Another example of UN interference and lack of sense of perspective, was when a UN envoy came to Canada to evaluate the state of aboriginal reserves and living conditions, etc. Canadian aboriginals on reserves receive a higher financial aid per person compared to any other demographic group in Canada. They also are not required to pay any taxes while on the reserves. They also have access to federal and provincial services, including healthcare and education. The UN envoy could have discovered all of this simply by doing a few google searches. Yet this envoy had the temerity and lack of good sense to waste time investigating Canada's care for the aboriginal population, at the cost of ignoring situations in Kenya, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Guatemala, Cuba, Haiti, and many other countries. If this is a signal of priorities, you will not be surprised when a UN envoy comes to investigate disabled access at 2850 Grand Rapids, or the education curriculum for the disabled in Seatle, while ignoring or minimizing issues in India, North Korea, Pakistan, Kurdistan, and Nicaragua.
I work a bit in the area of climate change adaptation and mitigation, including offsets. So what I am about to say should be taken in that context. I suspect that people voted against proposition "a" because of its implications primarily, not first of all because the statement is absolutely untrue. The implications are that a near consensus means they must be right, and that if human activity is a cause, then human beings must 'fix" it at almost any cost. Proposition "a" says the same thing as proposition "b". So I think they were voting against adopting it as a statement, regardless whether "true" or false. But probably they also disagreed that human beings are having a significant impact.
They might also be disagreeing with statement "b", because while human induced climate change, if real, might be considered to have implications for humans interacting with each other, statement "b" appears to be directed towards the objectives of society and certain environmental extremists and activists. To say that it is religious is to imply that if someone disagrees or does not react, that they are not religious or ethical or just. They would disagree with this assertion. Particularly they would disagree with the proposition that it is a religious issue. Perhaps I could make the analogy that if it is a religious issue, then so was the construction and piloting of the Titanic a religious issue, and so is the construction of the overpass on the nearby highway also a religious issue. It is to say that there is nothing that is not religious, but in the context, what does this mean?...
Finally, I would like to add a side comment that I find the language used in this post rather insensitive, disrespectful, and unloving. We have had a couple other posters requested to stop posting for their manner of posting. I would suggest the same standard be applied to James Dekker, and that he be asked to stop posting for awhile on this and similar issues, unless and until he discovers the ability to refrain from using such phrases and terms as: "All I can think to say about that is “YIKES.” And pray for reasonableness and something other than mulishness. " and ..."despite unreasoned stubbornness " His phraseology is manipulative and disgraceful, in my opinion. . " "
I love the way you always manage to find new topics Mark, in your perpetual quest for more understanding of those needing a little extra help. The last sentence in your post made me wonder,... why is "handicapped" less acceptable than "disabled". It would seem that having a limit or "cap" on our handiness, might be less demeaning than being "dis" or "un" abled. Perhaps it is not good to get too hung up on it. But I am curious why one and not the other. Will disabled eventually receive some of the same undesireable connotations, and will we have to change that term in the future? Maybe the best term is wheelchair access. This would be good for anyone who needs a smooth gradual surface. Anyway, I appreciate your concerns. Having had some recent surgery, I had problems and great discomfort with steps for a couple days. For a few days I was looking for elevators, even though normally I don't use them unless forced, or more than three floors. Now I'm not allowed to lift much weight for the next few weeks. So there was, and still is a cap on my handiness.
I would like to repeat that I find the language used in this post rather insensitive, disrespectful, and unloving. In my mind, it is a personal attack on those who differ. We have had a couple other posters requested to stop posting for their manner of posting. I would suggest the same standard be applied to James Dekker, and that he be asked to stop posting for awhile on this and similar issues, unless and until he discovers the ability to refrain from using such phrases and terms as: "All I can think to say about that is “YIKES.” And pray for reasonableness and something other than mulishness. " and ..."despite unreasoned stubbornness " His phraseology is manipulative and disgraceful and a personal attack, in my opinion, and should not be permitted particularly on a blog post.
It is also important to point out that our idea of creation care is primarily based on its impact on human beings or perception by humans. For that reason, we swat mosquitoes and trap mice and rats and plant fields without compunction. When we highlight the presumed impact of climate change on the poor coastal people who might be displaced by rising sea levels, or those living in warmer tropical zones who might suffer from higher temperatures, droughts, and famine, we also ought to realize the irony of lifting a host of poor people in some countries out of relative poverty into a working middle class or working lower class who now have triple the income and conveniences that they used to have. The “lifting out” from poverty has included increased industrialization, more cars, larger homes, more airconditioning, more processed food, increased meat consumption, and other things that inevitably lead to increased ghg (greenhouse gases).
