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").
Well, I'll certainly not defend Trump's blue collar potty mouth vulgarity, but then I'll not defend it from others either even though I tolerate it. I had cabinets installed this past Saturday by a vulgar potty mouth guy who is otherwise a great guy and good at making and installing cabinets. There's only so much you can do to control vulgar potty mouthed people, and there are lots of them, including my cabinet installer and our current President. BTW, we've had past presidents who were vulgar and/or potty mouthed too, especially in private (as this discussion was).
I do wonder though about the cause for the extra fuss about this apparent reference by Trump to "s***hole countries." How exactly is that word different (in essential meaning) than our references to "third world" countries? Sen. Graham referred to those countries as "hell holes" -- in public no less -- and that reference drew no response at all. Indeed, some of those Dems who now decry Trump's vulgarity emphasize the he'll hole-ishness of these countries when advocating for more refugee status recognition.
So yes I'm displeased about Trump's potty mouth, but also with the Democrats use of it (from a private conversation no less) to publicly chastise for political purposes. After all, there is no rational connection between Trump calling third world countries "s***holes" and the Democrats taking the position that they must walk away from negotiations about DACA. If there was, I suppose I should have told my cabinet installer to stop installing my cabinets the first time he let a potty mouth word fly.
As to who "we are," presumably referencing Americans, we are many different kinds of people. I engage with potty mouthers, non-potty mothers, potty mouthers in private only, potty mouthers all the time, and thousand of others kinds of Americans. We might do well to recognize that Trump is our president, like it or not, and to encourage our political representatives to do their job despite that, rather than finding political excuses to take their ball and go home, something just as unhelpful as saying potty words. Maybe even more unhelpful.
The suggestions of this article notwithstanding, the US should refuse to eliminate its nuclear arsenal. And it should not join a UN effort to ban all nations (including the US) from maintaining a nuclear arsenal.
Were the US to abandon its nuclear arsenal, it would significantly increase, not decrease, the worldwide prospects for war, including war that used nuclear weapons. Suggesting otherwise is akin to suggesting that elimination of a city's police force would have the result of reducing crime.
This is one of the problems that arises when institutional churches take up matters outside their areas of expertise. They tend to approach those issues naively, for the simple reason that they are in fact naive about the issues. Of course, this doesn't mean individuals who are members of institutional churches should not involve themselves in these issues, but they will more often do so after acquiring expertise about those issues so as to avoid the problem of engaging the issues with total naivete.
Great post. That old cadet "theme verse" comes to mind: "if you love me keep my commandments." And the book of James ("show me your works and I will show you your faith"). And the parable of the sheep and the goats (where people are judged in the end on what they did and didn't do).
Even if Reformed Chrsistians perhaps don't err in emphasizing faith and grace, they too often do, by my observation, err in underemphasizing obedience ("works"), for fear of being accused of over-emphasizing works. Paul said something about that of course, facetiously asking, "so should we sin more so that grace can abound?"
I loaded the app and have been playing with it for a few days now. I think it is a good app. Of course, I can't access my local church resources just because this is in "beta", and least in terms of usage.
Were I to describe the app's function in non-technical ways, I would say it is just a bit like Nextdoor (for those who are familiar with that).
I do think the app needs to be code duplicated so that it is fully accessible by computer (and not just Apples' since they are not, yet at least, rulers of the technological world, even if they want to be).
I look forward to broader distribution. And FWIW, this is a kind of resource that the denomination should be involved in, because it is a tool that local churches couldn't easily develop and it is a tool that can serve all local churches (which is the dominant role of the denomination).
We do a Harvest Carnival on the Saturday evening before Halloween. It's inside the fellowship hall with all sorts of games, face painting, cake walks, and other kid oriented stuff. Costumes allowed but not required. We draw a lot from both our congregation and community. Its known in the neighborhood because we've done it for a lot of years.
We also have food -- hot dogs and such -- for kids and parents. I'll be working the kitchen again for my umpteenth year. :-)
Bryan. Sounds good but like you, I'm skeptical of "new apps for the church" too. The last CRCNA app, the Banner app, doesn't show comments or allow for commenting. Thus, anyone who accesses the Banner with the Banner app is excluded from commenting on articles, and from seeing the comments of others.
My question about this app: does it have companion web capability? That is, if a church enters its directory data in the Bridge's back end database, is that data entry "one time" so that those who use a computer platform of the Bridge can also access that database?
If this isn't "cross platform," I'm not seeing the benefit as being greater than the burden for (especially smaller (local churches).
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: Do Trump’s "S---hole" Remarks Represent American Values?
Well, I'll certainly not defend Trump's blue collar potty mouth vulgarity, but then I'll not defend it from others either even though I tolerate it. I had cabinets installed this past Saturday by a vulgar potty mouth guy who is otherwise a great guy and good at making and installing cabinets. There's only so much you can do to control vulgar potty mouthed people, and there are lots of them, including my cabinet installer and our current President. BTW, we've had past presidents who were vulgar and/or potty mouthed too, especially in private (as this discussion was).
