As former Stated Clerk for Classis BC South East I have been following this overture / conversation thread since it's inception. Dialogue entails listening, and is disheartening to hear this is still not occurring. As several commentators have indicated this overture has been before Classis BCSE twice, and in both instances the overture was defeated on the grounds it failed to do justice to the concerns raised by not listening to all parties, including the delegates at classis. The author of the overture thereby undermines the very reason he is bringing the matter forward, i.e. the "promot(ion of) truth, righteousness, justice and reconciliation." As such the overture is more political in nature than ecclesiastical, and as some commentators have observed contravenes Church Order, Article 28.
I appreciate your concern for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
However, notwithstanding your acknowledgement that “we could have listened better before taking the overture to classis a second time,” neither the second overture, nor the third overture to Synod addresses the concerns of the classical advisory committees regarding the lack balance in listening to both parties to the conflict in seeking scriptural reconciliation. As a consequence the overture undermines your stated intent “to speak truth prophetically against oppression, discrimination, human rights abuses, and to call on governments to uphold international law.” Secondly, we have previously discussed a concern which again appears in your email, i.e. impugning the committees’ integrity in raising concerns of balance with you to ensure equity, mercy and reconciliation be addressed by all parties.
Jews and Christians have since the emergence of Islam experienced dhimmis status, i.e. second class citizenship; and occasionally suffered expulsions, and pogroms. As recently as the breakup of the Ottoman Empire in the 20th century, we have seen the genocide of the Armenians in Turkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide ; and the expulsion of Jewish populations from North Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries . This persecution continues to be a daily reality for Jews, Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/02/persecution-driving-christians-out-of-middle-east-report & https://christianpersecutionreview.org.uk/interim-report/ .
One might argue that the lack of balance in the overture opens it to a charge of anti-semitism, as has been the case with the BDS movement.
Therein lies the complexity of the issue. The falsehood lies not with either Martin or Jennifer, but the quote cited in the 2nd overture to classis from the book by Gary Burge, Whose Land? Whose Promise?: What Christians Are Not Being Told about Israel and the Palestinians provided as the Human Rights grounds for supporting the overture.
Though the overture to Synod excludes the factually incorrect quote, “In the State of Israel, the most recent move to deny the right to vote and other democratic participation by people other than Jews is alarmingly distressing by anyone who hopes and prays for a peaceful coexistence in this region,” the overture still substantively cites a book which has been challenged for factual errors.
An alternate cited source might have been a better choice in the overture to Synod.
Thank you for the clarification. Appreciated. I'm used to quotations following a statement, not before.
Nonetheless, Gary Burge has been challenged for holding this very position, i.e. Israel is "mov(ing) to deny the right to vote and other democratic participation by people other than Jews" which was provided as grounds in the 2nd overture to classis.
Though the revised 2nd paragraph in the overture to Synod removes this sentence, it now intimates Israel is in the process of establishing an "apartheid regime." A matter on which Gary Burge has also been challenged, raising questions about the veracity of the overture's source material.
The recommendations set out in the “Reimagining Ministry Shares”report prepared for Synod 2019 are both illogical and ignore the facts. I’ve previously commented on this issue. See the comments portion of Gayla Postma's Council of Delegates Discusses Reimaging Ministry Shares The Banner 2018-10-19; and see also Clayton Libolt's Do Synods Remember? A Look at MinistryThe Banner 2018-08-24
I have been a member of the CRCNA for 70+ years in 5+/- churches; and have served as a deacon, elder, clerk, and Stated Clerk. To my recollection church budgets have usually been structured to include denominational and classical ministry shares as integral part of congregational finances. These budgets are adopted and recommended by councils for approval at congregational meetings.
The recommendation set out in Section VIII of the report that “each church council prayerfully considers how much they are willing and capable of giving for their ministry shares” based on “guidance developed by denominational staff and endorsed by the Council of Delegates is sent to the churches and to classis treasurers to aid them in this step” ignores:
1. the role and capacity of the congregation in the giving process; and
2. interferes in the ecclesiastical and civil governance of incorporated bodies.
