The panelists are quite correct in suggesting people need to "educate themselves." Toward that end, I've read Robin DiAngelo's "White Fragility" (mentioned in this podcast), Ibram X. Kendi's "How to Be an AntiRacist" and other authors who come from what I would consider to be a "Critical Race Theory" perspective.
But I have also read a couple of books on the subject of race and slavery from Thomas Sowell, a "black" author born in Brooklyn, who is and has long been a senior fellow at Standford University's Hoover Institution, who comes from a different perspective. Sowell's credentials as a historian (and in other disciplines), both as to the US and the world beyond, is impressive indeed and his record of meticulously documented written works even more so.
Sowell's 2006 book entitled "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" deals quite specifically with the history of race -- both in the US and the world --, as well as the history of slavery -- again both in the US and the world. I consider his 60 page chapter "The Real History of Slavery" a must read, but really the entire book is.
Recommending Robin Diangelo to CRC youth groups? I think that is an extremely poor recommendation, and yes I have read White Fragility so I am not unaware of what she thinks, writes and advocates.
Color me entirely unconvinced as to the exegesis of Romans 13 as made in this article. I'm supposing there could be exceptions, but I would think that the rule for local churches would be that they rely on their membership for financial support, even in times like this. The postal service still exists (for sending checks). And electronic means for sending funds still exist as well. No "shut down" has shut down either of those means of receiving revenue.
If churches in North America (US or Canada) begin to rely on the federal government to replace reduced revenues, for whatever reason revenues are reduced, they have begun to travel down a very bad road, one that the reformed tradition departed from (for good reason) a very long time ago.
FWIW, I have chosen not to apply for COVID19 related federal funding for my law practice.
So here's an interesting question: has the CRCNA (the denomination) applied for available COVID19 federal funding?
This article over defines "justice" in a way that pours the content of the word "mercy" into justice, leaving no differentiation. In other words, it conflates the two words (and their proper meanings).
The article cites Nicholas Wolterstorff. I've read the book cited in this article as well as others written by Wolterstorff on the same topic (justice). Frankly, I believe Wolterstorff also conflates justice and mercy, as does Daniel Bell (also cited in this article).
This is a relatively new movement in the Church, including the CRC. Ultimately, in my thinking, it's progression results in a rerun of past era of "liberation theology," a movement in which the politics supposedly emanating from the theology eventually overwhelmed the theology.
The article also links to the CRC's admonitions to its incoming deacons. That admonition (unlike the entirety of this article) does refer to "mercy" as well as "justice." (Micah 6:8 refers to both words as well.) That is, "justice" and "mercy" remain as separate concepts, unconflated. That is the historic CRC (Reformed) perspective.
I have no argument with this article's suggestion that deacons (all Christians even) should seek, even DO, justice. Indeed, that is demanded by Micah 6:8. But "mercy" is something different and must be regarded as that, and not be subsumed into "justice" as if the two words are perfect synonyms referring to the same content. They are not, and the failure to acknowledge the separate concepts leads to a repeat of history: "liberation theology," which slowly morphed into political Marxism which eventually discarded theology in exchange for "what was really important," that being the political fight of course.
I'm all for the deacons immersing themselves in the work of mercy. Where more careful discernment is needed, I think, is when deacons take on "justice." I put that in quotes because "justice" (and "social justice") have become "smurf words" in the last decade or so and so need definition, which these days is a bit hard to come by.
But I do agree Matt Tuininga's work brings a lot to the table for this discussion. I would recommend that deacons read his book (especially the last chapter), and not just listen to the Tuininga video. And in reading/listening to Tuininga, I would also note that Tuininga presents a "Two Kingdoms" perspective, which is what Tuininga suggests (convincingly I think) John Calvin's thought represents, but the more traditional CRC perspective has been one of Kuyper's sphere sovereigntly. Personally, I don't think the perspectives clash but are quite reconcilable (not everyone agrees with me on that). I see Calvin's Two Kingdoms perspective as an embryonic Sphere Sovereignty. (Which is perhaps why Kuyper/SS is often referred to as "neo-Calvinist").
One reference cited in this article, to the "Ten Ways to Do Justice" (at https://network.crcna.org/biblical-justice/ten-ways-do-justice ) has advice I quite disagree with. In that publication, deacons are encouraged to "not be afraid to get political." This is exactly where careful discernment is required (and Tuininga's book's last chapter needs reading)--deacons should be very cautious before "getting political." Whether one is of a "Calvin's Two Kingdoms" or a "Kuyper's Sphere Sovereignty" perspective, it is wise for the deacons to carefully discern where their own jurisdiction lies (and doesn't lie) as to "matters political." Calvin distinguishes between the institutional church and government, and so does Kuyper. Each institution has its role to play, and each ought not play (for multiple reasons) the role of the other (whether called the "other Kingdom" or the "sphere" of government).
