I can't imagine being a part of a church that is not intergenerational. It seems to me such a church is less than what it should be. I've never been a member of one that wasn't intergenerational.
This makes me think, though, of neighborhoods that are demographically stratified, by age, ethnicity, economic class, or whatever. Those too are less than what they should be, for essentially the same reason.
One key to strengthening the thread between the denomination and it's local churches is the denomination giving up its claim to act as political lobbyist and expert for its members. Church Order Article 28 requires it but has been ignored.
Indeed, the "doing more together" cliche has been used by a minority of CRCers (who have the lion's share of denomination level power) to establish a political platform (planks on federal policy on climate change, federal policy on public welfare benefits, federal policy on immigration, etc) for all CRCers (that is, for all members of local CRC congregations).
My own local church does not presume to speak for me as to national or state or even local government policy. Why should my denomination? Again of course, CO Article 28 says it should not, even may not, but it does anyway. And of course that is a breach of trust and covenant committment. No wonder the thread is thin.
I think denominations are very valuable, but as ecclesiastical institutions, not as political, scientific, or political think tank (etc) institutions. Of course, this thinking (Kuyperian social sphere sovereignty) is not at all new, even if increasingly ignored at the denominational level of the CRC.
This article characterizes the US as "debat[ing] to shut[] down its refugee resettlement completely," but the Canadians as "being applauded for its increase in hospitality, welcoming 29,817 Syrian refugees this year alone." But according to the Pew Research Center (see at: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/16/nearly-half-of-refugees-entering-the-u-s-this-year-are-muslim/) the US "... has received 28,957 Muslim refugees so far in fiscal year 2016, or nearly half (46%) of the more than 63,000 refugees who have entered the country since the fiscal year began Oct. 1, 2015...," which doesn't count those "27,556 Christian refugees" allowed in "so far this fiscal year."
In other words, the US is not being a refugee grinch and Canada is not, by comparison, being a refugee Santa Claus.
I would agree with the author that Christians ought to play a role in welcoming refugees that are admitted to their country. At the same time, I believe the political discussion (or debate) about middle east refugees -- including by Christians -- ought to be far more constructive and nuanced than simply 'let's see how many refugees our country can take in.'
While I don't at all take Trump's stated position on immigration (although I'm not actually sure what that is from day to day), I do tend to see the the middle east refugee question to be remarkably complicated and would favor, politically speaking, providing much more assistance to Jordan and possibly other middle east countries as they provide refugee camps that would keep Syrians near their own home country, for example. It seems to me that the permanent resettlement of refugees in foreign countries should be a disfavored solution, even for the sake of the refugees, many/most of which don't want to leave their home country.
We do well to separate questions of personal action given the political decisions already made, from the question of the political policies we advocate for. Too often, we don't do that, assuming the two questions are only one.
A big part of the time problem is the creeping expansion of what is taken up at the denominational level (including at snod). Why, for example, should synod be taking up a 500 year old series of papal bulls issued by a couple of Roman Catholic popes (Doctrine of Discovery). There were no churches or classes who asked for synod to take that up (rather, it came from a handful of people on the creation care study committee, procedurally anomalous as that may be).
The general "political atmosphere" in our surrounding culture had become a seeming irrisistable temptation to take up, at the highest level (synod), too many things that an institutional church (including the CRC, see Church Order Article 28) just shouldn't be taking up. Even if some of those issues are important, there is a time, place, and one or more othet institutions for taking them up.
Synod will have plenty to take up if it listens to its own rules (again, CO Article 28) and resists the temptation to take up what is outside the institutional church sphere. And it can do a better job if it focuses on that more limited plate full of issues.
This is an intriguing article, and it certainly introduces to the discussion (whatever exactly the question is, which really isn't defined) a new thinking twist, but I wonder this: about what can we, should we, do we not already have in all things, "holy uncertainty," or perhaps just uncertainty (I'm not sure how one might distinguish between "holy" and "unholy," or even "regular," uncertainty).
