Mutual comments to each other in the council room ought to include thanks to God for the work that others are doing. Yes, sometimes there are things lacking, things undone, words that should not have been said, wrong attitudes portrayed, but, God still also uses the faith and work of those who honestly strive to serve him. The prayers, visits, leadership, and support of council members for the work of God's people should also be appreciated. Elders and deacons including pastors then ought to be eager to hear what can be improved, or how they can build on their gifts, and use the opportunities provided to them by God. In that spirit, the point is not mainly one of censure, but one of growth, of learning the will of God in their lives. In that way, it is God's name that will be praised!
Al Hoksbergen, by saying that there is no argument at all that the Belhar is biblical, you have reduced your credibility. If you have been paying attention, you will have noticed that there is indeed an argument that the Belhar is making statements and arguments that are definately not biblical. Two places where it makes non-biblical statements is 1. where it says that God is a special God of the poor and oppressed (implying not so special for the wealthy and blessed, such as Job, or King David, or Nicodemus). 2. where it says that there should be no distinctions made for any human, social or other characteristics (implying that we can make no judgements about behaviour or lifestyles).
It is difficult to see how adopting a confession that only highlights what we are already generally doing, fifty or one hundred fifty years after the fact, will in fact change declining membership, or change the attitude of anyone who has already decided to ignore the confessions.
As a society, this is not where the action is; we are so far past this action, that we do not even know its history very well.
If this warrants a confession, then a more pertinent confession, more relevant, more "today's action" would be a confession that specifically refers to abortion, divorce, child custody, broken families, paedo communion, unity and separation with baptists and pentecostals, creation care, drug use, pornography, islam, bahai, use of the internet, etc. These are the issues of where the action is at. These are the issues of difficulty. These are the issues of relevance.
If unity, and racial and ethnic diversity and equality are really serious issues that require their own "confession", more than what is already clearly indicated in existing confessions, then we should write a confession that really deals with these issues from a biblical perspective rather than a human rights perspective. We should write something much better than the Belhar, and write it from a relevant, modern day, north american perspective, with a truly biblical foundation. More careful use of words, and a better thought out holistic perspective should be used.
But by and large, this would not be a good use of our limited resources, to focus on such an old issue in this way.
Take this South African statement as information. Appreciate its intent. Express our unity with most of its intent. Realize its context. But do not adopt it as a defining legal statement for our denomination.
Rob, I think the confessions have been de-emphasized to some extent because of the idea that it is not so much what you believe, but how you live that really counts. In other words, faith without works is dead(book of James), and you know you follow Christ by your obedience (epistles of John). While there is some validity to that, the need for us to understand Christ's teachings about grace and about who He is, and the apostle Paul's teachings about law and grace, demonstrates the need for us to have an understanding of the theology expressed in the confessions. That is the understanding that grounds our living for Christ, that places our "works" into the correct context. Without that understanding the social gospel will kill the church, since the connection to Christ's saving work will be lost.
But the full-orbed confessions also highlight that faith without works is dead, and that God does require obedience. Sometimes without a good understanding of the confessions, we also lose sight of obedience. Ironically, sometimes it happens at the same time as the church emphasizes its social gospel activities. One the one hand, a church will emphasize caring for creation and caring for the poor, while at the same time downplaying faithfulness in marriage, or downplaying the significance of abortion, or making room for homosex, or for pagan culture, or for worldly accomodation in lifestyle.
Whether we teach the confessions specifically, or merely teach scripture in a way that duplicates or replicates the statements of the confessions, the important point is really the concepts within the confessions, that they impact our lives. The way to make sure that happens is to use the confessions as a way of guaging what we know, what we emphasize, and what we de-emphasize. I'm reminded of the stories of the Israelites and Judaites in the old testament, who built the high places to worship false gods. Even those "good" kings who worshipped God, still often failed to remove the "high places" (in spite of God's specific command to destroy them) and thus left the possibility for some of the people to worship false gods, and for future generations to begin to worship falsely again. In the same way, neglecting the confessions, and neglecting certain scriptural teachings, can leave us vulnerable to worshipping false gods, or to serving both God and man.
