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.
Amen as to 1, 3 and 4. Forehead scrunches as to 2 and 5.
As to 2, I would favor learning about your neighbors, indigenous or otherwise.
As to 5, I would favor praying "locally on out." That is, pray first for those around you, then those around them, etc. If you get there, it's fine to pray for all the places on the planet you can't find on a label-free map, but we need to recognize that 1) we are finite, 2) the best prayer is that which is accompanied by some level of real world action. Hence my prescription for praying for "locally on out."
Actually, Bangladesh's problem result from increased population, de-forestation, pollution other than CO2, and other man-made molding to the environment -- far more so than sea rise caused by global CO2 emissions. It has become a poster-child for climate change alarmists, but Bangladesh's other problems dwarf those caused by climate change.
Sea rise has been happening -- although very slowly -- and is going to continue happening -- again, although very slowly --, whether fossil fuels increase the CO2 in the atmosphere or not. We are still on the recovery side of ice ages, geologically speaking and so the sea level is supposed to rise -- again even while very slowly. See at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1880-2013.png
Given the amount of public relations money behind the mantra that climate change is the cause of all troubles, it is not, and Bangladesh is one of the cases in point, even if climate change alarmists like to make Bangladesh their poster child.
Look, for example, at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/embankments-exacerbate-sea-level-rise-in-bangladesh/ and
http://bangladeshunique.blogspot.com/2010/07/deforestation-in-bangladesh.html and
http://blog.cifor.org/9434/bangladesh-forests-disappearing-at-alarming-rate-says-expert?fnl=en and
Larry: So exactly what to you mean when you say "take care of the poor?" My response clearly indicated that government had an obligation to provide a "safety net" but I'm not sure -- and said so in my comment to your post -- that qualifies as "providing for the poor," as you understand that phrase.
So let's clarify what we might be agreeing or disagreeing about. What do you mean when you say that "government should take care of the poor?"
I would enthusiastically agree that both churches and individuals do well in providing help to past or present incarcerated persons and their families. There are few areas of concern where the need is greater and potential impact more profitable.
But I do cringe at how this article frames what is discussed as strictly a matter of "justice." Indeed, neither the lead-in verse and sentence -- nor any other part of the post -- makes mention of "mercy." A better lead-in verse would be Micah 6:8, which commands us to both "do justice" and "love mercy."
As an attorney, I have been involved in questions of justice in behalf of inmates and ex-inmates. But we do well to clearly understand that we are obliged to extend mercy even when there is no question about justice. Most of those we should help out are in fact not "oppressed" persons we must "[let] free," as this articles states. Some should remain incarcerated inmates. Still, we do well to serve them, while incarcerated, and their family members waiting for their release -- because of our "love of mercy."
I think part of the answer is expecting from all who would participate in the service a (speaking, singing, playing whatever) recognition that their participation isn't only about giving them a chance to do their thing in front of the congregation. If everyone that the point of serving is serving, the problem really disappears.
Not all will have that maturity of course. Which means another one of your jobs is to teach that, both as a preliminary to anyone who wants to participate (serve) and in an ongoing way. Another job may be to find opportunities for all to serve, even if they ultimately can't serve in the way they first wanted.
What an insightful article. Indeed, political questions can and usually are far more complex than meets an individual's eye. And Christians, even CRCers, rarely agree with each other about the correct answers to almost all political questions.
Synods, the CRCNA and CRCNA Agencies might take this article to heart when tempted to declare and publicly advocate/lobby about political conclusions obvious to them.
I think prayer for the single goal of unity is incomplete. Unity alone, which as a practical matter sometimes means compromise to the extent required to achieve unity, even if faux, is not what God requires of us.
No, I not suggesting compromise can't be good. See Acts 15 for that. But compromise can be bad even if it is not always bad. No, it's not easy to discern which is which, but still I think prayers for unity must always be accompanied by equal petitions for faithfulness, lest whatever the process prayed for start with the false premise that only unity matters in an institutional church's deliberations.
