Kris: I mean this kindly and with a smile on my face, but you did punt on the question. I asked (with bolding), "In other words (and framed another way), do you think our Constitution SHOULD provide that foreigners have legal right to immigrate? " and you answered "maybe it would be more accurate so say it is up to other countries to decide if their citizens have a right to apply? At any rate the U.S. congress is supposed to set up laws that respond to those applications." Respectfully, and again with smile, that's a punt.
It could be that you are punting because you don't know what your answer would be, that you haven't thought of this before. But, you are the OSJ's "Congregational Justice Mobilizer" and, again with respect and a smile, you need to have your political theory down if you are going to mobilize others. CRC members will reasonably assume OSJ has its political theory down, and that they can rely on it as scripturally based.
I have read the full text of the report from the "Committee to Study the Migration of Workers" -- twice in fact. Actually, I thought it was a pretty good report. My one concern about it was that in one recommendation especially, it exceeded its own analysis. It recommended (and Synod adopted the recommendation) in paragraph G that the BOT was to encourage the OSJ to engage in advocacy strategies that will lead to immigration reform and enactment of fair, just, and equitable laws regarding immigrants.
Sounds innocent enough, but here's the catch. The analysis of the report clearly recognized, essentially, that Scripture gives no specific guidance for what immigration laws might be, and that Christians could reasonably disagree as to what they would be. So just what are the "fair, just and equitable laws" that OSJ should politically advocate for? And why don't CRC members just get to advocate for themselves? They are the US citizens, individually, not collectively through the CRC/OSJ.
Now if the OSJ would just say, "hey members, we don't know what they would be, but please consider for yourselves what immigration laws should be and advocate for them," I'd be fine. Certainly, Kuyper's "not one square inch" also covers immigration and we should be responsible Citizens. BUT, and a bit BUT, OSJ's pledge letter advocates for specifics. Just one, for example, is that the US government "maintain the constitutional rights of birthright citizenship." Certainly, Christian minds can differ on whether a government should grant a baby citizenship just because his/her parents illegally came to the US soley in order that their child be born here (and so acquire US Citizenship). In my mind, creating that incentive is really bad government policy. And I think the Committee Report members would regard my position as "reasonable" and "not contrary to Scripture." So, why does OSJ insist on being my political proxy on that issue?
The Committee Report did an excellent job, I thought, of distinguishing between our perspective: (1) as Christians and churches dealing with immigrants; and (2) as government, or citizens who play a role in creating good government. On the other hand, there is nothing in the OSJ documents that I could find (the pledge letter included) that appropriately distinguishes between those two perspectives. That's a "Kuyperian sphere sovereignty" thing, and although I saw that perspective recognized in the Committee Report, I just see no evidence of it is OSJ's implementation of the Synodical mandate based on that report.
And that's is the core of my concern, which is why I start by asking "In other words (and framed another way), do you think our Constitution SHOULD provide that foreigners have legal right to immigrate? " From what I do read off the OSJ site, your office may be promoting the political idea of borderless societies. I'm not saying you do, but I certainly can't determine that you don't, and some of your materials at least suggest you may. And so I ask a "beginning question," a "foundational question," in order to work up to OSJ's adopted political theory/framework that would be the beginning point from which it would answer lots and lots of specific immigration questions.
Whether OSJ staff knows it or not, OSJ is being my political proxy on this. I just want to know what OSJ has fundamentally decided its political theory is in this area before I "complain too much" (again, smile on my face).
Kris: Your latest posts suggests to me that you're just trying to help congregations help people in their church who have immigration issues. It seems to me that you are not really into the part of OSJ that deals with "advocating government policies." That's fair enough.
I did notice that OSJ has a number of positions, and yours isn't the one I'd expect to answer questions about the "government policies" OSJ advocates for. There is another position, that of Policy Analyst/Advocacy Fellow. I believe Than Veltman holds that position. Might he be able to help on some of these questions? Could you ask him.
Switching thoughts, my own church, employers in my church, and I personally, are pretty Hispanic immigrant friendly (lots of Hispanics in the mid-Willamette Valley here). We sponsor a Hispanic church in the city, our dairy owners employ pretty much all Hispanics for milkers, I've had Hispanic (legal and illegal) for clients, and I have them for neighbors (I live on "that side" of town). I coached a junior high (public school) basketball team a few years back and I suspect at least half my team were illegals or the children of illegals. No, I don't check anyone's legal status when I deal with obvious immigrant types in the neighborhood, or as coach, etc. I do deal with that at work, but my "rules for myself" at work are more complex than would be profitable to go into.
But there there's me as Citizen of Oregon, City of Salem, Marion County and the United States. In my voting (and political advocacy), I take the position of having to create and implement "good government." And if government does what I think "good government" should do, more illegals would be removed than are from the area I live in, mere birth would not create citizenship, and many fewer illegals would get across the border.
Certainly, I think comprehensive immigration reform is LONG overdue. But the reason we don't have that reform is because too many people allow their genuine feeling of mercy to trump concepts of justice when it comes to voting and advocating government policy. We've had pretty good law in the somewhat distant past, but then we started to not enforce it, and eventually the change in the law that should have happened didn't, because our real law (what we enforced) eliminated any motivation to change the formal law (what's in the books). We think we are doing good (being merciful) by failing to execute laws that "are mean to people" but instead do bad, putting immigrants in impossible situations and literally tearing down "the rule of law," ending up with neither justice nor mercy.
