One of the practical results of the "religious freedom" clause of the US First Amendment (to the Constitution) is that churches don't have to file forms 990. CRWRC must, I expect, because it is not a church. It is a separate, public benefit/charitable corporation (thus, 501c3 qualified/recognized), but not a church.
Which means, among other things, that Guidestar will never have these figures for the CRCNA (including its agencies), nor for any other church for that matters. Such figures would only be published if the CRCNA decided to publish them.
As a matter of policy, I think most local churches make all expense information (including salaries of pastors and others) openly available to members. I would think doing the same at the denominational level (to CRC Members) would be the wiser path to follow. Transparency is almost always a good thing for non-profits (churches included).
I've spent the last several weeks looking at pretty much every page on the CRC website (including OSJ and such, and the Network), reading past Synodical reports, past Banners, and reviewing websites of WCRC (World Communion of Reformed Churches) and related organizations. (The recent Banner editorial, "Why Play Favorites" jolted me).
It has become clear to me that the point of the Belhar, at least for those larger powers-that-be who are pushing it, is to become a more genuine partner in the WCRC crowd. Almost a initiation right of sorts. "Yes, we really are like you -- see, we adopted the Belhar as one of our confessions, just as you required."
I've been out of touch with my denomination (busy in life), which is perhaps why I haven't seen this, but for those of you who have kept in touch, isn't this really obvious? I suspect 90% of any group of reasonably perceptive people who previously knew nothing of the CRC would view it that way if they reviewed what I have in the last few weeks.
And what does the WCRC represent? Essentially, a "global church alliance" that is about 70-80% politically focused, 20-30% church focused (at least church as insitution, as understood by Kuyperian sphere sovereignty thinkers). Moreover, WCRC is predominantly non-North American, concerned predominantly with non-North American issues and themes. WCRC is pretty much a redecorated throwback to Liberation Theology, using the newer label of Social Justice. It tends to be quite-left-of-center if mapped by generally understood American political labels, and, like most left-of-center American politicos, is by default distrusting of anything that smacks of "traditional American values."
This current Zeitgeist loves the UN, globalism, green, simple living, talking about racism and oppression, Obama, having solidarity, the IPCC, fair trade, immigrants (to the US only, preferably Hispanic, especially illegal ones), rights, social justice, economic justice, fuzzy communication (mantras and words that could be interpreted so many ways, ala Belhar), homosexuality, fighting AIDS above all other diseases, being non-judgmental (except about being judgmental and refusing to do justice), communal lamenting, and respecting all living creatures including worms (see latest Creation Stewardship Task Force Report, just released), and maybe objects like rocks and dirt too.
In the opposite direction, this Zeitgeist has no use for American ________ (pretty much anything can be put in the blank), the thought of anyone making more than $80,000 (although most of them actually do), jobs (except when in the phrase "jobs for the poor"), Wall Street, Walmart, small business, big business, GNP, talk of mercy (there is no mercy, only justice), talk of self-sufficiency, balancing budgets, Republicans, any expression of economic theory (eg., "supply and demand"), Ronald Reagan, the US Constitution (except for some parts of the first amendment, the fourth, and some other provisions, certainly not the second or tenth amendments), the phrase "securing the border," CO2 emissions from anything or anybody (except from going to lots of global conferences), industry, business.
I'm convinced that were it not for the WCRC (including the prior entities that folded into the WCRC), hardly anyone in the CRC would even know the word "Belhar." No, some would say that's why its a good thing we are in the WCRC. Maybe so (well, I don't think so but). Still, it should be recognized that if the CRC completes the move this direction (and the Belhar is just a small part of it -- being driven from above by the WCRC, not from below), it will completely transform what the CRC is. Some say we already are there. Well, maybe, at least at the "top end" of the denomination, but I convinced the bottom end is not there at all. Most don't know much about any of this (I was that) and if they did, would be, well absolutely bewildered about where their church went (actually, I'm kind of there right now).
And some will say this is all a good thing. Not me. I've seen this story before.
But don't misunderstand. I think the CRC has always had "political righties" and "political lefties" (and some other places -- I'm a bit of a mix, though mostly right). That isn't the change here. The change is the denomination choosing sides for its members, essentially on political issues, to appease its global partners (masters?). Just as the Banner editorial ("Why Play Favorites") announced the Banner's departure not picking sides on the political issue of climate change, so the Belhar, if passed, will announce a right of passage toward becoming a more trusted part of a global political train, willing to acquiesce in what the engineer of that train says.
By the way, the Accra Confession is now being pushed by WCRC. Like Belhar except bolder, less ambiguous, more explicity political, even less theological. In a way, we've already adopted that by being part of WARC (which folded into WCRC).
