Skip to main content

John Zylstra on September 9, 2011

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

The article by Alan Hirsch is a good one.  Thought provoking and well written. 

John Zylstra on December 2, 2013

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

Mark, acceptability perhaps ought not to be the primary criteria.... just sayin...   Unless it is acceptable first of all to Christ.  Jesus used the terms in a metaphorical way, even though, like you said, he clearly indicated that people were not maimed or blind or deaf because of their particular sin, nor even the sin of their parents.   That's clear.   When people say that some are physically blind because of lack of faith, they are not using a metaphor; they are simply  speaking untruth.  (Lying, or inaccurate)   Only the blind can perhaps truly understand the metaphor, since how can one who sees really understand what it is to be blind?   Thus the blind leading the blind.... but those blind think they can see, as Jesus said.   "Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say , We see...  But you remain guilty because you claim you can see"  (John 9:41). 

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. 

In reply to Greg, I want to say that I completely agree with you.   Perhaps you will allow me to reword or say it different with regard to one thing.  You used the phrase "correct doctrine without a gospel center".  While I agree with the sense of what you said, I think it is essentially not possible to have correct doctrine without a gospel center.  Correct doctrine must be centered on the gospel of salvation by Christ and in Christ.  However, I think you are also hinting perhaps at the fact that it is not enough merely to believe, since the devils believe and tremble.  It is necessary to accept God's gift in faith, and rejoice in it, in trust and obedience. 

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.  

John Zylstra on February 28, 2011

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

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. 

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. 

John Zylstra on March 6, 2011

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

Isaiah 58 is really good.  Of course, it should be; it's scripture... but it's appropriate too. 

Good point about block parties, Dan.   But I'm not sure the Belhar would solve that one.  The other thing is that much of the race issues you mentioned are political.   The reason that aboriginals in Canada are treated differently is because of constitutional issues, and that they want to be treated differently;  they want to maintain treaty rights and self-government based on race.  

At a personal level however, if you believe all peoples are the same before God, then you will act accordingly.   If we only concentrate on race, rather than on people, we will become reverse racists, which is still racism.   We will pay more attention to those with different colors of skin, than to those who have the same color of skin but different nationalities and languages.   Are we less racist if we help out the blacks vs the latinos?   Or help out the yellow skins vs the white russians? 

It is better just to look around and see who needs help, to whom you can witness, and then help and witness, rather than looking for or concentrating only on a different race, whatever that is. 

The Belhar is driven by race issues, and most of the language is colored by the baggage of that issue.   Periferally attached are other issues, but the language of social justice is not attached to a scriptural sense of justice as much as a system of rights, and now the Belhar is being used by some to condemn discrimination of any kind, even when the discrimination is based on moral and scriptural guidelines. 

Perhaps the Belhar does not serve any purpose whatsoever, and is distracting from real effort and Christian living by making a discussion out of it, rather than people paying attention to scripture and loving their neighbor.   I've wondered if the church seriously considered as a whole, making a mission effort out of adopting abandoned children and being foster parents to needy children, how much more success and obedience they would exhibit, than adopting a political statement like the Belhar, and then go on living much like they did before, aside from possibly writing a few political letters about equality, which minimizes and distracts from their personal involvement. 

John Zylstra on March 6, 2011

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

Randy, I appreciate and agree with all your comments (well except for women ordinates),  and I appreciate the way you have described your background.   I also find it beneficial to communicate and commune with christians from other denoinations, but I agree with you that doesn't mean that we always need institutional unity, or unity of formal written confessions.   Our unity is in Christ and in scripture. 

 

JOhn

John Zylstra on July 3, 2013

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

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. 

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post