This is a good discussion. Thanks to Dan for introducing this topic and providing an insightful anecdote/lesson. I also think that Dan’s offer of a definition of justice is about as good a short definition as you will get, given that certain facts are acknowledged. As Dan further explained, we of course judge the “people getting what they deserve” according to the standard provided in God’s Word. This much should be self-evident for the Christian. There are also two categories of justice: Justice before God and justice before the civil authority appointed by God. In both arenas, the concept of reaping what you sow is prevalent. Proverbs 22:8 tells us: “Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity, and the rod of his fury will fail.” In contrast, Hosea 10:12 instructs us to: “Sow for yourselves righteousness; reap steadfast love.” Galations 6:7 tells us: “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.” Hosea 8:7 contains the idea that who we sow will not just be returned, but will be multiplied: “For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.”
The biblical idea of justice must contain the idea of just deserts or punishment, of reaping what you sow. Any concept of justice without this fails to account for the character of God and revealed in the Bible. In Romans 3 Paul wrestles with the idea of sin and judgement, or the meting out of justice. In verses 5-6 he says: But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world?” So we see that God is righteous in meting out justice, or consequences, or just deserts. And the passage goes on to reveal that in the cross, we see God executing perfect justice in requiring payment for sin and also being the one who is the merciful justifier. He both provided the punishment and the payment. Romans 3:24b-26: “…Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” God shows that he is just by punishing sin. You can’t find much more of a convergence of justice and the cross than that, but it is inescapable that the cross represents punishment.
Despite attempts to conflate justice with shalom, we know better in our everyday language. What is the highest law enforcement office in the land? The Department of Justice. They require an answer for disobedience to the laws of the civil magistrate and they exact justice/punishment for disobedience. Rachel DenHollander recently was quoted in an interview regarding her abuse at the hands of Larry Nassar. Question: “Your impact statement ended with you asking how much a little girl is worth. How would you answer that question?” Answer “From a Christian worldview, she’s made in the image of God. She has eternal and immeasurable value. That is why justice here on earth is always going to be incomplete: because there’s no way to bring full justice here on earth. That being said, God has instituted civil government for the purpose of reflecting his judgment, the best justice, to the best of our ability here on earth. And I think we saw that in the courtroom this week.” Rachel called for and received justice. Larry also received justice, or we could say he got what he deserved. He sowed and he reaped. Who, then, would describe Larry’s receipt of justice as shalom?
Kris, I don't think that Dan would agree at all with your characterization of what he has said in the other post.
It seems somewhat curious that two employees of the CRC OSJ would be loud proponents of ceasing to "talk about justice" inasmuch as the OSJ is the most bountiful purveyor of justice talk of all sorts. Indeed the OSJ never ceases to call for more justice talk.
I think the author presents a false choice: talk or do. Actually, there is plenty of room for both. The OSJ does not have the market cornered on proper knowledge or application of justice. And it might come as a surprise that many people and congregations are hard at work already doing justice every day. Locally ,it looks a lot like the early New Testament church, where brothers and sisters looked after each other so that no one was in need. I have yet to see a church or Christian community where their orphans and widows are left helpless to fend for themselves or starve. Never. I see the church reaching out throughout the world with acts of mercy and calls for justice. There is plenty of room to discuss the practical application of justice principles in our lives and societies and to be involved daily in doing what is just. I see no need to pit one against the other as if they are mutually exclusive.
There are also many areas of more pressing Christian persecution or distress than Palestine. Voice of the Martyrs tracks persecution throughout the world. Many Christians pray daily for persecuted brothers and sisters around the world. Almost every church I have attended in my life does as well. Christians cannot be "all-in" on every injustice. It simply cannot happen. I can understand why Palestine and the Middle East are a particular passion for Shannon. Other Christians will focus their passion other places. That doesn't mean they have no interest in justice or are not hard at work every day in their daily walks doing justice in how they live, work, and interact in their communities.
