Bev: I appreciate your post, and think it is extremely timely, given how much some recent speakers on Synod's floor emphasized that the institutional church must exercise its prophetic responsibilities (and so declare, for example, that a near consensus of scientists believe this and that about climate change).
I'll thus be more than a bit baffled if no one takes this opportunity to explain in this public CRC forum where they would have more than two minutes (time limit on the floor of Synod) to speak their minds.
And yes, I am baiting. :-)
But seriously, if this reason (CRCNA must exercise prophetic responsibility) is going to used to justify CRC statements/actions on non-ecclesiastic matters, some definitional discussion is needed.
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.
There is little in this lead post I can agree with.
Our three confessions are simply not stories, but rather confessions. The Heidelberg Catechism reads like, well, a catechism. If you never read the historical footnotes in the Psalter, you'd have no idea about its historical context. It is a catechism obviously designed to teach theological propositions (one per week even).
The Belgic Confession is also a statement of fundamental confession, not a story. Again, I'd challenge anyone to find a person unfamiliar with the Belgic Confession, have him/her read it, and then have him/her explicate the historical context. Read it yourself. It covers theological topics quite systematically, but it too is simply not a story. Now it could be there was also a story at play when de Bres wrote the Belgic Confession, but he didn't write that story when he wrote the Belgic Confession. He may have written a story in another writing, but it wasn't the BC and we didn't adopt any other of his writings as a confession.
Canons of Dordt. Different than the HC and BC, but again certainly not a story. Rather, it is a set of synodical decisions in response to about certain doctrinal teachings, highly "theoretical" ones at that. Again, it happened within a historical context (nothing human does not happen within a historical context), but that doesn't make it a story. If it does, then everything is a story, and if everything is story, isn't not meaningful to identify anything as a story because that would be a given.
I don't even think the Belhar is as much of a story as it is a political statement. Sure, it goes on and on making flowery worded theological statements that are nothing new, but then its gets to its core point, that being the assertion that God is God in a special way to the poor and oppressed. Not only is that statement unbiblical, it's fundamentally political. Liberation theology, including the regular and black versions (Black liberation theology) use that assertion as a cornerstone. Moreover, if one simply observes the subseqent political statements made by those who "gave us" the "gift" of the Belhar, one can see that directly. The sequel to the Belhar Confession is the Accra Confession, already adopted by those who "gave us" the Belhar. The Accra Confession contains the substantially identical cornerstone assertion that declares God to be a special God to the poor and oppressed, but then it continues on beyond the words of the Belhar to make more clear what that means. It lifts up third world countries and condemns first world countries. It ascribes victim status for third world countries, declaring their problems to arise from "empire" powers in first world countries. It condemns "neo-liberal" political/economic theories--yes those same political/economic theories that find their historical origin in Calvinist thinking set in opposition to Roman Catholic theories--and advocates for political centrism. It condemns allowing capital to play a large role in economic dealings, in very much the same way that neo-Marxism (even Marx himself in Das Kapital) does.
Please understand this is not "slippery slope" argument. That is, I'm not saying adopting the Belhar will lead to the Accra. Rather I'm saying those who have asked us to adopt the Belhar have already adopted the Accra. They are saying "do what we did" and what they have done is adopted the Accra and begun working that out in the political/economic world. If we say "yes" to making the Belhar one of our confessions, we will be saying yes to a political/economic perspective. At least that's how those who "gave us" the Belhar will see it.
Also please understand I do not claim that anyone, including anyone in the CRCNA, shouldn't be able to have whatever political/economic perspective he/she may choose to have. Two people can adopt our three forms of unity, and the CRCNA's perspective on Scripture and come to completely different political/economic views. Neither should be excommunicated. What I am saying is that the CRCNA should not itself, as a church institution, adopt a political/economic statement (which the Belhar is), nor even a "story" as one of its confessional statements. If we begin to divide the CRCNA by adopting specific political/economic perspectives, we will begin the process of morphing from an institutional church to a political association. Certainly, it would still make some noises like that of a church, but then so did the Liberation Theology movement embodied by Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.
Understand too that many churches in North America, including "politically conservative" churches, have been unable to resist the tempation of becoming political, albeit on the other side of the political spectrum. Until perhaps 15 years ago, the CRCNA had largely avoided that temptation--from either side. No more it seems. Our ecumenical organization, the WCRC, is not much more than a political organization, and one aligned with the Belhar and the Accra Confessions.
Adopting "stories" or poltical statements that sound appealing to some may be tempting, even create the appearance of short term gain, but unless the CRCNA remains a church institution, its meaningful role as a highly respected church within the North American community of churches will diminish quickly.
