Yes, I'm reading II chronicles 20 and 21 next. The communal reliance by Jehosophat and Judah on God instead of man when faced with three different foreign tribes in one battle was encouraging, yes. God fought that battle. Reading further, you get a hint of Jehosophat relying on worldly alliances again, with Ahaziah. And then you discover that his son Jehoram has married the daughter of Ahab; so why would we be surprised that Jehoram then rebuilds all the high places and Asheroth poles that Jehosophat destroyed? Why are we surprised that Jehoram son of Jehosophat kills all his brothers, and some other members of the royal family as well?
I guess it is a warning that we cannot take our present spiritual condition for granted. Nor can we assume that our present spiritual worship will somehow overrule our present worldly alliances and tendencies. Our children will pay for our equivocation. You can take that as a prophecy.
Bev, others will have more and better thoughts than I. But I am reminded of Elijah complaining to God that he was the only one left who served God. I am reminded of the donkey who spoke to Balaam. I am reminded of Gideon asking for the dew on the fleece. Prayer is a natural part of living for prophets; it is embodied in every thing they see, or desire, or experience. And for the prophets, I think that prayer included listening as much as speaking.
What is our present spiritual condition? Is it like Asa… who removed the idols and repaired the altar? Or is it like Asa who stopped relying on the Lord and became angry with the prophet?
Is it like Jehoshaphat who walked in the ways of his ancestor David and who sought the Lord? Or like Jehoshaphat who allied himself with (baal worshipper) Ahab by marriage, and helped Ahab in his battle?
Jehoshaphat removed the visible signs of false worship , the idols and high places and asherah poles from Judah (although not from Israel),. But apparently he still relied on alliances with worldly kings, with Ahab and Ahaziah, and was willing to even ally himself thru marriage, including the marriage of his son to a daughter of Ahab.
Can we assume then because we have removed the idols, and we have sought the Lord, that we have not allied ourselves with Ahabs of this world in various ways? When Jehosophat did this, his son Jehoram was the fruit of it, naturally marrying a daughter of Ahab as his godly father encouraged him, and then why would Jehoshaphat be surprised at the evil done by his son Jehoram?
We can ask ourselves what the spiritual condition of the denomination is, where are we headed, how are our alliances? And then, each of us can ask ourselves: what is our own personal spiritual condition? What prophecies will we listen to and where do we put our trust?
- - - - - - - ---- -- --- --- ---
Scripture references:
II Chron.15: 8 “When Asa heard these words and the prophecy of Azariah son of[a]Oded the prophet, he took courage. He removed the detestable idols from the whole land of Judah and Benjamin and from the towns he had captured in the hills of Ephraim. He repaired the altar of the Lordthat was in front of the portico of the Lord’s temple… 17 Although he did not remove the high places from Israel, Asa’s heart was fully committed to the Lordall his life…..“Because you relied on the king of Aram and not on the Lordyour God, the army of the king of Aram has escaped from your hand….10 Asa was angry with the seer because of this; he was so enraged that he put him in prison. At the same time Asa brutally oppressed some of the people….
…II chron 17:3 The Lord was with Jehoshaphat(son of Asa) because in his early years he walked in the ways his father David had followed… 6 His heart was devoted to the ways of the Lord; furthermore, he removed the high places and the Asherah poles from Judah. ..1.Now Jehoshaphat had great wealth and honor, and he allied himself with Ahab by marriage…1.When Jehoshaphat king of Judah returned safely to his palace in Jerusalem(after the battle), 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[a]those who hate the Lord?Because of this, the wrath of the Lordis 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 Chron. 20:27 Then, led by Jehoshaphat, all the men of Judah and Jerusalem returned joyfully to Jerusalem, for the Lordhad given them cause to rejoice over their enemies….
II Chron. 21:4 When Jehoram(son of Jehoshaphat) established himself firmly over his father’s kingdom, he put all his brothers to the sword along with some of the princes of Israel.5 Jehoram was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years.6 He walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab had done, for he married a daughter of Ahab. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord.”
Briantebben and Jeff, thanks for your comments. First, I want to affirm that yes, delegates are ultimately supposed to be deliberative. However, in your briantebben's example, you state that the delegate who presented an overture that he did not agree with, will be assumed to vote in favor of the belhar, in spite of his church disagreeing, and in spite of his classis disagreeing with it. This would happen according to your example, even before deliberations at synod have occurred. That is the issue. His deliberations have already ocurred in his mind, not swayed by deliberations at his council or his classis. Thus there does not appear to be much room for the influence of communal deliberations that follow. It appears merely to be a superiority of intellect or opinion that supercedes the deliberations of his council or classis.