I really wonder whether those pushing this know where they're driving. I'm sure some do, but I can't imagine we've really changed this much, whether we've really decide to be that much less a church and that much more a political player.
I do like the idea of disbursing the denominational offices. It may not be as "efficient" in some ways, but it seems to me that not enough people have resisted to the urge to centralize power just because they can. A healthy respect for Kuyperian spheres would accomplish some of the same benefits as would disbursing the denomination offices, but my observation is that the sense of those institutional boundaries no longer exist much in Western Michigan.
Hence, if you are in NW Iowa, you support church (as a separate institution) and college (Dordt, as a separate institution), and political advocacy (as a separate institution--Center for Public Justice came from NW Iowa). But not in Western Michigan, where Calvin College and the denomination, and OSJ, etc. are becoming an authority monolith, which is, really, moving to a model much more resembling the Roman Catholic tradition (what the church says goes in any sphere and they may always be the political proxy for their members).
What is particularly interesting is this: the Roman Catholics has been, as a practical matter though perhaps not officially, decentralizing (giving more regard to sphere sovereignty) in recent decades, while the CRC is moving in the opposite direction. John Kennedy's election as President might be seen to have started that shift in the American RC community, but there have been lots of other signs as well. It used to be that Catholics were Democrats because they were "social justice" advocates (again, switching going on between RC and CRC). Increasingly, American Catholics are deciding "social justice" often hurts people more than helps (eg., Lyndon Johnson's Great Society initiatives), and so they are becoming Republicans, wanting to do mercy privately, not via government. I've lived, worked, and coached with a lot of Catholics in my area. None of them are "social justice" types. Understand that when I say "social justice," I mean a perspective that demands government right all wrongs, and for people to right wrong by advocating for government action that does it. It also means there is no more talk of mercy, but only of rights and justice. Catholics still tend to be very "merciful" (personally charitable, giving) but not so much anymore demanding that goverment do their charity work.
A very striking example of the RC shift is found on the US Supreme Court. Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are all RC, the last four very conservative (de-centristic) and the first pretty much so. Arguably, none of them fit into the "social justice" mold, even though the RC's were the "religious" pillar within the "social justice" crowd just decades ago.
Hopefully to clarify my question(s), below is a quote (from Wikipedia) of a Polish fellow:
Janusz Korwin-Mikke argues simply: "Either 'social justice' has the same meaning as 'justice' - or not. If so – why use the additional word 'social?' We lose time, we destroy trees to obtain paper necessary to print this word. If not, if 'social justice' means something different from 'justice' - then 'something different from justice' is by definition 'injustice'"
I guess my perplexion is the same as Mr. Korwin-Mikke's.
I don't think this is just quibbling about words. Micah 6:8 distinguishes between Justice and Mercy, saying "Do Justice" but "Love Mercy." If we put "justice" content into "mercy," that redefines "mercy" so that Micah 6:8 becomes "Do Justice" and "Do Mercy." If "social justice" is intended to define mere inequality (of whatever) as "injustice," as opposed to an opportunity to "love doing mercy," we've really changed Micah 6:8 and what I understand the Reformed worldview to be.
Eric: When you say "In this, then, "Do justice, love mercy" reflect a parallelism common to Hebrew, for to act in accordance with the law of God is to be merciful," are you suggesting the reference to "justice" and "mercy" are references to the same concept but with different words (that mean the same thing), or otherwise.
I've always considered the two phrases ("do justice" and "love mercy") to refer to two different commands: (1) we must do justice; (2) we must love mercy, with a much greater degree of subtlety in the latter.
And this coordinates well with Leviticus 19:15, which says (NIV), "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly." Justice is justice, and should be shown equally to poor and rich alike. On the other hand, given other scripture, it would seem clear that the poor are to be (for obvious reasons) the recipients of mercy, and the not-poor (which doesn't necessarily mean rich) the providers of mercy.
What is particularly damaging about that which its proponents call "Social Justice" is it rejects (or at least ignores) the the idea of mercy, and replaces it with a rights-based justice. Thus, those who receive mercy ought not respond with "thank you" but rather, "its about time you do me justice, you oppresive rich person who unfairly gained wealth from the worship of the idol god Mammon, also known as 'market economics'."
I say this is damaging because it destroys biblical unity, replacing it with "class animosity." The other damage it does it substitutes action of the government (the power of the sword is required to take from "the rich" and give to "the poor") for reliance upon biblical unity and love, which is voluntary.
Bev: When you say/ask "and I wonder if 'social justice' aka 'rights based justice' (is that a fair equation?)...", my response is yes, that absolutely is a fair equation, and is at the core of my objection to it.
"Social Justice" movement thinkers do indeed get rid of talk of mercy. I suspect they consider it demeaning to the receivers of mercy to characterize what they receive as mercy. Sort of like "I don't want your pity or your charity!" but "you will give me what my justice rights demand!"
