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.
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.
To keep this a bit shorter I will try to be more concise:
God's sovereignty over this world includes politics, but I do not think confessions should be political statements.
Dan, it was previous generations that made the treaties, and for most Canadians, it was not our ancestors (nor WE) that made them. In the days when some of those treaties were made, France and England and Spain were exchanging lands between themselves like they were poker chips.
The political oppression of the reformed peoples was based on religion, not on race, and thus the confession to explain that religion was appropriate. Interesting how the reformed peoples also oppressed the anabaptists, and included statements within the confessions to seemingly justify that oppression.
I agree that the confessions should be appropriately used. Therefore we should not have too many of them to distract us from scripture.
I have no difficulty with political letters and supporting political causes. And you are right, you can do both. And if we were living in an apartheid system, or a slave society perhaps the political approach would be most appropriate. However, our constitution, labor practices, public policy do not support, and rather condemn racism and discrimination already. So it is at the personal level that we will have the most impact. The Belhar is like DonQuixote fighting imaginary windmills.
Again, rather than spend endless reams of paper on someone else's confession, why don't people put their money where their mouth is, and each family befriend, assist and/or protect a needy person or persons irrespective of race: some person or persons who are from a different culture, national heritage, ancestry, language. And in particular, volunteer to be a foster parent, or adopt one or two children. You will be amazed at how meaningless the Belhar becomes in that situation.
Good point, Rob. Some would say that this is why we would need the Belhar, but they are wrong. Mandates are more important for racist organizations, and are not useful for the CRC. I think it is a good idea to pay some attention to whether certain cultural or ethnic groups have enough representation, but I don't think it should be a mandated prescription, other than possibly in an informal sense to consider whether it would be valuable to have a Korean CRC representative on the BOT. Other leaders ought to be selected on their merits.
Coming from a background where my siblings and children are members of churches from eight different denominations, ranging from protestant reformed to baptist and pentecostal (but no anglicans nor rom cath), I have often asked myself what is God's purpose with regard to so many denominations or churches who all want to serve and worship the same Lord and Saviour. I'm not sure I have a very good answer, except maybe this, that personalities and personal quirks sometimes cause problems in one church situation, and another church situation can allow a method of worship and service that is more tempered to an individual at that time. Various disputable theologies and practices also play a role; we see changes sometimes in one denomination, but they happen too quickly or too slowly for some, or no change is desired. Sometimes history of experiences, or separation of family relationships, combined with a different worship environment, make old scriptural passages and applications take on a new life and vigour.
Underlying all of this, however, is the common purpose and unity that can exist between Christians in different churches and denominations. While differences are real, so is the unity also real. Sometimes there is greater unity between christians in different denominations or churches, than there is within one particular church. This might be because the focus changes to what unites, rather than to what separates, especially when churches want to work together.
This realization has also ocurred to me, that some churches have great theology, but members don't practice it, while other churches have sloppy or incomplete theology on paper, but members practice a great theology in daily life.
The different churches also allow some people to discover the essentials of the walk of faith, since they must separate their walk of faith from mere tradition, into a conscious discovery of God's will for their/our lives on a day to day basis with people who do not take their particular traditions for granted. This will bring them back to scripture and God's will on a deeper basis than they have ever perhaps done before.
Ken, I do believe your understanding of discrimination is different than scripture. The Psalms often talk about the wicked and the righteous, and the new testament advises to have nothing to do with certain people who cause dissensions. We may differ in judgement about who fits into what category, but that type of discrimination is what I call scriptural discrimination. Although there is always a desire and an opportunity to love people, there is also a need to discriminate in some cases based on actions and beliefs. We would not permit a buddhist to become an elder in our church, for example. This has nothing to do with us being better than buddhists.
As your example of the tower of babel illustrates, God uses divisions and separations for his own good purposes. Maybe this is also true within the church, not that we should be looking for divisions and contentions since scripture clearly indicates against that, but...