And as a result, China has now increased its ghg emissions by 9% just last year; India has done much the same.
In wanting to have our cake and eat it too, we ought to have more humility and not to disrespect the opinions of those who disagree with some of the main premises of the debate.
Just a little spiritual thought. Do you realize, that when it comes to entering heaven, to being with Christ, every single one of us is "disabled"? For everyone of us, the step is too high, the doors are too heavy, the doors open the wrong way, and we need help, the help of Jesus, to open the door, make the crooked path straight. When it comes to that, everyone single one of us is handicapped and disabled. Praise the Lord for his Love!!
The government cannot, and probably should not, try to "fix" everything. It is possible for people in some communities to purchase an older mobile home for five thousand dollars, fix it up, and live in it. I personally know non-aboriginal people who have done that. Even upgraded the roof for a cost of about $3000. It's small, and not fancy, but functional. If the only way to solve the housing problem is to build $100,000 or $200,000 homes, which then are not maintained, that's a problem. The point is that some reserves have plenty of money to build and maintain homes, but spend it on the wrong things. In one case, they built an arena and supported an aboriginal hockey team, while a damaged school building remained unrepaired and unused. Some of these reserves have an average income of more than $50,000 per man, woman, child. Certainly government might have some impact on how that money is used, but only by taking more control of finances and management, which is not what the aboriginals want, especially not the chiefs, many of whom have larger salaries than big city mayors, while the average citizen lives in poverty.
The point is that Canada is already aware of all this, and doesn't need the UN to tell them. Nor will the UN provide the reserves with any additional funding or constructive advice. It would be greater benefit if the UN would advise the problem reserves to change their attitudes and priorities; most of the poverty would disappear quickly if this was the case.
But, in general, the poverty in many third world nations makes our reserves look positively wealthy by comparison.
James, I don't think you are listening very well. The point is not just about your comments to specific people whom I don't know (I have not checked who the objectors are). The point is that you feel justified in calling those people unreasonable, mulish, and unreasonably stubborn, who might object to proposition a and b. This displays no charity on your part in attempting to understand why some might object. It becomes a form of character assassination, and pressure with epithets. You would not appreciate if I or others began to use such language in reverse. These are not private conversations, and more importantly, believing that people are merely unreasonable stubborn mules, even if you don't say so, reduces your ability to understand where they are coming from.
I'm quite sure that I have been involved in creation care of much more significance, quantity and quality, both individually, and in leadership, than yourself, and yet I prefer to be more charitable to those who oppose these propositions. Furthermore, for those who believe that the church is trying to dictate methods, or follow environmental trends, outside of its competence, and outside of its sphere, voting against these propositions may be the only way of doing so at the moment. After all, they are essentially voting against the church adopting the statements, and they might vote against even if they agree with the statements themselves. Yes, your tone was inappropriate, but you don't give me the impression that you truly understand its arrogance, including the implications for others who object but have not registered their objections, nor attended or voted at synod.
Getting past the "tone", I have in the past found it ironic that there have been a number of predictions made that our world cannot sustain certain levels of population ( think Malthus), or that we have a supply of oil that will run out in 1980 (oops, our recoverable energy supplies seem to be increasing) and yet, here we are, producing energy in ways we didn't previously understand, and producing food for a population that is five times as great as Malthus estimated could be sustained. Yes, ghg are an issue, but I suspect we do not understand it completely. Global circulation models do not seem to predict future precipitation trends with any degree of certainty, and only take comfort in greater variability and extreme events.
Environmentalists often worship the environment, as if it was static, or as if it had a soul of its own. The environment (whatever that is) does not care if it gets warmer or colder, or drier or wetter. If there was a glacier covering the Sahara, it would not matter, and if Greenland became a desert, it would not matter to the environment. It has been warmer and colder and drier and wetter in the past. The environment doesn't care if it changes. The environment just is whatever it is. It only matters to people. When we talk about Creation Care, we are really talking about a creation in which we can comfortably live. For that reason, all of creation is important to us, including our ability to drive, to vacation, to use the internet, to take a bath, to pick raspberries, or to eat interesting food that is produced by someone else far away.
We can talk about reducing, sure, within our context. We can reduce 20% of what we expanded last week. But you can't reduce what you don't already have. And if you reduce it completely, then you don't have it at all. Chinese and East Indian and African want to have something first, so then they can have something to reduce as well.
