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.
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
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.
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: 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: Good Intentions Gone Awry
And so at the resurrection, do you think the hearing of the deaf will be restored?
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.