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).
I'm a bit surprised that this article in Journal of Medical Ethics hasn't gotten some more jaw-dropping attention from the denomination (Banner and such). Maybe it will -- I hope so.
Besides arguing that which is what I've said for decades is entirely consistent with most pro-abortion arguments (that infanticide should be allowed because it is essentially the same as abortion), these JME article authors are also bold enough to openly talk about "human and non-human persons." Essentially, they open the discussion to further exploring their working assumption that some animals should be treated like humans and vice-versa. This is PETA talk in a serious medical publication and that should concern us. Among other things, this sort of thinking and talking pretty much puts the very lives of all "disabled" humans at risk.
So thank you, Mark, for taking the time to write about and discuss this JME article.
One more thought: we in the CRC need to really start thinking about how much we might be influenced by the sort of thinking in this JME article. For example, I was rather dumb founded to read in the Creation Stewardship Task Force Report how is was important that we, as Christians, get to the point where we are really "respecting worms" (the report's word) in order to be true stewards of God's creation. Huh? I may incredibly admire God's handiwork by observing all live (and non-life), but the suggestion that I must "respect worms" is at minimum a use of English words that is much too close to positing the categories of "human and non-human persons."
For multiple reasons, CRC'ers need to keep straight the distinctions between people, made in God's image, and non-human creation (animal, vegetative and non-life).
I think Bev Sterk has a great idea, and appreciate her sharing how she decided to live economically in a way that derives from her faith. I suspect each of have different "economic" lives, and different strategies for living "faithfully." Here are some of the things I've done.
The most important/fundamental decision I've ever made about living faithfully "in an economic way" is to not move. We live now where we moved to 30 years ago. I'm an attorney. All attorneys in my City live in the South area of the City, or the West. A few in the North. I live in the East. Decades ago, the East end was middle class or a bit lower, but over time, many of the middle class moved (South, West or maybe North) and lower class or Hispanic immigrants (legal and illegal) moved in. When we decided (about 10 years ago) to either upgrade our house or move, we decided against all the advice anyone gave me. We stayed.
Fast forward to today. I've spent quite a bit of money on lots of stuff. Kubota tractor, loader, tiller, etc. Two John Deere rider mowers, two push mowers, a Dodge RAM pickup with a Cummins engine and a heavy duty dump trailer, a chipper, blower, hand tillers, edgers, hand tools, ladders, you name it. Maybe $40,000 worth of this sort of "stuff" -- no, closer to $60,000. We also bought two rental houses near our house (yep, East end). One we bought at the peak of the market (aargh).
Our immediate neighborhood was really degrading. Owner/occupants not keeping things up, let alone Landlords that were becoming slum lords. The 4 acre neighborhood park belonged to gangs, literally. All fences grafitti'd all the time. Everything in disrepair. Grass never mowed. Weeds all over. Literally, no one came to the park except Hispanic gangs. Mothers wouldn't let their children go there and they didn't go there either.
Beginning July 8, 2008, I decided to adopt the park -- and started buying stuff. My wife and I decided to start with the park because it was public space, thinking its restoration would be the biggest bang for our buck in terms of the neighborhood. Today, the grass is always mowed. The weeds gone. There is no graffiti on any of the fences. Horseshoe pits are restored. Basketball court is restored. Bushes are trimmed, and front areas weeded and kept with a compost cover. Kids play there -- all the time. Adults take walks and walk their dogs there. A big Pacific Islander group regularly has volleyball and food parties there. Neighbors have picnics.
We decided then to help neighbors too, whether owners and renters -- neighbors who don't have tractors, tillers, mowers, blowers, trucks with dump trailers, edgers etc.. I've mowed perhaps 10 neighbor's yards this summer (older people, people who don't have mowers, tenants who hadn't thought of mowing because their neighbors don't either, etc.) My wife and I have redone front and back lawns for about four places beside our own. I have a pending renovation request from another neighbor for next spring. Lots of other stuff.