This makes the whole issue more political than deliberative, since if the selection of delegates can be manipulated, based on as you said, "...as many people commented he is smart ,well spoken, gracious, and and a good listener ...", which means having a kind of popular appeal, or in other words, how could you not select someone who is smart, well spoken, gracious and a good listener? In the world of politics, this has a huge impact. But, most polilticians are smart well spoken and gracious and a good listener. Most pastors are as well. Many elders are also. This is no basis for selecting a delegate who has already predetermined to vote directly contrary to an issue that classis has voted on, even before any deliberations have taken place. Furthermore, it biases the vote and the considerations of the deliberations in such a way, that classis has in effect neutered its own vote. which
In my opinion, if a delegate votes differently than what classis has voted, then the delegate needs to identify clearly what comments and arguments at synod were new, which arguments had not been made at classis. Otherwise, perhaps the delegate will simply vote the way he does because he wants to, because he had already decided to, because he had decided his opinion was more valuable than the opinion of classis, or because he was folllowing a friend or mentor or former professor in the vote. Is this type of meaningless decision making what we want?
The guidance of the Holy Spirit can be a tenuous thing to discover. I mean how do we know it was the spirit who guided or whether it was man's own personal desires and worldly ambitions which guided? We trust in it, but we know we must test the spirits. The way to test the spirits is to have councils and classes test them. If that testing of the spirits at classis is disregarded by delegates as not being valid, then how do we know the Spirit is guiding at synod? Perhaps it is also invalid?
If a similar thing were to happen at each classis, that all delegates were assured to vote exactly contrary or most likely contrary, to the decision of their classis, then why waste time at classis? And does that mean that synod would be perceived to be a type of elitist decision making process far removed from classes and councils, in essence relegating council decisions as irrelevant and thus mere servants of synod, rather than synod having delegated authority originating at the local councils?
If that type of thing happens frequently, then synod will become irrelevant to councils, and perhaps to some classes as well. Rather than synod being a delegated body that represents the decisions and guidance of classes, it will simply be a body of people who have the money and time and ambition to attend to represent their own personal agendas and issues. The delegates then will be using classis to achieve their ends, rather than classes using delegates to achieve their ends. In my opinion, this is unhealthy. This is more likely not the Spirit working, but rather the will of man. A few men and women who want to use the denomination, synod and classis for their own ends. Thus is how I see it.
Using the Belhar as a confession is a serious thing, and if deliberations on it can be upset by such a few people who maintain their personal wisdom against that of the original authorities, then how do we know it is the Spirit working. I guess the system will work how it works, but it seems your classis was lacking in wisdom when they selected such delegates, or they didn't believe in their own deliberations.
Rob I think you have done your best to provide a good insiteful balanced approach to a discussion of who Adam is/was. However, within your "many" words, there seems to be a tendency in a few cases to look for problems where none exist. For example, when you mention Nod, you assume there was a community there. But Nod (which means wandering), is simply an identifier, like the name of a river, of an area. There is no indication that there was a community there already.
Also you mention that it is unlikely that Cain would have married his sister due to levitical laws. But you know that these laws were not given until later, and that even Abraham married his half sister. To suggest that this is a reason for proving other communities existed is simply not logical. Rather, it would be much more logical to assume that Adam and Eve had many other children, and that brothers married sisters at that time. I just saw a family on "America has Talent" which had 12 children in 18 years, and no twins. Isn't this also scientific evidence of such a likelihood for Adam and Eve that they also had many children even before Seth was born?
I think your synopsis of the meaning of "Adam", which is related to red, to earth, and is sometimes plural was well done, but it is certainly no indication that Adam was not a real singular living created being, created by God from dust in his own image. In fact, it would suggest that he was created from the earth itself, wouldn't it.
An explanation would be valuable, of why Genesis 4:26 would say that at the time of Enosh, Seth's son, men began to call on the name of the Lord, when obviously Abel and Cain were already sacrificing to God much earlier. At least this should highlight the value of context in understanding the meaning of a phrase or verse.
