Your article was really pertinent, Ryan. Well written too.
I was recently involved in a conversation where three aspects or emphases of christian perspective often found in the crc were mentioned. These included doctrinalism (having your beliefs right), pietism (living right before God), and transformationalism (changing the world, or Christ changing the world's institutions and relationships). What we need to understand as Christians is how these three aspects fit together. We need to start with good doctrine. For example, if we say that we can earn our own way to heaven by our good works, then our living right and our transformation of education and work and the government will be in vain. After we have our doctrine right, then we can understand the purpose of true piety, which is to repent and bring glory to God. In addition, as book of James says, faith without works is dead. Doctrine needs not just to be believed, but to be lived. The transforming of society or of institutions (Christian schools, labor associations, christian farmers federation, etc.) is an extension of the transformation of our own selves. We cannot sidestep our own personal morality by focussing our attention on outward institutions. Conversely, we cannot be truly pious personally, if we ignore God's claims on all aspects of our life, which includes how we educate our children, how we do our work, and how we impliment laws in society. All three of these aspects of our faith life are equally important in the life of each Christ follower. Transformation of belief, leads to transformation of our life, leads to transformation of the world around us.
The Belhar will not change churches moving to different places, unless the churches have a mission to reach others. If they do have a mission to reach others, the Belhar will not be necessary. I think if preachers lack the courage to preach scripture, or to live from scripture, and if people consider their wealth and comfort more important that their neighbors, then they are not listening to scripture. If they do not listen to scripture, why in the world would they ever listen to the Belhar? That logic escapes me.
I'm very surprised that you feel that you cannot preach on the Belhar merely because it is not in the back of the hymnal. It is not really the belhar that should be preached on anyway, but certainly if the themes are valid and the principles are scriptural what would be stopping you from preaching on those themes or applying scripture in a practical way?
Other confessions were born out of life and death issues, usually in great turmoil, persecution, and earth-shaking times. The Belhar comes at a time when most of the principles it espouses are already supported by laws of our countries. The adoption of the Belhar is more of a whitewash over our own actions and attitudes. It is a way of looking good, rather than being good. And because it follows society, rather than leading it, our motives are suspect. And because it follows society, it will have a tendency to follow society down the broad path to destruction, rather than following Christ down the narrow path to God's will.
One other thought: What is our great concern with empathizing with people in south africa, if we do not first have concern with our own motives with regard to our very neighbors. Is it easier to claim we believe what they believe as long as they live far away, but if we had to apply this to our everyday lives, particularly from a misssional perspective, then we would change the subject?
I have had one son and his wife adopt a child from Haiti, another son and wife adopt three boys from Russia, and we adopted an aboriginal child. There are others who have done similar things both in the CRC and in many other denominations. This was not because of the Belhar, or adopting some other foreign testimony or confession, but because of understanding God's call to us to be a witness, to demonstrate Christ's love, which scipture is clear on. Perhaps convicted thru preaching, or thru bible study, or thru personal devotions and prayer.
It is good to talk about these things, but not under the cover of adopting a piece of paper, when instead we should be adopting real people.
Good comments, Colin. As to a gift.... when someone gifts you a book, you will probably keep it, but you don't have to put in on your night-table. And if someone gifts you a hymnal, that doesn't mean that you have to replace your own hymnal, or purchase copies of the gift to sit side by side with your own. This Belhar can be received, appreciated, etc., without making it another form of governance for us.
I think Randy's and Ken's comments are very appropriate and relevant. And Colin's comments also. Is the Belhar important? No, not really. Not in our context. It was born of a different need, and speaks to a different ethos. And it is being manipulated towards a different agenda. We will not be better for adopting it, and will not be worse for not adopting it. As Colin said, "they will simply carry on and ignore it completely".
We need to obey the important commandments, including to love our neighbor as ourself. This is much more inclusive, and in a much better context than the Belhar, if it is preached properly.
I appreciate your comments, Ken. As far as empathy goes, hmm, I do. That's why I think action matters more than words. To love is to do. To do, without love is yes, nothing. To say you love, but not demonstrate it by your actions, is falsehood and empty. Don't you think?