Do we have, should we have, "holy uncertainty" about the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection? No doubt, all lack faith, just as Jesus' own disciples did. That condition is certainly "uncertainty," and it is quite genuine -- is it "holy uncertainty," "unholy uncertainty," or "regular uncertainty?"
In other words, is the suggestion that we should have "holy uncertainty" about homosexuality (again, whatever the question precisely is) at all helpful? Are we all not somewhat like Rene Descartes, after all, who had some doubt about any and all propositions in his search for truth until he stumbled on the notion of "I think, therefore I am." But of course his skeptical contemporaries, the Pyhronians, declared essentially that they "doubted that the doubted" in rebuke of Descartes. Christians have historically lived in opposition to Descartes "rationalism" -- should we now reconsider this?
In other words, having doubt is rather ubiquitous in all facets of human affairs. Does rephrasing it as "holy uncertainty" really help in the discussion of whatever exactly this question is? I'm not so sure -- or, to put it another way, I'm having "holy uncertainty" about this "holy uncertainty."
Deja vu to the era of Abraham Kuyper, who moved from one hermeneutical approach early in life to a different one later. Of course (I would suggest), the shift in this case is reversed from the shift made by Kuyper.
I suspect this perception of hermeneutical change is of far more concern to many CRCers than the SSM issue. It is to me.
Indeed, advocating is not all that hard. The far more difficult thing is figuring out exactly what to advocate for. It's a tip of the iceberg vs the base of the iceberg thing, maybe a lot worse.
Especially when we claim to represent others when we advocate -- like OSJ does -- it is really important that we question whether our advocates really have the subject matter expertise as well as the analysis/decision making skills and experiences that one should have when he/she leads others (advocating is leading).
In the CRC, for example, we require that pastors have considerable formal education, and other training/experience, before we allow them to lead/advocate as a pastor does in our churches. Those pastors are equipped, for example, to do their own original research, knowing the original biblical languages, before suggesting what scripture says when they stand behind a pulpit. They have formal degrees and real training from "industry experts." This is so important to us, we've decided, that we've established a school where just these things are taught as a specialized area of concern. The degrees conferred as specially name.
Question: does the CRC do likewise when it takes on the role of advocating about political, legal, ecomomic and scientific matters in behalf of, and to, CRC members? What is the preparation/experience of those who advocate in the denomination's (our) behalf about these matters?
The advocacy that is being discussed in this article is not, as you characterize it Kris, "advoca[cy] with people who are oppressed or on the margins" but rather lobbying of the government to persuade it to pass certain legislation, done for and behalf of the CRC and its members. The difference is enormous.
If I advocate in behalf of others that the government pass this law or that law, I should have the expertise/ability to be able to competently evaluate "this law or that law," as well as the likely effects of passing this or that law. The requirement to be competent should not be ignored by my saying I'm merely "advocat[ing] with people who are oppressed or on the margins" -- saying that doesn't accurately express what I am doing.
Let's bring this concretely to the "advocacy" (more accurately and commonly called lobbying) discussed in this article. If I were to lobby government in behalf of a client/constituency as to the Global Food Security Act (whether pro or con), I would probably want to read the intended statute (the bill). I'm a lawyer and so I would of course bring that set of skills and experiences to bear in reading it. I can read the nuances of "legal language," and I know from experience that drafted bills are often intentionally deceptive in some ways, as evidenced when bills are so often given names to suggest they have an effect other than what have. It is not uncommon, for example, for large companies or industries to want legislation that benefits them (allows them to sell goods/services) and so they lobby for bills that purport to help those in need (their intended revenue source). Thus, for example, if the US dairy industry wanted more revenue from its surplus supply of milk, it might propose to the government that it pass nice sounding legislation, like "Global Food Security Act," which predominantly benefitted the dairy industry by requiring the federal government to buy the industry's powdered milk supplies and delivery them to third world counties overseas.