This problem will only be successfully tackled when we, as a nation, figure out how to separate what we'd personally like to have happen for the illegal immigrants we personally know from what we know to be good government. I don't see OSJ or the Synod pushing in that direction, which means I suspect at this point, we are part of the problem, not the solution.
Now there are some who honestly believe there should be no borders, that anyone who wants to come into the US (or any other country for that matter) should not be prevented by government from doing so. I can sympathize with the sentiment but that is not a practically workable proposal at any level. Not even close. Nation states have to have enforced borders or they cannot be nation states (and some oppose nation states).
By the way, Congress and the president resolved to have comprehensive immigration reform back when Reagan was president. Amnesty was given to millions of illegals, which was to be followed by legislation that would control the border (a fundamental prerequisite for any control of immigration), create appropriate guest worker laws, etc. The problem was that after the amnesty was granted, nothing else was done. I put that one squarely at the feet of Democrats, who renegged on the deal after getting the amnesty they wanted. And that's why you know have so many Republicans who absolutely refuse to discuss anything about immigration reform until the border is controlled. Sort of a "fool me once, shame on you, twice shame on me" thing for them.
And this is why it is important that the CRC, if it is going to represent my political voice (certainly not my first choice), do so competently. If it can't distinguish between CRC members and congregations being merciful, and creating/implementing good government (and so far I can't tell that it can), it will only be adding to the mess already there. And the result of that will be injustice for pretty much everyone.
Kris: Thanks for the further response and your willingness to invite Than to the discussion.
I'm particularly pleased to see your willingness to use the word "mercy." It is becoming a rarely used word in CRC. For example, in the Belhar confession, the word "justice" (or injustice) appears 7 times, mercy" 0 (zero). If I go to the WCRC (World Communion of Reformed Justice) website (the CRC is a member of WCRC ) and use it's search facility, there are 11 PAGES of hits for "justice," but a search for the word "mercy" renders NOT EVEN ONE hit. If I use the CRCNA.ORG search facility on the CRCNA site, I get 11, 100 hits for "justice" but only 2560 for "mercy." Contrast this with the 1995 Bylaws for the CRCNA (the denominational corporation). It mentions only "mercy," never "justice." What a difference 16 years makes, eh?
I would suggest "justice" predominantly characterizes the jurisdiction of the sphere of government, and "mercy" is within the "church" sphere (ala Kuyper/Dooyeweerd), perhaps among others. "Liberation theology" saw this quite differently, with some manifistations of Liberation Theology becoming almost totally, if not totally, involved with justice (usually unapologetically Marxist, eg., Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas). Somewhat more contemporarily, a "Black version" has also evolved (Black Liberation Theology), as exemplified by Barak Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright. I regard the "Social Justice" movement as largely a relabeling of "Liberation Theology," which I think essentially confirmed by John Cooper and is one of his objections to the Belhar. Unlike Cooper, I don't want the CRC to adopt the Belhar as anything, confession or otherwise. My objections to both the Liberation Theology movement and the Social Justice movement are: (1) both morph the church into a political organization, and (2) the political theory adopted by both is largely unbiblical. Both perspectives rewrite Micah 6:8 by ignoring the "love mercy" phrase.
Which is why I appreciate your obvious willingness to use the word "mercy." :-)
Consider me not a fan of WCRC. Bruce is right that "Our denomination has gone through a major change in the last number of years." In terms of moving in the direction that the WCRC represents, again, I'm not a fan.
I certainly believe in doing justice (been a lawyer doing working for that, occupationally and otherwise, for 32 years). What I don't believe is that Micah 6:8, which tells us to "do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly" should be reduced only to "do justice."
WCRC represents a worldview where any suggestion or mention of mercy is angrily rejected as racist, sexist, ___ist denial of rights. That perspective is warped and unbiblical. WCRC loves to condemn all other thinking but its own when it comes to political or economic thinking, but if you ask exactly what their thinking is, you get the same nebulous, ambiguous mantra that roughly translates into old-school liberation theology that was prodominantly Marxist in its orientation. Hello Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, except now updated to add green movement mantras.
Beyond that, the WCRC represents a coalition of folks who in fact know very little about political or economic theory but insist they do by their incredible broad brush decrees of condemnation, thinking that wraping condemnations in an abundance of religious language replaces the need for substantive knowledge about what they are condemning. Certainly, the WCLRC condemns some things that clearly and obviously need condemning (no knowledge about much of anything required). But the incredibly arrogant, broad stroke condemnations (eg., rants against neo liberal economics) are in fact little more than sit-in mantras.
The RCA has lost half its membership in 30 years. The not-so-long-ago split in the CRC probably opened the door to this sort of "major change [in the CRC] in the last number of year." I pray the CRC will seriously re-think this direction before it too succumbs to this oh-so-high-sounding irrelevance.