Many other (mostly larger, so-called "main line") churches have illustrated what happens when the institutional church decides it should become a political monolith and then should direct the government in its tasks. What happens is that the church loses sight of its mission, not to mention its (political perspective diverse) members. It is important to note here too that the task of government in the 21st century is much, much, much more complex than it was in Calvin's time (or Kuyper's). Deacons are not deacons because of their superior expertise in discerning good or not-so-good political legislation. Nor do really good deacons necessarily have gifts or experience in law, political theory, monetary theory, macro-economics, or effective (yet ethical) political lobbying strategy. Deacons ought not establish the political perspective of their congregation, or (more realistically) of one segment of their congregation.
Again, careful discernment is key here. Deacons are agents of the institutional church, not the designated political spokespersons for the organic church. Which brings up this point: if deacons are going to be involved in "matters political" of any kind, they must understand the difference between the institutional church and organic church. If they do not, their work as to "matters political" will reflect neither a "Two Kingdoms" or "Sphere Sovereignty" perspective.
What caught my eye in reading this was the bulleted point (under "What you will learn") of:
- Why the classification of white people and people of color dehumanizes us all
I've wondered for many years why we (including in CRC publications) continue to write as if we should classify people into "white" and "people of color" (or by some other color). See, for example: http://dojustice.crcna.org/article/practicing-love-polarized-times and http://dojustice.crcna.org/article/dear-church-refuse-be-denial and http://dojustice.crcna.org/article/know-your-history-beloved (and there are many more).
"Race," strictly (and accurately) defined, has no significant genetic basis--not to mention no significant meaning in general about a person--so why do we keep referring to people as "white" or "black" or "brown" or "POC," etc?
Could it be that if we actually stopped talking as if "race" was a meaningful characteristic of people that it would be less regarded as a meaningful characteristic of a person? I for one think so.
This article asks, "Who first stewarded the portion of Creator's world you call home?"
The answer is, for anyone who owns a home in North America: no one knows. Just as is the case with any part of the rest of the planet, no one knows "who was there first." That information is, for all locations on the planet, prehistoric.
I would have rather seen CRCers, and local CRC churches who would so inclined, actually pay the loan interest and early required payments.
Indeed, it's pretty easy to "advocate" for refugees by essentially using the power of the sword (government) to take money from others (taxpayers) to pay these obligations. There's a old cliche for this. I for one liked better the 'old days' (in the US at least) when individuals and organizations (like local churches) accepted responsibility for refugees and immigrants. The evolution to centralized government taking that responsibility is not progress in my mind, but in the long run counter-productive.
My recommendation for becoming informed on these and other issues, even if from more of a theological perspective, is to read one or more of the books written by John Walton (a Wheaton prof) on various OT topics, including Gen 1 and Gen 2.
Good post and video. The "science" of helping needs to be taught. It's a relatively new science and is somewhat counter-intuitive to people's instincts for how they can best help.
What a great article, Lloyd. Murray pretty much covers the gamut, which is excellent (and helpful). As he says, "there is no one reason that explains everybody." Having spent a good many years as a practicing attorney, I can echo that (whether as to sins in church or otherwise). Which is why each case must be approached and evaluated without presuming it is "like that other case a few years ago."
One thing I would particularly point out is this. I think we, including in the CRC, too often resolve such matters "behind closed doors." Of course, we call it by a more palatable expression, like "executive session." I realize that sometimes "executive session" is really the better way to deal with a sin, but I think we overdo it. And the habit of doing it tends to encourage those would commit violations. The logic is this: hey, even if I get caught, the matter would be kept and dealt with behind closed doors.
I'm not sure the discussion doesn't becomes derailed from the beginning by using the word "power" as it is used in this article (and, presumably the webinar?). "Power" is the ability to cause an effect. Everyone has "power," even if of different kinds and even if in different degrees.
I think it is more productive to discuss concepts of authority, responsibility, rights and obligations. Power may be used properly or improperly exercise authority, discharge responsibility, enforce rights, or require the discharge of obligations. It seems to me that in this article (perhaps in the webinar as well although I didn't see it), the word "power" is being misused.
Kelly talks of "patriarchal power structures" -- and the need to challenge them. I'm assuming what is meant is "patriarchal authority structures"?
This isn't just a quibble about words. The failure to conceptually distinguish between power and authority will ultimately lead to bad thinking -- and thus bad doing.
Posted in: Black History / White Memory Webinar Recording
The panelists are quite correct in suggesting people need to "educate themselves." Toward that end, I've read Robin DiAngelo's "White Fragility" (mentioned in this podcast), Ibram X. Kendi's "How to Be an AntiRacist" and other authors who come from what I would consider to be a "Critical Race Theory" perspective.
