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.
I am not accusing anyone else of being like a racist for opposing women-in-office. However, if I remain a member of a church that tolerates opposition to women-in-office, then I am like a racist as long as I am unsuccessful in stamping out this toleration. But, understand I'm not saying those who oppose women-in-office are like racists, just myself for failing to eliminate these racist-like tolerations.
There is a point where I have to say, "ah come on."
As to the related point, I'd really like to hear your perspective as to Jesus' selection of twelve MALE disciples and Paul's decision to not let women teach or have authority over women. Given what I've heard from you on this discussion, I would think you would oppose Jesus and Paul in the decisions they made. I'm sure you don't, but would genuinely like to hear your explanation.
Dawn: I think I understand you point quite precisely. You wish to diminish the role of classis and create a new regional sort of structure in order to "go around" the problem (as you see it) created by some classis being unwilling to seat women.
Let me give you a suggestion. Don't try to dimish the role of classis. If you do, that will will be (accurately) perceived as trying to "silenc[e] hermeneutical opponents by eliminating denominational structure?" (You may recall this post -- was a good point actually).
And instead of diminishing the role of classis, begin some regional cooperative efforts that do constructive things (to "move the church forward" as you say). Don't want for some official body like synod or even classis/es to design it, or even OK it. Just do it -- sort of private-sector-entrepreneur-like. I could give you examples, but I think you probably have plenty of your own.
Antonio: Some would say that among those archaic men (though not CRC) are Jesus Christ, who selected 12 disciples, all of whom were male, and the apostle Paul, who was very emphatic about not allowing women to teach or have authority over men.
So were Jesus and Paul also males with archaic mentalities? If not, exactly how do you explain their actions?
I agree with your assertion that "the CRC has bigger problems than the role and structure of classis," and that the "CRC as an organization has become very top-heavy and it weighs down all the operations," although I'm not sure that isn't another topic from that intended by Paul for this thread.
At least somewhat related to this thread though, I think the only game in town right now for reversing the top-heaviness of the denomination are the classes, the structure of which I don't consider "broken." Unlike the denomination, classis tends much more to be "run" by those delegated to it. On the other hand, I do think our denomination stucture is breaking (has broken?), by which I mean this. While it used to be the case that denominational bureacracy considered it's function to narrowly follow the mandates (instructions) of synod, that relationship now is almost reversed. Today, the real agenda of synod is pretty much pre-established--in a very practical way--by the bureaucracy, which essentially places before synod a series of "broad authorization requests" so that it (the bureaucracy) can say it is doing what synod told it to do (Creation Stewardship Task Force Report is a great example). In short, the CRCNA bureaucracy has effectively become what might be fairly called "self-perpetuating."
The only antidote to this is synodical delgates aggregately finding whatever it takes to do a 180 (including but not limited to getting out of politics and the WCRC) but that's always a really hard thing to do after the self-perpetuation process has established itself (and it has). I would suggest synod won't find what it takes unless a lots of members from the denominational ground floor get involved and start clamoring for it. And that will happen, if it does, largely through the conduit of the classes.
For me personally, after about ten years of not watching things denominationally (but rather focusing on the local), I "woke up" to find my denomination having taken a very long off-road trip in the last 10-15 years or so. I saw that green cover Banner declaring the CRC's position on global warming. Then I checked out Belhar, WCRC, the Accra, OSJ, etc. Couldn't believe where we were. So what changed? Although everything and everyone changes, I'm not persuaded the denominational change is reflected in the local congregations. Rather, I'm persuaded the denomination has transformed from "servant to master" if you will, declaring its own life, will, and right to create the agenda instead of receive it. The BOT is now much more meaningful than synod. We need a 180 turn-around on this and I think the classes will play a key role in that happening--if it happens. This coming Synod may give us a sign as to whether it might/can happen. The bureaucracy has been tirelessly pushing the Belhar, but the more folks in the pew find about it, the less they like it. So, which will win out. Classical overtures against Belhar greatly outnumber those in favor. One would think the Belhar certainly will not pass. If it does, it is a sign that it is nearly impossible to reverse the relationship between the CRCNA bureaucracy and synod.
