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?
Antonio: But then Jesus was "archaic" man as well, not? And Paul? And guess who designed that oppressive Old Testament system that was patriarchal in the first place, that provided a sign of the covenant to males only. If Jesus was a "good Jew" (and he was in a way), he complied with a system that God created in the first place.
Understand I agree that women should not be prohibited from the offices of elder and minister. But I do object to characterizing those who take another view as anological racists or just of unbelievable archaic mindsets. I genuinely don't understand why we have to deride those of a position that is clearly Biblically defensible by essentially calling names. Why do we have to posit the existence of villains. Again, I'll point to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 as instructive for all of us.
Dawn: You say, "My interest is in the question of how the CRC can thrive, given people like me and others equally convinced that women must suffer lock-outs." My answer: by living with each other in the kind of gracious demonstrated by Acts 15, 1 Cor 13, Mother Theresa, and many other examples and directives. By understanding and living the principle that he/she who truly serves if he/she who truly leads, that washing feet is more important than being served by others at the table. Frankly, no one in the church, CRC or otherwise, needs to be "in authority" to serve in an truly unrestricted way.
Christians will forever be wrong on particular "issues." I'll be wrong on some and so will you. If you or I encounter a brother or sister who shows love and grace, but differs from us as to questions that are important, you and I do everyone a disfavor by if we characterize that person in a demeaning way. My bottom line is that why I'd avoid endless analogies to racism, archaic attitudes, etc. I think too many on both sides have been too demeaning to "the other side" and still are. If we can't live in grace with each other, the world will have no cause to consider what we have to say. We can know everything and yet be nothing but loud noise.
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.
Karl: I'm quite sure there are lots of CRC folk who are a lot of salt in their neighborhoods. Probably don't hear about it much just because CRC folk tend not to trumpet that sort of thing about themselves. Doing that sort of this is one of the cultural strengths of those in the CRC from that "old Dutch" stock. Not trying to be "racist" (or culturalist), but the Dutch tradition includes an unsual amount of industriousness, high production (have enough to share), and a willingness to share, not to mention exposure to "not one square inch" thinking. But they also tend to be quiet, certainly not showy about it.
I do love the title, "Don't Invite Them to Church." An obvious corollary to "not one square inch" I think. I suspect I'd be happy to "exchange in other ways" and I suspect Bev would too, right Bev. :-)
I think you make some good points Phil, but at the same time your post is a bit hyperbolic when it equates "buying stuff" with an "alternate religion" (consumerism). A few thoughts:
1) In this country and many others, our efficiency in producing "truly necessary" goods and services has increased to the point where not so many people can produce all of it for themselves and everyone else.
2) So if #1 is true (and it is), how can the economic cycle be "broadened" so that more people than just those producing "truly necessary" goods and services are involved in the economic cycle? Option one is to have government take some necessary good and services from those producing them and simply give them to those who aren't. Option two is that other people produce NOT "truly necessary" goods and services and exchange them for the necessary goods and services from others. I'd go for the second option. In fact, I sure hope that people who have enough money to buy NOT "truly necessary" goods and services don't stop buying them just because they think so is bad. If enough people do that (stop bying), a lot of other people will have to find another way to get the truly necessary goods they need (in other words, they'll lose their jobs).
3) Speaking of goods and services that are NOT "truly necessary," we are exchanging thoughts via a software system, running over some pretty complex hardware, connected via an pretty complex national network, to computers in our homes and offices. Lots and lots of money to build all of this, and none of this is even close to "truly necessary" but yet good stuff. I noticed you did bemoan these things. (I don't either, BTW).
4) Speaking further of that NOT "truly necessary," you recommend us to the Avett Brothers, who apparently are engaged in providing NOT "truly necessary" goods and serviceds, just as are the authors and publishers of all the books you get (which I personally don't think is bad). And then you tell us the Avett Brothers are playing your Ipod!?!?? Your having that doesn't bother me but you?
I guess I'm just not that negative about making, selling, or buying lots and lots of NOT "truly necessary" stuff. Doing that is not, per se, worshipping the idol god "Consumerism." I do agree wanting the stuff too much is a problem. Even more, I think good old fashion selfishness is a problem. Some people buy things for their EXCLUSIVE use. I really love those people who become materially rich in an honest way and then choose to buy lots of things (and so keep jobs from disappearing), but then share what they bought with others. And actuallly, I see a lot of that from people in my church, locally and otherwise. And for that I think we can be thankful.
