Hear, hear Edwin. I like your comments that direct us toward the advances and progress that are being made in history. There may be plenty of evil, but culturally and politically our societies are making progress. I can’t tell you the name of the project or the authors, but recently a research project pointed out that today there are many less homicides per capita committed than in the past decades or centuries.
It may not seem it, but if we focus on the negative we will not see or appreciate the good. Christianity tends to focus on the sin of a society and individuals; we are part of a fallen world. Sin will only increase until God intervenes. So it’s a difficult thing to see and appreciate the good that is taking place outside the narrow confines of the church. Christian theology tends to belittle the good, with many Christians longing for the good old days and belittling the progress being made in the areas of science, technology and cultural growth. Even Christian evangelism tends to point toward the negative. The good of the gospel cannot be recognized until the evil is first recognized, especially personally, and confessed. So there is no good news until the bad is recognized. Christians are very good at pointing the evil. And of course, Paul is one of the greatest contributors to this negativity (total depravity).
The progress that you point out, Edwin, can be seen as the slow development of the human race (whether it takes hundreds of years or thousands, or more) It can be attributed to God and his mysterious intervention or to the long and slow process of evolution, also attributed to God. But Christianity, on the whole, will have a difficult time acknowledging any progress, because to them the world is on its way to hell in a hand basket.
And thank you, Jolanda, for the reminders to be kind and to stay on target. We love you.
I would think that is wise and good that our mission board has a CMT (Crisis Management Team) to give direction to and make decisions for our missionaries in times of crisis. It is often difficult to be objective in such times. And certainly objectivity is necessary. Within a given crisis situation, one can easily think that God will take care of me. But the reality is that Christians are no safer than anyone else if they do not take intelligent steps to be safe. If you think that, then just stop taking a life saving drug that your doctor has prescribed and see where that gets you. The same applies to the safety of our missionaries in crisis situations. God has given us wisdom and insight for a reason. And we should trust the insurances our denomination provides, such as the CMT. Blessings to our team.
Hi all. Thanks, John, for pointing out, from Scripture, the bleakness of the human race, and you might as well include the creation that groans along with humanity (according to Paul). Humanity, culture and all of creation is in one sad state according to Scripture. And that is so often the way Christians look at culture and humanity, with a negative lense. And of course the Reformers do it best. You might think that the Reformed cultural mandate would make a difference, but in reality that mandate is more a separatist movement, Christians separating from the world in order to say we can do it better. Christian education (grades K - 12) looks at secular education as the playground of the devil. So thinking they can do better, they build separatist Christian schools. Is this what you call a Christian cultural mandate? The Reformers build their separatist colleges and universities (Abraham Kuyper) and when the first ones they build become polluted they separate and build new ones again. Christians form their own labor unions to separate from secular unions. Science foundations separate from the secular so they can do true science. And there are many other areas where Christians look negatively at their surrounding world and shake their finger. That negative Christian perspective has left its influence on Western culture. So when Edwin thinks we can see and encourage a sense of growing good in culture Christianity, especially the Reformed side says, you gotta be kidden; what glasses are you wearing?
Now, for your quotes from the Jewish Scriptures, regarding the total corruption of people. Christianity has nicely piggybacked upon the Jewish religion, changing completely the character of the Jewish faith. The Jewish experts and scholars from the time of Christ to present have never thought that Christianity has been any kind of culmination or fulfillment of their religion. That is only the Christian perception. Jews have thought that Christians have defiled their own Scriptures by interpreting their Scriptures through the lens of the New Testament. Now the Mormons believe that they can do the same thing to the Christian faith by rightly interpreting the Christian Bible through the lens of the book of Mormon. And now Christians, like the Jews did, are crying foul play. Piggyback upon piggyback. I’m glad you included the quote from Jesus who includes himself among humanity as not being good, but credits God only as good. I know you’ll will have something to say about that, but taken in the normal sense as Jesus said these words it supports the idea of Jesus as a insightful teacher, rather than the second person of the Trinity.
Now your final question. Yes, I do know a fair share about Christianity, as that is my background from childhood on. But now, I do not claim or follow any formal religion. As I have said previously in this string of responses, I believe all religions are an attempt to explain the God who reveals himself in creation. Religions go to great lengths to fill in what they think are the gaps and what God himself has failed to reveal to humankind in creation. And most religions have an archaic foundation, including Christianity. I try not to formulate a religion of my own or follow one. If I did, I would probably be accused of formulating my own religion. For me, creation is enough to tell me there is an incredible creator God and his preservation of the world is enough to tell me he cares for his world, including humanity (even me). People come along in history (whether God has sent them, I don’t know) who are insightful and worth listening to. But I realize that by saying too much, I may be shown to be wrong in the future, so perhaps the less said, the better.
It seems as though, we have a “comment war” between two people, Ed and John. And I doubt that the two of you will ever reach agreement. It seems as though you both have different starting points that will not allow your paths to cross in a significant way, or come to the same conclusions. Ed is asking a “what if” question in his article, and John won’t allow for any “what ifs.”
I’ll also ask a “what if” question. What if the Bible is not the inspired word of God, as you both seem to propose. The opening chapters of Genesis are antiquated in their origin, like many of the other ancient religious writings of ancient history. They speak of realities that make no sense to the modern mind. These chapters speak of a pseudo reality that fits an antiquated mentality that didn’t have the benefit of developed thought. Religions of that time spoke of the gods existing on a different plane (pseudo) but yet who interacted with humanity on earth. There were good gods and evil gods. There were national gods and the false gods of other nations. Not unlike these other ancient religions, Judaism and Christianity have a good God and a demigod, Satan, the archenemy of God. The Bible records fanciful stories of God’s creation in six literal days, by which each day God brought about another aspect of the then known world. It tells of God stepping down from his pseudo reality (heaven) and instructing humans (Adam and Eve), but also of the pseudo demigod doing the same in the form of a talking serpent and giving a conflicting message than God’s. The fanciful stories (the creation and fall of Adam and Eve, the tower of Babel, Noah’s arc, Cain and Abel, etc.) abound in the early chapters of the Bible, as well as throughout. These fanciful stories had been retold over thousands of years before finally being put down in written word. And now you, John, and many other Christians, want to hang on to these stories as though they are solid fact.
