The church CANNOT make decisions outside its proper sphere, for outside its proper sphere it has no authority to make decisions. The Church cannot and does not decide what the nation's economic policy is, or whether immigration policy should be this or that. The church (with the exception of wholly owned subsidiary institutions like the seminary or Calvin College) also does not make decisions regarding what a school will or will not teach.
But, as you say, the church cannot help but exercise influence. Decisions we make regarding what we will or won't invest pension funds in have an impact on - influence - markets. Building in one place or not another, and the type of building constructed affect property values and other architecture in the neighborhood even if unintentionally. Zoning issues come into play and the congregations will understandably attempt to influence those, too. So if we are striving for some purity of spheres in which none of them influence one another, you are surely correct to point out its impossibility, but then, neither Kuyper nor those who have striven to implement his thought on the subject would advocate such a thing. You are, in other words, creating a bit of a straw man by eliding concepts ("decide" and "influence" which are distinct).
But I would say that the church MAY NOT say "Thus saith the Lord" when the Lord has not spoken. When it comes to running the economy, the Bible enjoins us to care for the downtrodden - and also says if they won't work, let them not eat. Can the church, as institution, definitively say that the Lord saith support (or don't support) the latest Farm bill? It seems to me, the word of the Lord on that question is not clear. If we nevertheless presume to declare that the Lord says one or the other, we take the Lord's name in vain. In my opinion, the CRCNA has far too frequently crossed that line in recent years, even through majority votes at synods, claiming the Lord has spoken clearly and specifically on questions that are in fact unclear and uncertain with regards to the Lord's word.
We should also bear in mind that, both within the church and outside it, when she speaks as institution the ordinary presumption is that she is always in some fashion prefacing its statements with "thus saith the Lord." If we don't mean to say that, we must be extremely intentional and direct in explaining that we are not. We should be extremely cautious regardless - not because it's such a terrible thing to vote one way or another on this bill or the other one, but because it is a terrible thing to take the Lord's name in vain.
Thanks, Ken. I watched my father struggle with MS, too, and I know how difficult it was to make the above comments - not psychologically or emotionally maybe, but physically.
I am grateful for what you say, and honor you for the effort expended in saying it.
Not sure why it would be "better" to ask someone who considers herself (what, don't bother asking deaf men?) part of the "Deaf". Seems to me the whole "Deaf Community" notion runs counter to what you call "people first" language since it defines people in terms of a condition rather than their humanity, but such contradictions are inevitable when we get into the land of "self esteem" and political correctness.
In Matthew 11, one of the signs of the Christ is that the deaf hear (along with blind seeing, lame walking, etc.). While it is not definitive, it is certainly reasonable to believe that deafness will be no more when Christ returns in the fullness of his glory and we see face-to-face what we now see through a glass and darkly.
Nor would I deny that comfort to one who yearns for the day when we are made whole on the grounds that Jesus' resurrected body still had holes in it from the crucifixion. It is entirely appropriate that a mother grieving over a son who died because his head was blown off by an IED, for instance, should look forward to being able to see his face again in the time to come, so some notion of restoration and wholeness applies even to that physical body.
So, how about we not look for reasons to be offended by Max Lucado, using language that is highly reminiscent of Scripture itself, saying that we shall be made whole, able to hear or see or smell where once we could not. How about we not try to pretend that a disability isn't a disability, but support those who are dealing with it with as much of dignity and independence as can be managed. And how about we not balkanize ourselves any more than we already have.
I understand the sentiment. I would only point out that if, in the example you posit, Ted's entire identity is wrapped up in being deaf and born to deaf parents, then it is not wrapped up in union with Christ.
If union with Christ means I never hear another note of music or the sound of children's laughter, then I will be deaf and content. I cannot understand why the reverse would not also be the case for Ted - if union with Christ is the core of his identity, anyway.
To be sure, Ted has not "suffered" in the same way that someone born deaf would suffer 2,000 years ago or even 150 years ago. The development of ASL and other tools to help a deaf person adjust and function in a society that assumes an ability to hear have been tremendous blessings, as have devices, techniques, and treatments that restore or establish hearing to varying degrees. Perhaps Max was wrong to call it a "disease" since it might not be in a technical sense. But if, in the providence of God, heaven is a place where everyone can hear and Ted learns to distinguish the sounds, for instance, of a Bach concerto, I don't think he will be the worse off for it.
