Richard, I definately did not miss your point. In fact, I restated it and acknowledged it: "You are right we should not miss the primary message of the creation story, that God is creator and maker and that what He makes he declared good ."
You have now changed "true" to "factualness"... maybe a good thing.
It is not that I deny what you are saying, in that if we focus on the factualness too much it may make us forget the underlying theme. But the focus in the other direction is just as much a problem. If we deny the factualness (not you, but others), then the underlying theme loses its validity. Martin Luther's socks may not have made a difference to his speech, but the alternative to creation by fiat and the creation of man by God, is presently a never-ending process of evolution which makes a big difference to whether God created the universe "good" or not. And it makes a big difference to whether man is truly in the image of God, and whether there is such a thing as sin or not.
In the Martin Luther analogy, the significance of where he was, who was there, when he made the speech, and the state of the country at the time is very significant to the impact of the speech. If he had made the speech in his bathroom to his mirror, or if merely written in some op-ed piece in the local paper, it simply would not have had the impact, and would not be seen to be important in the same way.
When people are defending the literalness of Genesis 1, they do so primarily in order to validate the underlying theme. It is not merely for the sake of the empirical facts themselves.
Norman, this particular youtube is also very relevant to this discussion, as it shows how some "proof" for evolution is simply false, as well as relates to the reaction of christian students to the teachings of evolution.
Maybe John K, the reason the issue is not raised, is that there is no prohibition against caring for needy children. Maybe the issue is not raised because at least in Canada, health care is already available to all, including the children of single mothers. In addition, many pro-life people do not feel hindered in fostering, adopting, etc. In our small church of less than 100 souls, we have 14 adopted children, and support a mission project in Kenya which builds a school for orphans. Many pro-life people have set up homes or assistance for single mothers-to-be. Families usually support single teen moms within their family; while this sometimes sends mixed messages about appropriateness of "being" a single mother, it also confirms the value of unborn new life.
What does it mean to be prophetic in our current culture? I think of prophets like Nathan who spoke to King David, Elijah who spoke to Ahab, Jeremiah who spoke to Israel, John the Baptist who was beheaded. Maybe Stephen was also a prophet before he was stoned to death. Generally their messages were unpopular, although sometimes, like John the Baptist, they gathered large crowds before they were put in prison. But the essence of their prophecy was that they spoke the word of the Lord, and brought people to repentance, and back to God.
Do you remember the story of the prophet who was deceived by another prophet, and yet was held responsible for his disobedience, and died as a result? Prophecy does not guarantee perfection, and prophetic position does not guarantee purity or a prophetic word in all cases.
In general, the significance of prophecy was that it countered the prevailing notions of the day, and yet was found to be true. It was often unpopular because it stressed the supremacy of God at the expense of the popular opinions and current authorities. The prophets stressed that Israel and Judah would suffer severely and be decimated because of the actions of most of the Israelites and Judaites and their kings in worshipping false gods on the high places. John the Revelator prophecied first about several churches in terms of warnings and encouragements, as well as proclaiming the promised future of God's kingdom.
I have difficulty calling someone a prophet when they merely follow the conventional and popular wisdom of the day. A true prophet was a leader, not a follower. Except for being a follower of God, of Christ, of His Word.
What comes to mind is the difference between several prophets. Nathan convinces king David of his need to repent. Elijah prays for, or prophecies three years of drought, then prays for rain, after slaughtering 400 men (also called prophets, but false prophets). Jeremiah only prophecies doom and destruction, is cast into a well, imprisoned, but proven that his word is true. Jonah the reluctant prophet, needed to be taught as much as the people of Nineveh did.
Prophecy is not equivalent to earthly, nor even an institutional church type of authority. We did not hear often of priests (institutional church) being called prophets, other than possibly Ezra. Perhaps it is not an office conferred by men, nor even validated by men, but rather directly by God.
Following is the link to the article written by John Cotter. The article is actually found in several media outlets, particularly Vancouver Sun and other B.C. papers.