After reading the bill, I would then want to check out more details about the potential problems I found with the bill. For example, would this law really just help the US dairy industry by giving milk supplies to lactose intolerant third world populations? Or, do the provisions in the proposed law virtually guarantee that in some, many or most cases, the real recipients will be corrupt governments or not-so-corrupt governments that are allowed to intercept or repurpose funds given them?
Another thing I'd likely want to examine as to a law of this kind is how much "hurting more than helping" it might do. If, for example, the proposed law would export powdered milk to third world countries, would it be having the effect of destroying or damaging a local milk industry in some of those countries? That would be nice the US dairy industry but damaging to dairy providers in those other countries (who can compete with the price of zero after all?)
These are the kind of inquiries/investigations hired lobbyists (which OSJ is when it engages in activities aimed at passing legislation) should make/do as to any legislation it lobbies for. And doing those inquiries/investigations required expertise and experience.
So when this article concludes with "You can advocate on any issue [too] ...", I think it is important to point out that "advocating" (lobbying) for or against legislation, done well, involves much, much more than just convincing people to say "yes" or "no," or getting CRC members to tell their political representatives to say "yes" or "no," to proposed legislation. The latter is, as I said, just the tip of the iceberg, at least if the lobbying is to be done well.
I would certainly appreciate, off-line if you like (you have my email address), an indication of credentials OSJ brings to bear when it lobbies for or against legislation like the Global Food Security Act.
I would hope that millenials, and all other age defined groups for that matter, predominantly serve outside of the institutional church. This is not to say they shouldn't serve within the institutional church as well, but it needs to be understood that we serve (or should serve) in all that we do, and that message ought to be a core message of the (preaching and teaching and encouraging) institutional church to all its members.
I think the more the institutional church effectively teaches this Calvinist/Reformed/Kuyperian message, the more members will be convicted that all they do should be service to their Creator, and the more they are so convicted, the more they will connect to, and serve in, their institutional church, even if most of their service to their their Lord is done outside the institutional church.
The changing of times actually happened quite a long time ago when consistory (elders only) became council (elders and deacons). To fully implement that long ago decision, deacons should have been allowed to be synodical delegates back then.
Were I to set the rules, I'd allow classes to delegate as they wish, elders and/or deacons, including anyone who previously served in either capacity. Doing that would help with the problem of finding folks to serve, and produce more delegates who wanted to be there (and weren't just willing). I'd also then lengthen the time of synod so that the body of synod would be making more decisions as opposed to those who 'set the table.'
But if your mandate was as you say, Linda, you also exceeded it in some ways. The report clearly condemns going to New Mexico in the first place, and establishing Rehoboth in the first place. It says, again quite clearly, that the CRC, the CRCNA, and all those who took part should simply not have done this, that it was a bad thing to do. It was not sinful, as this report claims, to go to Rehoboth. Going to Rehoboth was not, as this report claims, a DOD inspired effort of the CRC to make theirs that which belonged to others.
And then the report seems to support these conclusions, attempts to justify it's conclusions, to its readers, by relaying a concentrated brine of "bad things" in the life of an effort that happened over a century of time. To boot, the report provides no context. The word, "pagan," for example, was a perfectly good (descriptive) word decades ago, devoid of the overtones it has today. "Pagan" does not mean subhuman, nor did those from the CRC/CRCHM who put years and sometimes lives of effort into Rehoboth consider anyone in that community subhuman. That is the report's accusation, even if made a bit indirectly (by saying that is what the DOD said, which in turn was the influence that brought forth Rehoboth).
Perhaps even more troubling, to me at least, is that this reports essentially declares that the efforts of this community, 13 years ago, to deal with the sins of the past, were inadequate, and that those in charge of this report know better than the local community, including all sides of the local community.
Posted in: Let’s Play “Banner Editor for a Day”
My headline:
Discerning what it is to be an institutional church denomination in a hyper-politicized culture - what should it mean, and not mean, to be CRC?
Posted in: The Beautiful Mess of a Multigenerational Church
I can't imagine being a part of a church that is not intergenerational. It seems to me such a church is less than what it should be. I've never been a member of one that wasn't intergenerational.
