I would add that there is beauty and grace in the term "benevolence" that we would do well to embrace rather than flee. The definition of benevolence includes the ideas of a "disposition to do good, an act of kindness, a generous gift". These are indeed marks that are a testament to God's grace at work in the church, radiating out from those who have received *the* generous gift to others with various needs. I think we loose something beautiful if we discard the term, which of course would not by itself solve the problem that the church has not been educated about the important work of the church in this area.
"Along with an application, an interview, and reference checks, a criminal background check should be part of the screening process, especially for those who work with children, youth, and vulnerable populations."
Nope, not necessarily. Your use of the word "should" here is inappropriate. You don't know our people. We do. You are not in a position to tell us what we "should" be doing to vet the various members of the church for roles of service. This is not a helpful approach.
I'm not ignorant of broad stats, but also realize that people aren't statistics.
I didn't say that your position grants you no influence, I merely stated that you are not well positioned to tell every church what they *should* be doing in regards to their people serving in the church.
Should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness
To say that you know what churches *should* be doing in this regard is to say that those churches who are not are not living up their obligation, their duty, and are doing things incorrectly. Simply put, you can't make that judgment.
Put another way, Eric, your language assumes *authority*, not *influence*. Should is generally understood as authoritative language, the language of imperative. That is authority that you do not have over the local church council.
Thanks for asking. I’m glad to give further insight into my thoughts on the matter. As you begin by revealing part of your story (abuse survivor), allow me to begin by saying that my prayer for you is that God has granted and will continue to grant you healing and peace - the kind which the world cannot offer. Only our Savior, who knew abuse and suffering like no other, can ultimately offer the healing balm that lasts and makes whole the wounded soul.
I should begin by noting that my comments here have not been primarily a pushback on background checks, per se. You’ll see that my initial and follow-up pushback was aimed mainly at the paternalistic tendency of the Safe Church office, which is a subset of the larger paternalistic tendency among CRC agencies and staff. As I noted to Eric, he is really in no position to tell my local church council what they should or should not do in regards to the pastoral care of their congregation, yet he has assumed the role of doing so. He has neither the intimate knowledge nor the authority to coherently do so, and his denominational employment does not make him automatically qualified. As office bearers in the church, we answer to the head of the church, Jesus Christ, for our care of the congregation, not to Grand Rapids. And you’ll notice that criminal background checks are conspicuously absent from 1Timothy 3 and Titus 1. If Eric had simply offered resources or thoughts on criminal background checks, you would have read no response from me, but he went further. And that additional distance he went is in keeping with a larger pattern that I think is worth pushing back against, for the health and unity of the church.
Secondly, it is worth noting that Eric deftly illustrates another besetting flaw of many agency staff in his response, that of patronization. The first reaction of many agency staff when challenged is to position themselves as the teacher, with whomever their respondent is being the student in need of education. So, Eric goes immediately to the de facto response of so many agency staff: point to some inane statistic or study, as if that settles the matter. As I noted to Eric: people aren’t statistics, and proper pastoral care is not beholden to any set of numbers. To make the matter personal, the question of whether or not my 16 year old daughter should be subjected to an application, interview, reference checks, and a criminal background check before serving in the church nursery is not a question to be answered by any statistic, nor entrusted to denominational staff. That is a question to be answered by my church council, the members of which have also not undergone a criminal background check, yet have been entrusted with the spiritual care of the church.
As to criminal background checks in and of themselves, they are simply a tool, which like all tools can be wielded for good or for ill. Also like all tools, there is a time to avail oneself of the use of a criminal background check, and a time to refrain. Such judgments require wisdom and discretion, the likes of which can only be properly exercised in close relationship with people. That is a closeness that agencies don’t possess, yet elders must possess. When Jesus tells us in Matthew 10:16 to “be wise as serpents and innocent as doves”, he does not say how that will look in any or all situations. Sometimes the shrewdness demanded in that command will result in use of such a tool, sometimes not. Therein lies the problem in receiving moral or practical absolutes from detached agency staff. I have no doubt as to the pure and honorable intentions of Eric Kas, but that does not mean that he or his agency are always going to make decisions or pronouncements that are healthy for the church.
