For two Paul Vanderklay hosted Youtube discussions about Overtures 12, 13 and 14, go to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU59ZdioEjQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6A2lye3mm4
Echoing Eric Van Dyken, I too think a "category mistake" is made when it is suggested that refraining from political lobbying means the CRC -- as an institutional church -- can't speak prophetically to questions of murder, care for the poor, creation care, slavery, Nazi-ism, suicide, or any number of issues that Scripture speaks to. But the institutional church needs to speak prophetically, based on Scripture, as to those things.
Here are concrete examples of what would be outside the institutional church's role/competency:
- Politically lobbying for the Senate version of the Agriculture Bill over the House version of the Agriculture Bill is outside the proper scope and expertise of the institutional church.
- Politically lobbying for a "clean DACA bill" (as opposed to one that is "comprehensive immigration reform?").
- Politically lobbying to oppose a the budget component proposed by the federal "Fiscal Year 2018 Homeland Security Bill."
- Politically lobbying to "Urge Congress to End Abortion by Creating a Budget that Adequately Funds Medicaid" (calling doing so "having an opportunity to use the power of advocacy to call for a faithful budget"). (One wonders then, if one doesn't agree with these budget proposal, is one "not faithful"?)
- Politically lobbying to "Urge your Senators to Say No to [Immigration] Enforcement Expansion".
- Politically lobbying to "speak up" about the "Administration sign[ing] an executive order that instruction the EPA to begin rolling back the Clean Power Plan," or to ask "Congress" to "support politices that align with the goals of the Paris Agreement."
- Politically lobbying to "Stop Congress from Cutting Refugee Resettlement Funding."
- Politically lobbying to "urge Congress" to "End the Immigraiton Detention Quota!"
- Politically lobbying to "urge your state legislators to ban prolonged solitary confinement."
- Politically lobbying to urge passage of "The Fair Day in Court for Kids Act of 2016" (that would have government fund lawyers to represent children and others seeking asylum).
- Politically lobbying to "Tell World Leaders to Sign the Paris Agreement," or to "Urge your Members of Congress" to "Support the Principles of the Paris Agreement."
Law (what political processes, including lobbying, creates) and politics are complex. Theology and other ecclesiastical work is complex too. The two categories of 'things to be done' are not the same. Certainly, some who read the above examples (all taken from OSJ Action Alerts) might say "well of course OSJ is lobbying for the 'right side' of the issue," and maybe it is, but then again maybe not. The issues involved are all enormously more complex than bumper stickers or even "Action Alerts" would suggest. The two Agriculture Bills were hundreds of pages (one beyond a thousand pages I recall) in length. They deal with many, many, many issues. Any law must be considered within the context of other laws, existing budgets, and, perhaps most complex of all, "political reality." Pushing for a "clean DACA vote," for example, discourages "comprehensive immigration reform." Which might be considered good, but it might also be considered bad. Reasonable Christians (CRCers) seeking to be "faithful" can and do disagree as to all of the examples above given. Should we call some of those Christians (CRCers) "unfaithful"?
Nick. As you know, there is something I like about Overture 12, and there is much that you and I agree about. I'd encourage interested readers to view the Vanderklay hosted YouTube video that included both of us if they are interested in these questions.
Thanks for your interest in this topic Nick, and your willingness to put your thoughts out there, even if we disagree in some ways.
I've always disagreed with that pithy description of justice, Terry.
In my mind, "doing justice" (public or otherwise) does not give the appearance of, nor is it, "love."
Your pithy definition describes respect, fairness, strict obedience perhaps, but not love.
Micah 6:8 tells us to DO JUSTICE and also to LOVE MERCY. I don't think we see love unless both are done. Merely doing the former (justice) is like "doing good to your friends -- so what, do not the heathen do as much?"
To exhibit love, one must also do mercy, because one loves mercy.
And this is where some of the harmful conflation has happened, including in the Christian community. We've stopped talking about mercy (charity) and have pushed the definitional content of the word mercy into justice.
Result: we increasingly live in a society where mercy is demanded (since it is now justice and justice should be required) and where mercy cannot be given out of love (since one must give it out of obligation). Of course, this change has manifested itself politically more than in other ways, but in other ways as well.