Other neighbors are now improving their places on their own. I like to think its because of what they see going on around them, and I think I'm right. One of my rentals was surrounded by neighbors who sold drugs just four years ago. Now, none.
None of this would have happened if: (1) we hadn't decided to stay living in an neighborhood that was becoming the bad side of town; (2) spent a lot of money on a lot of stuff; (3) spent a lot of time not watching TV or going out for dinner.
I really don't like the idea of "caring for the poor" by advocating for government to tax rich people and give that money (what's left of it at least) to "the poor." Being "poor" is just a lot more complicated than "being poor." To me, when goverment "takes care of the poor," it actually accomplishes very little that is good and does quite a bit that is bad. It keeps people dependent and reinforces bad habits. I'd rather tax myself (buy stuff) and use that with my own time, living there, looking my neighbors in the face and talking with them. And they're not just poor. Some are but others are elderly, divorced, or just don't have a clue. Again, it's more complicated than government can deal with. And my life is richer for it. Not a bad return for buying a lot of stuff.
If there is anything I'd like to see our denomination encourage, as a "social justice" matter, is living with other people, without regard to wealth or class, and to be salt in ways that will become pretty obvious because you live there.
Bev: Some background on 10 years ago and 7/8/2008. I'm a Dordt grad, philsophy/history major. Kuyper's "not one square inch" resonated with me--changed my life and my thinking really. Moving out of the area would be good for the family in many ways, but the idea of moving out of an area because the people weren't good enough really bothered me. What about "not one square inch"? The other thing that had happened some years earlier--not my doing--was that a "neighborhood association" our house was a part of had gone defunct, but it owned some "parkette" land behind our house. Evenutally, the association, having gone defunct, didn't pay taxes and the property was sold at the courthouse steps. The economy was bad at that time and I ended up the only bidder. $1800 expanded my lot size from a "normal" size to over an acre. Again, I had nothing to do with that, but then when decided we needed a bigger house, the option of building on our current lot, and staying on the East end of the city, was a possibility just because we had the larger lot size.
So at that point, we had a decision to make. We didn't have the excuse of "needing a larger house" because we could make that happen where we were. Ultimately, I just couldn't make the decision to move out of the neighborhood. People doing that had been what made neighborhood deteriorate in the first place. If "not one square inch" really did mean something, how could we decide to move?
Of course, an additional benefit of the increased lot size was I had room for equipment. :-) You can just see this coming--one thing leads (or we are led) to another. We bought our first rental because a longtime neighbor (elderly woman) that we had helped take care of over the years was getting getting to the point of needing to go to a care facility. To make a very long story really short, we helped her sell it to a couple of guys who were in the "fix and flip" business so she could move to a care home. They in turn renovated her old house so well (and the house was so close to house anyway--almost literally in our back yard), that we bought it from them. We then rented to college kids from the local Christian college (Corban). OK, so the rental was across the street from the neighborhood park and surrounded by a meth house and other likely drug dealing houses. And the county (owner of the park) had pretty much just given up on the park because of the deteriorating neighborhood. Because we now owned a house on a different street that was across the park, we just became more acutely aware of how bad things were (we were on a court, somewhat isolated).
And all of this coincided in time with my kids growing older and leaving the house (for college and beyond). I was no longer coaching baseball (I had at the Christian high school for seven years), and so I had some time on my hands. At a point, just observing what was going on around our rental--especially the public park which seemed the embarrassing and telling public icon for the neighborhood degregation--I just got angry, literally, and once again remembered "one square inch."
With a door opened that wide, how could I not walk through it? Besides, I grew up on a farm and I knew how this kind of stuff was done. So I bought my Kubota (B2920) and a 3-pt hitch finish mower (Woods) and, with the county's permission, mowed the foot-tall grass (and weeds). It took more than one pass. Looked a bit like a hay field after that but it was a start. I remember it was July 8, 2008, just because it seemed like the beginning of something and I remembered the date. That was the start and then we couldn't stop with lots of park improvements.