"It seems to me that there are issues with the Canons, the HC, and the BC which we tend to work around. My point is not that we have to get rid of the the original three, but the original three do not deal adequately with some of today's issues."
There is a process for changin the confessions so as to not have to "work around" them, which process was used to produce the current BC Article 36 that you quote (and complain about) in your post before the post quoted above. The CRC Synod changed Article 36 (the RCA kept the original version) in a way that made it less "political" (good) and more biblical (also good). You seem to cite the current CRCNA Article 36 as an example of a problem with the BC, but I'd respectfully suggest, given your critique, you are not reading it fairly (accurately) at all. In fact, I'd suggest BC Article 36 sets forth (though not completely) a principle of "sphere sovereignty," at least as to government, which is quite biblical. You say Article 36 wouldn't go down well with Canadian or American courts. Actually, I think you are wrong on that. At least in the United States (I'm not Canadian), we have a federal first amendment which, as interpreted and reflected in the state constitution of the various states, is pretty compatible with BC Article 36. (Makes sense: a Calvinist worldview dominated political thinking when the constitution was written).
Why should we give up on refining the original three confessions (if needed) and choose instead to adopt a new "confession" (story?) that has many more difficulties? Why should we adopt a blatently unbiblical confessional statement ("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")?
Here's the difference between having confessions that are stories and having confessions that are confessions: if they are stories, it really doesn't make much difference what they say because we only regard them in a way that is largely sentimental; but if they are confessions, it does make a difference what they say because we commit to them as rules for living and as truths to teach to future generations.
I'm not suggesting there is not a role for stories in human life, or even in the church, or even in the institutional church, or even at the denominational level in the institutional church. Nor am I saying there is no room in all those places for sentimentallity. But I am saying, essentially in a Sesame Street kind of way, that 'one of these things is not like the other' and that the denomination ought not adopt a story for a confession, as if they are the same thing. Certainly, as I've suggested before, none of our current current confessions (or creeds for that matter) are stories (although there were stories that could have been and were written and read about the historical context surrounding those confessions/creeds), but the church back then understood that essential but basic Sesame Street truth, and so distinguished between stories and confessions/creeds.
And this is what makes me especially concerned. Are we actually unable to distinguish between confessions and stories? Do we care? Do we no longer wish to be, properly defined, a confessional church? Are we so inflicted with feelings of "white guilt" that we've given up on thinking (as opposed to feeling) about these things? Do we want to only be sentimental? Do we want our 'confessions' to no longer really be confessions?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this John, because I am genuinely perplexed about why the CRCNA, given its history, would even think of going in the direction that adopting the Belhar as a confession takes us.
Henry: Thanks much for the answers. If you would indulge me, I have some follow up questions.
First, what is the CRC's role within WCRC as to WCRC's decision making? For example, when the WCRC adopted the Accra, which I understand it to have done in 2004 (well, WARC actually did but it seems WCRC considers itself to have inherited that), what role did the CRC play in that adoption? Did the CRC have privilege of the floor so as to state its position? Did it cast votes? Something else?
Second, assuming the CRC played/plays some active role in WCRC decisions, how does it practically/logistically do that? Does it send representatives who have voting authority? If it does, how are those representatives selected and how to they cast votes (eg., by decisions made by a group? by using their own judgment?) ?
Third, when you suggest that the "CRC isn't saying anything," but refer to CO Article 50c, I note the language in that Article to precisely say "decisions of ecumenical bodies shall not be binding ...". It could be argued that "not being binding" does not equal "the CRC isn't saying anything." To clarify by analogy, were I a member of the Democratic Party, I could quite legitimately claim that I wasn't bound by any of the platform planks the party may have adopted, but yet, other people could as legitimately say that my party membership does say something about me. So is there some sort of generally understood, non-CO sense for what the CRC is saying when an ecumenical organization of which it is a part adopts a confession? I do realize that question cannot be a precisely answered. Still, it is a meaningful question for members to ask.
I probably agree that the CRCNA, as a church institution, should not play its mission in complete isolation. My concern is that the close I look at the WCRC, the less "reformed" I see, the less "church" I see, and the more "political organization" I see. Still, before coming to too many conclusions, I feel the need to thoroughly fact find. Thus, my questions -- and appreciation for your willingness to provide some answers.
Meghan: Are you (meant as folks from OSJ) intending to actually discuss these issues, or is your post just an advertisment for the OSF initiative you are pitching?
I'd love to discuss these (and other) OSJ issues--constructively--but I am getting the feeling that your seed post wasn't an actual discussion invitation.