So what is a Christian's perspective on caring for creation? First, I would say that creation by its very name honors God as the creator. Second, Creation is not an accident, but has a purpose. Third, people were created to have a relationship with the rest of creation, in a very special way. It is a gift to us to be able to live in it, to enjoy it, to use it. As such, a gift given by God should be treated as a gift. This gift is also the means by which God provides us our daily life. Rejecting or mistreating creation is a way of rejecting the life God has given us on this globe. Fourth, we should not honor this creation for its own sake, nor worship it, nor assume that God gave us a weak, cheap, vulnerable world, or an inadequate world to live in. We can see that this world continues to provide amazing resources as our eyes continue to open when we live in it. We can see that we are pretty small compared to the amazing things that happen in this world, whether it is snow covered mountains, huge icebergs, giant rivers, tsunamis, volcanoes, hurricanes and tornadoes. But we can also see that we have some impact on water quality, air quality, species habitat, diseases, weeds, resource extraction, and innovative ingenuity. The invention of the lightbulb, extraction of oil and shale gas, invention of computers, GPS, steam engines, petri dishes, anti-biotics, and plasma tvs are only a few examples of things that people in the past did not have nor understand, and it is likely that we will continue to discover and utilize things that are presently barely imagined. The gift of creation that God gave us, seems to be getting bigger and better all the time, and such a gift is not yet limited by our imagination. But denying it is a gift, by mistreating it, will reduce its potential.
Beyond this basic understanding, we then begin to debate some of the details.
Bev, "is it more eagerly desired..." is a pretty general question. How would we know? Desired by CRC headquarters? By pastors and preachers? By elders? By everyone else? by ourselves? Is it only individuals who can speak prophetically, or can the anomalous institution also speak prophetically?
This morning I was reading the story of Jehosophat and Ahab who were considering a battle (Chronicles). Ahab had 400 prophets telling him to go because they would be successful. (sounds like a consensus). Jehosophat heard them, but asked for a real prophet of God. Ahab said, yes, there was one prophet, but he was irritating, always giving him bad news, and he didn't really want him. They got this one real prophet Micaiah anyway, and guess what? he agreed with the 400! But, Ahab sensed his sarcasm, and shouted at him to not lie, but tell him the real truth! Irony of ironies!! Then Micaiah gave the real prophecy and said that the battle would not go well, and that Ahab would die. Well, did it make a difference? Did Ahab and Jehosophat listen? hardly. partly. They put Micaiah in prison on bread and water. They changed uniforms, and Ahab was disguised as a soldier instead of a king. An enemy soldier shot an arrow at a random Israelite soldier, not realizing it was Ahab king of Israel, and it pierced his body armor and killed him.
Well, doesn't it make you laugh and cry a bit? We want prophecy, but only if we like it? We want prophets, but only if they agree with us? We know the truth, but don't want to hear it?
Perhaps we ought to more eagerly desire God's will, more eagerly spend time in His Word, more eagerly spend time in prayer, and then true prophecy will be a "natural" God-given result?
(400 prophets who were wrong.... makes you think, doesn't it?)
Of course, those 400 prophets did not worship God. They were from Israel, not from Judah. They likely worshipped Baal and other gods. So maybe this doesn't apply to us? But even Jehosophat, a good king, worshipper of the one true God, didn't listen to Micaiah that day.
"1 When Jehoshaphat king of Judah returned safely to his palace in Jerusalem, 2 Jehu the seer, the son of Hanani, went out to meet him and said to the king, “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Because of this, the wrath of the Lord is upon you. 3 There is, however, some good in you, for you have rid the land of the Asherah poles and have set your heart on seeking God. " II Chronicles 19.
Steve, I appreciate the attempt by Christians to apply Christian principles to all of life, to all activities we engage in. Good motives.
But as Christians, we are as susceptible as anyone to simply following non-Christian agendas and cloaking it with Christian icing on the cake. That is where we need to be discerning.
In this case, you mentioned “ecology, climate, economic expansion and resource development, solidarity with Indigenous peoples, appropriate democratic and environmental review process” and kind of lumped them together as justification for churches being involved. Then you suggest that speaking on these issues relative to the pipeline does not make you an expert. You suggest that the church is merely applying theology to the real world. And that if this does not inpsire action, then you suggest there is no value to faith in God, especially to a reformed faith.