One of the unexpected delights of this has been getting to know a lot of the park neighborhood kids. The first were Jordan (a girl) an her brother Nicholas. Then others. The kids thought I owned the park. :-) Obviously, it's taken a lot of time -- probably 1000 hours or so over the last 3+ years, but that's been a blessing too. I got exercise, needed at my age with my job (and no longer coaching). Couldn't get it in a better way. Another delight is I've gotten to know the neighbors by our house more, and the neighbors to our rental, in large part because, well, I had equipment to share and had the need. A few of the neighbors are Christian, but I usually find out after a while. Most aren't. I don't push. I'm a Calvinist, believing I need to be faithful and God will take care of the rest. So far, he's done pretty well, over decades of time, plotting and scheming in ways I hadn't even recognized until after the fact--to open a very wide door.
As to our house, which is bigger but then the kids left, we now have three international students (boys) from the local Christian high school to fill that space, one Japanese, one Chinese, one Vietnamese. Who would have thunk? Of course, they have a big back yard, nice park close by. Hmmm. That seems to have worked out too. And again, we are richer for all of it, as are our neighbors and our new boys.
In terms of the future, I figure I have at least ten good years left in me. Am planning for more park improvements--now with other neighbors involved as well--and some coordinated neighborhood improvements. We'll see what happens. :-)
Wendy's relayed response from Jay Van Groningen is:
My opinion on the distinction between church as institute and organism:
1. Who benefits from making this distinction?
2. How does it benefit the isolated, poorer neighbors to maintain this distinction?
My own answers to Jay Van Groningen would be:
Response to #1. Everyone benefits, at least in the long run, although seemingly not in the short run. In the Dutch Reformed tradition, Christian Schools result from the work (preaching/teaching) of the church as institution, but the implementation of Christian Schools result from the work (members responding to the preaching/teaching) of the church as organism. The wisdom of implementing that distinction is, in my view, abundantly clear.
Jay himself does his work not as part of the church as organism, bu as part of the church as organism (he is as an agent of "Communities First Association"). Why? A hint to the answer comes from a publication written by Jay himself. He wrote "Communities First", of which Chapter 8 is: "Justice: Creating Policies, Laws, and Systems that Work for Everyone. This chapter describes how ministry and community leaders can effectively advocate for justice without getting caught up in partisan politics."
Hmmm, "without getting caught up in partisan politics"?? The task of the church, as institution, is to preach, teach, encourage, provide for fellowship, and provide a simple form of benevolence (both within but also without). Certainly, local churches can and do also get in the community (after all, it invites the community to share in that which it preaches, teaches, etc., and to become part of that local 'family''), but at a point, if the church, as institution, gets too involved, it simply won't avoid getting caught up in "partisan politics," Jay Van Groningen's Chapter 8 notwithstanding. Result? Some members will leave because they have a "political perspective" at odds with that which the church Council has; Council starts looking at new elder nominees by examining their "political perspectives" in addition to other qualifications (after all, the church's political message to the community needs to be consisitent); Council's work is increasingly about matters outside the competence of Council members; and the job of Elder or Deacon starts to become quite different.
If we don't differentiate between church as insitution and as organism, we adopt a Roman Catholic tradition. I'll take the Reformed tradition any day.
Response to #2. The poor and isolated are benefitted because more work, and more competent work, is being done for their benefit. Elders/deacons aren't necessarily your best local Christian school board members (or administrators or teachers). And I wouldn't want my elders/deacons to also have those jobs -- too much out of their area of competency (and just too much work). Certainly, some elders/deacons will also be school board members, but that's because they chose to and have multiple competencies. And when he/she votes as a school board member, he/she is voting with different co-directors, which aggregately has a different skill/experience set (thankfully!).