And yes, I think the current zeitgeist of "Social Justice" (which is really a successor to Liberation Theology, the political orientation of which is neo-Marxist) is, as you say, "part of the reason 'entitlement' seems to be so rampant."
If you read the Bylaws of the CRCNA (last updated January 28, 1995), you will find as one of its statements of purpose for the CRCNA to be "to extent mercy ...". More significantly, you will NOT find even one occurence of the word "justice." Flash forward to the present and check out the website of the WCRC (World Communion of Reformed Churches), the ecumenical organization the CRCNA belongs to. If you do a word search there for the word "mercy," you'll get no hits (zero), but if you do a word search for the word "justice," you get 11 pages of hits (that's pages, not just 11 hits). Indeed, in one of the "section reports" of the WCRC (you can find it at their website) the "section" participants recommend to the greater WCRC body that it:
"Affirm[] the centrality of the Accra Confession to the life of WCRC and so name[] covenanting for justice in the economy and the earth as WCRC’s number one priority ...". The Accra Confession (adopted confession of the WCRC) reads largely like a political manifesto. Probably the most often used word in it is "justice" (or "injustice), and again, there are zero (0) references to mercy. It is a clear and unapologetic call to action that is predominantly political.
So the number one priority of WCRC (our ecumenical organization) is "justice" and no mention is even made of "mercy." This is a pretty big shift from our CRCNA 1995 Bylaws. What a difference 16 years can make, eh?
I think another reason "Social Justice" advocates like to talk about only "justice" and never "mercy" is because "justice" is associated with government action, and "mercy" with personal action. The net effect of the vocabulary shift here is profound. The best and most appropriate way to do justice to the poor is by lobbying the government to do it, instead of doing it ourselves. And indeed, the WCRC's activity (read the Accra Confession and spend some quality time with the WCRC website at wcrc.ch) is largely political, and aimed at government/political restructuring, and the CRCNA's activity is increasingly moving in that direction as well.
I would add to John's comments the text of Leviticus 19:15, which is:
"Do not pervert justice;
do not show partiality to the poor
or favoritism to the great,
but judge your neighbor fairly."
Certainly, justice and mercy must be two different things, and not merely synonyms, for in Leviticus, God declares is it a perversion of justice to show partiality to the poor. That would not be the case for mercy, particularly (but not limited to) economic mercy. Given that, why would we want to rid our language of the word "mercy" when advocating for the poor?
This is why I regard the Belhar Confession (as the Accra) as very mistaken when it says, "that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged".
To answer the question, "Are the Office of Social Justice, the Synod of the CRC, and other official organs of the CRCNA - whether intentionally or not - attempting to define Christianity in a way that excludes conservative political and economic views," yes of course, but that simple answer demands explanation.
The CRC has been and is a member of WARC (World Alliance of Reformed Churches), which together with REC (Reformed Ecumenical Council) has now become WCRC (World Communion of Reformed Churches).
WCRC, and previously, WARC, have adopted the Accra Confession. CRC representatives have spoken favorably about the CRC (as reported by CRC News Releases).
In turn, the Accra Confession condemns what it calls "neo-liberal economics." If you review the Accra Confession (get it from http://www.warc.ch/documents/ACCRA_Pamphlet.pdf), you will find that by that reference, the Accra intends to condemn what we all know better as "market driven economics," or "free market economics." "Market driven economics" is a necessary corollary of what we know as "political freedom." You cannot, by definition, have political freedom without having economic freedom.
The United States was, historically speaking, a grand experiment in human history, one rooted in the historic Protestant Reformation, the result of which was more political/economic freedom than the world has ever seen. This was called "liberalism" back in the day (today it's called "conservatism"). John Locke, Adam Smith -- those sorts of guys -- advocated this new freedom, and those ideas were picked up and implemented by the American "founding fathers" in our constituion and other structures. What was the net result of this "liberalism"? The most politically free and economically prosperous nation human history has ever witnessed. Which is why today's conservatives bemoan the reduction of market freedom and the increasing role of the goverment in all things economic.
Those who hold to the Accra Confession, including WCRC, the ecumenical organization the CRC belongs to, call this sort of freedom, literally, the "worship of Mammon." The Accra is pretty classic "Liberation Theology." Whether we are willing to recognize it or not, all the "social justice" talk we engage is more than just a fashionable phrase. It has deep roots in the political/economic perspective embraced by the Accra Confession. Indeed, the Accra is really much more of a political/economic document than a "confession" as we have ever defined "confession."
