Roger Gelwicks

Come on, Joshua.  Give us readers a break.  It sounds to me like you are living in a fantasy world.  I think you are a little bit (maybe more than a little bit) out of touch with reality.  What you say about the pastor could be said about all Christians working in any occupation whether a doctor, lawyer, biologist, veterinarian, press operator, maintenance worker, etc. etc..  As Christians, should anyone be driven by the pay check?  Living in “reckless abandonment in serving Jesus” is likely to get you fired whether in ministry or in the hospital or in the manufacturing plant.  If you are living in the real world, you know that church members are all over the map as to how Christian commitment and service takes shape.  Recklessly serving Christ in a way that inspires you may be completely different from 3/4 of your congregation.  But go ahead and throw caution to the wind.  You’ll likely be out of work next week, though.  There are countless things that cause a pastor (or any Christian) to exercise caution, such as a wife and children, as well as the countless people that we all rub shoulders with daily.  Your reckless abandonment attitude may work in a fantasy world, but most of our lives are lived out in the real world.

Thanks, Louis, for your article dealing with the troubles of life.  You suggest that people “cherish the notion of a trouble free life.”  I think the reality, on the street and in the church, is that people cherish the notion of a life full of trouble.  People would rather think and talk about their troubles rather than focusing on the good in their lives.

I agree that everyone experiences “troubles” of one sort or another.  And certainly some people experience a greater amount or degree of troubles than others.  But I would also suggest that most people, if not all people, also experience good things, even great things.  A person experiencing cancer may have a loving spouse, have a secure home, have a close friend, know a caring server at the local coffee shop, have a choice of two or three pairs of shoes or dresses to wear in the morning, had the opportunity to eat three square meals a day and maybe even to indulge in a snack in the evening, have a television or radio to watch a great TV show in the evening or listen to some uplifting music, feel the reality of God in one’s life and world, etc. etc.   The list of good things, I would suggest, far outweighs the few troubling things, for the well healed as well as the not so well healed.

But still, many, if not most people, want to focus on the negative.  Why not recognize the good things and people and give thanks or thank them personally on a regular, even daily basis.  And soon such people (who are experiencing trouble) will regain some balance or maybe even become giddy because life is so good.  Rather than thinking (along with many Christians) that we live in a terrible hell bound world, realize that the our world is a wonderful place and a wonderful gift from God.

Thanks Norman for your article and Stanley for your comment.  I agree with your hesitancy to choose leaders of the church by lottery.  If you think it through, choosing leaders in such a way is really no different than playing the lottery.  You can say we are relying on the Holy Spirit to make the choice, but the reality is that we are bypassing making a reasonable thought out choice and leaving the choice to chance or luck (not the Holy Spirit).

As Bible believing Christians, we believe we have been created in the image of God.  One of the primary human characteristics is our ability use reason and to logically make choices.  Humans don’t rely simply on animal instinct.  This is likely the very reason that Christ emphasized that the law can be reduced to two principles, love for God and neighbor.  From those two principles we can reason or logically deduce the details of what is loving toward God and neighbor, without coming up with a long list of “do’s” and “don’ts,” as did the Pharisees.

It’s disappointing to think that our churches and denomination are moving increasingly in the (so called) leading of the Holy Spirit direction when the reality is that Christians are walking away from their unique God given ability to be reasonable and to use logic when making important choices in life.  The extreme logical outcome of such foolish thinking is to prayerfully play the lottery.  If I win big (unlikely), then I then I thank the Holy Spirit for his guidance; and if I loose all my wealth then I know the Holy Spirit wanted me to be poor.  After all, I did pray for the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

Thanks, Louis, for a perceptive article distinguishing Gotthold Lessing’s perception and the Christian perspective on God’s acceptance of people.  If I get the gist of Lessing’s thinking, he thought God would judge people based on the good they had done.  And seeing as all people have done some good, God would be gracious and accept all, at least to some degree.  When you ask, “I wonder how Lessing came to size up his religion of human goodness when he came to the last season of his life,” he probably felt good about God’s love and grace, knowing that he will spend eternity with God.  This comes close to what the Mormons believe, that all are God’s children and will spend eternity in heaven, rather than hell.

Of course Christians have a much different perspective.  Christians teach that all people have failed to reach God’s standard of moral perfection and therefor deserve eternal damnation.  The good news is that all who truly acknowledge Christ, as Savior and Lord, will experience God’s grace and forgiveness.  And those who do not acknowledge Christ will only experience God’s justice and eternal damnation.  Of course, Christianity is the only religion, that offers a substitutionary payment for sin.  But seldom, if ever, do Christians mention that God’s grace and forgiveness is only for the elect, those chosen by God.  And the rest of humanity are left to stand before a severe and just God and will spend eternity in hell.

