As a 62 year old nursery volunteer, I am grateful for the opportunity to get to know the youngest people of my church because those children's parents bring their children to nursery. I have some lasting relationships with some of these kids because they were in nursery when I was and because I spent a couple years leading ages 2-3 Sunday School.
We need to think of nursery as a "win-win-win" scenario -- because it is.
Jonathan: I have to ask, and intend these questions respectfully: So why didn't you? And a second question: Why can't you now, even if not an elder? And finally, What specifically do you believe you so failed to do?
I couldn't agree more, and this misconstruction about what is important has also become far too much a perspective of the CRCNA at the denominational level.
As a historical matter, I've always argued that the protestant reformed, which I view as essential a "back to the Bible" movement, started in England, not Germany, even if Luther's nailing of the 95 thesis gets all the press.
John Wycliffe had translated the Bible into the "common man's" language (English) in England, and Wycliffe's "followers" (the Lollards) were running around the English countryside with that translation around a century, yes 100 years, before Martin Luther was even born.
If the power of Scripture brought to people of faith who were not clergy was the essential ingredient of the protestant reformation -- and I believe it was -- then the protestant reformation began in England, not Germany, largely because of the work of John Wycliffe, not Martin Luther.
I heartily agree that nursery is a great opportunity. At age 62, I find myself more able to take my turn in nursery and it is delightful. I get to know the babies and small children, and to work and have conversation with some adults and teens that I probably would have much conversation with.
I think older members, especially men, miss out on a lot if they decide they are past the age and "circumstances" of being on nursery rotation.
I smile about the "off topic" complaints. This article tightly wraps two subject matters: assault on women and why folks should abhor and impliedly vote for Trump (no, the second is not so explicit but a crystal clear implicit message).
Given the tight wrapping of the two subjects, I don't see any of the responses as off topic. You can't talk about assault on women by launching directly off of statements made by one of the major parties weeks presidential candidates weeks before the election and expect responses to not talk about the politics of the election, because those responses relate to the topics raised by the article.
Monica: Thanks for your reply -- I appreciate your willingness to dialog with your commenters (which is not common).
I would suggest though that excepting those few Christians who think they have the job (or "job") of doing what they can do to get Trump elected (in which case their real purpose would be to put the Republicans in greater control of the federal government than Democrats, and not to elect Trump as president even though the latter must happen to make the former), none of these Christians "support" or "shrug off" Trump's statements about or treatment of women. Literally, none.
Still, while I am abundantly on record as having absolutely nothing good to say about Trump from the time he began his primary campaign until now, I have always said I will yet vote for him in the general election (certainly, not in the primaries). Why? Largely because if Trump is elected and Clinton is not, the constitutional perspective (from 'originalist' as was Scalia to 'living/breathing document' as are some others) of one to three Supreme Court Justices will be VERY, VERY different, and that difference will be more impacting to the United States (for good or bad) in the next multiple decades, or perhaps forever, than will be the presidential terms (of either Trump or Clinton) for the next 4 or 8 years. For the same reason, I would vote for Trump over Bernie Sanders had he been the Democratic nominee, even though I thought and think Bernie is a pretty honorable guy. Yes, this is complicated.
Back to the abuse of women issue: that issue has existed and still exists, whether or not Donald Trump said or did whatever, candidate or not. So why does Trump's recent statements somehow bring up the abuse of women issue? The only possible answer to that question would be one that relates to politics and this election, not? Which is why I'm suggesting that comment responses that address the politics brought in this article are not "off topic."
There is nothing in your above that I would disagree with Bonnie. But when you say that Trump having said and did what he said/did "gives us a timely reason to talk about it yet again," and on that basis suggest that more political responses are "off topic," you ignore what others' clearly saw in the main post, which was, among other things, that the Clintons (both of them) engaged in pretty similar stuff (Bill the actor, but Hillary the defender/enabler) but that doesn't get comment in this article. Hmmmm.
When that happens, and when we are weeks before an election (especially like this one), readers will reasonably read an article like this as a political pitch, intended or not by the author, because it actually is (again, intended or not). And in that case, political responses are simply not "off topic."
This may seem strange but I find this election to be less divisive in terms of the electorate, or at least the part of the electorate I live with.
To date, I have seen no (zero) lawn signs for either presidential candidate (which is an extreme aberration), and I've seen only a couple of bumper stickers. And and when I talk with people, almost no one is voting FOR the candidate they I tend to vote for, but AGAINST the other one.
And to the extent, again at least where I am from, that I see more common ground in the presidential race than I have ever before, I'm a bit encouraged. At least we can somewhat agree about what a good candidate is not. :-)
Staci: I am being as "constructive" (in my criticism) as I can, given what is. Church Order Article 28 has meaning, even if the meaning is forgotten or ignored. I'm not "undermining" the church but rather doing the opposite, encouraging "the church" to be what its rules provide for it and not otherwise. And I think the language I use is both respectful and factual.
If I'm "undermining," this entire post by Sam Hamstra is undermining. He and I are both trying very hard to be constructive. Were I not intending to be constructive, I just wouldn't bother with any of this. It takes my time and I have a very full occupational, family, neighborhood and church life.
Posted in: A New Mom's Open Letter to Church Nursery Volunteers
As a 62 year old nursery volunteer, I am grateful for the opportunity to get to know the youngest people of my church because those children's parents bring their children to nursery. I have some lasting relationships with some of these kids because they were in nursery when I was and because I spent a couple years leading ages 2-3 Sunday School.
We need to think of nursery as a "win-win-win" scenario -- because it is.