So yes, there is a very strong drive in the CRCNA to adopt a political/economic view that, by sheer definition, excludes those persons who in the US today are known as "conservatives." Indeed, its not just a drive, it is already an actuality. The question is whether or not the move in that direction will continue or reverse. I for one would like to see the CRC stay out of political/econonomics. Doing otherwise will, by definition, divide the CRCNA because it does exclude today's "conservatives." In all of this, we have forgotten the boundaries articulated by "Kuyperian Social Sphere Sovereignty," which really was a close cousin to to the political/economic theory that launched that grand experiement known as the United States of America.
Kris: It would seem that the b-ver post you replie to is no longer here, but I suspect b-ver was suggesting pastors/churches should not take political positions.
If I'm accurate about that, I would agree with what b-ver indicated, and I can understand why you would ask whether preacher would then be able to make applications in their sermons.
Sure they can, but there would be lines. Indeed, I would suggest I've seen my pastors over the years do a pretty good job of drawing those lines and staying on the appropriate side.
So, for example, if it comes to abortion, the pastor would be appropriate to lament and condemn the taking of innocent life that abortion represents. But if there was pending legislation on the matter, the sermon should not take a position on that. Certainly, it will seem obvious to everyone in the room, at least in some cases, what position the pastor might take, but people would be surprised how complex legislation can get, even when it seems simple. I'm on the "practicing law" side of legislation and I can't tell you how often I shake my head, thinking that the language of this or that statute was passed by the enthusiasm of folks who had a great hearts but really didn't know as much as was required to competently evaluate actual legislation.
Abortion presents a relatively simple application. I would suggest "Social Justice" becomes much more complicated, but a similar analysis would still be appropriate. Pastors may (and should ) admonish congregants to 'do justice, have mercy and walk humbly with God' (my favorite verse for over 30 years, BTW). But if the pastor starts to favor or disfavor certain broadly described political/economic systems (eg., "free market" versus more "government regulated"), or specific legislation that has regulatory effect, he/she is really out on a competency limb, and is clearly wandering outside the traditional Kuyperian sphere of the church.
Yes of course, there are fine lines here, sometimes hard to see precisely, but there are lines, and the CRC historical tradition is pretty rich in providing wisdom in defining those lines. Ignoring those lines tends toward a Roman Catholic model, which historically created no such boundaries.
Would anyone be willing to offer a definition of "social justice?" In order words, what is that as opposed to "justice?" Or approaching it from the other side, what within the definition of "justice" is other than "social justice?"
This is a fashionable phrase these days but I frankly don't have working definition for it. I honestly don't understand exactly what someone means when they say "social justice".
I've searched our (CRCNA) OSJ site and can't find a definition for "social justice," although I can find lots of language about "what they kind of do," but even then, the language can be really vague (eg., . That which is not so ambiguous largely sounds like "mercy" to me, as opposed to "justice," let alone "social justice." And there was an example that involved justice, but I'd just call it "justice." (Understand I've practiced law for 32 years. I'm not unaquainted with "justice.")
I do find this language:
"When we talk about social justice, we mean God's original intention for human society: a world where basic needs are met, people flourish, and peace (shalom) reigns. God calls us, the church, to participate in the renewal of society so that all--especially the weak and vulnerable--can enjoy God's good gifts."
but the above language really covers pretty much everything in life, whether justice, mercy or anything else, and even the words don't really make sense (as in, "social justice" is said to mean "God's original intention for human society"?????).
I get a better explanation from Wikipedia I think. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice. But Wikipedia offers a variety of definitions/perspectives from a variety of historical movements that used the phrase. So I'm still left wondering what the CRCNA means by "social justice?" I see a subsection of "Restorative Justice" on the OSJ website and I think that is pretty reasonably defined. See: http://www.crcna.org/pages/osj_restorativejustice.cfm. It says:
"Restorative Justice is a biblically based view of criminal justice that attempts to engage victims, offenders and the affected communities in bringing about deep and lasting solutions by focusing on restitution, restoration, healing, and the future. At its core, it's about relationships."
I do think it important that before the denomination sets off on a supposed concrete project like "doing social justice," it articulate a better (more narrow and meaningful) definition than "When we talk about social justice, we mean God's original intention for human society ...".
Can anyone who has had involvment with CRCNA OSJ activities help out on this? Is there amore narrow definition for the key two-word phrase that makes up the meaningful part of OSJ's name than "God's intention for human society"\?
Amen to this post. I'm perhaps more at odds with the report's conclusions on the science (this is a topic I've been following for quite some years), but the more important question is whether it is appropriate for the CRC denomination -- church as institution -- to express conclusions for its members where this report, if adopted, does. This post does a great job of separating between what is and is not appropriate in that regard.
Posted in: Accountability and Clarity in Salary Grid
One of the practical results of the "religious freedom" clause of the US First Amendment (to the Constitution) is that churches don't have to file forms 990. CRWRC must, I expect, because it is not a church. It is a separate, public benefit/charitable corporation (thus, 501c3 qualified/recognized), but not a church.