The biggest recent cause of ghg reductions was the recent recession. Are we happy to live in a constant recession economy?
Yes, we can look for ways to reduce energy use, and ghg emissions. We should and we will. But underestimating the costs of doing so is not smart. And overestimating man's role is not smart. Malthus seemed to forget that God created this universe; man didn't create it.
(I hope you don't read this response until Monday...so you can do your Sunday stuff. )
In Canada, for years we had a church service on Thanksgiving Day. Today we have a special service on the Sunday before Thanksgiving Day, turning the regular service into a Thanksgiving Service, possibly because we are often still harvesting on Thanksgiving Day (second Monday in October). Possibly because we seem to have less time to give thanks than we did in the past. In a way, every sunday is a thanksgiving day, giving thanks for life, for redemption, for food and clothing, for work, for God's blessings and provisions for us. So on Thanksgiving Day, or the Thanksgiving Sunday, its nice, and fitting, that we spend some additional time on our Thanks to God.
Well yes, Mark, but disability, disease, poor eyesight, weeds, is all a result of sin, of our sinful condition, of the curse brought on this world by sin. It is not caused by a particular sin. But no one is immune. It's only a matter of degree, of our perception. It is our inability to pay for our own sin that makes us unable to make our own path straight and smooth. We cannot open the door ourselves; we are told to knock, and the door will be opened, by Christ. Seeing and knowing this puts any disability we have, into a better perspective. As painful as it may be, the inability to walk is a very small disability, compared to the inability to enter heaven under our own power. It is a small inability, compared to the inability to recognize Jesus as our Saviour and Lord. This is a great truth!
We seem to be getting confused by several different issues here and mixing them all together.
Profession of faith is a bit misnamed since it is seen as a committment to membership, not to faith. After all, we wouldn't say that those who have not made profession of faith at age 6 or ten or sixteen are necessarily therefore without faith. Perhaps the faith of a child is often stronger in fact. So it is really a committment to membership, to particular confessions, to living a life of gratitude and joy and obedience to Christ, and recognizing this in a public way. This could be done at perhaps age 12 or 16, but too many wait far too long; we might ask ourselves why they wait so long.
Voting in a congregation ought to be at an age set by the congregation. Perhaps at 18, or 16, or 20, whatever the congregation decides with council in its wisdom, but not automatically tied to a profession of faith, although it should be a pre-requisite. In some cases, additional advisory votes by nonprofessing members could also be considered (but non-binding).
Just because you can vote, doesn't mean you automatically should be able to sit on council. Again, council and church should set a minimum age, recognizing that while wisdom can be present in the youth, it is not for nothing that elders are called elders and not youngers or middlers. While exceptions should be possible, it would be good to look at possibly an age of about 30 for council. I remember being on council a few years before that, and while it was good to serve, it would not have done any harm either to wait a few years.
There are other places to lead and serve besides council. Not only that, but no Christ-like elders would deliberately rule out conversations with non-council members, and would normally appreciate their input. Council meetings are supposed to be open to anyone who wishes to attend, unless it is in executive session. And non-council members can request an opportunity to speak or present an issue.
Finally, I find it hard to believe that any council does not look forward to the future leadership of those who are presently young. But as Ecclesiastes says, there is a time for everything, and everything in its time.
I don't mind either symbol, but in the light hearted interest of seeing the humorous side of things, I hope when people see the new symbol they do not automatically assume that the facility is providing a place for wheelchair basketball. :)
Another important consideration is this, that being older does not automatically make you more spiritually mature. And you can also probably think of examples where spiritual enthusiasm does not necessarily equate to spiritual maturity. Sometimes I am thinking that spiritual enthusiasm might be better than spiritual maturity. Even though it sometimes leads to mistakes and errors, spiritual enthusiasm does not have the error of complacency, which is often attached to "spiritual maturity". So I would say that the spiritually enthusiastic youth ought not to let themselves be held back too much by the so-called spiritual maturity of the "olders". Listen yes, consider yes, but live out your obedient joy in Christ in all its fulness where ever and whenever you have the opportunity!