How do we teach these confessions? I think we assume too much sometimes. In my experience, I have seen children read scripture passages, or cadet lessons, or liturgical readings, but not have a clue about what they mean. I think sometimes/often that also applies to adults. We read stuff aloud and then promptly forget what we read, or maybe it never even really registered. Happens sometimes with singing hymns too. So we need to keep that in mind. How do we make it register? How does it become part of our thinking? Part of our instant recall, our frame of reference? This is particularly important when teaching children and youth, so that they will be able to fall back on what they have learned, when they need it.
Harry Weidenaar, its interesting that in Matthew 25, Jesus is not talking to the poor, but He is talking to those who are rich, or are at least richer than the poor. He is not commanding the poor to do anything; He is giving thanks and appreciation to the rich for demonstrating their love. He is not commenting on how the poor ought to love, nor even about his relationship to the poor. Only about how the rich demonstrate their love for Christ, by helping those who are less fortunate. Would Christ do this if He did not care about those who were rich?
Matthew 25 's message is about how to show the love of Christ. To give to those who cannot pay back, rather than currying the favor of the rich and powerful. This is how the wealthy and powerful can demonstrate that they belong to God. And interestingly, this is also how the poor themselves can also demonstrate that they love God and belong to Him. Because there is always someone who has a need greater than your own if you have eyes to see.
Does God love the poor more than He loves the rich? Did God love the poor widow more than the prophet Elijah? Who was rich and who was poor in that case? Did God love King David less than the people that David ruled and helped, ie. the lame son of Jonathan who under normal circumstances might have been mistreated or killed? Did God love king Hezekiah less? Did God love Abraham less? Did God love Jacob less? Moses? Nicodemus? According to your interpretation, God was not a special God to them?
Of course God loves the poor also! But not because they are poor. Rather because they are also his creation, His children. Do you think that a poor man who detests and hates God and curses and rejects Jesus Christ will be saved by his poverty? By his race? By his gender? By his age? I don't think you believe that.
The rich centurion and the poor samaritan woman were both loved by Christ, and were equal in the gift of faith received from God. God loved them both, and I daresay God would not be pleased to hear someone say that he loved one more than the other based on some human materialistic criteria.
Harry, I have already replied to your allegation about Matthew 25. But I wish to respond to a couple other points you made as well. You wonder whether I have talked with Afro-americans, aboriginals, Koreans, etc. I have just come from a weekend retreat where staff and board members of christian radio stations come together to share experiences and trials and God's blessings. One of the ladies there was chinese born, married to a Swede who speaks many languages. Another couple was Indian (Hindu origin), the wife from a Christian family, the husband a born-again christian from a strong hindu family. Others there were of Ukranian origin, or low german ancestry, or English, or American background. It takes awhile to get used to different cultures, regardless of the color of skin. We have adopted an aboriginal girl, and my children have adopted a "black" child from Haiti, and three children from Russia. I work with people from the Sudan, Pakistan, South Africa, and other southern hemisphere people. I've met and admired strong native christians in Dominican Republic and Mexico. Our church could benefit greatly from the excitement and strong trusting faith exhibited by people of other cultures. But the belhar is not the answer nor the solution to a kind of natural inclination to seek out people who are similar to ourselves. The belhar merely states things that we already know about the equality of peoples, along with some things that are basically incorrect and unbiblical, mixing truth with falsehood.
At a theoretical level, people understand that people are equal. At a practical level, we also know as you said, that most people in prison in the USA are poor and black, and in Canada are aboriginal and poor. That culture and background influences our acceptance levels. But in a way, it is not really merely about race. The issue is fear, and our worship of our false gods of convenience and materialism. When we are more concerned about getting a scratch on our shiny new car, or about hearing non-classical music, or about a house-style that doesn't fit in the neighborhood, than we are about the eternal salvation of our aboriginal neighbor or our Indonesian waitress or mexican mechanic, then we have an indication of where our heart is at.