Ken: You seem to regard me as defined by my feelings, asking why I am "so upset" and advising me that "change is scary" and that "it can be confusing." I would suggest I am intentionally motivated predominantly by what I think, am not "confused" and not by feeling "so upset" or "scared." I'm not too interested in a discussion that ignores statements made and asserts feeling states. I just don't think those discussions get anywhere.
Ken: I don't have an attitude, per se, about change, but I will have a perspective on one kind of change or another. For example, if my son's behavior and demeanor becomes very angry and hateful, I'll have a particular perspective that is different from if he becomes really happy and hard working. Both are change. My responses/perspectives/"attitudes" will be different in each case.
The denominiation's move toward the WCRC, as opposed to in some other ecumenical direction, isn't just "change" but a certain kind of change that implies a change in particular perspectives and about particular issues. So again, it's not just change, per se, that invokes my response.
Bill Wald, you're a breath of fresh air. I'm 57, have practiced law for 32 years, and convinced people don't really know what they're are talking about (literally) when they use the word "race." Eg., is "black" a single race? What about "hispanic"? How about Mexican, and is that a different "race" from Spanish, or Honduran? How about "the German race"? Dutch? Dutch/American? African American? How about American (must we say "native American" for that to count)? People from Sheboygan, WI (they talk funny), New York (talk about distinctive)? What race is the "Ugly American" anyway?
Other questions: What race is someone who is 7/8th Korean and 1/8th Dutch? What is Tiger Woods anyway? Why do you need to be only a slight fraction of "native American" (whatever that exactly means -- I was born here, am I not "native American") to be qualified as "native American" (and thereby often be eligible for certain federal benefits)? And why does "white" cover so many different people who are so many different cultures? What do I not recognize so many "black people" as "black people."
Now, I do understand the term "culture," and think using that is meaningful, even though "culture" is composed of complex intermix of characteristics. Thus, you can be "Iowan" in culture (that definitely means a number of things to me), or Japanese in culture (I have one of those in my house). Or, you can be Japanese (in terms of looking like one) but be Iowan in culture.
Like Bill Wald, I often, very often, don't recognize someone's race. I realize I didn't recognize it only because in a later interaction with or about that person, he/she or someone else tells me they are a certain "race." And then I don't really know what to do with that information because it's so, well, meaningless.
My bottom line analysis is this: I think "race" is a cheap word (that is, not resulting from a lot of thought) that we continue to use predominantly because using the word adds to the users ability to sharply accuse or just get attention. Our ears perk when we hear the word because it maybe means someone is being mean, or about to start a fight, or making a strong accusation, or running for political office and behind in the polls.
This may sound a bit silly to some, but I think we should precisely define what we mean by the word "race" before we name committees after the word and have discussions about it. Don't misunderstand, I don't mind having those discussions, but I do prefer to take one step at a time, in logical order, when so discussing. Maybe the word has no real meaning anymore, and least for Christians.
Dan: What do you mean, precisely, when you say "consumer capitalism"? I understand your perspective of the need to re-examine and use things like the Belhar to do that. But I always get a bit frustrated when folks throw out rather ambiguous phrases like that and then juxtapose it to what they advocate for.
North America has a good deal of political/economic freedom, so that each of us has the legal right to choose to be materialistic or not, spend our money on bad things or good, love mercy or not, etc. Who is this "consumer capitalism" person who is "wonderfully at peace with ... Christianity?" By referring to it, are you referring to a person, people, or a political principal (and thus want to change our political system)?
The Accra Confession (like Belhar but less ambiguous, and already adopted by WARC, now known as WCRC) explicitly condemns "neo-liberalism," which is essentially political/economic freedom. A fair reading of the Accra would indicate that subscribers to it do want to change the political system (reducing/eliminating political/economic freedom). Is that what you are suggesting, or otherwise?
I just listened to this debate/discussion this evening. One of the things that particularly caught my attention was Peter Borgdorff's recitation of the supposed parallelisms between South African and American racial issues. The one point I didn't buy too much on that, was that the 1960's represented a time when both race issues and apartheid issues came to the political fore in both countries. Well, the US fought a Civil War over this in the mid-1800's, so its a bit of a stretch to say there was a 1960's parallel.
But my question: does anyone know anything about connection between the "American Reformed Churches" (CRC included) and South African apartheid? Or, for that matter, between the "American Reformed Churches" and slavery or racial oppression in the United States?
I ask for this reason. If the CRC were complicit in any way, or even supportive of in any way, apartheid in S Africa, or slavery or racial oppression in the US, I would see reason for the CRC to now "say something about that" (although not necessarily by adopting the Belhar). But the reason I haven't thought of that before is because I don't know of a connection between the CRC, institutionally or as a practical matter among its members, and either apartheid or racial oppression in the US. Still, my not knowing doesn't make so. Thus, my asking for info from others.
Kris: Respectfully, how would you possibly know what you assert when you say: "sermons, Sunday school, and catechism classes given over the last year in the CRC that focused on creation care--as a response of gratitude for God’s grace and as a way to show love to our neighbors--their percentage of the total number would be pretty low."
I only have my anecdotal experience, but I wouldn't say that "creation care" (whether by that more fashionable term or otherwise) has not been appropriately covered in the CRC churches I've been a part of. Now, I'm quite certain that the conclusions pushed by this report have not been also pushed from the pulpit or in Sunday school, but if they were, I would have a pretty big objection to that, just as I do to much of this report.