Hi Shannon. No, we have never met each other, but i have read a lot of what you have written, and you have a digital footprint that makes parts of your life story "knowable". For instance, in one article (https://www.thebanner.org/departments/2017/01/getting-to-know-your-muslim-neighbors) you describe yourself as an "Arab American and daughter of a Muslim". It is this type of background as well as emphases of articles that you write that lead me to conclude that you have an understandable passion for Palestine and the Middle East. You are free to correct me if I am mistaken. I do not begrudge you that passion at all, and I intended no negative connotation in making that note. In fact, I think it admirable for you to speak concerning subjects about which you may have passion. I was merely saying that in the context of noting that other Christians will have other areas of passion, and it is also totally fine for them to focus there energies there.
Hi again Shannon. Statements such as "It’s time for us to stop talking about justice, and to do justice" carry an implicit message of either/or. I will concede that you did not explicitly posit that one necessarily excludes the other, but it seems to me that if you simply wanted to encourage justice action, there was no need to couch that call within a simultaneous call to stop talking about it.
I'm also not convinced that you are in a position to judge that Christians are spending too little time doing justice. Are you shadowing the lives of a significant number of Christians that you can make this statement? Just because Christians aren't doing justice in ways that are visible or acceptable to you does not mean that they are not doing it early and often.
It also seems curious that you posit talking and doing as somehow unrelated. One of the main messages of the OSJ is that talking *is* doing. The OSJ has innumerable articles, tweets, etc. that spur church members on to talking about/advocating about justice issues as a form of justice action. The "Do Justice" blog is full of such calls. Hence my confusion at the focus of your article. If your article had been basically a call to "spur one another on toward love and good deeds" ala Hebrews 10:24, you would have garnered a hearty amen from me. It was the call to "stop talking" (as if this talking is keeping Christians from acts of justice) and the ungracious/unfounded implied judgment that Christians aren't doing acts of justice if you can't see them or if they don't meet your priorities that led me to challenge the article a bit.
Wow. Powerful stuff. Grace and strong conviction in delicate balance, with a clear and unabashed gospel call featuring prominently. I wonder how/if restorative justice would/could fit in a situation like this. So much pain, suffering, and betrayal. I love how Rachel has not allowed the pain to define her or steal her joy, despite the fact that the pain is very real and has lasting consequences.
All good questions. It seems to me that if churches are to be places of healing, places of rest, places of renewal, and places of burden-sharing, the following are necessary ingredients:
1. We must truly and heartily believe the gospel and all of its implications. Is new life truly possible? Is forgiveness real? This sets that base for everything else in the life of the church. Life is truly hopeless without the hope-filled message of the gospel, which makes the church unique in what it has to offer the world. Thus, the gospel must remain front and center in our worship, preaching, counseling, praying, and socializing.
2. We must truly believe that we are brothers and sisters in Christ, not mere associates or acquaintances. The language of family drives home for us how we are to love each other, because love for family comes more naturally to us than any other love. When we use the language of brother and sister consciously, it can change our approach, making us more deliberate in how we love.
3. We need to make efforts to get to know each other that go beyond the superficial. Practicing hospitality is not just good for office bearers, but for the whole church. Healing happens in relationship. We won't go beyond scratching the surface if we don't open our homes and hearts to people. Pastors and elders, particularly, need to make concerted effort to know those under their care.
4. We must be willing to model both honest confession and honest forgiveness. If I sin against my brother and he points out that sin to me, I must be willing to confess that sin without equivocation and ask forgiveness. The burden then shifts to my brother to honestly and completely forgive, not as one who has an axe to grind, something to hold over my head, or gossip about.
5. We must understand love as a word of action, not mainly feeling. When we truly love, we act affirmatively, not just passively.
I confess to getting hung up on the phrase "safe spaces" because of all the social and political baggage that it carries with it. I much prefer that our churches be "loving spaces", with all that that entails. Much of this type of loving space is being modeled and practiced in churches, however imperfectly. Often times we don't even know about much of the work that is going on. That doesn't ever mean that we are given license to think we have some how "arrived". Sanctification is a continual work. Thanks for your response.
