First: I understand arguing that the Belhar is biblical. I don't understand, or even consider credible, the suggestion that there is "no argument" that the Belhar is biblical. That's like Al Gore saying this is no argument about anthropogenic global warming alarmism.
Second: I don't get your second point. Even if we assume for the sake of the argument that none of our confessions aren't intended to stand alone (I actually think both the Belgic and HC do that pretty good job), I don't understand that as an argument for what we need to adopt a rather poorly written document that has some highly objectionable points (e.g., God is not THE God of the poor and oppressed, but rather of all).
Third: Do you seriously think the CRCNA is in danger of supporting apartheid if we don't adopt the Belhar? It may be that for the South African church, passage of the Belhar was needed as a very wordy way of saying "racism is a sin," but they could and can do that without pushing on other churches the same wordy confession that says so much more than "racism is a sin."
Fourth: All kinds of people, majority and minority, suffer from rejection and injustice. Indeed, one of the problems with the Belhar, and it's advocates, is the implicit assumption that racism is a seething foundational motivation for nearly all injustice. Injustice is injustice, and the Belhar doesn't help make that clear, as perhaps illustrated by you own point four.
Fifth: Ah, this is the real reason I think most pro-Belhar folks want to see the Belhar passed -- it's seen as "progressive" and that's a good thing because it is presumed that "young people like progressive." I'm glad the CRC didn't take that approach in the 1960's with what was progressive/fashionable then, nor should it now. You suggest we can solve our declining membership by adding "the Belhar to the package we already have and we are back on the front page where the action is." Even if we could (although I don't think we can), that's simply not a reason to adopt the Belhar. I think you are looking for a form of denominational salvation in a place where it cannot be found. Indeed, I think passage of the Belhar would have the opposite effect, membership-wise, from what you presume, as suggested by the 90% of classical overtures for NOT adopting the Belhar. The Accra Confession (sequel to the Belhar, adopted by WCRC) is really cutting edge. Should we adopt that too?
There are quite a number of churches that are not moving in a so-called "progressive" direction that are doing just fine, and indeed much better, membership-wise, than the CRC. And in reality, very few churches of the reformed perspective have adopted the Belhar. Do you really think we have to be out in front with progessive doctrinal fashion in order to save ourselves from membership decline? I'm baffled by that sort of thinking. I actually think the opposite, although I also think it is far more important to be faithful than fashionable, regardless the membership effects.
Harry: Do you really want to say, "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor"? Really? Honestly, that blows me away. Beyond that, it even more persuades me that the CRCNA passing the Belhar as anything would be so deterimental to the CRCNA. If we did, there would be people saying, hey, even our own confession (or testimony or declaration or affirmation or whatever) says God prefers poor people over rich people (or even not so poor people), which means that we should ________________, and that we should not _________________, merely based on economic status. Again, wow!
Don't get me wrong on this. I've quoted Matthew and the parable that concludes with "inasmuch as you have done to the least of these, you have done to me" more often than I can count. I choose to live in what is arguably the poorest area of my city (including highest percentage of hispanic and black that our town has). I personally do more work (and spend more dollars) for the sake of my neighborhood (especially those who are poor and of other races) than I do for any other cause. But to say that God (Jesus or the Father) "massively prefers" (even "prefers") the poor over others??
Let me suggest a book, not written by a Christian (I don't think at least), but informative notwithstanding. It's "Stuff White People Like," and it has a sequel, "Whiter Shades of Pale." It's not just about white or black or brown, or about race or ethnicity, but about a certain kind of current zeitgeist. I think there is a lot of what these books talk about (in a humorous but still real way) in certain parts of our denomination. Certainly, not the majority (in fact this particular zeitgeist dominants in only a distinct minority in the CRCNA) but it includes many who have power positions in the CRCNA. It's a zeitgeist that makes certain kinds of people (WASPs) feel horribly guilty about their lives in a lefty political kind of way, and respond in fashionable, knee-jerk kinds of ways (white is bad, any amount of wealth is bad, affirmative action is good, private sector economics is bad, government aid is good, etc etc etc). I'm amazed at how much of that I'm seeing in the CRCNA (at least in some influencial parts).
Harry. No, my argument is that if we conclude "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor," it's got to be something other than what we've understood to be a reformed hermeneutical process that gets us to that conclusion.
Acts 6? The apostles choosing 'deacons' to pay more attention to providing for the widows of Hellenistic Jews? And you say these deacons were the complainers? And that the apostles appointed them as deacons because they were complainers?
OK, I'm back to recommending "Stuff White People Like." I'm persuaded that if Christian Landers did a "White CRC" version of his book, the Belhar and Accra Confessions would be high on the list of "things liked."
I would genuinely like to see a defense of the the assertion "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor," as would quite a few classical overture authors. Acceptanance of that doctrinal point, assuming it means what the words seem to me, would pretty dramatically and foundationally change the reformed tradition.
Harry: If you want to tell your kids and grandkids the story of faith as exhibited by some in the Dutch church, by all means, do that, along with tens or thousands of other stories of faith by good people deciding to do right throughout all of human history. Some of these stories are in Scripture, many (most) are not.
But why does the CRCNA have to adopt a confession for you to tell that story, especially when that confession includes assertions that of supposed "truths" that are in contradiction to Scripture? The adage, "hard cases can make bad law" applies here.
I'm still waiting for a defense of the statement, "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor." Abraham was pretty favored (preferred), yet not poor. Lot was pretty poor, yet not particularly favored (preferred).