Don't misunderstand. I'm all for what Jay Van Gronigen wants CRC church members to do, and I've spent my personal life trying to practice that preaching. But I do it because of the preaching/teaching I received, and I do it sometimes in concert with a local board of directors in a community, sometime as a volunteer for another community organization, and sometimes just as myself. In all those cases, I'm glad I'm not doing it under the control of my church's Council. Hey, my elders/deacons are great people but not necessarily the best to be calling all the shots in all of the things I involve myself in for the community. I'm glad the Council does its job, and my local community organizations do theirs, and that my local community orgnizations can be governed by a board that includes people from all sorts of churches -- even people not from church (a BIG plus).
Honestly, I don't understand why we in the CRC no longer seem to understand the benefits of distinguishing between church as institution and church as organism. Have we simply stopped teaching this?
I'm all in favor of decentralization, including some shifting from the denominational to the classical. I would think that would also call for a certain amount of ministry share rerouting to match.
The CRCNA has become much too detached from membership, except perhaps if you live near Grand Rapids? And much too heirarchical as well. Flash back 25 years and compare to now: the denomination then/now is barely recognizable as the same, and mostly not in a good way.
I think a denominational resource like this is absolutely necessary. It is fundamental infrastructure.
This resource may be an instrument of changing things in the denomination--in fact I'm hoping for that--and if it does, it will be because it will makes it a bit harder for a small groups of people to have a disproportionate amount of influence in denominational affairs. But, that is only if CRC members use it (and I think they increasingly will).
It's also just a great resource generally for CRC members, continent wide, to more easily and effectively exchange ideas and resources.
I would rather that the national Belhar tour (push) have been a national Network tour. Would have been more constructive.
Sorry Sid but I'm not a fan of too much of this post. Certainly, we should be agents of reconciliation, but the political conclusions in this post are a bit merely politically fashionable.
This post clearly, even if a bit vaguely (another CRC trait beside having "gentle grace"), promotes grace for all except the "bad guys" of course. At best, they get a "just say no," and the president (without speaking his name of course) gets an unambiguous "put your thumbs down everyone." We can do better than that. A lot better.
Which is the approach taken by Daryl Davis, as described in the documentary, "Accidental Courtesy." It would seem that Davis, a black musician, has been doing reconciliation work -- including with KKKers and white supremacists/separatists, for years now, and with the kind of "sturdy, gentle grace" that is suggested by this article to be the perhaps exclusive possession of CRCers. And Davis has been doing this all while doing it was neither cool nor politically current.
Davis understands, quite correctly I believe, that fear and ignorance predominantly underlie the postures of KKKers and white separatists/supremacists. Davis exhibits "gentle grace" there, not a simplistic "just say no" posture, and it does indeed make for results.
This article, and most if not all CRCNA agent articles on this same hot political topic, give no hint that the CRCNA understands what Davis does.
Perhaps there should be a GR showing of "Accidental Courtesy." Knowing there would never be (too different from the preferred GR political narrative, which frankly is less "gentle grace filled"), I'll recommend watching it on Netflix, now showing.
Great post, Syd. As to your question, "how to encourage" such a perspective/attitude, a think a key is to persuade that having a contrary perspective or appreciation is absolutely, unqualifiedly OK, even good. That's only a key of course, but without it, folks tend to see themselves as compelled to act as if they think/feel the same (that they like rap when they don't, or that they believe food stamps shouldn't be increased when they don't think that), or choose the route of being divisive.
If we lie about our honest differences to keep community, we ultimately will not keep community. Nor will we learn, as Mr. Wellstone has, how to "deal with" those differences and how to discern priorities of importance.
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).
Posted in: Should Infanticide be Legal?
I'm a bit surprised that this article in Journal of Medical Ethics hasn't gotten some more jaw-dropping attention from the denomination (Banner and such). Maybe it will -- I hope so.
