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.
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
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 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.
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...."
So I really appreciate what Henry DeMoor has written as quoted above. The intent of church order and the respect given to it deserve some serious attention. But at the same time perhaps a few statements or concepts that Henry expressed need to be examined a bit further.
First, the statement "some of the same old rules had to be smuggled back in through the back door in order to combat disorder and anarchy in the now-Protestant churches" is making an assumption that these old rules "had" to be smuggled back in, rather than that the leadership felt uncomfortable without some of them. To distinguish in this is not always easy. Perhaps some were necessary, and others were simply attractive. How do we distinguish? """How
Second, "Biblically based [church order] keeps us from repeating history's mistakes. " I would argue that this sounds good, but is not entirely true. It is not absolutely impossible to either ignore parts of the church order, or to change it from being biblically based, to a man-based church order. In other words, if our social and cultural desires make us uncomfortable with the church order, our inclination is often to change it, looking for obscure scriptural validation. The church order by itself is a guide, but our committment to it, and to making sure that it is indeed scriptural and necessary, and leading to edification, is really what will keep us from making history's mistakes. Our assumption that our church order is biblically based does not mean that it really is. The Roman Catholic church assumed that their order was biblically based, but it wasn't.
Third, "Without articles of church order as banks along the way, the waters of ministry flow chaotically. " An interesting analogy, that makes me smile.... Naturalists would suggest that it is important for rivers to overflow their banks occasionally to enhance the growth of riparian areas. Some have suggested that the church in Acts 2 was pretty chaotic, and was yet perhaps the greatest occasion of growth of the body of Christ at that time. River deltas are low areas where a river splits up and spreads out into many different streams, often flooding and fertilizing the land between these streams before reaching the ocean. It may be that river deltas where river banks are very low or non-existent are often the most productive part of the river. Maybe this also applies to the body of Christ as embodied in our various ecclesia.
A recent example of the inadequacies of the church order, is the deposition or release of a minister who had taken on another occupation. Besides being entirely unscriptural, it misses the point of what it means to be a minister. For example, the apostle Paul continued in his tent-making while he preached. And didn't he also take a three year hiatus in his ministry before he resumed his preaching after his conversion?
But, what does it really mean to be a "minister"? A servant, right? diakono, right? The point is not whether they have taken on another occupation. Does that mean they are no longer qualified to baptise or lead communion, or to preach? Or even to revert back their occupation to that of a pastor or preaching elder? What does another occupation have to do with that?
So to me in this case the church order is spiritually disfunctional. And the proclamations of a classis in this regard are after the fact. They don't "release". They simply "acknowledge" what has already happened. And illegitimately suppose that someone who was previously qualified to preach, is now unqualified? someone who previously performed baptisms is now unqualified? simply on the basis of taking on another occupation? Not on the basis of some actual dereliction of duty, or moral failure, or theological heresy? to me this is absurd and meaningless. or perhaps beaurocratic "double-speak".
David raises some very good points. What is word and deed ministry? The Word says that true religion is to look after the orphans and widows (the poor), those who are less fortunate. But why is this? It is because we are to "love those of the household of faith", and to "love our neighbor as ourself". Jesus asked us to even love our enemies. How do we know that we love God?
"11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters,[b] if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.
16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth. "
Changing administration will not necessarily improve the connecttion between word and deed. It might, but it is mostly about an attitude. The same attitude that causes us to share material possessions also causes us to share the good news of salvation. Jesus even asked us to use our worldly possessions and goods to reap treasures in heaven.... how? by opening doors to the gospel of Christ, by leading others to the love of God. Be wise as serpents.... but for the good of our neighbor. And for the honor of God's name.
That attitude will cause those in home missions to talk to those in the Back to God hour. That attitude will cause those in CRWRC to talk to those in foreign missions and home missions, and vice versa. Pick up the phone. Have a video conference. Cooperate. Seek better solutions. Seek the welfare of the other agency or group, to help them achieve their task. In so doing, you will achieve your own vision. Because ultimately everyone has the same vision. Bringing people to the love of Christ.
I don't know what Dan is going to say to respond, but my thoughts are that a lack of innovation and independance from various angles and opportunities to carry out different approaches will stunt and inhibit the ability of people to try different things, in essence, will stop them or hinder them from being able to follow the leading of the spirit. As Dan's example showed happened as a result of a stamp of approval or lack of it from CRWM. If the idea of concentrating 90% of funding on church planting is valid, it should be encouraged, persuaded, and agreed to rather than hierarchically forced, and then the spirit will lead people in that direction to serve and minister and support that type of service. But I'm sure they will have more well-thought responses.
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: 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: 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 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"?
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: DeMoor Sept 9 Banner Article on Order.
