I agree, Keith. At the very least, since "mission" is such a common word in the phrase "Mission Statement", it cannot be assumed to imply a faith based mission... therefore at the very least, it should have been called Global Christian Missions. I no longer attend the CRC, and I don't have a problem with Christian Community Churches, since they are missional minded, to attract seekers, and not first of all confirmed CRC'rs. That is a local decision, which does not tarnish or hide the true mission of the church. But both World Renew and Global Mission are ambiguous terms, like World Vision, which while leaving open the possiblity for Christians to work in them, at the same time hides their origin and purpose, which is deceptive and misleading. Those who are ashamed of Jesus will find that God is ashamed of them (and will find declining allegiance from Christians around the world).
And therein we have the crux of the problem... is it the preacher or the sermon that receives the critique? What about the poor preacher who delivers a good sermon? The unbelieving preacher who is still true to the text? The drunkard who preaches true? Or, the loving pastor who can barely put two words together coherently? The juxtapositions and contradictions of life. "He who is not against us is for us." To give God the glory, rather than the preacher.....
Well said, Matthew. And John Span's response is also a good response. I think what this proposed ban will do is to illuminate us more about what the real facts are. Many people have the same idea as Trump, which is why he implimented it. Searching out the real and relative risks is an important process, as well as becoming more aware of the vetting process that already exists. I think comparing terrorist damage to typical murders etc often forgets the apparent randomness of the terrorist violence. Most murders are domestic, or drug related, or crime related, so many people feel quite secure that they will not be victims. They do not feel secure when it comes to terrorism.... such as a soldier suddenly randomly shooting other soldiers, or a couple in California planning a bombing or shooting scenario. Nevertheless, the risk must be put into perspective, and into the context of what is already being done to examine potential refugee immigrants.
Confusing caring for people with condoning their illegal activities is a non-starter. We care for people in prison, but do not suggest that the courts were wrong in putting them in prison. If a nation decides in its interest to delay approval of refugees, or to deny them entrance, or to screen them and put conditions on entry, can a minister legitimately contravene that policy? Under what conditions? Is a right for a minister (or any christian) to protest a war, or to protest taxes, or to protest unpaved streets, or to protest global trade? Is he doing this as a minister, or as an individual private christian with his own opinions on these matters.
As a minister, he should focus on the gospel unto salvation. Not put himself into a box of social activism which may end up biting him in the butt when he gets more information in five years.
Caring for the poor does not mean putting the responsibility on the government, but picking up the task at home with your own hands.
Jesus parable applied to a man who was left behind by robbers. His parable could also have included a robber waiting in ambush to attack anyone who might choose to help. His parable could have included or been about a robber pretending to be hurt and robbed so that he could attack unwary helpers. But his parable wasn't about that. It is important not to conflate or blur the distinctions.
It seems you are arguing and preaching to the converted, those who want to help refugees who truly need it. But you are ignoring all the other real issues and thus your preaching will simply allienate those who are concerned about protection of the innocent.
Larry I think you have given a good and agreeable reply in terms of the meaning of these words. But without your explanation, these words are often misunderstood.
The problem is that in many ways, capitalism is rather ruthless. If you don't pay your loans, your property may be sold. If you lose money at what you do, you may sell your business at a loss. Larger entities usually buy up and absorb smaller ones, because they have the equity to do so. A successful new business may end up putting other older businesses out of business.
Yet, that does not mean that capitalists are necessarily ruthless at heart. I understand there is a group of billionaires challenged to donate half or more of their income... is Warren Buffet or Bill Gates included in this?
Materialism as a philosophical concept is certainly anti-Christian. But most people do not understand it as a philosophical ideal, but simply as a part of reality, of common sense. God created material, and he created us to live in the material world. Material and goods are not evil, and even wealth has purpose. It is very difficult for poor people to emply others or provide others with income.
We don't really know why Hillary stayed with Bill. There is a lot of political opportunism involved, and her whole life has been almost nothing but politics. We assume she was faithful to Bill, like we assumed he was faithful to her. And maybe he was; they just had a more materialistic view of sex. Maybe. The real issues are how these things impact the policies of the country. And certainly there is a trade-off between the immorality of divorce, unfaithfulness, and random sex, and the loss of lives of the unborn, of the military, of terrorism victims. While the immorality of some marriages is certainly an issue, also at issue is the immorality of condoning homosex, and destroying the real meaning of marriage through legislation. Also at issue is the persecution of Christians for their beliefs that same sex marriage is wrong. This too is serious immorality. I would argue it is of more significance. If these issues are not addressed, then divorce becomes almost insignificant in comparison.