Besides arguing that which is what I've said for decades is entirely consistent with most pro-abortion arguments (that infanticide should be allowed because it is essentially the same as abortion), these JME article authors are also bold enough to openly talk about "human and non-human persons." Essentially, they open the discussion to further exploring their working assumption that some animals should be treated like humans and vice-versa. This is PETA talk in a serious medical publication and that should concern us. Among other things, this sort of thinking and talking pretty much puts the very lives of all "disabled" humans at risk.
So thank you, Mark, for taking the time to write about and discuss this JME article.
One more thought: we in the CRC need to really start thinking about how much we might be influenced by the sort of thinking in this JME article. For example, I was rather dumb founded to read in the Creation Stewardship Task Force Report how is was important that we, as Christians, get to the point where we are really "respecting worms" (the report's word) in order to be true stewards of God's creation. Huh? I may incredibly admire God's handiwork by observing all live (and non-life), but the suggestion that I must "respect worms" is at minimum a use of English words that is much too close to positing the categories of "human and non-human persons."
For multiple reasons, CRC'ers need to keep straight the distinctions between people, made in God's image, and non-human creation (animal, vegetative and non-life).
Posted in: An Anthem for Black Friday
I think Bev Sterk has a great idea, and appreciate her sharing how she decided to live economically in a way that derives from her faith. I suspect each of have different "economic" lives, and different strategies for living "faithfully." Here are some of the things I've done.
The most important/fundamental decision I've ever made about living faithfully "in an economic way" is to not move. We live now where we moved to 30 years ago. I'm an attorney. All attorneys in my City live in the South area of the City, or the West. A few in the North. I live in the East. Decades ago, the East end was middle class or a bit lower, but over time, many of the middle class moved (South, West or maybe North) and lower class or Hispanic immigrants (legal and illegal) moved in. When we decided (about 10 years ago) to either upgrade our house or move, we decided against all the advice anyone gave me. We stayed.
Fast forward to today. I've spent quite a bit of money on lots of stuff. Kubota tractor, loader, tiller, etc. Two John Deere rider mowers, two push mowers, a Dodge RAM pickup with a Cummins engine and a heavy duty dump trailer, a chipper, blower, hand tillers, edgers, hand tools, ladders, you name it. Maybe $40,000 worth of this sort of "stuff" -- no, closer to $60,000. We also bought two rental houses near our house (yep, East end). One we bought at the peak of the market (aargh).
Our immediate neighborhood was really degrading. Owner/occupants not keeping things up, let alone Landlords that were becoming slum lords. The 4 acre neighborhood park belonged to gangs, literally. All fences grafitti'd all the time. Everything in disrepair. Grass never mowed. Weeds all over. Literally, no one came to the park except Hispanic gangs. Mothers wouldn't let their children go there and they didn't go there either.
Beginning July 8, 2008, I decided to adopt the park -- and started buying stuff. My wife and I decided to start with the park because it was public space, thinking its restoration would be the biggest bang for our buck in terms of the neighborhood. Today, the grass is always mowed. The weeds gone. There is no graffiti on any of the fences. Horseshoe pits are restored. Basketball court is restored. Bushes are trimmed, and front areas weeded and kept with a compost cover. Kids play there -- all the time. Adults take walks and walk their dogs there. A big Pacific Islander group regularly has volleyball and food parties there. Neighbors have picnics.
We decided then to help neighbors too, whether owners and renters -- neighbors who don't have tractors, tillers, mowers, blowers, trucks with dump trailers, edgers etc.. I've mowed perhaps 10 neighbor's yards this summer (older people, people who don't have mowers, tenants who hadn't thought of mowing because their neighbors don't either, etc.) My wife and I have redone front and back lawns for about four places beside our own. I have a pending renovation request from another neighbor for next spring. Lots of other stuff.
Other neighbors are now improving their places on their own. I like to think its because of what they see going on around them, and I think I'm right. One of my rentals was surrounded by neighbors who sold drugs just four years ago. Now, none.
None of this would have happened if: (1) we hadn't decided to stay living in an neighborhood that was becoming the bad side of town; (2) spent a lot of money on a lot of stuff; (3) spent a lot of time not watching TV or going out for dinner.