By the way, I think you could solve your too-many-books problem by simply giving them to other people who would appreciate them when you are done. That way, the folks putting those books don't lose their jobs, and you haven't been, truly speaking, worshipping at the alter of Consumerism.
Phil: I do think I understand the point, but I wanted to suggest that the perspective CRCers typically have about spending money on stuff we literally "don't need" is actually wrong. We feel guilty when we shouldn't, and we often do so just because that's the message we constantly hear from others (CRCers especially but other "anti-materialism" folk as well). It's ends up a sort of self-deprecating, I-need-to-confess perspective that happens to be wrong.
Yes, we do BADLY when we:
- Spend more than we have on non-essential stuff so that we run out of money for essential stuff and so become someone else's burden. And indeed that is a problem that Americans have generally (credit card addition), but not so much within the CRC.
- Spend on things that society shouldn't produce. Easy examples: porn, gambling, prostitution, etc.
- Keep all that we have to ourselves, but this is true whether we spend a lot or a little. If I have a garden tiller and my neighbor doesn't, I do well to offer to share it. If I have books I've read, I do well to offer them to others (that one for you). If I just have tons of money (maybe milk prices have been really good), I do well to buy a new piano the church needs, or chem lab equipment the school needs, or playground equipment for the neighborhood park, or kitchen equipment for the local UGM, or the tuition that pays for students who otherwise couldn't go to Christian School, etc. If I have a large house (and kids are out), I do well to provide housing to church visitors, or international students, or use the space for neighborhood gatherings, etc.
- Do NOT spend money we can afford to spend. What!?!?!?! That's actually selfish, whatever we might intend it to be. What is money after all, except for economic votes. What is the good of not using those votes. Those dollars are literally "talents" God gave us to use wisely. OK, if you decide your children are better vote casters then you, then fine, hoard the votes and give them to your kids when you die, but before you do that, at least teach your kids that dollars are just votes for them to use as talents given in the parable.
But we do WELL when we:
- Spend money to produce good and useful thing for society (could be food, education, cars, tools, information, or a billion other things). Using money to produce good stuff is doing good, that is, using the talents God gave us. By the way, some people refer to this as "capitalism," which gets a bad name too, but that's another post.
- Are mindful that if you don't spend your money, others are deniedopportunity to use your money to provide for their themselves and their families. Money being economic votes, we do well when we give some votes to others so they can vote as well for their needs. For this reason, I encourage people to shop at businesses owned by local people instead of Walmart. Walmart doesn't really need the votes. On the other hand, if the local people make bad products or charge outrageous prices, I won't necessarily cast my votes in their favor.
- Realize we are stewards, receivers of talents in the form of economic votes. And this means, in a way that the parable of the talents taught, that simply not spending money is not good. This is a bit confusing to CRCers taught to spend minimally, but I suspect the parable of the talents is confusing to them as well, at least if they are honest about it.
I'm part of a downtown association. Most are retailers who serve the community with their businesses, and are good people who do good things for their schools, neighborhoods, churches, etc. Black Friday spending can make a lot of difference them. Way too often, we equate spending money buying stuff from them as serving the idol god "Consumerism." Just ain't so, and I'd like for us to consider adjusting our thinking on that.
By the way, the denomination sponsors a "simple life" push via the Office of Social Justice. Lots of "anti-consumerism" talk, some also wrong headed because it isn't thought through.
Ken: I agree that "wealth ... for narsisistic reasons" is a strong pull away from God, but the narcissism is the pull, wealth only the temptation. Similar temptations can be found in health, or intelligence, or children, or many other gifts/abilities that one may have. I listed "selfishness" as one of the "bad things." "Selfishness" basically equals "narsisistic reasons."
But economic wealth, per se, is not a "bad thing" as evidenced scripturally by the accounts of Abraham (a very rich man, called blessed by God, who handled his wealth as a steward) and Jacob (whose flocks increased quite directly at the hand of God).
Again, dollars are just economic votes, and people with more votes or less votes are both required by God to cast them (which means, literally, spend them) responsibly. I don't know how the parable of the talents could be more pointed. Which means merely avoiding the spending of money does not necessarily equal "good." Indeed, the servant in the parable was extremely tight-fisted (typical Dutch frugality) and was condemned for it.
I realize this could be a thinking paradigm shift for a lot of CRCers especially who are prone to whip themselves for having money, or are moving to the "simple living" philosophy. I just believe those perspectives are, in some ways at least, very wrong. I recall the servant who hid his talents was surprised to discover what the Lord had wanted from him.