I think it is helpful in all of this to examine claims of "conscience violation." When issues like this are raised, folks (generally on both extremes of perspective) are quick to claim their "conscience is violated." Certainly, one's conscience can be violated, but that is when one does something one knows one shoudn't do. It does NOT happened, and cannot be legitimately claimed, when one is simply in opposition to someone else doing something or taking some position, which is often the basis for the claim in the women-in-office discussion.
So if you do something to me that you shouldn't (e.g., don't repay a loan I gave you, or hit me for no reason), I can have a number of responses but not (at least with credibility) that you violated my conscience.
In the CRC, we've gotten the habit of claiming conscience violations for doctrinal disagreements because it works a bit like the rook card in the game of Rook. Trumps everything and everyone tends to step back because of your sacred invocation of right. And the more we get that response, the more we claim it.
If don't believe women should be pastors, but I go to a CRC church in a distant city and they have a woman pastor (I didn't know ahead of time of course), I really can't claim that being exposed to that woman violated by conscience. Or if I can claim it, it is because I refused to walk out when I thought I was required to and could have but didn't. She didn't violate my conscience, nor did the council who put her in the pulpit.
Applied to any who may claim conscience violations when women attend their classis meetings: well, that your problem; she doesn't violate your conscience, only you can.
Applied to any who may claim that their conscience is violated when their council doesn't allow women as elders in their church: what are you talking about; you're simply disagreeing with someone else making a decision that they, not you, made; how can that violate your conscience?
Getting to the core of the issue (in discussing it at least) will mean, then, dropping most of these "violations of conscience" claims -- getting rid of the rook and trump color tactics -- and talking more directly about what we have concluded what we have concluded.
Chris: The term ('social justice') may have roots (or at least a root) in Catholicism but that doesn't mean it's not liberal (nor is Catholicism "all about the sanctity of human life" -- it's a big church with lot of views and lots of doctrines).
Indeed, Catholicism is also the historic source of "liberation theology" (the Protestant version generally referred to as "social gospel) and the two, or three, phrases, "social justice," "liberation theology," and "social gospel," are all phrases within a largely single perspective. For a good summary, check out Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice ). However "social justice" may be characterized, "conservative" is not one of them.
Understand of course that "liberal" and "conservative" are relative terms (thus, a conservative in the US tends to want limited government while a conservative in Russia wants dictatorial government). But we're in the US, talking about US/English words and phrases, as are the parents (and children) of CRC church youth groups. Were we in Russia, "social justice" would indeed be "conservative."
I think there is a pretty big disconnect between the denominational bureacracy and the CRC membership in this area. Via our membership in the WCRC and a number of activities of our CRC agencies (OSJ and others), the denominational bureaucracy is embracing, promoting, and advocating political centrism (lots of government control over society) and forced (government controlled) egalitarianism -- all under the banner of "social justice." That would make sense in a Catholic tradition, but not in a Calvinist tradition. The historic Catholic tradition rarely opposed centristic government control. In fact, the middle ages is a long story of the Catholic tradition promoting, even seizing that centristic government control (and the Catholic church governance structure is very heirarchical, in contrast to that of the various Calvinist traditions). Catholic tradition embraced monarchy; but the various Calvinist traditions wanted decentralized authority (sphere sovereignty if you will). Only recently, and especially in the US, Catholics have been rethinking their political perspectives and becoming much more conservative, that is, de-centrist in their political thinking.
And this is the problem that Paul Boice's families may be having. When most CRC folk (members, not denominational bureacracy) hear the phrase "social justice," they hear (for good reason) Van Jones, green parties, Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, Barak Obama -- all of which have two political perspective points in common: (1) that which used to be regarded as "mercy" is now recast as a matter of justice, which means a matter of political right; (2) government should enforce political rights, including matters of justice, including the right to economic equality.
Interestly, even though Paul Boice's lead post begins with talk of "social justice," it continues more by referring to mercy, even describing the projects undertaken as "mercy projects." Justice and mercy are two different things. Christians should "do justice" and they should "love mercy," but they should not confuse the two, and the current fashionable use of the phrase "social justice" does just that, confusing not only the two concepts, but the people with whom the phrase is used in conversation. And so when Paul takes his kids back from doing "mercy projects," he finds no objection but rather enthusiasm for what was done. Makes sense. When he talked first about "social justice," he got a cool response; but then when he engaged the kids in "mercy projects," he found families supportive. His initial communication was not in sync with the projects actually undertaken.
Please don't misunderstand my perspective. I'm all for "mercy" and "mercy projects." I advocate for them, I do them personally -- a lot (because I'm a decentrist). I'm also all for "justice," having spent more than a little of my 32 years of law practice obtaining justice for clients (not infrequently at no or little charge). But I don't confuse the two, and I don't advocate for government to be our society's mechanism for doing mercy (justice yes, mercy no). In fact, I would suggest that confusing the two, and miscasting the role of government as to justice and mercy, leads to dramatically bad results.
Dawn: You say, "I do not think anyone really thinks that we should act in a way that counters our beliefs."
Assuming you are not kidding, I and most other people in the world conform to things we disagree with all of our lives. Children sincerely believe they should be allowed to do this or that, or allowed not to do this or that, but their parents insist otherwise. Growing up as adults doesn't change that. Some adults sincerely believe they should keep their money instead of giving it to the government (for all kinds of reasons), or that they should be allowed to ride their motorcycle without a helmet, or talk in their cell phone while driving, etc etc etc etc etc. I even conform to what my wife says, sometimes, and she sometimes to what I say, in each case including about things counter to our own beliefs.
Could be that I'm a lawyer, but I just see acting in conformity to be forced upon all of us everyday. Without that, we don't even have a political society, let alone a church, or even a family.
So yes, I do think we should -- often -- act in ways that counters our beliefs.
