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.
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.
It seems to me that saying that we should respect the Quran the way Moslems respect it, reveals an ignorance of how moslems really regard the quran. We can understand how they respect it, but the only way to respect it the way they do is to accept Mohammed as the true prophet of Allah, and to follow all the precepts and commands in the quran. Which we cannot do.
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 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.
Posted in: The Quran and the Mission of the Church
It seems to me that saying that we should respect the Quran the way Moslems respect it, reveals an ignorance of how moslems really regard the quran. We can understand how they respect it, but the only way to respect it the way they do is to accept Mohammed as the true prophet of Allah, and to follow all the precepts and commands in the quran. Which we cannot do.