I'm not a campus minister. But I have attended both secular and Christian campuses as a student. I've obtained degrees in both the ARTS and in Science. So maybe you will accept some of my comments. I appreciate your attempt to create peace between scientists and the religious. It might work for some. But I would suggest that until people realize that the conflict is not really between science and faith, they will continue to have the wrong kinds of conflict. The real conflict is between good and evil, between truth and falsehood, between seeking the supremacy of God vs the supremacy of man. The conflict is really in essence today not between science and faith, but between random never-ending evolution and God's hand in creation. The conflict is between a materialistic world view and a world view that allows the concept of God to intervene.
Whether scripture is read as poetry or as literal events depends not first of all on science, but mostly on world-view. Even the idea that the struggle is between faith and science is one that is encouraged by those who want to discredit faith, while Satan knows full well that both science and scripture have been used illegitimately to promote lies and falsehoods. Today, the sun still rises in the east and sets in the west, even though we know that the earth cycles around the sun. It is difficult to separate the literal from the figurative in this case, since our physical worldview sees the rising of the sun daily, and the cycling only through repeated observations and calculations. Therefore the figurative explanation does not contradict what we know to be true. We don't really know what the sky looked like before the flood, at a time when there was not yet any rain on the earth. It is difficult to imagine the impacts of the global flood upon the earth, or the circumstances that accompanied it.
The evolutionary worldview can only see or be comfortable in a particular parameter of scientific examination; mostly this is because for evolutionary scientists, any question of intervention by God is a non-scientific question and thus ineligible in the discussion. In addition, for many (not all)evolutionary scientists, their scientific approach which relegates God to irrelevance, has made even a belief in God absolute anathema, and thus their scientific objections to non-evolutionary approaches are in reality religious objections, not scientific objections. Their objections to alternative explanations become emotional rather than scientific, because they have too much psychologically invested in their evolutionary atheism.
It is not science vs faith. Science leads to better crops, better machinery, micro-wave ovens, trains and planes, and the internet. None of this is against faith. The issue is truth vs falsehood, good vs evil, God vs Satan, the relevance of God vs the irrelevance of a god.
So, is Kairos position valid, or is it unbalanced? Should the CRCNA really belong to an organization such as Kairos? I suggest we dissassociate from it if it does not present a more balanced perspective. According to the news article, it claims to be neutral on the pipeline, but that is clearly not the case when it comes down to the issues it talks about and how it discusses those issues.
I don't know the details of your case. But on the face of it classis should not be able to release you from ministerial office before two years have elapsed from the time of release from the congregation. Unless the process of evaluation and assistance indicated a sooner release was advisable.
Article 17
a. Ministers who are neither eligible for retirement nor worthy of discipline
may for weighty reasons be released from active ministerial service in
a congregation through action initiated by themselves, by a council, or
jointly. Such release shall be given only with the approval of classis, with
the concurring advice of the synodical deputies, and in accordance with
synodical regulations.
—Cf. Supplement, Article 17-a (process for evaluation and assistance and determination)
b. The council shall provide for the support of a released minister in such a
way and for such a time as shall receive the approval of classis.
c. A minister of the Word who has been released from active ministerial
service in a congregation shall be eligible for call for a period of two years,
after which time the classis, with the concurring advice of the synodical
deputies, shall declare the minister to be released from the ministerial office.
For weighty reasons the classis, with the concurring advice of the synodical
deputies, may extend the eligibility for call on a yearly basis.
d. In some situations, the classis may decide that it cannot declare the
released minister eligible for call after the minister has completed the
process of evaluation and assistance. The classis, with the concurring
advice of the synodical deputies, shall then declare the minister to be
Bev, it's a good question, and I don't know the answer. It certainly seems like a warning to us. Don't take your children for granted. Don't assume too much with regard to their faith. Children are always our prime mission field.
But we can also take some encouragement.... sometimes the sons did follow the faith of their fathers. And sometimes... I'm now thinking of Hezekiah and his son Manasseh, where Manasseh re-installed the idols and false gods his father had destroyed, but... then when Manasseh was in trouble, was captured, and when he returned from his own exile, he returned to God as well.
When we are busy with careers, work, making money, even with preaching or church work or missions, we should not forget that our children need our witness and our attention. If the lost soul in Kenya needs our attention, then our young children also need the same attention. Our children too have the questions, insecurities, struggles about who God is in their lives. How we respond when they are young, is probably most impacting.