You say, "That is what I am asked to do as a member of the CRC, feeling wrenched by the fact that I am willing to be a member of a country club that does not permit black tee times." Hey, I feel wrench by big things and and little things, including that I can't speak my mind respectully on this forum without being censored. And yet I conform.
Your solution, really, to your feeling wrenched, is to not be "willing to be a member...". I can't stand what certain political parties advocate for, and so I'm not a member. Indeed, I'm not a member of any political party.
But you want more. You want to keep the CRC banging on the drum. Well, not argue about the women-in-office question anymore (you've said you don't want to argue that anymore), but you do want to, as Michael Bentley suggests, "silenc[e] hermeneutical opponents by eliminating denominational structure?"
Again, I actually agree with your position that women should be allowed to be pastors and elders. What I disagree with is that the decision the denomination made should be continually pounded on. At some point, we need to agree to disagree, and getting rid of classis as a denominational structure is not that. Nor is characterizing those who disagree with your position as being analogical racists and slave keepers. At some point, we need to submit to the decisions made or decide we want out.
You were right, I think, when you observed that the CRC is a "dying denomination." I think it is that in no small part because too many simply want things their way and refuse to see themselves as ever having to "act in a way that counters their beliefs."
Terry: I'm glad you appreciated my post, although it wasn't intended so much as what you took it for. In another forum, I was once asked (by Bev Sterk) what I thought the meaning of Micah 6:8. I answered, it being that Micah 6:8 was "my verse" of sorts for many years, and because I consider myself in the business, so to speak, of doing justice, and have at least of the hobby of loving (and doing) mercy. Below is that post.
---------------------
Bev: Your question/point about [what] Micah 6:8 [means] catches my attention and is really important these days, I think, because of all the "social justice" talk. I still don't think I know that people are talking about exactly when they say "social justice".
Micah 6:8 has been and is "my favorite verse," so to speak, beginning before I finished law school over 30 years ago. Here are my thoughts.
Do Justice
God commanded Israel to do justice: no ifs, ands or buts. Kind of simple in a way. The take-away for our generation (whose governments are not theocratic) is a bit more complicated but not too much. Justice is, well justice. If I sell you a pound's worth, I may not use cheating scales. If I pitch a house to you (as a realtor), I may not misrepresent, whether by omission or commission. If I give you my advice on whether to take this case to trial, I must to tell you all of the upside and downside points, not just that which would get you to hire me. If I have a car with problems, I must tell the dealer about them when I trade it for a new one.
Doing justice often hurts us financially. Not doing justice is stealing. There should be a law against all injustices, literally.
In terms of institutions, the government's chief matter of concern is justice. Thus, government should creates uniform laws about weights and measures, contract rules, torts, property law, etc. And it should create a "judicial system" that enforces those rules ("does justice"). Government rightly says to all its citizens, "you must do justice." In OT Israel society, it was easy to "take advantage" of people who had little legal/political power, like widows and orphans, or the stranger. Often, they had neither the means, nor the know-how, nor the political clout to fight those who would be unjust to them (literally steal from them). Thus, God's command to all of Israel, especially its rulers I think (who enforced the requirement), was: DO JUSTICE. Today as well.
Government enforced justice can sometimes seems like mercy, but it isn't mercy. A "welfare safety net" is a matter of justice, not mercy, because only government has the power to take human life (hence, it must ensure human life). The argument arises of course when Government extends justice to include mercy. I believe it does that when it intends to equalize wealth, or shifts wealth in order to "be nice" to those less fortunate, or engages in affirmative action (except to offset past injustice).
Love Mercy
Note first, Micah does not say to "do" mercy but rather to "love" it. Just as the early Christians who lived communally were not REQUIRED to commit what was theirs to the community, so we are not also. In OT Israel, you could sell yourself as a slave. Justice would require that you be released from that on the year of Jubilee, but in the meantime justice meant you were a slave (unless the person you sold yourself to had mercy and released you). But still, God also commanded the OT Israelites (and us) to LOVE mercy. They/we were/are not thereby ordered to do it, but we are ordered to "want to do it," to examine our hearts and adjust them when they acquire a selfish disposition. Loving mercy is very much like "loving our neighbors as ourselves."
If everyone Did Justice, heaven on earth would still not exist. If everyone Loved Mercy, we would almost be there.
Government should not Love Mercy (well, OK to love it but not do it, or command its citizens to do it). Doing Mercy is NOT within government's jurisdiction, and if it was, government would do it badly. That doesn't mean government should not create laws, for example, to mimic the effect of the Year of Jubilee, but doing that is Justice, that is, keeping things from getting too out of balance (if that happens, society--and society's ability to do justice--crumbles).
Should the church Love Mercy? Of course--even, I think, the church as institution. Should the church as organism (that is, should all Christians) Love Mercy? A super big "you bet." However, mindful of our Lord's acknowledgement, the poor will be with us always. This does not mean we should ease up on Loving Mercy, but we must, need to, acknowledge that we probably cannot give all the mercy we'd love to give (one goes crazy if one loves mercy and does not recognize her/her limits in giving it because we are not God).
Walk Humbly With God
I have less definitive thoughts about this phrase, but here's what I've done with it so far in my life at least. First, for me, obeying this meant, when I started practicing law, taking off my tie and not requiring my clients address me as Mr. Vande Griend while I addressed them by their first name. An older businessman in church advised me otherwise, and I tried a bit but eventually decided doing that was manipulative and disobedient (it creates a power relationship, not a servant relationship).
Walking Humbly also meant, for me, acknowledging my inability to to everything for everyone who needs it, but it took a long time for me to figure that out. Especially in my 20s through 40's, I did so much pro bono work and work for "Christian organizations," that I really neglected my family. That wasn't Walking Humbly because I was trying to be the guy that would/could fix everything for everyone. I did eventually figure that out, but it took decades.