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: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Antonio: But then Jesus was "archaic" man as well, not? And Paul? And guess who designed that oppressive Old Testament system that was patriarchal in the first place, that provided a sign of the covenant to males only. If Jesus was a "good Jew" (and he was in a way), he complied with a system that God created in the first place.
Understand I agree that women should not be prohibited from the offices of elder and minister. But I do object to characterizing those who take another view as anological racists or just of unbelievable archaic mindsets. I genuinely don't understand why we have to deride those of a position that is clearly Biblically defensible by essentially calling names. Why do we have to posit the existence of villains. Again, I'll point to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 as instructive for all of us.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Dawn: You say, "My interest is in the question of how the CRC can thrive, given people like me and others equally convinced that women must suffer lock-outs." My answer: by living with each other in the kind of gracious demonstrated by Acts 15, 1 Cor 13, Mother Theresa, and many other examples and directives. By understanding and living the principle that he/she who truly serves if he/she who truly leads, that washing feet is more important than being served by others at the table. Frankly, no one in the church, CRC or otherwise, needs to be "in authority" to serve in an truly unrestricted way.
Christians will forever be wrong on particular "issues." I'll be wrong on some and so will you. If you or I encounter a brother or sister who shows love and grace, but differs from us as to questions that are important, you and I do everyone a disfavor by if we characterize that person in a demeaning way. My bottom line is that why I'd avoid endless analogies to racism, archaic attitudes, etc. I think too many on both sides have been too demeaning to "the other side" and still are. If we can't live in grace with each other, the world will have no cause to consider what we have to say. We can know everything and yet be nothing but loud noise.
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
Karl: I'm quite sure there are lots of CRC folk who are a lot of salt in their neighborhoods. Probably don't hear about it much just because CRC folk tend not to trumpet that sort of thing about themselves. Doing that sort of this is one of the cultural strengths of those in the CRC from that "old Dutch" stock. Not trying to be "racist" (or culturalist), but the Dutch tradition includes an unsual amount of industriousness, high production (have enough to share), and a willingness to share, not to mention exposure to "not one square inch" thinking. But they also tend to be quiet, certainly not showy about it.
I do love the title, "Don't Invite Them to Church." An obvious corollary to "not one square inch" I think. I suspect I'd be happy to "exchange in other ways" and I suspect Bev would too, right Bev. :-)
Posted in: An Anthem for Black Friday
I think you make some good points Phil, but at the same time your post is a bit hyperbolic when it equates "buying stuff" with an "alternate religion" (consumerism). A few thoughts:
1) In this country and many others, our efficiency in producing "truly necessary" goods and services has increased to the point where not so many people can produce all of it for themselves and everyone else.
2) So if #1 is true (and it is), how can the economic cycle be "broadened" so that more people than just those producing "truly necessary" goods and services are involved in the economic cycle? Option one is to have government take some necessary good and services from those producing them and simply give them to those who aren't. Option two is that other people produce NOT "truly necessary" goods and services and exchange them for the necessary goods and services from others. I'd go for the second option. In fact, I sure hope that people who have enough money to buy NOT "truly necessary" goods and services don't stop buying them just because they think so is bad. If enough people do that (stop bying), a lot of other people will have to find another way to get the truly necessary goods they need (in other words, they'll lose their jobs).
3) Speaking of goods and services that are NOT "truly necessary," we are exchanging thoughts via a software system, running over some pretty complex hardware, connected via an pretty complex national network, to computers in our homes and offices. Lots and lots of money to build all of this, and none of this is even close to "truly necessary" but yet good stuff. I noticed you did bemoan these things. (I don't either, BTW).
4) Speaking further of that NOT "truly necessary," you recommend us to the Avett Brothers, who apparently are engaged in providing NOT "truly necessary" goods and serviceds, just as are the authors and publishers of all the books you get (which I personally don't think is bad). And then you tell us the Avett Brothers are playing your Ipod!?!?? Your having that doesn't bother me but you?
I guess I'm just not that negative about making, selling, or buying lots and lots of NOT "truly necessary" stuff. Doing that is not, per se, worshipping the idol god "Consumerism." I do agree wanting the stuff too much is a problem. Even more, I think good old fashion selfishness is a problem. Some people buy things for their EXCLUSIVE use. I really love those people who become materially rich in an honest way and then choose to buy lots of things (and so keep jobs from disappearing), but then share what they bought with others. And actuallly, I see a lot of that from people in my church, locally and otherwise. And for that I think we can be thankful.
