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.
First, I think that the supplement and the original article 17 ought to be amalgamated, and placed in sequence so that confusion is greatly reduced. Then it also becomes more obvious how convoluted it is, and how it attempts to do two contradictory things at once, which is hinted at in article 17d. On the one hand, no blame, just a disharmony of purpose. On the other hand counseling and therapy. And possibility of discontinuation of ordination/ministry.
The essence of ordination is ministry. This applies to all offices. If ministry is not engaged in, then offices are not exercised, regardless of title. The essence of pastoral/preaching ministry is that a church is required to be served. If such a church does not manifest, and if duties or tasks of office are not exercised/performed then the ministry is absent. Thus article 17 becomes a process of relatively little significance. If it releases someone under article 17, then it is possible to request re-instatement, upon the request of a church who wishes to call the individual, since no blame or fault has been assessed.
But then we have this whole business about counseling and therapy, implying some kind of problem. And the article and supplement suggests that classis may simply declare the preacher ineligible for call, and declare him released, without indicating any reasons. Thus we have a contradictory scenario within this article/supplement, which is not clarified as well as it should be.
But, the article ought to be eliminated. If counseling and therapy lead to the determination that the man is unsuitable for office in the opinion of classis, then this should be mentioned, and should not be so ambiguous. It should become part of article for deposition.
In our present society, we so often have people who resign, or are laid off, rather than fired for cause, that the practice has entered the church as well. I don't know if this practice is speaking the truth in love, although I admit the intention is to cause the least possible hurt.
If article 17 was not voluntarily requested (which might be self-discipline) then certainly it is a form of discipline by others.
An article in the Halifax Herald points out the hypocrisy of the United Church of Canada in its stand against Israel and its settlements, and its call for a boycotte With all the other bad situations in the middle east, the United Church, and Kairos, often choose to focus solely on Israel. Why? because they are so bad? no, but because they are perhaps vulnerable to western opinions. In the meantime....
"....Palestinians in Jordan face serious repression, including having their citizenships revoked by authorities. It’s worse still in Lebanon, where Palestinians have faced apartheid conditions for decades, expressly denied economic, social and political equal rights. Palestinians in other Arab countries also face injustices.
Meanwhile, Christian Copts in Egypt have been under assault by Muslim fundamentalists for years. Thousands have reportedly fled the country in fear for their lives. In Syria, a brutal regime has massacred its own citizens for daring to ask for political rights that members of the United Church of Canada take for granted."
Hello? Will the United Church of Canada now work up reports calling for boycotts of products from those countries?
Don’t hold your breath.
I’ve heard the boycott against Israeli settlement goods defended on the grounds that Israel is a democracy and so should be held to a higher standard. In other words, I guess, you shouldn’t “expect” better from places like Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Syria. If you’re suffering injustice in those places, too bad, so sad, but if it’ll make you feel better, I’m boycotting Israeli settlement wine, don’t you know.
The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics released data last month showing the number of Palestinians employed within Israeli settlements climbed to 15,000 from 13,000 in the second quarter. I guess the United Church of Canada wants to put those Palestinians out of work.
I don’t mean to smear church-going, rank-and-file members of the United Church of Canada, by the way. This boycott was approved by the church’s general council, despite a recent survey showing 76 per cent of their own membership thought they should stay out of or remain neutral about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sixty-five per cent blamed both sides — Israelis and Palestinians — equally for the dispute....." (by schneidereit)
In the context you are indicating, I wonder if perhaps the biggest benefit of the confessions, is to use them as a way of teaching about scripture. In other words, the confessions are really about scripture; they do not exist unto themselves. Often we seem to go the other way around, to use scripture as a way of justifying or defending the confessions; many people would want to bypass this approach, since ultimately the confessions themselves are not the issue. They want to get directly to what scripture says about God, about Jesus, and about their relationship to God. The confessions help in this, but are not an end in themselves.
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: 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.