“Has your church community ever held an event celebrating Black History Month?” No, for the same reason that we don’t celebrate White History Month, Brown History Month, or Asian History Month. We find that constantly dividing people into various identity groups is divisive and unloving and follows the destructive patterns of the world. Identity politics has no place in the church.
“Will you be observing or holding special events for this year’s campaign?” No, our worship services and communal gatherings are times for us to come together and celebrate our unity and commonality in Christ, not to follow the worldly pattern of separation and enmity.
“What are some resources you and/or your church use to promote racial reconciliation?” We tend to use the Bible to promote love and fellowship – there’s an endless trove of wisdom and instruction for how to foster love in our midst and with our neighbors outside the church. We find that the wisdom of man pales in comparison to God’s great revelation. In fact, the wisdom of man is often shown to be foolishness when exposed to the light of God’s Word. So when God’s Word tells us that cultural and ethnic differences have no weight in God’s kingdom economy and that we are not to regard each other “according to the flesh”, we take that as truth and seek to live accordingly. To be sure, we fail each other along the way, but we seek to continually reorient ourselves with gospel truths from God’s Word. The law and gospel proclaimed routinely and clearly from the pulpit and adorned in our lives are central to the life of the church and are the God-ordained tools for promoting unity and reconciliation. Satan seeks to divide and conquer by sowing the seeds of hatred and division. Satan loves it when the church focuses on externals and fleshly characteristics, because he knows (and has oft proved in the world) that such focus keeps people from focusing on the gospel truth of unity in being and unity in Christ.
Hello Cam, peace be with you as well, brother. I have read that resource, and find parts of it helpful. Other parts of it I find less than helpful or lacking. It would be difficult for me to use the comment section to parse those differences sufficiently.
I have a few questions: Since short people face barriers to flourishing (their discrimination being well documented), will you also be advocating for a short-people history month in order to affirm them as image-bearers? Which groups will you include and which will you exclude in this effort? Isn’t the act of excluding some then discriminatory? You started out by saying people of color, but pivoted to “black people”. What about the rest of people of color? Relatedly, who is a person of color? My wife is ¼ Mexican – is she a person of color? How much “color” counts? Does there need to be “racial reconciliation” between my wife and I and I don’t even know it?
What leads you to believe that black people (or any people, for that matter) “will one day lay the riches of their cultures and traditions at the feet of Christ”? Does scripture give us reason to believe that cultural differences will be recognized, much less celebrated in heaven? The only reference I see in scripture to laying anything at Jesus’ feet is the casting of crowns referred to in Revelation 4:10, and I know of no interpretation of that passage that considers the crowns to be our “cultures and traditions”, as if any culture is somehow worthy of offering to God.
Many in the church are growing tired of the incessant “othering” promoted by the denomination. We are tired of the repeated practice of placing people into identity groups and treating them as a monolith. We are tired of placing enmity between brothers and sisters by constantly assuming that people of different appearances are in need of reconciliation simply because they look different.
Interestingly enough, the CRC has become quite guilty of practicing and promoting prejudice, as defined in the document that you referenced. The document defines prejudice as such: Prejudice – a negative attitude or assumption about others on the basis of their identification with a certain group of people. With the CRC’s recent fascination with sociology and promotion of the concept of “white privilege”, the CRC has sought to make it quite acceptable to be prejudiced against “whites”, however you understand that grouping. The CRC has gone so far as to forward the idea all whites bear a guilt for which they must repent.
