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.
I really cringe at the statement, "To make churches safer places, leaders must begin by recognizing that some families in the congregation are experiencing violence." In fact, I don't know that some families in my church (admittedly, quite small) are experiencing violence. It can very easily be counterproductive to assume "those families are out there," which quickly leads to "and our job is to figure out which ones they are."
I would suggest it more appropriate to know there may be families in my church who are experiencing violence.
Dawn: I bit on answering your question -- would like an answer to mine.
As to your post immediately above, I feel like I'm watching re-runs. You say you don't to want to rehash women-in-office but yet you seem to rehash but from a different angle (get rid of classes because some won't seat women) so as not to be recognized as a rehash. And you make the racism analogy again, but without any further explanation to help anyone understand the point of your analogy (again, I bit on your question, would like an answer to mine).
I just don't think classis is a broken structure, unless of course you mean that we are all living broken lives, etc etc. My classes met no long ago and it "worked" (so, not broken). You simply disagree with some classes who won't seat women about not seating women, as if that is all there is to classis. Its hyperbolic to call it "broken." They won't seat me either -- still doesn't mean its broken.
Again, would like an answer to my question that is in my response post answering yours.
Dawn: OK, this is helpful to me understanding you. I'll agree that you ultimately have to decide for yourself how to "interpret behaviors of others," and if you personally equate the behavior of those in the CRC who take a view of women-in-office opposite of your own as equivalent to the racist country club who won't let black people play golf, then I guess you will feel as you do.
My response -- but already somewhat made -- is this: while you may choose to feel that way, the two scenarios are in fact, objectively viewed, not analogous. And if they are not analogous (even though you might feel as you do), then getting rid of classes as an authority structure would be something we would do only to alleviate your feeling of being back-seater. I'm not trying minimize your feelings, but suggest that ultimately, your feelings aren't necessarily a first priority, even if you do.
As to churches taking Paul literally, I'd caution about superficially analyzing them. Some churches do take Paul quite literally, even though they allow women to teach male children (as opposed to male adults). Again, I have my own interpretation for 1 Tim 2, which is that Paul was actually encouraging women (in a new testament time) to "learn" before taking on "teaching" or "having authority," and further suggesting by subsequent analogy that doing otherwise may cause them to make the same mistake Eve did, whose decision and act, before learning, brought ruin to herself, her husband, and all of humanity.
Still, I respect other interpretations because they are fair interpretations, certainly not outside our agreed way of reading Scripture. And that's the difference between taking a no-women-in-office-elder decision and denying black people the right to play golf. The former results from a fair interpretation of Scripture, the latter from a selfish inclination to exert arbitrary power and control. Still, if the former makes you feel just like the black person denied golf, who am I or anyone else to say you can't or don't feel that way. I might explicate the distinction (as I have done) in order to encourage you not to feel that way, but I don't control your feelings, nor those of others who may feel as you do.
BP: There certainly is "stubbornness and arrogance on both sides of the issue," as there was in Acts 15, which was cause for the Council of Jerusalem. In both cases -- Acts 15 and CRC decisions re women in office -- compromise decisions were made. Part two of the process was/is to accept the compromise decicsions made.
As for your specific case, you ask "Should our church struggle because we are not allowed to have women serve on Council?", but your church IS allowed to have women serve on Council? You need to talk to and about your church Council, not Classis.
Respectfully, Dawn, and again I mean that, the way you use use of analogies (at least on this subject) seems to me to be way of saying something quite nasty to someone but yet having deniability about having said that.
For example, I could suggest that you are like Hitler and Pol Pot in wanting to have every thing your way and not being willing to ever compromise until you get exactly what you want. There would actually be something true about that analogy (you do want to have your position prevail as to women-in-office in the CRC and you aren't willing to compromise on that), but the analogy would be absolutely unfair and irresponsible (and I'm not making that analogy, BTW), because the message others would hear from my using that analogy would be that you are like Hitler and Pol Pot.