Posted in: The Loophole: Losing Your Ordination Without Cause
First, I think that the supplement and the original article 17 ought to be amalgamated, and placed in sequence so that confusion is greatly reduced. Then it also becomes more obvious how convoluted it is, and how it attempts to do two contradictory things at once, which is hinted at in article 17d. On the one hand, no blame, just a disharmony of purpose. On the other hand counseling and therapy. And possibility of discontinuation of ordination/ministry.
The essence of ordination is ministry. This applies to all offices. If ministry is not engaged in, then offices are not exercised, regardless of title. The essence of pastoral/preaching ministry is that a church is required to be served. If such a church does not manifest, and if duties or tasks of office are not exercised/performed then the ministry is absent. Thus article 17 becomes a process of relatively little significance. If it releases someone under article 17, then it is possible to request re-instatement, upon the request of a church who wishes to call the individual, since no blame or fault has been assessed.
But then we have this whole business about counseling and therapy, implying some kind of problem. And the article and supplement suggests that classis may simply declare the preacher ineligible for call, and declare him released, without indicating any reasons. Thus we have a contradictory scenario within this article/supplement, which is not clarified as well as it should be.
But, the article ought to be eliminated. If counseling and therapy lead to the determination that the man is unsuitable for office in the opinion of classis, then this should be mentioned, and should not be so ambiguous. It should become part of article for deposition.
In our present society, we so often have people who resign, or are laid off, rather than fired for cause, that the practice has entered the church as well. I don't know if this practice is speaking the truth in love, although I admit the intention is to cause the least possible hurt.
If article 17 was not voluntarily requested (which might be self-discipline) then certainly it is a form of discipline by others.
Posted in: When Churches Start Becoming Experts on Pipelines, Does That Mean Oil Companies Can Become Experts on Theology?
An article in the Halifax Herald points out the hypocrisy of the United Church of Canada in its stand against Israel and its settlements, and its call for a boycotte With all the other bad situations in the middle east, the United Church, and Kairos, often choose to focus solely on Israel. Why? because they are so bad? no, but because they are perhaps vulnerable to western opinions. In the meantime....
"....Palestinians in Jordan face serious repression, including having their citizenships revoked by authorities. It’s worse still in Lebanon, where Palestinians have faced apartheid conditions for decades, expressly denied economic, social and political equal rights. Palestinians in other Arab countries also face injustices.
Meanwhile, Christian Copts in Egypt have been under assault by Muslim fundamentalists for years. Thousands have reportedly fled the country in fear for their lives. In Syria, a brutal regime has massacred its own citizens for daring to ask for political rights that members of the United Church of Canada take for granted."
Hello? Will the United Church of Canada now work up reports calling for boycotts of products from those countries?
Don’t hold your breath.
I’ve heard the boycott against Israeli settlement goods defended on the grounds that Israel is a democracy and so should be held to a higher standard. In other words, I guess, you shouldn’t “expect” better from places like Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Syria. If you’re suffering injustice in those places, too bad, so sad, but if it’ll make you feel better, I’m boycotting Israeli settlement wine, don’t you know.
The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics released data last month showing the number of Palestinians employed within Israeli settlements climbed to 15,000 from 13,000 in the second quarter. I guess the United Church of Canada wants to put those Palestinians out of work.
I don’t mean to smear church-going, rank-and-file members of the United Church of Canada, by the way. This boycott was approved by the church’s general council, despite a recent survey showing 76 per cent of their own membership thought they should stay out of or remain neutral about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sixty-five per cent blamed both sides — Israelis and Palestinians — equally for the dispute....." (by schneidereit)
http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/128501-schneidereit-united-church-of-canada-marching-with-the-hypocrites
Kairos and United Church stand on pipelines is also very selective. And as lacking in perspective.
Posted in: Young, Restless, Reformed, and ... Disgruntled?
In the context you are indicating, I wonder if perhaps the biggest benefit of the confessions, is to use them as a way of teaching about scripture. In other words, the confessions are really about scripture; they do not exist unto themselves. Often we seem to go the other way around, to use scripture as a way of justifying or defending the confessions; many people would want to bypass this approach, since ultimately the confessions themselves are not the issue. They want to get directly to what scripture says about God, about Jesus, and about their relationship to God. The confessions help in this, but are not an end in themselves.
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.