You have raised a lot of issues, and so I will respond only in brief to some of them. First, the importance and value of our faith in God is much larger than our response to a pipeline. Further, how do you distinguish the christian response, from the Sierra Club response? Does the Sierra Club or greenpeace response thereby automatically make them Christians too?
I have conversations with some aboriginals occasionally, and in the case of the pipelines it seems that there is a divergence of views with aboriginals. In many cases, they get manipulated by extreme environmentalists, and have an eye on the possibility of compensation (we won’t call it bribes), as well as possible work. Yes ecology is important to aboriginals as it is to all of us, but their primary concern is usually housing and food, and potential economic benefits.
Aboriginals on reserves presently don’t pay income tax nor property tax while on the reserves, unless they work off the reserves. They have a multitude of national and provincial benefits at no cost. They feel they have a right to it, but it also takes them out of their ecology; this support from Canada means that they do not depend on the ecology for their living. Nor do most aboriginals interact with their ecology as they did four hundred years ago, not even as two hundred years ago. Most simply do not have the knowledge to survive in that environment. For that reason, they also depend on industry, modern machines and modern processing and retail, and on government dollars, for their living.
What makes Kairos or the united church or the crc church an expert on an appropriate environmental review process, as distinguished from unnecessary and costly duplication of regulations and inspections? How can a review process be democratic; doesn’t that remove the science and objectivity from it?
What does Kairos know about the quality of pipelines being built today, compared to pipelines built fifty years ago? Does Kairos know there is already an oil pipeline to Vancouver, B.C.? Does Kairos know there are already pipelines to the West Coast for natural gas?
It seems to me that this issue is a political one, used as a pin-prick towards the larger issue of whether we should use fossil fuels at all for our daily life. That larger issue will not be solved by fighting a pipeline or making a pipeline more costly.
When Christians become overly involved in these issues under the banner of christianity and church, they run the risk of being manipulated by the opponents in the larger discussion. They might be manipulated by the environmentalists who have the agenda of raising funds to fight the big corporations. They might be manipulated or “used” by the environmentalists who are being used by certain oil refinery companies to delay or hinder the export of oil to China, and thus retain a captive supply and lower price for Canadian oil in the USA. And christians also run the risk of having their main gospel neglected, both because of lack of focus, and because of the likelihood that they are wrong, or on the wrong side of an issue.
I agree the economy is not the only important thing to us. The environment, and the social aspect are also very important. But is finding the balance between environment, economy, and social goals, in the expertise of the institutional church? What happens when a church “speaks” for its members, and many members do not agree? Is that democratic? What if the church misleads its members due to its lack of balance and perspective and lack of expertise?
Dale Poel, I don't think you have made your point very well. Why is the church obligated to formulate a position on public policy? How is the role of the church related to the common good? Whose "common good"? Is the church's role to speak to the tragedy of the commons? based on what rationale? Is the church's role to promote "common grace"? or is it to use "common grace" to highlight the love and mercy of God?
The problem with things like pipelines, is that they become political footballs of the environmentalists and those who hope to profit from them, including governments, landowners, aboriginals, and industry shareholders. By getting overly involved with these things as an institutional church, we are deluded into thinking we are going to "save" the world. We won't you know. And even if we did, we fall into the trap of saving the world and losing our souls.
So yes, as Christians, we must be honest and responsible and careful of God's creation, but the simplistic answers often provided make demons out of honest effort and ignore the real demons that divert us from our relationship to God.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Richard, I definately did not miss your point. In fact, I restated it and acknowledged it: "You are right we should not miss the primary message of the creation story, that God is creator and maker and that what He makes he declared good ."
You have now changed "true" to "factualness"... maybe a good thing.