Which means, among other things, that Guidestar will never have these figures for the CRCNA (including its agencies), nor for any other church for that matters. Such figures would only be published if the CRCNA decided to publish them.
As a matter of policy, I think most local churches make all expense information (including salaries of pastors and others) openly available to members. I would think doing the same at the denominational level (to CRC Members) would be the wiser path to follow. Transparency is almost always a good thing for non-profits (churches included).
Posted in: Affirm the Belhar? Yes, but Not as a Doctrinal Standard
I've spent the last several weeks looking at pretty much every page on the CRC website (including OSJ and such, and the Network), reading past Synodical reports, past Banners, and reviewing websites of WCRC (World Communion of Reformed Churches) and related organizations. (The recent Banner editorial, "Why Play Favorites" jolted me).
It has become clear to me that the point of the Belhar, at least for those larger powers-that-be who are pushing it, is to become a more genuine partner in the WCRC crowd. Almost a initiation right of sorts. "Yes, we really are like you -- see, we adopted the Belhar as one of our confessions, just as you required."
I've been out of touch with my denomination (busy in life), which is perhaps why I haven't seen this, but for those of you who have kept in touch, isn't this really obvious? I suspect 90% of any group of reasonably perceptive people who previously knew nothing of the CRC would view it that way if they reviewed what I have in the last few weeks.
And what does the WCRC represent? Essentially, a "global church alliance" that is about 70-80% politically focused, 20-30% church focused (at least church as insitution, as understood by Kuyperian sphere sovereignty thinkers). Moreover, WCRC is predominantly non-North American, concerned predominantly with non-North American issues and themes. WCRC is pretty much a redecorated throwback to Liberation Theology, using the newer label of Social Justice. It tends to be quite-left-of-center if mapped by generally understood American political labels, and, like most left-of-center American politicos, is by default distrusting of anything that smacks of "traditional American values."
This current Zeitgeist loves the UN, globalism, green, simple living, talking about racism and oppression, Obama, having solidarity, the IPCC, fair trade, immigrants (to the US only, preferably Hispanic, especially illegal ones), rights, social justice, economic justice, fuzzy communication (mantras and words that could be interpreted so many ways, ala Belhar), homosexuality, fighting AIDS above all other diseases, being non-judgmental (except about being judgmental and refusing to do justice), communal lamenting, and respecting all living creatures including worms (see latest Creation Stewardship Task Force Report, just released), and maybe objects like rocks and dirt too.
In the opposite direction, this Zeitgeist has no use for American ________ (pretty much anything can be put in the blank), the thought of anyone making more than $80,000 (although most of them actually do), jobs (except when in the phrase "jobs for the poor"), Wall Street, Walmart, small business, big business, GNP, talk of mercy (there is no mercy, only justice), talk of self-sufficiency, balancing budgets, Republicans, any expression of economic theory (eg., "supply and demand"), Ronald Reagan, the US Constitution (except for some parts of the first amendment, the fourth, and some other provisions, certainly not the second or tenth amendments), the phrase "securing the border," CO2 emissions from anything or anybody (except from going to lots of global conferences), industry, business.
I'm convinced that were it not for the WCRC (including the prior entities that folded into the WCRC), hardly anyone in the CRC would even know the word "Belhar." No, some would say that's why its a good thing we are in the WCRC. Maybe so (well, I don't think so but). Still, it should be recognized that if the CRC completes the move this direction (and the Belhar is just a small part of it -- being driven from above by the WCRC, not from below), it will completely transform what the CRC is. Some say we already are there. Well, maybe, at least at the "top end" of the denomination, but I convinced the bottom end is not there at all. Most don't know much about any of this (I was that) and if they did, would be, well absolutely bewildered about where their church went (actually, I'm kind of there right now).
And some will say this is all a good thing. Not me. I've seen this story before.
But don't misunderstand. I think the CRC has always had "political righties" and "political lefties" (and some other places -- I'm a bit of a mix, though mostly right). That isn't the change here. The change is the denomination choosing sides for its members, essentially on political issues, to appease its global partners (masters?). Just as the Banner editorial ("Why Play Favorites") announced the Banner's departure not picking sides on the political issue of climate change, so the Belhar, if passed, will announce a right of passage toward becoming a more trusted part of a global political train, willing to acquiesce in what the engineer of that train says.
By the way, the Accra Confession is now being pushed by WCRC. Like Belhar except bolder, less ambiguous, more explicity political, even less theological. In a way, we've already adopted that by being part of WARC (which folded into WCRC).
I really wonder whether those pushing this know where they're driving. I'm sure some do, but I can't imagine we've really changed this much, whether we've really decide to be that much less a church and that much more a political player.
I pray we haven't.
