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).
I don't know whose worldly point of view the author is talking about, but I certainly don't consider African-Americans and Anglos to be the only true Americans. Never have. In fact, properly defined, that kicks me out of being a true American and I don't think that is so either.
I'd suggest getting on the "Canada is superior" train isn't constructive. The US Declaration of Independence isn't US law frankly. The Articles of Confederation were adopted after the Declaration, which were scrapped for the US Consitution. To quote the Declaration is rhetorically cute perhaps but that's about it. The rant of "rugged American individualism" smacks more of Canadian snobbery than reality.
The US and Canada are quite different in quite a number of ways, the biggest of which I think is population (which then creates other differences). Compared to the US, the whole of Canada is a single state. Indeed, I believe California bests Canada both in population and economic output. All of which means that in general, Canadians may act more like a rural area than an urban area. And indeed, the greater the population (the more urban), the less people know and interact with each other, and vice versa. Which may explain why so few of these kinds of events (zero?) happen in farm country Iowa.
I frankly don't see where the Nashville Statement contradicts statements made by the CRC about the same subject matter. Could the author or someone point out those differences?
I also don't see where the Nashville Statement "promotes conversion therapy," nor "patriarchy." I do see where it might be said to promote "complementarianism" but not in a way different from the CRC. Anyone?
Jonathan: I don't read in Articles 12 and 13 what you claim for them. Indeed, the last phrase in Article 12 seems to make clear that believers may be drawn to sin but yet resist it.
As to Article 4, very little is said by the Nashville Statement except that "God made us male and female," and that this "difference" is a matter of "original creation design." It doesn't even say what that design difference is.
So with the possible exception of Article 10, which is unclear, I think we agree this Nashville Statement is rather unremarkable in terms of how it compares to the CRC position. Given that, I think your assertion that the statement represents "hate and fear" is a bit hyperbolic. I think you are correct that "many in our denomination look favorably upon the Nashville Statement," in large part because they will (accurately) perceive it as in line with what the denomination has said, which is what they believe.
Just curious: what do you think about the "Denver Statement?"
JI Packer is one of the signatories. I really doubt he signed because of his "fear" that "there are alternate, valid interpretations" about this issue.
"Soooo," what? First, you characterize the statement rather than quoting it, but second, you "sooo" as if Packer's "fear" should be self-evident. But I still don't see Packer's "fear".
Kyle: I actually think it is fair to say that in some sense Article 10 is a conversation killer, and in a sense, signing on to the Nashville Statement generally is a conversation killer. But then the CRC statements in the past about these questions are equally conversation killers. In fact whenever the CRC says something, you can look at that as a conversation killer.
But there is a sense in which characterizing a stated position, whether the Nashville Statement or any prior CRC statement, as a statement made out of "hate and fear" is a bit different. It doesn't constitute an argument about the confesssional stance but rather a claim of an internal motivation on the part of of the stance taker, an attempt to convince by ad hominem argument (not by argument against the stance itself) that the stance is a wrong one.
Now you may say that the confessional stance takers who signed on to the Nashville statement are being derogatory (judgmental) to others by stating that people who take other stances or act on them are acting sinfully. And I understand that, but that level of judgment (and it is judgment) is unavoidable, and not ad hominem. It may judge an action or perspective negatively, but that judgment results from an argument about the stance itself, rather than from a claim that the motivation of the stance taker is all the proof needed to judge whatever stance the person took.
Sorry Kyle but that's a bit of a silly argument. The Nashville Statement doesn't condemn homicide or burglary or embezzlement either. It is a statement about less than all of human activity. Your argument can be used to damn any and all statements, creeds, or confessions.
The words "litmus test for Christian or not" are yours, not the authors or signers of this statement.
Kyle: Again you have to explain the statement for lack of the statement saying what you claim. The Nashville makes no claim to comprehensively opine as to all questions about human sexuality. Are you supposing they approve of heterosexual adultery because this statement doesn't cover it. Granted, embezzlement is not sexual but this argument remains silly notwithstanding, and for the same reason.
What I would recommend you do is to put together your own Denver type of statement. Get together with others, like the Nashville and Denver folk have done, and say what you think. You can even comprehensively cover all sex related questions if you like, so that no one would accuse you have having a "litmus test" (although I would defend you if you didn't :-) ). Seriously, do a Denver style response. Or align with Denver. Its easy to tear down, not as easy to build up. Make your affirmative case so folks can evaluate your position.
Jonathan: I'd be interested in reading your own Denver like response to the Nashville. Denver fundamentally disagrees with Nashville as well, and their statement makes clear how. I appreciate the authors of Denver for doing that.
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: One In Christ (Race Relations US-West Newsletter)
I don't know whose worldly point of view the author is talking about, but I certainly don't consider African-Americans and Anglos to be the only true Americans. Never have. In fact, properly defined, that kicks me out of being a true American and I don't think that is so either.