If it's Snoop Dogg, well, then, maybe the ability to not hear would be the more heavenly state.
I refer to my children (18, 21 and 23), none of whom are dealing with intellectual disabilities, as "kids".
People in church frequently refer to those in the college-age range as "kids" and mean nothing more than that they're about the age their own children are. Heck, I'm 47 and my mother still refers to me and to my brothers as "you kids" as do many of the elderly in the congregation. They are not insulting me when they do so, either.
The attempt to correct the heart by correcting the language is to treat the symptom rather than the disease. The disease is not the words "retarded" or "kid" or "idiot", but the condescension and self-elevation that may be intended through the use of those words or phrases. While some words, such as "idiot" have become so wholly the realm of insult that it is safe to say don't ever use it. "Kid" has not yet reached that point. And one of the reasons "retarded" has gotten there is because (as a society) we never really addressed the heart of the matter when we dropped "idiot" from the approved lexicon. You could get rid of "retarded" and "kid", but the heart of pride and condescension will just find a different word. Chasing language like this is a striving after wind.
The myriad changes in the word or phrase used to refer to Black people hasn't eradicated racism, either. It's the heart, not the word. So I am not really concerned about people-first language. I'm concerned about hearts obedient to the great commandment and the second like it.
My first thought on reading this was, "Oh please." My second thought is, "Lighten up, Fancis."
Nothing Lucado said in the passages you quoted belittled people of any sort. Nothing he said indicates that people with disabilitites are less Christlike. Indeed, it's a pretty standard riff on Isaiah 61 and not much different from Jesus' answer to John's disciples in Matthew 11. We shall be like Christ - whole, body and soul. That's all he's saying.
Your suggestion that most deaf people don't consider it a disability is also rather hard to believe. Ask them: if they could be granted hearing, would they take it? Ask those who once could hear but now cannot: do you miss it? I know a few people in both categories, and all would answer affirmatively. They have adjusted, and learned to live with it quite well, but that's not the same as saying it isn't a disability. A youtube video not long ago showed a young woman having a prosthetic hearing device activated, and the joy of hearing overcame her. I don't think she considered deafness simply a "language and cultural subgroup".
And what's so wrong about calling a disability a disability? All of us are broken in some fashion - some breaks are easier to mask than others, some harder to adjust to than others, but there's something wrong with everyone. We live in a broken world. We adjust as we can, rely on the grace of God and the love of our brothers and sisters, and look forward to a time when we are made whole.
As to the specifics of what it is to be made whole, I note that after his resurrection Jesus still had the holes in him. Leads me to think that the wholeness of our union with Christ, fully experienced, overwhelms any such minor considerations as an extra hole here or there, but I really don't know for sure. Guess we'll find out when we get there.
There are enough real problems to deal with in the mean time. We don't need to be inventing them, placing impossible burdens on each other to the point where we hardly dare say anything for fear of offending someone.
It is provocative. I find it difficult, however, to square with the doctrine of total depravity. If everyone is morally ill - and it would seem that the Bible does teach just that - defining a category of moral illness (or injury) becomes highly problematic.
If we are going to say, for instance, that some people are morally ill, we must allow that others are morally healthy. Does someone morally healthy still need a savior? Why, if he's healthy? Doesn't Jesus even say that he came for the sick - the healthy don't need a physician? But if we are going to say everyone is morally ill (total depravity), then this ceases to be a useful category in determining a way forward when confronted by events such as Aurora or Columbine. Or rather, it supplants the biblical language of sin, grace, redemption, and forgiveness with the clinical language of illness, treatment, and cure. I'm not so sure that's a good trade.
Sounds like a distinction also made in the military among different officers.
There are officers who go through school (Academy, ROTC, or some other college program followed by OCS) who are commissioned. Technically these all require the advice and consent of the Senate and they serve at the pleasure of the president (although various laws have modified that somewhat as the U.S. military expanded and became more permanent after WW2).