Posted in: A Sad Day for People with Disabilities
Another example of UN interference and lack of sense of perspective, was when a UN envoy came to Canada to evaluate the state of aboriginal reserves and living conditions, etc. Canadian aboriginals on reserves receive a higher financial aid per person compared to any other demographic group in Canada. They also are not required to pay any taxes while on the reserves. They also have access to federal and provincial services, including healthcare and education. The UN envoy could have discovered all of this simply by doing a few google searches. Yet this envoy had the temerity and lack of good sense to waste time investigating Canada's care for the aboriginal population, at the cost of ignoring situations in Kenya, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Guatemala, Cuba, Haiti, and many other countries. If this is a signal of priorities, you will not be surprised when a UN envoy comes to investigate disabled access at 2850 Grand Rapids, or the education curriculum for the disabled in Seatle, while ignoring or minimizing issues in India, North Korea, Pakistan, Kurdistan, and Nicaragua.
Posted in: Puzzling about Creation Care--Part 1
I work a bit in the area of climate change adaptation and mitigation, including offsets. So what I am about to say should be taken in that context. I suspect that people voted against proposition "a" because of its implications primarily, not first of all because the statement is absolutely untrue. The implications are that a near consensus means they must be right, and that if human activity is a cause, then human beings must 'fix" it at almost any cost. Proposition "a" says the same thing as proposition "b". So I think they were voting against adopting it as a statement, regardless whether "true" or false. But probably they also disagreed that human beings are having a significant impact.
They might also be disagreeing with statement "b", because while human induced climate change, if real, might be considered to have implications for humans interacting with each other, statement "b" appears to be directed towards the objectives of society and certain environmental extremists and activists. To say that it is religious is to imply that if someone disagrees or does not react, that they are not religious or ethical or just. They would disagree with this assertion. Particularly they would disagree with the proposition that it is a religious issue. Perhaps I could make the analogy that if it is a religious issue, then so was the construction and piloting of the Titanic a religious issue, and so is the construction of the overpass on the nearby highway also a religious issue. It is to say that there is nothing that is not religious, but in the context, what does this mean?...
Finally, I would like to add a side comment that I find the language used in this post rather insensitive, disrespectful, and unloving. We have had a couple other posters requested to stop posting for their manner of posting. I would suggest the same standard be applied to James Dekker, and that he be asked to stop posting for awhile on this and similar issues, unless and until he discovers the ability to refrain from using such phrases and terms as: "All I can think to say about that is “YIKES.” And pray for reasonableness and something other than mulishness. " and ..."despite unreasoned stubbornness " His phraseology is manipulative and disgraceful, in my opinion. . " "
Posted in: Rolling Out a New Perception in the Parking Lot
I love the way you always manage to find new topics Mark, in your perpetual quest for more understanding of those needing a little extra help. The last sentence in your post made me wonder,... why is "handicapped" less acceptable than "disabled". It would seem that having a limit or "cap" on our handiness, might be less demeaning than being "dis" or "un" abled. Perhaps it is not good to get too hung up on it. But I am curious why one and not the other. Will disabled eventually receive some of the same undesireable connotations, and will we have to change that term in the future? Maybe the best term is wheelchair access. This would be good for anyone who needs a smooth gradual surface. Anyway, I appreciate your concerns. Having had some recent surgery, I had problems and great discomfort with steps for a couple days. For a few days I was looking for elevators, even though normally I don't use them unless forced, or more than three floors. Now I'm not allowed to lift much weight for the next few weeks. So there was, and still is a cap on my handiness.
Posted in: Puzzling about Creation Care--Part 1
I would like to repeat that I find the language used in this post rather insensitive, disrespectful, and unloving. In my mind, it is a personal attack on those who differ. We have had a couple other posters requested to stop posting for their manner of posting. I would suggest the same standard be applied to James Dekker, and that he be asked to stop posting for awhile on this and similar issues, unless and until he discovers the ability to refrain from using such phrases and terms as: "All I can think to say about that is “YIKES.” And pray for reasonableness and something other than mulishness. " and ..."despite unreasoned stubbornness " His phraseology is manipulative and disgraceful and a personal attack, in my opinion, and should not be permitted particularly on a blog post.
It is also important to point out that our idea of creation care is primarily based on its impact on human beings or perception by humans. For that reason, we swat mosquitoes and trap mice and rats and plant fields without compunction. When we highlight the presumed impact of climate change on the poor coastal people who might be displaced by rising sea levels, or those living in warmer tropical zones who might suffer from higher temperatures, droughts, and famine, we also ought to realize the irony of lifting a host of poor people in some countries out of relative poverty into a working middle class or working lower class who now have triple the income and conveniences that they used to have. The “lifting out” from poverty has included increased industrialization, more cars, larger homes, more airconditioning, more processed food, increased meat consumption, and other things that inevitably lead to increased ghg (greenhouse gases).
