I think that approach, Kent, at least done as it is usually done these days, simply leads to increased racism. Human history is one big "long story of inequality and dismissiveness," in the US and anywhere else in the world (perhaps even more so in other places in the world). Someone recently recommended a Netflix documentary to me, Accidental Courtesy, "starring" Daryl Davis, a black American musician who has -- for decades now -- made it his practice to talk with, and befriend even, KKK's and other white supremicists (included or even especially their leaders). A good watch.
Its funny how we preach forgiveness, over and over and over and over, but then as to some culturally pet wrongs, we make exceptions. It might feel good, righteous even, but it doesn't make for progress, or even for justice or mercy, but rather the opposite. Of course that doesn't mean we need to simply tolerate racism and do nothing about it when it occurs, but that is no different than what we should do for any other unjust "inequality."
No doubt our inclination to "hate our neighbor" can be manifested by our dividing up people by "race," or by other criteria equally meaningless, and then by treating some groups created by that irrational division unjustly, but that is merely one of many ways to "hate our neighbor." I buy the notion that we all have an inclination to hate others, but I don't buy the notion that all manifest that hatred by dividing according to skin color.
Indeed, Daryl Davis seemed not to. When as a child he was pelted with thrown objects marching in a parade and holding an American flag, it never occurred to him that anyone would throw those things at him because he appeared to be of a certain race. And then Daryl grows up, talks with and befriends (even if he totally disagrees with) KKKers and white separatists, which suggests that Daryl himself does not have the claimed universal "vice" of racism. And if Daryl is not afflicted with that universal vice, why could others not be also?
Personally, I think "classism" is a far greater problem in today's United States than racism, even if once upon a time it could have been otherwise.
Call "classism" a sin or a vice if you like, acting on that perspective is destructive, sinful, unjust and unloving. And yet the CRCNA largely ignores it, or perhaps recognizes it but only when and where the victims of classism are particular races, which is itself racism, as Daryl Davis seems to understand. The book, Hillbilly Elegy, is instructive as to this reality, as is, frankly, the election of Donald Trump.
It was interesting (and spot on I thought) that Daryl Davis saw fear as the underlayment for the KKK and white separatist/sovereignty groups. I'd add of course our disposition to hate our neighbor, but I think Davis was quite astute in that observation.
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.
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.
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.
Posted in: Charlottesville From a Cross Cultural Perspective
Thanks for this insightful post. :-)
Posted in: Charlottesville From a Cross Cultural Perspective
I think that approach, Kent, at least done as it is usually done these days, simply leads to increased racism. Human history is one big "long story of inequality and dismissiveness," in the US and anywhere else in the world (perhaps even more so in other places in the world). Someone recently recommended a Netflix documentary to me, Accidental Courtesy, "starring" Daryl Davis, a black American musician who has -- for decades now -- made it his practice to talk with, and befriend even, KKK's and other white supremicists (included or even especially their leaders). A good watch.
Its funny how we preach forgiveness, over and over and over and over, but then as to some culturally pet wrongs, we make exceptions. It might feel good, righteous even, but it doesn't make for progress, or even for justice or mercy, but rather the opposite. Of course that doesn't mean we need to simply tolerate racism and do nothing about it when it occurs, but that is no different than what we should do for any other unjust "inequality."
Do check out "Accidental Courtesy."
Posted in: Charlottesville From a Cross Cultural Perspective
No doubt our inclination to "hate our neighbor" can be manifested by our dividing up people by "race," or by other criteria equally meaningless, and then by treating some groups created by that irrational division unjustly, but that is merely one of many ways to "hate our neighbor." I buy the notion that we all have an inclination to hate others, but I don't buy the notion that all manifest that hatred by dividing according to skin color.
Indeed, Daryl Davis seemed not to. When as a child he was pelted with thrown objects marching in a parade and holding an American flag, it never occurred to him that anyone would throw those things at him because he appeared to be of a certain race. And then Daryl grows up, talks with and befriends (even if he totally disagrees with) KKKers and white separatists, which suggests that Daryl himself does not have the claimed universal "vice" of racism. And if Daryl is not afflicted with that universal vice, why could others not be also?
Personally, I think "classism" is a far greater problem in today's United States than racism, even if once upon a time it could have been otherwise.
Call "classism" a sin or a vice if you like, acting on that perspective is destructive, sinful, unjust and unloving. And yet the CRCNA largely ignores it, or perhaps recognizes it but only when and where the victims of classism are particular races, which is itself racism, as Daryl Davis seems to understand. The book, Hillbilly Elegy, is instructive as to this reality, as is, frankly, the election of Donald Trump.
It was interesting (and spot on I thought) that Daryl Davis saw fear as the underlayment for the KKK and white separatist/sovereignty groups. I'd add of course our disposition to hate our neighbor, but I think Davis was quite astute in that observation.
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: 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.
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.