Last weekend, I heard an aboriginal Dene talk about his faith experiences. He had been a Rom Cath, somewhat nominal apparently, who embraced alcohol and eventually ended up in jail. But at one point he was given a bible by a Rom Cath priest, and began to read it. Then he became a Christian, receiving his "prayer" in the Pentecostal church. He has been a Christian for about 30 years (is now about 60yrs old), has left alcohol behind, and had a sister who became a Christian after 18 years of evangelism by him. He talks/preaches in churches of various denominations, and often feels rejected by his aboriginal relatives and friends, but perseveres. He knows his bible very, very well, having memorized some epistles completely.
I guess my point in this example, is that even though he is no longer a Rom Catholic because he wants to follow scripture and not follow a hierarchy nor a human tradition, he still acknowledges that God worked through that priest in order to bring scripture to him. That is where we ought also to have the humility to admit that God works thru means and ways that are sometimes beyond our categorizations, even though we ought to do the best we can to understand good theology and good practice in our walk of faith. I believe that sometimes the struggles themselves are exactly the means that God uses for his good purposes.
The tower of Babel was a sign of pride, but also of disobedience, since people were commanded to fill and replenish the earth, not hole up in some small corner to preserve their comfort... so God made them move and disperse by other means. It reminds me of the phrase, "every knee shall bow" to Christ; we will either acknowledge him in this life willingly, or we will be forced to acknowledge God in the next life, unwillingly.
We don't have to set it aside. We do not have to adopt it. We do not have to claim it as ours.
We need more action, less talk. Belhar is talk. The command to love our neighbors, to realize there is neither Jew nor Greek, has been around for 2000 years. It has been preached, discussed, dissected. If you really do it, then Belhar will become irrelevant. If scripture does not speak to you, then it is not likely that the Belhar will.
I think if ethnicity is the perceived problem about why only some ethnic communities get represented in some positions, then perhaps we have not looked closely at criteria used for "hiring" or appointing.
First, there needs to be a difference between criteria for different positions. Some positions ought to require a certain amount of writing and speaking as a background for selection. In some cases, this might favor one ethnic community over another, but the requirements should not be changed to solve this.
In other cases, the amount of formal writing and speaking engagements need not be a criteria at all. It may be an artificial uneccessary requirement that simply eliminates more qualified persons who have other talents or contributions to make. The determination of the criteria thus should be appropriate. I think this will help to remove ethnic barriers, and may also give a better selection even when ethnicity is not even at play.
There are two types of discrimination, Ken. One is based on outward appearances. The other is based on actions that come from the heart. Jesus pointed out that the sheep would be separated from the goats, and the wheat from the weeds. But I do agree that we do not have all the answers, nor can we see into the eye of the heart, and therefore we follow Jesus example to love all those who would be loved. However, when people use this non-discrimination policy to assume that Christians should not discriminate in their lives about how they live, or about which lifestyles they approve then that is a perversion of scripture. Even though we are all in the red, yes, that does not justify ignoring sin in our own lives, nor should we act as if we have no responsibility to speak against sin. If we ignore sin, then we are reducing God's claim on our lives. If we use the excuse of non-discrimination to reduce the significance of sinful lifestyles, then we are being phony. For after all, if sinful lifestyles do not demand require change or approbation, then why are we worried about discrimination as a sin? Racial discrimination is not the only sin.
Sam, your gardening analogy is interesting. I like my garden with potatoes as high as my pockets, and peas, beets, carrots doing their thing. Weeds are probably the biggest hindrance to growing a good garden, with fertility a big second, after moisture, of course. In your analogy, it would be interesting to imagine what the "weeds" are that we need to pull out, in order for the garden to thrive. And how do we pick these weeds without hurting the crop we want?
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
Isaiah 58 is really good. Of course, it should be; it's scripture... but it's appropriate too.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
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.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
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
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
To keep this a bit shorter I will try to be more concise:
God's sovereignty over this world includes politics, but I do not think confessions should be political statements.