Certainly, seeking unity is part of being faithful, but only "seeking" and only "part." Sometimes, I think we believe that institutional unity is required, for ourselves at least, to be one holy catholic church, as if Paul and Barnabas were no longer brothers in Christ because they disagreed to the point of separating in one of their trips and taking different companions. Wasn't the case then and still isn't now.
I would go so far as to say that institutional separation, done well, is sometime necessary to organic unity. But if we only pray for unity, we can't get to that truth, and separation is much less likely to be "done well."
Sorry Gerrit but I think you are way off-base in your perspective about the Trump phenomena. First, Republicans were opposing Trump when you say they weren't, although of course it became more as time passed, but that's nothing more than normal -- and responsible -- human behavior. You don't make a big fuss about something that will slide away on its own. It was reasonable to believe that Trump would gain no traction at all and fall to the wayside early. Indeed, it was unreasonable to think otherwise.
Yes, the Republican campaign has been beyond abhorrent but also beyond precedent. But all of it -- all of it -- has to do with one candidate who could as well have run as a Democrat, whose history strongly suggests he has no political party affiliation -- or political theory perspective -- of any kind.
Your response suggests you are a bit of a victim of what you what the denomination to rant against, that is, partisanship (noting your reference to "opinionators from one end of the spectrum and one cable 'news' channel"). If you want to "prevent the prevailing ethic of obstructionism, anger, and demonizing the opposition ...," you could start by not demonizing Republicans -- or Fox News for that matter -- as you do here. The brushes you are using are far too broad (aka "partisan").
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.
Posted in: Live Justly for Lent: for Families
Amen as to 1, 3 and 4. Forehead scrunches as to 2 and 5.
As to 2, I would favor learning about your neighbors, indigenous or otherwise.
As to 5, I would favor praying "locally on out." That is, pray first for those around you, then those around them, etc. If you get there, it's fine to pray for all the places on the planet you can't find on a label-free map, but we need to recognize that 1) we are finite, 2) the best prayer is that which is accompanied by some level of real world action. Hence my prescription for praying for "locally on out."
Posted in: Digital Library, CRC Discount Gets Thumbs Up
I so agree, but also that the policy makes so very much sense. :-)
Posted in: Time to Take Action: Post-COP21
Actually, Bangladesh's problem result from increased population, de-forestation, pollution other than CO2, and other man-made molding to the environment -- far more so than sea rise caused by global CO2 emissions. It has become a poster-child for climate change alarmists, but Bangladesh's other problems dwarf those caused by climate change.
Sea rise has been happening -- although very slowly -- and is going to continue happening -- again, although very slowly --, whether fossil fuels increase the CO2 in the atmosphere or not. We are still on the recovery side of ice ages, geologically speaking and so the sea level is supposed to rise -- again even while very slowly. See at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1880-2013.png
Given the amount of public relations money behind the mantra that climate change is the cause of all troubles, it is not, and Bangladesh is one of the cases in point, even if climate change alarmists like to make Bangladesh their poster child.
Look, for example, at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/embankments-exacerbate-sea-level-rise-in-bangladesh/ and
http://bangladeshunique.blogspot.com/2010/07/deforestation-in-bangladesh.html and
http://blog.cifor.org/9434/bangladesh-forests-disappearing-at-alarming-rate-says-expert?fnl=en and
http://bankofinfo.com/population-growth-in-bangladesh/
http://www.muhammadyunus.org/index.php/news-media/articles-by-professor-yunus/219-the-problem-of-poverty-in-bangladesh
Posted in: The Role of the Government as Taught by the Bible
Larry: So exactly what to you mean when you say "take care of the poor?" My response clearly indicated that government had an obligation to provide a "safety net" but I'm not sure -- and said so in my comment to your post -- that qualifies as "providing for the poor," as you understand that phrase.
So let's clarify what we might be agreeing or disagreeing about. What do you mean when you say that "government should take care of the poor?"