The other way I decided to Walk Humbly, and you know this one already from a different forum, was to not move from where we lived in town, despite that area becoming the "Hispanic area." I have to admit that to this day, I feel twangs of embarrasment when some finds out where I live. "East Salem? Where in East Salem?" Literally, no "doctor or lawyer" lives within a 4-5 mile radius of our house. So what was my problem? Still, the blessing of living here outweighs the sometimes feeling of embarassment and I would not be Walking Humbly, as I understand it, nor Loving Mercy, if I did not. Besides, the blessings of living here, as you know from another forum, are much greater than the curses.
Would love to hear your thinking Bev -- and I know you have some thoughts. :-) Others as well.
Dawn: I'll bite. Your question to me is: "I am curious -- would you consider it sinful behavior for yourself to be a willing member of a country club that did not permit tee times for black people because they were black? Would you consider such a membership? Why or why not?"
My answer: I would choose not to be a member of that country club. I'm not sure I would conclude it to be a sin for me to stay a member (that analysis could get complex), but I would definitely choose to either not become a member or to terminate my membership. Why? I just wouldn't want to be a member of an organization which irrationally discriminated within its membership. I'd find another country club if I liked golf that much (which I don't, but ...). I'd even give up golf if there was no alternative golf course. It's not that discrimination is necessarily a bad thing (we discriminate, e.g., against those who murder by not allowing them to run free, as well as against persons who want a particular job but are not qualified to do the job, etc etc etc), but this discrimination is both irrational and unfair. I could write quite a bit to support that analysis.
Now, having answered your question, I would ask, so? In my view, if someone analogizes between a country club prohibiting blacks from tee time and a church that decide to literally mimic the apostle Paul's decision to "not permit women to teach or have authority over men," one is making an analogy that simply does not work as a meaningful/useful analogy (as I said in my very first post).
So I would like to hear your explanation as to how this analogy does work, if you think it does, and how. You say "I do not characterize any other person as a racist." I honestly don't understand. You have repeatedly said not allowing women in certain offices is like racism. Saying that is, literally, characterizing those who don't allow women in certain offices as acting from the same evil motivations. OK, sure, you didn't call them racists (nor did I say you did, note that I said you said they were "analogical racists"), but the distinction is slight at best, and your repeated use of the analogy to racism, slave-keeping and such either makes a point or it doesn't. And I'm assuming you are making a point, so what exactly is the point? (I genuinely want to know). I honestly cannot discern the point.
Al: I appreciate and respect your perspective, and your arguments (and I think you make good CO arguments). At the same time, your comment that you view "... the current debate about whether women should be accepted at classis as delegates to be both offensive and belittling to women" gives me pause.
You speak of "women" as if they are all of one mind. I very much doubt they are. Even in faith communities where the role of women is much, much more "rigid" than the CRC (e.g., many Mennonite traditions) I can't imagine there aren't a great number of women to believe that women have Scripture-prescribed, defined roles which both mandate and exclude in some respects. So when you find the mere debate of the matter to be "offensive and belittling to women," some women (who have concluded other than as you have) would find it offensive and belittling that you assume for them what conclusions they have/must reach.
The greatest migration of mindset we've had in our modern era, even greater than the "individualism" and "materialism" we are so good at constantly lamenting in our prepared liturgy materials, is our tendency now to look at most everything as rights and power issues. We have lost a great deal of our servant perspective. We really can't understand why Paul would tell Onesimus to go back to Philemon. With this loss in our mindset, an Acts 15 kind of resolution cannot happen.
Al: I think you make a good point and I don't necessarily disagree with your logic. On the other hand, I think it is quite correct to say that any body (we're talking church bodies here but could be otherwise) ultimately makes the rules it makes, and construes its rules as it construes its rules, unless that body is under a recognized jurisdiction of a higher body which can overrule it. This principle is rather firmly embedded in both the seemingly eternal Roberts Rules of Order, but also in a sort of logical common sense, not to mention the CRCNA Church Order.
Again, I think your logic is good, but ultimately, each classis has the authority (not to mention the power) to accept or reject your logic. This doesn't mean you have to stop making your argument, but it does mean, as a practical matter, that the only way classes who decide not to seat women (contrary to your argument) will stop that is if Synod overrules their decision that they may refuse to seat women.
This is sort of like the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. I can (and do) argue that it doesn't mean (isn't as expansive as) what the Supreme Court has said it means in recent decades, but I will acknowledge that, as a legal matter, it does say what the Supreme Court says it means, my opinion notwithstanding. Also, if the Ninth Circuit makes a decision, that decision is law in Oregon (my state -- in the Ninth Circuit), even if I say that's inconsistent with what the US Supreme Court has said, unless and until the US Supreme Court actually overrules that Ninth Circuit decision.
Which means, if one is to accept your argument, that the only way your argument gets wings is if it persuade Synod to overrule the decision of those Classes who don't seat women. And it can do that. Were Synod to consider overruling Classes who refused to seat women, I would oppose it, despite the fact that I believe Scripture, fairly read, does not require the church to prohibit women from holding the offices of minister and elder. Acts 15 is instructive to me in this regard. The "compromise decision" the church leaders came to at that meeting did not, strictly speaking, match what was "theologically correct." The unity of the body was considered a greater good than theological correctness about particular (and smaller) matters.
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Al: Responding:
First: I understand arguing that the Belhar is biblical. I don't understand, or even consider credible, the suggestion that there is "no argument" that the Belhar is biblical. That's like Al Gore saying this is no argument about anthropogenic global warming alarmism.
