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.
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.
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?
Thanks for that explanation Bill. I suspected that might/could be the answer to what many readers would have as brow furrowing questions. You explanation makes sense and doesn't conflate Christianity with Islam. :-)
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: Social Justice ... With a Side of Salt
Amen! Yes, I could disagree with some nuances of this post, but Amen!
Posted in: Porn Use: It's About More Than Personal Sin
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.
Posted in: There’s Help for Marriages on the Edge of Divorce
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.
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?
Posted in: Worshiping Allah in Bethlehem
Thanks for that explanation Bill. I suspected that might/could be the answer to what many readers would have as brow furrowing questions. You explanation makes sense and doesn't conflate Christianity with Islam. :-)