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. :-)
I've read all of the 4 parts in this series, as well as numerous other explanations of "missional" and "m issional church" and I'm still at a loss to understand exactly what it means. My conclusion is that it is not so different than the word "smurf" was to those little blue cartoon characters. Indeed, by the end of a "Smurfs" episode, you had a sense for what the word "smurf" meant, but only a sense, and vague at that, but they kept saying it and so perhaps you felt obliged to have a sense for what it meant. And so you did.
I understand and applaud CRC pastors preaching about the subject of creation care (cultural mandate, creation, etc). I don't understand or applaud CRC pastors preaching about climate change (or at least taking political or scientific positions about it), anymore than I would understand or applaud CRC pastors preaching about fourth generation nuclear power plants. Both climate change and nuclear power plants are matters about which pastors (and the CRCNA) are woefully uninformed. Beyond that, there is no clear or even ambiguous biblical mandate about climate change or nuclear power plants.
Congregants can and should of course think about climate change and nuclear power plants because they believe they should be involved in creation care, but they will form various conclusions about both subjects, all of which may align with scripture, even though the pastors -- or CRCNA -- may declare in a particular direction on the subjects.
I fully support, contrary to my denominational bureaucracy, apparently, shifting some authority and responsibility for environmental concerns from the federal government to the states. The proposed budget represents that perspective. It is a misinterpretation -- or perhaps just political partisanship -- to suggest the proposed budget represents lack of concern for what the CRCNA likes to call Creation Care.
Once upon a time, the federal government required sponsors for immigrants, who would be responsible for the financial needs of the immigrants. Good system for multiple reasons.
Today, the federal and state government predominantly funds immigrants. Thus, we need, or want, more federal budget dollars.
I would suggest going backward, in both policy and budgeting.
Good article Monica. I wholeheartedly agree that anger can be good, even necessary. Its a bit like a sharp knife. Dangerous if not handled properly, but sometimes much preferred to (even required instead of) a dull one.
I also appreciated this author's straight out assertion that abused children aren't irreparably broken. They and others need to know that, be persuaded of it -- cuz its true. Insisting otherwise tends to make the sense of broken-ness extend longer, or even permanently.
My concern about the articles published on Do Justice, aside from the content of some of those articles, is that at Synod, they and the Do Justice site, were/was repeatedly described as a conversation while in fact OSJ has quite deliberately decided to not allow commenting. That's simply not a conversation. Indeed, I wonder how many Synodical delegates just assumed commenting was allowed on Do Justice, that is, that it really is a conversation facility.
I do realize that some Do Justice articles are posted here, on the Network, where they can actually be part of a conversation. But those instances are very few, and if I'm not mistaken, none of the Do Justice articles that were included in the Minntonka overture were reposted in th Network. And even if they were, the audience of the conversation would necessarily be a different one.
Which is why I think Do Justice articles should be open to online commenters. Just like Banner articles are.
With respect, Danielle, the comment policy isn't a comment policy (since there is no commenting) but an apology for the decision not to have commenting.
It does point out that other CRC agency sites also don't offer commenting, but none of them recently told Synodical delegates, repeatedly, that the point of their sites was to have conversation, as OSJ. repeatedly claimed to Synod about Do Justice. And of course that was my point. Don't tell the decision makers that this blog is a conversation when its not.
And true, you post some of the Do Justice articles to the Network (which is then a conversation one step removed), but only some, and by my observational metrics, the picking and choosing of which to post, to meet your metrics, is strategic indeed. One could even conclude the point of the selection pattern is to avoid conversation.
A faithful (federal government) budget would, perhaps first of all, be one that did not spend more than it took in, except for special circumstances perhaps, and those circumstances probably don't now exist.
With respect to Community enCompass, while this article claims it "relies on the generosity of donors," and "leverages ... government funds," it would seem, unless this article simply gives the wrong impression, the truth is the other way around.
Let's take one of the examples given here, SNAP. When the latest federal legislation regarding SNAP was enacted, the House version wanted to get rid of "auto qualification" because that method of qualifying was being badly abused, by both individuals and many state government. The Senate bill did nothing to curb that abuse. OSJ lobbied in favor of the Senate bill, and the Obama administration went all out to increase the number of SNAP recipients, seemingly by any means possible.
A SNAP reduction and this point may well do nothing more than curb the abuse that wasn't but should have been done in the past, and reduce the SNAP roles to where they should be.
I have yet to see OSJ take on any program abuse, lobby for the curbing of any government social program, or ever express the concern that federal programs might create life crippling dependencies for some, especially when these programs always expand and never contract like a one way ratchet.
A faithful budget "does no harm," whether to future generations who will have to pay back the deficits we accumulate now, or to those who grow dependent on federal largesse that incentivizes in a destructive way.
Am I suggesting government should not provide a "safety net"? Not at all. I'm suggesting that the federal budget should be faithful in all respects, that ever and only increasing-in-size-and-scope entitlements can and often are destructive (hurting instead of helping), and that lobbying/advocating ONLY in favor increasing or maintaining government social programs is, on the whole, quite unfaithful.
