Thank you for this insightful post Joshua. The problem you cite is one of the reason I promote more limited government at more centralized levels and more expanded government at less centralized levels.
Bottom line is that is is far more difficult to be so polarized and so hyper-strident when political decisions are made at the local level, where you can see the people you disagree with face to face, and when you realize they are neighbors or folks in the town or city near you. And the opposite is true when the candidate are iconic figure from a far away place that you will never talk to, or if you do, in any way that goes beneath the superficial.
There is another reason decentralized government is good. The more centralized governmental power is, the more it is vulnerable to corruption. Big power structures want to (need to in their opinion), and can, control a centralized government more than decentralized governmentS.
I can only hope that the race now underway of having the federal government become more pervasive and state/local governments become less and less meaningful (a perspective held by both primary candidates, even if more perhaps by one of them and that party) will expose itself as a bad mistake and that we will learn from that.
I would change it by making it less about politics and government policy and more about person-to-person interaction in our neighborhoods and local communities.
I would change it by getting rid of simplistic mantras like "immigrants are a blessing and not a burden." That bumper sticker slogan is merely a political pitch that we all join together to broadly advocate for a particular government policy on immigration.
Finally, I would change it by de-emphasizing the immigrant or non-immigrant status of people and emphasize more the biblical mandate that we demonstrate love to all, without first categorizing them into classes like immigrant v. national, illegal immigrant v. immigrants with green cards or visas -- and also other classes like black v. white v. Asian (etc), criminal record v. no criminal record, more wealthy v. less wealthy, younger v. older, those who live in the west or south sides of town v. those who live in the east or north sides of town, etc.
Government policy is one thing (and we, CRCers, will differ on that a lot); how we are to treat each other and people in our neighborhoods or communities is quite another (and we, CRCers, should not differ on that much at all). The first is a really complex subject matter, the second not so much. The first has nothing to do with the fact that we are CRCers, the second a lot to do with it.
I agree with Noel. This is not the first time there have been refugees coming to the US. My CRC Church (in Oregon) took in (sponsored) several SE Asian families post-Viet Nam war in the 1970's, and that involved more than a little of our time and money.
We didn't argue or debate about the war, or about refugee/immigration policy, or about government policy, nor did we debate the net good or bad that the refugee intake might do for this or that part of the economy, job market or society. Those things could be and were argued about in other contexts. What we focused on is doing what we should do for refugee families who were coming or had come, regardless of any of our political disagreements about broader questions.
It was there that we could find unity as Christians of a local church fellowship, whatever our differences might be as to other questions.
I'd be happy to have that discussion with you about socialism Danielle.
Actually, I agree with all the bolded points you make. I do cringe though about your using the example you use. By using the example of someone not willing to discuss socialism with you, you implicitly suggest, intended or not, that those who so think (that is, disfavor socialsm) come down on the bad side of all your bolded points.
Which is why I'd offer to have an online discussion with you (or Christine Berghoef) about socialism. It would be a timely topic, given the Sanders campaign. How about it? :-)
This is so true. Most political things, for example, are far more complicated than political candidates or activists would have you believe, including when the CRCNA, and OSJ, are the campaigners.
The current OSJ led campaign, "Immigrants are a blessing and not a burden," is an example of that. Certainly, immigration to the US, legal and illegal, is probably not the threat or harm claimed by some political candidates who hope to gain certain voters' approval for their simplistic and hyperbolic statements, but this OSJ political follows suit, even if in the opposite direction.
Following the advice of this article writer, OSJ would do better to pitch a campaign slogan like "Immigration: it's not as simple as you think," and then put in some serious work explaining the nuances of immigration, the law, the reality, the history, the various economic impacts (both macro and microeconomic), etc., and then let CRCNA members and others form their own more informed conclusions, about more questions than they first even realized existed.
Well it would be great if the nuances are part of the workshop. Really, I hope they are nuanced. But that wouldn't completely resolve, in my mind at least, the problem created by the simplistic bumper sticker slogan (and published articles consistent with the bumper sticker simplicity) of "Immigrants are a blessing and not a burden." Too much of our society learns all that it learns by bumper sticker political slogans, and then forms political opinion based on that. I just think it is unwise, even manipulative, to use this political technique.
As for my church, we're pretty nuanced in our thinking about immigration because of our own real world experience. Farmers in our church use a lot of immigrant labor (dairies especially); we have lawyers who know a lot about it; and our area has historically had a lot of immigration, both from south of the border but otherwise as well. My own neighborhood is close to have Hispanic, and I know some are legal and some are not. In my own law practice, I have some clients for whom the immigrant labor force is a definite benefit, and then others for who it is a definite burden, and some for whom it is some of each. I have also represented illegal immigrants.