Another observation from the document you referenced: their definition of race is wanting. The document defines race as such: Race – a term used to describe men and women who share biologically transmitted traits that are defined as socially significant. I’ll go back to my short person example. Would anyone reasonably conclude that being short is not socially significant? If anyone thinks so, they should peruse Match.com for a while and they will be disabused of such a notion. Is not height “biologically [genetically] transmitted”? Then are short people a race of people? And whom must they be reconciled with? Everyone else? Also, as offered, the definition treats race as something real, not artificial. I much prefer this quote from Shiao Chong that provides key qualification: “Race is an artificial pseudo-scientific category used to describe people who share biologically transmitted traits that are defined as socially significant. Although it is commonly believed to be a scientific ”fact,” there is actually no scientific evidence to support the categorization of humanity into biological “races” based on physical traits such as skin color, eye color and nose width.” If there is no scientific reason or basis to categorize people by race, and the Bible gives no endorsement of such practice, then how can it possibly be helpful for the church to continue to prop up the idea of “races” that must be reconciled? Do you realize that the concept of “races” is Darwinian and is quite useful for white supremacists for all manner of hate?
So to repeat myself: no, my church and I are not interested in participating in more ways to splitting us into competing or clashing identity groups. The antidote to anti-gospel hatred of the “other” is not more “othering”.
"My favorite moment from my dinner at last week’s conference was when, looking at the backdrop behind the podium, dark blue with stars glimmering, we reflected at our table on Genesis 15:5, where God said to Abram, “Look up at the sky and count the stars — if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”
What a perfect lead-in opportunity to present the gospel! I hope you took advantage of the opportunity to assure the Muslims, Jews, etc. at your table that they too can be children of Abraham if they but believe on the risen Christ. Such a great opportunity "to forward the gospel message."
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
This is a good discussion. Thanks to Dan for introducing this topic and providing an insightful anecdote/lesson. I also think that Dan’s offer of a definition of justice is about as good a short definition as you will get, given that certain facts are acknowledged. As Dan further explained, we of course judge the “people getting what they deserve” according to the standard provided in God’s Word. This much should be self-evident for the Christian. There are also two categories of justice: Justice before God and justice before the civil authority appointed by God. In both arenas, the concept of reaping what you sow is prevalent. Proverbs 22:8 tells us: “Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity, and the rod of his fury will fail.” In contrast, Hosea 10:12 instructs us to: “Sow for yourselves righteousness; reap steadfast love.” Galations 6:7 tells us: “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.” Hosea 8:7 contains the idea that who we sow will not just be returned, but will be multiplied: “For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.”
The biblical idea of justice must contain the idea of just deserts or punishment, of reaping what you sow. Any concept of justice without this fails to account for the character of God and revealed in the Bible. In Romans 3 Paul wrestles with the idea of sin and judgement, or the meting out of justice. In verses 5-6 he says: But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world?” So we see that God is righteous in meting out justice, or consequences, or just deserts. And the passage goes on to reveal that in the cross, we see God executing perfect justice in requiring payment for sin and also being the one who is the merciful justifier. He both provided the punishment and the payment. Romans 3:24b-26: “…Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” God shows that he is just by punishing sin. You can’t find much more of a convergence of justice and the cross than that, but it is inescapable that the cross represents punishment.
Despite attempts to conflate justice with shalom, we know better in our everyday language. What is the highest law enforcement office in the land? The Department of Justice. They require an answer for disobedience to the laws of the civil magistrate and they exact justice/punishment for disobedience. Rachel DenHollander recently was quoted in an interview regarding her abuse at the hands of Larry Nassar. Question: “Your impact statement ended with you asking how much a little girl is worth. How would you answer that question?” Answer “From a Christian worldview, she’s made in the image of God. She has eternal and immeasurable value. That is why justice here on earth is always going to be incomplete: because there’s no way to bring full justice here on earth. That being said, God has instituted civil government for the purpose of reflecting his judgment, the best justice, to the best of our ability here on earth. And I think we saw that in the courtroom this week.” Rachel called for and received justice. Larry also received justice, or we could say he got what he deserved. He sowed and he reaped. Who, then, would describe Larry’s receipt of justice as shalom?
Posted in: It’s Time to Stop Talking About Justice
Kris, I don't think that Dan would agree at all with your characterization of what he has said in the other post.
