Here's the difference you left out, Roger: God did indeed punish the law breaking, but in the person of his Son. Thus he is just and the justifier. Remember, we are now seen as being perfectly righteous, as if we had never broken the law. The police officer in the example was not just, because he simply excused the offense. God does no such thing.
Eye for eye was about vengeance, and had been perverted by the Pharisees. Jesus was not speaking of self defense in that passage. Loving your enemy is not a universal command to allow wicked men to take innocent life. Such a reading is not consistent with the rest of scripture. Should we allow a stranger to attack and kill a child while we stand by idly under the guise of loving our enemy?
I also don't think that Dan was arguing that a Persian law was normative, per se, but that the law recognized a normative principle based on the protection of innocent human life and was also in keeping with the testimony of scripture in other places.
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."
I appreciate your perspective here. Having emotions/empathy inform and season our judgments rather than rule them is wise advice, I believe. Of course that has to be balanced with passages like James 2:13 that tells us “Mercy triumphs over judgment”. Is this a definitive statement to only exercise mercy, and not judgment? In the context of the first half of that verse and the rest of scripture we have to say no. But it does seem that the mercy that we exhibit in our judgments necessarily flows at least in part from our emotions or our empathetic response. All that said, I think scriptures such as James 2:13 don’t contradict what you are saying, but they do hammer home the dreadful evil of merciless (read: lacking in empathy) judgements. Where I think your post excels is in calling us not to automatically assign a lack of empathy (which is to assign evil motives) when we disagree with another’s perspective.
I would caution against shorthanding wisdom as “common sense”. I think this is a woefully inadequate shorthand for wisdom. As matter of fact, I think the opposite may be true. It seems to me that biblically speaking, we might call wisdom the essence of the knowledge and character of God, while we might quite accurately call common sense the knowledge and character of man. Eve likely appreciated Satan’s common sense appeal to eat the fruit. All manner of foolishness has been done under the guise of common sense. In my professional regulatory role, I have all manner of people appeal to “common sense” in the face of legal requirements. These appeals are as widely varied as the individuals who I encounter. I often say (amongst my coworkers, not to those people) that “one man’s common sense is another man’s idiocy.” Hence my somewhat visceral (def: emotional – oops!) reaction to the characterization of wisdom as common sense.
If you fundamentally disagree with them, feel free to express that. What Dan is objecting to is your assigning of the dual motivations of hatred and fear, which you cannot know and which fly in the face of the testimony of the signatories. I think it's "profoundly damaging to our Christian witness" for you to bear false witness in this manner.
Posted in: It’s Time to Stop Talking About Justice
As did you, so...
It seems to me that you would want to understand Dan's position and properly represent it. Disagreeing is one thing. Misrepresenting is another.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Here's the difference you left out, Roger: God did indeed punish the law breaking, but in the person of his Son. Thus he is just and the justifier. Remember, we are now seen as being perfectly righteous, as if we had never broken the law. The police officer in the example was not just, because he simply excused the offense. God does no such thing.
Posted in: Esther and the 2nd Amendment
Eye for eye was about vengeance, and had been perverted by the Pharisees. Jesus was not speaking of self defense in that passage. Loving your enemy is not a universal command to allow wicked men to take innocent life. Such a reading is not consistent with the rest of scripture. Should we allow a stranger to attack and kill a child while we stand by idly under the guise of loving our enemy?
Posted in: Esther and the 2nd Amendment
I also don't think that Dan was arguing that a Persian law was normative, per se, but that the law recognized a normative principle based on the protection of innocent human life and was also in keeping with the testimony of scripture in other places.
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: Social Justice ... With a Side of Salt
Hi Dan,
I appreciate your perspective here. Having emotions/empathy inform and season our judgments rather than rule them is wise advice, I believe. Of course that has to be balanced with passages like James 2:13 that tells us “Mercy triumphs over judgment”. Is this a definitive statement to only exercise mercy, and not judgment? In the context of the first half of that verse and the rest of scripture we have to say no. But it does seem that the mercy that we exhibit in our judgments necessarily flows at least in part from our emotions or our empathetic response. All that said, I think scriptures such as James 2:13 don’t contradict what you are saying, but they do hammer home the dreadful evil of merciless (read: lacking in empathy) judgements. Where I think your post excels is in calling us not to automatically assign a lack of empathy (which is to assign evil motives) when we disagree with another’s perspective.
I would caution against shorthanding wisdom as “common sense”. I think this is a woefully inadequate shorthand for wisdom. As matter of fact, I think the opposite may be true. It seems to me that biblically speaking, we might call wisdom the essence of the knowledge and character of God, while we might quite accurately call common sense the knowledge and character of man. Eve likely appreciated Satan’s common sense appeal to eat the fruit. All manner of foolishness has been done under the guise of common sense. In my professional regulatory role, I have all manner of people appeal to “common sense” in the face of legal requirements. These appeals are as widely varied as the individuals who I encounter. I often say (amongst my coworkers, not to those people) that “one man’s common sense is another man’s idiocy.” Hence my somewhat visceral (def: emotional – oops!) reaction to the characterization of wisdom as common sense.
Posted in: Fear and the Nashville Statement
If you fundamentally disagree with them, feel free to express that. What Dan is objecting to is your assigning of the dual motivations of hatred and fear, which you cannot know and which fly in the face of the testimony of the signatories. I think it's "profoundly damaging to our Christian witness" for you to bear false witness in this manner.