I really don't like the idea of "caring for the poor" by advocating for government to tax rich people and give that money (what's left of it at least) to "the poor." Being "poor" is just a lot more complicated than "being poor." To me, when goverment "takes care of the poor," it actually accomplishes very little that is good and does quite a bit that is bad. It keeps people dependent and reinforces bad habits. I'd rather tax myself (buy stuff) and use that with my own time, living there, looking my neighbors in the face and talking with them. And they're not just poor. Some are but others are elderly, divorced, or just don't have a clue. Again, it's more complicated than government can deal with. And my life is richer for it. Not a bad return for buying a lot of stuff.
If there is anything I'd like to see our denomination encourage, as a "social justice" matter, is living with other people, without regard to wealth or class, and to be salt in ways that will become pretty obvious because you live there.
Posted in: Should Infanticide be Legal?
Mark: Thanks for the tip as to the news tip (I didn't know that existed). I used it. :-)
Posted in: An Anthem for Black Friday
Bev: Some background on 10 years ago and 7/8/2008. I'm a Dordt grad, philsophy/history major. Kuyper's "not one square inch" resonated with me--changed my life and my thinking really. Moving out of the area would be good for the family in many ways, but the idea of moving out of an area because the people weren't good enough really bothered me. What about "not one square inch"? The other thing that had happened some years earlier--not my doing--was that a "neighborhood association" our house was a part of had gone defunct, but it owned some "parkette" land behind our house. Evenutally, the association, having gone defunct, didn't pay taxes and the property was sold at the courthouse steps. The economy was bad at that time and I ended up the only bidder. $1800 expanded my lot size from a "normal" size to over an acre. Again, I had nothing to do with that, but then when decided we needed a bigger house, the option of building on our current lot, and staying on the East end of the city, was a possibility just because we had the larger lot size.
So at that point, we had a decision to make. We didn't have the excuse of "needing a larger house" because we could make that happen where we were. Ultimately, I just couldn't make the decision to move out of the neighborhood. People doing that had been what made neighborhood deteriorate in the first place. If "not one square inch" really did mean something, how could we decide to move?
Of course, an additional benefit of the increased lot size was I had room for equipment. :-) You can just see this coming--one thing leads (or we are led) to another. We bought our first rental because a longtime neighbor (elderly woman) that we had helped take care of over the years was getting getting to the point of needing to go to a care facility. To make a very long story really short, we helped her sell it to a couple of guys who were in the "fix and flip" business so she could move to a care home. They in turn renovated her old house so well (and the house was so close to house anyway--almost literally in our back yard), that we bought it from them. We then rented to college kids from the local Christian college (Corban). OK, so the rental was across the street from the neighborhood park and surrounded by a meth house and other likely drug dealing houses. And the county (owner of the park) had pretty much just given up on the park because of the deteriorating neighborhood. Because we now owned a house on a different street that was across the park, we just became more acutely aware of how bad things were (we were on a court, somewhat isolated).
And all of this coincided in time with my kids growing older and leaving the house (for college and beyond). I was no longer coaching baseball (I had at the Christian high school for seven years), and so I had some time on my hands. At a point, just observing what was going on around our rental--especially the public park which seemed the embarrassing and telling public icon for the neighborhood degregation--I just got angry, literally, and once again remembered "one square inch."
With a door opened that wide, how could I not walk through it? Besides, I grew up on a farm and I knew how this kind of stuff was done. So I bought my Kubota (B2920) and a 3-pt hitch finish mower (Woods) and, with the county's permission, mowed the foot-tall grass (and weeds). It took more than one pass. Looked a bit like a hay field after that but it was a start. I remember it was July 8, 2008, just because it seemed like the beginning of something and I remembered the date. That was the start and then we couldn't stop with lots of park improvements.