And as a result, China has now increased its ghg emissions by 9% just last year; India has done much the same.
In wanting to have our cake and eat it too, we ought to have more humility and not to disrespect the opinions of those who disagree with some of the main premises of the debate.
Posted in: Rolling Out a New Perception in the Parking Lot
Just a little spiritual thought. Do you realize, that when it comes to entering heaven, to being with Christ, every single one of us is "disabled"? For everyone of us, the step is too high, the doors are too heavy, the doors open the wrong way, and we need help, the help of Jesus, to open the door, make the crooked path straight. When it comes to that, everyone single one of us is handicapped and disabled. Praise the Lord for his Love!!
Posted in: A Sad Day for People with Disabilities
The government cannot, and probably should not, try to "fix" everything. It is possible for people in some communities to purchase an older mobile home for five thousand dollars, fix it up, and live in it. I personally know non-aboriginal people who have done that. Even upgraded the roof for a cost of about $3000. It's small, and not fancy, but functional. If the only way to solve the housing problem is to build $100,000 or $200,000 homes, which then are not maintained, that's a problem. The point is that some reserves have plenty of money to build and maintain homes, but spend it on the wrong things. In one case, they built an arena and supported an aboriginal hockey team, while a damaged school building remained unrepaired and unused. Some of these reserves have an average income of more than $50,000 per man, woman, child. Certainly government might have some impact on how that money is used, but only by taking more control of finances and management, which is not what the aboriginals want, especially not the chiefs, many of whom have larger salaries than big city mayors, while the average citizen lives in poverty.
The point is that Canada is already aware of all this, and doesn't need the UN to tell them. Nor will the UN provide the reserves with any additional funding or constructive advice. It would be greater benefit if the UN would advise the problem reserves to change their attitudes and priorities; most of the poverty would disappear quickly if this was the case.
But, in general, the poverty in many third world nations makes our reserves look positively wealthy by comparison.
Posted in: Puzzling about Creation Care--Part 1
James, I don't think you are listening very well. The point is not just about your comments to specific people whom I don't know (I have not checked who the objectors are). The point is that you feel justified in calling those people unreasonable, mulish, and unreasonably stubborn, who might object to proposition a and b. This displays no charity on your part in attempting to understand why some might object. It becomes a form of character assassination, and pressure with epithets. You would not appreciate if I or others began to use such language in reverse. These are not private conversations, and more importantly, believing that people are merely unreasonable stubborn mules, even if you don't say so, reduces your ability to understand where they are coming from.
I'm quite sure that I have been involved in creation care of much more significance, quantity and quality, both individually, and in leadership, than yourself, and yet I prefer to be more charitable to those who oppose these propositions. Furthermore, for those who believe that the church is trying to dictate methods, or follow environmental trends, outside of its competence, and outside of its sphere, voting against these propositions may be the only way of doing so at the moment. After all, they are essentially voting against the church adopting the statements, and they might vote against even if they agree with the statements themselves. Yes, your tone was inappropriate, but you don't give me the impression that you truly understand its arrogance, including the implications for others who object but have not registered their objections, nor attended or voted at synod.
Getting past the "tone", I have in the past found it ironic that there have been a number of predictions made that our world cannot sustain certain levels of population ( think Malthus), or that we have a supply of oil that will run out in 1980 (oops, our recoverable energy supplies seem to be increasing) and yet, here we are, producing energy in ways we didn't previously understand, and producing food for a population that is five times as great as Malthus estimated could be sustained. Yes, ghg are an issue, but I suspect we do not understand it completely. Global circulation models do not seem to predict future precipitation trends with any degree of certainty, and only take comfort in greater variability and extreme events.
Environmentalists often worship the environment, as if it was static, or as if it had a soul of its own. The environment (whatever that is) does not care if it gets warmer or colder, or drier or wetter. If there was a glacier covering the Sahara, it would not matter, and if Greenland became a desert, it would not matter to the environment. It has been warmer and colder and drier and wetter in the past. The environment doesn't care if it changes. The environment just is whatever it is. It only matters to people. When we talk about Creation Care, we are really talking about a creation in which we can comfortably live. For that reason, all of creation is important to us, including our ability to drive, to vacation, to use the internet, to take a bath, to pick raspberries, or to eat interesting food that is produced by someone else far away.