Let me know. I don't really want to waste my time "discussing" with myself, but would like an "iron sharpens iron" discussion with OSJ folk and CRC members about this.
First, I'm wondering first how the OSJ develops the statements it develops. Does it just assign someone to write it? Does the BOT write it? Does it subcontract with Sojourners or Center for Public Justice? Or ...? The reason I ask this is because it seems to me that it is difficult at best (acutally impossible) to "represent" all CRCers when producing statements like this. So I think knowing the process is important.
Second, I notice in the statement that there seems to be a presumption that people from other countries have some sort of justice based right to immigrate into the US. Is that a presumption, or not? Put another way, would it be "just" (not discussing wisdom at this point, or even mercy) for the US to simply deny immigration requests to everyone?
In some respects, I think the pamphlet draws from James Bratt's (Calvin professor) book: "Dutch Calvinism in America: A History of an American Subculture."
I think the pamphlet can be very helpful for understanding "who we are," and Bratt's book is too. But, I'm a Dordt College grad with a double major in philosophy and history (and a subsequent Juris Doctor degree). Some newcomers to the CRC would love and benefit from reading this pamphlet (and book) but others would find it little more than upsetting. My wife, livelong CRC member, would probably find both somewhat upsetting. I would not suggest to her that she read either. I'm on the other end of that spectrum (we make a good team).
I understand the "pigeon hole" accusation, but tend to set that aside. Hey, all of theoretical thinking (my Dooyeweerd is coming out) involves "pigeon holing" for the simple reason that human minds need to erect a set of boxes to categorize things as it processes. If we must avoid "pigeon holing," we have to stop writing any kind of historical or descriptive accounts of anything involving society, CRC or otherwise.
I could certainly see using the pamphlet in a new members class, as Paul does, but that's a "supervised" context, which is probably best for some "newbies" who can become a bit unsettled when things aren't as simple as they might like them to be. There is a milk-meat factor to all of this, and sheer personality comes into play as well -- and I say that without any disrespect to anyone. We're all parts of the body, none greater than another.
Megan: Thanks for the answer to the first question. That's helpful. I have read by now pretty much everything on the OSJ web pages, as well as the Synod 2010 report. Please understand that I understand you and other OSJ staff are doing what you are assigned to do. I say that because some of what I may say in my posts here might seem to be taking pokes at you and other staff. I'm not intending that. But I am trying to figure out what political positions the CRC (via OSJ and otherwise) is taking (because in so doing, the denomination is acting as my political proxy and the political proxy of other CRC members).
Which brings me back to the second question I asked. You punted on answering that one. :-)
I do realize my second question is more complicated than my first, but it's not that complicated. In fact, I would argue that the question is a foundational one, such that OSJ can't really start "doing" anything without answering it and a handful of other foundational questions. When I reviewed all the OSJ web pages and linked reports, I found lots and lots of the usual "left of center" lingo but I would be really hard pressed to say there was even one statement that clearly acknowledged the right of any government to limit (even if to the point of eliminating) immigration. Again, the answer to this question is a fundamental point for any immigration discussion. Indeed, some folks will openly and honestly say they believe the US should be borderless, that it has no right to disallow anyone from coming here. What is bit troubling to me is one could make a case, from reading the Synod 2010 report and the OSJ pages and links, that such is also the position of the CRC/OSJ.
So, is it? Does OSJ take the position that the US government should be acknowledged to have a "right" to control (i.e., limit, even if that means eliminate) immigration? Or does OSJ take the position that all people, or even some people, outside the US have a justice based right to immigrate into the US?
Charles: Are you suggesting the US (and other countries) must be borderless in order to obey God's norms for government? That's the essential message I read from what you say but I don't want to put words into your mouth (or keyboard hands).
I'm quite late to this discussion, but the green covered Banner containing the Editorial that essentially "takes sides" on Climate Change was cold water in my face, causing me to take a closer look at all that has developed, denominationally speaking, in the past ten years or so. Woah!
Like Terry Grey, I too am wondering what happened to our concept of "sphere sovereignty?" Certainly, as Noah points out, its a bit arbitrary that we should use this principle to align the jurisdiction of our spheres. He says "why should we choose Kuyper's sphere sovereignty over other and different reformed models?" One answer to that, among others, is that it works well, and other models don't work well.
Mind you, there are other answers too, but breaking down the human task into "spheres" or "jurisdictions" is pretty much the only historical alternative to a "single sphere authority," also known as totalitarianism, dictatorship, centrism, and a bunch of other words.