Antonio: OK, so you are saying that Paul couldn't rise above his culture, even when writing Scripture (and despite the working of the Holy Spirit)? Paul was aware of Peter's vision (clean/unclean animals) and the implication for that, but he couldn't figure out that he should no longer direct that women should not teach or have authority over men?
And what about Jesus himself (you didn't respond to that). He came to literally change everything, and did, but he didn't bother to include even one female among his disciples, choosing instead to, well to use your characterization of those times, oppress them?
Why could Jesus and Paul not quote your line: "The Grace and Love of God is greater than the silly "patriarcal society" which oppresses women, and so we will not conform our actions to those oppressive ways?
You may all of this sound so simple, but then why wasn't it so simple and straight forward for Jesus and Paul. Why, instead, they they act and speak in a way that continued what you regard as oppression?
It used to be the case that the "general board of directors" of local CRC churches was often just the Elders and the Pastor. We called that (in CO) Consistory. And then there were also the Deacons, a separate group.
These days, that structure has been changed. Now, the "general board of directors" is the Council, which by CO definition I believe is the elders (including pastor) and the deacons.
Any local church may of course designate (in its Articles of Incorporation generally) that only Elders and the Pastor are the "board of directors" but I think more often than not it is the entire Council that is the board of directors, which means that most decisions are made by both Elders and Deacons together, which specialized tasks (ie. church discipline for Elders and benevolence for Deacons) remain the "specialty" of each separate group.
All of which is to say that while in the past, the position of Deacon was something of "Jr Elder," there is much less cause -- arguably no cause -- to so regard it these days, given the "shift" from Consistory to Council.
I think Bev Sterk has a great idea, and appreciate her sharing how she decided to live economically in a way that derives from her faith. I suspect each of have different "economic" lives, and different strategies for living "faithfully." Here are some of the things I've done.
The most important/fundamental decision I've ever made about living faithfully "in an economic way" is to not move. We live now where we moved to 30 years ago. I'm an attorney. All attorneys in my City live in the South area of the City, or the West. A few in the North. I live in the East. Decades ago, the East end was middle class or a bit lower, but over time, many of the middle class moved (South, West or maybe North) and lower class or Hispanic immigrants (legal and illegal) moved in. When we decided (about 10 years ago) to either upgrade our house or move, we decided against all the advice anyone gave me. We stayed.
Fast forward to today. I've spent quite a bit of money on lots of stuff. Kubota tractor, loader, tiller, etc. Two John Deere rider mowers, two push mowers, a Dodge RAM pickup with a Cummins engine and a heavy duty dump trailer, a chipper, blower, hand tillers, edgers, hand tools, ladders, you name it. Maybe $40,000 worth of this sort of "stuff" -- no, closer to $60,000. We also bought two rental houses near our house (yep, East end). One we bought at the peak of the market (aargh).
Our immediate neighborhood was really degrading. Owner/occupants not keeping things up, let alone Landlords that were becoming slum lords. The 4 acre neighborhood park belonged to gangs, literally. All fences grafitti'd all the time. Everything in disrepair. Grass never mowed. Weeds all over. Literally, no one came to the park except Hispanic gangs. Mothers wouldn't let their children go there and they didn't go there either.
Beginning July 8, 2008, I decided to adopt the park -- and started buying stuff. My wife and I decided to start with the park because it was public space, thinking its restoration would be the biggest bang for our buck in terms of the neighborhood. Today, the grass is always mowed. The weeds gone. There is no graffiti on any of the fences. Horseshoe pits are restored. Basketball court is restored. Bushes are trimmed, and front areas weeded and kept with a compost cover. Kids play there -- all the time. Adults take walks and walk their dogs there. A big Pacific Islander group regularly has volleyball and food parties there. Neighbors have picnics.
We decided then to help neighbors too, whether owners and renters -- neighbors who don't have tractors, tillers, mowers, blowers, trucks with dump trailers, edgers etc.. I've mowed perhaps 10 neighbor's yards this summer (older people, people who don't have mowers, tenants who hadn't thought of mowing because their neighbors don't either, etc.) My wife and I have redone front and back lawns for about four places beside our own. I have a pending renovation request from another neighbor for next spring. Lots of other stuff.
Other neighbors are now improving their places on their own. I like to think its because of what they see going on around them, and I think I'm right. One of my rentals was surrounded by neighbors who sold drugs just four years ago. Now, none.