Beyond that, consider how many CRC members are farmers, who tend to be professional experts at creation care (they actually do it). I really don't think creation care is under-valued or under-articulated in the CRC community in general, unless of course you mean the particular set of conclusions this report comes to, which I would suggest represents (at least as to many parts) the thinking of only a very small percentage of CRC members.
But let's twist the analysis just a bit for illumination. How many "sermons, Sunday school, and catechism classes given over the last year in the CRC ... focused on" the irresponsibility and immorality of our present generation of Americans stealing, using its government, from future generations by refusing to reduce entitlement benefits (even though such reductions reflect our actual available resources), given that borrowing from foreign sources to pay present levels of entitlements directly cause our future generations the unjust burden of having to pay that back? We get the benefit and they get to pay? Isn't that as much something our pulpits and sunday schools should be preaching/teaching about as whether we should encourage the government to do at this report does? Indeed, if we run the government into the ground financially, that will trigger a world-wide depression, cause millions to die, create abject poverty for more millions, and disable pretty much any government from doing anything related to creation care. Shouldn't we be hearing this message from our pulpits and in sunday school? Why should some important political/economic/science issues get the CRCNA press but not others, and why should a very small subset of CRCNA members get to say what everyone in the CRCNA thinks?
The real answer of course is that our pulpits and sunday schools should be preaching/teaching NEITHER, and the CRCNA denomination should not be our political/economic/science proxy. Making such a proxy out of the denomination (and a poor one at that) would diminish the CRCNA as a church institution, create division within our members, and distract the church (as institution) from doing what it is good at. Yes, we should care for creation and we should do justice to others. But pulpits, Sunday Schools, Synods, and CRCNA agencies should neither tell its members to buy into AGW alarmism, nor how to respond to the particulars of the federal government's budgets and over spending.
Right now, our denomination (though not our pulpits or sunday schools) is doing both and it should stop.
From my perspective, I don't see so much dissatisfaction within local CRC congregations about their congregations, nor so much (although perhaps more) about their Classes. But I do see a lot of disatisfaction within local CRC congregations as to their denomination. And it takes two forms: (1) apathy about what the denomination is or is doing; out of sight and out of mind; (2) a bit of horror and disbelief about what the denomination is in fact doing, especially when the denomination seems to be incessantly pushing the envelope on its own standards and decides to increasingly become a political actor.
Between 1 and 2, I'm not sure which is worse. My experience is with local churches on the northwest/west coast and in the midwest (Iowa/Minnesota), but not Michigan or other areas. I claim much less understanding about Michigan churches, although I do get this sense: the closer individuals or local churches are to Grand Rapids, the more the individual or church seems to think that the denomination is required to a relfection of sorts of them, and the more the denomination seems to regard their opinion as to what the denomination should be.
Between the denomination and classis, it is obvious that the denomination gets the most in terms of ministry shares. And while money isn't everything, it's a lot. Certainly, I think the denominational structure believes that. So if more attention would be focused on middle management (classis), wouldn't it have to be the case that this change of focus would be reflected in revenue flow?
If one had to say what denominational agency was the most popular with local churches, I would think it would be CRWRC (now World Renew). But the funny thing about that is this: in a very real way, CRWRC is not so much a denominational agency. It receives no ministry shares and it is its own corporation. Sometimes, I find when people first learn that CRWRC receives no ministry shares, they wonder out loud where all those ministry shares dollars go.
I hope those who will be involved in studying the restructure of the denomination will consider whether too many minds at the denominational, whether consciously or not, consider it the point of the local churches to serve the denomination, instead of the other way around. From everything I can see, I think too many denominational minds do think that way, and would argue in defense of the proposition (well if you want do big things, well if you want to impact Congress on the question of climate change, well if you want to persuade the federal government to give more money to the poor, etc).
I think there is much more "connect" between local congregations and their respectiv classes than between local congregations and the denomination. Indeed, I think the disconnect between local congregations and the denomination is getting dangerously acute. I can't count the number of times, to illustrate, I've heard the the following: "I don't even want to read the Banner anymore -- I have no idea where they are coming from sometimes."
I don't know -- maybe the dominant perspective is different the closer one gets to GR. I do think GR has its own culture and thus perspective. And it would stand to reason that if the denomination focuses only, or even more, on its own local/regional culture, it could find itself at odds with the rest of the country. I know many Canadians feel estranged from the denomination. It may not be a Canadian/US division, but a GR area division from everything not GR area. I'm not sure, but that seems like at least a plausible theory. It's reflected with the facts on the ground that I see at least.
Whatever the case, I think I would be all for classes playing a greater role in the lives of local churches. But mind you, one of the first issues that will have to be on the table if that happens, may have to be revenue. The consequence of that wouldn't be underestimated by the denominational powers that now be.
Posted in: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
Kris: I mean this kindly and with a smile on my face, but you did punt on the question. I asked (with bolding), "In other words (and framed another way), do you think our Constitution SHOULD provide that foreigners have legal right to immigrate? " and you answered "maybe it would be more accurate so say it is up to other countries to decide if their citizens have a right to apply? At any rate the U.S. congress is supposed to set up laws that respond to those applications." Respectfully, and again with smile, that's a punt.