Posted in: Something We Can Do About Rampage Killings
I'd suggest getting on the "Canada is superior" train isn't constructive. The US Declaration of Independence isn't US law frankly. The Articles of Confederation were adopted after the Declaration, which were scrapped for the US Consitution. To quote the Declaration is rhetorically cute perhaps but that's about it. The rant of "rugged American individualism" smacks more of Canadian snobbery than reality.
The US and Canada are quite different in quite a number of ways, the biggest of which I think is population (which then creates other differences). Compared to the US, the whole of Canada is a single state. Indeed, I believe California bests Canada both in population and economic output. All of which means that in general, Canadians may act more like a rural area than an urban area. And indeed, the greater the population (the more urban), the less people know and interact with each other, and vice versa. Which may explain why so few of these kinds of events (zero?) happen in farm country Iowa.
Posted in: Fear and the Nashville Statement
I frankly don't see where the Nashville Statement contradicts statements made by the CRC about the same subject matter. Could the author or someone point out those differences?
I also don't see where the Nashville Statement "promotes conversion therapy," nor "patriarchy." I do see where it might be said to promote "complementarianism" but not in a way different from the CRC. Anyone?
Posted in: Fear and the Nashville Statement
Jonathan: I don't read in Articles 12 and 13 what you claim for them. Indeed, the last phrase in Article 12 seems to make clear that believers may be drawn to sin but yet resist it.
As to Article 4, very little is said by the Nashville Statement except that "God made us male and female," and that this "difference" is a matter of "original creation design." It doesn't even say what that design difference is.
So with the possible exception of Article 10, which is unclear, I think we agree this Nashville Statement is rather unremarkable in terms of how it compares to the CRC position. Given that, I think your assertion that the statement represents "hate and fear" is a bit hyperbolic. I think you are correct that "many in our denomination look favorably upon the Nashville Statement," in large part because they will (accurately) perceive it as in line with what the denomination has said, which is what they believe.
Just curious: what do you think about the "Denver Statement?"
Posted in: Fear and the Nashville Statement
JI Packer is one of the signatories. I really doubt he signed because of his "fear" that "there are alternate, valid interpretations" about this issue.
Posted in: Fear and the Nashville Statement
"Soooo," what? First, you characterize the statement rather than quoting it, but second, you "sooo" as if Packer's "fear" should be self-evident. But I still don't see Packer's "fear".
Posted in: Fear and the Nashville Statement
Kyle: I actually think it is fair to say that in some sense Article 10 is a conversation killer, and in a sense, signing on to the Nashville Statement generally is a conversation killer. But then the CRC statements in the past about these questions are equally conversation killers. In fact whenever the CRC says something, you can look at that as a conversation killer.
But there is a sense in which characterizing a stated position, whether the Nashville Statement or any prior CRC statement, as a statement made out of "hate and fear" is a bit different. It doesn't constitute an argument about the confesssional stance but rather a claim of an internal motivation on the part of of the stance taker, an attempt to convince by ad hominem argument (not by argument against the stance itself) that the stance is a wrong one.
Now you may say that the confessional stance takers who signed on to the Nashville statement are being derogatory (judgmental) to others by stating that people who take other stances or act on them are acting sinfully. And I understand that, but that level of judgment (and it is judgment) is unavoidable, and not ad hominem. It may judge an action or perspective negatively, but that judgment results from an argument about the stance itself, rather than from a claim that the motivation of the stance taker is all the proof needed to judge whatever stance the person took.
Posted in: The CRC Needs to Have a Conversation About the Gospel and Social Justice
I agree.
Posted in: Fear and the Nashville Statement
Sorry Kyle but that's a bit of a silly argument. The Nashville Statement doesn't condemn homicide or burglary or embezzlement either. It is a statement about less than all of human activity. Your argument can be used to damn any and all statements, creeds, or confessions.
The words "litmus test for Christian or not" are yours, not the authors or signers of this statement.
Posted in: Fear and the Nashville Statement
Kyle: Again you have to explain the statement for lack of the statement saying what you claim. The Nashville makes no claim to comprehensively opine as to all questions about human sexuality. Are you supposing they approve of heterosexual adultery because this statement doesn't cover it. Granted, embezzlement is not sexual but this argument remains silly notwithstanding, and for the same reason.
What I would recommend you do is to put together your own Denver type of statement. Get together with others, like the Nashville and Denver folk have done, and say what you think. You can even comprehensively cover all sex related questions if you like, so that no one would accuse you have having a "litmus test" (although I would defend you if you didn't :-) ). Seriously, do a Denver style response. Or align with Denver. Its easy to tear down, not as easy to build up. Make your affirmative case so folks can evaluate your position.
Posted in: Fear and the Nashville Statement
Jonathan: I'd be interested in reading your own Denver like response to the Nashville. Denver fundamentally disagrees with Nashville as well, and their statement makes clear how. I appreciate the authors of Denver for doing that.