Based on demographic data from the Yearbook and Statistics Canada for the period 1921–2019 in the province of British Columbia, as well as the classes financial statements for the period 1985 – 2018, denominational ministry share giving averages between 55 – 65% of what is approved by Synod based on denominational agency requests. It is my understanding this giving pattern aligns with the denominational receipts average. Is this report ignoring the obvious?
With the increase in smaller churches, and the passing of the boomer generation, the financial capacity of churches to support pastoral staff will come under increasing stress and potentially further erode the existing denominational ministry share base.
Regarding your state intervention concerns - historically the recognition of marriage in the Judeo-Christian tradition has shifted back and forth between the state, church and/or family. When my parents were married in the Netherlands in 1946 they were legally required to be married first before the governmental civil registry before proceeding in procession to the church for the ecclesiastical ceremony.
Legally, the substance of the overture coming to Synod 2019 would mean these individuals though married in a church would be considered to be living in a common law relationship, i.e. not legally married. The state has had to move into a legal vacuum created by men and women living together without a civil or church marriage by recognizing common law relationships to provide protection and aid to children, and women. The overture is proposing to recognize common law relationships which the church has historically opposed. A conundrum.
Assigning a new name to classis raises a number of questions:
a. Do the terms diocese or presbytery present the same problems as classis within their respective denominations, or is this simply a matter of church members losing touch with ecclesiastical language in a post modern secular society?
b. Freighting in another term, even if it were diocese or presbytery, or some other term raises questions whether the new word adequately captures what the term classis encompasses in Christian Reformed church polity, i.e. governance. Each ecclesiastical body operates on different governance principles.
c. In changing the name does the CRCNA move closer to a top down versus a bottom up governance model? (see Church Order, Article 27-a. Each assembly exercises, in keeping with its own character and domain, the ecclesiastical authority entrusted to the church by Christ; the authority of councils being original, that of major assemblies being delegated.)
It's one thing to responsibly exercise stewardship. However, there are political factions opposed to coal, oil, gas, LNG, hydro (British Columbia), as well as, nuclear (Ontario). To complicate matters, the NIMBY movement is also opposed to wind and solar energy in various parts of the country (Ontario).
Quite apart from negatively affecting the economy, the question arises what impact these actions will have on not only the fully employed (Alberta); the marginally employed; and those who live in poverty. Forced subsidization of wind and solar energy will only not only make the poor poorer; but add others to their ranks where power agencies cut off hydro power to those who cannot no longer pay their bills (Ontario).
Even if OSJ is stepping outside the boundaries of Church Order, Article 28 - there is a further scriptural concern with respect to acting justly where the poor are concerned, especially by those who lead relatively affluent lives within and outside the denomination.
If it is of any assistance, below is advice provided on Church Order, Article 28-a from the 2017 edition of the Manual of Christian Reformed Church Government:
Commentary:
1. Ecclesiastical matters
The work of the assemblies is limited to ecclesiastical matters. Such matters relate to the ministry of the Word and sacraments, worship, education, works of benevolence, the exercise of Christian discipline, the furtherance of the communion of the saints, and other activities that pertain to the church and its ministries.
Although Christian people have a responsibility to serve the Lord in all spheres of life—physical sciences, education, political life, art, business, etc.— these are not to be regarded as ecclesiastical matters. Synod has declared that political, social, and economic questions are ecclesiastical matters only when doctrinal and ethical issues of sufficient magnitude are involved as commonly understood according to the Word of God and the confessional standards of the Christian Reformed Church. By adhering to this fundamental principle, the church will not invade the rights of the state (government) nor erase the boundary between the duty of the church-institute and the duty of Christian citizens.
Posted in: Hello, I Am a Racist
Respectfully, we must agree to disagree on this matter.
Posted in: Any Current or Past Elders?
Hello...
