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.
This report clearly pronounces a few things about the century-plus work of the CRC/CRCHM at Rehoboth. First is that "it was wrong" for the CRC to even go there.
I take it that "wrong" in this case translates to "sinful." Does anyone here agree with that the CRC/CRCHM merely going to Rehoboth was wrong, or sinful?
Secondly, the report pronounces, even if a bit indirectly, that the CRC/CRCNA regarded the native peoples in the area to be less than human, that when CRC/CRCNA people referred to native people's as "pagan" or "heathen," they were thereby considering them as less than human.
Does anyone here really believe the CRC/CRCHM, including the individuals who worked in the Rehoboth area with the native peoples there, considered the native peoples to be less than human?
Third, the report pretty clearly accuses the CRC/CRCHM of intending to take from the native peoples that which belonged to them when establishing Rehoboth for the sake of the CRC/CRCHM.
While I don't believe women should be excluded by rule from any church offices, I also don't believe we should seek mathematical, or even approximate mathematical, gender parity in church offices, nor in delegation to classis ir synod. Rather, we should allow that to happen as it happens, which means differing local contexts will aggregately and ultimately determine the delegation make up at the broader assemblies.
To do otherwise is just more "rule from the top," a perspective not consistent with our church order, nor conducive to the unity of CRC churches.
In other words, if indeed "churches are seeking a more complete representation of the body at synod," then those same churches (plural) will send delegates that represent what they seek, and the broader assemblies (and BOT and bureaucracy) should simply acquiesce in that result.
I could not agree more. Our children, the "youth of our denomination," can be and will be more affected and guided, whether for good or bad or some of each, by their family, a critically important extension of which, especially in the CRC perhaps, is their local congregation.
Most CRC kids don't really know (feel) what it means to be part of the CRC denomination, but they do know (feel) what it means to be part of (or not part of if that is the case) their local congregation.
I'll repeat the argument made above. Government is given, as Scripture indicates (Rom 13:4, but also the clear tradition of the OT), the power of the sword, which can fairly be interpreted to mean the authority in society over whether someone lives or dies. That being the case, it would follow that if poverty existed in a particular nation that is life-threatening, government, the holder of the power over life and death, should exercise that power in a way that prevents that death -- that is, death from poverty, which could result specifically from of lack of food, lack of clothing, lack of housing, lack of health care, etc.
Peter: I'm a bit surprised at your response here. You say we need "Places where it is safe to name, discuss, agree, and disagree on critical issues that God and we deeply care about." You are the director of OSJ, which involves itself in just these sorts of subjects, and yet all of OSJ's "online publications," like DoJustice, are intentionally one-way, that is, you disable the comment functions. The discussion and disagreement you here say is so important is missing when OSJ communicates.
Yes, you and I have had this discussion (about OSJ's one-way communications) by email before and you've concluded we just disagree, which was true, but now you seem to be saying discussion, including about disagreement, is needed after all.
Understand I'm on your side on this comment, but it appears to me you aren't on your own side when it comes to presenting your/OSJ's perspective on these kinds of issues -- then/there you reject discussion. Help me out here in understanding what I perceive to be a disconnect.
As I read this post, Danielle, I wondered whether the Do Justice blog had turned on "commenting" to allow responses to its blog postings. I wondered that because your first sentence referred to Do Justice as a "conversation space," implying or even just stating it is a two way communications resource.
I would respectfully suggest that the first step to "encourage people to have conversations around justice" is to turn on the conversation function.
In today's media environment, blogs are not conversation sites unless they allow commenting. Sans commenting, they are really propoganda sites for the views of whoever controls the site (OSJ in this case I believe). Hence, even the Banner allows commenting, which in turn generates a goodly amount of genuine, constructive conversation, even if among "people who strongly disagree."
So what is the obstacle to persuading OSJ to allow actual conversations on Do Justice?
#1. I'm really hesitant to draw a straight line between God's mandates to Israel and modern mandates for government. OT Israel was, as Jim Skillen would say, an "undifferentiated society" where institutions of government, church, even family to an extent, were merged (or, "undifferentiated"). Beyond that, Israel was a special nation, uniquely ruled by theocracy, even to a large extent after Saul became the first monarch. If one draws too much from OT Israel to inform modern government, one must adopt some of the OT Israel laws that, even though not pointing to Christ, did apply to the nation/church/family of Israel. Reconstructionist (theonomists) draw too much from the pattern of OT Israel government, I think, as do the social justice folks but on the "opposite side."