If I implied that you don't understand scripture, then I apologize for that misunderstanding.
Re: Jon's question about number of churches and members: the stats show that the highest number of crc members was 316,000 in 1992(and declining steadily since to 251,000), while the highest number of churches was 1099 in 2012. Highest number of families was in 1991, although that is more stable factor. The higher number of evangelism growth was somewhat steady since 1996, while the highest reversion year was 2009. Highest transfers out was in 1995.
Daniel, I appreciate your disagreement because I can sense it comes from good motives. However, perhaps our media and popular perception of race seems to color our perspective too much. Think about this. You asked about our approach to aboriginals? I will ask how does our approach to Aboriginals compare to our approach to Italians, to Ukranians, to Germans, to Russians, to Hutterites or Amish, or to Norwegians?
I maintain that it is not a race thing, but a love thing. Perhaps we have defined our neighbor as narrowly as the pharisees, sometimes, in order to avoid the commandment to love.
If we were worried about race, we would get confused. If we help the needy and treat all people as people, then we will be less confused.
In our church, we have a number of aboriginal children, either adopted or foster children. But we didn't do that because of some race issue, we do that because they need help and we have decided to help whoever needs it, within our capacity.
The Belhar would be an entire waste of time for our congregation, and would divert us from the real opportunities for ministering to others.
I think rather than counting members, we ought to be counting attendance. The RomC church often has only 10% of its membership attending church. On the other hand, some Alliance churches have twice as many people attending as they have members. National statistics indicate that half to two-thirds of members of churches are "inactive". Attendance is a much better indicator of church health than mere membership, it seems to me. Members who attend every week are more likely to be lively than those who attend twice a year. Attenders who are not members are sometimes more active and lively than some members.
Posted in: What Is the Gospel?
Which of the three legs is most commonly ignored or denied, in your opinion, Greg?
Posted in: The Gospel Affects Everything
Your article was really pertinent, Ryan. Well written too.
I was recently involved in a conversation where three aspects or emphases of christian perspective often found in the crc were mentioned. These included doctrinalism (having your beliefs right), pietism (living right before God), and transformationalism (changing the world, or Christ changing the world's institutions and relationships). What we need to understand as Christians is how these three aspects fit together. We need to start with good doctrine. For example, if we say that we can earn our own way to heaven by our good works, then our living right and our transformation of education and work and the government will be in vain. After we have our doctrine right, then we can understand the purpose of true piety, which is to repent and bring glory to God. In addition, as book of James says, faith without works is dead. Doctrine needs not just to be believed, but to be lived. The transforming of society or of institutions (Christian schools, labor associations, christian farmers federation, etc.) is an extension of the transformation of our own selves. We cannot sidestep our own personal morality by focussing our attention on outward institutions. Conversely, we cannot be truly pious personally, if we ignore God's claims on all aspects of our life, which includes how we educate our children, how we do our work, and how we impliment laws in society. All three of these aspects of our faith life are equally important in the life of each Christ follower. Transformation of belief, leads to transformation of our life, leads to transformation of the world around us.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
The Belhar will not change churches moving to different places, unless the churches have a mission to reach others. If they do have a mission to reach others, the Belhar will not be necessary. I think if preachers lack the courage to preach scripture, or to live from scripture, and if people consider their wealth and comfort more important that their neighbors, then they are not listening to scripture. If they do not listen to scripture, why in the world would they ever listen to the Belhar? That logic escapes me.
I'm very surprised that you feel that you cannot preach on the Belhar merely because it is not in the back of the hymnal. It is not really the belhar that should be preached on anyway, but certainly if the themes are valid and the principles are scriptural what would be stopping you from preaching on those themes or applying scripture in a practical way?