Good preaching, and a better understanding of scripture, and a better awareness that it was Jews and Greeks and Africans and Asians and Romans who were the original church, not Northern European caucasians, would go much further to helping our understanding of how God works with various peoples.
Mark, the path of dishonesty is not the FOS or its equivalent. The path of dishonesty is in failing to teach the confessions, failing to read them and understand them. The path of dishonesty is in disregarding them but signing the FOS or making the profession of faith in willful ignorance.
The confessions are the way of clarifying our common beliefs and understandings of scripture. Without having some understanding of the confessions, we don't know if we are united or not.
Two years ago, we had an adult bible study going through the Heidelberg again. All members of this class were professing members who had already agreed to the confessions, but a refresher is good from time to time.
When my daughter was eleven years old, she wondered about participating in the Lord's Supper. I said she could but she needed to read thru the Heidelberg first. So she did. She read aloud the entire Heidelberg in my presence over the course of about four days, and asked questions where she had questions. This was not a formal profession of faith in terms of membership but a sufficient understanding for participating in communion. I think we sometimes wait too long to get discussing these confessions with our children, and underestimate their potential to understand. And we worry about their potential to actually disagree with parts of the confessions if they begin to understand and know what they say. We ought to leave that part in God's almighty hands.
Harry, if I am a "hoot", then I am perhaps an owl.... considered by some to be "wise"... so thankyou.
Of course Jesus identified with the poor. No question about that. But that doesn't mean that he did not also identify with the rich. Such as Zacheus, the rich centurion, with King David, Joseph, Abraham, Job. He identified with people, not with a class of people. Absolutely I agree that an absence of service indicates an absence of faith and love. That is the real point of Matt 25, so you got that right. I don't think I really need to make a compelling case, since I am not proposing a new confession. The proponents need to make a compelling case, which they and you have not done. Your interpretations of the passage seem to be out of context of the rest of scripture. This seems to be a case of making a half-truth into an absolute, and in this case the absolute is false, as we have already demonstrated.
I can only demonstrate by my personal life that I oppose this being adopted as a north american confession not by prejudice, but on principle of scripture being understood in its fulness.
If this issue is so pertinent, and if this issue is not a political issue, and if this issue is not mere public relations, then you need to explain why we are picking on this issue rather than more significant and relevant issues such as the issue of abortion. If mistreatment of other races, ethnicities, nationalities is so important (I do think it is important...) then is not the issue of abortion even more important? Who is more poor, more helpless, more discriminated against than the unborn? Who is more hated, neglected and abused? In Canada alone, 100,000 unborn are not just relegated to the balcony in churches as you put it, but are stuffed into the garbage bins of society each year. Not just to be discriminated against in various subtle ways, but to have their lives snuffed out. Does this not deserve a confession?
What about the issues of serving other gods, worldly ideals? Is this not a much larger threat to the significance of the church? Has this not led to a much more significant diminishment of church participation and church membership? Where is our specific new confession on that issue?
Where is our confession on the evils of homosexuality, pornography, or divorce, or single parent families? Are these not at least equal if not greater threats to our profession of faith, to our christian lifestyles, to our christian witness?
What about the threat of Mormonism, Islam, or Bahai? Where is our confession to counter these three cults which threaten to swamp and persecute Christians of all races in all nations?
The Belhar mentions unity of peoples or races. But what of the unity among Christians? It says: "Therefore, we reject any doctrine which absolutises either natural diversity or the sinful separation of people in such a way that this absolutisation hinders or breaks the visible and active unity of the church, or even leads to the establishment of a separate church formation; " ... does this mean that different denominations are not permitted, such as the distinction between CRC and ORC, or between CRC and Baptist churches? Is this statement well written?
Why is the issue of the Belhar so much more significant than these others that I mention? The onus is on you to demonstrate this also.
The lack of the Belhar is not stopping you from telling the Hebrews 11 story or stories. It certainly has not stopped me from doing that.
In one way, a name change doesn't bother me. For example, I think the Calvinist Cadet Corps should be change to Christian Cadet Clubs. I think it is more pertinent and more understandable.