It could be that you are punting because you don't know what your answer would be, that you haven't thought of this before. But, you are the OSJ's "Congregational Justice Mobilizer" and, again with respect and a smile, you need to have your political theory down if you are going to mobilize others. CRC members will reasonably assume OSJ has its political theory down, and that they can rely on it as scripturally based.
I have read the full text of the report from the "Committee to Study the Migration of Workers" -- twice in fact. Actually, I thought it was a pretty good report. My one concern about it was that in one recommendation especially, it exceeded its own analysis. It recommended (and Synod adopted the recommendation) in paragraph G that the BOT was to encourage the OSJ to engage in advocacy strategies that will lead to immigration reform and enactment of fair, just, and equitable laws regarding immigrants.
Sounds innocent enough, but here's the catch. The analysis of the report clearly recognized, essentially, that Scripture gives no specific guidance for what immigration laws might be, and that Christians could reasonably disagree as to what they would be. So just what are the "fair, just and equitable laws" that OSJ should politically advocate for? And why don't CRC members just get to advocate for themselves? They are the US citizens, individually, not collectively through the CRC/OSJ.
Now if the OSJ would just say, "hey members, we don't know what they would be, but please consider for yourselves what immigration laws should be and advocate for them," I'd be fine. Certainly, Kuyper's "not one square inch" also covers immigration and we should be responsible Citizens. BUT, and a bit BUT, OSJ's pledge letter advocates for specifics. Just one, for example, is that the US government "maintain the constitutional rights of birthright citizenship." Certainly, Christian minds can differ on whether a government should grant a baby citizenship just because his/her parents illegally came to the US soley in order that their child be born here (and so acquire US Citizenship). In my mind, creating that incentive is really bad government policy. And I think the Committee Report members would regard my position as "reasonable" and "not contrary to Scripture." So, why does OSJ insist on being my political proxy on that issue?
The Committee Report did an excellent job, I thought, of distinguishing between our perspective: (1) as Christians and churches dealing with immigrants; and (2) as government, or citizens who play a role in creating good government. On the other hand, there is nothing in the OSJ documents that I could find (the pledge letter included) that appropriately distinguishes between those two perspectives. That's a "Kuyperian sphere sovereignty" thing, and although I saw that perspective recognized in the Committee Report, I just see no evidence of it is OSJ's implementation of the Synodical mandate based on that report.
And that's is the core of my concern, which is why I start by asking "In other words (and framed another way), do you think our Constitution SHOULD provide that foreigners have legal right to immigrate? " From what I do read off the OSJ site, your office may be promoting the political idea of borderless societies. I'm not saying you do, but I certainly can't determine that you don't, and some of your materials at least suggest you may. And so I ask a "beginning question," a "foundational question," in order to work up to OSJ's adopted political theory/framework that would be the beginning point from which it would answer lots and lots of specific immigration questions.
Whether OSJ staff knows it or not, OSJ is being my political proxy on this. I just want to know what OSJ has fundamentally decided its political theory is in this area before I "complain too much" (again, smile on my face).
Posted in: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
Kris: Your latest posts suggests to me that you're just trying to help congregations help people in their church who have immigration issues. It seems to me that you are not really into the part of OSJ that deals with "advocating government policies." That's fair enough.
I did notice that OSJ has a number of positions, and yours isn't the one I'd expect to answer questions about the "government policies" OSJ advocates for. There is another position, that of Policy Analyst/Advocacy Fellow. I believe Than Veltman holds that position. Might he be able to help on some of these questions? Could you ask him.
Switching thoughts, my own church, employers in my church, and I personally, are pretty Hispanic immigrant friendly (lots of Hispanics in the mid-Willamette Valley here). We sponsor a Hispanic church in the city, our dairy owners employ pretty much all Hispanics for milkers, I've had Hispanic (legal and illegal) for clients, and I have them for neighbors (I live on "that side" of town). I coached a junior high (public school) basketball team a few years back and I suspect at least half my team were illegals or the children of illegals. No, I don't check anyone's legal status when I deal with obvious immigrant types in the neighborhood, or as coach, etc. I do deal with that at work, but my "rules for myself" at work are more complex than would be profitable to go into.
But there there's me as Citizen of Oregon, City of Salem, Marion County and the United States. In my voting (and political advocacy), I take the position of having to create and implement "good government." And if government does what I think "good government" should do, more illegals would be removed than are from the area I live in, mere birth would not create citizenship, and many fewer illegals would get across the border.
Certainly, I think comprehensive immigration reform is LONG overdue. But the reason we don't have that reform is because too many people allow their genuine feeling of mercy to trump concepts of justice when it comes to voting and advocating government policy. We've had pretty good law in the somewhat distant past, but then we started to not enforce it, and eventually the change in the law that should have happened didn't, because our real law (what we enforced) eliminated any motivation to change the formal law (what's in the books). We think we are doing good (being merciful) by failing to execute laws that "are mean to people" but instead do bad, putting immigrants in impossible situations and literally tearing down "the rule of law," ending up with neither justice nor mercy.