Thank you for your response. I too value dialogue – iron sharpening iron.
I respect and honor the decisions made in your local church in this arena. That is in keeping with the thrust of my interaction here. I have no interest in attempting to dissuade you from your convictions in that respect. A couple follow-up notes:
1) It seems as though the reasoning that you proffer could quite consistently be applied to mandatory criminal background checks for the whole congregation and all visitors. After all, can we really know who is lurking, what their intent is, and when/how they might attempt an assault? Don’t all of our members come into contact with children and other potential victims? Now, you may think this unpastoral and unnecessary. But suppose for a moment that someone from outside your church, perhaps a denominational agency, assumed to tell you that you should do this at the local level. And suppose if you didn’t acquiesce to the protection protocol of the denomination, they threatened to “name and shame” you until you did. Not so conducive to unity and harmony in the church, it seems to me.
2) Switching to a slightly different, but related, topic in order to drive home the point: Imagine with me a denominational agency called Armed Church Ministry. This agency is equipped with studies, statistics, and stories about mass shootings in places of public gathering and realizes that the common link in most of these shootings is the assailant’s conclusion that he has identified a soft target. Now, this agency knows how God values human life, and how much grief, destruction, and trauma results from such incidents of violence. Additionally, this agency takes seriously the recognition in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 107 that God wants us “to protect [our neighbor] from harm as much as we can.” In this light, the Armed Church Ministry devises safety protocols under the creative moniker “Armed Church” and begins to encourage churches to adopt the protocols and the moniker. Over time, encouragement turns to urging, turns to telling churches what they should do, turns to demanding, turns to public shaming for noncompliance. The protocols are as follows:
- All churches should have a message on their website and on their visible church sign that they are an Armed Church and that violent offenders should be aware that armed personnel are present at every gathering.
- All churches should have a metal detector at each entrance.
- All visitors should be screened before attending public worship services.
- All churches should have armed guards who open-carry their weapons, so that violence can be dissuaded.
Initially, there will be some push back, but eventually most will be ok with it. After violent incidents in public places, we so often hear “I had no idea Johnny was capable of that”.
I don’t say those things to mock or belittle Safe Church or its staff. I love each person involved. I do think that the church can experience mission creep, and I do think that a recurring theme from Grand Rapids is the top-down mentality that we profess to not believe in. This top-down mentality does not strengthen or vitalize the denomination, but leads to a greater and greater disconnect and loss of unity (witness denominational ministry shares struggles). This is a real problem in the CRC, and it is evident in numerous arenas.
Please call me Eric – no need for the formality. Thank you for engaging. I accept your thoughts in the spirit in which you offer them.
It’s not just my impression that Eric was saying what churches “should” do, I reacting to him saying exactly that. I quoted him – I didn’t just make that up.
It’s also worth noting that there is a larger context at play here. The Banner article that I linked in my conversation with Bonnie notes that some Synod delegates said “that in addition to telling the classes and congregations what should happen, synod should use its power to make them happen.” The article goes on to state the following: “The question kept coming back to what more can synods do. Are they limited to “naming and shaming” or can they in a more direct way enforce Safe Church policies?” It is in this context that I read Eric’s statement of what churches should be doing.
I am most pleased that your church has benefited from the work of Safe Church Ministries at its staff – God be praised! I have not here undertaken to disparage or tear down the Safe Church office, but to defend the autonomy and wisdom of the local church from heavy handed, GR-centric dictates.
Thanks again for engaging, and I share your desire for God to be glorified in all that we do.
I'm not really wanting to belabor the matter any further, but your inquiry is made in good faith, and so I mean to provide clarification in response.
First, the link that you requested: https://www.thebanner.org/news/2018/06/synod-2018-confronts-abuse
Second, note that Eric did not respond with his "I didn't mean it that way" response until very late in the game, well after I had talked about and explained my concern. His first response to me made no such mention, so there was no way for me to have any idea that he was intending something different than what he said. He might have done well to simply initially recognize the problematic nature of the language he chose, acknowledge as much, make clarification, and amend his original post. Seems simple enough if he was more intent on listening to feedback instead of rebuffing me.