This makes me think, though, of neighborhoods that are demographically stratified, by age, ethnicity, economic class, or whatever. Those too are less than what they should be, for essentially the same reason.
Posted in: Five Steps to Denominational Renewal - Part 1
One key to strengthening the thread between the denomination and it's local churches is the denomination giving up its claim to act as political lobbyist and expert for its members. Church Order Article 28 requires it but has been ignored.
Indeed, the "doing more together" cliche has been used by a minority of CRCers (who have the lion's share of denomination level power) to establish a political platform (planks on federal policy on climate change, federal policy on public welfare benefits, federal policy on immigration, etc) for all CRCers (that is, for all members of local CRC congregations).
My own local church does not presume to speak for me as to national or state or even local government policy. Why should my denomination? Again of course, CO Article 28 says it should not, even may not, but it does anyway. And of course that is a breach of trust and covenant committment. No wonder the thread is thin.
I think denominations are very valuable, but as ecclesiastical institutions, not as political, scientific, or political think tank (etc) institutions. Of course, this thinking (Kuyperian social sphere sovereignty) is not at all new, even if increasingly ignored at the denominational level of the CRC.
Posted in: Welcoming Refugees: It's Who We Are
This article characterizes the US as "debat[ing] to shut[] down its refugee resettlement completely," but the Canadians as "being applauded for its increase in hospitality, welcoming 29,817 Syrian refugees this year alone." But according to the Pew Research Center (see at: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/16/nearly-half-of-refugees-entering-the-u-s-this-year-are-muslim/) the US "... has received 28,957 Muslim refugees so far in fiscal year 2016, or nearly half (46%) of the more than 63,000 refugees who have entered the country since the fiscal year began Oct. 1, 2015...," which doesn't count those "27,556 Christian refugees" allowed in "so far this fiscal year."
In other words, the US is not being a refugee grinch and Canada is not, by comparison, being a refugee Santa Claus.
I would agree with the author that Christians ought to play a role in welcoming refugees that are admitted to their country. At the same time, I believe the political discussion (or debate) about middle east refugees -- including by Christians -- ought to be far more constructive and nuanced than simply 'let's see how many refugees our country can take in.'
While I don't at all take Trump's stated position on immigration (although I'm not actually sure what that is from day to day), I do tend to see the the middle east refugee question to be remarkably complicated and would favor, politically speaking, providing much more assistance to Jordan and possibly other middle east countries as they provide refugee camps that would keep Syrians near their own home country, for example. It seems to me that the permanent resettlement of refugees in foreign countries should be a disfavored solution, even for the sake of the refugees, many/most of which don't want to leave their home country.
We do well to separate questions of personal action given the political decisions already made, from the question of the political policies we advocate for. Too often, we don't do that, assuming the two questions are only one.
Posted in: Is the Agenda for Synod Too Long?
A big part of the time problem is the creeping expansion of what is taken up at the denominational level (including at snod). Why, for example, should synod be taking up a 500 year old series of papal bulls issued by a couple of Roman Catholic popes (Doctrine of Discovery). There were no churches or classes who asked for synod to take that up (rather, it came from a handful of people on the creation care study committee, procedurally anomalous as that may be).
The general "political atmosphere" in our surrounding culture had become a seeming irrisistable temptation to take up, at the highest level (synod), too many things that an institutional church (including the CRC, see Church Order Article 28) just shouldn't be taking up. Even if some of those issues are important, there is a time, place, and one or more othet institutions for taking them up.
Synod will have plenty to take up if it listens to its own rules (again, CO Article 28) and resists the temptation to take up what is outside the institutional church sphere. And it can do a better job if it focuses on that more limited plate full of issues.
Posted in: Homosexuality and Holy Uncertainty
This is an intriguing article, and it certainly introduces to the discussion (whatever exactly the question is, which really isn't defined) a new thinking twist, but I wonder this: about what can we, should we, do we not already have in all things, "holy uncertainty," or perhaps just uncertainty (I'm not sure how one might distinguish between "holy" and "unholy," or even "regular," uncertainty).