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
As former Stated Clerk for Classis BC South East I have been following this overture / conversation thread since it's inception. Dialogue entails listening, and is disheartening to hear this is still not occurring. As several commentators have indicated this overture has been before Classis BCSE twice, and in both instances the overture was defeated on the grounds it failed to do justice to the concerns raised by not listening to all parties, including the delegates at classis. The author of the overture thereby undermines the very reason he is bringing the matter forward, i.e. the "promot(ion of) truth, righteousness, justice and reconciliation." As such the overture is more political in nature than ecclesiastical, and as some commentators have observed contravenes Church Order, Article 28.
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
Hi Martin…
I appreciate your concern for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
However, notwithstanding your acknowledgement that “we could have listened better before taking the overture to classis a second time,” neither the second overture, nor the third overture to Synod addresses the concerns of the classical advisory committees regarding the lack balance in listening to both parties to the conflict in seeking scriptural reconciliation. As a consequence the overture undermines your stated intent “to speak truth prophetically against oppression, discrimination, human rights abuses, and to call on governments to uphold international law.” Secondly, we have previously discussed a concern which again appears in your email, i.e. impugning the committees’ integrity in raising concerns of balance with you to ensure equity, mercy and reconciliation be addressed by all parties.
Jews and Christians have since the emergence of Islam experienced dhimmis status, i.e. second class citizenship; and occasionally suffered expulsions, and pogroms. As recently as the breakup of the Ottoman Empire in the 20th century, we have seen the genocide of the Armenians in Turkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide ; and the expulsion of Jewish populations from North Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries . This persecution continues to be a daily reality for Jews, Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/02/persecution-driving-christians-out-of-middle-east-report & https://christianpersecutionreview.org.uk/interim-report/ .
One might argue that the lack of balance in the overture opens it to a charge of anti-semitism, as has been the case with the BDS movement.
Yours in Christ,
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
Hi Nick…
Therein lies the complexity of the issue. The falsehood lies not with either Martin or Jennifer, but the quote cited in the 2nd overture to classis from the book by Gary Burge, Whose Land? Whose Promise?: What Christians Are Not Being Told about Israel and the Palestinians provided as the Human Rights grounds for supporting the overture.
Though the overture to Synod excludes the factually incorrect quote, “In the State of Israel, the most recent move to deny the right to vote and other democratic participation by people other than Jews is alarmingly distressing by anyone who hopes and prays for a peaceful coexistence in this region,” the overture still substantively cites a book which has been challenged for factual errors.
An alternate cited source might have been a better choice in the overture to Synod.
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
Hi Martin...
Thank you for the clarification. Appreciated. I'm used to quotations following a statement, not before.
Nonetheless, Gary Burge has been challenged for holding this very position, i.e. Israel is "mov(ing) to deny the right to vote and other democratic participation by people other than Jews" which was provided as grounds in the 2nd overture to classis.
Though the revised 2nd paragraph in the overture to Synod removes this sentence, it now intimates Israel is in the process of establishing an "apartheid regime." A matter on which Gary Burge has also been challenged, raising questions about the veracity of the overture's source material.
Yours in Christ,
Posted in: Let's Discuss "Reimagining Ministry Shares"
The recommendations set out in the “Reimagining Ministry Shares”report prepared for Synod 2019 are both illogical and ignore the facts. I’ve previously commented on this issue. See the comments portion of Gayla Postma's Council of Delegates Discusses Reimaging Ministry Shares The Banner 2018-10-19; and see also Clayton Libolt's Do Synods Remember? A Look at Ministry The Banner 2018-08-24
I have been a member of the CRCNA for 70+ years in 5+/- churches; and have served as a deacon, elder, clerk, and Stated Clerk. To my recollection church budgets have usually been structured to include denominational and classical ministry shares as integral part of congregational finances. These budgets are adopted and recommended by councils for approval at congregational meetings.
The recommendation set out in Section VIII of the report that “each church council prayerfully considers how much they are willing and capable of giving for their ministry shares” based on “guidance developed by denominational staff and endorsed by the Council of Delegates is sent to the churches and to classis treasurers to aid them in this step” ignores:
1. the role and capacity of the congregation in the giving process; and
2. interferes in the ecclesiastical and civil governance of incorporated bodies.