So I don't think it is wrong to change the CRWRC name necessarily, although it has a pretty respectable brand. The problem with a name change is whether it brings us back to the purpose, or takes us further away from it. The purpose of world relief has been or should be, to demonstrate the love of christ. The argument that CRWRC does much more than disaster relief, does not mean that the other things James listed are not relief efforts, such as improving education or agriculture or literacy or health care. They are what we would call helping ministries, making very bad situations somewhat better. We don't expect CRWRC to set up Christian schools in downtown GrandRapids for example, nor help South Dakota farmers to improve their farming methods. So whether it is an immediate disaster relief or a long term disaster relief, the objective is somewhat the same; in some cases to prevent probable future disasters.
The suggested name: "World Renew; Living Justice, Loving Mercy, Serving Christ" is really the combination of a name and a slogan or motto. No reasonable person will assume that the entire so-called name will actually be used as a name in other than letterheads. Do you really think that the acronym WRLJLMSC will be used and on the lips and frontal lobes of the average semi-knowledgeable person? I don't think so. In fact, I will pretty well guarantee it will not. In fact, to me this is so obvious, that I will suggest some dissembling is going on here when people suggest that Christ is really in the name. I would suggest that if it is, it is like a tail easily caught in the barbed wire. It will only be used when people object, and otherwise will not be commonly used in the name.
The suggestion that because CRWRC works with so many other organizations means it must change its name, makes absolutely no sense to me. Are all these other organizations also changing their names? How will you know who is who?
But, if a name change was absolutely necessary, then I would suggest this: Christian World Relief. Simple. Pertinent. Descriptive. Accurate.
The other one could be adjusted slightly and turned into the motto and descriptor that it really is: "Renewing the World, Living Justice, Loving Mercy, Serving Christ".
Posted in: Is Everyone a Missionary?
A man with a mission: a missionary?
Mission-ary - someone sent ,
Missionem - act of sending.
A Christian missionary can be defined as "one who is to witness across cultures."
Maybe it doesn't matter what you are called. Maybe it just matters what you do?
Posted in: How Do You Keep Peace in the Council Room?
Mutual comments to each other in the council room ought to include thanks to God for the work that others are doing. Yes, sometimes there are things lacking, things undone, words that should not have been said, wrong attitudes portrayed, but, God still also uses the faith and work of those who honestly strive to serve him. The prayers, visits, leadership, and support of council members for the work of God's people should also be appreciated. Elders and deacons including pastors then ought to be eager to hear what can be improved, or how they can build on their gifts, and use the opportunities provided to them by God. In that spirit, the point is not mainly one of censure, but one of growth, of learning the will of God in their lives. In that way, it is God's name that will be praised!
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Al Hoksbergen, by saying that there is no argument at all that the Belhar is biblical, you have reduced your credibility. If you have been paying attention, you will have noticed that there is indeed an argument that the Belhar is making statements and arguments that are definately not biblical. Two places where it makes non-biblical statements is 1. where it says that God is a special God of the poor and oppressed (implying not so special for the wealthy and blessed, such as Job, or King David, or Nicodemus). 2. where it says that there should be no distinctions made for any human, social or other characteristics (implying that we can make no judgements about behaviour or lifestyles).
It is difficult to see how adopting a confession that only highlights what we are already generally doing, fifty or one hundred fifty years after the fact, will in fact change declining membership, or change the attitude of anyone who has already decided to ignore the confessions.
As a society, this is not where the action is; we are so far past this action, that we do not even know its history very well.
If this warrants a confession, then a more pertinent confession, more relevant, more "today's action" would be a confession that specifically refers to abortion, divorce, child custody, broken families, paedo communion, unity and separation with baptists and pentecostals, creation care, drug use, pornography, islam, bahai, use of the internet, etc. These are the issues of where the action is at. These are the issues of difficulty. These are the issues of relevance.
If unity, and racial and ethnic diversity and equality are really serious issues that require their own "confession", more than what is already clearly indicated in existing confessions, then we should write a confession that really deals with these issues from a biblical perspective rather than a human rights perspective. We should write something much better than the Belhar, and write it from a relevant, modern day, north american perspective, with a truly biblical foundation. More careful use of words, and a better thought out holistic perspective should be used.