The middle ages saw a perpetual battle between two spheres (king and pope), but the theory underlying the claim of both was that whoever was in control, they controlled everyone and everything about everyone. It was not until the Reformation, which I started in England long before Luther was born (the Reformation being, essentially, a back-to-reading-the-Bible movement, which did start in England), that the idea of multiple spheres of authority was introduced. Each sphere of authority (juridiction if you will) was NOT to be dominated by a mega-authority like crown or pope. That simple idea was the key.
If Noah wants to look more broadly than just Kuyper, who he perceives as a minor historical figure, I might suggest looking at John Locke, whose opposed the status quo thinking of his time that regarded the crown as an all-powerful heir of Adam. (This idea promoted in Locke's time by Robert Filmer -- see Locke's First Treatise of Govenment). Locke suggested instead (see beginning of Second Treatise) that the crown is not the all powerful heir of Adam, and that the authority of the king must be distinguished from that of a master over slave (business), husband over wife (family), etc. A bit rudimentary, but "sphere sovereignty" none the less, many years before Kuyper was born. And yes, John Locke was a devout Calvinist from a devout Calvinist family.
The real world implementation of Locke's thinking, first in the defining of govermental authority in the United States, and then in quite a number of modern democracies thereafter (England and Canada included), are incredibly strong evidence, proof in the pudding if you will, about how well sphere sovereignty works. Where can you find more political freedom, yet more prosperity, than in those countries who avoided totalitarianism by implementing what we know of as sphere sovereignty?
Exactly why does sphere sovereignty work so good? It has to do with human limitation and competency. An illustrative case in point is this church denomination, right now. A Creation Stewardship Task Force Report is just out, a long report to Synod which mirrors the Banner Editor's position taken on global warming. The global warming question is, practically speaking, as infinitely a complex a set of scienctific, economic, and political questions as has ever existed. So why would it be that a church denomination is comptetent to speak for all of its members as to the answers on all of these questions? Think about the competency issue. One-half of the 188 synodical delegates in 2012 will be pastors. Fine occupation, but this great men and women have no particular education, experience or anything else that makes them qualified to decide for all CRC members what this task force wants those synodical delegates to decide. I could go on about the Hope Equals project (World Missions project examining the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), adopting the UN Millenium Goals, so much of what "social justice" is about, etc. In each of these cases, the denomination acts incompetently because it is acting outside is sphere, which also means it is acting outside its expertise.
So yes, I'm a "sphere sovereignty" fan. For both principle and pragmatic reasons (getting principle right usually results in practical advantage). From my vantage point, the denomination is rather quickly deciding it likes the Roman Catholic model in which the heirarchy of the church speaks for all its members on whatever subject it chooses. I'm a Calvinist, preferring a reformed model for defining the proper tasks for my church. My question is whether enough of those Calvinists remain in the CRC to reverse the trend toward the Roman Catholic model.
I know this. The time is now, not tomorrow. Once beauracracies get big enough (and the CRC's is, to support its ever growing claim of sphere authority, competent or not), the sheer inertia of that development can make if very difficult--simply as an internal politics matter-to reverse.
You say, "According to our Constitution people have the right to apply for immigration...". Can you cite the Article/Section or quote the text that you believe gives a right to persons who are not US Citizens to apply to immigrate? As far as I know, there is no such right created by our federal constitution, whether as written or as interpreted by any court decision.
Understand I'm not suggesting Congress should not choose to allow immigration. I think it should, but also that it should apply criteria for allowing that. But I wasn't really asking a legal question (although interesting what you say about the Constitution). What I was asking was a question of political theory. In other words (and framed another way), do you think our Constitution SHOULD provide that foreigners have legal right to immigrate? Now if you say "no," then we can take on the next logical question that presents itself given your "no" answer, and if you say "yes," then we can take on the next logical question that presents itself given your "yes" answer.
Too often people jump to the end decision on political issue without carefully examining the foundational conclusions reached to get to that end decision. I'm literally trying to find out OSJ's (my denomination's) underlying political theory as it relates to this particular legal/political issue. Sort of like reading from John Locke's First and Second Treatises on Government to figure out his. Or, more contemporarily, reading CPJ's (Center for Public Justice's) "Guideline" documents and other position papers to figure out theirs.
I'll certainly be getting to your "another question" -- again, just want to take this somewhat methodically or the discussion can get utterly confusing.
Posted in: So What Is "Prophetic"?
Bev: I appreciate your post, and think it is extremely timely, given how much some recent speakers on Synod's floor emphasized that the institutional church must exercise its prophetic responsibilities (and so declare, for example, that a near consensus of scientists believe this and that about climate change).