I'm actually just distinguishing between justice and mercy Mark. Doing justice is our obligation. We aren't given a choice. Its a demand. Do justice. On the other hand, we are required only to love (not do) mercy. Certainly, if we love mercy we will do it , even if not always (no one is omniscient), but one must do justice even if one is not inclined to do it. One doesn't exhibit love mercy by obeying a requirement (even if disobeying it may exhibit hate).
I suppose I come from my own life's experience, as an attorney for about 39 years now. When the court (or government generally) is acting, it rightfully demands, obligates, it citizenry to do justice and if a citizen doesn't, government calls into account (or should). And although a citizen doing as required is certainly not unloving, it isn't necessarily loving. Love is, mercy is, when we give of ourselves without obligation, absent duty. The greatest of these is love, not justice. And we have an example to look at for that of course.
If all of mercy becomes justice, it won't be mercy anymore. It won't be giving but mere obedience to a requirement.
I'm not sure who's comment you are referring to Kris, but of course "justice isn't the earthly achievement of shalom" -- I'm not sure who has or would say otherwise?
Is "justice ... a condition for shalom"? Certainly, but there are more conditions for shalom than only a state of justice. And the word "justice" does not denote all the elements that are required for shalom, which is one of the reasons we should not conflate the words "justice" and "shalom," nor transfer the definitional content of the word "mercy" into "justice."
I won't offer on characterizing God's justice, but human judges of any particular court are often merely motivated by the obligation of doing their job when they render decisions (justice) in any particular case before them. Certainly, Christians ought to connect their faith (which requires loving God and neighbor) to their job. Thus, a judge who is Christian may well be "motivated by love" when applying the law (and hopefully thereby rendering justice) in cases where they render decisions.
I wouldn't say that judges who do justice out of the motivation of "doing their job" are seeking "revenge," even if they may not be acting out of love, but I'm not sure I'm understanding your post Mark.
Mark: I agree that if one loves, one will do justice (as you say, "I understand justice to be an aspect of love"), but that doesn't mean that if one does not love, one cannot (or at least sometimes will not) do justice. People in the real world often do justice without loving. But yes, people who in fact love do justice. Indeed, they also do mercy (because they "love mercy").
That Scripture, examined in context and as a whole, does not condemn what we today might call the rights of "self-defense" or "defense of others" (legal concepts having their basis, as US law does, in the worldview of Christianity) is not an automatic conclusion drawn by Christians these days, even CRC ones, even if it once was.
This article should be posted on the Do Justice site.
I don't like bumper sticker theology either, that is, drawing simplistic truths from out of context "proof texts." But then there is the opposite problem too, refusing to extract any truth at all from scripture (except that we "must all love each other," ironically an example of simplistic proof texting).
Take the year of jubilee. Some want to simplistically apply that to 21st century politics (maybe theonomists, or opposite that some social justice fans). Others ignore it as the OT (just not applicable anymore). I think the principle in the year of jubilee should inform us (whether as to how we do government or personal living), but not be a particular formula.
I think this article hits the sweet spot of interpreting OT rather well. It extracts a generalized principle (self-defense and defense of others is allowed, good and proper), without getting too specific (e.g., that we should adopt Persian law or that we may arm ourselves only with swords and spears but not guns).
I do understand why some would fail to see the principle translation of the Esther story to the 2nd Amendment, but if they do, I think it is because they don't (or won't) understand the argument dominantly made by 2nd Amendment fans. Other than using guns for extracurriculars like hunting or sport (which many also abhor), 2nd Amendment fans want the right to have guns to defend themselves and (usually more important to them) their families. If we assume the latter motivation, Esther provides an pretty spot on scriptural principle for extraction.
Of course, if you assume 2nd Amendment fans are bullies or tough guys that like to swagger by their armament display ...... well, Esther doesn't help at all, and doesn't seem to apply to today.
I don't own a gun, never have. But my sense of the many people who do -- that sense gained from my living with them -- is that they don't want guns to be bullies or show swagger. In fact, I find gun owners to be, statistically speaking, a group that has perhaps an extra dose of feeling responsible to live with personal integrity and to be responsible, including to others.