Deuteronomy talks about binding the law on your forehead and doorpost, and partly that was to remind oneself, but also it was the way to teach the children. Well, only part of the way. You can do all of that, but the follow up is needed to explain it and to live it. And to pray for your children. I've read somewhere that a parent first prayed for his child when she was still in the womb. And what did he pray? that she would come to love the Lord. and that she would find a godly husband. Seems a bit premature, doesn't it? but it sets the tone for what is the most important thing in your life, and the life of your child. So imagine that your witness to that child begins already before she is born, and continues throughout.
The link to the national post editorial is here: and I've included a small quote from this editorial. If Kairos is thinking like this, then I'm not sure why we would want to be a member of it. The United Church has lost about fifty percent of its members in the last 50 years; it does not seem to be a good example to follow.
"....As was widely expected, the council has chosen to put politics ahead of matters of faith. Indeed, it is getting harder to tell where the church ends and a budding left-wing political party begins.
On Tuesday, the church voted to “categorically oppose” the Northern Gateway pipeline. That hardly seems like a religious matter. Nor do other resolutions to be voted on, including the church’s position of raising the eligibility for Old Age Security or Canadian mining operations in Asia.
But nowhere is this truer than with regard to the United Church’s stance on Israel...."
I should also point out the inconsistency in this article 17 which seems to indicate a release "without cause or fault", and yet leaves a great deal of decision in the hands of classis to determine over the ordination or calling of someone, without identifying a justifiable reason. In essence, this is a useless article. If a pastor is let go by a church, then he may remain ordained, but can only operate in any case under the jurisdiction of some local church. If no local church authorizes him, then his ordination will more or less lapse. If classis "releases" him, this can easily be revoked by some church calling him and requesting "re-ordination", since he was released "amicably", and not "deposed". This article largely adds process and protocol without essential and elemental effect. imho.
Posted in: So What Is "Prophetic"?
Yes, I'm reading II chronicles 20 and 21 next. The communal reliance by Jehosophat and Judah on God instead of man when faced with three different foreign tribes in one battle was encouraging, yes. God fought that battle. Reading further, you get a hint of Jehosophat relying on worldly alliances again, with Ahaziah. And then you discover that his son Jehoram has married the daughter of Ahab; so why would we be surprised that Jehoram then rebuilds all the high places and Asheroth poles that Jehosophat destroyed? Why are we surprised that Jehoram son of Jehosophat kills all his brothers, and some other members of the royal family as well?
I guess it is a warning that we cannot take our present spiritual condition for granted. Nor can we assume that our present spiritual worship will somehow overrule our present worldly alliances and tendencies. Our children will pay for our equivocation. You can take that as a prophecy.
Posted in: So What Is "Prophetic"?
Bev, others will have more and better thoughts than I. But I am reminded of Elijah complaining to God that he was the only one left who served God. I am reminded of the donkey who spoke to Balaam. I am reminded of Gideon asking for the dew on the fleece. Prayer is a natural part of living for prophets; it is embodied in every thing they see, or desire, or experience. And for the prophets, I think that prayer included listening as much as speaking.
Posted in: So What Is "Prophetic"?
What is our present spiritual condition? Is it like Asa… who removed the idols and repaired the altar? Or is it like Asa who stopped relying on the Lord and became angry with the prophet?
Is it like Jehoshaphat who walked in the ways of his ancestor David and who sought the Lord? Or like Jehoshaphat who allied himself with (baal worshipper) Ahab by marriage, and helped Ahab in his battle?
Jehoshaphat removed the visible signs of false worship , the idols and high places and asherah poles from Judah (although not from Israel),. But apparently he still relied on alliances with worldly kings, with Ahab and Ahaziah, and was willing to even ally himself thru marriage, including the marriage of his son to a daughter of Ahab.
Can we assume then because we have removed the idols, and we have sought the Lord, that we have not allied ourselves with Ahabs of this world in various ways? When Jehosophat did this, his son Jehoram was the fruit of it, naturally marrying a daughter of Ahab as his godly father encouraged him, and then why would Jehoshaphat be surprised at the evil done by his son Jehoram?
We can ask ourselves what the spiritual condition of the denomination is, where are we headed, how are our alliances? And then, each of us can ask ourselves: what is our own personal spiritual condition? What prophecies will we listen to and where do we put our trust?