I'll thus be more than a bit baffled if no one takes this opportunity to explain in this public CRC forum where they would have more than two minutes (time limit on the floor of Synod) to speak their minds.
And yes, I am baiting. :-)
But seriously, if this reason (CRCNA must exercise prophetic responsibility) is going to used to justify CRC statements/actions on non-ecclesiastic matters, some definitional discussion is needed.
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.
Posted in: The Belhar Confession: An Invitation
There is little in this lead post I can agree with.
Our three confessions are simply not stories, but rather confessions. The Heidelberg Catechism reads like, well, a catechism. If you never read the historical footnotes in the Psalter, you'd have no idea about its historical context. It is a catechism obviously designed to teach theological propositions (one per week even).
The Belgic Confession is also a statement of fundamental confession, not a story. Again, I'd challenge anyone to find a person unfamiliar with the Belgic Confession, have him/her read it, and then have him/her explicate the historical context. Read it yourself. It covers theological topics quite systematically, but it too is simply not a story. Now it could be there was also a story at play when de Bres wrote the Belgic Confession, but he didn't write that story when he wrote the Belgic Confession. He may have written a story in another writing, but it wasn't the BC and we didn't adopt any other of his writings as a confession.
Canons of Dordt. Different than the HC and BC, but again certainly not a story. Rather, it is a set of synodical decisions in response to about certain doctrinal teachings, highly "theoretical" ones at that. Again, it happened within a historical context (nothing human does not happen within a historical context), but that doesn't make it a story. If it does, then everything is a story, and if everything is story, isn't not meaningful to identify anything as a story because that would be a given.
I don't even think the Belhar is as much of a story as it is a political statement. Sure, it goes on and on making flowery worded theological statements that are nothing new, but then its gets to its core point, that being the assertion that God is God in a special way to the poor and oppressed. Not only is that statement unbiblical, it's fundamentally political. Liberation theology, including the regular and black versions (Black liberation theology) use that assertion as a cornerstone. Moreover, if one simply observes the subseqent political statements made by those who "gave us" the "gift" of the Belhar, one can see that directly. The sequel to the Belhar Confession is the Accra Confession, already adopted by those who "gave us" the Belhar. The Accra Confession contains the substantially identical cornerstone assertion that declares God to be a special God to the poor and oppressed, but then it continues on beyond the words of the Belhar to make more clear what that means. It lifts up third world countries and condemns first world countries. It ascribes victim status for third world countries, declaring their problems to arise from "empire" powers in first world countries. It condemns "neo-liberal" political/economic theories--yes those same political/economic theories that find their historical origin in Calvinist thinking set in opposition to Roman Catholic theories--and advocates for political centrism. It condemns allowing capital to play a large role in economic dealings, in very much the same way that neo-Marxism (even Marx himself in Das Kapital) does.
Please understand this is not "slippery slope" argument. That is, I'm not saying adopting the Belhar will lead to the Accra. Rather I'm saying those who have asked us to adopt the Belhar have already adopted the Accra. They are saying "do what we did" and what they have done is adopted the Accra and begun working that out in the political/economic world. If we say "yes" to making the Belhar one of our confessions, we will be saying yes to a political/economic perspective. At least that's how those who "gave us" the Belhar will see it.
Also please understand I do not claim that anyone, including anyone in the CRCNA, shouldn't be able to have whatever political/economic perspective he/she may choose to have. Two people can adopt our three forms of unity, and the CRCNA's perspective on Scripture and come to completely different political/economic views. Neither should be excommunicated. What I am saying is that the CRCNA should not itself, as a church institution, adopt a political/economic statement (which the Belhar is), nor even a "story" as one of its confessional statements. If we begin to divide the CRCNA by adopting specific political/economic perspectives, we will begin the process of morphing from an institutional church to a political association. Certainly, it would still make some noises like that of a church, but then so did the Liberation Theology movement embodied by Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.
Understand too that many churches in North America, including "politically conservative" churches, have been unable to resist the tempation of becoming political, albeit on the other side of the political spectrum. Until perhaps 15 years ago, the CRCNA had largely avoided that temptation--from either side. No more it seems. Our ecumenical organization, the WCRC, is not much more than a political organization, and one aligned with the Belhar and the Accra Confessions.
Adopting "stories" or poltical statements that sound appealing to some may be tempting, even create the appearance of short term gain, but unless the CRCNA remains a church institution, its meaningful role as a highly respected church within the North American community of churches will diminish quickly.
Posted in: The Belhar Confession: An Invitation
@John Kralt
You say:
"It seems to me that there are issues with the Canons, the HC, and the BC which we tend to work around. My point is not that we have to get rid of the the original three, but the original three do not deal adequately with some of today's issues."
