"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.
I think Art 10 is a bit ambiguous, but if and to the extent it declares that one cannot be Christian if one believes gay sex is good, I disagree with the Nashville Statement.
I think all who so declare are simply wrong, but that some who so declare sin in so declaring.
But Benjamin, your claims notwithstanding, the "history of slavery and racial oppression" has been anything but "ignored." To the contrary, the CRCNA beats it to death. These days, one out of every _____ articles on the various CRC publications deal with racism. Confessions, both individual and institutional, abound.
I really don't think all of this "recognizing" is doing much good in the real world. After all we keep saying it and nothing changes except for the worse. While racism is being more and more reported on and emphasized by the media, and by institutions like the CRCNA, the racial divide is clearly growing.
I don't think this author is an "unaware" as you claim. Rather, I think he believes our focus might better if more turned to emphasize reconciliation, using methods that increase the chances for that, instead of our continuing to grind guilt and shame into the foreheads of the "bad guys" like a lighted cigarette.
This sin has never been "unnamed" -- as you state -- but rather named over and over and over and over again. It's even named when it doesn't exist. Our former president was quick to declare it even when it wasn't the case when the facts were more fully made evident. You may want to solve the problem of "Way too many Americans [] not [wanting] to recognize the systemic nature of racism" but both this author (I think at least) and I would prefer the Daryl Davis route, a route that actually gets something done.
There are good things said in this article. At the same time, I couldn't agree more with Eric's comments as to a couple of things said in this article.
Today's culture seems to demand that we must "be the best," that whatever we take on be "incredibly exciting," that we must have "great impact on many."
None of that is bad, but insisting on them is. I love churches that are faithful, regardless of whether they have a "unique vision," or whether they have embarked on "uncharted waters."
The Gospel story is pretty old. Preaching it may require churches to address the particularities of their own congregants and communities, but the revolution has already happened. Churches don't have create a new one. The old one, preached and lived well, is pretty exciting actually, and pretty satisfying.
Perhaps hyperbole sells, I don't know. But it can also disappoint. If we demand from elders that create a new vision, they just might. Or, they might just become discouraged for doing the mere stuff that needs to be done, that apparently has no value.
Thanks for this article Julius. As anecdotal support for your point, I would point to my own CRC church. We've had older pastors whose tenure here was their last before retirement that were spectacular. And now we have a pastor who has been spectacular and a part of our church for 10(?) years or so, despite ours being his first call at a young age.
The attitude, not age, of both pastor and congregation is the key to a healthy congregation. We have certainly been blessed by pastors at both ends of the age spectrum.
Bill. You need to do some explaining, or perhaps more than that. Your statement literally and precisely says that you worship Allah, and the words you further chose associate that with the CRC missions agency (Resonate).
The word "Allah" has an understood meaning within the CRC community that is quite different than the word "God." And it (the word "Allah") is generally understood to refer to the deity as worshipped by those who adhere to the religion we call "Islam."
So please explain? Or are you actually intending to equate Christianity with Islam?
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.
Posted in: Celebrating Beautiful Things
Thanks Mark, and Rod. :-)
Posted in: Fear and the Nashville Statement
I think Art 10 is a bit ambiguous, but if and to the extent it declares that one cannot be Christian if one believes gay sex is good, I disagree with the Nashville Statement.
I think all who so declare are simply wrong, but that some who so declare sin in so declaring.
Posted in: Charlottesville From a Cross Cultural Perspective
But Benjamin, your claims notwithstanding, the "history of slavery and racial oppression" has been anything but "ignored." To the contrary, the CRCNA beats it to death. These days, one out of every _____ articles on the various CRC publications deal with racism. Confessions, both individual and institutional, abound.
I really don't think all of this "recognizing" is doing much good in the real world. After all we keep saying it and nothing changes except for the worse. While racism is being more and more reported on and emphasized by the media, and by institutions like the CRCNA, the racial divide is clearly growing.
I don't think this author is an "unaware" as you claim. Rather, I think he believes our focus might better if more turned to emphasize reconciliation, using methods that increase the chances for that, instead of our continuing to grind guilt and shame into the foreheads of the "bad guys" like a lighted cigarette.
This sin has never been "unnamed" -- as you state -- but rather named over and over and over and over again. It's even named when it doesn't exist. Our former president was quick to declare it even when it wasn't the case when the facts were more fully made evident. You may want to solve the problem of "Way too many Americans [] not [wanting] to recognize the systemic nature of racism" but both this author (I think at least) and I would prefer the Daryl Davis route, a route that actually gets something done.
Posted in: Vision Casting: Essential Work of Elders
There are good things said in this article. At the same time, I couldn't agree more with Eric's comments as to a couple of things said in this article.
Today's culture seems to demand that we must "be the best," that whatever we take on be "incredibly exciting," that we must have "great impact on many."
None of that is bad, but insisting on them is. I love churches that are faithful, regardless of whether they have a "unique vision," or whether they have embarked on "uncharted waters."
The Gospel story is pretty old. Preaching it may require churches to address the particularities of their own congregants and communities, but the revolution has already happened. Churches don't have create a new one. The old one, preached and lived well, is pretty exciting actually, and pretty satisfying.
Perhaps hyperbole sells, I don't know. But it can also disappoint. If we demand from elders that create a new vision, they just might. Or, they might just become discouraged for doing the mere stuff that needs to be done, that apparently has no value.
Posted in: Pastor Prejudice
Thanks for this article Julius. As anecdotal support for your point, I would point to my own CRC church. We've had older pastors whose tenure here was their last before retirement that were spectacular. And now we have a pastor who has been spectacular and a part of our church for 10(?) years or so, despite ours being his first call at a young age.
The attitude, not age, of both pastor and congregation is the key to a healthy congregation. We have certainly been blessed by pastors at both ends of the age spectrum.
Posted in: Worshiping Allah in Bethlehem
Bill. You need to do some explaining, or perhaps more than that. Your statement literally and precisely says that you worship Allah, and the words you further chose associate that with the CRC missions agency (Resonate).
The word "Allah" has an understood meaning within the CRC community that is quite different than the word "God." And it (the word "Allah") is generally understood to refer to the deity as worshipped by those who adhere to the religion we call "Islam."
So please explain? Or are you actually intending to equate Christianity with Islam?