None of this would have happened if: (1) we hadn't decided to stay living in an neighborhood that was becoming the bad side of town; (2) spent a lot of money on a lot of stuff; (3) spent a lot of time not watching TV or going out for dinner.
I really don't like the idea of "caring for the poor" by advocating for government to tax rich people and give that money (what's left of it at least) to "the poor." Being "poor" is just a lot more complicated than "being poor." To me, when goverment "takes care of the poor," it actually accomplishes very little that is good and does quite a bit that is bad. It keeps people dependent and reinforces bad habits. I'd rather tax myself (buy stuff) and use that with my own time, living there, looking my neighbors in the face and talking with them. And they're not just poor. Some are but others are elderly, divorced, or just don't have a clue. Again, it's more complicated than government can deal with. And my life is richer for it. Not a bad return for buying a lot of stuff.
If there is anything I'd like to see our denomination encourage, as a "social justice" matter, is living with other people, without regard to wealth or class, and to be salt in ways that will become pretty obvious because you live there.
Bev: Some background on 10 years ago and 7/8/2008. I'm a Dordt grad, philsophy/history major. Kuyper's "not one square inch" resonated with me--changed my life and my thinking really. Moving out of the area would be good for the family in many ways, but the idea of moving out of an area because the people weren't good enough really bothered me. What about "not one square inch"? The other thing that had happened some years earlier--not my doing--was that a "neighborhood association" our house was a part of had gone defunct, but it owned some "parkette" land behind our house. Evenutally, the association, having gone defunct, didn't pay taxes and the property was sold at the courthouse steps. The economy was bad at that time and I ended up the only bidder. $1800 expanded my lot size from a "normal" size to over an acre. Again, I had nothing to do with that, but then when decided we needed a bigger house, the option of building on our current lot, and staying on the East end of the city, was a possibility just because we had the larger lot size.
So at that point, we had a decision to make. We didn't have the excuse of "needing a larger house" because we could make that happen where we were. Ultimately, I just couldn't make the decision to move out of the neighborhood. People doing that had been what made neighborhood deteriorate in the first place. If "not one square inch" really did mean something, how could we decide to move?
Of course, an additional benefit of the increased lot size was I had room for equipment. :-) You can just see this coming--one thing leads (or we are led) to another. We bought our first rental because a longtime neighbor (elderly woman) that we had helped take care of over the years was getting getting to the point of needing to go to a care facility. To make a very long story really short, we helped her sell it to a couple of guys who were in the "fix and flip" business so she could move to a care home. They in turn renovated her old house so well (and the house was so close to house anyway--almost literally in our back yard), that we bought it from them. We then rented to college kids from the local Christian college (Corban). OK, so the rental was across the street from the neighborhood park and surrounded by a meth house and other likely drug dealing houses. And the county (owner of the park) had pretty much just given up on the park because of the deteriorating neighborhood. Because we now owned a house on a different street that was across the park, we just became more acutely aware of how bad things were (we were on a court, somewhat isolated).
And all of this coincided in time with my kids growing older and leaving the house (for college and beyond). I was no longer coaching baseball (I had at the Christian high school for seven years), and so I had some time on my hands. At a point, just observing what was going on around our rental--especially the public park which seemed the embarrassing and telling public icon for the neighborhood degregation--I just got angry, literally, and once again remembered "one square inch."
With a door opened that wide, how could I not walk through it? Besides, I grew up on a farm and I knew how this kind of stuff was done. So I bought my Kubota (B2920) and a 3-pt hitch finish mower (Woods) and, with the county's permission, mowed the foot-tall grass (and weeds). It took more than one pass. Looked a bit like a hay field after that but it was a start. I remember it was July 8, 2008, just because it seemed like the beginning of something and I remembered the date. That was the start and then we couldn't stop with lots of park improvements.
One of the unexpected delights of this has been getting to know a lot of the park neighborhood kids. The first were Jordan (a girl) an her brother Nicholas. Then others. The kids thought I owned the park. :-) Obviously, it's taken a lot of time -- probably 1000 hours or so over the last 3+ years, but that's been a blessing too. I got exercise, needed at my age with my job (and no longer coaching). Couldn't get it in a better way. Another delight is I've gotten to know the neighbors by our house more, and the neighbors to our rental, in large part because, well, I had equipment to share and had the need. A few of the neighbors are Christian, but I usually find out after a while. Most aren't. I don't push. I'm a Calvinist, believing I need to be faithful and God will take care of the rest. So far, he's done pretty well, over decades of time, plotting and scheming in ways I hadn't even recognized until after the fact--to open a very wide door.