But I have also read a couple of books on the subject of race and slavery from Thomas Sowell, a "black" author born in Brooklyn, who is and has long been a senior fellow at Standford University's Hoover Institution, who comes from a different perspective. Sowell's credentials as a historian (and in other disciplines), both as to the US and the world beyond, is impressive indeed and his record of meticulously documented written works even more so.
Sowell's 2006 book entitled "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" deals quite specifically with the history of race -- both in the US and the world --, as well as the history of slavery -- again both in the US and the world. I consider his 60 page chapter "The Real History of Slavery" a must read, but really the entire book is.
Posted in: Anti-Racist Resources for Your Youth Group
Recommending Robin Diangelo to CRC youth groups? I think that is an extremely poor recommendation, and yes I have read White Fragility so I am not unaware of what she thinks, writes and advocates.
Posted in: Should Churches Accept Government Funds During COVID19?
Color me entirely unconvinced as to the exegesis of Romans 13 as made in this article. I'm supposing there could be exceptions, but I would think that the rule for local churches would be that they rely on their membership for financial support, even in times like this. The postal service still exists (for sending checks). And electronic means for sending funds still exist as well. No "shut down" has shut down either of those means of receiving revenue.
If churches in North America (US or Canada) begin to rely on the federal government to replace reduced revenues, for whatever reason revenues are reduced, they have begun to travel down a very bad road, one that the reformed tradition departed from (for good reason) a very long time ago.
FWIW, I have chosen not to apply for COVID19 related federal funding for my law practice.
So here's an interesting question: has the CRCNA (the denomination) applied for available COVID19 federal funding?
Posted in: The Deacon’s Role in Seeking Biblical Justice
This article over defines "justice" in a way that pours the content of the word "mercy" into justice, leaving no differentiation. In other words, it conflates the two words (and their proper meanings).
The article cites Nicholas Wolterstorff. I've read the book cited in this article as well as others written by Wolterstorff on the same topic (justice). Frankly, I believe Wolterstorff also conflates justice and mercy, as does Daniel Bell (also cited in this article).
This is a relatively new movement in the Church, including the CRC. Ultimately, in my thinking, it's progression results in a rerun of past era of "liberation theology," a movement in which the politics supposedly emanating from the theology eventually overwhelmed the theology.
The article also links to the CRC's admonitions to its incoming deacons. That admonition (unlike the entirety of this article) does refer to "mercy" as well as "justice." (Micah 6:8 refers to both words as well.) That is, "justice" and "mercy" remain as separate concepts, unconflated. That is the historic CRC (Reformed) perspective.
I have no argument with this article's suggestion that deacons (all Christians even) should seek, even DO, justice. Indeed, that is demanded by Micah 6:8. But "mercy" is something different and must be regarded as that, and not be subsumed into "justice" as if the two words are perfect synonyms referring to the same content. They are not, and the failure to acknowledge the separate concepts leads to a repeat of history: "liberation theology," which slowly morphed into political Marxism which eventually discarded theology in exchange for "what was really important," that being the political fight of course.
Posted in: Introducing Justice Initiatives: The Role of Deacons
I'm all for the deacons immersing themselves in the work of mercy. Where more careful discernment is needed, I think, is when deacons take on "justice." I put that in quotes because "justice" (and "social justice") have become "smurf words" in the last decade or so and so need definition, which these days is a bit hard to come by.
But I do agree Matt Tuininga's work brings a lot to the table for this discussion. I would recommend that deacons read his book (especially the last chapter), and not just listen to the Tuininga video. And in reading/listening to Tuininga, I would also note that Tuininga presents a "Two Kingdoms" perspective, which is what Tuininga suggests (convincingly I think) John Calvin's thought represents, but the more traditional CRC perspective has been one of Kuyper's sphere sovereigntly. Personally, I don't think the perspectives clash but are quite reconcilable (not everyone agrees with me on that). I see Calvin's Two Kingdoms perspective as an embryonic Sphere Sovereignty. (Which is perhaps why Kuyper/SS is often referred to as "neo-Calvinist").
One reference cited in this article, to the "Ten Ways to Do Justice" (at https://network.crcna.org/biblical-justice/ten-ways-do-justice ) has advice I quite disagree with. In that publication, deacons are encouraged to "not be afraid to get political." This is exactly where careful discernment is required (and Tuininga's book's last chapter needs reading)--deacons should be very cautious before "getting political." Whether one is of a "Calvin's Two Kingdoms" or a "Kuyper's Sphere Sovereignty" perspective, it is wise for the deacons to carefully discern where their own jurisdiction lies (and doesn't lie) as to "matters political." Calvin distinguishes between the institutional church and government, and so does Kuyper. Each institution has its role to play, and each ought not play (for multiple reasons) the role of the other (whether called the "other Kingdom" or the "sphere" of government).