A number of comments have been made. But we need to realize that the only reason we are talking about this, is because of the election. If Trump was not running for pres, this article would not have been written. The reason why Trumps liabilities are discussed and not Clinton's? who knows. There was trial and investigation regarding Clinton's behaviour, none that I know of with Trump. Could Trump have changed? Possibly. Could Clinton have changed? Possibly, but less likely. She has less regard for life and for people, as evidenced by her lack of concern for the most helpless. She appears to be more concerned about her reputation and image and vote gathering power than any other principles, that I can see, and that has me concerned. Trump bucked the trends, and many people responded. Sure he is rough around the edges. He is rich and in that sense elite, but not politically elite as evidenced by how many of the politicos whether in either party, or in the media, do not like him. Yet it is the politically elite who continually refuse to protect the preborn, who continually add to the monstrous debts that future women and men, our children and grandchildren will be burdened by. How will that be paid? Eventually by taxes. How will the taxes be paid? By virtually forcing all women to work, to reduce their attention for their children, perhaps to abort unborn females, because they feel they cannot afford children. Simplistically thinking or saying that only crass remarks are most vile, is missing the bigger more complex issues of caring for society as a whole, and protecting the most vulnerable as captured in the plight of the unborn.
And the truth is this: every man is born of a woman. Any man who degrades women, degrades himself. Without a man, no woman could be born. Any woman who degrades men, also degrades herself.
Yes, confessing your sins and your fallibility is a good thing. God loves the sinner, but his children become saints through Christ, as revealed in their obedience to God.
Posted in: Ashamed of Our Christian Reformed Identity
I agree, Keith. At the very least, since "mission" is such a common word in the phrase "Mission Statement", it cannot be assumed to imply a faith based mission... therefore at the very least, it should have been called Global Christian Missions. I no longer attend the CRC, and I don't have a problem with Christian Community Churches, since they are missional minded, to attract seekers, and not first of all confirmed CRC'rs. That is a local decision, which does not tarnish or hide the true mission of the church. But both World Renew and Global Mission are ambiguous terms, like World Vision, which while leaving open the possiblity for Christians to work in them, at the same time hides their origin and purpose, which is deceptive and misleading. Those who are ashamed of Jesus will find that God is ashamed of them (and will find declining allegiance from Christians around the world).
Posted in: Beware of Dissing the Preacher
And therein we have the crux of the problem... is it the preacher or the sermon that receives the critique? What about the poor preacher who delivers a good sermon? The unbelieving preacher who is still true to the text? The drunkard who preaches true? Or, the loving pastor who can barely put two words together coherently? The juxtapositions and contradictions of life. "He who is not against us is for us." To give God the glory, rather than the preacher.....
Posted in: How Should the Church Respond to Trump’s Travel Ban?
Well said, Matthew. And John Span's response is also a good response. I think what this proposed ban will do is to illuminate us more about what the real facts are. Many people have the same idea as Trump, which is why he implimented it. Searching out the real and relative risks is an important process, as well as becoming more aware of the vetting process that already exists. I think comparing terrorist damage to typical murders etc often forgets the apparent randomness of the terrorist violence. Most murders are domestic, or drug related, or crime related, so many people feel quite secure that they will not be victims. They do not feel secure when it comes to terrorism.... such as a soldier suddenly randomly shooting other soldiers, or a couple in California planning a bombing or shooting scenario. Nevertheless, the risk must be put into perspective, and into the context of what is already being done to examine potential refugee immigrants.
Posted in: How Should the Church Respond to Trump’s Travel Ban?
Confusing caring for people with condoning their illegal activities is a non-starter. We care for people in prison, but do not suggest that the courts were wrong in putting them in prison. If a nation decides in its interest to delay approval of refugees, or to deny them entrance, or to screen them and put conditions on entry, can a minister legitimately contravene that policy? Under what conditions? Is a right for a minister (or any christian) to protest a war, or to protest taxes, or to protest unpaved streets, or to protest global trade? Is he doing this as a minister, or as an individual private christian with his own opinions on these matters.
As a minister, he should focus on the gospel unto salvation. Not put himself into a box of social activism which may end up biting him in the butt when he gets more information in five years.