As to our house, which is bigger but then the kids left, we now have three international students (boys) from the local Christian high school to fill that space, one Japanese, one Chinese, one Vietnamese. Who would have thunk? Of course, they have a big back yard, nice park close by. Hmmm. That seems to have worked out too. And again, we are richer for all of it, as are our neighbors and our new boys.
In terms of the future, I figure I have at least ten good years left in me. Am planning for more park improvements--now with other neighbors involved as well--and some coordinated neighborhood improvements. We'll see what happens. :-)
Wendy's relayed response from Jay Van Groningen is:
My opinion on the distinction between church as institute and organism:
1. Who benefits from making this distinction?
2. How does it benefit the isolated, poorer neighbors to maintain this distinction?
My own answers to Jay Van Groningen would be:
Response to #1. Everyone benefits, at least in the long run, although seemingly not in the short run. In the Dutch Reformed tradition, Christian Schools result from the work (preaching/teaching) of the church as institution, but the implementation of Christian Schools result from the work (members responding to the preaching/teaching) of the church as organism. The wisdom of implementing that distinction is, in my view, abundantly clear.
Jay himself does his work not as part of the church as organism, bu as part of the church as organism (he is as an agent of "Communities First Association"). Why? A hint to the answer comes from a publication written by Jay himself. He wrote "Communities First", of which Chapter 8 is: "Justice: Creating Policies, Laws, and Systems that Work for Everyone. This chapter describes how ministry and community leaders can effectively advocate for justice without getting caught up in partisan politics."
Hmmm, "without getting caught up in partisan politics"?? The task of the church, as institution, is to preach, teach, encourage, provide for fellowship, and provide a simple form of benevolence (both within but also without). Certainly, local churches can and do also get in the community (after all, it invites the community to share in that which it preaches, teaches, etc., and to become part of that local 'family''), but at a point, if the church, as institution, gets too involved, it simply won't avoid getting caught up in "partisan politics," Jay Van Groningen's Chapter 8 notwithstanding. Result? Some members will leave because they have a "political perspective" at odds with that which the church Council has; Council starts looking at new elder nominees by examining their "political perspectives" in addition to other qualifications (after all, the church's political message to the community needs to be consisitent); Council's work is increasingly about matters outside the competence of Council members; and the job of Elder or Deacon starts to become quite different.
If we don't differentiate between church as insitution and as organism, we adopt a Roman Catholic tradition. I'll take the Reformed tradition any day.
Response to #2. The poor and isolated are benefitted because more work, and more competent work, is being done for their benefit. Elders/deacons aren't necessarily your best local Christian school board members (or administrators or teachers). And I wouldn't want my elders/deacons to also have those jobs -- too much out of their area of competency (and just too much work). Certainly, some elders/deacons will also be school board members, but that's because they chose to and have multiple competencies. And when he/she votes as a school board member, he/she is voting with different co-directors, which aggregately has a different skill/experience set (thankfully!).
Don't misunderstand. I'm all for what Jay Van Gronigen wants CRC church members to do, and I've spent my personal life trying to practice that preaching. But I do it because of the preaching/teaching I received, and I do it sometimes in concert with a local board of directors in a community, sometime as a volunteer for another community organization, and sometimes just as myself. In all those cases, I'm glad I'm not doing it under the control of my church's Council. Hey, my elders/deacons are great people but not necessarily the best to be calling all the shots in all of the things I involve myself in for the community. I'm glad the Council does its job, and my local community organizations do theirs, and that my local community orgnizations can be governed by a board that includes people from all sorts of churches -- even people not from church (a BIG plus).
Honestly, I don't understand why we in the CRC no longer seem to understand the benefits of distinguishing between church as institution and church as organism. Have we simply stopped teaching this?
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.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Your above amounts to this:
I am not accusing anyone else of being like a racist for opposing women-in-office. However, if I remain a member of a church that tolerates opposition to women-in-office, then I am like a racist as long as I am unsuccessful in stamping out this toleration. But, understand I'm not saying those who oppose women-in-office are like racists, just myself for failing to eliminate these racist-like tolerations.
