AKA Dr. Raymond A. Blacketer. Reformation scholar, sometime professor, native Californian, lover of the Reformed confessions, brought into the Christian Reformed Church through evangelism. Formerly pastor of Neerlandia CRC in Northern Alberta, Canada, and First Cutlerville CRC, Byron Center. Currently working as a theological editor and translator.
I don't see any race card playing here, and I don't think it's appropriate to assume that persons are "playing the race card," whatever that could possibly mean in a discussion about racial and ethnic quotas and/or goals. If this network is for genuine discussion, we should have the freedom to say what's on our mind, albeit in a civil and Christlike manner, without fear of recrimination or labeling. As for the denominational issues, the lack of transparency and meaningful communication from the BOT leaves people open to speculate, which is why the churches are owed more from the BOT than the non-communications we have received. Whatever is going on, it IS our business, because it is our church, not the church of the agencies or the church of denominational headquarters. And I wonder how really accountable the BOT is, given the rushed agendas of our Synods these days. Are their minutes available to the classes?
Quotas are a setup for failure and a more subtle kind of injustice; this politically correct drive reflects the CRC leadership's self-punishing anxiety more than it reflects bibilical teaching regarding race and spiritual gifts--the latter being the qualification for leadership, not racial quotas. But there are bigger, systemic problems afoot. There is an increasing rift bewteen the BOT and the churches, the agencies and the congregations. Transparency is gone, communication is vague and veiled. What, for example, is going on with these high-profile resignations at 2850 [translation: the denominational headquarters]? Why are the churches kept in the dark? Do we forget that the CRC belongs to the churches, and not vice-versa? As someone who was evangelized into the CRC, my greatest interest in the leadership of home missions is not what ethnic background that person has, but what that person's vision and philosophy of church growth are, and I might even dare to hope that the person has some appreciation for the Reformed faith, which in my judgment has been lacking in that agence for the past few decades. Frankly, such an appreciation might be more easy to find among the Korean congregations, but that's still beside the point. I think many CRC members will find something vaguely unjust and wrong about setting up racial quotas in the church of Christ, in which there is no male or female, Jew or Greek.
But "misapplying" Galatians 3:26? Really? I think that's a matter of perspective. Certainly the vision that Paul has in mind is one that transcends race, ethnicity, and gender based on the gospel.
And Blacketer is neither Frisian nor Dutch.
The question is what to do, and whether setting quotas is a good way to do it. We're obsessed, in my observation, with questions of racial quotas because we've lost our sense of identity, which centers not around ethnicity but a particular way of living out the gospel called the Reformed tradition. Instead of casting a vision of how the CRC is going to make disciples, we wring our hands about the composition of boards and misdirect our attention to adopting new confessions, even though we hardly remember the old ones.
At times the answer would be yes. But then what do you do with your life, your training, the investment and sacrifices you and your family have made. Curse the ministry and die, Job's wife whispers to us. But somehow we slog on; but some of us don't. It seems that an increasing number of us don't. And I wonder how many of us are truly content in our ministries. William Willimon has a great lecture on the subject, the onlygood reason to be a pastor, on iTunes, scroll down to Number 73 - The Only Good reason to be a pastor.
I'm not sure the real tragedy is "the stereotyping of all people who live with mental illness as unstable and violent individuals." I think that tends to be a bit one-sided; it sounds a bit too much like advocacy, and doesn't take into account the difficult issues that families and churches face when mental illness turns ugly. I don't oberserve that kind of stereotyping nor do I know of any statistics about that.
What concerns me much more is the lack of resources available to those severely affected by mental illness, and the difficulty family members have when they are trying to get help for someone with, e.g. schizophrenia. As a pastor I've dealt with a few situations of this type, and it was near impossible to get help for these people, because their disease prevented them from seeing that they needed help. The medical system is also an obstacle rather than an asset much of the time. In one case of schizophrenia, we tried many times over the course of years to get a young person committed to a psychiatric hospital; but he was aware enough to manipulate his way out again. The police authorities said they were powerless to do anything, and even criticized me and the parents for trying to get him committed. Finally, when he managed to get hold of a hunting rifle, he did what he had been openly planning to do for many months; his parents found the body. The local member of the legislative assembly here in Alberta had the gall to blame the family and he defended the system, because the mentally ill have rights. But what do "rights" mean when you're not in your right mind?