Are scientists today to assume that these fanciful stories of creation should become the bedrock of science and scientific endeavor? Are psychology and human relationships to be built upon stories of Adam and Eve’s fall and redemption? These stories are acknowledged as true and reliable by you John (and also I think, you, Edwin) by faith alone. It is the accepting as true that which does not make, even, common sense. But for you, the Bible is the God breathed word of God and is absolutely reliable and truthful, unfailing in telling us the realities of life.
How is the Bible different from the Koran and the book of Mormon or the Hindu writings which also claim to be the true inspired word of God? They say their own writings are absolutely true and the Bible is a false revelation of God, just as we say the same about them. We say their stories are fanciful and therefore untrue, but the Bible’s stories are different. Maybe all formalized religions are a weak attempt to further explain the God that is clearly revealed in his creation of the world. And each religion puts its own spin on their attempts to reveal God who has already revealed himself in the creation. I agree with Edwin, that the creation speaks the truth of God. But I disagree that God needs further help to clarify his reality and his relationship to human kind.
Your original article, Edwin, hits the nail on the head. Something is going to have to give with Christianity or it will become the ridicule of future generations. Five hundred years from now, maybe less, Christianity will make little sense, especially seeing as it is based on fanciful stories and miracles, and seeing as science will increasingly make these stories seem very foolish. I have a feeling that you, Edwin, are afraid to step outside the pale of Christian thought, and you, John, are afraid to move at all from an historic conservative perspective of Christianity which is already losing its credibility in our society. It is, indeed, true that the teachings of the Bible have to be accepted by faith, because it has little or no concrete evidence to back it up. That being true it doesn’t really matter what God is revealing in his creation or what science is discovering about our world. The Bible (in Christian thought) is the final authority. Christians today are obviously trying to bend either science or Christian teaching to line up with the other. But to me the gap is becoming larger and larger.
Edwin, had commented some time ago, about John and I going back and forth, and maybe missing the original point of his article, as Edwin saw it. As comments passed back and forth, it was obvious that we didn’t see eye to eye on the issue of evolution or creation, and of course that debate spilled over into other areas of theology, which may or may not be related, depending on how you see the implications. Then John brings a Philip Westra perspective and concern into the picture. What I’m seeing, is that everyone has a box, John, Edwin, Philip, myself and others. And somehow we all think my own box of correct Biblical interpretation is the only valid one. Is that really true, that my box (and those that agree with me) is the only true box?
The Bible contains 66 different books or letters, written by a large variety of authors, over a long period of time, involving a variety of cultural settings. Christians, in general, claim that these 66 books, taken together, make up the inspired (therefor true) word of God. These various books apparently contain a consistent message that somehow hangs together without contradicting itself, although taken from 66 different books. If there seems to be contradictions, they are only apparent, and it can be shown how conflicts for the most part can be shown to fit together when the apparent conflicting pieces are seen in light of other Scriptures. Both John and Edwin have tried to show the consistency of their Biblical understanding. They have also shown how the viewpoint of the other person is inconsistent with the Bible’s message in light of other Scriptures. We are each trying to present a better argument to demonstrate that I’m right and you are wrong when it comes to the teaching of the Bible.
Theologians have been doing this same thing from before the time of Augustine and have continued right up into the present. Just think of the multitude of Christian (at least, they call themselves that) denominations that there are at present. Each denomination has their master theologians such as Calvin, Zwingli, Luther (the list could get extensive). There the Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Baptists, Freewill Baptists, Particular Baptists, Dispensational Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Mormons (they think of themselves as Christians), Orthodox, Methodists, each with their own seminaries having a host of Phd theologians on staff. These theologians think that those outside of their own denomination are misinterpreting the Bible (an inconsistent message with contradictions) and their job, in their own seminary, is to do Biblical research to show how they can make a truly consistent (no contradictions) theology. But none of these groups agree with each other or they would join together as denominations. These differences are great enough that these denominations and groups separate from the others and have remained separate for years or centuries. But each group, although having differences from the others, thinks their group is the only with a consistent theology without inconsistencies.
Yet they all claim the Bible is the inspired word of God and contains no contradictions (unless you look across the fence at another denomination). Reformed denominations have defined their basic theology by the three ecumenical creeds and the three forms of unity. But there are few other denominations that would agree with those confessions, especially, the Canons of Dort. But these Creeds and Confessions, in the Reformed mind, is what demonstrates the Bible’s consistent and noncontradictory message. But even within the CRC confessional group there are those who look over the fence and try to wed Arminian theology to a five point Calvinistic theology, making their own box a little different from the denomination’s but showing from Scripture how their own box makes the best sense.
Within a given denomination, say the CRC, there comes a time when they want to ordain women deacons, elders, and ministers. But the Bible clearly teaches that women are not to have authority over men. So the CRC theologians get to work to show how maybe it’s time for a change and now when seen correctly, the Bible can teach that both men and women can have authority in the church and hold these positions. How about a man being the head of his household, once understood differently than today, thanks to the good work of our theologians. As in other denominations. a homosexual lifestyle will be approved for membership and service in the CRC, thanks to our theologians who will be able to bend Scripture to say what we want and call it a consistent Bible message of God’s love and justice. I think many are working on that one even now.
All this happens, despite, the Bible’s teaching that the Holy Spirit will lead his church in all truth. So what does this all say about the differences that John, Edwin, Philip, and a hundred others (including myself) have as to what the Bible really teaches? Does John really have the only truly consistent box, or is it Ed? I will admit the many inconsistencies of the Bible. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. In fact they are glaring, such as with the teaching of Jesus and Paul as to salvation. I think it may be better to make a choice, and I will choose Jesus. His teaching is so much more reasonable and fits with common logic. Have a great weekend.
Hi Salaam, I’m a little late (several months) noticing your posted article. I think you post some challenging questions. But I doubt that other religious adherents feel challenged by Christianity any more than Christians feel challenged by other religions. They all propose different pathways to God and are not meant to be stepping stones to anything except to God. In fact, most religions are mutually exclusive, therefor not stepping stones at all. Few religions try to accommodate any other religion. For example Christians claim there is no way other than Christ to win God’s favor and acceptance. As Christians, we don’t see any other religion as a stepping stone to Christ or God.
Another important question that needs answering, is who is to say that other religions are false and only Christianity is true? That seems to be the assumption that you are working with. We might claim that only the Bible is the inspired word of God and therefor completely true and trustworthy, and therefor lays out the only valid pathway to God. But that is also what every other religion claims, as well. What makes the Bible true and not the God inspired writings of other religions? Or is that just a matter of opinion? Is there anything that validates one religion over another, Christianity over all other religions?