As to the Year of Jubilee, I don't so much regard that as a "taking care of the poor" measure as it is a "keeping macro balance" within society at large measure (somewhat like an estate tax imposed at death?). After all, Jews were allowed to sell themselves into servanthood, to lose their land and all their possessions and become what was a form of a slave. The Year of Jubilee didn't nothing for them, except every 49th year. Were the Year of Jubilee about "taking care of the poor," it would be "active" during the 48 years as well, but it's not.
#2. Jesus certainly said "give to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" but I can't find any suggestion that government under Ceasar provided for the poor. Ceasar didn't do that. And although scripture suggests nations will have to account for how they treated the poor, that doesn't mean that government is responsible to take care of the poor. A "nation" includes the people of a nation, not merely the government, which plays one of many roles within a particular political society, which again these days is "differentiated."
#3. I would suggest your statement in #3 does little more than beg the question. What, after all, does it mean to "take care of the poor"? That could mean a thousand different things in a thousand differing degrees. Having said that, I'll come back to a suggestion that I've made before in response to one of these posts: the fact that government is clearly given the power of the sword, which clearly means the power over life and death, I think we can fairly extrapolate that government has the affirmative authority/duty to provide a modern day "safety net" (even if Ceasar didn't) since without it, people die. Does that degree of "providing for the poor" match your intention when you write "providing for the poor"? I don't know because I'm not sure what your definition is for the phrase.
Thanks for creating the discussion, Larry. These are important issues for Christians to grapple with, and not at all simple.
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.
Posted in: Why the Church Should Pay Attention to the DOD Task Force
This report clearly pronounces a few things about the century-plus work of the CRC/CRCHM at Rehoboth. First is that "it was wrong" for the CRC to even go there.
I take it that "wrong" in this case translates to "sinful." Does anyone here agree with that the CRC/CRCHM merely going to Rehoboth was wrong, or sinful?
Secondly, the report pronounces, even if a bit indirectly, that the CRC/CRCNA regarded the native peoples in the area to be less than human, that when CRC/CRCNA people referred to native people's as "pagan" or "heathen," they were thereby considering them as less than human.
Does anyone here really believe the CRC/CRCHM, including the individuals who worked in the Rehoboth area with the native peoples there, considered the native peoples to be less than human?
Third, the report pretty clearly accuses the CRC/CRCHM of intending to take from the native peoples that which belonged to them when establishing Rehoboth for the sake of the CRC/CRCHM.
Does anyone here believe that?
Posted in: Where Are the Women at Synod?
While I don't believe women should be excluded by rule from any church offices, I also don't believe we should seek mathematical, or even approximate mathematical, gender parity in church offices, nor in delegation to classis ir synod. Rather, we should allow that to happen as it happens, which means differing local contexts will aggregately and ultimately determine the delegation make up at the broader assemblies.
To do otherwise is just more "rule from the top," a perspective not consistent with our church order, nor conducive to the unity of CRC churches.
In other words, if indeed "churches are seeking a more complete representation of the body at synod," then those same churches (plural) will send delegates that represent what they seek, and the broader assemblies (and BOT and bureaucracy) should simply acquiesce in that result.
Posted in: My Father’s I Corinthians 13
Thanks for posting Mark. Were all marriages reflective of this perspective, divorce wouldn't happen.
Posted in: The Safest Place in the World
I could not agree more. Our children, the "youth of our denomination," can be and will be more affected and guided, whether for good or bad or some of each, by their family, a critically important extension of which, especially in the CRC perhaps, is their local congregation.
Most CRC kids don't really know (feel) what it means to be part of the CRC denomination, but they do know (feel) what it means to be part of (or not part of if that is the case) their local congregation.
Thanks Syd.
Posted in: Time for Non-Compete Clauses for Clergy?
Assuming this is not a joke, no we should not have pastors sign non-compete agreements. This from a lawyer.
If we did, I doubt the courts of many (any) states would enforce them anyway, non-competes being disfavored by courts even in the business context.