Posted in: Wrestling With Privilege
Jonathan: I have to ask, and intend these questions respectfully: So why didn't you? And a second question: Why can't you now, even if not an elder? And finally, What specifically do you believe you so failed to do?
Posted in: My New Year's Resolution: To Be An "Ordinary Christian"
I couldn't agree more, and this misconstruction about what is important has also become far too much a perspective of the CRCNA at the denominational level.
Posted in: Help Us Name the New Mission Agency!
I too like "Christian Reformed Missions." To me, that name sounds like we are trying to be direct, descriptive, humble and simple.
Posted in: Reformation Reflections
As a historical matter, I've always argued that the protestant reformed, which I view as essential a "back to the Bible" movement, started in England, not Germany, even if Luther's nailing of the 95 thesis gets all the press.
John Wycliffe had translated the Bible into the "common man's" language (English) in England, and Wycliffe's "followers" (the Lollards) were running around the English countryside with that translation around a century, yes 100 years, before Martin Luther was even born.
If the power of Scripture brought to people of faith who were not clergy was the essential ingredient of the protestant reformation -- and I believe it was -- then the protestant reformation began in England, not Germany, largely because of the work of John Wycliffe, not Martin Luther.
Posted in: How Your Church’s Nursery Can Become an Incubator for Intergenerational Ministry
I heartily agree that nursery is a great opportunity. At age 62, I find myself more able to take my turn in nursery and it is delightful. I get to know the babies and small children, and to work and have conversation with some adults and teens that I probably would have much conversation with.
I think older members, especially men, miss out on a lot if they decide they are past the age and "circumstances" of being on nursery rotation.
Posted in: Trump, Assault, and Standing Up for Women
I smile about the "off topic" complaints. This article tightly wraps two subject matters: assault on women and why folks should abhor and impliedly vote for Trump (no, the second is not so explicit but a crystal clear implicit message).
Given the tight wrapping of the two subjects, I don't see any of the responses as off topic. You can't talk about assault on women by launching directly off of statements made by one of the major parties weeks presidential candidates weeks before the election and expect responses to not talk about the politics of the election, because those responses relate to the topics raised by the article.
Posted in: Trump, Assault, and Standing Up for Women
Monica: Thanks for your reply -- I appreciate your willingness to dialog with your commenters (which is not common).
I would suggest though that excepting those few Christians who think they have the job (or "job") of doing what they can do to get Trump elected (in which case their real purpose would be to put the Republicans in greater control of the federal government than Democrats, and not to elect Trump as president even though the latter must happen to make the former), none of these Christians "support" or "shrug off" Trump's statements about or treatment of women. Literally, none.
Still, while I am abundantly on record as having absolutely nothing good to say about Trump from the time he began his primary campaign until now, I have always said I will yet vote for him in the general election (certainly, not in the primaries). Why? Largely because if Trump is elected and Clinton is not, the constitutional perspective (from 'originalist' as was Scalia to 'living/breathing document' as are some others) of one to three Supreme Court Justices will be VERY, VERY different, and that difference will be more impacting to the United States (for good or bad) in the next multiple decades, or perhaps forever, than will be the presidential terms (of either Trump or Clinton) for the next 4 or 8 years. For the same reason, I would vote for Trump over Bernie Sanders had he been the Democratic nominee, even though I thought and think Bernie is a pretty honorable guy. Yes, this is complicated.
Back to the abuse of women issue: that issue has existed and still exists, whether or not Donald Trump said or did whatever, candidate or not. So why does Trump's recent statements somehow bring up the abuse of women issue? The only possible answer to that question would be one that relates to politics and this election, not? Which is why I'm suggesting that comment responses that address the politics brought in this article are not "off topic."
Posted in: Trump, Assault, and Standing Up for Women
There is nothing in your above that I would disagree with Bonnie. But when you say that Trump having said and did what he said/did "gives us a timely reason to talk about it yet again," and on that basis suggest that more political responses are "off topic," you ignore what others' clearly saw in the main post, which was, among other things, that the Clintons (both of them) engaged in pretty similar stuff (Bill the actor, but Hillary the defender/enabler) but that doesn't get comment in this article. Hmmmm.
When that happens, and when we are weeks before an election (especially like this one), readers will reasonably read an article like this as a political pitch, intended or not by the author, because it actually is (again, intended or not). And in that case, political responses are simply not "off topic."
Posted in: Trump, Assault, and Standing Up for Women
Hmmm. Seems now that you are off topic Bonnie, having expanded the conversation it to the Paycheck Fairness Act and Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. :-)
Posted in: Election Stress Disorder and the Mind of Christ
This may seem strange but I find this election to be less divisive in terms of the electorate, or at least the part of the electorate I live with.
To date, I have seen no (zero) lawn signs for either presidential candidate (which is an extreme aberration), and I've seen only a couple of bumper stickers. And and when I talk with people, almost no one is voting FOR the candidate they I tend to vote for, but AGAINST the other one.
And to the extent, again at least where I am from, that I see more common ground in the presidential race than I have ever before, I'm a bit encouraged. At least we can somewhat agree about what a good candidate is not. :-)
Posted in: Five Steps to Denominational Renewal - Part 2
Staci: I am being as "constructive" (in my criticism) as I can, given what is. Church Order Article 28 has meaning, even if the meaning is forgotten or ignored. I'm not "undermining" the church but rather doing the opposite, encouraging "the church" to be what its rules provide for it and not otherwise. And I think the language I use is both respectful and factual.
If I'm "undermining," this entire post by Sam Hamstra is undermining. He and I are both trying very hard to be constructive. Were I not intending to be constructive, I just wouldn't bother with any of this. It takes my time and I have a very full occupational, family, neighborhood and church life.