Why are the claims of other religions false and not our claims? As Christians, we may assert that the claims of other religions are not logical, are nonsense. But is the Christian assertion that Jesus is God and has come down to earth from heaven and taken on a human nature, lived a perfect life, was crucified but rose from the dead and has now returned to heaven from which he will return one day to earth in all power and glory, is this any more realistic or logical? Other religions likely say that our Christian claims make little, if any sense. So what is the basis of us saying our religion makes sense but other religions don’t, therefor we are the only true religion?
And now for the crux of G. Anderson’s concern, winning Christian converts from within other religious beliefs. Of course that points to the exclusivity of the Christian religion. If Christians believed that there are many paths to God, they wouldn’t be concerned to pull Muslims, Hindus or Mormons away from their own religions to make them adherents of Christianity. But of course Christians are quite willing to see a Muslim convert suffer the anguishes of hell on earth (persecution) and to rejoice that they have become a Christian. That’s exclusivity at any and all costs. And that exclusive attitude by Christians is because our understanding of salvation is directly opposed to the teachings of all other religions. Other religions are hardly a stepping stone to Christianity.
Much more could be said, but I’ve gone on for too long already. Thanks for sharing your concerns. I think they are valid, but not easily answered.
I know this article is rather dated, so perhaps the comments that come in this late will never even be read. But as I see it, infant baptism isn't the problem, but rather believer's baptism, or the idea of infant baptism being the only form of baptism that is done in a church (is the problem). Because baptism, say in a Baptist church, is considered a sign of one's faith by which they have taken hold of Christ. It is more of a sign of an individual's action and a sign of when they themselves came to faith in Christ. Whereas in the Reformed tradition, baptism is a sign of God's action. It's really about God and not about me. But in our egotistical society, we tend to put ourselves at front and center and want markers of what we have done, so believer's baptism does more to feed that kind of mentality; it draws attention to me. So in our Reformed tradition we have to be careful not to feed such a mentality and emphasis. Salvation is about God, not about me. More could be said, but seeing as this will likely never be read, I'll leave it at that.
Hi Greg, your gospel formula (or Wax’s) makes some sense. But I don’t know if your short gospel description really does justice to the full accounting of the gospel or message of salvation. I find that Christians sometimes accuse other religious groups of having insider information that isn’t shared until after a so-called conversion or commitment is made. But Christians do that same thing, by which important information is withheld until after the new Christian is well on his/her way to maturity. And even then, because this additional information is less than desirable it is often never shared or is ignored by the believer.
In leg #1 for instance, it often isn’t told to the prospective Christian that apart from Christ, God sets the standard of acceptance by him at perfection. Of course, that’s an impossible standard for humans to ever reach. None ever have, other than Christ, and if one could reach it, he/she would be as perfectly holy as God himself, an impossibility. So this standard of perfect holiness that God or Christianity sets is an impossible standard. On top of that, all humans have been credited by God with the original sin of Adam. So before any human even comes from the womb he is declared by God a sinner and has fallen short of God’s standard of perfection. But another item missing from the gospel story, is that not only does God credit all humans with Adam’s sin but also with Adam’s fallen nature, by which a person naturally gravitates towards sin. In fact he/she can’t help but to sin. He/she can’t help himself because of the sinful nature credited to him/her by God. But on top of this helpless state that a person comes into the world in, he/she is held accountable for failure to meet God’s standard of perfection, as though it’s all his/her fault. Seems, as though quite a bit has been left out of the gospel story. Does this failure by human kind fall to the feet of humans or to God? Is this what we call the “justice of God.”
As to the second leg of the gospel, which you point out is the gospel announcement of substitutionary atonement, you have shortchanged that leg as well. You didn’t mention that this atonement is a limited (the “L” of TULIP) atonement, limited to those chosen by God from the cesspool of humanity. Only the chosen by God are enabled to respond to the gospel invitation by the powerful conviction and influence of the Holy Spirit. The rest are left to pay for having fallen short of God’s impossible mark of perfection, especially when God has credited to all humans Adam’s original sin and given him a fallen nature by which he can’t help but to continue in sin. Although the “few” are the recipients of this wonderful salvation, the many are left to perish (“many are called but few are chosen”). But for those chosen, this salvation is wonderful and is good news, if you can ignore what God has in store for the rest of humanity.
Those within the Christian community speak of Christianity as being unique. Unlike other religions that view God as using a balance or scale of justice to weigh the good and bad of individuals, Christians proclaim that their religion is one of grace alone. But realize that before grace becomes part of the picture, Christianity has to paint an individual into a corner of sin so deep and dark that he or she is utterly helpless. From this dark corner, not even a person’s good works count for anything. And realize from the start that it is God who has put these people into that corner.
But as you say, Greg, the gospel is the “good news” of Jesus, if you’re certain you are one of the chosen ones. Thanks for your article.
I don’t think much was lost in communication, simply because my thoughts were in printed form. I think you simply strongly disagreed with my comments to Greg. You appeal to some of the Reformed Confessions. Most Calvinists would subject their church’s confessions to the authority and teaching of Scripture. For most Bible believing Christians, the Bible is the ultimate authority. Of course there is little agreement among Christians as to what the Bible teaches (interpretation). Just consider the many differences within the CRC, but beyond that, the differences between Christian denominations gets bizarre. There is a host of different denominations and teachings in Christendom. It makes you wonder why there is so little agreement among Christians. I have heard it said that Christianity has the greatest diversity of teachings of any religion. It makes a person wonder about the validity of the Holy Spirit guiding the church in “all truth.” A Christian can make the Bible say almost anything they want. Scripture often seems to contradict itself on many points of teaching. Hence the variety of denominations. The point I’m making is that as soon as I say something, you can contradict me with a specific verse. But we’re speaking of Calvinists. You may believe the Calvinist perspective is the most true to the Bible, but no doubt you would bow to the authority of Scripture. So, to answer your concerns raised in your response.
As to the human inability to meet God’s standard of righteousness, I was not suggesting that people are equal to God (as Mormons may teach), but simply that God’s standard, apart from Christ, is impossible to reach. Consider Matthew 19:25,26. And certainly Paul suggests the same when he says, “there is none righteous, not even one.” God set a standard that is humanly impossible to achieve. Calvinists would certainly teach this. The conclusion: Human reasoning would tell anyone this is less than just on the part of God; or fair, which is part of justice, to set a standard that is unreachable.
