we don't have to shape the gospel to meet their "felt needs." In other words, to someone who is struggling financially, we don't present God as the one who "wants to bless you and prosper you..." -- We might talk to them about the idolatries of money, or wealth...
Also, the assumption that "unless they come in the church, they will never hear the gospel" is, in my judgment, a more serious error. It assumes that the gospel is in the hands of an institution, but WE are the "temple of God." Believers are the ones who carry the gospel, and taht means that the gospel goes into the world WITH us; we don't (necessarily) have to bring people into the church so they can "get the gospel" or "get saved". What that means practically is that our job is not to convince people to come to a building (though an invitation to church is never a bad idea) or "wow" them with a great show or production or program, but rather, we can share the gospel "in our going" -- at work, school, in the neighborhood, etc.
Posted in: Like a Mighty Turtle...
Correct me if I'm wrong -- but if matters are being addressed that have already been decided by Synod, can't they be ruled by the body (or president?) not legally before Synod? In other words, since our Church Order addresses the fact that matters already ajudicated in previous synods cannot be brought up again unless they are proven to be in conflict with the word of God, can't the body determine that things like requiring a majority vote (or whatever else) are deemed out of order, and then not address them?
Posted in: People of Color in Leadership Positions
This quota proposal is a major problem waiting to happen. I just learned this morning that the BTGMI already is asking Synod to reject this plan, and I am glad for that.
Quotas or affirmative action, or whatever else you want to call it are not gospel but a form of law -- it's works-based. If we are serious about addressing the problem of a lack of diversity (and I believe that it is a problem that should be addressed) the way to do so is not by arbitrary percentages or regulations. This only addresses the symptoms, not the root problem. Change happens as the gospel unfolds in our hearts. When Peter was struggling with his own racism against the gentile Christians, Paul told him that he had "forgotten the gospel." Not -- "Peter, you don't have enough minorities working with you." or "Peter, don't be a racist; go and build bridges to the Gentiles." Paul told him to remember the gospel. Obviously, by remembering, Paul didn't mean, "go back in history, and remind yourself of these historical facts," but rather, "Peter, take the gosepl to heart again! Believe what it means!" Now, how do we facilitate that? That's a little harder to "do." It certainly involves preaching. As our hearts are changed by the good news that Christ has brought together those who were near and those who were far off, "diverstiy" will begin to happen.
Posted in: People of Color in Leadership Positions
Dominese Blacketer states the point well. The question is not whether or not we should do something -- in my post, I acknowledge there is a problem (though the degree of that problem is probably a matter of perspective). We of course need to strive for and desire increased inclusion of hte variety of different ethnicities and backgrounds. No question.
The question up for discussion is how we go about that -- or, maybe more accurately, what is it that motivates us. How is the church different from the world when it comes to multiculturalism? How do we recieve unity/diversity, instead of achieve it? How does the gospel change not just what we believe ("diversity is important") but how we go about bringing that reality about?
That's where I think the BOT proposal falls flat.
Posted in: People of Color in Leadership Positions
Quite the contrary. I think it is incredibly condescending to say to a minority person, in essence, "You're on this committee/board/position not primarily because you are qualified, but because you are black/Asian/Latino." I think it's incredibly condescnding to say to someoone, "You lack the means to change the struggle" -- and since you can't do it, I'll do it for you.
Posted in: "Contemporvant" Worship Video--Funny? Offensive? Satirical? Mean?
Veronica, you make some good points about portraying the gospel in such a way that it is not "dumbed down" but I think you also make a couple of mistaken assumptions that might change the way this issue is approached.
A couple thoughts. Paul was talking about Jews and Gentiles when he said that he is "all things to all people" and that mean that he had a different starting point when it came to presenting the gospel; it didn't mean that he became a pagan to pagans, or an idolatror to idolatrors... So, we need to keep that in mind. When we present the gospel, we will do it with an eye towards our audience, BUT, we don't have to shape the gospel to meet their "felt needs." In other words, to someone who is struggling financially, we don't present God as the one who "wants to bless you and prosper you..." -- We might talk to them about the idolatries of money, or wealth...
Also, the assumption that "unless they come in the church, they will never hear the gospel" is, in my judgment, a more serious error. It assumes that the gospel is in the hands of an institution, but WE are the "temple of God." Believers are the ones who carry the gospel, and taht means that the gospel goes into the world WITH us; we don't (necessarily) have to bring people into the church so they can "get the gospel" or "get saved". What that means practically is that our job is not to convince people to come to a building (though an invitation to church is never a bad idea) or "wow" them with a great show or production or program, but rather, we can share the gospel "in our going" -- at work, school, in the neighborhood, etc.
Just a couple of thoughts.
Posted in: What Do Old Ministers Talk About?
Well put. Thank you for saying that.