Scripture references:
II Chron.15: 8 “When Asa heard these words and the prophecy of Azariah son of[a]Oded the prophet, he took courage. He removed the detestable idols from the whole land of Judah and Benjamin and from the towns he had captured in the hills of Ephraim. He repaired the altar of the Lordthat was in front of the portico of the Lord’s temple… 17 Although he did not remove the high places from Israel, Asa’s heart was fully committed to the Lordall his life…..“Because you relied on the king of Aram and not on the Lordyour God, the army of the king of Aram has escaped from your hand….10 Asa was angry with the seer because of this; he was so enraged that he put him in prison. At the same time Asa brutally oppressed some of the people….
…II chron 17:3 The Lord was with Jehoshaphat(son of Asa) because in his early years he walked in the ways his father David had followed… 6 His heart was devoted to the ways of the Lord; furthermore, he removed the high places and the Asherah poles from Judah. ..1.Now Jehoshaphat had great wealth and honor, and he allied himself with Ahab by marriage…1.When Jehoshaphat king of Judah returned safely to his palace in Jerusalem(after the battle), 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[a]those who hate the Lord?Because of this, the wrath of the Lordis 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 Chron. 20:27 Then, led by Jehoshaphat, all the men of Judah and Jerusalem returned joyfully to Jerusalem, for the Lordhad given them cause to rejoice over their enemies….
II Chron. 21:4 When Jehoram(son of Jehoshaphat) established himself firmly over his father’s kingdom, he put all his brothers to the sword along with some of the princes of Israel.5 Jehoram was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years.6 He walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab had done, for he married a daughter of Ahab. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord.”
Posted in: Delegates From Classis Voting Opposite From Classis Vote on an Issue
Briantebben and Jeff, thanks for your comments. First, I want to affirm that yes, delegates are ultimately supposed to be deliberative. However, in your briantebben's example, you state that the delegate who presented an overture that he did not agree with, will be assumed to vote in favor of the belhar, in spite of his church disagreeing, and in spite of his classis disagreeing with it. This would happen according to your example, even before deliberations at synod have occurred. That is the issue. His deliberations have already ocurred in his mind, not swayed by deliberations at his council or his classis. Thus there does not appear to be much room for the influence of communal deliberations that follow. It appears merely to be a superiority of intellect or opinion that supercedes the deliberations of his council or classis.
This makes the whole issue more political than deliberative, since if the selection of delegates can be manipulated, based on as you said, "...as many people commented he is smart ,well spoken, gracious, and and a good listener ...", which means having a kind of popular appeal, or in other words, how could you not select someone who is smart, well spoken, gracious and a good listener? In the world of politics, this has a huge impact. But, most polilticians are smart well spoken and gracious and a good listener. Most pastors are as well. Many elders are also. This is no basis for selecting a delegate who has already predetermined to vote directly contrary to an issue that classis has voted on, even before any deliberations have taken place. Furthermore, it biases the vote and the considerations of the deliberations in such a way, that classis has in effect neutered its own vote. which
In my opinion, if a delegate votes differently than what classis has voted, then the delegate needs to identify clearly what comments and arguments at synod were new, which arguments had not been made at classis. Otherwise, perhaps the delegate will simply vote the way he does because he wants to, because he had already decided to, because he had decided his opinion was more valuable than the opinion of classis, or because he was folllowing a friend or mentor or former professor in the vote. Is this type of meaningless decision making what we want?
Posted in: Delegates From Classis Voting Opposite From Classis Vote on an Issue
The guidance of the Holy Spirit can be a tenuous thing to discover. I mean how do we know it was the spirit who guided or whether it was man's own personal desires and worldly ambitions which guided? We trust in it, but we know we must test the spirits. The way to test the spirits is to have councils and classes test them. If that testing of the spirits at classis is disregarded by delegates as not being valid, then how do we know the Spirit is guiding at synod? Perhaps it is also invalid?
If a similar thing were to happen at each classis, that all delegates were assured to vote exactly contrary or most likely contrary, to the decision of their classis, then why waste time at classis? And does that mean that synod would be perceived to be a type of elitist decision making process far removed from classes and councils, in essence relegating council decisions as irrelevant and thus mere servants of synod, rather than synod having delegated authority originating at the local councils?
If that type of thing happens frequently, then synod will become irrelevant to councils, and perhaps to some classes as well. Rather than synod being a delegated body that represents the decisions and guidance of classes, it will simply be a body of people who have the money and time and ambition to attend to represent their own personal agendas and issues. The delegates then will be using classis to achieve their ends, rather than classes using delegates to achieve their ends. In my opinion, this is unhealthy. This is more likely not the Spirit working, but rather the will of man. A few men and women who want to use the denomination, synod and classis for their own ends. Thus is how I see it.