It is not that I deny what you are saying, in that if we focus on the factualness too much it may make us forget the underlying theme. But the focus in the other direction is just as much a problem. If we deny the factualness (not you, but others), then the underlying theme loses its validity. Martin Luther's socks may not have made a difference to his speech, but the alternative to creation by fiat and the creation of man by God, is presently a never-ending process of evolution which makes a big difference to whether God created the universe "good" or not. And it makes a big difference to whether man is truly in the image of God, and whether there is such a thing as sin or not.
In the Martin Luther analogy, the significance of where he was, who was there, when he made the speech, and the state of the country at the time is very significant to the impact of the speech. If he had made the speech in his bathroom to his mirror, or if merely written in some op-ed piece in the local paper, it simply would not have had the impact, and would not be seen to be important in the same way.
When people are defending the literalness of Genesis 1, they do so primarily in order to validate the underlying theme. It is not merely for the sake of the empirical facts themselves.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
I read that already. You should read the third last sentence in that paragraph.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Norman, this particular youtube is also very relevant to this discussion, as it shows how some "proof" for evolution is simply false, as well as relates to the reaction of christian students to the teachings of evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4wJsD6ETks
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
I appreciate your comments, Norman.
Posted in: The Church's Response to Abortion
Maybe John K, the reason the issue is not raised, is that there is no prohibition against caring for needy children. Maybe the issue is not raised because at least in Canada, health care is already available to all, including the children of single mothers. In addition, many pro-life people do not feel hindered in fostering, adopting, etc. In our small church of less than 100 souls, we have 14 adopted children, and support a mission project in Kenya which builds a school for orphans. Many pro-life people have set up homes or assistance for single mothers-to-be. Families usually support single teen moms within their family; while this sometimes sends mixed messages about appropriateness of "being" a single mother, it also confirms the value of unborn new life.
Posted in: So What Is "Prophetic"?
What does it mean to be prophetic in our current culture? I think of prophets like Nathan who spoke to King David, Elijah who spoke to Ahab, Jeremiah who spoke to Israel, John the Baptist who was beheaded. Maybe Stephen was also a prophet before he was stoned to death. Generally their messages were unpopular, although sometimes, like John the Baptist, they gathered large crowds before they were put in prison. But the essence of their prophecy was that they spoke the word of the Lord, and brought people to repentance, and back to God.
Do you remember the story of the prophet who was deceived by another prophet, and yet was held responsible for his disobedience, and died as a result? Prophecy does not guarantee perfection, and prophetic position does not guarantee purity or a prophetic word in all cases.
In general, the significance of prophecy was that it countered the prevailing notions of the day, and yet was found to be true. It was often unpopular because it stressed the supremacy of God at the expense of the popular opinions and current authorities. The prophets stressed that Israel and Judah would suffer severely and be decimated because of the actions of most of the Israelites and Judaites and their kings in worshipping false gods on the high places. John the Revelator prophecied first about several churches in terms of warnings and encouragements, as well as proclaiming the promised future of God's kingdom.
I have difficulty calling someone a prophet when they merely follow the conventional and popular wisdom of the day. A true prophet was a leader, not a follower. Except for being a follower of God, of Christ, of His Word.
Posted in: So What Is "Prophetic"?
What comes to mind is the difference between several prophets. Nathan convinces king David of his need to repent. Elijah prays for, or prophecies three years of drought, then prays for rain, after slaughtering 400 men (also called prophets, but false prophets). Jeremiah only prophecies doom and destruction, is cast into a well, imprisoned, but proven that his word is true. Jonah the reluctant prophet, needed to be taught as much as the people of Nineveh did.
Prophecy is not equivalent to earthly, nor even an institutional church type of authority. We did not hear often of priests (institutional church) being called prophets, other than possibly Ezra. Perhaps it is not an office conferred by men, nor even validated by men, but rather directly by God.
Posted in: When Churches Start Becoming Experts on Pipelines, Does That Mean Oil Companies Can Become Experts on Theology?
Following is the link to the article written by John Cotter. The article is actually found in several media outlets, particularly Vancouver Sun and other B.C. papers.
http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/money/pulpits+and+the+pipeline+more+churches+speaking+out+on+northern+gateway+project/6442692223/story.html
Posted in: A Christian’s Perspective on Caring for Creation?