There is a process for changin the confessions so as to not have to "work around" them, which process was used to produce the current BC Article 36 that you quote (and complain about) in your post before the post quoted above. The CRC Synod changed Article 36 (the RCA kept the original version) in a way that made it less "political" (good) and more biblical (also good). You seem to cite the current CRCNA Article 36 as an example of a problem with the BC, but I'd respectfully suggest, given your critique, you are not reading it fairly (accurately) at all. In fact, I'd suggest BC Article 36 sets forth (though not completely) a principle of "sphere sovereignty," at least as to government, which is quite biblical. You say Article 36 wouldn't go down well with Canadian or American courts. Actually, I think you are wrong on that. At least in the United States (I'm not Canadian), we have a federal first amendment which, as interpreted and reflected in the state constitution of the various states, is pretty compatible with BC Article 36. (Makes sense: a Calvinist worldview dominated political thinking when the constitution was written).
Why should we give up on refining the original three confessions (if needed) and choose instead to adopt a new "confession" (story?) that has many more difficulties? Why should we adopt a blatently unbiblical confessional statement ("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")?
Here's the difference between having confessions that are stories and having confessions that are confessions: if they are stories, it really doesn't make much difference what they say because we only regard them in a way that is largely sentimental; but if they are confessions, it does make a difference what they say because we commit to them as rules for living and as truths to teach to future generations.
I'm not suggesting there is not a role for stories in human life, or even in the church, or even in the institutional church, or even at the denominational level in the institutional church. Nor am I saying there is no room in all those places for sentimentallity. But I am saying, essentially in a Sesame Street kind of way, that 'one of these things is not like the other' and that the denomination ought not adopt a story for a confession, as if they are the same thing. Certainly, as I've suggested before, none of our current current confessions (or creeds for that matter) are stories (although there were stories that could have been and were written and read about the historical context surrounding those confessions/creeds), but the church back then understood that essential but basic Sesame Street truth, and so distinguished between stories and confessions/creeds.
And this is what makes me especially concerned. Are we actually unable to distinguish between confessions and stories? Do we care? Do we no longer wish to be, properly defined, a confessional church? Are we so inflicted with feelings of "white guilt" that we've given up on thinking (as opposed to feeling) about these things? Do we want to only be sentimental? Do we want our 'confessions' to no longer really be confessions?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this John, because I am genuinely perplexed about why the CRCNA, given its history, would even think of going in the direction that adopting the Belhar as a confession takes us.
Posted in: What Does It Mean To/For the CRC When WCRC Adopts or Declares Something — or Does Stuff?
Henry: Thanks much for the answers. If you would indulge me, I have some follow up questions.
First, what is the CRC's role within WCRC as to WCRC's decision making? For example, when the WCRC adopted the Accra, which I understand it to have done in 2004 (well, WARC actually did but it seems WCRC considers itself to have inherited that), what role did the CRC play in that adoption? Did the CRC have privilege of the floor so as to state its position? Did it cast votes? Something else?
Second, assuming the CRC played/plays some active role in WCRC decisions, how does it practically/logistically do that? Does it send representatives who have voting authority? If it does, how are those representatives selected and how to they cast votes (eg., by decisions made by a group? by using their own judgment?) ?
Third, when you suggest that the "CRC isn't saying anything," but refer to CO Article 50c, I note the language in that Article to precisely say "decisions of ecumenical bodies shall not be binding ...". It could be argued that "not being binding" does not equal "the CRC isn't saying anything." To clarify by analogy, were I a member of the Democratic Party, I could quite legitimately claim that I wasn't bound by any of the platform planks the party may have adopted, but yet, other people could as legitimately say that my party membership does say something about me. So is there some sort of generally understood, non-CO sense for what the CRC is saying when an ecumenical organization of which it is a part adopts a confession? I do realize that question cannot be a precisely answered. Still, it is a meaningful question for members to ask.
I probably agree that the CRCNA, as a church institution, should not play its mission in complete isolation. My concern is that the close I look at the WCRC, the less "reformed" I see, the less "church" I see, and the more "political organization" I see. Still, before coming to too many conclusions, I feel the need to thoroughly fact find. Thus, my questions -- and appreciation for your willingness to provide some answers.
Posted in: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
Meghan: Are you (meant as folks from OSJ) intending to actually discuss these issues, or is your post just an advertisment for the OSF initiative you are pitching?
I'd love to discuss these (and other) OSJ issues--constructively--but I am getting the feeling that your seed post wasn't an actual discussion invitation.