Then there are officers who come up through the ranks and specialize in a particular field of endeavor. These are of two sorts, too. The first are given a commission as well, but their area of duty is limited to their expertise (limited duty officers or LDO). Often their commission is temporary until they've served 8 years as an officer (if they retired after only 6 years commissioned service, for retirement they'd revert to their enlisted rank). The second of these is not commissioned, but is given a "warrant". They are, as you'd expect, Warrant Officers. A warrant officer is sort of a cross between a commissioned officer and an enlisted person - recognized experts in a given field, they may have the effective status of a commissioned officer, but in terms of protocol (who salutes whom first, for instance) and precedence, is also effectively enlisted. The warrant also does not require the advice and consent of the senate, but merely a determination of need in the service and ability in the service member by the Commander-in-Chief.
By way of parallel, we have ministers who go through seminary and are ordained (with the advice and consent of Synod). There are also those who may not go through seminary, but by some other means are found to have the theological competence to serve as ministers (Church Order Article 7). These also require the advice and consent of Synod (via Synodical Deputies). Although not formally limited in their duties, in the nature of the way things actually happen in the CRC, they often are in practice in a way somewhat parallel to the LDO. And then there are Commissioned Pastors whose position roughly parallels that of the Warrant Officer.
Is it neat & tidy & clean so that it's always clear which is which? Nope. Is it servicable? Yup. And "Commissioned Pastor" certainly has a less bureaucratic sound than "Ministry Associate". The latter sounds like we're a law firm and they're hoping some day they can become partners.
I prefer "Commissioned Pastor" to "Ministry Associate" or, frankly, "Evangelist". The last does not encompass all that those so ordained actually do and the one just departed ("ministry associate") should really apply to every member of the church. "Commissioned Pastor" gives the same title I have (pastor), but connects more specifically to the particular task at hand which is appropriate to the role played in the larger body of the CRC.
The new title also makes it easier when dealing with secular organizations. We'll get far less grief form the IRS from treating a pastor like a pastor if we call him (or her) a pastor.
It is also true, despite our best efforts and the clear statement in the Church Order (as well as the confessions) that these offices do not differ in dignity, functionally we treat them with different dignity. If 400 years of church order and confession hasn't changed that, nothing any modern synod does will do so either. The most we can do is enjoin those who hold the offices to discourage this differentiation in their own minds and those to and among whom they minister. It may be spitting into the wind, but sometimes you've got to.
To take from my earlier post regarding military officers, I note that officers with prior enlisted experience tended to do far better as lieutenants than those who came into the rank straight out of school. As someone once said, experience is the best teacher - though often the most expensive school. Given a choice between someone who's done it and someone who's only read about it, I'll take the former any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
One person of the Trinity does have gender - Jesus. The first person of the Trinity has chosen to have himself referred to as Father, though that does not mean he has gender as we do. But regardless, God chose in his wisdom to create us with gender - male and female. The passage under discussion - Gal 3:28 - did not then and does not now mean the differences inherent in gender evaporated and all Christians become some sort of hermaphrodite.
So what do the twin facts of differentiation in human gender (male and female) and our unity in Christ (Gal 3:28 and other passages) mean for the Church as she seeks to minister in the name of Jesus now? Some of our brothers and sisters have looked to Scripture and come to the conclusion that they are not permitted to ordain women to one or more of the offices of the Church. Some have looked to Scripture and come to the conlusion that there are no structural boundaries on women serving within the Church. Synod has declared that there is no way within traditional Reformed hermeneutics to conclusively determine which, if either, of these perspectives is the more faithful to the Biblical text.
It's not a matter of being afraid to "learn something for the Kingdom", and if you'll look back through my posts you will find that I have not stated my own view on the question. That is intentional since, in my opinion, the key question as it pertains to classes, synods and councils is not how to make other people think what I think but how do we, institutionally, implement Synod's declaration that these two opposing views are both warranted by Scripture and we should find some way to live and serve together in the Church.
Posted in: The Church and the Exercise of Non-Ecclesiastical Power
The church CANNOT make decisions outside its proper sphere, for outside its proper sphere it has no authority to make decisions. The Church cannot and does not decide what the nation's economic policy is, or whether immigration policy should be this or that. The church (with the exception of wholly owned subsidiary institutions like the seminary or Calvin College) also does not make decisions regarding what a school will or will not teach.
