Roger Gelwicks

Well John, all I can say is, “my bad.”  I misspoke when I said that there was no science back in early historic days.  We could probably say though, that it (science back then) was very primitive.  In looking up the definition of “science” on the internet, the first definition I came to was, “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.”  I don’t know if that is what primitives were doing when they learned that wood floats in water better than rocks, but I think you know what I was getting at when I made my comment about primitives and science.  We have come a long way since the time of the ancients.  I doubt that the ancients’ belief in a pseudo reality in which the gods of that reality interacted with the people on earth had anything to do with science, but rather with superstition.

You went to some length to explain why evolution is a dead end street.  I will agree with you, that there are a lot of kinks to work out of this theory.  I would imagine that evolutionary scientists will say the same.  And it may even take hundreds of years to get it all figured out.  But it still seems to be the best hope and the best direction that today’s scientists want to pursue as to dating the age of the earth and the origins of life.  It seems to have more in favor of it than what can be found against it.  You may disagree with that, but with the comments you have made in this post, as well as other posts, it seems like you present very little to discredit evolution.  Volumes and volumes have been written, and years and years of research have been done to support evolution.  So it is hard for me to agree with your premise.  I don’t claim to be a scientist of any kind so you can fire away at me at will.  My disagreement with you comes at a different level.

But now, what about the science that you support. You are suggesting that on the first day some ten thousand years ago, God said abracadabra, and instantaneously (within a day) there was light.  On another day, God said abracadabra, and instantaneously there were all the sea creatures and birds of the air.  On another day God said, abracadabra, and within that single day all the earth creatures including humans beings were brought into existence in their present forms.  Within a total of six literal days all that exists was magically brought into existence.

Wow, the renown scientists of the world are going to jump on that theory.  That’s not what you could even call science.  Do you really think there are no holes in your theory?  Scientists would have a heyday finding fault, if they would even consider your theory.  You say there is fault with the theory of evolution, but none with your theory?  Come on John.  Listen to yourself.

I’m not sure what you are doing as to your own scientific endeavors.  It sounds like your scientific ambition is to disprove evolution, rather than to prove Biblical creation.  It doesn’t take science to prove or support God saying, “Let the earth produce all the animals of the earth, including human beings,” and it’s done in a single day.  That’s religion, not science and has nothing to do with science.  So should it be any wonder that scientists reject your theory?    

Perhaps this is why, in part, other Christian realities make more sense, such as the Bible’s creation account being myth or fable.  It leaves space for God being the creator God and yet let’s science unravel the “how” of how he did it. And along the way to gain many valuable insights for the good of humanity.   I’m sorry John, you haven’t convinced me yet, and I doubt that you come close to convincing the scientists of today, other than so-called Christian scientists.

Well, once again John, you have responded to another’s response with questions, rather than acknowledging that a God directed or theistic evolution makes sense and still remains true to the theory of evolution.  Most of your objections to evolution are overcome when one realizes that it is God directed.  As an orchestra conductor is able to direct all the variety and number of instrumentalists to make beautiful music, so God can direct the evolutionary process to bring about a wonderful creation without interfering with the evolutionary process.  Undoubtedly, as you point out, an evolutionary process without God would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.  But with God at the helm, all things are possible.  And so the process remains evolution.  As the Bible points out, not a hair can fall from a person’s head apart from God’s will, or is it a sparrow falling to the ground?  All of life happens (according to the Bible) according to God’s purposes, and yet he works through the normal means and laws he created.  So also with a theistic evolution.  And scientists are increasingly unearthing the evolutionary process that God has used.  Maybe with time, the scientists will better understand the process that so far is wrought with problems, but eventually will make better sense.  As least for now, to most scientists, evolution makes the most sense and is the obvious direction to pursue.

Hi again, John.  I hope I don’t come off as mean spirited toward you.  I know I have blogged, either on this site or on others, and have given the impression that I don’t like those I’m blogging with.   Please don’t get that impression of me.  If I sound caustic, it may be toward aspects of the Christian faith, but not toward individuals.  I do appreciate your willingness to debate, even argue.  I’m sure, for you, like me, it helps to clarify some of your own thoughts.  

