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.
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 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.
John: Your distinction between spending and investing is right on the money (pun intended). I tend to refer to those as "consumption spending" and "produc tion spending." Each category needs to be analyzed by different criteria.
When we engage in production spending, we really are being the makers of stuff, in which case we need to analyze whether we should encourage others to buy what we are producing (is this good for society or not so good, are other people producing this or not), how much we should be willing to risk (sometimes, we produce what people won't buy, for good or for bad), whether we are producing in ways that create jobs, or not, and for whom, etc.
When we engage in consumptive spending, we need to focus more on the beneficiaries of the spending (if we only spend for ourselves personally, we may be merely selfish gluttons), realize when we are being wasteful (already have that, why more?), and realize we are casting votes for producers to produce more of that good/service (if we buy pizzas, we are voting for more production of pizzas; if we by music by an artist, we are voting for that artist to do more).
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: 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 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.
Posted in: An Anthem for Black Friday
John: Your distinction between spending and investing is right on the money (pun intended). I tend to refer to those as "consumption spending" and "produc tion spending." Each category needs to be analyzed by different criteria.
When we engage in production spending, we really are being the makers of stuff, in which case we need to analyze whether we should encourage others to buy what we are producing (is this good for society or not so good, are other people producing this or not), how much we should be willing to risk (sometimes, we produce what people won't buy, for good or for bad), whether we are producing in ways that create jobs, or not, and for whom, etc.
When we engage in consumptive spending, we need to focus more on the beneficiaries of the spending (if we only spend for ourselves personally, we may be merely selfish gluttons), realize when we are being wasteful (already have that, why more?), and realize we are casting votes for producers to produce more of that good/service (if we buy pizzas, we are voting for more production of pizzas; if we by music by an artist, we are voting for that artist to do more).