But, as you say, the church cannot help but exercise influence. Decisions we make regarding what we will or won't invest pension funds in have an impact on - influence - markets. Building in one place or not another, and the type of building constructed affect property values and other architecture in the neighborhood even if unintentionally. Zoning issues come into play and the congregations will understandably attempt to influence those, too. So if we are striving for some purity of spheres in which none of them influence one another, you are surely correct to point out its impossibility, but then, neither Kuyper nor those who have striven to implement his thought on the subject would advocate such a thing. You are, in other words, creating a bit of a straw man by eliding concepts ("decide" and "influence" which are distinct).
But I would say that the church MAY NOT say "Thus saith the Lord" when the Lord has not spoken. When it comes to running the economy, the Bible enjoins us to care for the downtrodden - and also says if they won't work, let them not eat. Can the church, as institution, definitively say that the Lord saith support (or don't support) the latest Farm bill? It seems to me, the word of the Lord on that question is not clear. If we nevertheless presume to declare that the Lord says one or the other, we take the Lord's name in vain. In my opinion, the CRCNA has far too frequently crossed that line in recent years, even through majority votes at synods, claiming the Lord has spoken clearly and specifically on questions that are in fact unclear and uncertain with regards to the Lord's word.
We should also bear in mind that, both within the church and outside it, when she speaks as institution the ordinary presumption is that she is always in some fashion prefacing its statements with "thus saith the Lord." If we don't mean to say that, we must be extremely intentional and direct in explaining that we are not. We should be extremely cautious regardless - not because it's such a terrible thing to vote one way or another on this bill or the other one, but because it is a terrible thing to take the Lord's name in vain.
Posted in: Good Intentions Gone Awry
Thanks, Ken. I watched my father struggle with MS, too, and I know how difficult it was to make the above comments - not psychologically or emotionally maybe, but physically.
I am grateful for what you say, and honor you for the effort expended in saying it.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Blessings.
Posted in: Good Intentions Gone Awry
Not sure why it would be "better" to ask someone who considers herself (what, don't bother asking deaf men?) part of the "Deaf". Seems to me the whole "Deaf Community" notion runs counter to what you call "people first" language since it defines people in terms of a condition rather than their humanity, but such contradictions are inevitable when we get into the land of "self esteem" and political correctness.
In Matthew 11, one of the signs of the Christ is that the deaf hear (along with blind seeing, lame walking, etc.). While it is not definitive, it is certainly reasonable to believe that deafness will be no more when Christ returns in the fullness of his glory and we see face-to-face what we now see through a glass and darkly.
Nor would I deny that comfort to one who yearns for the day when we are made whole on the grounds that Jesus' resurrected body still had holes in it from the crucifixion. It is entirely appropriate that a mother grieving over a son who died because his head was blown off by an IED, for instance, should look forward to being able to see his face again in the time to come, so some notion of restoration and wholeness applies even to that physical body.
So, how about we not look for reasons to be offended by Max Lucado, using language that is highly reminiscent of Scripture itself, saying that we shall be made whole, able to hear or see or smell where once we could not. How about we not try to pretend that a disability isn't a disability, but support those who are dealing with it with as much of dignity and independence as can be managed. And how about we not balkanize ourselves any more than we already have.
Posted in: Good Intentions Gone Awry
I understand the sentiment. I would only point out that if, in the example you posit, Ted's entire identity is wrapped up in being deaf and born to deaf parents, then it is not wrapped up in union with Christ.
If union with Christ means I never hear another note of music or the sound of children's laughter, then I will be deaf and content. I cannot understand why the reverse would not also be the case for Ted - if union with Christ is the core of his identity, anyway.
To be sure, Ted has not "suffered" in the same way that someone born deaf would suffer 2,000 years ago or even 150 years ago. The development of ASL and other tools to help a deaf person adjust and function in a society that assumes an ability to hear have been tremendous blessings, as have devices, techniques, and treatments that restore or establish hearing to varying degrees. Perhaps Max was wrong to call it a "disease" since it might not be in a technical sense. But if, in the providence of God, heaven is a place where everyone can hear and Ted learns to distinguish the sounds, for instance, of a Bach concerto, I don't think he will be the worse off for it.