This problem will only be successfully tackled when we, as a nation, figure out how to separate what we'd personally like to have happen for the illegal immigrants we personally know from what we know to be good government. I don't see OSJ or the Synod pushing in that direction, which means I suspect at this point, we are part of the problem, not the solution.
Now there are some who honestly believe there should be no borders, that anyone who wants to come into the US (or any other country for that matter) should not be prevented by government from doing so. I can sympathize with the sentiment but that is not a practically workable proposal at any level. Not even close. Nation states have to have enforced borders or they cannot be nation states (and some oppose nation states).
By the way, Congress and the president resolved to have comprehensive immigration reform back when Reagan was president. Amnesty was given to millions of illegals, which was to be followed by legislation that would control the border (a fundamental prerequisite for any control of immigration), create appropriate guest worker laws, etc. The problem was that after the amnesty was granted, nothing else was done. I put that one squarely at the feet of Democrats, who renegged on the deal after getting the amnesty they wanted. And that's why you know have so many Republicans who absolutely refuse to discuss anything about immigration reform until the border is controlled. Sort of a "fool me once, shame on you, twice shame on me" thing for them.
And this is why it is important that the CRC, if it is going to represent my political voice (certainly not my first choice), do so competently. If it can't distinguish between CRC members and congregations being merciful, and creating/implementing good government (and so far I can't tell that it can), it will only be adding to the mess already there. And the result of that will be injustice for pretty much everyone.
Posted in: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
Kris: Thanks for the further response and your willingness to invite Than to the discussion.
I'm particularly pleased to see your willingness to use the word "mercy." It is becoming a rarely used word in CRC. For example, in the Belhar confession, the word "justice" (or injustice) appears 7 times, mercy" 0 (zero). If I go to the WCRC (World Communion of Reformed Justice) website (the CRC is a member of WCRC ) and use it's search facility, there are 11 PAGES of hits for "justice," but a search for the word "mercy" renders NOT EVEN ONE hit. If I use the CRCNA.ORG search facility on the CRCNA site, I get 11, 100 hits for "justice" but only 2560 for "mercy." Contrast this with the 1995 Bylaws for the CRCNA (the denominational corporation). It mentions only "mercy," never "justice." What a difference 16 years makes, eh?
I would suggest "justice" predominantly characterizes the jurisdiction of the sphere of government, and "mercy" is within the "church" sphere (ala Kuyper/Dooyeweerd), perhaps among others. "Liberation theology" saw this quite differently, with some manifistations of Liberation Theology becoming almost totally, if not totally, involved with justice (usually unapologetically Marxist, eg., Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas). Somewhat more contemporarily, a "Black version" has also evolved (Black Liberation Theology), as exemplified by Barak Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright. I regard the "Social Justice" movement as largely a relabeling of "Liberation Theology," which I think essentially confirmed by John Cooper and is one of his objections to the Belhar. Unlike Cooper, I don't want the CRC to adopt the Belhar as anything, confession or otherwise. My objections to both the Liberation Theology movement and the Social Justice movement are: (1) both morph the church into a political organization, and (2) the political theory adopted by both is largely unbiblical. Both perspectives rewrite Micah 6:8 by ignoring the "love mercy" phrase.
Which is why I appreciate your obvious willingness to use the word "mercy." :-)
Posted in: World Communion of Reformed Churches
Consider me not a fan of WCRC. Bruce is right that "Our denomination has gone through a major change in the last number of years." In terms of moving in the direction that the WCRC represents, again, I'm not a fan.
I certainly believe in doing justice (been a lawyer doing working for that, occupationally and otherwise, for 32 years). What I don't believe is that Micah 6:8, which tells us to "do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly" should be reduced only to "do justice."
WCRC represents a worldview where any suggestion or mention of mercy is angrily rejected as racist, sexist, ___ist denial of rights. That perspective is warped and unbiblical. WCRC loves to condemn all other thinking but its own when it comes to political or economic thinking, but if you ask exactly what their thinking is, you get the same nebulous, ambiguous mantra that roughly translates into old-school liberation theology that was prodominantly Marxist in its orientation. Hello Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, except now updated to add green movement mantras.
Beyond that, the WCRC represents a coalition of folks who in fact know very little about political or economic theory but insist they do by their incredible broad brush decrees of condemnation, thinking that wraping condemnations in an abundance of religious language replaces the need for substantive knowledge about what they are condemning. Certainly, the WCLRC condemns some things that clearly and obviously need condemning (no knowledge about much of anything required). But the incredibly arrogant, broad stroke condemnations (eg., rants against neo liberal economics) are in fact little more than sit-in mantras.
The RCA has lost half its membership in 30 years. The not-so-long-ago split in the CRC probably opened the door to this sort of "major change [in the CRC] in the last number of year." I pray the CRC will seriously re-think this direction before it too succumbs to this oh-so-high-sounding irrelevance.
Posted in: World Communion of Reformed Churches
Ken: You seem to regard me as defined by my feelings, asking why I am "so upset" and advising me that "change is scary" and that "it can be confusing." I would suggest I am intentionally motivated predominantly by what I think, am not "confused" and not by feeling "so upset" or "scared." I'm not too interested in a discussion that ignores statements made and asserts feeling states. I just don't think those discussions get anywhere.