So what is a Christian's perspective on caring for creation? First, I would say that creation by its very name honors God as the creator. Second, Creation is not an accident, but has a purpose. Third, people were created to have a relationship with the rest of creation, in a very special way. It is a gift to us to be able to live in it, to enjoy it, to use it. As such, a gift given by God should be treated as a gift. This gift is also the means by which God provides us our daily life. Rejecting or mistreating creation is a way of rejecting the life God has given us on this globe. Fourth, we should not honor this creation for its own sake, nor worship it, nor assume that God gave us a weak, cheap, vulnerable world, or an inadequate world to live in. We can see that this world continues to provide amazing resources as our eyes continue to open when we live in it. We can see that we are pretty small compared to the amazing things that happen in this world, whether it is snow covered mountains, huge icebergs, giant rivers, tsunamis, volcanoes, hurricanes and tornadoes. But we can also see that we have some impact on water quality, air quality, species habitat, diseases, weeds, resource extraction, and innovative ingenuity. The invention of the lightbulb, extraction of oil and shale gas, invention of computers, GPS, steam engines, petri dishes, anti-biotics, and plasma tvs are only a few examples of things that people in the past did not have nor understand, and it is likely that we will continue to discover and utilize things that are presently barely imagined. The gift of creation that God gave us, seems to be getting bigger and better all the time, and such a gift is not yet limited by our imagination. But denying it is a gift, by mistreating it, will reduce its potential.
Beyond this basic understanding, we then begin to debate some of the details.
Posted in: So What Is "Prophetic"?
Bev, "is it more eagerly desired..." is a pretty general question. How would we know? Desired by CRC headquarters? By pastors and preachers? By elders? By everyone else? by ourselves? Is it only individuals who can speak prophetically, or can the anomalous institution also speak prophetically?
This morning I was reading the story of Jehosophat and Ahab who were considering a battle (Chronicles). Ahab had 400 prophets telling him to go because they would be successful. (sounds like a consensus). Jehosophat heard them, but asked for a real prophet of God. Ahab said, yes, there was one prophet, but he was irritating, always giving him bad news, and he didn't really want him. They got this one real prophet Micaiah anyway, and guess what? he agreed with the 400! But, Ahab sensed his sarcasm, and shouted at him to not lie, but tell him the real truth! Irony of ironies!! Then Micaiah gave the real prophecy and said that the battle would not go well, and that Ahab would die. Well, did it make a difference? Did Ahab and Jehosophat listen? hardly. partly. They put Micaiah in prison on bread and water. They changed uniforms, and Ahab was disguised as a soldier instead of a king. An enemy soldier shot an arrow at a random Israelite soldier, not realizing it was Ahab king of Israel, and it pierced his body armor and killed him.
Well, doesn't it make you laugh and cry a bit? We want prophecy, but only if we like it? We want prophets, but only if they agree with us? We know the truth, but don't want to hear it?
Perhaps we ought to more eagerly desire God's will, more eagerly spend time in His Word, more eagerly spend time in prayer, and then true prophecy will be a "natural" God-given result?
(400 prophets who were wrong.... makes you think, doesn't it?)
Of course, those 400 prophets did not worship God. They were from Israel, not from Judah. They likely worshipped Baal and other gods. So maybe this doesn't apply to us? But even Jehosophat, a good king, worshipper of the one true God, didn't listen to Micaiah that day.
"1 When Jehoshaphat king of Judah returned safely to his palace in Jerusalem, 2 Jehu the seer, the son of Hanani, went out to meet him and said to the king, “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Because of this, the wrath of the Lord is upon you. 3 There is, however, some good in you, for you have rid the land of the Asherah poles and have set your heart on seeking God. " II Chronicles 19.
Posted in: When Churches Start Becoming Experts on Pipelines, Does That Mean Oil Companies Can Become Experts on Theology?
Steve, I appreciate the attempt by Christians to apply Christian principles to all of life, to all activities we engage in. Good motives.