Dan, it was previous generations that made the treaties, and for most Canadians, it was not our ancestors (nor WE) that made them. In the days when some of those treaties were made, France and England and Spain were exchanging lands between themselves like they were poker chips.
The political oppression of the reformed peoples was based on religion, not on race, and thus the confession to explain that religion was appropriate. Interesting how the reformed peoples also oppressed the anabaptists, and included statements within the confessions to seemingly justify that oppression.
I agree that the confessions should be appropriately used. Therefore we should not have too many of them to distract us from scripture.
I have no difficulty with political letters and supporting political causes. And you are right, you can do both. And if we were living in an apartheid system, or a slave society perhaps the political approach would be most appropriate. However, our constitution, labor practices, public policy do not support, and rather condemn racism and discrimination already. So it is at the personal level that we will have the most impact. The Belhar is like DonQuixote fighting imaginary windmills.
Again, rather than spend endless reams of paper on someone else's confession, why don't people put their money where their mouth is, and each family befriend, assist and/or protect a needy person or persons irrespective of race: some person or persons who are from a different culture, national heritage, ancestry, language. And in particular, volunteer to be a foster parent, or adopt one or two children. You will be amazed at how meaningless the Belhar becomes in that situation.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
Good point, Rob. Some would say that this is why we would need the Belhar, but they are wrong. Mandates are more important for racist organizations, and are not useful for the CRC. I think it is a good idea to pay some attention to whether certain cultural or ethnic groups have enough representation, but I don't think it should be a mandated prescription, other than possibly in an informal sense to consider whether it would be valuable to have a Korean CRC representative on the BOT. Other leaders ought to be selected on their merits.
Posted in: Bishop Whipple Takes Heart
Coming from a background where my siblings and children are members of churches from eight different denominations, ranging from protestant reformed to baptist and pentecostal (but no anglicans nor rom cath), I have often asked myself what is God's purpose with regard to so many denominations or churches who all want to serve and worship the same Lord and Saviour. I'm not sure I have a very good answer, except maybe this, that personalities and personal quirks sometimes cause problems in one church situation, and another church situation can allow a method of worship and service that is more tempered to an individual at that time. Various disputable theologies and practices also play a role; we see changes sometimes in one denomination, but they happen too quickly or too slowly for some, or no change is desired. Sometimes history of experiences, or separation of family relationships, combined with a different worship environment, make old scriptural passages and applications take on a new life and vigour.
Underlying all of this, however, is the common purpose and unity that can exist between Christians in different churches and denominations. While differences are real, so is the unity also real. Sometimes there is greater unity between christians in different denominations or churches, than there is within one particular church. This might be because the focus changes to what unites, rather than to what separates, especially when churches want to work together.
This realization has also ocurred to me, that some churches have great theology, but members don't practice it, while other churches have sloppy or incomplete theology on paper, but members practice a great theology in daily life.
The different churches also allow some people to discover the essentials of the walk of faith, since they must separate their walk of faith from mere tradition, into a conscious discovery of God's will for their/our lives on a day to day basis with people who do not take their particular traditions for granted. This will bring them back to scripture and God's will on a deeper basis than they have ever perhaps done before.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
Ken, I do believe your understanding of discrimination is different than scripture. The Psalms often talk about the wicked and the righteous, and the new testament advises to have nothing to do with certain people who cause dissensions. We may differ in judgement about who fits into what category, but that type of discrimination is what I call scriptural discrimination. Although there is always a desire and an opportunity to love people, there is also a need to discriminate in some cases based on actions and beliefs. We would not permit a buddhist to become an elder in our church, for example. This has nothing to do with us being better than buddhists.
Posted in: Bishop Whipple Takes Heart
As your example of the tower of babel illustrates, God uses divisions and separations for his own good purposes. Maybe this is also true within the church, not that we should be looking for divisions and contentions since scripture clearly indicates against that, but...