I do wonder though about the cause for the extra fuss about this apparent reference by Trump to "s***hole countries." How exactly is that word different (in essential meaning) than our references to "third world" countries? Sen. Graham referred to those countries as "hell holes" -- in public no less -- and that reference drew no response at all. Indeed, some of those Dems who now decry Trump's vulgarity emphasize the he'll hole-ishness of these countries when advocating for more refugee status recognition.
So yes I'm displeased about Trump's potty mouth, but also with the Democrats use of it (from a private conversation no less) to publicly chastise for political purposes. After all, there is no rational connection between Trump calling third world countries "s***holes" and the Democrats taking the position that they must walk away from negotiations about DACA. If there was, I suppose I should have told my cabinet installer to stop installing my cabinets the first time he let a potty mouth word fly.
As to who "we are," presumably referencing Americans, we are many different kinds of people. I engage with potty mouthers, non-potty mothers, potty mouthers in private only, potty mouthers all the time, and thousand of others kinds of Americans. We might do well to recognize that Trump is our president, like it or not, and to encourage our political representatives to do their job despite that, rather than finding political excuses to take their ball and go home, something just as unhelpful as saying potty words. Maybe even more unhelpful.
Posted in: Swords Into Ploughshares: Agents of Shalom in a Nuclear Age
The suggestions of this article notwithstanding, the US should refuse to eliminate its nuclear arsenal. And it should not join a UN effort to ban all nations (including the US) from maintaining a nuclear arsenal.
Were the US to abandon its nuclear arsenal, it would significantly increase, not decrease, the worldwide prospects for war, including war that used nuclear weapons. Suggesting otherwise is akin to suggesting that elimination of a city's police force would have the result of reducing crime.
This is one of the problems that arises when institutional churches take up matters outside their areas of expertise. They tend to approach those issues naively, for the simple reason that they are in fact naive about the issues. Of course, this doesn't mean individuals who are members of institutional churches should not involve themselves in these issues, but they will more often do so after acquiring expertise about those issues so as to avoid the problem of engaging the issues with total naivete.
Posted in: If Ever There Was a Need for Integrity, It Is Now
Great post. That old cadet "theme verse" comes to mind: "if you love me keep my commandments." And the book of James ("show me your works and I will show you your faith"). And the parable of the sheep and the goats (where people are judged in the end on what they did and didn't do).
Even if Reformed Chrsistians perhaps don't err in emphasizing faith and grace, they too often do, by my observation, err in underemphasizing obedience ("works"), for fear of being accused of over-emphasizing works. Paul said something about that of course, facetiously asking, "so should we sin more so that grace can abound?"
Posted in: Helping Your Church Bridge the Gap Between Sundays: A Look at the CRCNA’s New Mobile App
Thanks much for that Ken. Very helpful. We'll patiently wait. :-)
Posted in: Helping Your Church Bridge the Gap Between Sundays: A Look at the CRCNA’s New Mobile App
I loaded the app and have been playing with it for a few days now. I think it is a good app. Of course, I can't access my local church resources just because this is in "beta", and least in terms of usage.
Were I to describe the app's function in non-technical ways, I would say it is just a bit like Nextdoor (for those who are familiar with that).
I do think the app needs to be code duplicated so that it is fully accessible by computer (and not just Apples' since they are not, yet at least, rulers of the technological world, even if they want to be).
I look forward to broader distribution. And FWIW, this is a kind of resource that the denomination should be involved in, because it is a tool that local churches couldn't easily develop and it is a tool that can serve all local churches (which is the dominant role of the denomination).
Posted in: What Does Your Church Do With Halloween?
We do a Harvest Carnival on the Saturday evening before Halloween. It's inside the fellowship hall with all sorts of games, face painting, cake walks, and other kid oriented stuff. Costumes allowed but not required. We draw a lot from both our congregation and community. Its known in the neighborhood because we've done it for a lot of years.
We also have food -- hot dogs and such -- for kids and parents. I'll be working the kitchen again for my umpteenth year. :-)
Posted in: Helping Your Church Bridge the Gap Between Sundays: A Look at the CRCNA’s New Mobile App
Bryan. Sounds good but like you, I'm skeptical of "new apps for the church" too. The last CRCNA app, the Banner app, doesn't show comments or allow for commenting. Thus, anyone who accesses the Banner with the Banner app is excluded from commenting on articles, and from seeing the comments of others.
My question about this app: does it have companion web capability? That is, if a church enters its directory data in the Bridge's back end database, is that data entry "one time" so that those who use a computer platform of the Bridge can also access that database?
If this isn't "cross platform," I'm not seeing the benefit as being greater than the burden for (especially smaller (local churches).