A second situation involves a person who refuses to admit that he has mental problems, and projects his problems onto others, with a great deal of delusional verbal violence directed at specific individuals, interspersed with hyperspiritual preaching and grandiose reflections on his own virtuous and loving qualities. I am very concerned about the potential that the verbal violence could turn physical. What can be done about it? Next to nothing. This individual is receiving no treatment at all, and will not even submit to a psychological exam, and no one can force him to do so. The result is that his former spouse lives in fear for herself and her two children.
I think we need a more balanced view of mental illness. Far more people experience it than we like to admit, often in the form of depression, and I concur that there is a terrible stigma there that we have to overcome. But I think that in every pastor's career, perhaps in every congregation, it is likely that one will encounter a person who is mentally ill in a way that makes them a danger to themselves and/or to others. Moreover, I think we are likely to encounter a few individuals in our ministry who are sociopathic, to use the common term, who might be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder; this kind of mental illness tends to leave a path of destruction in its wake. I suspect I have had a few parishioners who would fall into this category. This is also an area where pastors could use guidance and support. It can be very frustrating, leaving one with a feeling of powerlessness, when it comes to ministry in these difficult situations.
Ken, you missed my point completely, and misrepresented my comments as well. Are there statistics about people in general discriminating against the mentally ill? Not that I know of. Is it my experience as a pastor that people in congregations use the pejorative terms you list to describe the mentally ill? Not hardly. I made no claim that the mentally ill are responsible for any percentage of crime. My point is that the biggest problem I have faced in ministry in this regard, along with the stigma surrounding mental illness, is lack of recourse when a person does exhibit potentially harmful behavior.
No problem, Ken, I do that all the time. To answer one of your questions, if I were in a mental state that was psychotic, delusional, and dangerous (which is most likely to occur on a Saturday night before I have to preach), I would want my spouse to commit me to a mental hospital, so that I might have some hope of recovery and to prevent me from hurting anyone. I would presume that such a commitment would be involuntary, because I would not be in my right mind. I think people are very understanding, in my experience, when it comes to things like a schizophrenic member committing suicide; we talked about how it was the disease that killed him. But I also felt a good deal of impotent rage at a medical/legal system that ultimately ensured that this young man would eventually be successful in taking his own life. What I would like to see address by the office of disability concerns is how pastors can deal with this? What resources and strategies are available for this kind of ministry? How do you help someone who refuses help and believes you want to harm him/her?
Thanks, Mark, Living in Canada, I can tell you that changes in health coverage laws will not make one iota of difference in this matter. Canada has universal health care coverage, but the system has limited resources, particularly for the mentally ill, as advocates have pointed out to provincial and federal governments to little avail. Even with universal health care the severely mentally ill are still living on the streets and it's nigh unto impossible for a family to get someone with severe schizophrenia, for example, committed long enough to get a proper diagnosis and a treament plan from our overcrowded and under-resourced hospitals. The law is also a problem; it was a Canadian member of the legislative assembly in Alberta, the speaker of the assembly no less, who told our local ministerial that the mentally ill have rights (and of course we agree) and so it's up to them to get treatment or not (which is totally naive and unrealistic in the case of someone who is not competent to make those decisions). Moreover, getting help for someone in our rural Canadian town is extremely frustrating and almost seems designed to make people throw up their hands in surrender. It seems to me like an overwhelming systemic problem, not merely a matter of extending coverage. (And as a Yankee living in Canada, I have to say I have no clue what the new health care law is supposed to do; it seems like a bandaid on a head wound). I have no answers, only a frustrated lament, reflecting the pain of members of my congregation and our sense of powerlessness.
It's interesting that signing a document had an impact on people's behavior. In our day and age, documents are disparaged as "just a piece of paper." But there's something about writing your signature on something that is a physical manifestation of covenantal commitment. It reminds me of God himself writing the words of the commandments on the tablets of stone, later to write them on the hearts of his people by his Spirit.
I would love to see these files re-posted. This issue is as relevant today as ever. I just met with a group of church planters at a recent conference, and they are resonating with Jamie Smith's call to cease treating our greatest assets as liabilities, and to provide theological leadership to our church and the broader Reformed tradition--but in a way that is distinctly different from the often one-sided, harsh, overly pugnacious, and reductionist picture of "Calvinism" presented by the "Young, Restless, and Reformed."