There is a point where I have to say, "ah come on."
As to the related point, I'd really like to hear your perspective as to Jesus' selection of twelve MALE disciples and Paul's decision to not let women teach or have authority over women. Given what I've heard from you on this discussion, I would think you would oppose Jesus and Paul in the decisions they made. I'm sure you don't, but would genuinely like to hear your explanation.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Dawn: I think I understand you point quite precisely. You wish to diminish the role of classis and create a new regional sort of structure in order to "go around" the problem (as you see it) created by some classis being unwilling to seat women.
Let me give you a suggestion. Don't try to dimish the role of classis. If you do, that will will be (accurately) perceived as trying to "silenc[e] hermeneutical opponents by eliminating denominational structure?" (You may recall this post -- was a good point actually).
And instead of diminishing the role of classis, begin some regional cooperative efforts that do constructive things (to "move the church forward" as you say). Don't want for some official body like synod or even classis/es to design it, or even OK it. Just do it -- sort of private-sector-entrepreneur-like. I could give you examples, but I think you probably have plenty of your own.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Antonio: Some would say that among those archaic men (though not CRC) are Jesus Christ, who selected 12 disciples, all of whom were male, and the apostle Paul, who was very emphatic about not allowing women to teach or have authority over men.
So were Jesus and Paul also males with archaic mentalities? If not, exactly how do you explain their actions?
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
I agree with your assertion that "the CRC has bigger problems than the role and structure of classis," and that the "CRC as an organization has become very top-heavy and it weighs down all the operations," although I'm not sure that isn't another topic from that intended by Paul for this thread.
At least somewhat related to this thread though, I think the only game in town right now for reversing the top-heaviness of the denomination are the classes, the structure of which I don't consider "broken." Unlike the denomination, classis tends much more to be "run" by those delegated to it. On the other hand, I do think our denomination stucture is breaking (has broken?), by which I mean this. While it used to be the case that denominational bureacracy considered it's function to narrowly follow the mandates (instructions) of synod, that relationship now is almost reversed. Today, the real agenda of synod is pretty much pre-established--in a very practical way--by the bureaucracy, which essentially places before synod a series of "broad authorization requests" so that it (the bureaucracy) can say it is doing what synod told it to do (Creation Stewardship Task Force Report is a great example). In short, the CRCNA bureaucracy has effectively become what might be fairly called "self-perpetuating."
The only antidote to this is synodical delgates aggregately finding whatever it takes to do a 180 (including but not limited to getting out of politics and the WCRC) but that's always a really hard thing to do after the self-perpetuation process has established itself (and it has). I would suggest synod won't find what it takes unless a lots of members from the denominational ground floor get involved and start clamoring for it. And that will happen, if it does, largely through the conduit of the classes.
For me personally, after about ten years of not watching things denominationally (but rather focusing on the local), I "woke up" to find my denomination having taken a very long off-road trip in the last 10-15 years or so. I saw that green cover Banner declaring the CRC's position on global warming. Then I checked out Belhar, WCRC, the Accra, OSJ, etc. Couldn't believe where we were. So what changed? Although everything and everyone changes, I'm not persuaded the denominational change is reflected in the local congregations. Rather, I'm persuaded the denomination has transformed from "servant to master" if you will, declaring its own life, will, and right to create the agenda instead of receive it. The BOT is now much more meaningful than synod. We need a 180 turn-around on this and I think the classes will play a key role in that happening--if it happens. This coming Synod may give us a sign as to whether it might/can happen. The bureaucracy has been tirelessly pushing the Belhar, but the more folks in the pew find about it, the less they like it. So, which will win out. Classical overtures against Belhar greatly outnumber those in favor. One would think the Belhar certainly will not pass. If it does, it is a sign that it is nearly impossible to reverse the relationship between the CRCNA bureaucracy and synod.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Antonio: OK, so you are saying that Paul couldn't rise above his culture, even when writing Scripture (and despite the working of the Holy Spirit)? Paul was aware of Peter's vision (clean/unclean animals) and the implication for that, but he couldn't figure out that he should no longer direct that women should not teach or have authority over men?