Let me know. I don't really want to waste my time "discussing" with myself, but would like an "iron sharpens iron" discussion with OSJ folk and CRC members about this.
Posted in: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
Kris: Thanks for the help. OK, I will.
First, I'm wondering first how the OSJ develops the statements it develops. Does it just assign someone to write it? Does the BOT write it? Does it subcontract with Sojourners or Center for Public Justice? Or ...? The reason I ask this is because it seems to me that it is difficult at best (acutally impossible) to "represent" all CRCers when producing statements like this. So I think knowing the process is important.
Second, I notice in the statement that there seems to be a presumption that people from other countries have some sort of justice based right to immigrate into the US. Is that a presumption, or not? Put another way, would it be "just" (not discussing wisdom at this point, or even mercy) for the US to simply deny immigration requests to everyone?
Posted in: CRC Pamphlet on Theological Streams in CRC
The pamphlet is online at: http://www.crcna.org/site_uploads/uploads/resources/identitystatement_eng.pdf
In some respects, I think the pamphlet draws from James Bratt's (Calvin professor) book: "Dutch Calvinism in America: A History of an American Subculture."
I think the pamphlet can be very helpful for understanding "who we are," and Bratt's book is too. But, I'm a Dordt College grad with a double major in philosophy and history (and a subsequent Juris Doctor degree). Some newcomers to the CRC would love and benefit from reading this pamphlet (and book) but others would find it little more than upsetting. My wife, livelong CRC member, would probably find both somewhat upsetting. I would not suggest to her that she read either. I'm on the other end of that spectrum (we make a good team).
I understand the "pigeon hole" accusation, but tend to set that aside. Hey, all of theoretical thinking (my Dooyeweerd is coming out) involves "pigeon holing" for the simple reason that human minds need to erect a set of boxes to categorize things as it processes. If we must avoid "pigeon holing," we have to stop writing any kind of historical or descriptive accounts of anything involving society, CRC or otherwise.
I could certainly see using the pamphlet in a new members class, as Paul does, but that's a "supervised" context, which is probably best for some "newbies" who can become a bit unsettled when things aren't as simple as they might like them to be. There is a milk-meat factor to all of this, and sheer personality comes into play as well -- and I say that without any disrespect to anyone. We're all parts of the body, none greater than another.
Posted in: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
Megan: Thanks for the answer to the first question. That's helpful. I have read by now pretty much everything on the OSJ web pages, as well as the Synod 2010 report. Please understand that I understand you and other OSJ staff are doing what you are assigned to do. I say that because some of what I may say in my posts here might seem to be taking pokes at you and other staff. I'm not intending that. But I am trying to figure out what political positions the CRC (via OSJ and otherwise) is taking (because in so doing, the denomination is acting as my political proxy and the political proxy of other CRC members).
Which brings me back to the second question I asked. You punted on answering that one. :-)
I do realize my second question is more complicated than my first, but it's not that complicated. In fact, I would argue that the question is a foundational one, such that OSJ can't really start "doing" anything without answering it and a handful of other foundational questions. When I reviewed all the OSJ web pages and linked reports, I found lots and lots of the usual "left of center" lingo but I would be really hard pressed to say there was even one statement that clearly acknowledged the right of any government to limit (even if to the point of eliminating) immigration. Again, the answer to this question is a fundamental point for any immigration discussion. Indeed, some folks will openly and honestly say they believe the US should be borderless, that it has no right to disallow anyone from coming here. What is bit troubling to me is one could make a case, from reading the Synod 2010 report and the OSJ pages and links, that such is also the position of the CRC/OSJ.
So, is it? Does OSJ take the position that the US government should be acknowledged to have a "right" to control (i.e., limit, even if that means eliminate) immigration? Or does OSJ take the position that all people, or even some people, outside the US have a justice based right to immigrate into the US?
Posted in: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
Charles: Are you suggesting the US (and other countries) must be borderless in order to obey God's norms for government? That's the essential message I read from what you say but I don't want to put words into your mouth (or keyboard hands).
Posted in: Whatever Happened to Sphere Sovereignty?
I'm quite late to this discussion, but the green covered Banner containing the Editorial that essentially "takes sides" on Climate Change was cold water in my face, causing me to take a closer look at all that has developed, denominationally speaking, in the past ten years or so. Woah!
Like Terry Grey, I too am wondering what happened to our concept of "sphere sovereignty?" Certainly, as Noah points out, its a bit arbitrary that we should use this principle to align the jurisdiction of our spheres. He says "why should we choose Kuyper's sphere sovereignty over other and different reformed models?" One answer to that, among others, is that it works well, and other models don't work well.