But as Christians, we are as susceptible as anyone to simply following non-Christian agendas and cloaking it with Christian icing on the cake. That is where we need to be discerning.
In this case, you mentioned “ecology, climate, economic expansion and resource development, solidarity with Indigenous peoples, appropriate democratic and environmental review process” and kind of lumped them together as justification for churches being involved. Then you suggest that speaking on these issues relative to the pipeline does not make you an expert. You suggest that the church is merely applying theology to the real world. And that if this does not inpsire action, then you suggest there is no value to faith in God, especially to a reformed faith.
You have raised a lot of issues, and so I will respond only in brief to some of them. First, the importance and value of our faith in God is much larger than our response to a pipeline. Further, how do you distinguish the christian response, from the Sierra Club response? Does the Sierra Club or greenpeace response thereby automatically make them Christians too?
I have conversations with some aboriginals occasionally, and in the case of the pipelines it seems that there is a divergence of views with aboriginals. In many cases, they get manipulated by extreme environmentalists, and have an eye on the possibility of compensation (we won’t call it bribes), as well as possible work. Yes ecology is important to aboriginals as it is to all of us, but their primary concern is usually housing and food, and potential economic benefits.
Aboriginals on reserves presently don’t pay income tax nor property tax while on the reserves, unless they work off the reserves. They have a multitude of national and provincial benefits at no cost. They feel they have a right to it, but it also takes them out of their ecology; this support from Canada means that they do not depend on the ecology for their living. Nor do most aboriginals interact with their ecology as they did four hundred years ago, not even as two hundred years ago. Most simply do not have the knowledge to survive in that environment. For that reason, they also depend on industry, modern machines and modern processing and retail, and on government dollars, for their living.
What makes Kairos or the united church or the crc church an expert on an appropriate environmental review process, as distinguished from unnecessary and costly duplication of regulations and inspections? How can a review process be democratic; doesn’t that remove the science and objectivity from it?
What does Kairos know about the quality of pipelines being built today, compared to pipelines built fifty years ago? Does Kairos know there is already an oil pipeline to Vancouver, B.C.? Does Kairos know there are already pipelines to the West Coast for natural gas?
It seems to me that this issue is a political one, used as a pin-prick towards the larger issue of whether we should use fossil fuels at all for our daily life. That larger issue will not be solved by fighting a pipeline or making a pipeline more costly.
When Christians become overly involved in these issues under the banner of christianity and church, they run the risk of being manipulated by the opponents in the larger discussion. They might be manipulated by the environmentalists who have the agenda of raising funds to fight the big corporations. They might be manipulated or “used” by the environmentalists who are being used by certain oil refinery companies to delay or hinder the export of oil to China, and thus retain a captive supply and lower price for Canadian oil in the USA. And christians also run the risk of having their main gospel neglected, both because of lack of focus, and because of the likelihood that they are wrong, or on the wrong side of an issue.
I agree the economy is not the only important thing to us. The environment, and the social aspect are also very important. But is finding the balance between environment, economy, and social goals, in the expertise of the institutional church? What happens when a church “speaks” for its members, and many members do not agree? Is that democratic? What if the church misleads its members due to its lack of balance and perspective and lack of expertise?
Posted in: When Churches Start Becoming Experts on Pipelines, Does That Mean Oil Companies Can Become Experts on Theology?
Dale Poel, I don't think you have made your point very well. Why is the church obligated to formulate a position on public policy? How is the role of the church related to the common good? Whose "common good"? Is the church's role to speak to the tragedy of the commons? based on what rationale? Is the church's role to promote "common grace"? or is it to use "common grace" to highlight the love and mercy of God?
The problem with things like pipelines, is that they become political footballs of the environmentalists and those who hope to profit from them, including governments, landowners, aboriginals, and industry shareholders. By getting overly involved with these things as an institutional church, we are deluded into thinking we are going to "save" the world. We won't you know. And even if we did, we fall into the trap of saving the world and losing our souls.
So yes, as Christians, we must be honest and responsible and careful of God's creation, but the simplistic answers often provided make demons out of honest effort and ignore the real demons that divert us from our relationship to God.