I would not expect you to agree with the idea of God putting people into that dark corner of sin. But yet doesn’t Scripture speak for itself? Does not Scripture teach that God credited to all of Adam’s posterity his original sin? Don’t all people come into this world sinners, even before leaving the womb? And won’t God hold all people accountable for that sin, a sin that Adam’s posterity didn’t actually commit? This is a Calvinist teaching.
Also contributing to the idea of God putting humanity in that dark corner, is that God also imputed a fallen and sinful nature to all of Adam’s posterity. I believe, according to Calvinistic teaching, we would refer to this as a totally depraved nature (the T of TULIP), a nature that is sinful in all of its parts, and cannot help but to sin. This nature was imputed to all of humanity by God. And so when people cannot help but to sin, how can common sense say the acting out of this nature should not be placed at the feet of God? Of course, Calvinists are not Arminian, and therefore can not claim that humans have a free will not to sin. They would say a person’s will is constrained by his fallen nature and cannot help but to follow that nature and sin. So of course, as the Belgic Confession says, “they willingly subjected themselves to sin...”, they had no other choice. Humanity was programmed by God to sin. So I would say, that God clearly put humanity in that dark corner. The Biblical evidence is growing.
On top of all this is God’s electing purposes, which I mentioned in the earlier response as a “limited atonement,” limited to those chosen by God. This also is a Calvinistic teaching. It’s the “L” of TULIP. This could be pictured as a parent who had been out fishing with three young children who couldn’t swim. As the three boys got bored, they all started rocking the boat and all three fell in. Because all three couldn’t swim, all three were destined to drown unless help was given to them. So the father, although he could have easily saved all three, decides to save just one and leave the other two to perish. If this parent was brought before any of our human courts or brought before a judge, the parent might say, “It was the kids’ fault that they fell in. They were all rascals. So I felt no obligation to save them all. So I saved just one.” Sounds like the Bible’s explanation of predestination and it doesn’t sound just at all.
It’s too bad the Bible’s message of salvation could not have taught that God’s justice is met in the payment for sin made by Christ, and his mercy is demonstrated in the salvation of all people. But as it is, God only saves the few (“many are called but few are chosen). The Bible teaches that God does not show favoritism and tells Christians they should not show favoritism. But this Biblical teaching is definitely a demonstration of favoritism by which God chooses the few over the many, and it doesn’t demonstrate a truly just God.
You may still try to claim that people have painted themselves in the dark corner of sin and depravity. But your reasoning is faulty. You are not taking into consideration primary and secondary causation. The Calvinist would say that in God’s electing purposes, God is the primary mover or cause of salvation and the convert’s actions are only secondary. The potential convert is called upon to repent and believe the gospel. But of course the Calvinist will say that action by the believer is secondary to the primary cause, which is God’s choosing, God’s providential leading, the Holy Spirit’s leading and enabling. And without God’s primary action the saved sinner’s action would never be possible.
The same is true in regard to God’s damnation of the human race. God is the primary mover, according to the Bible, and humanity’s actions are secondary. So your quote from the Belgic Confession (Art 14) is speaking only of the secondary cause of damnation. Christians tend to do this when they don’t want to admit the less than desirable teachings of the Bible. The primary causation, as demonstrated above, is, of course, God. The actual committal of sin is the secondary and is the act of the condemned. But remember it is the primary causation by God that ensures the sinner’s damnation. Remember the sinner came into the world a sinner and was programmed (imputed fallen nature) by God to be a sinner, and called upon by God to meet a standard that was impossible for him to reach. God was the primary cause.
It surprises me to hear Calvinists quote the Dutch theologian who said, “there is not one square inch of this world that doesn’t belong to God.” That is to say that God is sovereign in and over all. But he quickly denies God’s sovereignty in the huge sphere of human existence that involves the damnation of the human race, except for the few chosen.
Nick, I did say that Christians do the person targeted for evangelism a disservice by not giving a full disclosure of the God they would be responding to. It would be very much like trying to sell a beautiful home to a potential buyer but never telling him/her that the foundation is infested with termites. Let’s at least be truthful when evangelizing. I’ll look forward to your rebuff.
Jeff, I've been retired for four years now and doubt that a gravaman would work as I have too many concerns to list in it. I hope you and family are doing well. We get up to Wis. quite often and do think of you. You may have moved from there, but wish you the best wherever you may be. Blessings. Greg, I'd like to do a little wrestling over some of the issues with you, as I see they are important. So if you're open, you could send me your email address and we could follow up on our conversation. Thanks for your openness. Roger
Hi George, Thanks for your thoughts on being our society’s referee. But I’m quite certain that our society, world, or culture says “no thanks.” They’ll tell you that our society didn’t appoint the Christian church to be the keeper of rules for our society any more than it appointed the Muslim church, Hindu church, Jewish church, Mormon church or any other group to monitor our behaviors. Most people will tell you that they have the good sense of knowing right and wrong themselves. Christians may appeal to their God inspired Scriptures but so does every other religion. So the nonchristian might ask, which referee should I listen to, or does not this great variety of referees (religions) cast doubt on them all as to monitoring cultural behaviors. Are all religions right or are they all questionable. They all claim God as their authority and claim to be the one true religion. Maybe it’s the church’s role to monitor the behaviors of their own members, like your father being a sanctioned football coach, not “cooking” judge, or wrestling umpire. I’m just trying to figure out how people in our society might respond to your well intended whistle blowing. I think our culture’s response will be that they would rather watch the church for a while and see how well those rules are working for them.
I may be out of the loop on this subject. I didn’t realize that the CRC denomination has taken a definitive position on global warming or climate change. Kyle, you talk in this article as though there is already an established position that the denomination needs to act on. Has there been a study committee from Synod with a resulting majority and minority report on the subject? It sounds like someone is jumping the gun on getting a denominational group sent to Paris, especially when you say that “governments from all over the world will be gathering in Paris” for this conference. We’re not a government. I’m not so sure that this is even the kind of thing that a church or denomination should be getting involved in. As a church, we have no expertise in things like global warming. Is the next thing, for our denomination to get involved in, going to be the promotion of organic foods, or boycotting the dairy industry, or cell phone radiation?
Posted in: My Banner Article
Hear, hear Edwin. I like your comments that direct us toward the advances and progress that are being made in history. There may be plenty of evil, but culturally and politically our societies are making progress. I can’t tell you the name of the project or the authors, but recently a research project pointed out that today there are many less homicides per capita committed than in the past decades or centuries.