Do we have, should we have, "holy uncertainty" about the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection? No doubt, all lack faith, just as Jesus' own disciples did. That condition is certainly "uncertainty," and it is quite genuine -- is it "holy uncertainty," "unholy uncertainty," or "regular uncertainty?"
In other words, is the suggestion that we should have "holy uncertainty" about homosexuality (again, whatever the question precisely is) at all helpful? Are we all not somewhat like Rene Descartes, after all, who had some doubt about any and all propositions in his search for truth until he stumbled on the notion of "I think, therefore I am." But of course his skeptical contemporaries, the Pyhronians, declared essentially that they "doubted that the doubted" in rebuke of Descartes. Christians have historically lived in opposition to Descartes "rationalism" -- should we now reconsider this?
In other words, having doubt is rather ubiquitous in all facets of human affairs. Does rephrasing it as "holy uncertainty" really help in the discussion of whatever exactly this question is? I'm not so sure -- or, to put it another way, I'm having "holy uncertainty" about this "holy uncertainty."
Posted in: Homosexuality and Holy Uncertainty
Deja vu to the era of Abraham Kuyper, who moved from one hermeneutical approach early in life to a different one later. Of course (I would suggest), the shift in this case is reversed from the shift made by Kuyper.
I suspect this perception of hermeneutical change is of far more concern to many CRCers than the SSM issue. It is to me.
Posted in: Advocacy Works!
Indeed, advocating is not all that hard. The far more difficult thing is figuring out exactly what to advocate for. It's a tip of the iceberg vs the base of the iceberg thing, maybe a lot worse.
Especially when we claim to represent others when we advocate -- like OSJ does -- it is really important that we question whether our advocates really have the subject matter expertise as well as the analysis/decision making skills and experiences that one should have when he/she leads others (advocating is leading).
In the CRC, for example, we require that pastors have considerable formal education, and other training/experience, before we allow them to lead/advocate as a pastor does in our churches. Those pastors are equipped, for example, to do their own original research, knowing the original biblical languages, before suggesting what scripture says when they stand behind a pulpit. They have formal degrees and real training from "industry experts." This is so important to us, we've decided, that we've established a school where just these things are taught as a specialized area of concern. The degrees conferred as specially name.
Question: does the CRC do likewise when it takes on the role of advocating about political, legal, ecomomic and scientific matters in behalf of, and to, CRC members? What is the preparation/experience of those who advocate in the denomination's (our) behalf about these matters?
Posted in: Advocacy Works!
The advocacy that is being discussed in this article is not, as you characterize it Kris, "advoca[cy] with people who are oppressed or on the margins" but rather lobbying of the government to persuade it to pass certain legislation, done for and behalf of the CRC and its members. The difference is enormous.
If I advocate in behalf of others that the government pass this law or that law, I should have the expertise/ability to be able to competently evaluate "this law or that law," as well as the likely effects of passing this or that law. The requirement to be competent should not be ignored by my saying I'm merely "advocat[ing] with people who are oppressed or on the margins" -- saying that doesn't accurately express what I am doing.
Let's bring this concretely to the "advocacy" (more accurately and commonly called lobbying) discussed in this article. If I were to lobby government in behalf of a client/constituency as to the Global Food Security Act (whether pro or con), I would probably want to read the intended statute (the bill). I'm a lawyer and so I would of course bring that set of skills and experiences to bear in reading it. I can read the nuances of "legal language," and I know from experience that drafted bills are often intentionally deceptive in some ways, as evidenced when bills are so often given names to suggest they have an effect other than what have. It is not uncommon, for example, for large companies or industries to want legislation that benefits them (allows them to sell goods/services) and so they lobby for bills that purport to help those in need (their intended revenue source). Thus, for example, if the US dairy industry wanted more revenue from its surplus supply of milk, it might propose to the government that it pass nice sounding legislation, like "Global Food Security Act," which predominantly benefitted the dairy industry by requiring the federal government to buy the industry's powdered milk supplies and delivery them to third world counties overseas.