Jamie Smith captures what I've been feeling for at least twenty years about the richness of the CRC and the strange phenomenon of CRC persons wanting to "paper over" the best parts of that tradition. I was evangelized into the church with my mom and sister in 1976. I soaked up Reformed theology from my pastor while getting fed dispensationalism at a fundamentalist Christian school. I went to Calvin College and Seminary, and I increasingly came across this embarrassment or even disparagement of the Reformed tradition among CRC people, and even, I have to say, among my fellow CRC clergy. I have frequently found that kind of spiritual masochism disheartening, and it is encouraging to hear Jamie's call to stop trying to bury the treasure we have inherited or found or which has found us. We have much to learn from other traditions (catholicity), and especially, I think, in terms of the liturgical tradition, but we also have much to offer. It's not about being Dutch, or getting uptight about being Dutch or non Dutch. If you're Frisian maybe that's a different matter, But seriously, get over it! Otherwise we will totally lose our distinctive way of holding these things together and thereby lose our reason for existing as a distinct part of the body of Christ. The Dutchness in our history is an important ingredient in the recipe that has made us who we are, in all of our common diversity, one might say. I am thankful that God led my family to this unique part of his body, and I am not ashamed to identify myself with the Dutch-North American Reformed tradition, and neither, I suggest, should any of you who have "van" at the front or -sma" at the end of your names.
And just to clarify, by the "Dutchness in our history" I mean things like the adoption of the (German) Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession, and the formulation of a church order that has served us well and continues to do so even as we tinker with it to enable it to serve us better. I don't mean being tall and blonde and liking salty licorice. Celebrate our peculiarly Dutch-North American Reformed tradition!
Posted in: People of Color in Leadership Positions
I don't see any race card playing here, and I don't think it's appropriate to assume that persons are "playing the race card," whatever that could possibly mean in a discussion about racial and ethnic quotas and/or goals. If this network is for genuine discussion, we should have the freedom to say what's on our mind, albeit in a civil and Christlike manner, without fear of recrimination or labeling. As for the denominational issues, the lack of transparency and meaningful communication from the BOT leaves people open to speculate, which is why the churches are owed more from the BOT than the non-communications we have received. Whatever is going on, it IS our business, because it is our church, not the church of the agencies or the church of denominational headquarters. And I wonder how really accountable the BOT is, given the rushed agendas of our Synods these days. Are their minutes available to the classes?
Posted in: People of Color in Leadership Positions
Quotas are a setup for failure and a more subtle kind of injustice; this politically correct drive reflects the CRC leadership's self-punishing anxiety more than it reflects bibilical teaching regarding race and spiritual gifts--the latter being the qualification for leadership, not racial quotas. But there are bigger, systemic problems afoot. There is an increasing rift bewteen the BOT and the churches, the agencies and the congregations. Transparency is gone, communication is vague and veiled. What, for example, is going on with these high-profile resignations at 2850 [translation: the denominational headquarters]? Why are the churches kept in the dark? Do we forget that the CRC belongs to the churches, and not vice-versa? As someone who was evangelized into the CRC, my greatest interest in the leadership of home missions is not what ethnic background that person has, but what that person's vision and philosophy of church growth are, and I might even dare to hope that the person has some appreciation for the Reformed faith, which in my judgment has been lacking in that agence for the past few decades. Frankly, such an appreciation might be more easy to find among the Korean congregations, but that's still beside the point. I think many CRC members will find something vaguely unjust and wrong about setting up racial quotas in the church of Christ, in which there is no male or female, Jew or Greek.
Posted in: People of Color in Leadership Positions
Mike, we all have those days.
But "misapplying" Galatians 3:26? Really? I think that's a matter of perspective. Certainly the vision that Paul has in mind is one that transcends race, ethnicity, and gender based on the gospel.
And Blacketer is neither Frisian nor Dutch.
The question is what to do, and whether setting quotas is a good way to do it. We're obsessed, in my observation, with questions of racial quotas because we've lost our sense of identity, which centers not around ethnicity but a particular way of living out the gospel called the Reformed tradition. Instead of casting a vision of how the CRC is going to make disciples, we wring our hands about the composition of boards and misdirect our attention to adopting new confessions, even though we hardly remember the old ones.