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
For two Paul Vanderklay hosted Youtube discussions about Overtures 12, 13 and 14, go to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU59ZdioEjQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6A2lye3mm4
Echoing Eric Van Dyken, I too think a "category mistake" is made when it is suggested that refraining from political lobbying means the CRC -- as an institutional church -- can't speak prophetically to questions of murder, care for the poor, creation care, slavery, Nazi-ism, suicide, or any number of issues that Scripture speaks to. But the institutional church needs to speak prophetically, based on Scripture, as to those things.
Here are concrete examples of what would be outside the institutional church's role/competency:
- Politically lobbying for the Senate version of the Agriculture Bill over the House version of the Agriculture Bill is outside the proper scope and expertise of the institutional church.
- Politically lobbying for a "clean DACA bill" (as opposed to one that is "comprehensive immigration reform?").
- Politically lobbying to oppose a the budget component proposed by the federal "Fiscal Year 2018 Homeland Security Bill."
- Politically lobbying to "Urge Congress to End Abortion by Creating a Budget that Adequately Funds Medicaid" (calling doing so "having an opportunity to use the power of advocacy to call for a faithful budget"). (One wonders then, if one doesn't agree with these budget proposal, is one "not faithful"?)
- Politically lobbying to "Urge your Senators to Say No to [Immigration] Enforcement Expansion".
- Politically lobbying to "speak up" about the "Administration sign[ing] an executive order that instruction the EPA to begin rolling back the Clean Power Plan," or to ask "Congress" to "support politices that align with the goals of the Paris Agreement."
- Politically lobbying to "Stop Congress from Cutting Refugee Resettlement Funding."
- Politically lobbying to "urge Congress" to "End the Immigraiton Detention Quota!"
- Politically lobbying to "urge your state legislators to ban prolonged solitary confinement."
- Politically lobbying to urge passage of "The Fair Day in Court for Kids Act of 2016" (that would have government fund lawyers to represent children and others seeking asylum).
- Politically lobbying to "Tell World Leaders to Sign the Paris Agreement," or to "Urge your Members of Congress" to "Support the Principles of the Paris Agreement."
Law (what political processes, including lobbying, creates) and politics are complex. Theology and other ecclesiastical work is complex too. The two categories of 'things to be done' are not the same. Certainly, some who read the above examples (all taken from OSJ Action Alerts) might say "well of course OSJ is lobbying for the 'right side' of the issue," and maybe it is, but then again maybe not. The issues involved are all enormously more complex than bumper stickers or even "Action Alerts" would suggest. The two Agriculture Bills were hundreds of pages (one beyond a thousand pages I recall) in length. They deal with many, many, many issues. Any law must be considered within the context of other laws, existing budgets, and, perhaps most complex of all, "political reality." Pushing for a "clean DACA vote," for example, discourages "comprehensive immigration reform." Which might be considered good, but it might also be considered bad. Reasonable Christians (CRCers) seeking to be "faithful" can and do disagree as to all of the examples above given. Should we call some of those Christians (CRCers) "unfaithful"?
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
Nick. As you know, there is something I like about Overture 12, and there is much that you and I agree about. I'd encourage interested readers to view the Vanderklay hosted YouTube video that included both of us if they are interested in these questions.
Thanks for your interest in this topic Nick, and your willingness to put your thoughts out there, even if we disagree in some ways.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
I've always disagreed with that pithy description of justice, Terry.
In my mind, "doing justice" (public or otherwise) does not give the appearance of, nor is it, "love."
Your pithy definition describes respect, fairness, strict obedience perhaps, but not love.
Micah 6:8 tells us to DO JUSTICE and also to LOVE MERCY. I don't think we see love unless both are done. Merely doing the former (justice) is like "doing good to your friends -- so what, do not the heathen do as much?"
To exhibit love, one must also do mercy, because one loves mercy.
And this is where some of the harmful conflation has happened, including in the Christian community. We've stopped talking about mercy (charity) and have pushed the definitional content of the word mercy into justice.
Result: we increasingly live in a society where mercy is demanded (since it is now justice and justice should be required) and where mercy cannot be given out of love (since one must give it out of obligation). Of course, this change has manifested itself politically more than in other ways, but in other ways as well.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
I'm actually just distinguishing between justice and mercy Mark. Doing justice is our obligation. We aren't given a choice. Its a demand. Do justice. On the other hand, we are required only to love (not do) mercy. Certainly, if we love mercy we will do it , even if not always (no one is omniscient), but one must do justice even if one is not inclined to do it. One doesn't exhibit love mercy by obeying a requirement (even if disobeying it may exhibit hate).