In the same way, when you repeatedly liken those who oppose women-in-office in the CRC, you repeatedly, in their minds (or, perhaps more appropriately "in their feelings"), call them racists. Frankly, I'm not sure whether you are intending to to that or not (I can't know your intentions), but I can assure you that is the message that is received by most if not all of those whose conclusions on women-in-office in the CRC are different from yours. (I'm not of that position and that's why I hear). In other words, your repeating the racist analogy is received as repeated pokings with a very, very sharp stick, and will most likely be met, eventually, with pokings back with a very, very sharp stick.
You say, "The analogy of locking out blacks from tee times at a country club to locking out women from sitting and voting at classis meetings is a fair analogy." Perhaps, but only if one considers the point of the analogy to be your way of describing your feelings. But if the point of the analogy is to describe those who oppose women-in-office in the CRC, that analogy is clearly, clearly, unfair -- it amounts to taunting, accusatory name-calling.
John Zystra is quite correct when he asks whether you are willing to apply your racism analogy to our Lord for choosing twelve MALE disciples. As ill-informed and backward as you may believe those who opposed women-in-office are, they are quite literally and precisely following Christ's example here. Moreover, they specifically point to that example, not to mention the words and actions of the apostle Paul in support of their position. And yes, if there are traditions that hold to the practice of women wearing hats or not braiding hair (or not using electricity or combustion engines and living simple agrarian lives), I would respect them, which would mean, among other things, that I would refrain from repeatedly equating their thinking with racism.
And speaking of slavery (which is not equal to racism, BTW), God himself allowed the OT Israelites to sell themselves in bondage to others to pay debts. Yet, I'll refrain from accusing him, by analogy, of racism.
Dawn: Such superlatives. If the church is now, as you say, "stagnant and not move forward" because some classes do not permit the seating of women, then it follows that the church was stagnate for most of its existence, that the apostle Paul kept the church "stagnant" and from "mov[ing] forward," and, arguably, that Jesus himself, by his example in selecting disciples, kept the church "stagnant" and from "mov[ing] forward."
You make some good points Dawn, but so many, like this one, are expressed with such hyperbole (also the whole racist analogy) that the quality of the points made are lost. Worse, they foster division, a much greater concern to the biblical authors than the question of whether all organizational distinctions in the church between men and women should be obliterated.
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.
Posted in: Becoming a Safe Place for Victims of Domestic Violence
I really cringe at the statement, "To make churches safer places, leaders must begin by recognizing that some families in the congregation are experiencing violence." In fact, I don't know that some families in my church (admittedly, quite small) are experiencing violence. It can very easily be counterproductive to assume "those families are out there," which quickly leads to "and our job is to figure out which ones they are."
I would suggest it more appropriate to know there may be families in my church who are experiencing violence.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Dawn: I bit on answering your question -- would like an answer to mine.
As to your post immediately above, I feel like I'm watching re-runs. You say you don't to want to rehash women-in-office but yet you seem to rehash but from a different angle (get rid of classes because some won't seat women) so as not to be recognized as a rehash. And you make the racism analogy again, but without any further explanation to help anyone understand the point of your analogy (again, I bit on your question, would like an answer to mine).
I just don't think classis is a broken structure, unless of course you mean that we are all living broken lives, etc etc. My classes met no long ago and it "worked" (so, not broken). You simply disagree with some classes who won't seat women about not seating women, as if that is all there is to classis. Its hyperbolic to call it "broken." They won't seat me either -- still doesn't mean its broken.
Again, would like an answer to my question that is in my response post answering yours.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Dawn: OK, this is helpful to me understanding you. I'll agree that you ultimately have to decide for yourself how to "interpret behaviors of others," and if you personally equate the behavior of those in the CRC who take a view of women-in-office opposite of your own as equivalent to the racist country club who won't let black people play golf, then I guess you will feel as you do.
My response -- but already somewhat made -- is this: while you may choose to feel that way, the two scenarios are in fact, objectively viewed, not analogous. And if they are not analogous (even though you might feel as you do), then getting rid of classes as an authority structure would be something we would do only to alleviate your feeling of being back-seater. I'm not trying minimize your feelings, but suggest that ultimately, your feelings aren't necessarily a first priority, even if you do.