Other confessions were born out of life and death issues, usually in great turmoil, persecution, and earth-shaking times. The Belhar comes at a time when most of the principles it espouses are already supported by laws of our countries. The adoption of the Belhar is more of a whitewash over our own actions and attitudes. It is a way of looking good, rather than being good. And because it follows society, rather than leading it, our motives are suspect. And because it follows society, it will have a tendency to follow society down the broad path to destruction, rather than following Christ down the narrow path to God's will.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
One other thought: What is our great concern with empathizing with people in south africa, if we do not first have concern with our own motives with regard to our very neighbors. Is it easier to claim we believe what they believe as long as they live far away, but if we had to apply this to our everyday lives, particularly from a misssional perspective, then we would change the subject?
I have had one son and his wife adopt a child from Haiti, another son and wife adopt three boys from Russia, and we adopted an aboriginal child. There are others who have done similar things both in the CRC and in many other denominations. This was not because of the Belhar, or adopting some other foreign testimony or confession, but because of understanding God's call to us to be a witness, to demonstrate Christ's love, which scipture is clear on. Perhaps convicted thru preaching, or thru bible study, or thru personal devotions and prayer.
It is good to talk about these things, but not under the cover of adopting a piece of paper, when instead we should be adopting real people.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
Randy, this was well said. Thanks.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
thanks for the reminder about prayer, Bev.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
Good comments, Colin. As to a gift.... when someone gifts you a book, you will probably keep it, but you don't have to put in on your night-table. And if someone gifts you a hymnal, that doesn't mean that you have to replace your own hymnal, or purchase copies of the gift to sit side by side with your own. This Belhar can be received, appreciated, etc., without making it another form of governance for us.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
I think Randy's and Ken's comments are very appropriate and relevant. And Colin's comments also. Is the Belhar important? No, not really. Not in our context. It was born of a different need, and speaks to a different ethos. And it is being manipulated towards a different agenda. We will not be better for adopting it, and will not be worse for not adopting it. As Colin said, "they will simply carry on and ignore it completely".
We need to obey the important commandments, including to love our neighbor as ourself. This is much more inclusive, and in a much better context than the Belhar, if it is preached properly.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
I appreciate your comments, Ken. As far as empathy goes, hmm, I do. That's why I think action matters more than words. To love is to do. To do, without love is yes, nothing. To say you love, but not demonstrate it by your actions, is falsehood and empty. Don't you think?
If I implied that you don't understand scripture, then I apologize for that misunderstanding.
Posted in: Should we Plant More Churches?
Re: Jon's question about number of churches and members: the stats show that the highest number of crc members was 316,000 in 1992(and declining steadily since to 251,000), while the highest number of churches was 1099 in 2012. Highest number of families was in 1991, although that is more stable factor. The higher number of evangelism growth was somewhat steady since 1996, while the highest reversion year was 2009. Highest transfers out was in 1995.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
Daniel, I appreciate your disagreement because I can sense it comes from good motives. However, perhaps our media and popular perception of race seems to color our perspective too much. Think about this. You asked about our approach to aboriginals? I will ask how does our approach to Aboriginals compare to our approach to Italians, to Ukranians, to Germans, to Russians, to Hutterites or Amish, or to Norwegians?
I maintain that it is not a race thing, but a love thing. Perhaps we have defined our neighbor as narrowly as the pharisees, sometimes, in order to avoid the commandment to love.
If we were worried about race, we would get confused. If we help the needy and treat all people as people, then we will be less confused.
In our church, we have a number of aboriginal children, either adopted or foster children. But we didn't do that because of some race issue, we do that because they need help and we have decided to help whoever needs it, within our capacity.
The Belhar would be an entire waste of time for our congregation, and would divert us from the real opportunities for ministering to others.
Posted in: Should we Plant More Churches?
I think rather than counting members, we ought to be counting attendance. The RomC church often has only 10% of its membership attending church. On the other hand, some Alliance churches have twice as many people attending as they have members. National statistics indicate that half to two-thirds of members of churches are "inactive". Attendance is a much better indicator of church health than mere membership, it seems to me. Members who attend every week are more likely to be lively than those who attend twice a year. Attenders who are not members are sometimes more active and lively than some members.