Posted in: Live Justly for Lent: Welcoming Returning Citizens
I would enthusiastically agree that both churches and individuals do well in providing help to past or present incarcerated persons and their families. There are few areas of concern where the need is greater and potential impact more profitable.
But I do cringe at how this article frames what is discussed as strictly a matter of "justice." Indeed, neither the lead-in verse and sentence -- nor any other part of the post -- makes mention of "mercy." A better lead-in verse would be Micah 6:8, which commands us to both "do justice" and "love mercy."
As an attorney, I have been involved in questions of justice in behalf of inmates and ex-inmates. But we do well to clearly understand that we are obliged to extend mercy even when there is no question about justice. Most of those we should help out are in fact not "oppressed" persons we must "[let] free," as this articles states. Some should remain incarcerated inmates. Still, we do well to serve them, while incarcerated, and their family members waiting for their release -- because of our "love of mercy."
Posted in: Excellence vs. Community?
I think part of the answer is expecting from all who would participate in the service a (speaking, singing, playing whatever) recognition that their participation isn't only about giving them a chance to do their thing in front of the congregation. If everyone that the point of serving is serving, the problem really disappears.
Not all will have that maturity of course. Which means another one of your jobs is to teach that, both as a preliminary to anyone who wants to participate (serve) and in an ongoing way. Another job may be to find opportunities for all to serve, even if they ultimately can't serve in the way they first wanted.
Posted in: Freedom of Expression
What an insightful article. Indeed, political questions can and usually are far more complex than meets an individual's eye. And Christians, even CRCers, rarely agree with each other about the correct answers to almost all political questions.
Synods, the CRCNA and CRCNA Agencies might take this article to heart when tempted to declare and publicly advocate/lobby about political conclusions obvious to them.
Posted in: Preparing for Summer and Synod
I think prayer for the single goal of unity is incomplete. Unity alone, which as a practical matter sometimes means compromise to the extent required to achieve unity, even if faux, is not what God requires of us.
No, I not suggesting compromise can't be good. See Acts 15 for that. But compromise can be bad even if it is not always bad. No, it's not easy to discern which is which, but still I think prayers for unity must always be accompanied by equal petitions for faithfulness, lest whatever the process prayed for start with the false premise that only unity matters in an institutional church's deliberations.
Certainly, seeking unity is part of being faithful, but only "seeking" and only "part." Sometimes, I think we believe that institutional unity is required, for ourselves at least, to be one holy catholic church, as if Paul and Barnabas were no longer brothers in Christ because they disagreed to the point of separating in one of their trips and taking different companions. Wasn't the case then and still isn't now.
I would go so far as to say that institutional separation, done well, is sometime necessary to organic unity. But if we only pray for unity, we can't get to that truth, and separation is much less likely to be "done well."
Posted in: Is the Republican Option Still Viable for Christians?
Sorry Gerrit but I think you are way off-base in your perspective about the Trump phenomena. First, Republicans were opposing Trump when you say they weren't, although of course it became more as time passed, but that's nothing more than normal -- and responsible -- human behavior. You don't make a big fuss about something that will slide away on its own. It was reasonable to believe that Trump would gain no traction at all and fall to the wayside early. Indeed, it was unreasonable to think otherwise.
Yes, the Republican campaign has been beyond abhorrent but also beyond precedent. But all of it -- all of it -- has to do with one candidate who could as well have run as a Democrat, whose history strongly suggests he has no political party affiliation -- or political theory perspective -- of any kind.
Your response suggests you are a bit of a victim of what you what the denomination to rant against, that is, partisanship (noting your reference to "opinionators from one end of the spectrum and one cable 'news' channel"). If you want to "prevent the prevailing ethic of obstructionism, anger, and demonizing the opposition ...," you could start by not demonizing Republicans -- or Fox News for that matter -- as you do here. The brushes you are using are far too broad (aka "partisan").