So I really appreciate what Henry DeMoor has written as quoted above. The intent of church order and the respect given to it deserve some serious attention. But at the same time perhaps a few statements or concepts that Henry expressed need to be examined a bit further.
First, the statement "some of the same old rules had to be smuggled back in through the back door in order to combat disorder and anarchy in the now-Protestant churches" is making an assumption that these old rules "had" to be smuggled back in, rather than that the leadership felt uncomfortable without some of them. To distinguish in this is not always easy. Perhaps some were necessary, and others were simply attractive. How do we distinguish? """How
Second, "Biblically based [church order] keeps us from repeating history's mistakes. " I would argue that this sounds good, but is not entirely true. It is not absolutely impossible to either ignore parts of the church order, or to change it from being biblically based, to a man-based church order. In other words, if our social and cultural desires make us uncomfortable with the church order, our inclination is often to change it, looking for obscure scriptural validation. The church order by itself is a guide, but our committment to it, and to making sure that it is indeed scriptural and necessary, and leading to edification, is really what will keep us from making history's mistakes. Our assumption that our church order is biblically based does not mean that it really is. The Roman Catholic church assumed that their order was biblically based, but it wasn't.
Third, "Without articles of church order as banks along the way, the waters of ministry flow chaotically. " An interesting analogy, that makes me smile.... Naturalists would suggest that it is important for rivers to overflow their banks occasionally to enhance the growth of riparian areas. Some have suggested that the church in Acts 2 was pretty chaotic, and was yet perhaps the greatest occasion of growth of the body of Christ at that time. River deltas are low areas where a river splits up and spreads out into many different streams, often flooding and fertilizing the land between these streams before reaching the ocean. It may be that river deltas where river banks are very low or non-existent are often the most productive part of the river. Maybe this also applies to the body of Christ as embodied in our various ecclesia.
Posted in: DeMoor Sept 9 Banner Article on Order.
A recent example of the inadequacies of the church order, is the deposition or release of a minister who had taken on another occupation. Besides being entirely unscriptural, it misses the point of what it means to be a minister. For example, the apostle Paul continued in his tent-making while he preached. And didn't he also take a three year hiatus in his ministry before he resumed his preaching after his conversion?
But, what does it really mean to be a "minister"? A servant, right? diakono, right? The point is not whether they have taken on another occupation. Does that mean they are no longer qualified to baptise or lead communion, or to preach? Or even to revert back their occupation to that of a pastor or preaching elder? What does another occupation have to do with that?
So to me in this case the church order is spiritually disfunctional. And the proclamations of a classis in this regard are after the fact. They don't "release". They simply "acknowledge" what has already happened. And illegitimately suppose that someone who was previously qualified to preach, is now unqualified? someone who previously performed baptisms is now unqualified? simply on the basis of taking on another occupation? Not on the basis of some actual dereliction of duty, or moral failure, or theological heresy? to me this is absurd and meaningless. or perhaps beaurocratic "double-speak".
I would love for someone to explain this to me.
Posted in: Together Again? Word and Deed
David raises some very good points. What is word and deed ministry? The Word says that true religion is to look after the orphans and widows (the poor), those who are less fortunate. But why is this? It is because we are to "love those of the household of faith", and to "love our neighbor as ourself". Jesus asked us to even love our enemies. How do we know that we love God?
"11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters,[b] if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.
16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth. "
Changing administration will not necessarily improve the connecttion between word and deed. It might, but it is mostly about an attitude. The same attitude that causes us to share material possessions also causes us to share the good news of salvation. Jesus even asked us to use our worldly possessions and goods to reap treasures in heaven.... how? by opening doors to the gospel of Christ, by leading others to the love of God. Be wise as serpents.... but for the good of our neighbor. And for the honor of God's name.
That attitude will cause those in home missions to talk to those in the Back to God hour. That attitude will cause those in CRWRC to talk to those in foreign missions and home missions, and vice versa. Pick up the phone. Have a video conference. Cooperate. Seek better solutions. Seek the welfare of the other agency or group, to help them achieve their task. In so doing, you will achieve your own vision. Because ultimately everyone has the same vision. Bringing people to the love of Christ.
Posted in: Together Again? Word and Deed
I don't know what Dan is going to say to respond, but my thoughts are that a lack of innovation and independance from various angles and opportunities to carry out different approaches will stunt and inhibit the ability of people to try different things, in essence, will stop them or hinder them from being able to follow the leading of the spirit. As Dan's example showed happened as a result of a stamp of approval or lack of it from CRWM. If the idea of concentrating 90% of funding on church planting is valid, it should be encouraged, persuaded, and agreed to rather than hierarchically forced, and then the spirit will lead people in that direction to serve and minister and support that type of service. But I'm sure they will have more well-thought responses.
Posted in: DeMoor Sept 9 Banner Article on Order.
I see that some questions are difficult to answer. Hmmnn....