Great post Allen, and certainly a topic highly deserving of our communal attention. If married couples who attend church divorce at rates similar to the general population, our witness to the world is badly damaged. And has been.
My wife and I attended "Reformed Marriage Encounter" in Oregon decades ago. Was great. I don't know if that is done anymore. I've been involved in divorces over the years from the lawyer side of things. That, plus my own marriage of course, produces this two cents.
Every bit of help couples can get with "how to live together as husband and wife" is helpful. And to that extent, seminars, studies, etc. are all worth it. Still, at the end of the day, the key to keeping married couples married (and married well) is that both of them take seriously their vows to remain married, no matter what. Our nation is now a "no-fault" divorce nation. Thus, it only takes one to divorce, and that means one of the two can divorce for whatever reason. Were I making the laws, I'd go back to a "fault divorce" system (which has its own difficulties, and that's a big subject of its own), but I'm not and so we live with the no-fault system which allows one marriage partner to unilaterally demand and receive divorce (and half the assets, etc).
Beyond that, I think it's helpful for couples to distinguish between "liking each other" and "loving each other." "Liking each other" refers to the feelings couples have that gave cause for them to marry in the first place.These feelings will come and go, sometimes because of "internal" things we can do something about (just not doing the many things a good spouse should do), and sometime because of external things (financial, health -- stuff that happens to couples that are largely unavoidable).
To "love each other" means to commit to what is best for the other (your spouse in marriage), regardless of what you feel. And in the marriage, it also means to stick with the marriage, regardless of whether you "like" your spouse or not.
Certainly, "liking" your spouse makes it more easy to "love" your spouse, but "liking" doesn't guarantee "loving." The converse is also true: "loving" your spouse will make increase the odds you will "like" your spouse (and eventually almost always does in the long run) but again, "loving" doesn't guarantee (at least in the short run) "liking."
Were a poll taken (and honestly answered) of all married couples who "made it," I doubt even 1% would say (honestly at least) that there weren't times when they disliked their spouse. What carried them through, I would suggest, is that they both were so committed, had so meant the vows they said, that their dislike for eachother was simply trumped by their "love," that is, their commitment. To express it in a cliche, "divorce wasn't an option." In time, that commitment (unconditional decision to "love") was again rewarded because they found themselves "liking each other" again (what the world calls "falling in love").
This is one of those places where our society's morphing of the meaning of words does us harm. If new couples regard the words "like" and "love" the way our population uses them, the trouble starts immediately because those words will be repeated far more often than the wedding vows. 1 Corinthians 13 is a fantastic dictionary for the word "love." It never mentions feelings.
You dad should have quit if he felt used by the church (but maybe he didn't). All churches, as well as other non-profits have to make very difficult decisions about who to pay and who not to pay.
Any particular church could decide to pay the treasurer, or the praise team leader, or the pianist, or SS teachers, or VBS cooridinator, etc etc etc etc.
Or not.
Some church (few, but ..) have tentmaker pastors.
No particular rules apply, but one I would say: if someone resents working pro bono for his or her church and can't get past that resentment, he/she should quit doing that work.
Dave: You should really pay a few dollars and sit down with an attorney whose practice includes working with both for-profit and not-for-profit entities. Your prospective scenario is full of nuance.
You'd be surprised how much an hour with a good attorney could help cut through the murk and allow you to make an informed, intelligent decision, and once made, also help implement that decision well.
To be clear, I'm not at all suggesting the Safe Church resources wouldn't be good. What I am suggesting is that at least some insurance companies will have specific requirements that become a "condition of coverage," such that they will deny coverage if later a claim is made and they discover that the condition wasn't fulfilled. And these conditions need not be rational. This is contract law. And that's why I suggest getting an answer IN WRITING from the ins co.
I would also add that if you comply with ins co requirements, you can ALSO use Safe Church or other resources/training, that is, first comply with any ins co requirements and then also do what you think is good to do. And Safe Church exists to help with that (figure out what is good to do on top of ins co requirements).
I can't help you on the church's position, but I would suggest a legal caution. Depending on your state, a raffle may constitute gambling, which may be disallowed or require a permit (again, depending on the state's laws).
As a practical matter, a small, one-time grocery raffle may never come to the attention of anyone having the responsibility of doing anything about it, but if repeated enough, or if the event was "big enough" or publicized enough, it might.
Posted in: Ambivalent Political Introspection Syndrome (APIS)
Thank you for this insightful post Joshua. The problem you cite is one of the reason I promote more limited government at more centralized levels and more expanded government at less centralized levels.
Bottom line is that is is far more difficult to be so polarized and so hyper-strident when political decisions are made at the local level, where you can see the people you disagree with face to face, and when you realize they are neighbors or folks in the town or city near you. And the opposite is true when the candidate are iconic figure from a far away place that you will never talk to, or if you do, in any way that goes beneath the superficial.