If it's Snoop Dogg, well, then, maybe the ability to not hear would be the more heavenly state.
Posted in: Appropriate Language About People With Disabilities
I refer to my children (18, 21 and 23), none of whom are dealing with intellectual disabilities, as "kids".
People in church frequently refer to those in the college-age range as "kids" and mean nothing more than that they're about the age their own children are. Heck, I'm 47 and my mother still refers to me and to my brothers as "you kids" as do many of the elderly in the congregation. They are not insulting me when they do so, either.
The attempt to correct the heart by correcting the language is to treat the symptom rather than the disease. The disease is not the words "retarded" or "kid" or "idiot", but the condescension and self-elevation that may be intended through the use of those words or phrases. While some words, such as "idiot" have become so wholly the realm of insult that it is safe to say don't ever use it. "Kid" has not yet reached that point. And one of the reasons "retarded" has gotten there is because (as a society) we never really addressed the heart of the matter when we dropped "idiot" from the approved lexicon. You could get rid of "retarded" and "kid", but the heart of pride and condescension will just find a different word. Chasing language like this is a striving after wind.
The myriad changes in the word or phrase used to refer to Black people hasn't eradicated racism, either. It's the heart, not the word. So I am not really concerned about people-first language. I'm concerned about hearts obedient to the great commandment and the second like it.
Posted in: Good Intentions Gone Awry
My first thought on reading this was, "Oh please." My second thought is, "Lighten up, Fancis."
Nothing Lucado said in the passages you quoted belittled people of any sort. Nothing he said indicates that people with disabilitites are less Christlike. Indeed, it's a pretty standard riff on Isaiah 61 and not much different from Jesus' answer to John's disciples in Matthew 11. We shall be like Christ - whole, body and soul. That's all he's saying.
Your suggestion that most deaf people don't consider it a disability is also rather hard to believe. Ask them: if they could be granted hearing, would they take it? Ask those who once could hear but now cannot: do you miss it? I know a few people in both categories, and all would answer affirmatively. They have adjusted, and learned to live with it quite well, but that's not the same as saying it isn't a disability. A youtube video not long ago showed a young woman having a prosthetic hearing device activated, and the joy of hearing overcame her. I don't think she considered deafness simply a "language and cultural subgroup".
And what's so wrong about calling a disability a disability? All of us are broken in some fashion - some breaks are easier to mask than others, some harder to adjust to than others, but there's something wrong with everyone. We live in a broken world. We adjust as we can, rely on the grace of God and the love of our brothers and sisters, and look forward to a time when we are made whole.
As to the specifics of what it is to be made whole, I note that after his resurrection Jesus still had the holes in him. Leads me to think that the wholeness of our union with Christ, fully experienced, overwhelms any such minor considerations as an extra hole here or there, but I really don't know for sure. Guess we'll find out when we get there.
There are enough real problems to deal with in the mean time. We don't need to be inventing them, placing impossible burdens on each other to the point where we hardly dare say anything for fear of offending someone.
Posted in: Good Intentions Gone Awry
Amen.
Posted in: Mental Illness or Moral Illness?
It is provocative. I find it difficult, however, to square with the doctrine of total depravity. If everyone is morally ill - and it would seem that the Bible does teach just that - defining a category of moral illness (or injury) becomes highly problematic.
If we are going to say, for instance, that some people are morally ill, we must allow that others are morally healthy. Does someone morally healthy still need a savior? Why, if he's healthy? Doesn't Jesus even say that he came for the sick - the healthy don't need a physician? But if we are going to say everyone is morally ill (total depravity), then this ceases to be a useful category in determining a way forward when confronted by events such as Aurora or Columbine. Or rather, it supplants the biblical language of sin, grace, redemption, and forgiveness with the clinical language of illness, treatment, and cure. I'm not so sure that's a good trade.
Posted in: Commissioned Pastors: A Rose By Another Name?
Sounds like a distinction also made in the military among different officers.
There are officers who go through school (Academy, ROTC, or some other college program followed by OCS) who are commissioned. Technically these all require the advice and consent of the Senate and they serve at the pleasure of the president (although various laws have modified that somewhat as the U.S. military expanded and became more permanent after WW2).