Second: I don't get your second point. Even if we assume for the sake of the argument that none of our confessions aren't intended to stand alone (I actually think both the Belgic and HC do that pretty good job), I don't understand that as an argument for what we need to adopt a rather poorly written document that has some highly objectionable points (e.g., God is not THE God of the poor and oppressed, but rather of all).
Third: Do you seriously think the CRCNA is in danger of supporting apartheid if we don't adopt the Belhar? It may be that for the South African church, passage of the Belhar was needed as a very wordy way of saying "racism is a sin," but they could and can do that without pushing on other churches the same wordy confession that says so much more than "racism is a sin."
Fourth: All kinds of people, majority and minority, suffer from rejection and injustice. Indeed, one of the problems with the Belhar, and it's advocates, is the implicit assumption that racism is a seething foundational motivation for nearly all injustice. Injustice is injustice, and the Belhar doesn't help make that clear, as perhaps illustrated by you own point four.
Fifth: Ah, this is the real reason I think most pro-Belhar folks want to see the Belhar passed -- it's seen as "progressive" and that's a good thing because it is presumed that "young people like progressive." I'm glad the CRC didn't take that approach in the 1960's with what was progressive/fashionable then, nor should it now. You suggest we can solve our declining membership by adding "the Belhar to the package we already have and we are back on the front page where the action is." Even if we could (although I don't think we can), that's simply not a reason to adopt the Belhar. I think you are looking for a form of denominational salvation in a place where it cannot be found. Indeed, I think passage of the Belhar would have the opposite effect, membership-wise, from what you presume, as suggested by the 90% of classical overtures for NOT adopting the Belhar. The Accra Confession (sequel to the Belhar, adopted by WCRC) is really cutting edge. Should we adopt that too?
There are quite a number of churches that are not moving in a so-called "progressive" direction that are doing just fine, and indeed much better, membership-wise, than the CRC. And in reality, very few churches of the reformed perspective have adopted the Belhar. Do you really think we have to be out in front with progessive doctrinal fashion in order to save ourselves from membership decline? I'm baffled by that sort of thinking. I actually think the opposite, although I also think it is far more important to be faithful than fashionable, regardless the membership effects.
Posted in: Guard Against All Kinds of Greed - a Reflection on Luke 12
Bill: You were a police officer for 30 years and apparently did your job (at least tried to) in a manner consistent with your faith and worldview.
In my thinking, you were, literally, doing "kingdom work."
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Harry: Do you really want to say, "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor"? Really? Honestly, that blows me away. Beyond that, it even more persuades me that the CRCNA passing the Belhar as anything would be so deterimental to the CRCNA. If we did, there would be people saying, hey, even our own confession (or testimony or declaration or affirmation or whatever) says God prefers poor people over rich people (or even not so poor people), which means that we should ________________, and that we should not _________________, merely based on economic status. Again, wow!
Don't get me wrong on this. I've quoted Matthew and the parable that concludes with "inasmuch as you have done to the least of these, you have done to me" more often than I can count. I choose to live in what is arguably the poorest area of my city (including highest percentage of hispanic and black that our town has). I personally do more work (and spend more dollars) for the sake of my neighborhood (especially those who are poor and of other races) than I do for any other cause. But to say that God (Jesus or the Father) "massively prefers" (even "prefers") the poor over others??
Let me suggest a book, not written by a Christian (I don't think at least), but informative notwithstanding. It's "Stuff White People Like," and it has a sequel, "Whiter Shades of Pale." It's not just about white or black or brown, or about race or ethnicity, but about a certain kind of current zeitgeist. I think there is a lot of what these books talk about (in a humorous but still real way) in certain parts of our denomination. Certainly, not the majority (in fact this particular zeitgeist dominants in only a distinct minority in the CRCNA) but it includes many who have power positions in the CRCNA. It's a zeitgeist that makes certain kinds of people (WASPs) feel horribly guilty about their lives in a lefty political kind of way, and respond in fashionable, knee-jerk kinds of ways (white is bad, any amount of wealth is bad, affirmative action is good, private sector economics is bad, government aid is good, etc etc etc). I'm amazed at how much of that I'm seeing in the CRCNA (at least in some influencial parts).
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Harry. No, my argument is that if we conclude "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor," it's got to be something other than what we've understood to be a reformed hermeneutical process that gets us to that conclusion.
Acts 6? The apostles choosing 'deacons' to pay more attention to providing for the widows of Hellenistic Jews? And you say these deacons were the complainers? And that the apostles appointed them as deacons because they were complainers?
OK, I'm back to recommending "Stuff White People Like." I'm persuaded that if Christian Landers did a "White CRC" version of his book, the Belhar and Accra Confessions would be high on the list of "things liked."
I would genuinely like to see a defense of the the assertion "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor," as would quite a few classical overture authors. Acceptanance of that doctrinal point, assuming it means what the words seem to me, would pretty dramatically and foundationally change the reformed tradition.
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Harry: If you want to tell your kids and grandkids the story of faith as exhibited by some in the Dutch church, by all means, do that, along with tens or thousands of other stories of faith by good people deciding to do right throughout all of human history. Some of these stories are in Scripture, many (most) are not.
But why does the CRCNA have to adopt a confession for you to tell that story, especially when that confession includes assertions that of supposed "truths" that are in contradiction to Scripture? The adage, "hard cases can make bad law" applies here.
I'm still waiting for a defense of the statement, "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor." Abraham was pretty favored (preferred), yet not poor. Lot was pretty poor, yet not particularly favored (preferred).