Mind you, there are other answers too, but breaking down the human task into "spheres" or "jurisdictions" is pretty much the only historical alternative to a "single sphere authority," also known as totalitarianism, dictatorship, centrism, and a bunch of other words.
The middle ages saw a perpetual battle between two spheres (king and pope), but the theory underlying the claim of both was that whoever was in control, they controlled everyone and everything about everyone. It was not until the Reformation, which I started in England long before Luther was born (the Reformation being, essentially, a back-to-reading-the-Bible movement, which did start in England), that the idea of multiple spheres of authority was introduced. Each sphere of authority (juridiction if you will) was NOT to be dominated by a mega-authority like crown or pope. That simple idea was the key.
If Noah wants to look more broadly than just Kuyper, who he perceives as a minor historical figure, I might suggest looking at John Locke, whose opposed the status quo thinking of his time that regarded the crown as an all-powerful heir of Adam. (This idea promoted in Locke's time by Robert Filmer -- see Locke's First Treatise of Govenment). Locke suggested instead (see beginning of Second Treatise) that the crown is not the all powerful heir of Adam, and that the authority of the king must be distinguished from that of a master over slave (business), husband over wife (family), etc. A bit rudimentary, but "sphere sovereignty" none the less, many years before Kuyper was born. And yes, John Locke was a devout Calvinist from a devout Calvinist family.
The real world implementation of Locke's thinking, first in the defining of govermental authority in the United States, and then in quite a number of modern democracies thereafter (England and Canada included), are incredibly strong evidence, proof in the pudding if you will, about how well sphere sovereignty works. Where can you find more political freedom, yet more prosperity, than in those countries who avoided totalitarianism by implementing what we know of as sphere sovereignty?
Exactly why does sphere sovereignty work so good? It has to do with human limitation and competency. An illustrative case in point is this church denomination, right now. A Creation Stewardship Task Force Report is just out, a long report to Synod which mirrors the Banner Editor's position taken on global warming. The global warming question is, practically speaking, as infinitely a complex a set of scienctific, economic, and political questions as has ever existed. So why would it be that a church denomination is comptetent to speak for all of its members as to the answers on all of these questions? Think about the competency issue. One-half of the 188 synodical delegates in 2012 will be pastors. Fine occupation, but this great men and women have no particular education, experience or anything else that makes them qualified to decide for all CRC members what this task force wants those synodical delegates to decide. I could go on about the Hope Equals project (World Missions project examining the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), adopting the UN Millenium Goals, so much of what "social justice" is about, etc. In each of these cases, the denomination acts incompetently because it is acting outside is sphere, which also means it is acting outside its expertise.
So yes, I'm a "sphere sovereignty" fan. For both principle and pragmatic reasons (getting principle right usually results in practical advantage). From my vantage point, the denomination is rather quickly deciding it likes the Roman Catholic model in which the heirarchy of the church speaks for all its members on whatever subject it chooses. I'm a Calvinist, preferring a reformed model for defining the proper tasks for my church. My question is whether enough of those Calvinists remain in the CRC to reverse the trend toward the Roman Catholic model.
I know this. The time is now, not tomorrow. Once beauracracies get big enough (and the CRC's is, to support its ever growing claim of sphere authority, competent or not), the sheer inertia of that development can make if very difficult--simply as an internal politics matter-to reverse.
Posted in: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
Kris: Thanks for the response. A few things:
You say, "According to our Constitution people have the right to apply for immigration...". Can you cite the Article/Section or quote the text that you believe gives a right to persons who are not US Citizens to apply to immigrate? As far as I know, there is no such right created by our federal constitution, whether as written or as interpreted by any court decision.
Understand I'm not suggesting Congress should not choose to allow immigration. I think it should, but also that it should apply criteria for allowing that. But I wasn't really asking a legal question (although interesting what you say about the Constitution). What I was asking was a question of political theory. In other words (and framed another way), do you think our Constitution SHOULD provide that foreigners have legal right to immigrate? Now if you say "no," then we can take on the next logical question that presents itself given your "no" answer, and if you say "yes," then we can take on the next logical question that presents itself given your "yes" answer.
Too often people jump to the end decision on political issue without carefully examining the foundational conclusions reached to get to that end decision. I'm literally trying to find out OSJ's (my denomination's) underlying political theory as it relates to this particular legal/political issue. Sort of like reading from John Locke's First and Second Treatises on Government to figure out his. Or, more contemporarily, reading CPJ's (Center for Public Justice's) "Guideline" documents and other position papers to figure out theirs.
I'll certainly be getting to your "another question" -- again, just want to take this somewhat methodically or the discussion can get utterly confusing.