Using the Belhar as a confession is a serious thing, and if deliberations on it can be upset by such a few people who maintain their personal wisdom against that of the original authorities, then how do we know it is the Spirit working. I guess the system will work how it works, but it seems your classis was lacking in wisdom when they selected such delegates, or they didn't believe in their own deliberations.
Posted in: Who Was Adam?
Rob I think you have done your best to provide a good insiteful balanced approach to a discussion of who Adam is/was. However, within your "many" words, there seems to be a tendency in a few cases to look for problems where none exist. For example, when you mention Nod, you assume there was a community there. But Nod (which means wandering), is simply an identifier, like the name of a river, of an area. There is no indication that there was a community there already.
Also you mention that it is unlikely that Cain would have married his sister due to levitical laws. But you know that these laws were not given until later, and that even Abraham married his half sister. To suggest that this is a reason for proving other communities existed is simply not logical. Rather, it would be much more logical to assume that Adam and Eve had many other children, and that brothers married sisters at that time. I just saw a family on "America has Talent" which had 12 children in 18 years, and no twins. Isn't this also scientific evidence of such a likelihood for Adam and Eve that they also had many children even before Seth was born?
I think your synopsis of the meaning of "Adam", which is related to red, to earth, and is sometimes plural was well done, but it is certainly no indication that Adam was not a real singular living created being, created by God from dust in his own image. In fact, it would suggest that he was created from the earth itself, wouldn't it.
An explanation would be valuable, of why Genesis 4:26 would say that at the time of Enosh, Seth's son, men began to call on the name of the Lord, when obviously Abel and Cain were already sacrificing to God much earlier. At least this should highlight the value of context in understanding the meaning of a phrase or verse.
Posted in: Science and Faith on Campus and in the Church
I'm not a campus minister. But I have attended both secular and Christian campuses as a student. I've obtained degrees in both the ARTS and in Science. So maybe you will accept some of my comments. I appreciate your attempt to create peace between scientists and the religious. It might work for some. But I would suggest that until people realize that the conflict is not really between science and faith, they will continue to have the wrong kinds of conflict. The real conflict is between good and evil, between truth and falsehood, between seeking the supremacy of God vs the supremacy of man. The conflict is really in essence today not between science and faith, but between random never-ending evolution and God's hand in creation. The conflict is between a materialistic world view and a world view that allows the concept of God to intervene.
Whether scripture is read as poetry or as literal events depends not first of all on science, but mostly on world-view. Even the idea that the struggle is between faith and science is one that is encouraged by those who want to discredit faith, while Satan knows full well that both science and scripture have been used illegitimately to promote lies and falsehoods. Today, the sun still rises in the east and sets in the west, even though we know that the earth cycles around the sun. It is difficult to separate the literal from the figurative in this case, since our physical worldview sees the rising of the sun daily, and the cycling only through repeated observations and calculations. Therefore the figurative explanation does not contradict what we know to be true. We don't really know what the sky looked like before the flood, at a time when there was not yet any rain on the earth. It is difficult to imagine the impacts of the global flood upon the earth, or the circumstances that accompanied it.
The evolutionary worldview can only see or be comfortable in a particular parameter of scientific examination; mostly this is because for evolutionary scientists, any question of intervention by God is a non-scientific question and thus ineligible in the discussion. In addition, for many (not all)evolutionary scientists, their scientific approach which relegates God to irrelevance, has made even a belief in God absolute anathema, and thus their scientific objections to non-evolutionary approaches are in reality religious objections, not scientific objections. Their objections to alternative explanations become emotional rather than scientific, because they have too much psychologically invested in their evolutionary atheism.
It is not science vs faith. Science leads to better crops, better machinery, micro-wave ovens, trains and planes, and the internet. None of this is against faith. The issue is truth vs falsehood, good vs evil, God vs Satan, the relevance of God vs the irrelevance of a god.
Posted in: When Churches Start Becoming Experts on Pipelines, Does That Mean Oil Companies Can Become Experts on Theology?
So, is Kairos position valid, or is it unbalanced? Should the CRCNA really belong to an organization such as Kairos? I suggest we dissassociate from it if it does not present a more balanced perspective. According to the news article, it claims to be neutral on the pipeline, but that is clearly not the case when it comes down to the issues it talks about and how it discusses those issues.