Posted in: Have You Ever Abandoned Your Vocation--or Been Tempted To?
At times the answer would be yes. But then what do you do with your life, your training, the investment and sacrifices you and your family have made. Curse the ministry and die, Job's wife whispers to us. But somehow we slog on; but some of us don't. It seems that an increasing number of us don't. And I wonder how many of us are truly content in our ministries. William Willimon has a great lecture on the subject, the onlygood reason to be a pastor, on iTunes, scroll down to Number 73 - The Only Good reason to be a pastor.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bishop-william-h-willimons/id261879191
Posted in: A Second Arizona Tragedy
Hi, Mark,
I'm not sure the real tragedy is "the stereotyping of all people who live with mental illness as unstable and violent individuals." I think that tends to be a bit one-sided; it sounds a bit too much like advocacy, and doesn't take into account the difficult issues that families and churches face when mental illness turns ugly. I don't oberserve that kind of stereotyping nor do I know of any statistics about that.
What concerns me much more is the lack of resources available to those severely affected by mental illness, and the difficulty family members have when they are trying to get help for someone with, e.g. schizophrenia. As a pastor I've dealt with a few situations of this type, and it was near impossible to get help for these people, because their disease prevented them from seeing that they needed help. The medical system is also an obstacle rather than an asset much of the time. In one case of schizophrenia, we tried many times over the course of years to get a young person committed to a psychiatric hospital; but he was aware enough to manipulate his way out again. The police authorities said they were powerless to do anything, and even criticized me and the parents for trying to get him committed. Finally, when he managed to get hold of a hunting rifle, he did what he had been openly planning to do for many months; his parents found the body. The local member of the legislative assembly here in Alberta had the gall to blame the family and he defended the system, because the mentally ill have rights. But what do "rights" mean when you're not in your right mind?
A second situation involves a person who refuses to admit that he has mental problems, and projects his problems onto others, with a great deal of delusional verbal violence directed at specific individuals, interspersed with hyperspiritual preaching and grandiose reflections on his own virtuous and loving qualities. I am very concerned about the potential that the verbal violence could turn physical. What can be done about it? Next to nothing. This individual is receiving no treatment at all, and will not even submit to a psychological exam, and no one can force him to do so. The result is that his former spouse lives in fear for herself and her two children.
I think we need a more balanced view of mental illness. Far more people experience it than we like to admit, often in the form of depression, and I concur that there is a terrible stigma there that we have to overcome. But I think that in every pastor's career, perhaps in every congregation, it is likely that one will encounter a person who is mentally ill in a way that makes them a danger to themselves and/or to others. Moreover, I think we are likely to encounter a few individuals in our ministry who are sociopathic, to use the common term, who might be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder; this kind of mental illness tends to leave a path of destruction in its wake. I suspect I have had a few parishioners who would fall into this category. This is also an area where pastors could use guidance and support. It can be very frustrating, leaving one with a feeling of powerlessness, when it comes to ministry in these difficult situations.
Posted in: A Second Arizona Tragedy
Ken, you missed my point completely, and misrepresented my comments as well. Are there statistics about people in general discriminating against the mentally ill? Not that I know of. Is it my experience as a pastor that people in congregations use the pejorative terms you list to describe the mentally ill? Not hardly. I made no claim that the mentally ill are responsible for any percentage of crime. My point is that the biggest problem I have faced in ministry in this regard, along with the stigma surrounding mental illness, is lack of recourse when a person does exhibit potentially harmful behavior.
Posted in: A Second Arizona Tragedy
No problem, Ken, I do that all the time. To answer one of your questions, if I were in a mental state that was psychotic, delusional, and dangerous (which is most likely to occur on a Saturday night before I have to preach), I would want my spouse to commit me to a mental hospital, so that I might have some hope of recovery and to prevent me from hurting anyone. I would presume that such a commitment would be involuntary, because I would not be in my right mind. I think people are very understanding, in my experience, when it comes to things like a schizophrenic member committing suicide; we talked about how it was the disease that killed him. But I also felt a good deal of impotent rage at a medical/legal system that ultimately ensured that this young man would eventually be successful in taking his own life. What I would like to see address by the office of disability concerns is how pastors can deal with this? What resources and strategies are available for this kind of ministry? How do you help someone who refuses help and believes you want to harm him/her?