Lessing tends to look at the goodness in people, whereas Christians look at the moral failure of people (at least when it comes to salvation).  And of course, most religions side with Lessing, rather than Christianity.  It’s kind of like looking at the glass half empty in contrast to half full.  I like the idea of seeing the good in people.  I have a lot of friends and acquaintances and family members, and seeing them as moral failures makes little sense to me, let alone any comfort.  Although, not pleased with everything I do, I like the idea that God can also see the good and say, well done.  Welcome to my eternal kingdom.

Thanks Brenda for your article that asks if a secular education contributes to the erosion of Christian faith.  From both Bill and Michelle’s comments, there are different ways to look at the possible problem of secularism’s impact on Christian faith, as well as the solutions.  I don’t know the figures, as to how many are losing faith in a secular education system, but I would venture to say that many more fall by the wayside in secular colleges than in Christian colleges. But of course there is a different approach to education in these two kinds of colleges.  Christian colleges insulate the Christian perspective or philosophy and the secular college challenges it.  In the secular setting, if Christianity (or any religion) doesn’t stand up to a logical scrutiny, a reasonable explanation of facts, then it is questioned.  If the tenets of the Christian faith cannot stand on their own in making logical sense, then they will find little room in a logical educational system.  Much of education has to do with applying reason and logic to any given topic or discipline.  Christianity (as well as other religions) often fall short on that front.  That is why Biblical creation is never taught in a secular college or university.  Christians may believe in Biblical creation but such a view is less than logical.  Instead of fact based, it is faith based.

As Michelle suggested, a wall of protection might be helpful in protecting faith’s erosion.  That’s what Christian education tends to do, it’s a shelter against non Christian thinking.  But I don’t know if living a sheltered life is an honest approach to what secular education has to offer.  I don’t think that secular education is as much against Christianity (or any religion) as it is for a logical approach to life and living.  Miracle based religion does not resonate in a logic based educational system.  Christian higher education tries to maintain both (logic and faith in the illogical) even though the two are not a good fit.

So I agree with Brenda, that secular higher education is not, so much, against Christianity as it is for logic and reason.  And perhaps that is the strength of a university education. But only the strong and sheltered survive.

Thanks, Christy, for your article in which give your take on the homosexual issue, especially in light of the recent Supreme court decision.  Your title “Nothing and Everything...” is an interesting take on the new situation in the U.S. and Canada.  If I hear you right you are saying that the law, which now includes gays, has nothing to do with love.  Any two people (adults) are entitled to be married, whether in love or not.  But the love side comes into the picture as Christians are to love homosexuals with a Christlike love.  So it’s a both/and or a neither/nor picture concerning love.  But there are some problems with your take.

On the one hand, the law takes place in a different arena than that of the Christlike love you talk about.  The arena for the law is society and the arena for Christlike love is the church.

You suggest that the law has nothing to do with love, therefor anyone can get married.  In your thinking heterosexual marriage in this secular arena only has to do with procreation, the ability to create children.  This was the state’s reason to recognize marriage only between a man and woman.  Now that reason has been removed.  But Christy, there is nothing to substantiate the idea that marriage between a man and a women has anything to do with procreation.  No questions were/are asked of a man and woman applying for marriage pertaining to children.  A married couple may or may not plan on having children.  There was no requirement for obtaining a licence that pertained to children in the marriage.  Nor is there any law that says single people (non married) cannot have children.  Marriage and family are two different issues.  Marriage is just between two people and does include children.

Also you suggest ”love” was not a reason in the State’s mind for sanctioning marriage.  Although not specifically stated as a requirement it does seem to be assumed.  The forms used by the State for a civil marriage ceremony have (in the past) and still ask if the couple promises to love each other.  Whereas the form does not ask about or mention children.  The assumption in the church and outside of the church is that love forms the basis of marriage.  In a civil ceremony, like a church ceremony, a couple pledge their love for each other.

In the church, of course, the foundation of marriage, is love, in fact, a Christlike love.  “As Christ loved the church so also the husband is to love his wife.”  When a man leaves his parents to be joined to his wife, again, the basis is love.  Having children is not the reason for getting married, even in the church.  The church marries couples because of their love for each other.  A couple stands at the front of the church in a marriage ceremony to pledge their love for each other.

A gay couple stands before a minister or a judge and pledges their love for each other, the same as a heterosexual couple does.  They both pledge a love and fidelity for as long as their lives shall last.  The homosexual couple, if Christian, may also pledge their love for God and neighbor.  But the church, at least the CRC, will not recognize the marriage of the gay couple or respect their life of love and fidelity for each other.  So while the church attempts to love the gay married couple, it still falls short, in that they are viewed as sinners and under the wrath of God for their marital relationship (which the gay couple thinks honors God).  Until the church does condone same sex marriage the system is still flawed.

Thanks Christy for your perspective on an increasingly sensitive issue.  Keep working at it.  I hope you eventually get it completely right.  You're close, but no cigar.