I have heard you suggest to others, and now me, that it is those who know the least about evolution that seem to grab on to it most firmly.  But it also seems to be the opposite at the same time.  Those who know the most about it (the scientists) who also hold most firmly to it.  And as I’ve suggested before, even though the evolutionary scientists would admit problems with evolutionary theory, they see it as much more viable than the other theories that are in the arena, including Biblical creation.  That has more problems than you can shake a stick at.  In your last response, you said, “evidence is required beyond coincidence and beyond conjecture to support evolution.”  What evidence beyond coincidence and beyond conjecture  is there to support that the whole universe, and our world and its inhabitants were all created in a span of six single days?  That, to me, sounds like the impossible theory.  I’d like to sit in while a Christian scientist explains this to a group of secular scientists.

The arguments that you give for acknowledging the Christian faith are similar or the same as those given for acknowledging the truth and reliability of many other religions including the Mormon religion (and they believe in a friendly universe).  In fact, most religions will make claims for the miraculous and to verify those claims they all maintain their writings are inspired by God, and therefore completely trustworthy. And they too (the Mormons for example) claim witnesses to validate the truthfulness of their religion.  And all religions would assert that their God is not bound by the normal limitations that he has placed on the natural order.  Therefore the miracles of their religion should be considered as trustworthy and true. As absurd as the miracles of other religions may sound, they are no more absurd than the miracles of Christianity, such as a six day creation. So how does on decide which religion is the one true religion?  Thanks for your listening ear.

It would seem John, that God works through natural order and laws to bring about the healing of a terminally ill person, even though 50 years ago there would have been no possible healing, his fate would have been sealed, doctors would have said impossible.  And even today, when a person is healed, Christians give thanks and credit to God.  The laws were already there 50 years ago, but their discovery came later.  Science is continually learning how to overcome the hurdles of the past.  Why isn't it possible that hurdles today will be solved tomorrow, especially as science is in already in the process of solving some of the riddles of evolution so that it looks increasingly more realistic?

Hi again, John.  I’m sorry if we seem to be keeping Edwin out of the loop in our dialog.  It might be interesting to know some of his thoughts.

Your last response, John, was quite lengthy and got off target, at least from the topic of evolution.  Maybe that wasn’t really the main topic.  Maybe the topic or question is  “what is truth?”  And that can have to do with evolution versus Biblical creation or which religion, if any represents truth best.  Maybe this is where Edwin’s perspective might be interesting, in regard to his original article in the Banner.  

As to evolution or not, I have not tried to imply that evolutionary theory has all the answers or doesn’t have problems of its own.  As you have pointed out, it seems as though there are many problems. But I do think that today’s scientists would still say, problems or not, evolution (including macro evolution) offers the most reasonable and logical explanation to the age of the earth and the origin and development of life.  And eventually answers will be forthcoming to your criticisms, if many of them have not already been answered.  To scientists today, evolution is the much more logical approach, than whatever other explanations can be offered up, including a literal understanding of Biblical creation.  As to origins my bet rides with the scientists of today.

But now to the crux of your last response.  It seems as though you are more concerned with finding the fault with other religions than pointing out the logic of Christianity.  Find fault with the opponent.  If fault can be found, then that leaves Christianity (especially Reformed Christianity) standing tall.  And of course, you would say there is no error in Christianity.  So I would like you to consider just one area of Reformed Christianity or what you might call Biblical Christianity.  That area has to do with the “election” (predestination unto salvation) of the saved.  And of course this really touches on the heart of Christianity.  It has to do with salvation in Jesus Christ, your only “comfort in life and in death.”

I hand it to Reformed Christians, historically they have taken the Bible very seriously, as you seem to do, as well.  Of course, that means you can’t ignore what it teaches or sweep its teachings under the carpet.  Hence, the teaching of Scripture on election is upheld and not denied in Reformed thought.  But the question of what does the Bible teach about election has been debated through the ages.  Does the Bible teach an infralapsarian or a supralapsarian perspective.  Does it teach only an election of the saved or also the election of the lost unto damnation, single predestination or double predestination.  Most today, even within the CRC, hold to an infralapsarian position, although the confessions are not altogether clear on that; it could go either way.  Consider the Canons of Dort, 3rd and 4th main point, arts. 1-5.  They seem to support the more severe view of election.