It may not seem it, but if we focus on the negative we will not see or appreciate the good. Christianity tends to focus on the sin of a society and individuals; we are part of a fallen world. Sin will only increase until God intervenes. So it’s a difficult thing to see and appreciate the good that is taking place outside the narrow confines of the church. Christian theology tends to belittle the good, with many Christians longing for the good old days and belittling the progress being made in the areas of science, technology and cultural growth. Even Christian evangelism tends to point toward the negative. The good of the gospel cannot be recognized until the evil is first recognized, especially personally, and confessed. So there is no good news until the bad is recognized. Christians are very good at pointing the evil. And of course, Paul is one of the greatest contributors to this negativity (total depravity).
The progress that you point out, Edwin, can be seen as the slow development of the human race (whether it takes hundreds of years or thousands, or more) It can be attributed to God and his mysterious intervention or to the long and slow process of evolution, also attributed to God. But Christianity, on the whole, will have a difficult time acknowledging any progress, because to them the world is on its way to hell in a hand basket.
And thank you, Jolanda, for the reminders to be kind and to stay on target. We love you.
Posted in: Missionary Safety in a Troubled World
I would think that is wise and good that our mission board has a CMT (Crisis Management Team) to give direction to and make decisions for our missionaries in times of crisis. It is often difficult to be objective in such times. And certainly objectivity is necessary. Within a given crisis situation, one can easily think that God will take care of me. But the reality is that Christians are no safer than anyone else if they do not take intelligent steps to be safe. If you think that, then just stop taking a life saving drug that your doctor has prescribed and see where that gets you. The same applies to the safety of our missionaries in crisis situations. God has given us wisdom and insight for a reason. And we should trust the insurances our denomination provides, such as the CMT. Blessings to our team.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Hi all. Thanks, John, for pointing out, from Scripture, the bleakness of the human race, and you might as well include the creation that groans along with humanity (according to Paul). Humanity, culture and all of creation is in one sad state according to Scripture. And that is so often the way Christians look at culture and humanity, with a negative lense. And of course the Reformers do it best. You might think that the Reformed cultural mandate would make a difference, but in reality that mandate is more a separatist movement, Christians separating from the world in order to say we can do it better. Christian education (grades K - 12) looks at secular education as the playground of the devil. So thinking they can do better, they build separatist Christian schools. Is this what you call a Christian cultural mandate? The Reformers build their separatist colleges and universities (Abraham Kuyper) and when the first ones they build become polluted they separate and build new ones again. Christians form their own labor unions to separate from secular unions. Science foundations separate from the secular so they can do true science. And there are many other areas where Christians look negatively at their surrounding world and shake their finger. That negative Christian perspective has left its influence on Western culture. So when Edwin thinks we can see and encourage a sense of growing good in culture Christianity, especially the Reformed side says, you gotta be kidden; what glasses are you wearing?
Now, for your quotes from the Jewish Scriptures, regarding the total corruption of people. Christianity has nicely piggybacked upon the Jewish religion, changing completely the character of the Jewish faith. The Jewish experts and scholars from the time of Christ to present have never thought that Christianity has been any kind of culmination or fulfillment of their religion. That is only the Christian perception. Jews have thought that Christians have defiled their own Scriptures by interpreting their Scriptures through the lens of the New Testament. Now the Mormons believe that they can do the same thing to the Christian faith by rightly interpreting the Christian Bible through the lens of the book of Mormon. And now Christians, like the Jews did, are crying foul play. Piggyback upon piggyback. I’m glad you included the quote from Jesus who includes himself among humanity as not being good, but credits God only as good. I know you’ll will have something to say about that, but taken in the normal sense as Jesus said these words it supports the idea of Jesus as a insightful teacher, rather than the second person of the Trinity.
Now your final question. Yes, I do know a fair share about Christianity, as that is my background from childhood on. But now, I do not claim or follow any formal religion. As I have said previously in this string of responses, I believe all religions are an attempt to explain the God who reveals himself in creation. Religions go to great lengths to fill in what they think are the gaps and what God himself has failed to reveal to humankind in creation. And most religions have an archaic foundation, including Christianity. I try not to formulate a religion of my own or follow one. If I did, I would probably be accused of formulating my own religion. For me, creation is enough to tell me there is an incredible creator God and his preservation of the world is enough to tell me he cares for his world, including humanity (even me). People come along in history (whether God has sent them, I don’t know) who are insightful and worth listening to. But I realize that by saying too much, I may be shown to be wrong in the future, so perhaps the less said, the better.
Posted in: My Banner Article
It seems as though, we have a “comment war” between two people, Ed and John. And I doubt that the two of you will ever reach agreement. It seems as though you both have different starting points that will not allow your paths to cross in a significant way, or come to the same conclusions. Ed is asking a “what if” question in his article, and John won’t allow for any “what ifs.”
I’ll also ask a “what if” question. What if the Bible is not the inspired word of God, as you both seem to propose. The opening chapters of Genesis are antiquated in their origin, like many of the other ancient religious writings of ancient history. They speak of realities that make no sense to the modern mind. These chapters speak of a pseudo reality that fits an antiquated mentality that didn’t have the benefit of developed thought. Religions of that time spoke of the gods existing on a different plane (pseudo) but yet who interacted with humanity on earth. There were good gods and evil gods. There were national gods and the false gods of other nations. Not unlike these other ancient religions, Judaism and Christianity have a good God and a demigod, Satan, the archenemy of God. The Bible records fanciful stories of God’s creation in six literal days, by which each day God brought about another aspect of the then known world. It tells of God stepping down from his pseudo reality (heaven) and instructing humans (Adam and Eve), but also of the pseudo demigod doing the same in the form of a talking serpent and giving a conflicting message than God’s. The fanciful stories (the creation and fall of Adam and Eve, the tower of Babel, Noah’s arc, Cain and Abel, etc.) abound in the early chapters of the Bible, as well as throughout. These fanciful stories had been retold over thousands of years before finally being put down in written word. And now you, John, and many other Christians, want to hang on to these stories as though they are solid fact.
Are scientists today to assume that these fanciful stories of creation should become the bedrock of science and scientific endeavor? Are psychology and human relationships to be built upon stories of Adam and Eve’s fall and redemption? These stories are acknowledged as true and reliable by you John (and also I think, you, Edwin) by faith alone. It is the accepting as true that which does not make, even, common sense. But for you, the Bible is the God breathed word of God and is absolutely reliable and truthful, unfailing in telling us the realities of life.