Thanks, Christy, for your article in which give your take on the homosexual issue, especially in light of the recent Supreme court decision.  Your title “Nothing and Everything...” is an interesting take on the new situation in the U.S. and Canada.  If I hear you right you are saying that the law, which now includes gays, has nothing to do with love.  Any two people (adults) are entitled to be married, whether in love or not.  But the love side comes into the picture as Christians are to love homosexuals with a Christlike love.  So it’s a both/and or a neither/nor picture concerning love.  But there are some problems with your take.

On the one hand, the law takes place in a different arena than that of the Christlike love you talk about.  The arena for the law is society and the arena for Christlike love is the church.

You suggest that the law has nothing to do with love, therefor anyone can get married.  In your thinking heterosexual marriage in this secular arena only has to do with procreation, the ability to create children.  This was the state’s reason to recognize marriage only between a man and woman.  Now that reason has been removed.  But Christy, there is nothing to substantiate the idea that marriage between a man and a women has anything to do with procreation.  No questions were/are asked of a man and woman applying for marriage pertaining to children.  A married couple may or may not plan on having children.  There was no requirement for obtaining a licence that pertained to children in the marriage.  Nor is there any law that says single people (non married) cannot have children.  Marriage and family are two different issues.  Marriage is just between two people and does not include children.

Also you suggest ”love” was not a reason in the State’s mind for sanctioning marriage.  Although not specifically stated as a requirement it does seem to be assumed.  The forms used by the State for a civil marriage ceremony have (in the past) and still ask if the couple promises to love each other.  Whereas the form does not ask about or mention children.  The assumption in the church and outside of the church is that love forms the basis of marriage.  In a civil ceremony, like a church ceremony, a couple pledge their love for each other.

In the church, of course, the foundation of marriage, is love, in fact, a Christlike love.  “As Christ loved the church so also the husband is to love his wife.”  When a man leaves his parents to be joined to his wife, again, the basis is love.  Having children is not the reason for getting married, even in the church.  The church marries couples because of their love for each other.  A couple stands at the front of the church in a marriage ceremony to pledge their love for each other.

A gay couple stands before a minister or a judge and pledges their love for each other, the same as a heterosexual couple does.  They both pledge a love and fidelity for as long as their lives shall last.  The homosexual couple, if Christian, may also pledge their love for God and neighbor.  But the church, at least the CRC, will not recognize the marriage of the gay couple or respect their life of love and fidelity for each other.  So while the church attempts to love the gay married couple, it still falls short, in that they are viewed as sinners and under the wrath of God for their marital relationship (which the gay couple thinks honors God).  Until the church does condone same sex marriage the CRC system is still flawed.

Thanks Christy for your perspective on an increasingly sensitive issue.  Keep working at it.  I hope you eventually get it completely right.  You're close, but no cigar.

Thanks Mark,  Judy certainly has it right.  A person permanently confined to a wheelchair certainly faces a number of trials that those of us who are physically healthy don't begin to realize.  It just takes a month in a wheel chair recovering from a broken leg or foot to realize the challenges of maneuvering in public spaces.  A lot of those challenges come from the inconsideration of people and stores.  Everyone should have the opportunity to spend some time in a wheel chair to get a hint of what a wheel chair bound person faces every day.  Thanks for the reminder.  And blessings to Judy as she faces a challenging life.

Thanks Louis,  sounds like a Christ like message to me.  How can anyone go wrong showing empathy to the varieties of people who surround us.  Pay our taxes gladly (especially the ones that contribute to the needs of the poor) and reach out to our neighbors with kindness and generosity. Thanks.

Thanks Henry.  The scenario does seem to present a problem.  It would have been less of a problem, perhaps 75 years ago when pastors carried more weight in the church and in the community.  There was a time when Christian values (in regard to marriage) impacted the community.  But increasingly, the church nor the pastor carry much weight or influence today.  So I think, in today's culture, marriage is more about the couple than about the minister performing the marriage service.  A young couple will do pretty much what they want to do.  Maybe the minister might say, these are the parameters that I'm willing to work with and explain why.  But then if they still want to marry their own way, offer some suggestions as to how to do this to the satisfaction of everyone involved.  It certainly does no good to try and push a couple into a perspective that they're not comfortable with.  Maybe make the suggestion to use (rent) the church facility for the wedding day and have someone else perform the wedding service to their satisfaction.  Or have the service at some neutral location with a civil servant performing the service.  Or get married at the court house with a justice of the peace.  Trying to be helpful from the beginning and giving them a feeling of encouragement early in your dialog will likely contribute to a better witness than simply saying no, I don't do that.  But it is a tough situation for a pastor.

Thanks Michele for your article.  I think we tend to judge other people as though I'm the official pattern of normal and anyone slightly different is abnormal.  What a great challenge to love those who are different from ourselves.  Thanks for sharing.