But by and large, this would not be a good use of our limited resources, to focus on such an old issue in this way.
Take this South African statement as information. Appreciate its intent. Express our unity with most of its intent. Realize its context. But do not adopt it as a defining legal statement for our denomination.
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
Rob, I think the confessions have been de-emphasized to some extent because of the idea that it is not so much what you believe, but how you live that really counts. In other words, faith without works is dead(book of James), and you know you follow Christ by your obedience (epistles of John). While there is some validity to that, the need for us to understand Christ's teachings about grace and about who He is, and the apostle Paul's teachings about law and grace, demonstrates the need for us to have an understanding of the theology expressed in the confessions. That is the understanding that grounds our living for Christ, that places our "works" into the correct context. Without that understanding the social gospel will kill the church, since the connection to Christ's saving work will be lost.
But the full-orbed confessions also highlight that faith without works is dead, and that God does require obedience. Sometimes without a good understanding of the confessions, we also lose sight of obedience. Ironically, sometimes it happens at the same time as the church emphasizes its social gospel activities. One the one hand, a church will emphasize caring for creation and caring for the poor, while at the same time downplaying faithfulness in marriage, or downplaying the significance of abortion, or making room for homosex, or for pagan culture, or for worldly accomodation in lifestyle.
Whether we teach the confessions specifically, or merely teach scripture in a way that duplicates or replicates the statements of the confessions, the important point is really the concepts within the confessions, that they impact our lives. The way to make sure that happens is to use the confessions as a way of guaging what we know, what we emphasize, and what we de-emphasize. I'm reminded of the stories of the Israelites and Judaites in the old testament, who built the high places to worship false gods. Even those "good" kings who worshipped God, still often failed to remove the "high places" (in spite of God's specific command to destroy them) and thus left the possibility for some of the people to worship false gods, and for future generations to begin to worship falsely again. In the same way, neglecting the confessions, and neglecting certain scriptural teachings, can leave us vulnerable to worshipping false gods, or to serving both God and man.
Posted in: Guard Against All Kinds of Greed - a Reflection on Luke 12
Well said, Eric. This is also indirectly very pertinent to any consideration of certain statements made in the Belhar.
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
How do we teach these confessions? I think we assume too much sometimes. In my experience, I have seen children read scripture passages, or cadet lessons, or liturgical readings, but not have a clue about what they mean. I think sometimes/often that also applies to adults. We read stuff aloud and then promptly forget what we read, or maybe it never even really registered. Happens sometimes with singing hymns too. So we need to keep that in mind. How do we make it register? How does it become part of our thinking? Part of our instant recall, our frame of reference? This is particularly important when teaching children and youth, so that they will be able to fall back on what they have learned, when they need it.
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Harry Weidenaar, its interesting that in Matthew 25, Jesus is not talking to the poor, but He is talking to those who are rich, or are at least richer than the poor. He is not commanding the poor to do anything; He is giving thanks and appreciation to the rich for demonstrating their love. He is not commenting on how the poor ought to love, nor even about his relationship to the poor. Only about how the rich demonstrate their love for Christ, by helping those who are less fortunate. Would Christ do this if He did not care about those who were rich?
Matthew 25 's message is about how to show the love of Christ. To give to those who cannot pay back, rather than currying the favor of the rich and powerful. This is how the wealthy and powerful can demonstrate that they belong to God. And interestingly, this is also how the poor themselves can also demonstrate that they love God and belong to Him. Because there is always someone who has a need greater than your own if you have eyes to see.
Does God love the poor more than He loves the rich? Did God love the poor widow more than the prophet Elijah? Who was rich and who was poor in that case? Did God love King David less than the people that David ruled and helped, ie. the lame son of Jonathan who under normal circumstances might have been mistreated or killed? Did God love king Hezekiah less? Did God love Abraham less? Did God love Jacob less? Moses? Nicodemus? According to your interpretation, God was not a special God to them?