Posted in: Affirm the Belhar? Yes, but Not as a Doctrinal Standard
@ b-ver
I do like the idea of disbursing the denominational offices. It may not be as "efficient" in some ways, but it seems to me that not enough people have resisted to the urge to centralize power just because they can. A healthy respect for Kuyperian spheres would accomplish some of the same benefits as would disbursing the denomination offices, but my observation is that the sense of those institutional boundaries no longer exist much in Western Michigan.
Hence, if you are in NW Iowa, you support church (as a separate institution) and college (Dordt, as a separate institution), and political advocacy (as a separate institution--Center for Public Justice came from NW Iowa). But not in Western Michigan, where Calvin College and the denomination, and OSJ, etc. are becoming an authority monolith, which is, really, moving to a model much more resembling the Roman Catholic tradition (what the church says goes in any sphere and they may always be the political proxy for their members).
What is particularly interesting is this: the Roman Catholics has been, as a practical matter though perhaps not officially, decentralizing (giving more regard to sphere sovereignty) in recent decades, while the CRC is moving in the opposite direction. John Kennedy's election as President might be seen to have started that shift in the American RC community, but there have been lots of other signs as well. It used to be that Catholics were Democrats because they were "social justice" advocates (again, switching going on between RC and CRC). Increasingly, American Catholics are deciding "social justice" often hurts people more than helps (eg., Lyndon Johnson's Great Society initiatives), and so they are becoming Republicans, wanting to do mercy privately, not via government. I've lived, worked, and coached with a lot of Catholics in my area. None of them are "social justice" types. Understand that when I say "social justice," I mean a perspective that demands government right all wrongs, and for people to right wrong by advocating for government action that does it. It also means there is no more talk of mercy, but only of rights and justice. Catholics still tend to be very "merciful" (personally charitable, giving) but not so much anymore demanding that goverment do their charity work.
A very striking example of the RC shift is found on the US Supreme Court. Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are all RC, the last four very conservative (de-centristic) and the first pretty much so. Arguably, none of them fit into the "social justice" mold, even though the RC's were the "religious" pillar within the "social justice" crowd just decades ago.
Posted in: Political Diversity
Hopefully to clarify my question(s), below is a quote (from Wikipedia) of a Polish fellow:
Janusz Korwin-Mikke argues simply: "Either 'social justice' has the same meaning as 'justice' - or not. If so – why use the additional word 'social?' We lose time, we destroy trees to obtain paper necessary to print this word. If not, if 'social justice' means something different from 'justice' - then 'something different from justice' is by definition 'injustice'"
I guess my perplexion is the same as Mr. Korwin-Mikke's.
I don't think this is just quibbling about words. Micah 6:8 distinguishes between Justice and Mercy, saying "Do Justice" but "Love Mercy." If we put "justice" content into "mercy," that redefines "mercy" so that Micah 6:8 becomes "Do Justice" and "Do Mercy." If "social justice" is intended to define mere inequality (of whatever) as "injustice," as opposed to an opportunity to "love doing mercy," we've really changed Micah 6:8 and what I understand the Reformed worldview to be.
Have we?
Posted in: Political Diversity
Eric: When you say "In this, then, "Do justice, love mercy" reflect a parallelism common to Hebrew, for to act in accordance with the law of God is to be merciful," are you suggesting the reference to "justice" and "mercy" are references to the same concept but with different words (that mean the same thing), or otherwise.
I've always considered the two phrases ("do justice" and "love mercy") to refer to two different commands: (1) we must do justice; (2) we must love mercy, with a much greater degree of subtlety in the latter.
And this coordinates well with Leviticus 19:15, which says (NIV), "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly." Justice is justice, and should be shown equally to poor and rich alike. On the other hand, given other scripture, it would seem clear that the poor are to be (for obvious reasons) the recipients of mercy, and the not-poor (which doesn't necessarily mean rich) the providers of mercy.
What is particularly damaging about that which its proponents call "Social Justice" is it rejects (or at least ignores) the the idea of mercy, and replaces it with a rights-based justice. Thus, those who receive mercy ought not respond with "thank you" but rather, "its about time you do me justice, you oppresive rich person who unfairly gained wealth from the worship of the idol god Mammon, also known as 'market economics'."
I say this is damaging because it destroys biblical unity, replacing it with "class animosity." The other damage it does it substitutes action of the government (the power of the sword is required to take from "the rich" and give to "the poor") for reliance upon biblical unity and love, which is voluntary.
Posted in: Political Diversity
Bev: When you say/ask "and I wonder if 'social justice' aka 'rights based justice' (is that a fair equation?)...", my response is yes, that absolutely is a fair equation, and is at the core of my objection to it.
"Social Justice" movement thinkers do indeed get rid of talk of mercy. I suspect they consider it demeaning to the receivers of mercy to characterize what they receive as mercy. Sort of like "I don't want your pity or your charity!" but "you will give me what my justice rights demand!"