Double predestination (supralapsarians) dictates that not only the saved, but also the lost, were predestined from eternity past to their final state whether it be salvation or damnation, even in the mind of God.  Of course this means God never had a sense of love in Christ for the lost, in fact his only intention for the lost was eternal destruction. In fact, God created them for that very purpose (eternal damnation).  Therefore, there is no sincere offer by God of the gospel to those whom he has determined for eternal damnation in hell.

To verify this position, there needs to be Biblical support, which there is.  First, to gain God’s acceptance and love by one’s own effort, a person has to be perfectly good, an impossible standard to attain.  All have sinned and fallen short.  In fact it is impossible to please God by one’s own effort.  This is the first barrier that God has placed before humanity, a standard of absolute perfection, which cannot be attained.  Secondly to insure that this impossible standard is not met by humans, God has credited to every person the sin of Adam.  So even before birth, a person is a condemned sinner, condemned by God.  This is something that God has done, apart from human decision.  And then third, God has imputed the sinful nature of Adam to every human being.  By this sinful nature, given by God, it is impossible to live up to God’s standard from birth on.  In fact, according to the Bible, a person can’t help but to sin continually.  So God makes salvation for the majority of humanity (all, other than the elect) an impossibility. He does this by giving an impossible standard for people to achieve, also,  by crediting all of humanity with Adam’s sin even before birth, and also by imputing a sinful nature to all people so that they cannot help but  to sin and therefore meet with failure.  These are the actions of God.

In Romans 7, the apostle Paul talks about his struggle with sin, apart from Christ.  He paints more than a helpless picture, but even a desperate picture.  Although in his mind he knows what is right and good, he can’t do it.  He fails every time.  He has no power to do the good he knows he should do because of this sinful nature.  He concludes by saying what a miserable person he is, one whose life is dominated by sin and death.  He is describing here the human condition, the condition of all people who have had this sinful nature imputed to them by God.  

When Paul cries out, who will deliver me from this helpless condition, the answer is Jesus Christ.  Paul is in no way taking credit for his salvation or even for choosing Christ.  He is just thankful that God in Christ has chosen him for salvation.  He’s thanking God for his election in Christ.  Anything more, would be giving Paul himself credit for choosing Christ.  According to Reformed thought it’s the other way around, Christ always chooses us.  For those not chosen by God’s electing love, they remain destined for destruction by which God’s has insured their lost estate and damnation. It’s really hard to understand why God would blame humans for their sin and hold them accountable, when God is the one who has insured that they could do nothing but fail.  Logic says that God is the one at fault.

So Christianity has a God who has predetermined that the majority of the human race will go to hell for eternity.  Reformed Christians talk about God determining not only the ends but also the means to accomplish the ends. And now you see how God has determined both in regard to the lost.  This is the picture of God that the Bible portrays to the world.  Is this the desirable picture of God that the Bible holds up to the world?  Is this what we mean when Christians talk endlessly about the love of God.  Obviously the love of God in Christ is only for those whom God has predestined for salvation from before the beginning of time and not for the majority of the human race.

Of course when a person, especially one who is damned by God to hell for eternity, protests his plight the apostle Paul gives this answer.  “Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven’t they simply done what he makes them do?”  No, don’t say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who created it, “Why have you made me like this?”  When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn’t he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into?  In the same way, even though God has the right to show his anger and his power, he is very patient with those on whom his anger falls, who were made for destruction.”
 (Romans 9:19-22)

You may claim that when Scripture is taken as a whole, we get a different picture.  But this points out either a blaring inconsistency in the Bible’s teaching or shows that the apostle Paul was not on the same page as other Bible writers.  We know he did have disagreements with Peter, and probably with most of Christendom today. This certainly says something as to how one should understand the inspiration of the Bible.

The Bible’s inconsistent teaching about salvation in Christ is so glaring that it doesn’t sound any better than other religions, in fact it sounds far worse.  So now I wonder if your last response in this blog about the failure of other religions really holds any water.  Maybe it is time to start evaluating the teachings of the Bible, as Edwin suggests.  Sorry about the length of this comment, but I could have said a lot more.

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.

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.

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

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?