There is another reason decentralized government is good. The more centralized governmental power is, the more it is vulnerable to corruption. Big power structures want to (need to in their opinion), and can, control a centralized government more than decentralized governmentS.
I can only hope that the race now underway of having the federal government become more pervasive and state/local governments become less and less meaningful (a perspective held by both primary candidates, even if more perhaps by one of them and that party) will expose itself as a bad mistake and that we will learn from that.
Posted in: Series: What I Would Change About Our Immigration Conversation
I would change it by making it less about politics and government policy and more about person-to-person interaction in our neighborhoods and local communities.
I would change it by getting rid of simplistic mantras like "immigrants are a blessing and not a burden." That bumper sticker slogan is merely a political pitch that we all join together to broadly advocate for a particular government policy on immigration.
Finally, I would change it by de-emphasizing the immigrant or non-immigrant status of people and emphasize more the biblical mandate that we demonstrate love to all, without first categorizing them into classes like immigrant v. national, illegal immigrant v. immigrants with green cards or visas -- and also other classes like black v. white v. Asian (etc), criminal record v. no criminal record, more wealthy v. less wealthy, younger v. older, those who live in the west or south sides of town v. those who live in the east or north sides of town, etc.
Government policy is one thing (and we, CRCers, will differ on that a lot); how we are to treat each other and people in our neighborhoods or communities is quite another (and we, CRCers, should not differ on that much at all). The first is a really complex subject matter, the second not so much. The first has nothing to do with the fact that we are CRCers, the second a lot to do with it.
Posted in: Series: What I Would Change About Our Immigration Conversation
I agree with Noel. This is not the first time there have been refugees coming to the US. My CRC Church (in Oregon) took in (sponsored) several SE Asian families post-Viet Nam war in the 1970's, and that involved more than a little of our time and money.
We didn't argue or debate about the war, or about refugee/immigration policy, or about government policy, nor did we debate the net good or bad that the refugee intake might do for this or that part of the economy, job market or society. Those things could be and were argued about in other contexts. What we focused on is doing what we should do for refugee families who were coming or had come, regardless of any of our political disagreements about broader questions.
It was there that we could find unity as Christians of a local church fellowship, whatever our differences might be as to other questions.
Posted in: #CRCListens: Be Excellent to One Another
I'd be happy to have that discussion with you about socialism Danielle.
Actually, I agree with all the bolded points you make. I do cringe though about your using the example you use. By using the example of someone not willing to discuss socialism with you, you implicitly suggest, intended or not, that those who so think (that is, disfavor socialsm) come down on the bad side of all your bolded points.
Which is why I'd offer to have an online discussion with you (or Christine Berghoef) about socialism. It would be a timely topic, given the Sanders campaign. How about it? :-)
Posted in: #CRClistens: I Think It's More Complicated Than That
This is so true. Most political things, for example, are far more complicated than political candidates or activists would have you believe, including when the CRCNA, and OSJ, are the campaigners.
The current OSJ led campaign, "Immigrants are a blessing and not a burden," is an example of that. Certainly, immigration to the US, legal and illegal, is probably not the threat or harm claimed by some political candidates who hope to gain certain voters' approval for their simplistic and hyperbolic statements, but this OSJ political follows suit, even if in the opposite direction.
Following the advice of this article writer, OSJ would do better to pitch a campaign slogan like "Immigration: it's not as simple as you think," and then put in some serious work explaining the nuances of immigration, the law, the reality, the history, the various economic impacts (both macro and microeconomic), etc., and then let CRCNA members and others form their own more informed conclusions, about more questions than they first even realized existed.
Posted in: #CRClistens: I Think It's More Complicated Than That
Well it would be great if the nuances are part of the workshop. Really, I hope they are nuanced. But that wouldn't completely resolve, in my mind at least, the problem created by the simplistic bumper sticker slogan (and published articles consistent with the bumper sticker simplicity) of "Immigrants are a blessing and not a burden." Too much of our society learns all that it learns by bumper sticker political slogans, and then forms political opinion based on that. I just think it is unwise, even manipulative, to use this political technique.
As for my church, we're pretty nuanced in our thinking about immigration because of our own real world experience. Farmers in our church use a lot of immigrant labor (dairies especially); we have lawyers who know a lot about it; and our area has historically had a lot of immigration, both from south of the border but otherwise as well. My own neighborhood is close to have Hispanic, and I know some are legal and some are not. In my own law practice, I have some clients for whom the immigrant labor force is a definite benefit, and then others for who it is a definite burden, and some for whom it is some of each. I have also represented illegal immigrants.
