Doug Vande Griend

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).

Amen! Yes, I could disagree with some nuances of this post, but Amen!

I would agree that pornography is a "global injustice," as this article suggests.  On the other hand, it is a bit rich for OSJ (which operates Do Justice) to be taking this position.

Let me explain.

Not long ago, and still now but to a lesser extent, there was a great differential in the US political world as to the subject of pornography.  Political liberals (Democrats) considered it a civil liberty, conservatives (Republicans, sans Libertarians) a plague on society that both state and federal governments should restrict by law for the sake of the "common good" as well as for the sake of the good of individuals.

I know because my personal history includes working for and with (Christian) public interest legal groups as to this very issue.

By 2017, the legal battle against pornography has been largely lost by the political conservatives that fought it.  Again, I know because I was there as it happened.  Liberals have won on this issue (on the issue of abortion too, and those issue were legally and politically intertwined).

In the meantime, while this battle was going on, the CRCNA decided to get politically active, and in so doing, to largely align with the "political side" that had regarded pornography as a civil right, not to be regulated by government, and against the political/legal side that fought against pornography.

So here we are.  Complaining that pornography is a "global injustice" (I would add the well worn descriptor, "structural injustice"), but only after the battles are over and the war is lost.

Thanks for the article, Christopher.  You are correct I think about how destructive divorce is.  Having practiced law in this area for many years, I had concluded that, generally, a spouse dying was almost always less destructive than divorce.

Were I to add a thought, it would be this.  Often, perhaps almost always, the "divorce" happens long before the legal documents are signed and filed.  But even then, that does not mean there is no hope for a couple that is "in the process."   And so thanks too for the work you are doing.

Thanks for this post, Mark.  I haven't read the book or seen the movie, but I have lived in a state that has chosen to glorify "death with dignity," and in the process diminished the value of human life, especially when it is "less than perfect."

Great post Mark.  Thanks for not going down a political rabbit hole rant.

Indeed, I think it is clear, at least for those us us who are "older" (and have seen societal changes) that "social bonds" are generally much thinner than they used to be.  I perhaps don't think that "America emphasizes individualism" (as if there is a government ad campaign for it), but indeed, the political freedom we have, coupled with our wealth, allows anyone who may be so inclined (by personality disposition or otherwise) to become socially isolated.  Today, neighbors not knowing neighbors but "minding their own business" is normal, even if decades ago, not so much.

And this isolation can be deadly, in many ways, this LV shooting being perhaps only one particularly dreadful manifestation of that.

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?