After reading the bill, I would then want to check out more details about the potential problems I found with the bill. For example, would this law really just help the US dairy industry by giving milk supplies to lactose intolerant third world populations? Or, do the provisions in the proposed law virtually guarantee that in some, many or most cases, the real recipients will be corrupt governments or not-so-corrupt governments that are allowed to intercept or repurpose funds given them?
Another thing I'd likely want to examine as to a law of this kind is how much "hurting more than helping" it might do. If, for example, the proposed law would export powdered milk to third world countries, would it be having the effect of destroying or damaging a local milk industry in some of those countries? That would be nice the US dairy industry but damaging to dairy providers in those other countries (who can compete with the price of zero after all?)
These are the kind of inquiries/investigations hired lobbyists (which OSJ is when it engages in activities aimed at passing legislation) should make/do as to any legislation it lobbies for. And doing those inquiries/investigations required expertise and experience.
So when this article concludes with "You can advocate on any issue [too] ...", I think it is important to point out that "advocating" (lobbying) for or against legislation, done well, involves much, much more than just convincing people to say "yes" or "no," or getting CRC members to tell their political representatives to say "yes" or "no," to proposed legislation. The latter is, as I said, just the tip of the iceberg, at least if the lobbying is to be done well.
I would certainly appreciate, off-line if you like (you have my email address), an indication of credentials OSJ brings to bear when it lobbies for or against legislation like the Global Food Security Act.
Posted in: Are Millennials Looking Outside the Church to Serve?
I would hope that millenials, and all other age defined groups for that matter, predominantly serve outside of the institutional church. This is not to say they shouldn't serve within the institutional church as well, but it needs to be understood that we serve (or should serve) in all that we do, and that message ought to be a core message of the (preaching and teaching and encouraging) institutional church to all its members.
I think the more the institutional church effectively teaches this Calvinist/Reformed/Kuyperian message, the more members will be convicted that all they do should be service to their Creator, and the more they are so convicted, the more they will connect to, and serve in, their institutional church, even if most of their service to their their Lord is done outside the institutional church.
Posted in: How Will Deacon Delegates Change Synod?
The changing of times actually happened quite a long time ago when consistory (elders only) became council (elders and deacons). To fully implement that long ago decision, deacons should have been allowed to be synodical delegates back then.
Were I to set the rules, I'd allow classes to delegate as they wish, elders and/or deacons, including anyone who previously served in either capacity. Doing that would help with the problem of finding folks to serve, and produce more delegates who wanted to be there (and weren't just willing). I'd also then lengthen the time of synod so that the body of synod would be making more decisions as opposed to those who 'set the table.'
Posted in: Why the Church Should Pay Attention to the DOD Task Force
But if your mandate was as you say, Linda, you also exceeded it in some ways. The report clearly condemns going to New Mexico in the first place, and establishing Rehoboth in the first place. It says, again quite clearly, that the CRC, the CRCNA, and all those who took part should simply not have done this, that it was a bad thing to do. It was not sinful, as this report claims, to go to Rehoboth. Going to Rehoboth was not, as this report claims, a DOD inspired effort of the CRC to make theirs that which belonged to others.
And then the report seems to support these conclusions, attempts to justify it's conclusions, to its readers, by relaying a concentrated brine of "bad things" in the life of an effort that happened over a century of time. To boot, the report provides no context. The word, "pagan," for example, was a perfectly good (descriptive) word decades ago, devoid of the overtones it has today. "Pagan" does not mean subhuman, nor did those from the CRC/CRCHM who put years and sometimes lives of effort into Rehoboth consider anyone in that community subhuman. That is the report's accusation, even if made a bit indirectly (by saying that is what the DOD said, which in turn was the influence that brought forth Rehoboth).
Perhaps even more troubling, to me at least, is that this reports essentially declares that the efforts of this community, 13 years ago, to deal with the sins of the past, were inadequate, and that those in charge of this report know better than the local community, including all sides of the local community.