Of course God loves the poor also! But not because they are poor. Rather because they are also his creation, His children. Do you think that a poor man who detests and hates God and curses and rejects Jesus Christ will be saved by his poverty? By his race? By his gender? By his age? I don't think you believe that.
The rich centurion and the poor samaritan woman were both loved by Christ, and were equal in the gift of faith received from God. God loved them both, and I daresay God would not be pleased to hear someone say that he loved one more than the other based on some human materialistic criteria.
Posted in: Classis: Diagnosing and Prescribing
Could it be put online?
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Harry, I have already replied to your allegation about Matthew 25. But I wish to respond to a couple other points you made as well. You wonder whether I have talked with Afro-americans, aboriginals, Koreans, etc. I have just come from a weekend retreat where staff and board members of christian radio stations come together to share experiences and trials and God's blessings. One of the ladies there was chinese born, married to a Swede who speaks many languages. Another couple was Indian (Hindu origin), the wife from a Christian family, the husband a born-again christian from a strong hindu family. Others there were of Ukranian origin, or low german ancestry, or English, or American background. It takes awhile to get used to different cultures, regardless of the color of skin. We have adopted an aboriginal girl, and my children have adopted a "black" child from Haiti, and three children from Russia. I work with people from the Sudan, Pakistan, South Africa, and other southern hemisphere people. I've met and admired strong native christians in Dominican Republic and Mexico. Our church could benefit greatly from the excitement and strong trusting faith exhibited by people of other cultures. But the belhar is not the answer nor the solution to a kind of natural inclination to seek out people who are similar to ourselves. The belhar merely states things that we already know about the equality of peoples, along with some things that are basically incorrect and unbiblical, mixing truth with falsehood.
At a theoretical level, people understand that people are equal. At a practical level, we also know as you said, that most people in prison in the USA are poor and black, and in Canada are aboriginal and poor. That culture and background influences our acceptance levels. But in a way, it is not really merely about race. The issue is fear, and our worship of our false gods of convenience and materialism. When we are more concerned about getting a scratch on our shiny new car, or about hearing non-classical music, or about a house-style that doesn't fit in the neighborhood, than we are about the eternal salvation of our aboriginal neighbor or our Indonesian waitress or mexican mechanic, then we have an indication of where our heart is at.
Good preaching, and a better understanding of scripture, and a better awareness that it was Jews and Greeks and Africans and Asians and Romans who were the original church, not Northern European caucasians, would go much further to helping our understanding of how God works with various peoples.
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
Mark, the path of dishonesty is not the FOS or its equivalent. The path of dishonesty is in failing to teach the confessions, failing to read them and understand them. The path of dishonesty is in disregarding them but signing the FOS or making the profession of faith in willful ignorance.
The confessions are the way of clarifying our common beliefs and understandings of scripture. Without having some understanding of the confessions, we don't know if we are united or not.
Two years ago, we had an adult bible study going through the Heidelberg again. All members of this class were professing members who had already agreed to the confessions, but a refresher is good from time to time.
When my daughter was eleven years old, she wondered about participating in the Lord's Supper. I said she could but she needed to read thru the Heidelberg first. So she did. She read aloud the entire Heidelberg in my presence over the course of about four days, and asked questions where she had questions. This was not a formal profession of faith in terms of membership but a sufficient understanding for participating in communion. I think we sometimes wait too long to get discussing these confessions with our children, and underestimate their potential to understand. And we worry about their potential to actually disagree with parts of the confessions if they begin to understand and know what they say. We ought to leave that part in God's almighty hands.
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Harry, if I am a "hoot", then I am perhaps an owl.... considered by some to be "wise"... so thankyou.
Of course Jesus identified with the poor. No question about that. But that doesn't mean that he did not also identify with the rich. Such as Zacheus, the rich centurion, with King David, Joseph, Abraham, Job. He identified with people, not with a class of people. Absolutely I agree that an absence of service indicates an absence of faith and love. That is the real point of Matt 25, so you got that right. I don't think I really need to make a compelling case, since I am not proposing a new confession. The proponents need to make a compelling case, which they and you have not done. Your interpretations of the passage seem to be out of context of the rest of scripture. This seems to be a case of making a half-truth into an absolute, and in this case the absolute is false, as we have already demonstrated.