How is the Bible different from the Koran and the book of Mormon or the Hindu writings which also claim to be the true inspired word of God? They say their own writings are absolutely true and the Bible is a false revelation of God, just as we say the same about them. We say their stories are fanciful and therefore untrue, but the Bible’s stories are different. Maybe all formalized religions are a weak attempt to further explain the God that is clearly revealed in his creation of the world. And each religion puts its own spin on their attempts to reveal God who has already revealed himself in the creation. I agree with Edwin, that the creation speaks the truth of God. But I disagree that God needs further help to clarify his reality and his relationship to human kind.
Your original article, Edwin, hits the nail on the head. Something is going to have to give with Christianity or it will become the ridicule of future generations. Five hundred years from now, maybe less, Christianity will make little sense, especially seeing as it is based on fanciful stories and miracles, and seeing as science will increasingly make these stories seem very foolish. I have a feeling that you, Edwin, are afraid to step outside the pale of Christian thought, and you, John, are afraid to move at all from an historic conservative perspective of Christianity which is already losing its credibility in our society. It is, indeed, true that the teachings of the Bible have to be accepted by faith, because it has little or no concrete evidence to back it up. That being true it doesn’t really matter what God is revealing in his creation or what science is discovering about our world. The Bible (in Christian thought) is the final authority. Christians today are obviously trying to bend either science or Christian teaching to line up with the other. But to me the gap is becoming larger and larger.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Edwin, had commented some time ago, about John and I going back and forth, and maybe missing the original point of his article, as Edwin saw it. As comments passed back and forth, it was obvious that we didn’t see eye to eye on the issue of evolution or creation, and of course that debate spilled over into other areas of theology, which may or may not be related, depending on how you see the implications. Then John brings a Philip Westra perspective and concern into the picture. What I’m seeing, is that everyone has a box, John, Edwin, Philip, myself and others. And somehow we all think my own box of correct Biblical interpretation is the only valid one. Is that really true, that my box (and those that agree with me) is the only true box?
The Bible contains 66 different books or letters, written by a large variety of authors, over a long period of time, involving a variety of cultural settings. Christians, in general, claim that these 66 books, taken together, make up the inspired (therefor true) word of God. These various books apparently contain a consistent message that somehow hangs together without contradicting itself, although taken from 66 different books. If there seems to be contradictions, they are only apparent, and it can be shown how conflicts for the most part can be shown to fit together when the apparent conflicting pieces are seen in light of other Scriptures. Both John and Edwin have tried to show the consistency of their Biblical understanding. They have also shown how the viewpoint of the other person is inconsistent with the Bible’s message in light of other Scriptures. We are each trying to present a better argument to demonstrate that I’m right and you are wrong when it comes to the teaching of the Bible.
Theologians have been doing this same thing from before the time of Augustine and have continued right up into the present. Just think of the multitude of Christian (at least, they call themselves that) denominations that there are at present. Each denomination has their master theologians such as Calvin, Zwingli, Luther (the list could get extensive). There the Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Baptists, Freewill Baptists, Particular Baptists, Dispensational Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Mormons (they think of themselves as Christians), Orthodox, Methodists, each with their own seminaries having a host of Phd theologians on staff. These theologians think that those outside of their own denomination are misinterpreting the Bible (an inconsistent message with contradictions) and their job, in their own seminary, is to do Biblical research to show how they can make a truly consistent (no contradictions) theology. But none of these groups agree with each other or they would join together as denominations. These differences are great enough that these denominations and groups separate from the others and have remained separate for years or centuries. But each group, although having differences from the others, thinks their group is the only with a consistent theology without inconsistencies.
Yet they all claim the Bible is the inspired word of God and contains no contradictions (unless you look across the fence at another denomination). Reformed denominations have defined their basic theology by the three ecumenical creeds and the three forms of unity. But there are few other denominations that would agree with those confessions, especially, the Canons of Dort. But these Creeds and Confessions, in the Reformed mind, is what demonstrates the Bible’s consistent and noncontradictory message. But even within the CRC confessional group there are those who look over the fence and try to wed Arminian theology to a five point Calvinistic theology, making their own box a little different from the denomination’s but showing from Scripture how their own box makes the best sense.
Within a given denomination, say the CRC, there comes a time when they want to ordain women deacons, elders, and ministers. But the Bible clearly teaches that women are not to have authority over men. So the CRC theologians get to work to show how maybe it’s time for a change and now when seen correctly, the Bible can teach that both men and women can have authority in the church and hold these positions. How about a man being the head of his household, once understood differently than today, thanks to the good work of our theologians. As in other denominations. a homosexual lifestyle will be approved for membership and service in the CRC, thanks to our theologians who will be able to bend Scripture to say what we want and call it a consistent Bible message of God’s love and justice. I think many are working on that one even now.
All this happens, despite, the Bible’s teaching that the Holy Spirit will lead his church in all truth. So what does this all say about the differences that John, Edwin, Philip, and a hundred others (including myself) have as to what the Bible really teaches? Does John really have the only truly consistent box, or is it Ed? I will admit the many inconsistencies of the Bible. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. In fact they are glaring, such as with the teaching of Jesus and Paul as to salvation. I think it may be better to make a choice, and I will choose Jesus. His teaching is so much more reasonable and fits with common logic. Have a great weekend.
Posted in: The Religions Next Door: Uninformed? Underdeveloped? or Unregenerate?
Hi Salaam, I’m a little late (several months) noticing your posted article. I think you post some challenging questions. But I doubt that other religious adherents feel challenged by Christianity any more than Christians feel challenged by other religions. They all propose different pathways to God and are not meant to be stepping stones to anything except to God. In fact, most religions are mutually exclusive, therefor not stepping stones at all. Few religions try to accommodate any other religion. For example Christians claim there is no way other than Christ to win God’s favor and acceptance. As Christians, we don’t see any other religion as a stepping stone to Christ or God.
Another important question that needs answering, is who is to say that other religions are false and only Christianity is true? That seems to be the assumption that you are working with. We might claim that only the Bible is the inspired word of God and therefor completely true and trustworthy, and therefor lays out the only valid pathway to God. But that is also what every other religion claims, as well. What makes the Bible true and not the God inspired writings of other religions? Or is that just a matter of opinion? Is there anything that validates one religion over another, Christianity over all other religions?