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. :-)
Posted in: Understanding Our Missional Vocation as Artistic Expression
I've read all of the 4 parts in this series, as well as numerous other explanations of "missional" and "m issional church" and I'm still at a loss to understand exactly what it means. My conclusion is that it is not so different than the word "smurf" was to those little blue cartoon characters. Indeed, by the end of a "Smurfs" episode, you had a sense for what the word "smurf" meant, but only a sense, and vague at that, but they kept saying it and so perhaps you felt obliged to have a sense for what it meant. And so you did.
Posted in: Creation Care Preaching Challenge
I understand and applaud CRC pastors preaching about the subject of creation care (cultural mandate, creation, etc). I don't understand or applaud CRC pastors preaching about climate change (or at least taking political or scientific positions about it), anymore than I would understand or applaud CRC pastors preaching about fourth generation nuclear power plants. Both climate change and nuclear power plants are matters about which pastors (and the CRCNA) are woefully uninformed. Beyond that, there is no clear or even ambiguous biblical mandate about climate change or nuclear power plants.
Congregants can and should of course think about climate change and nuclear power plants because they believe they should be involved in creation care, but they will form various conclusions about both subjects, all of which may align with scripture, even though the pastors -- or CRCNA -- may declare in a particular direction on the subjects.
Posted in: Fight Climate Change With a Faithful Budget
I fully support, contrary to my denominational bureaucracy, apparently, shifting some authority and responsibility for environmental concerns from the federal government to the states. The proposed budget represents that perspective. It is a misinterpretation -- or perhaps just political partisanship -- to suggest the proposed budget represents lack of concern for what the CRCNA likes to call Creation Care.
Posted in: Continue Welcoming Refugees With a Faithful Budget
Once upon a time, the federal government required sponsors for immigrants, who would be responsible for the financial needs of the immigrants. Good system for multiple reasons.
Today, the federal and state government predominantly funds immigrants. Thus, we need, or want, more federal budget dollars.
I would suggest going backward, in both policy and budgeting.
Posted in: How to Deal With Abuse of My Children by Other Family Members?
Good article Monica. I wholeheartedly agree that anger can be good, even necessary. Its a bit like a sharp knife. Dangerous if not handled properly, but sometimes much preferred to (even required instead of) a dull one.
I also appreciated this author's straight out assertion that abused children aren't irreparably broken. They and others need to know that, be persuaded of it -- cuz its true. Insisting otherwise tends to make the sense of broken-ness extend longer, or even permanently.
Posted in: Diversity and Discernment
My concern about the articles published on Do Justice, aside from the content of some of those articles, is that at Synod, they and the Do Justice site, were/was repeatedly described as a conversation while in fact OSJ has quite deliberately decided to not allow commenting. That's simply not a conversation. Indeed, I wonder how many Synodical delegates just assumed commenting was allowed on Do Justice, that is, that it really is a conversation facility.
I do realize that some Do Justice articles are posted here, on the Network, where they can actually be part of a conversation. But those instances are very few, and if I'm not mistaken, none of the Do Justice articles that were included in the Minntonka overture were reposted in th Network. And even if they were, the audience of the conversation would necessarily be a different one.
Which is why I think Do Justice articles should be open to online commenters. Just like Banner articles are.
Posted in: Diversity and Discernment
With respect, Danielle, the comment policy isn't a comment policy (since there is no commenting) but an apology for the decision not to have commenting.
It does point out that other CRC agency sites also don't offer commenting, but none of them recently told Synodical delegates, repeatedly, that the point of their sites was to have conversation, as OSJ. repeatedly claimed to Synod about Do Justice. And of course that was my point. Don't tell the decision makers that this blog is a conversation when its not.
And true, you post some of the Do Justice articles to the Network (which is then a conversation one step removed), but only some, and by my observational metrics, the picking and choosing of which to post, to meet your metrics, is strategic indeed. One could even conclude the point of the selection pattern is to avoid conversation.
Posted in: Loving Our Neighbors in Poverty With a Faithful Budget
A faithful (federal government) budget would, perhaps first of all, be one that did not spend more than it took in, except for special circumstances perhaps, and those circumstances probably don't now exist.
With respect to Community enCompass, while this article claims it "relies on the generosity of donors," and "leverages ... government funds," it would seem, unless this article simply gives the wrong impression, the truth is the other way around.
Let's take one of the examples given here, SNAP. When the latest federal legislation regarding SNAP was enacted, the House version wanted to get rid of "auto qualification" because that method of qualifying was being badly abused, by both individuals and many state government. The Senate bill did nothing to curb that abuse. OSJ lobbied in favor of the Senate bill, and the Obama administration went all out to increase the number of SNAP recipients, seemingly by any means possible.
A SNAP reduction and this point may well do nothing more than curb the abuse that wasn't but should have been done in the past, and reduce the SNAP roles to where they should be.
I have yet to see OSJ take on any program abuse, lobby for the curbing of any government social program, or ever express the concern that federal programs might create life crippling dependencies for some, especially when these programs always expand and never contract like a one way ratchet.
A faithful budget "does no harm," whether to future generations who will have to pay back the deficits we accumulate now, or to those who grow dependent on federal largesse that incentivizes in a destructive way.
Am I suggesting government should not provide a "safety net"? Not at all. I'm suggesting that the federal budget should be faithful in all respects, that ever and only increasing-in-size-and-scope entitlements can and often are destructive (hurting instead of helping), and that lobbying/advocating ONLY in favor increasing or maintaining government social programs is, on the whole, quite unfaithful.