I suppose I come from my own life's experience, as an attorney for about 39 years now. When the court (or government generally) is acting, it rightfully demands, obligates, it citizenry to do justice and if a citizen doesn't, government calls into account (or should). And although a citizen doing as required is certainly not unloving, it isn't necessarily loving. Love is, mercy is, when we give of ourselves without obligation, absent duty. The greatest of these is love, not justice. And we have an example to look at for that of course.
If all of mercy becomes justice, it won't be mercy anymore. It won't be giving but mere obedience to a requirement.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
I'm not sure who's comment you are referring to Kris, but of course "justice isn't the earthly achievement of shalom" -- I'm not sure who has or would say otherwise?
Is "justice ... a condition for shalom"? Certainly, but there are more conditions for shalom than only a state of justice. And the word "justice" does not denote all the elements that are required for shalom, which is one of the reasons we should not conflate the words "justice" and "shalom," nor transfer the definitional content of the word "mercy" into "justice."
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
I won't offer on characterizing God's justice, but human judges of any particular court are often merely motivated by the obligation of doing their job when they render decisions (justice) in any particular case before them. Certainly, Christians ought to connect their faith (which requires loving God and neighbor) to their job. Thus, a judge who is Christian may well be "motivated by love" when applying the law (and hopefully thereby rendering justice) in cases where they render decisions.
I wouldn't say that judges who do justice out of the motivation of "doing their job" are seeking "revenge," even if they may not be acting out of love, but I'm not sure I'm understanding your post Mark.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
What Dan said Mark. I with Dan am just defining words. Of course we should love and so justice, eve, love as we do everything we do.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Mark: I agree that if one loves, one will do justice (as you say, "I understand justice to be an aspect of love"), but that doesn't mean that if one does not love, one cannot (or at least sometimes will not) do justice. People in the real world often do justice without loving. But yes, people who in fact love do justice. Indeed, they also do mercy (because they "love mercy").
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Great comment Trevor. :-)
Posted in: Missional Pastoral Care
And I still can't figure out exactly what the word "missional" means. :-)
Posted in: Esther and the 2nd Amendment
What a delightful article.
That Scripture, examined in context and as a whole, does not condemn what we today might call the rights of "self-defense" or "defense of others" (legal concepts having their basis, as US law does, in the worldview of Christianity) is not an automatic conclusion drawn by Christians these days, even CRC ones, even if it once was.
This article should be posted on the Do Justice site.
;-)
Posted in: Esther and the 2nd Amendment
I don't like bumper sticker theology either, that is, drawing simplistic truths from out of context "proof texts." But then there is the opposite problem too, refusing to extract any truth at all from scripture (except that we "must all love each other," ironically an example of simplistic proof texting).
Take the year of jubilee. Some want to simplistically apply that to 21st century politics (maybe theonomists, or opposite that some social justice fans). Others ignore it as the OT (just not applicable anymore). I think the principle in the year of jubilee should inform us (whether as to how we do government or personal living), but not be a particular formula.
I think this article hits the sweet spot of interpreting OT rather well. It extracts a generalized principle (self-defense and defense of others is allowed, good and proper), without getting too specific (e.g., that we should adopt Persian law or that we may arm ourselves only with swords and spears but not guns).
I do understand why some would fail to see the principle translation of the Esther story to the 2nd Amendment, but if they do, I think it is because they don't (or won't) understand the argument dominantly made by 2nd Amendment fans. Other than using guns for extracurriculars like hunting or sport (which many also abhor), 2nd Amendment fans want the right to have guns to defend themselves and (usually more important to them) their families. If we assume the latter motivation, Esther provides an pretty spot on scriptural principle for extraction.
Of course, if you assume 2nd Amendment fans are bullies or tough guys that like to swagger by their armament display ...... well, Esther doesn't help at all, and doesn't seem to apply to today.
I don't own a gun, never have. But my sense of the many people who do -- that sense gained from my living with them -- is that they don't want guns to be bullies or show swagger. In fact, I find gun owners to be, statistically speaking, a group that has perhaps an extra dose of feeling responsible to live with personal integrity and to be responsible, including to others.