It seems somewhat curious that two employees of the CRC OSJ would be loud proponents of ceasing to "talk about justice" inasmuch as the OSJ is the most bountiful purveyor of justice talk of all sorts. Indeed the OSJ never ceases to call for more justice talk.
I think the author presents a false choice: talk or do. Actually, there is plenty of room for both. The OSJ does not have the market cornered on proper knowledge or application of justice. And it might come as a surprise that many people and congregations are hard at work already doing justice every day. Locally ,it looks a lot like the early New Testament church, where brothers and sisters looked after each other so that no one was in need. I have yet to see a church or Christian community where their orphans and widows are left helpless to fend for themselves or starve. Never. I see the church reaching out throughout the world with acts of mercy and calls for justice. There is plenty of room to discuss the practical application of justice principles in our lives and societies and to be involved daily in doing what is just. I see no need to pit one against the other as if they are mutually exclusive.
There are also many areas of more pressing Christian persecution or distress than Palestine. Voice of the Martyrs tracks persecution throughout the world. Many Christians pray daily for persecuted brothers and sisters around the world. Almost every church I have attended in my life does as well. Christians cannot be "all-in" on every injustice. It simply cannot happen. I can understand why Palestine and the Middle East are a particular passion for Shannon. Other Christians will focus their passion other places. That doesn't mean they have no interest in justice or are not hard at work every day in their daily walks doing justice in how they live, work, and interact in their communities.
Posted in: It’s Time to Stop Talking About Justice
Hi Shannon. No, we have never met each other, but i have read a lot of what you have written, and you have a digital footprint that makes parts of your life story "knowable". For instance, in one article (https://www.thebanner.org/departments/2017/01/getting-to-know-your-muslim-neighbors) you describe yourself as an "Arab American and daughter of a Muslim". It is this type of background as well as emphases of articles that you write that lead me to conclude that you have an understandable passion for Palestine and the Middle East. You are free to correct me if I am mistaken. I do not begrudge you that passion at all, and I intended no negative connotation in making that note. In fact, I think it admirable for you to speak concerning subjects about which you may have passion. I was merely saying that in the context of noting that other Christians will have other areas of passion, and it is also totally fine for them to focus there energies there.
Posted in: It’s Time to Stop Talking About Justice
Hi again Shannon. Statements such as "It’s time for us to stop talking about justice, and to do justice" carry an implicit message of either/or. I will concede that you did not explicitly posit that one necessarily excludes the other, but it seems to me that if you simply wanted to encourage justice action, there was no need to couch that call within a simultaneous call to stop talking about it.
I'm also not convinced that you are in a position to judge that Christians are spending too little time doing justice. Are you shadowing the lives of a significant number of Christians that you can make this statement? Just because Christians aren't doing justice in ways that are visible or acceptable to you does not mean that they are not doing it early and often.
It also seems curious that you posit talking and doing as somehow unrelated. One of the main messages of the OSJ is that talking *is* doing. The OSJ has innumerable articles, tweets, etc. that spur church members on to talking about/advocating about justice issues as a form of justice action. The "Do Justice" blog is full of such calls. Hence my confusion at the focus of your article. If your article had been basically a call to "spur one another on toward love and good deeds" ala Hebrews 10:24, you would have garnered a hearty amen from me. It was the call to "stop talking" (as if this talking is keeping Christians from acts of justice) and the ungracious/unfounded implied judgment that Christians aren't doing acts of justice if you can't see them or if they don't meet your priorities that led me to challenge the article a bit.
Posted in: Justice, Grace, and Worth: Rachael Denhollander's Victim Impact Statement
Wow. Powerful stuff. Grace and strong conviction in delicate balance, with a clear and unabashed gospel call featuring prominently. I wonder how/if restorative justice would/could fit in a situation like this. So much pain, suffering, and betrayal. I love how Rachel has not allowed the pain to define her or steal her joy, despite the fact that the pain is very real and has lasting consequences.