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
I think it is helpful in all of this to examine claims of "conscience violation." When issues like this are raised, folks (generally on both extremes of perspective) are quick to claim their "conscience is violated." Certainly, one's conscience can be violated, but that is when one does something one knows one shoudn't do. It does NOT happened, and cannot be legitimately claimed, when one is simply in opposition to someone else doing something or taking some position, which is often the basis for the claim in the women-in-office discussion.
So if you do something to me that you shouldn't (e.g., don't repay a loan I gave you, or hit me for no reason), I can have a number of responses but not (at least with credibility) that you violated my conscience.
In the CRC, we've gotten the habit of claiming conscience violations for doctrinal disagreements because it works a bit like the rook card in the game of Rook. Trumps everything and everyone tends to step back because of your sacred invocation of right. And the more we get that response, the more we claim it.
If don't believe women should be pastors, but I go to a CRC church in a distant city and they have a woman pastor (I didn't know ahead of time of course), I really can't claim that being exposed to that woman violated by conscience. Or if I can claim it, it is because I refused to walk out when I thought I was required to and could have but didn't. She didn't violate my conscience, nor did the council who put her in the pulpit.
Applied to any who may claim conscience violations when women attend their classis meetings: well, that your problem; she doesn't violate your conscience, only you can.
Applied to any who may claim that their conscience is violated when their council doesn't allow women as elders in their church: what are you talking about; you're simply disagreeing with someone else making a decision that they, not you, made; how can that violate your conscience?
Getting to the core of the issue (in discussing it at least) will mean, then, dropping most of these "violations of conscience" claims -- getting rid of the rook and trump color tactics -- and talking more directly about what we have concluded what we have concluded.
Posted in: Seek Justice, Love Mercy, Walk Humbly...in Youth Group
Chris: The term ('social justice') may have roots (or at least a root) in Catholicism but that doesn't mean it's not liberal (nor is Catholicism "all about the sanctity of human life" -- it's a big church with lot of views and lots of doctrines).
Indeed, Catholicism is also the historic source of "liberation theology" (the Protestant version generally referred to as "social gospel) and the two, or three, phrases, "social justice," "liberation theology," and "social gospel," are all phrases within a largely single perspective. For a good summary, check out Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice ). However "social justice" may be characterized, "conservative" is not one of them.
Understand of course that "liberal" and "conservative" are relative terms (thus, a conservative in the US tends to want limited government while a conservative in Russia wants dictatorial government). But we're in the US, talking about US/English words and phrases, as are the parents (and children) of CRC church youth groups. Were we in Russia, "social justice" would indeed be "conservative."
I think there is a pretty big disconnect between the denominational bureacracy and the CRC membership in this area. Via our membership in the WCRC and a number of activities of our CRC agencies (OSJ and others), the denominational bureaucracy is embracing, promoting, and advocating political centrism (lots of government control over society) and forced (government controlled) egalitarianism -- all under the banner of "social justice." That would make sense in a Catholic tradition, but not in a Calvinist tradition. The historic Catholic tradition rarely opposed centristic government control. In fact, the middle ages is a long story of the Catholic tradition promoting, even seizing that centristic government control (and the Catholic church governance structure is very heirarchical, in contrast to that of the various Calvinist traditions). Catholic tradition embraced monarchy; but the various Calvinist traditions wanted decentralized authority (sphere sovereignty if you will). Only recently, and especially in the US, Catholics have been rethinking their political perspectives and becoming much more conservative, that is, de-centrist in their political thinking.
And this is the problem that Paul Boice's families may be having. When most CRC folk (members, not denominational bureacracy) hear the phrase "social justice," they hear (for good reason) Van Jones, green parties, Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, Barak Obama -- all of which have two political perspective points in common: (1) that which used to be regarded as "mercy" is now recast as a matter of justice, which means a matter of political right; (2) government should enforce political rights, including matters of justice, including the right to economic equality.
Interestly, even though Paul Boice's lead post begins with talk of "social justice," it continues more by referring to mercy, even describing the projects undertaken as "mercy projects." Justice and mercy are two different things. Christians should "do justice" and they should "love mercy," but they should not confuse the two, and the current fashionable use of the phrase "social justice" does just that, confusing not only the two concepts, but the people with whom the phrase is used in conversation. And so when Paul takes his kids back from doing "mercy projects," he finds no objection but rather enthusiasm for what was done. Makes sense. When he talked first about "social justice," he got a cool response; but then when he engaged the kids in "mercy projects," he found families supportive. His initial communication was not in sync with the projects actually undertaken.
Please don't misunderstand my perspective. I'm all for "mercy" and "mercy projects." I advocate for them, I do them personally -- a lot (because I'm a decentrist). I'm also all for "justice," having spent more than a little of my 32 years of law practice obtaining justice for clients (not infrequently at no or little charge). But I don't confuse the two, and I don't advocate for government to be our society's mechanism for doing mercy (justice yes, mercy no). In fact, I would suggest that confusing the two, and miscasting the role of government as to justice and mercy, leads to dramatically bad results.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Dawn: You say, "I do not think anyone really thinks that we should act in a way that counters our beliefs."
Assuming you are not kidding, I and most other people in the world conform to things we disagree with all of our lives. Children sincerely believe they should be allowed to do this or that, or allowed not to do this or that, but their parents insist otherwise. Growing up as adults doesn't change that. Some adults sincerely believe they should keep their money instead of giving it to the government (for all kinds of reasons), or that they should be allowed to ride their motorcycle without a helmet, or talk in their cell phone while driving, etc etc etc etc etc. I even conform to what my wife says, sometimes, and she sometimes to what I say, in each case including about things counter to our own beliefs.
Could be that I'm a lawyer, but I just see acting in conformity to be forced upon all of us everyday. Without that, we don't even have a political society, let alone a church, or even a family.