Posted in: World Communion of Reformed Churches
Ken: I don't have an attitude, per se, about change, but I will have a perspective on one kind of change or another. For example, if my son's behavior and demeanor becomes very angry and hateful, I'll have a particular perspective that is different from if he becomes really happy and hard working. Both are change. My responses/perspectives/"attitudes" will be different in each case.
The denominiation's move toward the WCRC, as opposed to in some other ecumenical direction, isn't just "change" but a certain kind of change that implies a change in particular perspectives and about particular issues. So again, it's not just change, per se, that invokes my response.
Posted in: Biblical Racial Reconciliation: Let's Begin the Dialogue!
Bill Wald, you're a breath of fresh air. I'm 57, have practiced law for 32 years, and convinced people don't really know what they're are talking about (literally) when they use the word "race." Eg., is "black" a single race? What about "hispanic"? How about Mexican, and is that a different "race" from Spanish, or Honduran? How about "the German race"? Dutch? Dutch/American? African American? How about American (must we say "native American" for that to count)? People from Sheboygan, WI (they talk funny), New York (talk about distinctive)? What race is the "Ugly American" anyway?
Other questions: What race is someone who is 7/8th Korean and 1/8th Dutch? What is Tiger Woods anyway? Why do you need to be only a slight fraction of "native American" (whatever that exactly means -- I was born here, am I not "native American") to be qualified as "native American" (and thereby often be eligible for certain federal benefits)? And why does "white" cover so many different people who are so many different cultures? What do I not recognize so many "black people" as "black people."
Now, I do understand the term "culture," and think using that is meaningful, even though "culture" is composed of complex intermix of characteristics. Thus, you can be "Iowan" in culture (that definitely means a number of things to me), or Japanese in culture (I have one of those in my house). Or, you can be Japanese (in terms of looking like one) but be Iowan in culture.
Like Bill Wald, I often, very often, don't recognize someone's race. I realize I didn't recognize it only because in a later interaction with or about that person, he/she or someone else tells me they are a certain "race." And then I don't really know what to do with that information because it's so, well, meaningless.
My bottom line analysis is this: I think "race" is a cheap word (that is, not resulting from a lot of thought) that we continue to use predominantly because using the word adds to the users ability to sharply accuse or just get attention. Our ears perk when we hear the word because it maybe means someone is being mean, or about to start a fight, or making a strong accusation, or running for political office and behind in the polls.
This may sound a bit silly to some, but I think we should precisely define what we mean by the word "race" before we name committees after the word and have discussions about it. Don't misunderstand, I don't mind having those discussions, but I do prefer to take one step at a time, in logical order, when so discussing. Maybe the word has no real meaning anymore, and least for Christians.
I think Angeltp might agree???
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
Dan: What do you mean, precisely, when you say "consumer capitalism"? I understand your perspective of the need to re-examine and use things like the Belhar to do that. But I always get a bit frustrated when folks throw out rather ambiguous phrases like that and then juxtapose it to what they advocate for.
North America has a good deal of political/economic freedom, so that each of us has the legal right to choose to be materialistic or not, spend our money on bad things or good, love mercy or not, etc. Who is this "consumer capitalism" person who is "wonderfully at peace with ... Christianity?" By referring to it, are you referring to a person, people, or a political principal (and thus want to change our political system)?
The Accra Confession (like Belhar but less ambiguous, and already adopted by WARC, now known as WCRC) explicitly condemns "neo-liberalism," which is essentially political/economic freedom. A fair reading of the Accra would indicate that subscribers to it do want to change the political system (reducing/eliminating political/economic freedom). Is that what you are suggesting, or otherwise?
Posted in: Good Intentions Gone Awry
And so at the resurrection, do you think the hearing of the deaf will be restored?
Posted in: Adopt the Belhar? Pro & Con [Video]
I just listened to this debate/discussion this evening. One of the things that particularly caught my attention was Peter Borgdorff's recitation of the supposed parallelisms between South African and American racial issues. The one point I didn't buy too much on that, was that the 1960's represented a time when both race issues and apartheid issues came to the political fore in both countries. Well, the US fought a Civil War over this in the mid-1800's, so its a bit of a stretch to say there was a 1960's parallel.
But my question: does anyone know anything about connection between the "American Reformed Churches" (CRC included) and South African apartheid? Or, for that matter, between the "American Reformed Churches" and slavery or racial oppression in the United States?
I ask for this reason. If the CRC were complicit in any way, or even supportive of in any way, apartheid in S Africa, or slavery or racial oppression in the US, I would see reason for the CRC to now "say something about that" (although not necessarily by adopting the Belhar). But the reason I haven't thought of that before is because I don't know of a connection between the CRC, institutionally or as a practical matter among its members, and either apartheid or racial oppression in the US. Still, my not knowing doesn't make so. Thus, my asking for info from others.
Posted in: REAL Creation Care? Or Just More Words and Trees Gone?
Kris: Respectfully, how would you possibly know what you assert when you say: "sermons, Sunday school, and catechism classes given over the last year in the CRC that focused on creation care--as a response of gratitude for God’s grace and as a way to show love to our neighbors--their percentage of the total number would be pretty low."