And what about Jesus himself (you didn't respond to that). He came to literally change everything, and did, but he didn't bother to include even one female among his disciples, choosing instead to, well to use your characterization of those times, oppress them?
Why could Jesus and Paul not quote your line: "The Grace and Love of God is greater than the silly "patriarcal society" which oppresses women, and so we will not conform our actions to those oppressive ways?
You may all of this sound so simple, but then why wasn't it so simple and straight forward for Jesus and Paul. Why, instead, they they act and speak in a way that continued what you regard as oppression?
Posted in: Deacons: An Elder Training Ground
It used to be the case that the "general board of directors" of local CRC churches was often just the Elders and the Pastor. We called that (in CO) Consistory. And then there were also the Deacons, a separate group.
These days, that structure has been changed. Now, the "general board of directors" is the Council, which by CO definition I believe is the elders (including pastor) and the deacons.
Any local church may of course designate (in its Articles of Incorporation generally) that only Elders and the Pastor are the "board of directors" but I think more often than not it is the entire Council that is the board of directors, which means that most decisions are made by both Elders and Deacons together, which specialized tasks (ie. church discipline for Elders and benevolence for Deacons) remain the "specialty" of each separate group.
All of which is to say that while in the past, the position of Deacon was something of "Jr Elder," there is much less cause -- arguably no cause -- to so regard it these days, given the "shift" from Consistory to Council.
Posted in: An Anthem for Black Friday
I think Bev Sterk has a great idea, and appreciate her sharing how she decided to live economically in a way that derives from her faith. I suspect each of have different "economic" lives, and different strategies for living "faithfully." Here are some of the things I've done.
The most important/fundamental decision I've ever made about living faithfully "in an economic way" is to not move. We live now where we moved to 30 years ago. I'm an attorney. All attorneys in my City live in the South area of the City, or the West. A few in the North. I live in the East. Decades ago, the East end was middle class or a bit lower, but over time, many of the middle class moved (South, West or maybe North) and lower class or Hispanic immigrants (legal and illegal) moved in. When we decided (about 10 years ago) to either upgrade our house or move, we decided against all the advice anyone gave me. We stayed.
Fast forward to today. I've spent quite a bit of money on lots of stuff. Kubota tractor, loader, tiller, etc. Two John Deere rider mowers, two push mowers, a Dodge RAM pickup with a Cummins engine and a heavy duty dump trailer, a chipper, blower, hand tillers, edgers, hand tools, ladders, you name it. Maybe $40,000 worth of this sort of "stuff" -- no, closer to $60,000. We also bought two rental houses near our house (yep, East end). One we bought at the peak of the market (aargh).
Our immediate neighborhood was really degrading. Owner/occupants not keeping things up, let alone Landlords that were becoming slum lords. The 4 acre neighborhood park belonged to gangs, literally. All fences grafitti'd all the time. Everything in disrepair. Grass never mowed. Weeds all over. Literally, no one came to the park except Hispanic gangs. Mothers wouldn't let their children go there and they didn't go there either.
Beginning July 8, 2008, I decided to adopt the park -- and started buying stuff. My wife and I decided to start with the park because it was public space, thinking its restoration would be the biggest bang for our buck in terms of the neighborhood. Today, the grass is always mowed. The weeds gone. There is no graffiti on any of the fences. Horseshoe pits are restored. Basketball court is restored. Bushes are trimmed, and front areas weeded and kept with a compost cover. Kids play there -- all the time. Adults take walks and walk their dogs there. A big Pacific Islander group regularly has volleyball and food parties there. Neighbors have picnics.
We decided then to help neighbors too, whether owners and renters -- neighbors who don't have tractors, tillers, mowers, blowers, trucks with dump trailers, edgers etc.. I've mowed perhaps 10 neighbor's yards this summer (older people, people who don't have mowers, tenants who hadn't thought of mowing because their neighbors don't either, etc.) My wife and I have redone front and back lawns for about four places beside our own. I have a pending renovation request from another neighbor for next spring. Lots of other stuff.
Other neighbors are now improving their places on their own. I like to think its because of what they see going on around them, and I think I'm right. One of my rentals was surrounded by neighbors who sold drugs just four years ago. Now, none.