Why are the claims of other religions false and not our claims? As Christians, we may assert that the claims of other religions are not logical, are nonsense. But is the Christian assertion that Jesus is God and has come down to earth from heaven and taken on a human nature, lived a perfect life, was crucified but rose from the dead and has now returned to heaven from which he will return one day to earth in all power and glory, is this any more realistic or logical? Other religions likely say that our Christian claims make little, if any sense. So what is the basis of us saying our religion makes sense but other religions don’t, therefor we are the only true religion?
And now for the crux of G. Anderson’s concern, winning Christian converts from within other religious beliefs. Of course that points to the exclusivity of the Christian religion. If Christians believed that there are many paths to God, they wouldn’t be concerned to pull Muslims, Hindus or Mormons away from their own religions to make them adherents of Christianity. But of course Christians are quite willing to see a Muslim convert suffer the anguishes of hell on earth (persecution) and to rejoice that they have become a Christian. That’s exclusivity at any and all costs. And that exclusive attitude by Christians is because our understanding of salvation is directly opposed to the teachings of all other religions. Other religions are hardly a stepping stone to Christianity.
Much more could be said, but I’ve gone on for too long already. Thanks for sharing your concerns. I think they are valid, but not easily answered.
Posted in: Our Problem With Infant Baptism
I know this article is rather dated, so perhaps the comments that come in this late will never even be read. But as I see it, infant baptism isn't the problem, but rather believer's baptism, or the idea of infant baptism being the only form of baptism that is done in a church (is the problem). Because baptism, say in a Baptist church, is considered a sign of one's faith by which they have taken hold of Christ. It is more of a sign of an individual's action and a sign of when they themselves came to faith in Christ. Whereas in the Reformed tradition, baptism is a sign of God's action. It's really about God and not about me. But in our egotistical society, we tend to put ourselves at front and center and want markers of what we have done, so believer's baptism does more to feed that kind of mentality; it draws attention to me. So in our Reformed tradition we have to be careful not to feed such a mentality and emphasis. Salvation is about God, not about me. More could be said, but seeing as this will likely never be read, I'll leave it at that.
Posted in: What Is the Gospel?
Hi Greg, your gospel formula (or Wax’s) makes some sense. But I don’t know if your short gospel description really does justice to the full accounting of the gospel or message of salvation. I find that Christians sometimes accuse other religious groups of having insider information that isn’t shared until after a so-called conversion or commitment is made. But Christians do that same thing, by which important information is withheld until after the new Christian is well on his/her way to maturity. And even then, because this additional information is less than desirable it is often never shared or is ignored by the believer.
In leg #1 for instance, it often isn’t told to the prospective Christian that apart from Christ, God sets the standard of acceptance by him at perfection. Of course, that’s an impossible standard for humans to ever reach. None ever have, other than Christ, and if one could reach it, he/she would be as perfectly holy as God himself, an impossibility. So this standard of perfect holiness that God or Christianity sets is an impossible standard. On top of that, all humans have been credited by God with the original sin of Adam. So before any human even comes from the womb he is declared by God a sinner and has fallen short of God’s standard of perfection. But another item missing from the gospel story, is that not only does God credit all humans with Adam’s sin but also with Adam’s fallen nature, by which a person naturally gravitates towards sin. In fact he/she can’t help but to sin. He/she can’t help himself because of the sinful nature credited to him/her by God. But on top of this helpless state that a person comes into the world in, he/she is held accountable for failure to meet God’s standard of perfection, as though it’s all his/her fault. Seems, as though quite a bit has been left out of the gospel story. Does this failure by human kind fall to the feet of humans or to God? Is this what we call the “justice of God.”
As to the second leg of the gospel, which you point out is the gospel announcement of substitutionary atonement, you have shortchanged that leg as well. You didn’t mention that this atonement is a limited (the “L” of TULIP) atonement, limited to those chosen by God from the cesspool of humanity. Only the chosen by God are enabled to respond to the gospel invitation by the powerful conviction and influence of the Holy Spirit. The rest are left to pay for having fallen short of God’s impossible mark of perfection, especially when God has credited to all humans Adam’s original sin and given him a fallen nature by which he can’t help but to continue in sin. Although the “few” are the recipients of this wonderful salvation, the many are left to perish (“many are called but few are chosen”). But for those chosen, this salvation is wonderful and is good news, if you can ignore what God has in store for the rest of humanity.
Those within the Christian community speak of Christianity as being unique. Unlike other religions that view God as using a balance or scale of justice to weigh the good and bad of individuals, Christians proclaim that their religion is one of grace alone. But realize that before grace becomes part of the picture, Christianity has to paint an individual into a corner of sin so deep and dark that he or she is utterly helpless. From this dark corner, not even a person’s good works count for anything. And realize from the start that it is God who has put these people into that corner.
But as you say, Greg, the gospel is the “good news” of Jesus, if you’re certain you are one of the chosen ones. Thanks for your article.
Posted in: What Is the Gospel?
Nick,
I don’t think much was lost in communication, simply because my thoughts were in printed form. I think you simply strongly disagreed with my comments to Greg. You appeal to some of the Reformed Confessions. Most Calvinists would subject their church’s confessions to the authority and teaching of Scripture. For most Bible believing Christians, the Bible is the ultimate authority. Of course there is little agreement among Christians as to what the Bible teaches (interpretation). Just consider the many differences within the CRC, but beyond that, the differences between Christian denominations gets bizarre. There is a host of different denominations and teachings in Christendom. It makes you wonder why there is so little agreement among Christians. I have heard it said that Christianity has the greatest diversity of teachings of any religion. It makes a person wonder about the validity of the Holy Spirit guiding the church in “all truth.” A Christian can make the Bible say almost anything they want. Scripture often seems to contradict itself on many points of teaching. Hence the variety of denominations. The point I’m making is that as soon as I say something, you can contradict me with a specific verse. But we’re speaking of Calvinists. You may believe the Calvinist perspective is the most true to the Bible, but no doubt you would bow to the authority of Scripture. So, to answer your concerns raised in your response.
As to the human inability to meet God’s standard of righteousness, I was not suggesting that people are equal to God (as Mormons may teach), but simply that God’s standard, apart from Christ, is impossible to reach. Consider Matthew 19:25,26. And certainly Paul suggests the same when he says, “there is none righteous, not even one.” God set a standard that is humanly impossible to achieve. Calvinists would certainly teach this. The conclusion: Human reasoning would tell anyone this is less than just on the part of God; or fair, which is part of justice, to set a standard that is unreachable.