One of the unexpected delights of this has been getting to know a lot of the park neighborhood kids. The first were Jordan (a girl) an her brother Nicholas. Then others. The kids thought I owned the park. :-) Obviously, it's taken a lot of time -- probably 1000 hours or so over the last 3+ years, but that's been a blessing too. I got exercise, needed at my age with my job (and no longer coaching). Couldn't get it in a better way. Another delight is I've gotten to know the neighbors by our house more, and the neighbors to our rental, in large part because, well, I had equipment to share and had the need. A few of the neighbors are Christian, but I usually find out after a while. Most aren't. I don't push. I'm a Calvinist, believing I need to be faithful and God will take care of the rest. So far, he's done pretty well, over decades of time, plotting and scheming in ways I hadn't even recognized until after the fact--to open a very wide door.
As to our house, which is bigger but then the kids left, we now have three international students (boys) from the local Christian high school to fill that space, one Japanese, one Chinese, one Vietnamese. Who would have thunk? Of course, they have a big back yard, nice park close by. Hmmm. That seems to have worked out too. And again, we are richer for all of it, as are our neighbors and our new boys.
In terms of the future, I figure I have at least ten good years left in me. Am planning for more park improvements--now with other neighbors involved as well--and some coordinated neighborhood improvements. We'll see what happens. :-)
Posted in: Church as Gift for Neighborhood Transformation
@ Wendy Hammond
Wendy's relayed response from Jay Van Groningen is:
My opinion on the distinction between church as institute and organism:
1. Who benefits from making this distinction?
2. How does it benefit the isolated, poorer neighbors to maintain this distinction?
My own answers to Jay Van Groningen would be:
Response to #1. Everyone benefits, at least in the long run, although seemingly not in the short run. In the Dutch Reformed tradition, Christian Schools result from the work (preaching/teaching) of the church as institution, but the implementation of Christian Schools result from the work (members responding to the preaching/teaching) of the church as organism. The wisdom of implementing that distinction is, in my view, abundantly clear.
Jay himself does his work not as part of the church as organism, bu as part of the church as organism (he is as an agent of "Communities First Association"). Why? A hint to the answer comes from a publication written by Jay himself. He wrote "Communities First", of which Chapter 8 is: "Justice: Creating Policies, Laws, and Systems that Work for Everyone. This chapter describes how ministry and community leaders can effectively advocate for justice without getting caught up in partisan politics."
Hmmm, "without getting caught up in partisan politics"?? The task of the church, as institution, is to preach, teach, encourage, provide for fellowship, and provide a simple form of benevolence (both within but also without). Certainly, local churches can and do also get in the community (after all, it invites the community to share in that which it preaches, teaches, etc., and to become part of that local 'family''), but at a point, if the church, as institution, gets too involved, it simply won't avoid getting caught up in "partisan politics," Jay Van Groningen's Chapter 8 notwithstanding. Result? Some members will leave because they have a "political perspective" at odds with that which the church Council has; Council starts looking at new elder nominees by examining their "political perspectives" in addition to other qualifications (after all, the church's political message to the community needs to be consisitent); Council's work is increasingly about matters outside the competence of Council members; and the job of Elder or Deacon starts to become quite different.
If we don't differentiate between church as insitution and as organism, we adopt a Roman Catholic tradition. I'll take the Reformed tradition any day.
Response to #2. The poor and isolated are benefitted because more work, and more competent work, is being done for their benefit. Elders/deacons aren't necessarily your best local Christian school board members (or administrators or teachers). And I wouldn't want my elders/deacons to also have those jobs -- too much out of their area of competency (and just too much work). Certainly, some elders/deacons will also be school board members, but that's because they chose to and have multiple competencies. And when he/she votes as a school board member, he/she is voting with different co-directors, which aggregately has a different skill/experience set (thankfully!).