None of this would have happened if: (1) we hadn't decided to stay living in an neighborhood that was becoming the bad side of town; (2) spent a lot of money on a lot of stuff; (3) spent a lot of time not watching TV or going out for dinner.
I really don't like the idea of "caring for the poor" by advocating for government to tax rich people and give that money (what's left of it at least) to "the poor." Being "poor" is just a lot more complicated than "being poor." To me, when goverment "takes care of the poor," it actually accomplishes very little that is good and does quite a bit that is bad. It keeps people dependent and reinforces bad habits. I'd rather tax myself (buy stuff) and use that with my own time, living there, looking my neighbors in the face and talking with them. And they're not just poor. Some are but others are elderly, divorced, or just don't have a clue. Again, it's more complicated than government can deal with. And my life is richer for it. Not a bad return for buying a lot of stuff.
If there is anything I'd like to see our denomination encourage, as a "social justice" matter, is living with other people, without regard to wealth or class, and to be salt in ways that will become pretty obvious because you live there.
Posted in: Should Infanticide be Legal?
Mark: Thanks for the tip as to the news tip (I didn't know that existed). I used it. :-)
Posted in: An Anthem for Black Friday
Bev: Some background on 10 years ago and 7/8/2008. I'm a Dordt grad, philsophy/history major. Kuyper's "not one square inch" resonated with me--changed my life and my thinking really. Moving out of the area would be good for the family in many ways, but the idea of moving out of an area because the people weren't good enough really bothered me. What about "not one square inch"? The other thing that had happened some years earlier--not my doing--was that a "neighborhood association" our house was a part of had gone defunct, but it owned some "parkette" land behind our house. Evenutally, the association, having gone defunct, didn't pay taxes and the property was sold at the courthouse steps. The economy was bad at that time and I ended up the only bidder. $1800 expanded my lot size from a "normal" size to over an acre. Again, I had nothing to do with that, but then when decided we needed a bigger house, the option of building on our current lot, and staying on the East end of the city, was a possibility just because we had the larger lot size.
So at that point, we had a decision to make. We didn't have the excuse of "needing a larger house" because we could make that happen where we were. Ultimately, I just couldn't make the decision to move out of the neighborhood. People doing that had been what made neighborhood deteriorate in the first place. If "not one square inch" really did mean something, how could we decide to move?
Of course, an additional benefit of the increased lot size was I had room for equipment. :-) You can just see this coming--one thing leads (or we are led) to another. We bought our first rental because a longtime neighbor (elderly woman) that we had helped take care of over the years was getting getting to the point of needing to go to a care facility. To make a very long story really short, we helped her sell it to a couple of guys who were in the "fix and flip" business so she could move to a care home. They in turn renovated her old house so well (and the house was so close to house anyway--almost literally in our back yard), that we bought it from them. We then rented to college kids from the local Christian college (Corban). OK, so the rental was across the street from the neighborhood park and surrounded by a meth house and other likely drug dealing houses. And the county (owner of the park) had pretty much just given up on the park because of the deteriorating neighborhood. Because we now owned a house on a different street that was across the park, we just became more acutely aware of how bad things were (we were on a court, somewhat isolated).
And all of this coincided in time with my kids growing older and leaving the house (for college and beyond). I was no longer coaching baseball (I had at the Christian high school for seven years), and so I had some time on my hands. At a point, just observing what was going on around our rental--especially the public park which seemed the embarrassing and telling public icon for the neighborhood degregation--I just got angry, literally, and once again remembered "one square inch."
With a door opened that wide, how could I not walk through it? Besides, I grew up on a farm and I knew how this kind of stuff was done. So I bought my Kubota (B2920) and a 3-pt hitch finish mower (Woods) and, with the county's permission, mowed the foot-tall grass (and weeds). It took more than one pass. Looked a bit like a hay field after that but it was a start. I remember it was July 8, 2008, just because it seemed like the beginning of something and I remembered the date. That was the start and then we couldn't stop with lots of park improvements.