Then there are officers who come up through the ranks and specialize in a particular field of endeavor. These are of two sorts, too. The first are given a commission as well, but their area of duty is limited to their expertise (limited duty officers or LDO). Often their commission is temporary until they've served 8 years as an officer (if they retired after only 6 years commissioned service, for retirement they'd revert to their enlisted rank). The second of these is not commissioned, but is given a "warrant". They are, as you'd expect, Warrant Officers. A warrant officer is sort of a cross between a commissioned officer and an enlisted person - recognized experts in a given field, they may have the effective status of a commissioned officer, but in terms of protocol (who salutes whom first, for instance) and precedence, is also effectively enlisted. The warrant also does not require the advice and consent of the senate, but merely a determination of need in the service and ability in the service member by the Commander-in-Chief.
By way of parallel, we have ministers who go through seminary and are ordained (with the advice and consent of Synod). There are also those who may not go through seminary, but by some other means are found to have the theological competence to serve as ministers (Church Order Article 7). These also require the advice and consent of Synod (via Synodical Deputies). Although not formally limited in their duties, in the nature of the way things actually happen in the CRC, they often are in practice in a way somewhat parallel to the LDO. And then there are Commissioned Pastors whose position roughly parallels that of the Warrant Officer.
Is it neat & tidy & clean so that it's always clear which is which? Nope. Is it servicable? Yup. And "Commissioned Pastor" certainly has a less bureaucratic sound than "Ministry Associate". The latter sounds like we're a law firm and they're hoping some day they can become partners.
Posted in: Commissioned Pastors: A Rose By Another Name?
Amen.
I prefer "Commissioned Pastor" to "Ministry Associate" or, frankly, "Evangelist". The last does not encompass all that those so ordained actually do and the one just departed ("ministry associate") should really apply to every member of the church. "Commissioned Pastor" gives the same title I have (pastor), but connects more specifically to the particular task at hand which is appropriate to the role played in the larger body of the CRC.
The new title also makes it easier when dealing with secular organizations. We'll get far less grief form the IRS from treating a pastor like a pastor if we call him (or her) a pastor.
It is also true, despite our best efforts and the clear statement in the Church Order (as well as the confessions) that these offices do not differ in dignity, functionally we treat them with different dignity. If 400 years of church order and confession hasn't changed that, nothing any modern synod does will do so either. The most we can do is enjoin those who hold the offices to discourage this differentiation in their own minds and those to and among whom they minister. It may be spitting into the wind, but sometimes you've got to.
To take from my earlier post regarding military officers, I note that officers with prior enlisted experience tended to do far better as lieutenants than those who came into the rank straight out of school. As someone once said, experience is the best teacher - though often the most expensive school. Given a choice between someone who's done it and someone who's only read about it, I'll take the former any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
One person of the Trinity does have gender - Jesus. The first person of the Trinity has chosen to have himself referred to as Father, though that does not mean he has gender as we do. But regardless, God chose in his wisdom to create us with gender - male and female. The passage under discussion - Gal 3:28 - did not then and does not now mean the differences inherent in gender evaporated and all Christians become some sort of hermaphrodite.
So what do the twin facts of differentiation in human gender (male and female) and our unity in Christ (Gal 3:28 and other passages) mean for the Church as she seeks to minister in the name of Jesus now? Some of our brothers and sisters have looked to Scripture and come to the conclusion that they are not permitted to ordain women to one or more of the offices of the Church. Some have looked to Scripture and come to the conlusion that there are no structural boundaries on women serving within the Church. Synod has declared that there is no way within traditional Reformed hermeneutics to conclusively determine which, if either, of these perspectives is the more faithful to the Biblical text.
It's not a matter of being afraid to "learn something for the Kingdom", and if you'll look back through my posts you will find that I have not stated my own view on the question. That is intentional since, in my opinion, the key question as it pertains to classes, synods and councils is not how to make other people think what I think but how do we, institutionally, implement Synod's declaration that these two opposing views are both warranted by Scripture and we should find some way to live and serve together in the Church.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
It would be a whole lot easier to move the church forward if we could be certain about which direction is "forward".
And therein lies the pain of the original compromise. Synod essentially said "forward" was in two opposite directions at the same time.