I only have my anecdotal experience, but I wouldn't say that "creation care" (whether by that more fashionable term or otherwise) has not been appropriately covered in the CRC churches I've been a part of. Now, I'm quite certain that the conclusions pushed by this report have not been also pushed from the pulpit or in Sunday school, but if they were, I would have a pretty big objection to that, just as I do to much of this report.
Beyond that, consider how many CRC members are farmers, who tend to be professional experts at creation care (they actually do it). I really don't think creation care is under-valued or under-articulated in the CRC community in general, unless of course you mean the particular set of conclusions this report comes to, which I would suggest represents (at least as to many parts) the thinking of only a very small percentage of CRC members.
But let's twist the analysis just a bit for illumination. How many "sermons, Sunday school, and catechism classes given over the last year in the CRC ... focused on" the irresponsibility and immorality of our present generation of Americans stealing, using its government, from future generations by refusing to reduce entitlement benefits (even though such reductions reflect our actual available resources), given that borrowing from foreign sources to pay present levels of entitlements directly cause our future generations the unjust burden of having to pay that back? We get the benefit and they get to pay? Isn't that as much something our pulpits and sunday schools should be preaching/teaching about as whether we should encourage the government to do at this report does? Indeed, if we run the government into the ground financially, that will trigger a world-wide depression, cause millions to die, create abject poverty for more millions, and disable pretty much any government from doing anything related to creation care. Shouldn't we be hearing this message from our pulpits and in sunday school? Why should some important political/economic/science issues get the CRCNA press but not others, and why should a very small subset of CRCNA members get to say what everyone in the CRCNA thinks?
The real answer of course is that our pulpits and sunday schools should be preaching/teaching NEITHER, and the CRCNA denomination should not be our political/economic/science proxy. Making such a proxy out of the denomination (and a poor one at that) would diminish the CRCNA as a church institution, create division within our members, and distract the church (as institution) from doing what it is good at. Yes, we should care for creation and we should do justice to others. But pulpits, Sunday Schools, Synods, and CRCNA agencies should neither tell its members to buy into AGW alarmism, nor how to respond to the particulars of the federal government's budgets and over spending.
Right now, our denomination (though not our pulpits or sunday schools) is doing both and it should stop.
Posted in: The Church as a Community of Dissatisfaction?
From my perspective, I don't see so much dissatisfaction within local CRC congregations about their congregations, nor so much (although perhaps more) about their Classes. But I do see a lot of disatisfaction within local CRC congregations as to their denomination. And it takes two forms: (1) apathy about what the denomination is or is doing; out of sight and out of mind; (2) a bit of horror and disbelief about what the denomination is in fact doing, especially when the denomination seems to be incessantly pushing the envelope on its own standards and decides to increasingly become a political actor.
Between 1 and 2, I'm not sure which is worse. My experience is with local churches on the northwest/west coast and in the midwest (Iowa/Minnesota), but not Michigan or other areas. I claim much less understanding about Michigan churches, although I do get this sense: the closer individuals or local churches are to Grand Rapids, the more the individual or church seems to think that the denomination is required to a relfection of sorts of them, and the more the denomination seems to regard their opinion as to what the denomination should be.
Between the denomination and classis, it is obvious that the denomination gets the most in terms of ministry shares. And while money isn't everything, it's a lot. Certainly, I think the denominational structure believes that. So if more attention would be focused on middle management (classis), wouldn't it have to be the case that this change of focus would be reflected in revenue flow?
If one had to say what denominational agency was the most popular with local churches, I would think it would be CRWRC (now World Renew). But the funny thing about that is this: in a very real way, CRWRC is not so much a denominational agency. It receives no ministry shares and it is its own corporation. Sometimes, I find when people first learn that CRWRC receives no ministry shares, they wonder out loud where all those ministry shares dollars go.
I hope those who will be involved in studying the restructure of the denomination will consider whether too many minds at the denominational, whether consciously or not, consider it the point of the local churches to serve the denomination, instead of the other way around. From everything I can see, I think too many denominational minds do think that way, and would argue in defense of the proposition (well if you want do big things, well if you want to impact Congress on the question of climate change, well if you want to persuade the federal government to give more money to the poor, etc).
I think there is much more "connect" between local congregations and their respectiv classes than between local congregations and the denomination. Indeed, I think the disconnect between local congregations and the denomination is getting dangerously acute. I can't count the number of times, to illustrate, I've heard the the following: "I don't even want to read the Banner anymore -- I have no idea where they are coming from sometimes."
I don't know -- maybe the dominant perspective is different the closer one gets to GR. I do think GR has its own culture and thus perspective. And it would stand to reason that if the denomination focuses only, or even more, on its own local/regional culture, it could find itself at odds with the rest of the country. I know many Canadians feel estranged from the denomination. It may not be a Canadian/US division, but a GR area division from everything not GR area. I'm not sure, but that seems like at least a plausible theory. It's reflected with the facts on the ground that I see at least.
Whatever the case, I think I would be all for classes playing a greater role in the lives of local churches. But mind you, one of the first issues that will have to be on the table if that happens, may have to be revenue. The consequence of that wouldn't be underestimated by the denominational powers that now be.