I would not expect you to agree with the idea of God putting people into that dark corner of sin. But yet doesn’t Scripture speak for itself? Does not Scripture teach that God credited to all of Adam’s posterity his original sin? Don’t all people come into this world sinners, even before leaving the womb? And won’t God hold all people accountable for that sin, a sin that Adam’s posterity didn’t actually commit? This is a Calvinist teaching.
Also contributing to the idea of God putting humanity in that dark corner, is that God also imputed a fallen and sinful nature to all of Adam’s posterity. I believe, according to Calvinistic teaching, we would refer to this as a totally depraved nature (the T of TULIP), a nature that is sinful in all of its parts, and cannot help but to sin. This nature was imputed to all of humanity by God. And so when people cannot help but to sin, how can common sense say the acting out of this nature should not be placed at the feet of God? Of course, Calvinists are not Arminian, and therefore can not claim that humans have a free will not to sin. They would say a person’s will is constrained by his fallen nature and cannot help but to follow that nature and sin. So of course, as the Belgic Confession says, “they willingly subjected themselves to sin...”, they had no other choice. Humanity was programmed by God to sin. So I would say, that God clearly put humanity in that dark corner. The Biblical evidence is growing.
On top of all this is God’s electing purposes, which I mentioned in the earlier response as a “limited atonement,” limited to those chosen by God. This also is a Calvinistic teaching. It’s the “L” of TULIP. This could be pictured as a parent who had been out fishing with three young children who couldn’t swim. As the three boys got bored, they all started rocking the boat and all three fell in. Because all three couldn’t swim, all three were destined to drown unless help was given to them. So the father, although he could have easily saved all three, decides to save just one and leave the other two to perish. If this parent was brought before any of our human courts or brought before a judge, the parent might say, “It was the kids’ fault that they fell in. They were all rascals. So I felt no obligation to save them all. So I saved just one.” Sounds like the Bible’s explanation of predestination and it doesn’t sound just at all.
It’s too bad the Bible’s message of salvation could not have taught that God’s justice is met in the payment for sin made by Christ, and his mercy is demonstrated in the salvation of all people. But as it is, God only saves the few (“many are called but few are chosen). The Bible teaches that God does not show favoritism and tells Christians they should not show favoritism. But this Biblical teaching is definitely a demonstration of favoritism by which God chooses the few over the many, and it doesn’t demonstrate a truly just God.
You may still try to claim that people have painted themselves in the dark corner of sin and depravity. But your reasoning is faulty. You are not taking into consideration primary and secondary causation. The Calvinist would say that in God’s electing purposes, God is the primary mover or cause of salvation and the convert’s actions are only secondary. The potential convert is called upon to repent and believe the gospel. But of course the Calvinist will say that action by the believer is secondary to the primary cause, which is God’s choosing, God’s providential leading, the Holy Spirit’s leading and enabling. And without God’s primary action the saved sinner’s action would never be possible.
The same is true in regard to God’s damnation of the human race. God is the primary mover, according to the Bible, and humanity’s actions are secondary. So your quote from the Belgic Confession (Art 14) is speaking only of the secondary cause of damnation. Christians tend to do this when they don’t want to admit the less than desirable teachings of the Bible. The primary causation, as demonstrated above, is, of course, God. The actual committal of sin is the secondary and is the act of the condemned. But remember it is the primary causation by God that ensures the sinner’s damnation. Remember the sinner came into the world a sinner and was programmed (imputed fallen nature) by God to be a sinner, and called upon by God to meet a standard that was impossible for him to reach. God was the primary cause.
It surprises me to hear Calvinists quote the Dutch theologian who said, “there is not one square inch of this world that doesn’t belong to God.” That is to say that God is sovereign in and over all. But he quickly denies God’s sovereignty in the huge sphere of human existence that involves the damnation of the human race, except for the few chosen.
Nick, I did say that Christians do the person targeted for evangelism a disservice by not giving a full disclosure of the God they would be responding to. It would be very much like trying to sell a beautiful home to a potential buyer but never telling him/her that the foundation is infested with termites. Let’s at least be truthful when evangelizing. I’ll look forward to your rebuff.
Posted in: What Is the Gospel?
Hi Greg and Jeff,
Jeff, I've been retired for four years now and doubt that a gravaman would work as I have too many concerns to list in it. I hope you and family are doing well. We get up to Wis. quite often and do think of you. You may have moved from there, but wish you the best wherever you may be. Blessings. Greg, I'd like to do a little wrestling over some of the issues with you, as I see they are important. So if you're open, you could send me your email address and we could follow up on our conversation. Thanks for your openness. Roger
Posted in: God's Referee?
Hi George, Thanks for your thoughts on being our society’s referee. But I’m quite certain that our society, world, or culture says “no thanks.” They’ll tell you that our society didn’t appoint the Christian church to be the keeper of rules for our society any more than it appointed the Muslim church, Hindu church, Jewish church, Mormon church or any other group to monitor our behaviors. Most people will tell you that they have the good sense of knowing right and wrong themselves. Christians may appeal to their God inspired Scriptures but so does every other religion. So the nonchristian might ask, which referee should I listen to, or does not this great variety of referees (religions) cast doubt on them all as to monitoring cultural behaviors. Are all religions right or are they all questionable. They all claim God as their authority and claim to be the one true religion. Maybe it’s the church’s role to monitor the behaviors of their own members, like your father being a sanctioned football coach, not “cooking” judge, or wrestling umpire. I’m just trying to figure out how people in our society might respond to your well intended whistle blowing. I think our culture’s response will be that they would rather watch the church for a while and see how well those rules are working for them.
Posted in: Let’s Partner Toward COP 21
I may be out of the loop on this subject. I didn’t realize that the CRC denomination has taken a definitive position on global warming or climate change. Kyle, you talk in this article as though there is already an established position that the denomination needs to act on. Has there been a study committee from Synod with a resulting majority and minority report on the subject? It sounds like someone is jumping the gun on getting a denominational group sent to Paris, especially when you say that “governments from all over the world will be gathering in Paris” for this conference. We’re not a government. I’m not so sure that this is even the kind of thing that a church or denomination should be getting involved in. As a church, we have no expertise in things like global warming. Is the next thing, for our denomination to get involved in, going to be the promotion of organic foods, or boycotting the dairy industry, or cell phone radiation?