So yes, I do think we should -- often -- act in ways that counters our beliefs.
You say, "That is what I am asked to do as a member of the CRC, feeling wrenched by the fact that I am willing to be a member of a country club that does not permit black tee times." Hey, I feel wrench by big things and and little things, including that I can't speak my mind respectully on this forum without being censored. And yet I conform.
Your solution, really, to your feeling wrenched, is to not be "willing to be a member...". I can't stand what certain political parties advocate for, and so I'm not a member. Indeed, I'm not a member of any political party.
But you want more. You want to keep the CRC banging on the drum. Well, not argue about the women-in-office question anymore (you've said you don't want to argue that anymore), but you do want to, as Michael Bentley suggests, "silenc[e] hermeneutical opponents by eliminating denominational structure?"
Again, I actually agree with your position that women should be allowed to be pastors and elders. What I disagree with is that the decision the denomination made should be continually pounded on. At some point, we need to agree to disagree, and getting rid of classis as a denominational structure is not that. Nor is characterizing those who disagree with your position as being analogical racists and slave keepers. At some point, we need to submit to the decisions made or decide we want out.
You were right, I think, when you observed that the CRC is a "dying denomination." I think it is that in no small part because too many simply want things their way and refuse to see themselves as ever having to "act in a way that counters their beliefs."
Posted in: Seek Justice, Love Mercy, Walk Humbly...in Youth Group
Terry: I'm glad you appreciated my post, although it wasn't intended so much as what you took it for. In another forum, I was once asked (by Bev Sterk) what I thought the meaning of Micah 6:8. I answered, it being that Micah 6:8 was "my verse" of sorts for many years, and because I consider myself in the business, so to speak, of doing justice, and have at least of the hobby of loving (and doing) mercy. Below is that post.
---------------------
Bev: Your question/point about [what] Micah 6:8 [means] catches my attention and is really important these days, I think, because of all the "social justice" talk. I still don't think I know that people are talking about exactly when they say "social justice".
Micah 6:8 has been and is "my favorite verse," so to speak, beginning before I finished law school over 30 years ago. Here are my thoughts.
Do Justice
God commanded Israel to do justice: no ifs, ands or buts. Kind of simple in a way. The take-away for our generation (whose governments are not theocratic) is a bit more complicated but not too much. Justice is, well justice. If I sell you a pound's worth, I may not use cheating scales. If I pitch a house to you (as a realtor), I may not misrepresent, whether by omission or commission. If I give you my advice on whether to take this case to trial, I must to tell you all of the upside and downside points, not just that which would get you to hire me. If I have a car with problems, I must tell the dealer about them when I trade it for a new one.
Doing justice often hurts us financially. Not doing justice is stealing. There should be a law against all injustices, literally.
In terms of institutions, the government's chief matter of concern is justice. Thus, government should creates uniform laws about weights and measures, contract rules, torts, property law, etc. And it should create a "judicial system" that enforces those rules ("does justice"). Government rightly says to all its citizens, "you must do justice." In OT Israel society, it was easy to "take advantage" of people who had little legal/political power, like widows and orphans, or the stranger. Often, they had neither the means, nor the know-how, nor the political clout to fight those who would be unjust to them (literally steal from them). Thus, God's command to all of Israel, especially its rulers I think (who enforced the requirement), was: DO JUSTICE. Today as well.
Government enforced justice can sometimes seems like mercy, but it isn't mercy. A "welfare safety net" is a matter of justice, not mercy, because only government has the power to take human life (hence, it must ensure human life). The argument arises of course when Government extends justice to include mercy. I believe it does that when it intends to equalize wealth, or shifts wealth in order to "be nice" to those less fortunate, or engages in affirmative action (except to offset past injustice).
Love Mercy
Note first, Micah does not say to "do" mercy but rather to "love" it. Just as the early Christians who lived communally were not REQUIRED to commit what was theirs to the community, so we are not also. In OT Israel, you could sell yourself as a slave. Justice would require that you be released from that on the year of Jubilee, but in the meantime justice meant you were a slave (unless the person you sold yourself to had mercy and released you). But still, God also commanded the OT Israelites (and us) to LOVE mercy. They/we were/are not thereby ordered to do it, but we are ordered to "want to do it," to examine our hearts and adjust them when they acquire a selfish disposition. Loving mercy is very much like "loving our neighbors as ourselves."
If everyone Did Justice, heaven on earth would still not exist. If everyone Loved Mercy, we would almost be there.
Government should not Love Mercy (well, OK to love it but not do it, or command its citizens to do it). Doing Mercy is NOT within government's jurisdiction, and if it was, government would do it badly. That doesn't mean government should not create laws, for example, to mimic the effect of the Year of Jubilee, but doing that is Justice, that is, keeping things from getting too out of balance (if that happens, society--and society's ability to do justice--crumbles).
Should the church Love Mercy? Of course--even, I think, the church as institution. Should the church as organism (that is, should all Christians) Love Mercy? A super big "you bet." However, mindful of our Lord's acknowledgement, the poor will be with us always. This does not mean we should ease up on Loving Mercy, but we must, need to, acknowledge that we probably cannot give all the mercy we'd love to give (one goes crazy if one loves mercy and does not recognize her/her limits in giving it because we are not God).
Walk Humbly With God
I have less definitive thoughts about this phrase, but here's what I've done with it so far in my life at least. First, for me, obeying this meant, when I started practicing law, taking off my tie and not requiring my clients address me as Mr. Vande Griend while I addressed them by their first name. An older businessman in church advised me otherwise, and I tried a bit but eventually decided doing that was manipulative and disobedient (it creates a power relationship, not a servant relationship).
