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