Based on demographic data from the Yearbook and Statistics Canada for the period 1921–2019 in the province of British Columbia, as well as the classes financial statements for the period 1985 – 2018, denominational ministry share giving averages between 55 – 65% of what is approved by Synod based on denominational agency requests. It is my understanding this giving pattern aligns with the denominational receipts average. Is this report ignoring the obvious?
With the increase in smaller churches, and the passing of the boomer generation, the financial capacity of churches to support pastoral staff will come under increasing stress and potentially further erode the existing denominational ministry share base.
Posted in: Ecclesiastic Marriage
I concur.
Posted in: Ecclesiastic Marriage
Regarding your state intervention concerns - historically the recognition of marriage in the Judeo-Christian tradition has shifted back and forth between the state, church and/or family. When my parents were married in the Netherlands in 1946 they were legally required to be married first before the governmental civil registry before proceeding in procession to the church for the ecclesiastical ceremony.
Legally, the substance of the overture coming to Synod 2019 would mean these individuals though married in a church would be considered to be living in a common law relationship, i.e. not legally married. The state has had to move into a legal vacuum created by men and women living together without a civil or church marriage by recognizing common law relationships to provide protection and aid to children, and women. The overture is proposing to recognize common law relationships which the church has historically opposed. A conundrum.
Posted in: Time to Rename Classis?
Assigning a new name to classis raises a number of questions:
a. Do the terms diocese or presbytery present the same problems as classis within their respective denominations, or is this simply a matter of church members losing touch with ecclesiastical language in a post modern secular society?
b. Freighting in another term, even if it were diocese or presbytery, or some other term raises questions whether the new word adequately captures what the term classis encompasses in Christian Reformed church polity, i.e. governance. Each ecclesiastical body operates on different governance principles.
c. In changing the name does the CRCNA move closer to a top down versus a bottom up governance model? (see Church Order, Article 27-a. Each assembly exercises, in keeping with its own character and domain, the ecclesiastical authority entrusted to the church by Christ; the authority of councils being original, that of major assemblies being delegated.)
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
It's one thing to responsibly exercise stewardship. However, there are political factions opposed to coal, oil, gas, LNG, hydro (British Columbia), as well as, nuclear (Ontario). To complicate matters, the NIMBY movement is also opposed to wind and solar energy in various parts of the country (Ontario).
Quite apart from negatively affecting the economy, the question arises what impact these actions will have on not only the fully employed (Alberta); the marginally employed; and those who live in poverty. Forced subsidization of wind and solar energy will only not only make the poor poorer; but add others to their ranks where power agencies cut off hydro power to those who cannot no longer pay their bills (Ontario).
Even if OSJ is stepping outside the boundaries of Church Order, Article 28 - there is a further scriptural concern with respect to acting justly where the poor are concerned, especially by those who lead relatively affluent lives within and outside the denomination.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Eric...
If it is of any assistance, below is advice provided on Church Order, Article 28-a from the 2017 edition of the Manual of Christian Reformed Church Government:
Commentary:
1. Ecclesiastical matters
The work of the assemblies is limited to ecclesiastical matters. Such matters relate to the ministry of the Word and sacraments, worship, education, works of benevolence, the exercise of Christian discipline, the furtherance of the communion of the saints, and other activities that pertain to the church and its ministries.
Although Christian people have a responsibility to serve the Lord in all spheres of life—physical sciences, education, political life, art, business, etc.— these are not to be regarded as ecclesiastical matters. Synod has declared that political, social, and economic questions are ecclesiastical matters only when doctrinal and ethical issues of sufficient magnitude are involved as commonly understood according to the Word of God and the confessional standards of the Christian Reformed Church. By adhering to this fundamental principle, the church will not invade the rights of the state (government) nor erase the boundary between the duty of the church-institute and the duty of Christian citizens.