One of the unexpected delights of this has been getting to know a lot of the park neighborhood kids. The first were Jordan (a girl) an her brother Nicholas. Then others. The kids thought I owned the park. :-) Obviously, it's taken a lot of time -- probably 1000 hours or so over the last 3+ years, but that's been a blessing too. I got exercise, needed at my age with my job (and no longer coaching). Couldn't get it in a better way. Another delight is I've gotten to know the neighbors by our house more, and the neighbors to our rental, in large part because, well, I had equipment to share and had the need. A few of the neighbors are Christian, but I usually find out after a while. Most aren't. I don't push. I'm a Calvinist, believing I need to be faithful and God will take care of the rest. So far, he's done pretty well, over decades of time, plotting and scheming in ways I hadn't even recognized until after the fact--to open a very wide door.
As to our house, which is bigger but then the kids left, we now have three international students (boys) from the local Christian high school to fill that space, one Japanese, one Chinese, one Vietnamese. Who would have thunk? Of course, they have a big back yard, nice park close by. Hmmm. That seems to have worked out too. And again, we are richer for all of it, as are our neighbors and our new boys.
In terms of the future, I figure I have at least ten good years left in me. Am planning for more park improvements--now with other neighbors involved as well--and some coordinated neighborhood improvements. We'll see what happens. :-)
Posted in: Church as Gift for Neighborhood Transformation
@ Wendy Hammond
Wendy's relayed response from Jay Van Groningen is:
My opinion on the distinction between church as institute and organism:
1. Who benefits from making this distinction?
2. How does it benefit the isolated, poorer neighbors to maintain this distinction?
My own answers to Jay Van Groningen would be:
Response to #1. Everyone benefits, at least in the long run, although seemingly not in the short run. In the Dutch Reformed tradition, Christian Schools result from the work (preaching/teaching) of the church as institution, but the implementation of Christian Schools result from the work (members responding to the preaching/teaching) of the church as organism. The wisdom of implementing that distinction is, in my view, abundantly clear.
Jay himself does his work not as part of the church as organism, bu as part of the church as organism (he is as an agent of "Communities First Association"). Why? A hint to the answer comes from a publication written by Jay himself. He wrote "Communities First", of which Chapter 8 is: "Justice: Creating Policies, Laws, and Systems that Work for Everyone. This chapter describes how ministry and community leaders can effectively advocate for justice without getting caught up in partisan politics."
Hmmm, "without getting caught up in partisan politics"?? The task of the church, as institution, is to preach, teach, encourage, provide for fellowship, and provide a simple form of benevolence (both within but also without). Certainly, local churches can and do also get in the community (after all, it invites the community to share in that which it preaches, teaches, etc., and to become part of that local 'family''), but at a point, if the church, as institution, gets too involved, it simply won't avoid getting caught up in "partisan politics," Jay Van Groningen's Chapter 8 notwithstanding. Result? Some members will leave because they have a "political perspective" at odds with that which the church Council has; Council starts looking at new elder nominees by examining their "political perspectives" in addition to other qualifications (after all, the church's political message to the community needs to be consisitent); Council's work is increasingly about matters outside the competence of Council members; and the job of Elder or Deacon starts to become quite different.
If we don't differentiate between church as insitution and as organism, we adopt a Roman Catholic tradition. I'll take the Reformed tradition any day.
Response to #2. The poor and isolated are benefitted because more work, and more competent work, is being done for their benefit. Elders/deacons aren't necessarily your best local Christian school board members (or administrators or teachers). And I wouldn't want my elders/deacons to also have those jobs -- too much out of their area of competency (and just too much work). Certainly, some elders/deacons will also be school board members, but that's because they chose to and have multiple competencies. And when he/she votes as a school board member, he/she is voting with different co-directors, which aggregately has a different skill/experience set (thankfully!).
Don't misunderstand. I'm all for what Jay Van Gronigen wants CRC church members to do, and I've spent my personal life trying to practice that preaching. But I do it because of the preaching/teaching I received, and I do it sometimes in concert with a local board of directors in a community, sometime as a volunteer for another community organization, and sometimes just as myself. In all those cases, I'm glad I'm not doing it under the control of my church's Council. Hey, my elders/deacons are great people but not necessarily the best to be calling all the shots in all of the things I involve myself in for the community. I'm glad the Council does its job, and my local community organizations do theirs, and that my local community orgnizations can be governed by a board that includes people from all sorts of churches -- even people not from church (a BIG plus).
Honestly, I don't understand why we in the CRC no longer seem to understand the benefits of distinguishing between church as institution and church as organism. Have we simply stopped teaching this?