Walking Humbly also meant, for me, acknowledging my inability to to everything for everyone who needs it, but it took a long time for me to figure that out. Especially in my 20s through 40's, I did so much pro bono work and work for "Christian organizations," that I really neglected my family. That wasn't Walking Humbly because I was trying to be the guy that would/could fix everything for everyone. I did eventually figure that out, but it took decades.
The other way I decided to Walk Humbly, and you know this one already from a different forum, was to not move from where we lived in town, despite that area becoming the "Hispanic area." I have to admit that to this day, I feel twangs of embarrasment when some finds out where I live. "East Salem? Where in East Salem?" Literally, no "doctor or lawyer" lives within a 4-5 mile radius of our house. So what was my problem? Still, the blessing of living here outweighs the sometimes feeling of embarassment and I would not be Walking Humbly, as I understand it, nor Loving Mercy, if I did not. Besides, the blessings of living here, as you know from another forum, are much greater than the curses.
Would love to hear your thinking Bev -- and I know you have some thoughts. :-) Others as well.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Dawn: I'll bite. Your question to me is: "I am curious -- would you consider it sinful behavior for yourself to be a willing member of a country club that did not permit tee times for black people because they were black? Would you consider such a membership? Why or why not?"
My answer: I would choose not to be a member of that country club. I'm not sure I would conclude it to be a sin for me to stay a member (that analysis could get complex), but I would definitely choose to either not become a member or to terminate my membership. Why? I just wouldn't want to be a member of an organization which irrationally discriminated within its membership. I'd find another country club if I liked golf that much (which I don't, but ...). I'd even give up golf if there was no alternative golf course. It's not that discrimination is necessarily a bad thing (we discriminate, e.g., against those who murder by not allowing them to run free, as well as against persons who want a particular job but are not qualified to do the job, etc etc etc), but this discrimination is both irrational and unfair. I could write quite a bit to support that analysis.
Now, having answered your question, I would ask, so? In my view, if someone analogizes between a country club prohibiting blacks from tee time and a church that decide to literally mimic the apostle Paul's decision to "not permit women to teach or have authority over men," one is making an analogy that simply does not work as a meaningful/useful analogy (as I said in my very first post).
So I would like to hear your explanation as to how this analogy does work, if you think it does, and how. You say "I do not characterize any other person as a racist." I honestly don't understand. You have repeatedly said not allowing women in certain offices is like racism. Saying that is, literally, characterizing those who don't allow women in certain offices as acting from the same evil motivations. OK, sure, you didn't call them racists (nor did I say you did, note that I said you said they were "analogical racists"), but the distinction is slight at best, and your repeated use of the analogy to racism, slave-keeping and such either makes a point or it doesn't. And I'm assuming you are making a point, so what exactly is the point? (I genuinely want to know). I honestly cannot discern the point.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Al: I appreciate and respect your perspective, and your arguments (and I think you make good CO arguments). At the same time, your comment that you view "... the current debate about whether women should be accepted at classis as delegates to be both offensive and belittling to women" gives me pause.
You speak of "women" as if they are all of one mind. I very much doubt they are. Even in faith communities where the role of women is much, much more "rigid" than the CRC (e.g., many Mennonite traditions) I can't imagine there aren't a great number of women to believe that women have Scripture-prescribed, defined roles which both mandate and exclude in some respects. So when you find the mere debate of the matter to be "offensive and belittling to women," some women (who have concluded other than as you have) would find it offensive and belittling that you assume for them what conclusions they have/must reach.
The greatest migration of mindset we've had in our modern era, even greater than the "individualism" and "materialism" we are so good at constantly lamenting in our prepared liturgy materials, is our tendency now to look at most everything as rights and power issues. We have lost a great deal of our servant perspective. We really can't understand why Paul would tell Onesimus to go back to Philemon. With this loss in our mindset, an Acts 15 kind of resolution cannot happen.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Al: I think you make a good point and I don't necessarily disagree with your logic. On the other hand, I think it is quite correct to say that any body (we're talking church bodies here but could be otherwise) ultimately makes the rules it makes, and construes its rules as it construes its rules, unless that body is under a recognized jurisdiction of a higher body which can overrule it. This principle is rather firmly embedded in both the seemingly eternal Roberts Rules of Order, but also in a sort of logical common sense, not to mention the CRCNA Church Order.
Again, I think your logic is good, but ultimately, each classis has the authority (not to mention the power) to accept or reject your logic. This doesn't mean you have to stop making your argument, but it does mean, as a practical matter, that the only way classes who decide not to seat women (contrary to your argument) will stop that is if Synod overrules their decision that they may refuse to seat women.
This is sort of like the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. I can (and do) argue that it doesn't mean (isn't as expansive as) what the Supreme Court has said it means in recent decades, but I will acknowledge that, as a legal matter, it does say what the Supreme Court says it means, my opinion notwithstanding. Also, if the Ninth Circuit makes a decision, that decision is law in Oregon (my state -- in the Ninth Circuit), even if I say that's inconsistent with what the US Supreme Court has said, unless and until the US Supreme Court actually overrules that Ninth Circuit decision.
Which means, if one is to accept your argument, that the only way your argument gets wings is if it persuade Synod to overrule the decision of those Classes who don't seat women. And it can do that. Were Synod to consider overruling Classes who refused to seat women, I would oppose it, despite the fact that I believe Scripture, fairly read, does not require the church to prohibit women from holding the offices of minister and elder. Acts 15 is instructive to me in this regard. The "compromise decision" the church leaders came to at that meeting did not, strictly speaking, match what was "theologically correct." The unity of the body was considered a greater good than theological correctness about particular (and smaller) matters.