Caring for the poor does not mean putting the responsibility on the government, but picking up the task at home with your own hands.
Posted in: How Should the Church Respond to Trump’s Travel Ban?
Jesus parable applied to a man who was left behind by robbers. His parable could also have included a robber waiting in ambush to attack anyone who might choose to help. His parable could have included or been about a robber pretending to be hurt and robbed so that he could attack unwary helpers. But his parable wasn't about that. It is important not to conflate or blur the distinctions.
It seems you are arguing and preaching to the converted, those who want to help refugees who truly need it. But you are ignoring all the other real issues and thus your preaching will simply allienate those who are concerned about protection of the innocent.
Posted in: How Should the Church Respond to Trump’s Travel Ban?
Larry I think you have given a good and agreeable reply in terms of the meaning of these words. But without your explanation, these words are often misunderstood.
The problem is that in many ways, capitalism is rather ruthless. If you don't pay your loans, your property may be sold. If you lose money at what you do, you may sell your business at a loss. Larger entities usually buy up and absorb smaller ones, because they have the equity to do so. A successful new business may end up putting other older businesses out of business.
Yet, that does not mean that capitalists are necessarily ruthless at heart. I understand there is a group of billionaires challenged to donate half or more of their income... is Warren Buffet or Bill Gates included in this?
Materialism as a philosophical concept is certainly anti-Christian. But most people do not understand it as a philosophical ideal, but simply as a part of reality, of common sense. God created material, and he created us to live in the material world. Material and goods are not evil, and even wealth has purpose. It is very difficult for poor people to emply others or provide others with income.
Anyway, thanks for your clarification.
Posted in: Trump, Assault, and Standing Up for Women
We don't really know why Hillary stayed with Bill. There is a lot of political opportunism involved, and her whole life has been almost nothing but politics. We assume she was faithful to Bill, like we assumed he was faithful to her. And maybe he was; they just had a more materialistic view of sex. Maybe. The real issues are how these things impact the policies of the country. And certainly there is a trade-off between the immorality of divorce, unfaithfulness, and random sex, and the loss of lives of the unborn, of the military, of terrorism victims. While the immorality of some marriages is certainly an issue, also at issue is the immorality of condoning homosex, and destroying the real meaning of marriage through legislation. Also at issue is the persecution of Christians for their beliefs that same sex marriage is wrong. This too is serious immorality. I would argue it is of more significance. If these issues are not addressed, then divorce becomes almost insignificant in comparison.
Posted in: Trump, Assault, and Standing Up for Women
There is no sanctity of life for anyone beyond the womb, who does not survive the womb.
Posted in: Trump, Assault, and Standing Up for Women
A number of comments have been made. But we need to realize that the only reason we are talking about this, is because of the election. If Trump was not running for pres, this article would not have been written. The reason why Trumps liabilities are discussed and not Clinton's? who knows. There was trial and investigation regarding Clinton's behaviour, none that I know of with Trump. Could Trump have changed? Possibly. Could Clinton have changed? Possibly, but less likely. She has less regard for life and for people, as evidenced by her lack of concern for the most helpless. She appears to be more concerned about her reputation and image and vote gathering power than any other principles, that I can see, and that has me concerned. Trump bucked the trends, and many people responded. Sure he is rough around the edges. He is rich and in that sense elite, but not politically elite as evidenced by how many of the politicos whether in either party, or in the media, do not like him. Yet it is the politically elite who continually refuse to protect the preborn, who continually add to the monstrous debts that future women and men, our children and grandchildren will be burdened by. How will that be paid? Eventually by taxes. How will the taxes be paid? By virtually forcing all women to work, to reduce their attention for their children, perhaps to abort unborn females, because they feel they cannot afford children. Simplistically thinking or saying that only crass remarks are most vile, is missing the bigger more complex issues of caring for society as a whole, and protecting the most vulnerable as captured in the plight of the unborn.
Posted in: Trump, Assault, and Standing Up for Women
And the truth is this: every man is born of a woman. Any man who degrades women, degrades himself. Without a man, no woman could be born. Any woman who degrades men, also degrades herself.
Posted in: Let’s Play “Banner Editor for a Day”
Yes, confessing your sins and your fallibility is a good thing. God loves the sinner, but his children become saints through Christ, as revealed in their obedience to God.
Posted in: Homosexuality and Holy Certainty
Excellent article, Kurt Monroe. Very well written.... inspiring.