Posted in: Supporting Marriages
Great post Allen, and certainly a topic highly deserving of our communal attention. If married couples who attend church divorce at rates similar to the general population, our witness to the world is badly damaged. And has been.
My wife and I attended "Reformed Marriage Encounter" in Oregon decades ago. Was great. I don't know if that is done anymore. I've been involved in divorces over the years from the lawyer side of things. That, plus my own marriage of course, produces this two cents.
Every bit of help couples can get with "how to live together as husband and wife" is helpful. And to that extent, seminars, studies, etc. are all worth it. Still, at the end of the day, the key to keeping married couples married (and married well) is that both of them take seriously their vows to remain married, no matter what. Our nation is now a "no-fault" divorce nation. Thus, it only takes one to divorce, and that means one of the two can divorce for whatever reason. Were I making the laws, I'd go back to a "fault divorce" system (which has its own difficulties, and that's a big subject of its own), but I'm not and so we live with the no-fault system which allows one marriage partner to unilaterally demand and receive divorce (and half the assets, etc).
Beyond that, I think it's helpful for couples to distinguish between "liking each other" and "loving each other." "Liking each other" refers to the feelings couples have that gave cause for them to marry in the first place.These feelings will come and go, sometimes because of "internal" things we can do something about (just not doing the many things a good spouse should do), and sometime because of external things (financial, health -- stuff that happens to couples that are largely unavoidable).
To "love each other" means to commit to what is best for the other (your spouse in marriage), regardless of what you feel. And in the marriage, it also means to stick with the marriage, regardless of whether you "like" your spouse or not.
Certainly, "liking" your spouse makes it more easy to "love" your spouse, but "liking" doesn't guarantee "loving." The converse is also true: "loving" your spouse will make increase the odds you will "like" your spouse (and eventually almost always does in the long run) but again, "loving" doesn't guarantee (at least in the short run) "liking."
Were a poll taken (and honestly answered) of all married couples who "made it," I doubt even 1% would say (honestly at least) that there weren't times when they disliked their spouse. What carried them through, I would suggest, is that they both were so committed, had so meant the vows they said, that their dislike for eachother was simply trumped by their "love," that is, their commitment. To express it in a cliche, "divorce wasn't an option." In time, that commitment (unconditional decision to "love") was again rewarded because they found themselves "liking each other" again (what the world calls "falling in love").
This is one of those places where our society's morphing of the meaning of words does us harm. If new couples regard the words "like" and "love" the way our population uses them, the trouble starts immediately because those words will be repeated far more often than the wedding vows. 1 Corinthians 13 is a fantastic dictionary for the word "love." It never mentions feelings.
Posted in: Why Are Church Treasurers Not on Staff?
You dad should have quit if he felt used by the church (but maybe he didn't). All churches, as well as other non-profits have to make very difficult decisions about who to pay and who not to pay.
Any particular church could decide to pay the treasurer, or the praise team leader, or the pianist, or SS teachers, or VBS cooridinator, etc etc etc etc.
Or not.
Some church (few, but ..) have tentmaker pastors.
No particular rules apply, but one I would say: if someone resents working pro bono for his or her church and can't get past that resentment, he/she should quit doing that work.
Posted in: Starting a Ministry...Advice Needed
Dave: You should really pay a few dollars and sit down with an attorney whose practice includes working with both for-profit and not-for-profit entities. Your prospective scenario is full of nuance.
You'd be surprised how much an hour with a good attorney could help cut through the murk and allow you to make an informed, intelligent decision, and once made, also help implement that decision well.
Posted in: Child Protection Training: How Do We Know What's Sufficient?
The answer to your question is to directly ask your insurance company, and to get an answer in writing.
Posted in: Child Protection Training: How Do We Know What's Sufficient?
To be clear, I'm not at all suggesting the Safe Church resources wouldn't be good. What I am suggesting is that at least some insurance companies will have specific requirements that become a "condition of coverage," such that they will deny coverage if later a claim is made and they discover that the condition wasn't fulfilled. And these conditions need not be rational. This is contract law. And that's why I suggest getting an answer IN WRITING from the ins co.
I would also add that if you comply with ins co requirements, you can ALSO use Safe Church or other resources/training, that is, first comply with any ins co requirements and then also do what you think is good to do. And Safe Church exists to help with that (figure out what is good to do on top of ins co requirements).
Posted in: Church Position on Fundraising/Raffles?
I can't help you on the church's position, but I would suggest a legal caution. Depending on your state, a raffle may constitute gambling, which may be disallowed or require a permit (again, depending on the state's laws).
As a practical matter, a small, one-time grocery raffle may never come to the attention of anyone having the responsibility of doing anything about it, but if repeated enough, or if the event was "big enough" or publicized enough, it might.