Posted in: A Question of Governance and Scripture Teaching
I'll repeat the argument made above. Government is given, as Scripture indicates (Rom 13:4, but also the clear tradition of the OT), the power of the sword, which can fairly be interpreted to mean the authority in society over whether someone lives or dies. That being the case, it would follow that if poverty existed in a particular nation that is life-threatening, government, the holder of the power over life and death, should exercise that power in a way that prevents that death -- that is, death from poverty, which could result specifically from of lack of food, lack of clothing, lack of housing, lack of health care, etc.
Posted in: Think Globally, Push Back Locally
Peter: I'm a bit surprised at your response here. You say we need "Places where it is safe to name, discuss, agree, and disagree on critical issues that God and we deeply care about." You are the director of OSJ, which involves itself in just these sorts of subjects, and yet all of OSJ's "online publications," like DoJustice, are intentionally one-way, that is, you disable the comment functions. The discussion and disagreement you here say is so important is missing when OSJ communicates.
Yes, you and I have had this discussion (about OSJ's one-way communications) by email before and you've concluded we just disagree, which was true, but now you seem to be saying discussion, including about disagreement, is needed after all.
Understand I'm on your side on this comment, but it appears to me you aren't on your own side when it comes to presenting your/OSJ's perspective on these kinds of issues -- then/there you reject discussion. Help me out here in understanding what I perceive to be a disconnect.
Posted in: Series: How to Stay in Conversation With the “Other Side”
As I read this post, Danielle, I wondered whether the Do Justice blog had turned on "commenting" to allow responses to its blog postings. I wondered that because your first sentence referred to Do Justice as a "conversation space," implying or even just stating it is a two way communications resource.
I would respectfully suggest that the first step to "encourage people to have conversations around justice" is to turn on the conversation function.
In today's media environment, blogs are not conversation sites unless they allow commenting. Sans commenting, they are really propoganda sites for the views of whoever controls the site (OSJ in this case I believe). Hence, even the Banner allows commenting, which in turn generates a goodly amount of genuine, constructive conversation, even if among "people who strongly disagree."
So what is the obstacle to persuading OSJ to allow actual conversations on Do Justice?
Posted in: Series: How to Stay in Conversation With the “Other Side”
Thanks Danielle: I'll look more for Do Justice articles on The Network.
Doug
Posted in: The Role of the Government as Taught by the Bible
Taking your items, Larry, in numbered ordered:
#1. I'm really hesitant to draw a straight line between God's mandates to Israel and modern mandates for government. OT Israel was, as Jim Skillen would say, an "undifferentiated society" where institutions of government, church, even family to an extent, were merged (or, "undifferentiated"). Beyond that, Israel was a special nation, uniquely ruled by theocracy, even to a large extent after Saul became the first monarch. If one draws too much from OT Israel to inform modern government, one must adopt some of the OT Israel laws that, even though not pointing to Christ, did apply to the nation/church/family of Israel. Reconstructionist (theonomists) draw too much from the pattern of OT Israel government, I think, as do the social justice folks but on the "opposite side."
As to the Year of Jubilee, I don't so much regard that as a "taking care of the poor" measure as it is a "keeping macro balance" within society at large measure (somewhat like an estate tax imposed at death?). After all, Jews were allowed to sell themselves into servanthood, to lose their land and all their possessions and become what was a form of a slave. The Year of Jubilee didn't nothing for them, except every 49th year. Were the Year of Jubilee about "taking care of the poor," it would be "active" during the 48 years as well, but it's not.
#2. Jesus certainly said "give to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" but I can't find any suggestion that government under Ceasar provided for the poor. Ceasar didn't do that. And although scripture suggests nations will have to account for how they treated the poor, that doesn't mean that government is responsible to take care of the poor. A "nation" includes the people of a nation, not merely the government, which plays one of many roles within a particular political society, which again these days is "differentiated."
#3. I would suggest your statement in #3 does little more than beg the question. What, after all, does it mean to "take care of the poor"? That could mean a thousand different things in a thousand differing degrees. Having said that, I'll come back to a suggestion that I've made before in response to one of these posts: the fact that government is clearly given the power of the sword, which clearly means the power over life and death, I think we can fairly extrapolate that government has the affirmative authority/duty to provide a modern day "safety net" (even if Ceasar didn't) since without it, people die. Does that degree of "providing for the poor" match your intention when you write "providing for the poor"? I don't know because I'm not sure what your definition is for the phrase.
Thanks for creating the discussion, Larry. These are important issues for Christians to grapple with, and not at all simple.