Last weekend, I heard an aboriginal Dene talk about his faith experiences. He had been a Rom Cath, somewhat nominal apparently, who embraced alcohol and eventually ended up in jail. But at one point he was given a bible by a Rom Cath priest, and began to read it. Then he became a Christian, receiving his "prayer" in the Pentecostal church. He has been a Christian for about 30 years (is now about 60yrs old), has left alcohol behind, and had a sister who became a Christian after 18 years of evangelism by him. He talks/preaches in churches of various denominations, and often feels rejected by his aboriginal relatives and friends, but perseveres. He knows his bible very, very well, having memorized some epistles completely.
I guess my point in this example, is that even though he is no longer a Rom Catholic because he wants to follow scripture and not follow a hierarchy nor a human tradition, he still acknowledges that God worked through that priest in order to bring scripture to him. That is where we ought also to have the humility to admit that God works thru means and ways that are sometimes beyond our categorizations, even though we ought to do the best we can to understand good theology and good practice in our walk of faith. I believe that sometimes the struggles themselves are exactly the means that God uses for his good purposes.
The tower of Babel was a sign of pride, but also of disobedience, since people were commanded to fill and replenish the earth, not hole up in some small corner to preserve their comfort... so God made them move and disperse by other means. It reminds me of the phrase, "every knee shall bow" to Christ; we will either acknowledge him in this life willingly, or we will be forced to acknowledge God in the next life, unwillingly.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
We don't have to set it aside. We do not have to adopt it. We do not have to claim it as ours.
We need more action, less talk. Belhar is talk. The command to love our neighbors, to realize there is neither Jew nor Greek, has been around for 2000 years. It has been preached, discussed, dissected. If you really do it, then Belhar will become irrelevant. If scripture does not speak to you, then it is not likely that the Belhar will.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
I think if ethnicity is the perceived problem about why only some ethnic communities get represented in some positions, then perhaps we have not looked closely at criteria used for "hiring" or appointing.
First, there needs to be a difference between criteria for different positions. Some positions ought to require a certain amount of writing and speaking as a background for selection. In some cases, this might favor one ethnic community over another, but the requirements should not be changed to solve this.
In other cases, the amount of formal writing and speaking engagements need not be a criteria at all. It may be an artificial uneccessary requirement that simply eliminates more qualified persons who have other talents or contributions to make. The determination of the criteria thus should be appropriate. I think this will help to remove ethnic barriers, and may also give a better selection even when ethnicity is not even at play.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
There are two types of discrimination, Ken. One is based on outward appearances. The other is based on actions that come from the heart. Jesus pointed out that the sheep would be separated from the goats, and the wheat from the weeds. But I do agree that we do not have all the answers, nor can we see into the eye of the heart, and therefore we follow Jesus example to love all those who would be loved. However, when people use this non-discrimination policy to assume that Christians should not discriminate in their lives about how they live, or about which lifestyles they approve then that is a perversion of scripture. Even though we are all in the red, yes, that does not justify ignoring sin in our own lives, nor should we act as if we have no responsibility to speak against sin. If we ignore sin, then we are reducing God's claim on our lives. If we use the excuse of non-discrimination to reduce the significance of sinful lifestyles, then we are being phony. For after all, if sinful lifestyles do not demand require change or approbation, then why are we worried about discrimination as a sin? Racial discrimination is not the only sin.
Posted in: The Parable of the Neglectful Gardener
Sam, your gardening analogy is interesting. I like my garden with potatoes as high as my pockets, and peas, beets, carrots doing their thing. Weeds are probably the biggest hindrance to growing a good garden, with fertility a big second, after moisture, of course. In your analogy, it would be interesting to imagine what the "weeds" are that we need to pull out, in order for the garden to thrive. And how do we pick these weeds without hurting the crop we want?