I can only demonstrate by my personal life that I oppose this being adopted as a north american confession not by prejudice, but on principle of scripture being understood in its fulness.
If this issue is so pertinent, and if this issue is not a political issue, and if this issue is not mere public relations, then you need to explain why we are picking on this issue rather than more significant and relevant issues such as the issue of abortion. If mistreatment of other races, ethnicities, nationalities is so important (I do think it is important...) then is not the issue of abortion even more important? Who is more poor, more helpless, more discriminated against than the unborn? Who is more hated, neglected and abused? In Canada alone, 100,000 unborn are not just relegated to the balcony in churches as you put it, but are stuffed into the garbage bins of society each year. Not just to be discriminated against in various subtle ways, but to have their lives snuffed out. Does this not deserve a confession?
What about the issues of serving other gods, worldly ideals? Is this not a much larger threat to the significance of the church? Has this not led to a much more significant diminishment of church participation and church membership? Where is our specific new confession on that issue?
Where is our confession on the evils of homosexuality, pornography, or divorce, or single parent families? Are these not at least equal if not greater threats to our profession of faith, to our christian lifestyles, to our christian witness?
What about the threat of Mormonism, Islam, or Bahai? Where is our confession to counter these three cults which threaten to swamp and persecute Christians of all races in all nations?
The Belhar mentions unity of peoples or races. But what of the unity among Christians? It says: "Therefore, we reject any doctrine which absolutises either natural diversity or the sinful separation of people in such a way that this absolutisation hinders or breaks the visible and active unity of the church, or even leads to the establishment of a separate church formation; " ... does this mean that different denominations are not permitted, such as the distinction between CRC and ORC, or between CRC and Baptist churches? Is this statement well written?
Why is the issue of the Belhar so much more significant than these others that I mention? The onus is on you to demonstrate this also.
The lack of the Belhar is not stopping you from telling the Hebrews 11 story or stories. It certainly has not stopped me from doing that.
Posted in: Name Change: Will It Be a Relief to Be “Renew?”
In one way, a name change doesn't bother me. For example, I think the Calvinist Cadet Corps should be change to Christian Cadet Clubs. I think it is more pertinent and more understandable.
So I don't think it is wrong to change the CRWRC name necessarily, although it has a pretty respectable brand. The problem with a name change is whether it brings us back to the purpose, or takes us further away from it. The purpose of world relief has been or should be, to demonstrate the love of christ. The argument that CRWRC does much more than disaster relief, does not mean that the other things James listed are not relief efforts, such as improving education or agriculture or literacy or health care. They are what we would call helping ministries, making very bad situations somewhat better. We don't expect CRWRC to set up Christian schools in downtown GrandRapids for example, nor help South Dakota farmers to improve their farming methods. So whether it is an immediate disaster relief or a long term disaster relief, the objective is somewhat the same; in some cases to prevent probable future disasters.
The suggested name: "World Renew; Living Justice, Loving Mercy, Serving Christ" is really the combination of a name and a slogan or motto. No reasonable person will assume that the entire so-called name will actually be used as a name in other than letterheads. Do you really think that the acronym WRLJLMSC will be used and on the lips and frontal lobes of the average semi-knowledgeable person? I don't think so. In fact, I will pretty well guarantee it will not. In fact, to me this is so obvious, that I will suggest some dissembling is going on here when people suggest that Christ is really in the name. I would suggest that if it is, it is like a tail easily caught in the barbed wire. It will only be used when people object, and otherwise will not be commonly used in the name.
The suggestion that because CRWRC works with so many other organizations means it must change its name, makes absolutely no sense to me. Are all these other organizations also changing their names? How will you know who is who?
But, if a name change was absolutely necessary, then I would suggest this: Christian World Relief. Simple. Pertinent. Descriptive. Accurate.
The other one could be adjusted slightly and turned into the motto and descriptor that it really is: "Renewing the World, Living Justice, Loving Mercy, Serving Christ".