Posted in: Justice, Grace, and Worth: Rachael Denhollander's Victim Impact Statement
Hi Bonnie,
All good questions. It seems to me that if churches are to be places of healing, places of rest, places of renewal, and places of burden-sharing, the following are necessary ingredients:
1. We must truly and heartily believe the gospel and all of its implications. Is new life truly possible? Is forgiveness real? This sets that base for everything else in the life of the church. Life is truly hopeless without the hope-filled message of the gospel, which makes the church unique in what it has to offer the world. Thus, the gospel must remain front and center in our worship, preaching, counseling, praying, and socializing.
2. We must truly believe that we are brothers and sisters in Christ, not mere associates or acquaintances. The language of family drives home for us how we are to love each other, because love for family comes more naturally to us than any other love. When we use the language of brother and sister consciously, it can change our approach, making us more deliberate in how we love.
3. We need to make efforts to get to know each other that go beyond the superficial. Practicing hospitality is not just good for office bearers, but for the whole church. Healing happens in relationship. We won't go beyond scratching the surface if we don't open our homes and hearts to people. Pastors and elders, particularly, need to make concerted effort to know those under their care.
4. We must be willing to model both honest confession and honest forgiveness. If I sin against my brother and he points out that sin to me, I must be willing to confess that sin without equivocation and ask forgiveness. The burden then shifts to my brother to honestly and completely forgive, not as one who has an axe to grind, something to hold over my head, or gossip about.
5. We must understand love as a word of action, not mainly feeling. When we truly love, we act affirmatively, not just passively.
I confess to getting hung up on the phrase "safe spaces" because of all the social and political baggage that it carries with it. I much prefer that our churches be "loving spaces", with all that that entails. Much of this type of loving space is being modeled and practiced in churches, however imperfectly. Often times we don't even know about much of the work that is going on. That doesn't ever mean that we are given license to think we have some how "arrived". Sanctification is a continual work. Thanks for your response.
Posted in: Justice, Grace, and Worth: Rachael Denhollander's Victim Impact Statement
I should have signed off as such:
Your brother in Christ,
Eric
:)
Posted in: Any Churches Celebrating Black History Month in Canada?
“Has your church community ever held an event celebrating Black History Month?” No, for the same reason that we don’t celebrate White History Month, Brown History Month, or Asian History Month. We find that constantly dividing people into various identity groups is divisive and unloving and follows the destructive patterns of the world. Identity politics has no place in the church.
“Will you be observing or holding special events for this year’s campaign?” No, our worship services and communal gatherings are times for us to come together and celebrate our unity and commonality in Christ, not to follow the worldly pattern of separation and enmity.
“What are some resources you and/or your church use to promote racial reconciliation?” We tend to use the Bible to promote love and fellowship – there’s an endless trove of wisdom and instruction for how to foster love in our midst and with our neighbors outside the church. We find that the wisdom of man pales in comparison to God’s great revelation. In fact, the wisdom of man is often shown to be foolishness when exposed to the light of God’s Word. So when God’s Word tells us that cultural and ethnic differences have no weight in God’s kingdom economy and that we are not to regard each other “according to the flesh”, we take that as truth and seek to live accordingly. To be sure, we fail each other along the way, but we seek to continually reorient ourselves with gospel truths from God’s Word. The law and gospel proclaimed routinely and clearly from the pulpit and adorned in our lives are central to the life of the church and are the God-ordained tools for promoting unity and reconciliation. Satan seeks to divide and conquer by sowing the seeds of hatred and division. Satan loves it when the church focuses on externals and fleshly characteristics, because he knows (and has oft proved in the world) that such focus keeps people from focusing on the gospel truth of unity in being and unity in Christ.
Posted in: Any Churches Celebrating Black History Month in Canada?
Hello Cam, peace be with you as well, brother. I have read that resource, and find parts of it helpful. Other parts of it I find less than helpful or lacking. It would be difficult for me to use the comment section to parse those differences sufficiently.