And yes, I think the current zeitgeist of "Social Justice" (which is really a successor to Liberation Theology, the political orientation of which is neo-Marxist) is, as you say, "part of the reason 'entitlement' seems to be so rampant."
If you read the Bylaws of the CRCNA (last updated January 28, 1995), you will find as one of its statements of purpose for the CRCNA to be "to extent mercy ...". More significantly, you will NOT find even one occurence of the word "justice." Flash forward to the present and check out the website of the WCRC (World Communion of Reformed Churches), the ecumenical organization the CRCNA belongs to. If you do a word search there for the word "mercy," you'll get no hits (zero), but if you do a word search for the word "justice," you get 11 pages of hits (that's pages, not just 11 hits). Indeed, in one of the "section reports" of the WCRC (you can find it at their website) the "section" participants recommend to the greater WCRC body that it:
"Affirm[] the centrality of the Accra Confession to the life of WCRC and so name[] covenanting for justice in the economy and the earth as WCRC’s number one priority ...". The Accra Confession (adopted confession of the WCRC) reads largely like a political manifesto. Probably the most often used word in it is "justice" (or "injustice), and again, there are zero (0) references to mercy. It is a clear and unapologetic call to action that is predominantly political.
So the number one priority of WCRC (our ecumenical organization) is "justice" and no mention is even made of "mercy." This is a pretty big shift from our CRCNA 1995 Bylaws. What a difference 16 years can make, eh?
I think another reason "Social Justice" advocates like to talk about only "justice" and never "mercy" is because "justice" is associated with government action, and "mercy" with personal action. The net effect of the vocabulary shift here is profound. The best and most appropriate way to do justice to the poor is by lobbying the government to do it, instead of doing it ourselves. And indeed, the WCRC's activity (read the Accra Confession and spend some quality time with the WCRC website at wcrc.ch) is largely political, and aimed at government/political restructuring, and the CRCNA's activity is increasingly moving in that direction as well.
Posted in: Political Diversity
I would add to John's comments the text of Leviticus 19:15, which is:
"Do not pervert justice;
do not show partiality to the poor
or favoritism to the great,
but judge your neighbor fairly."
Certainly, justice and mercy must be two different things, and not merely synonyms, for in Leviticus, God declares is it a perversion of justice to show partiality to the poor. That would not be the case for mercy, particularly (but not limited to) economic mercy. Given that, why would we want to rid our language of the word "mercy" when advocating for the poor?
This is why I regard the Belhar Confession (as the Accra) as very mistaken when it says, "that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged".
Posted in: Political Diversity
To answer the question, "Are the Office of Social Justice, the Synod of the CRC, and other official organs of the CRCNA - whether intentionally or not - attempting to define Christianity in a way that excludes conservative political and economic views," yes of course, but that simple answer demands explanation.
The CRC has been and is a member of WARC (World Alliance of Reformed Churches), which together with REC (Reformed Ecumenical Council) has now become WCRC (World Communion of Reformed Churches).
WCRC, and previously, WARC, have adopted the Accra Confession. CRC representatives have spoken favorably about the CRC (as reported by CRC News Releases).
In turn, the Accra Confession condemns what it calls "neo-liberal economics." If you review the Accra Confession (get it from http://www.warc.ch/documents/ACCRA_Pamphlet.pdf), you will find that by that reference, the Accra intends to condemn what we all know better as "market driven economics," or "free market economics." "Market driven economics" is a necessary corollary of what we know as "political freedom." You cannot, by definition, have political freedom without having economic freedom.
The United States was, historically speaking, a grand experiment in human history, one rooted in the historic Protestant Reformation, the result of which was more political/economic freedom than the world has ever seen. This was called "liberalism" back in the day (today it's called "conservatism"). John Locke, Adam Smith -- those sorts of guys -- advocated this new freedom, and those ideas were picked up and implemented by the American "founding fathers" in our constituion and other structures. What was the net result of this "liberalism"? The most politically free and economically prosperous nation human history has ever witnessed. Which is why today's conservatives bemoan the reduction of market freedom and the increasing role of the goverment in all things economic.
Those who hold to the Accra Confession, including WCRC, the ecumenical organization the CRC belongs to, call this sort of freedom, literally, the "worship of Mammon." The Accra is pretty classic "Liberation Theology." Whether we are willing to recognize it or not, all the "social justice" talk we engage is more than just a fashionable phrase. It has deep roots in the political/economic perspective embraced by the Accra Confession. Indeed, the Accra is really much more of a political/economic document than a "confession" as we have ever defined "confession."