Don't misunderstand. I'm all for what Jay Van Gronigen wants CRC church members to do, and I've spent my personal life trying to practice that preaching. But I do it because of the preaching/teaching I received, and I do it sometimes in concert with a local board of directors in a community, sometime as a volunteer for another community organization, and sometimes just as myself. In all those cases, I'm glad I'm not doing it under the control of my church's Council. Hey, my elders/deacons are great people but not necessarily the best to be calling all the shots in all of the things I involve myself in for the community. I'm glad the Council does its job, and my local community organizations do theirs, and that my local community orgnizations can be governed by a board that includes people from all sorts of churches -- even people not from church (a BIG plus).
Honestly, I don't understand why we in the CRC no longer seem to understand the benefits of distinguishing between church as institution and church as organism. Have we simply stopped teaching this?
Posted in: Fat Bureaucracies vs Flat and Fluid Networks
I'm all in favor of decentralization, including some shifting from the denominational to the classical. I would think that would also call for a certain amount of ministry share rerouting to match.
The CRCNA has become much too detached from membership, except perhaps if you live near Grand Rapids? And much too heirarchical as well. Flash back 25 years and compare to now: the denomination then/now is barely recognizable as the same, and mostly not in a good way.
Posted in: Next Steps for Me...and for The Network
I think a denominational resource like this is absolutely necessary. It is fundamental infrastructure.
This resource may be an instrument of changing things in the denomination--in fact I'm hoping for that--and if it does, it will be because it will makes it a bit harder for a small groups of people to have a disproportionate amount of influence in denominational affairs. But, that is only if CRC members use it (and I think they increasingly will).
It's also just a great resource generally for CRC members, continent wide, to more easily and effectively exchange ideas and resources.
I would rather that the national Belhar tour (push) have been a national Network tour. Would have been more constructive.
Posted in: Estuary in Grand Rapids: A Post-Synod Intro to Ministry With Those on the Edge of Faith
I highly recommend attending this to anyone who can. :-)
Posted in: Offering the Gifts of Sturdy, Gentle Graces: Reflections After Charlottesville
Sorry Sid but I'm not a fan of too much of this post. Certainly, we should be agents of reconciliation, but the political conclusions in this post are a bit merely politically fashionable.
This post clearly, even if a bit vaguely (another CRC trait beside having "gentle grace"), promotes grace for all except the "bad guys" of course. At best, they get a "just say no," and the president (without speaking his name of course) gets an unambiguous "put your thumbs down everyone." We can do better than that. A lot better.
Which is the approach taken by Daryl Davis, as described in the documentary, "Accidental Courtesy." It would seem that Davis, a black musician, has been doing reconciliation work -- including with KKKers and white supremacists/separatists, for years now, and with the kind of "sturdy, gentle grace" that is suggested by this article to be the perhaps exclusive possession of CRCers. And Davis has been doing this all while doing it was neither cool nor politically current.
Davis understands, quite correctly I believe, that fear and ignorance predominantly underlie the postures of KKKers and white separatists/supremacists. Davis exhibits "gentle grace" there, not a simplistic "just say no" posture, and it does indeed make for results.
This article, and most if not all CRCNA agent articles on this same hot political topic, give no hint that the CRCNA understands what Davis does.
Perhaps there should be a GR showing of "Accidental Courtesy." Knowing there would never be (too different from the preferred GR political narrative, which frankly is less "gentle grace filled"), I'll recommend watching it on Netflix, now showing.
Posted in: Synod 2017 "Post-Game Show"
I loved your postgame show Paul. :-)
Posted in: Blessed by the Blessings of Others
Great post, Syd. As to your question, "how to encourage" such a perspective/attitude, a think a key is to persuade that having a contrary perspective or appreciation is absolutely, unqualifiedly OK, even good. That's only a key of course, but without it, folks tend to see themselves as compelled to act as if they think/feel the same (that they like rap when they don't, or that they believe food stamps shouldn't be increased when they don't think that), or choose the route of being divisive.
If we lie about our honest differences to keep community, we ultimately will not keep community. Nor will we learn, as Mr. Wellstone has, how to "deal with" those differences and how to discern priorities of importance.