I have a few questions: Since short people face barriers to flourishing (their discrimination being well documented), will you also be advocating for a short-people history month in order to affirm them as image-bearers? Which groups will you include and which will you exclude in this effort? Isn’t the act of excluding some then discriminatory? You started out by saying people of color, but pivoted to “black people”. What about the rest of people of color? Relatedly, who is a person of color? My wife is ¼ Mexican – is she a person of color? How much “color” counts? Does there need to be “racial reconciliation” between my wife and I and I don’t even know it?
What leads you to believe that black people (or any people, for that matter) “will one day lay the riches of their cultures and traditions at the feet of Christ”? Does scripture give us reason to believe that cultural differences will be recognized, much less celebrated in heaven? The only reference I see in scripture to laying anything at Jesus’ feet is the casting of crowns referred to in Revelation 4:10, and I know of no interpretation of that passage that considers the crowns to be our “cultures and traditions”, as if any culture is somehow worthy of offering to God.
Many in the church are growing tired of the incessant “othering” promoted by the denomination. We are tired of the repeated practice of placing people into identity groups and treating them as a monolith. We are tired of placing enmity between brothers and sisters by constantly assuming that people of different appearances are in need of reconciliation simply because they look different.
Interestingly enough, the CRC has become quite guilty of practicing and promoting prejudice, as defined in the document that you referenced. The document defines prejudice as such: Prejudice – a negative attitude or assumption about others on the basis of their identification with a certain group of people. With the CRC’s recent fascination with sociology and promotion of the concept of “white privilege”, the CRC has sought to make it quite acceptable to be prejudiced against “whites”, however you understand that grouping. The CRC has gone so far as to forward the idea all whites bear a guilt for which they must repent.
Another observation from the document you referenced: their definition of race is wanting. The document defines race as such: Race – a term used to describe men and women who share biologically transmitted traits that are defined as socially significant. I’ll go back to my short person example. Would anyone reasonably conclude that being short is not socially significant? If anyone thinks so, they should peruse Match.com for a while and they will be disabused of such a notion. Is not height “biologically [genetically] transmitted”? Then are short people a race of people? And whom must they be reconciled with? Everyone else? Also, as offered, the definition treats race as something real, not artificial. I much prefer this quote from Shiao Chong that provides key qualification: “Race is an artificial pseudo-scientific category used to describe people who share biologically transmitted traits that are defined as socially significant. Although it is commonly believed to be a scientific ”fact,” there is actually no scientific evidence to support the categorization of humanity into biological “races” based on physical traits such as skin color, eye color and nose width.” If there is no scientific reason or basis to categorize people by race, and the Bible gives no endorsement of such practice, then how can it possibly be helpful for the church to continue to prop up the idea of “races” that must be reconciled? Do you realize that the concept of “races” is Darwinian and is quite useful for white supremacists for all manner of hate?
So to repeat myself: no, my church and I are not interested in participating in more ways to splitting us into competing or clashing identity groups. The antidote to anti-gospel hatred of the “other” is not more “othering”.
Posted in: Muslim Leaders Are Speaking Out Against Terrorism — Is Anyone Listening?
"My favorite moment from my dinner at last week’s conference was when, looking at the backdrop behind the podium, dark blue with stars glimmering, we reflected at our table on Genesis 15:5, where God said to Abram, “Look up at the sky and count the stars — if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”
What a perfect lead-in opportunity to present the gospel! I hope you took advantage of the opportunity to assure the Muslims, Jews, etc. at your table that they too can be children of Abraham if they but believe on the risen Christ. Such a great opportunity "to forward the gospel message."
Posted in: Something We Can Do About Rampage Killings
"I sadly think the CRCNA and the Banner have contributed to the current polarization and divisiveness"
Truth has been spoken, even if it is not heard.
Posted in: Something We Can Do About Rampage Killings
Mark,
I appreciate your approach.