As to churches taking Paul literally, I'd caution about superficially analyzing them. Some churches do take Paul quite literally, even though they allow women to teach male children (as opposed to male adults). Again, I have my own interpretation for 1 Tim 2, which is that Paul was actually encouraging women (in a new testament time) to "learn" before taking on "teaching" or "having authority," and further suggesting by subsequent analogy that doing otherwise may cause them to make the same mistake Eve did, whose decision and act, before learning, brought ruin to herself, her husband, and all of humanity.
Still, I respect other interpretations because they are fair interpretations, certainly not outside our agreed way of reading Scripture. And that's the difference between taking a no-women-in-office-elder decision and denying black people the right to play golf. The former results from a fair interpretation of Scripture, the latter from a selfish inclination to exert arbitrary power and control. Still, if the former makes you feel just like the black person denied golf, who am I or anyone else to say you can't or don't feel that way. I might explicate the distinction (as I have done) in order to encourage you not to feel that way, but I don't control your feelings, nor those of others who may feel as you do.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
BP: There certainly is "stubbornness and arrogance on both sides of the issue," as there was in Acts 15, which was cause for the Council of Jerusalem. In both cases -- Acts 15 and CRC decisions re women in office -- compromise decisions were made. Part two of the process was/is to accept the compromise decicsions made.
As for your specific case, you ask "Should our church struggle because we are not allowed to have women serve on Council?", but your church IS allowed to have women serve on Council? You need to talk to and about your church Council, not Classis.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Respectfully, Dawn, and again I mean that, the way you use use of analogies (at least on this subject) seems to me to be way of saying something quite nasty to someone but yet having deniability about having said that.
For example, I could suggest that you are like Hitler and Pol Pot in wanting to have every thing your way and not being willing to ever compromise until you get exactly what you want. There would actually be something true about that analogy (you do want to have your position prevail as to women-in-office in the CRC and you aren't willing to compromise on that), but the analogy would be absolutely unfair and irresponsible (and I'm not making that analogy, BTW), because the message others would hear from my using that analogy would be that you are like Hitler and Pol Pot.
In the same way, when you repeatedly liken those who oppose women-in-office in the CRC, you repeatedly, in their minds (or, perhaps more appropriately "in their feelings"), call them racists. Frankly, I'm not sure whether you are intending to to that or not (I can't know your intentions), but I can assure you that is the message that is received by most if not all of those whose conclusions on women-in-office in the CRC are different from yours. (I'm not of that position and that's why I hear). In other words, your repeating the racist analogy is received as repeated pokings with a very, very sharp stick, and will most likely be met, eventually, with pokings back with a very, very sharp stick.
You say, "The analogy of locking out blacks from tee times at a country club to locking out women from sitting and voting at classis meetings is a fair analogy." Perhaps, but only if one considers the point of the analogy to be your way of describing your feelings. But if the point of the analogy is to describe those who oppose women-in-office in the CRC, that analogy is clearly, clearly, unfair -- it amounts to taunting, accusatory name-calling.
John Zystra is quite correct when he asks whether you are willing to apply your racism analogy to our Lord for choosing twelve MALE disciples. As ill-informed and backward as you may believe those who opposed women-in-office are, they are quite literally and precisely following Christ's example here. Moreover, they specifically point to that example, not to mention the words and actions of the apostle Paul in support of their position. And yes, if there are traditions that hold to the practice of women wearing hats or not braiding hair (or not using electricity or combustion engines and living simple agrarian lives), I would respect them, which would mean, among other things, that I would refrain from repeatedly equating their thinking with racism.
And speaking of slavery (which is not equal to racism, BTW), God himself allowed the OT Israelites to sell themselves in bondage to others to pay debts. Yet, I'll refrain from accusing him, by analogy, of racism.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Dawn: Such superlatives. If the church is now, as you say, "stagnant and not move forward" because some classes do not permit the seating of women, then it follows that the church was stagnate for most of its existence, that the apostle Paul kept the church "stagnant" and from "mov[ing] forward," and, arguably, that Jesus himself, by his example in selecting disciples, kept the church "stagnant" and from "mov[ing] forward."
You make some good points Dawn, but so many, like this one, are expressed with such hyperbole (also the whole racist analogy) that the quality of the points made are lost. Worse, they foster division, a much greater concern to the biblical authors than the question of whether all organizational distinctions in the church between men and women should be obliterated.