Posted in: The Loophole: Losing Your Ordination Without Cause
I don't know the details of your case. But on the face of it classis should not be able to release you from ministerial office before two years have elapsed from the time of release from the congregation. Unless the process of evaluation and assistance indicated a sooner release was advisable.
Article 17
a. Ministers who are neither eligible for retirement nor worthy of discipline
may for weighty reasons be released from active ministerial service in
a congregation through action initiated by themselves, by a council, or
jointly. Such release shall be given only with the approval of classis, with
the concurring advice of the synodical deputies, and in accordance with
synodical regulations.
—Cf. Supplement, Article 17-a (process for evaluation and assistance and determination)
b. The council shall provide for the support of a released minister in such a
way and for such a time as shall receive the approval of classis.
c. A minister of the Word who has been released from active ministerial
service in a congregation shall be eligible for call for a period of two years,
after which time the classis, with the concurring advice of the synodical
deputies, shall declare the minister to be released from the ministerial office.
For weighty reasons the classis, with the concurring advice of the synodical
deputies, may extend the eligibility for call on a yearly basis.
d. In some situations, the classis may decide that it cannot declare the
released minister eligible for call after the minister has completed the
process of evaluation and assistance. The classis, with the concurring
advice of the synodical deputies, shall then declare the minister to be
released from ministerial office.
Posted in: So What Is "Prophetic"?
Bev, it's a good question, and I don't know the answer. It certainly seems like a warning to us. Don't take your children for granted. Don't assume too much with regard to their faith. Children are always our prime mission field.
But we can also take some encouragement.... sometimes the sons did follow the faith of their fathers. And sometimes... I'm now thinking of Hezekiah and his son Manasseh, where Manasseh re-installed the idols and false gods his father had destroyed, but... then when Manasseh was in trouble, was captured, and when he returned from his own exile, he returned to God as well.
When we are busy with careers, work, making money, even with preaching or church work or missions, we should not forget that our children need our witness and our attention. If the lost soul in Kenya needs our attention, then our young children also need the same attention. Our children too have the questions, insecurities, struggles about who God is in their lives. How we respond when they are young, is probably most impacting.
Deuteronomy talks about binding the law on your forehead and doorpost, and partly that was to remind oneself, but also it was the way to teach the children. Well, only part of the way. You can do all of that, but the follow up is needed to explain it and to live it. And to pray for your children. I've read somewhere that a parent first prayed for his child when she was still in the womb. And what did he pray? that she would come to love the Lord. and that she would find a godly husband. Seems a bit premature, doesn't it? but it sets the tone for what is the most important thing in your life, and the life of your child. So imagine that your witness to that child begins already before she is born, and continues throughout.
Posted in: When Churches Start Becoming Experts on Pipelines, Does That Mean Oil Companies Can Become Experts on Theology?
The link to the national post editorial is here: and I've included a small quote from this editorial. If Kairos is thinking like this, then I'm not sure why we would want to be a member of it. The United Church has lost about fifty percent of its members in the last 50 years; it does not seem to be a good example to follow.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/16/national-post-editorial-board-the-united-church-should-focus-on-faith-not-activism/
"....As was widely expected, the council has chosen to put politics ahead of matters of faith. Indeed, it is getting harder to tell where the church ends and a budding left-wing political party begins.
On Tuesday, the church voted to “categorically oppose” the Northern Gateway pipeline. That hardly seems like a religious matter. Nor do other resolutions to be voted on, including the church’s position of raising the eligibility for Old Age Security or Canadian mining operations in Asia.
But nowhere is this truer than with regard to the United Church’s stance on Israel...."
Posted in: The Loophole: Losing Your Ordination Without Cause
I should also point out the inconsistency in this article 17 which seems to indicate a release "without cause or fault", and yet leaves a great deal of decision in the hands of classis to determine over the ordination or calling of someone, without identifying a justifiable reason. In essence, this is a useless article. If a pastor is let go by a church, then he may remain ordained, but can only operate in any case under the jurisdiction of some local church. If no local church authorizes him, then his ordination will more or less lapse. If classis "releases" him, this can easily be revoked by some church calling him and requesting "re-ordination", since he was released "amicably", and not "deposed". This article largely adds process and protocol without essential and elemental effect. imho.