Posted in: A Second Arizona Tragedy
Thanks, Mark, Living in Canada, I can tell you that changes in health coverage laws will not make one iota of difference in this matter. Canada has universal health care coverage, but the system has limited resources, particularly for the mentally ill, as advocates have pointed out to provincial and federal governments to little avail. Even with universal health care the severely mentally ill are still living on the streets and it's nigh unto impossible for a family to get someone with severe schizophrenia, for example, committed long enough to get a proper diagnosis and a treament plan from our overcrowded and under-resourced hospitals. The law is also a problem; it was a Canadian member of the legislative assembly in Alberta, the speaker of the assembly no less, who told our local ministerial that the mentally ill have rights (and of course we agree) and so it's up to them to get treatment or not (which is totally naive and unrealistic in the case of someone who is not competent to make those decisions). Moreover, getting help for someone in our rural Canadian town is extremely frustrating and almost seems designed to make people throw up their hands in surrender. It seems to me like an overwhelming systemic problem, not merely a matter of extending coverage. (And as a Yankee living in Canada, I have to say I have no clue what the new health care law is supposed to do; it seems like a bandaid on a head wound). I have no answers, only a frustrated lament, reflecting the pain of members of my congregation and our sense of powerlessness.
Posted in: Remembering Who You Are: Ten Commandments, Signed Commitments and Dishonesty
It's interesting that signing a document had an impact on people's behavior. In our day and age, documents are disparaged as "just a piece of paper." But there's something about writing your signature on something that is a physical manifestation of covenantal commitment. It reminds me of God himself writing the words of the commandments on the tablets of stone, later to write them on the hearts of his people by his Spirit.
Posted in: James Smith on "Buried Treasure? Reformed Tradition and the Future of the CRC"
I would love to see these files re-posted. This issue is as relevant today as ever. I just met with a group of church planters at a recent conference, and they are resonating with Jamie Smith's call to cease treating our greatest assets as liabilities, and to provide theological leadership to our church and the broader Reformed tradition--but in a way that is distinctly different from the often one-sided, harsh, overly pugnacious, and reductionist picture of "Calvinism" presented by the "Young, Restless, and Reformed."
Posted in: James Smith on "Buried Treasure? Reformed Tradition and the Future of the CRC"
Jamie Smith captures what I've been feeling for at least twenty years about the richness of the CRC and the strange phenomenon of CRC persons wanting to "paper over" the best parts of that tradition. I was evangelized into the church with my mom and sister in 1976. I soaked up Reformed theology from my pastor while getting fed dispensationalism at a fundamentalist Christian school. I went to Calvin College and Seminary, and I increasingly came across this embarrassment or even disparagement of the Reformed tradition among CRC people, and even, I have to say, among my fellow CRC clergy. I have frequently found that kind of spiritual masochism disheartening, and it is encouraging to hear Jamie's call to stop trying to bury the treasure we have inherited or found or which has found us. We have much to learn from other traditions (catholicity), and especially, I think, in terms of the liturgical tradition, but we also have much to offer. It's not about being Dutch, or getting uptight about being Dutch or non Dutch. If you're Frisian maybe that's a different matter, But seriously, get over it! Otherwise we will totally lose our distinctive way of holding these things together and thereby lose our reason for existing as a distinct part of the body of Christ. The Dutchness in our history is an important ingredient in the recipe that has made us who we are, in all of our common diversity, one might say. I am thankful that God led my family to this unique part of his body, and I am not ashamed to identify myself with the Dutch-North American Reformed tradition, and neither, I suggest, should any of you who have "van" at the front or -sma" at the end of your names.
"Dominee" Randy Blacketer
Posted in: James Smith on "Buried Treasure? Reformed Tradition and the Future of the CRC"
And just to clarify, by the "Dutchness in our history" I mean things like the adoption of the (German) Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession, and the formulation of a church order that has served us well and continues to do so even as we tinker with it to enable it to serve us better. I don't mean being tall and blonde and liking salty licorice. Celebrate our peculiarly Dutch-North American Reformed tradition!