Many other (mostly larger, so-called "main line") churches have illustrated what happens when the institutional church decides it should become a political monolith and then should direct the government in its tasks. What happens is that the church loses sight of its mission, not to mention its (political perspective diverse) members. It is important to note here too that the task of government in the 21st century is much, much, much more complex than it was in Calvin's time (or Kuyper's). Deacons are not deacons because of their superior expertise in discerning good or not-so-good political legislation. Nor do really good deacons necessarily have gifts or experience in law, political theory, monetary theory, macro-economics, or effective (yet ethical) political lobbying strategy. Deacons ought not establish the political perspective of their congregation, or (more realistically) of one segment of their congregation.
Again, careful discernment is key here. Deacons are agents of the institutional church, not the designated political spokespersons for the organic church. Which brings up this point: if deacons are going to be involved in "matters political" of any kind, they must understand the difference between the institutional church and organic church. If they do not, their work as to "matters political" will reflect neither a "Two Kingdoms" or "Sphere Sovereignty" perspective.
Posted in: U.S. Anti-racism Workshop: Ideology of Whiteness
What caught my eye in reading this was the bulleted point (under "What you will learn") of:
- Why the classification of white people and people of color dehumanizes us all
I've wondered for many years why we (including in CRC publications) continue to write as if we should classify people into "white" and "people of color" (or by some other color). See, for example: http://dojustice.crcna.org/article/practicing-love-polarized-times and http://dojustice.crcna.org/article/dear-church-refuse-be-denial and http://dojustice.crcna.org/article/know-your-history-beloved (and there are many more).
"Race," strictly (and accurately) defined, has no significant genetic basis--not to mention no significant meaning in general about a person--so why do we keep referring to people as "white" or "black" or "brown" or "POC," etc?
Could it be that if we actually stopped talking as if "race" was a meaningful characteristic of people that it would be less regarded as a meaningful characteristic of a person? I for one think so.
Posted in: Series: The Land We Stand On
This article asks, "Who first stewarded the portion of Creator's world you call home?"
The answer is, for anyone who owns a home in North America: no one knows. Just as is the case with any part of the rest of the planet, no one knows "who was there first." That information is, for all locations on the planet, prehistoric.
Posted in: Canadian Advocacy Success Story
I would have rather seen CRCers, and local CRC churches who would so inclined, actually pay the loan interest and early required payments.
Indeed, it's pretty easy to "advocate" for refugees by essentially using the power of the sword (government) to take money from others (taxpayers) to pay these obligations. There's a old cliche for this. I for one liked better the 'old days' (in the US at least) when individuals and organizations (like local churches) accepted responsibility for refugees and immigrants. The evolution to centralized government taking that responsibility is not progress in my mind, but in the long run counter-productive.
Posted in: Reading Genesis & Modern Science: A Study Guide
My recommendation for becoming informed on these and other issues, even if from more of a theological perspective, is to read one or more of the books written by John Walton (a Wheaton prof) on various OT topics, including Gen 1 and Gen 2.
Posted in: Helping that Helps (at Christmas and Beyond)
Good post and video. The "science" of helping needs to be taught. It's a relatively new science and is somewhat counter-intuitive to people's instincts for how they can best help.
Posted in: Why Do Churches Cover Up Sin?
What a great article, Lloyd. Murray pretty much covers the gamut, which is excellent (and helpful). As he says, "there is no one reason that explains everybody." Having spent a good many years as a practicing attorney, I can echo that (whether as to sins in church or otherwise). Which is why each case must be approached and evaluated without presuming it is "like that other case a few years ago."
One thing I would particularly point out is this. I think we, including in the CRC, too often resolve such matters "behind closed doors." Of course, we call it by a more palatable expression, like "executive session." I realize that sometimes "executive session" is really the better way to deal with a sin, but I think we overdo it. And the habit of doing it tends to encourage those would commit violations. The logic is this: hey, even if I get caught, the matter would be kept and dealt with behind closed doors.
Thanks for the link Lloyd!
Posted in: Partnership View of Power
I'm not sure the discussion doesn't becomes derailed from the beginning by using the word "power" as it is used in this article (and, presumably the webinar?). "Power" is the ability to cause an effect. Everyone has "power," even if of different kinds and even if in different degrees.
I think it is more productive to discuss concepts of authority, responsibility, rights and obligations. Power may be used properly or improperly exercise authority, discharge responsibility, enforce rights, or require the discharge of obligations. It seems to me that in this article (perhaps in the webinar as well although I didn't see it), the word "power" is being misused.
Kelly talks of "patriarchal power structures" -- and the need to challenge them. I'm assuming what is meant is "patriarchal authority structures"?
This isn't just a quibble about words. The failure to conceptually distinguish between power and authority will ultimately lead to bad thinking -- and thus bad doing.