By the way, I think you could solve your too-many-books problem by simply giving them to other people who would appreciate them when you are done. That way, the folks putting those books don't lose their jobs, and you haven't been, truly speaking, worshipping at the alter of Consumerism.
Posted in: An Anthem for Black Friday
Phil: I do think I understand the point, but I wanted to suggest that the perspective CRCers typically have about spending money on stuff we literally "don't need" is actually wrong. We feel guilty when we shouldn't, and we often do so just because that's the message we constantly hear from others (CRCers especially but other "anti-materialism" folk as well). It's ends up a sort of self-deprecating, I-need-to-confess perspective that happens to be wrong.
Yes, we do BADLY when we:
- Spend more than we have on non-essential stuff so that we run out of money for essential stuff and so become someone else's burden. And indeed that is a problem that Americans have generally (credit card addition), but not so much within the CRC.
- Spend on things that society shouldn't produce. Easy examples: porn, gambling, prostitution, etc.
- Keep all that we have to ourselves, but this is true whether we spend a lot or a little. If I have a garden tiller and my neighbor doesn't, I do well to offer to share it. If I have books I've read, I do well to offer them to others (that one for you). If I just have tons of money (maybe milk prices have been really good), I do well to buy a new piano the church needs, or chem lab equipment the school needs, or playground equipment for the neighborhood park, or kitchen equipment for the local UGM, or the tuition that pays for students who otherwise couldn't go to Christian School, etc. If I have a large house (and kids are out), I do well to provide housing to church visitors, or international students, or use the space for neighborhood gatherings, etc.
- Do NOT spend money we can afford to spend. What!?!?!?! That's actually selfish, whatever we might intend it to be. What is money after all, except for economic votes. What is the good of not using those votes. Those dollars are literally "talents" God gave us to use wisely. OK, if you decide your children are better vote casters then you, then fine, hoard the votes and give them to your kids when you die, but before you do that, at least teach your kids that dollars are just votes for them to use as talents given in the parable.
But we do WELL when we:
- Spend money to produce good and useful thing for society (could be food, education, cars, tools, information, or a billion other things). Using money to produce good stuff is doing good, that is, using the talents God gave us. By the way, some people refer to this as "capitalism," which gets a bad name too, but that's another post.
- Are mindful that if you don't spend your money, others are denied opportunity to use your money to provide for their themselves and their families. Money being economic votes, we do well when we give some votes to others so they can vote as well for their needs. For this reason, I encourage people to shop at businesses owned by local people instead of Walmart. Walmart doesn't really need the votes. On the other hand, if the local people make bad products or charge outrageous prices, I won't necessarily cast my votes in their favor.
- Realize we are stewards, receivers of talents in the form of economic votes. And this means, in a way that the parable of the talents taught, that simply not spending money is not good. This is a bit confusing to CRCers taught to spend minimally, but I suspect the parable of the talents is confusing to them as well, at least if they are honest about it.
I'm part of a downtown association. Most are retailers who serve the community with their businesses, and are good people who do good things for their schools, neighborhoods, churches, etc. Black Friday spending can make a lot of difference them. Way too often, we equate spending money buying stuff from them as serving the idol god "Consumerism." Just ain't so, and I'd like for us to consider adjusting our thinking on that.
By the way, the denomination sponsors a "simple life" push via the Office of Social Justice. Lots of "anti-consumerism" talk, some also wrong headed because it isn't thought through.
Posted in: An Anthem for Black Friday
Ken: I agree that "wealth ... for narsisistic reasons" is a strong pull away from God, but the narcissism is the pull, wealth only the temptation. Similar temptations can be found in health, or intelligence, or children, or many other gifts/abilities that one may have. I listed "selfishness" as one of the "bad things." "Selfishness" basically equals "narsisistic reasons."
But economic wealth, per se, is not a "bad thing" as evidenced scripturally by the accounts of Abraham (a very rich man, called blessed by God, who handled his wealth as a steward) and Jacob (whose flocks increased quite directly at the hand of God).
Again, dollars are just economic votes, and people with more votes or less votes are both required by God to cast them (which means, literally, spend them) responsibly. I don't know how the parable of the talents could be more pointed. Which means merely avoiding the spending of money does not necessarily equal "good." Indeed, the servant in the parable was extremely tight-fisted (typical Dutch frugality) and was condemned for it.
I realize this could be a thinking paradigm shift for a lot of CRCers especially who are prone to whip themselves for having money, or are moving to the "simple living" philosophy. I just believe those perspectives are, in some ways at least, very wrong. I recall the servant who hid his talents was surprised to discover what the Lord had wanted from him.