So yes, there is a very strong drive in the CRCNA to adopt a political/economic view that, by sheer definition, excludes those persons who in the US today are known as "conservatives." Indeed, its not just a drive, it is already an actuality. The question is whether or not the move in that direction will continue or reverse. I for one would like to see the CRC stay out of political/econonomics. Doing otherwise will, by definition, divide the CRCNA because it does exclude today's "conservatives." In all of this, we have forgotten the boundaries articulated by "Kuyperian Social Sphere Sovereignty," which really was a close cousin to to the political/economic theory that launched that grand experiement known as the United States of America.
Posted in: Political Diversity
Kris: It would seem that the b-ver post you replie to is no longer here, but I suspect b-ver was suggesting pastors/churches should not take political positions.
If I'm accurate about that, I would agree with what b-ver indicated, and I can understand why you would ask whether preacher would then be able to make applications in their sermons.
Sure they can, but there would be lines. Indeed, I would suggest I've seen my pastors over the years do a pretty good job of drawing those lines and staying on the appropriate side.
So, for example, if it comes to abortion, the pastor would be appropriate to lament and condemn the taking of innocent life that abortion represents. But if there was pending legislation on the matter, the sermon should not take a position on that. Certainly, it will seem obvious to everyone in the room, at least in some cases, what position the pastor might take, but people would be surprised how complex legislation can get, even when it seems simple. I'm on the "practicing law" side of legislation and I can't tell you how often I shake my head, thinking that the language of this or that statute was passed by the enthusiasm of folks who had a great hearts but really didn't know as much as was required to competently evaluate actual legislation.
Abortion presents a relatively simple application. I would suggest "Social Justice" becomes much more complicated, but a similar analysis would still be appropriate. Pastors may (and should ) admonish congregants to 'do justice, have mercy and walk humbly with God' (my favorite verse for over 30 years, BTW). But if the pastor starts to favor or disfavor certain broadly described political/economic systems (eg., "free market" versus more "government regulated"), or specific legislation that has regulatory effect, he/she is really out on a competency limb, and is clearly wandering outside the traditional Kuyperian sphere of the church.
Yes of course, there are fine lines here, sometimes hard to see precisely, but there are lines, and the CRC historical tradition is pretty rich in providing wisdom in defining those lines. Ignoring those lines tends toward a Roman Catholic model, which historically created no such boundaries.
Posted in: Political Diversity
Would anyone be willing to offer a definition of "social justice?" In order words, what is that as opposed to "justice?" Or approaching it from the other side, what within the definition of "justice" is other than "social justice?"
This is a fashionable phrase these days but I frankly don't have working definition for it. I honestly don't understand exactly what someone means when they say "social justice".
Posted in: Political Diversity
I've searched our (CRCNA) OSJ site and can't find a definition for "social justice," although I can find lots of language about "what they kind of do," but even then, the language can be really vague (eg., . That which is not so ambiguous largely sounds like "mercy" to me, as opposed to "justice," let alone "social justice." And there was an example that involved justice, but I'd just call it "justice." (Understand I've practiced law for 32 years. I'm not unaquainted with "justice.")
I do find this language:
"When we talk about social justice, we mean God's original intention for human society: a world where basic needs are met, people flourish, and peace (shalom) reigns. God calls us, the church, to participate in the renewal of society so that all--especially the weak and vulnerable--can enjoy God's good gifts."
but the above language really covers pretty much everything in life, whether justice, mercy or anything else, and even the words don't really make sense (as in, "social justice" is said to mean "God's original intention for human society"?????).
I get a better explanation from Wikipedia I think. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice. But Wikipedia offers a variety of definitions/perspectives from a variety of historical movements that used the phrase. So I'm still left wondering what the CRCNA means by "social justice?" I see a subsection of "Restorative Justice" on the OSJ website and I think that is pretty reasonably defined. See: http://www.crcna.org/pages/osj_restorativejustice.cfm. It says:
"Restorative Justice is a biblically based view of criminal justice that attempts to engage victims, offenders and the affected communities in bringing about deep and lasting solutions by focusing on restitution, restoration, healing, and the future. At its core, it's about relationships."
I do think it important that before the denomination sets off on a supposed concrete project like "doing social justice," it articulate a better (more narrow and meaningful) definition than "When we talk about social justice, we mean God's original intention for human society ...".
Can anyone who has had involvment with CRCNA OSJ activities help out on this? Is there amore narrow definition for the key two-word phrase that makes up the meaningful part of OSJ's name than "God's intention for human society"\?
Posted in: Creation Stewardship (Climate Change)
Amen to this post. I'm perhaps more at odds with the report's conclusions on the science (this is a topic I've been following for quite some years), but the more important question is whether it is appropriate for the CRC denomination -- church as institution -- to express conclusions for its members where this report, if adopted, does. This post does a great job of separating between what is and is not appropriate in that regard.