We can talk about reducing, sure, within our context. We can reduce 20% of what we expanded last week. But you can't reduce what you don't already have. And if you reduce it completely, then you don't have it at all. Chinese and East Indian and African want to have something first, so then they can have something to reduce as well.
The biggest recent cause of ghg reductions was the recent recession. Are we happy to live in a constant recession economy?
Yes, we can look for ways to reduce energy use, and ghg emissions. We should and we will. But underestimating the costs of doing so is not smart. And overestimating man's role is not smart. Malthus seemed to forget that God created this universe; man didn't create it.
(I hope you don't read this response until Monday...so you can do your Sunday stuff. )
Posted in: How Important is Thanksgiving Day?
In Canada, for years we had a church service on Thanksgiving Day. Today we have a special service on the Sunday before Thanksgiving Day, turning the regular service into a Thanksgiving Service, possibly because we are often still harvesting on Thanksgiving Day (second Monday in October). Possibly because we seem to have less time to give thanks than we did in the past. In a way, every sunday is a thanksgiving day, giving thanks for life, for redemption, for food and clothing, for work, for God's blessings and provisions for us. So on Thanksgiving Day, or the Thanksgiving Sunday, its nice, and fitting, that we spend some additional time on our Thanks to God.
Posted in: Rolling Out a New Perception in the Parking Lot
Well yes, Mark, but disability, disease, poor eyesight, weeds, is all a result of sin, of our sinful condition, of the curse brought on this world by sin. It is not caused by a particular sin. But no one is immune. It's only a matter of degree, of our perception. It is our inability to pay for our own sin that makes us unable to make our own path straight and smooth. We cannot open the door ourselves; we are told to knock, and the door will be opened, by Christ. Seeing and knowing this puts any disability we have, into a better perspective. As painful as it may be, the inability to walk is a very small disability, compared to the inability to enter heaven under our own power. It is a small inability, compared to the inability to recognize Jesus as our Saviour and Lord. This is a great truth!
Posted in: How Young Is Too Young For Council?
We seem to be getting confused by several different issues here and mixing them all together.
Profession of faith is a bit misnamed since it is seen as a committment to membership, not to faith. After all, we wouldn't say that those who have not made profession of faith at age 6 or ten or sixteen are necessarily therefore without faith. Perhaps the faith of a child is often stronger in fact. So it is really a committment to membership, to particular confessions, to living a life of gratitude and joy and obedience to Christ, and recognizing this in a public way. This could be done at perhaps age 12 or 16, but too many wait far too long; we might ask ourselves why they wait so long.
Voting in a congregation ought to be at an age set by the congregation. Perhaps at 18, or 16, or 20, whatever the congregation decides with council in its wisdom, but not automatically tied to a profession of faith, although it should be a pre-requisite. In some cases, additional advisory votes by nonprofessing members could also be considered (but non-binding).
Just because you can vote, doesn't mean you automatically should be able to sit on council. Again, council and church should set a minimum age, recognizing that while wisdom can be present in the youth, it is not for nothing that elders are called elders and not youngers or middlers. While exceptions should be possible, it would be good to look at possibly an age of about 30 for council. I remember being on council a few years before that, and while it was good to serve, it would not have done any harm either to wait a few years.
There are other places to lead and serve besides council. Not only that, but no Christ-like elders would deliberately rule out conversations with non-council members, and would normally appreciate their input. Council meetings are supposed to be open to anyone who wishes to attend, unless it is in executive session. And non-council members can request an opportunity to speak or present an issue.
Finally, I find it hard to believe that any council does not look forward to the future leadership of those who are presently young. But as Ecclesiastes says, there is a time for everything, and everything in its time.
Posted in: Rolling Out a New Perception in the Parking Lot
I don't mind either symbol, but in the light hearted interest of seeing the humorous side of things, I hope when people see the new symbol they do not automatically assume that the facility is providing a place for wheelchair basketball. :)
Posted in: How Young Is Too Young For Council?
Another important consideration is this, that being older does not automatically make you more spiritually mature. And you can also probably think of examples where spiritual enthusiasm does not necessarily equate to spiritual maturity. Sometimes I am thinking that spiritual enthusiasm might be better than spiritual maturity. Even though it sometimes leads to mistakes and errors, spiritual enthusiasm does not have the error of complacency, which is often attached to "spiritual maturity". So I would say that the spiritually enthusiastic youth ought not to let themselves be held back too much by the so-called spiritual maturity of the "olders". Listen yes, consider yes, but live out your obedient joy in Christ in all its fulness where ever and whenever you have the opportunity!