As to semantics, by all means, lets talk about semantics for a bit. First, some definitions are in order, beginning with a definition of semantics: "the study of the meanings of words and phrases in language". Infer: "to form an opinion or reach a conclusion through reasoning and information ". Should: "to be under necessity or obligation to". Synonyms for should: "have (to), must, need, ought (to), shall". (all definitions from Merriam-Webster online - variations are present based on source, but all contain the same core ideas)
To say something is about "semantics" is not properly understood as a way to dismiss the real and actual meanings of words used, but rather it is to delve into what words actually mean. Yes, it does matter what Eric is quoted as saying. I did not "infer" the meaning of what Eric said, as if I had to reason my way to a conclusion, because the word "should" has a distinct definition which I have reproduced here. We reach inferences when things are not directly stated - such was not the case here. If Eric did not mean to say that, it would have easy for him to correct it, but he chose a different route - first he deflected, and then he denied. He would have done well to choose his words more carefully, particularly in the climate in which churches are in fact being sent the message that they must (synonym for should) comply with program labeling and content from headquarters or they will be held up for public shame. This is the very real atmosphere in which Eric is speaking. If he is wise, he will seek to be pastoral in this atmosphere, and being pastoral also means being able and willing to listen.
It doesn't work to use Paul to say matters of sexual immorality are "debatable matters" in which we should just agree to disagree when Paul specifically teaches the wickedness of sexual immorality, in full concurrence with the rest of scriptural witness.
The fact that Jesus is Lord is immutable, no matter the wickedness of man. But the apostles still taught very clearly that a life marked by being given over to sin is not the life of one saved unto eternal life. Yes, this matters. Paul said those whose life is defined and marked by unrepentant sin will not inherit the Kingdom of God. These are matters that bear on the gospel. Is not the mortification of the old self part and parcel to the gospel of salvation? Is new birth a birth unto the same practices of old? Is sanctification a mark of those who have been declared righteous?
Hermeneutics matters because if scripture is made to be putty in my hands based on my preferred approach, then I can (and will be inclined to) fashion the word in my image and to my liking. There is no end to the self-justification that can occur when the scripture is allowed to be handled carelessly. Will we ever have a perfect understanding or approach to scripture? Clearly not. But to act as if our approach to scripture does not matter is incoherent. Muslims have a hermeneutic when they read scripture as well. Does it matter that their hermeneutic differs from ours? It matters how we approach scripture because God's Word actually means something.
Hi Adam, I think you are probably both correct and incorrect. No doubt there have been cases of ostracization and indifference, if not at times outright cruelty. Where we as individuals and churches fail by turning our back on any struggling sinner, we ought rightly to repent and change. I don't think, however, that you are in a position to judge generally that Christians have not come alongside other Christians struggling with sexual temptation in this area. Just because you don't see a "movement", does not mean that this sort of discipleship and love is not happening day in and day out. Discipleship, friendship, and love don't rely on "movements".
It can also become very difficult to walk alongside someone when a section of the church and most of society continues to tell them that the discipleship and comfort we offer is in fact hate. Once that message is believed and internalized, the only message that is put out is that the church fails to accept, when the church may have tried mightily. The headlines often fail to honestly reflect truth.
There is no doubt that we can all make improvements in bearing each other's burdens, not just on this particular topic. But I think you are not well-positioned to make the sort of charge that you seek to leverage from Scripture that the CRC simply ties heavy burdens and does not lift a finger to move them. The burden that is there is first of all not tied or bound by the CRC, to the extent that the moral law in question is not a man-made law. Jesus was speaking of the laundry list of man-made minutiae that the Pharisees had added to the moral and ceremonial law. The burdens they tied were above and beyond what God had commanded. The CRC seeks to do no such thing. Also, in order to judge that no finger has been lifted to help those in need requires a much more omniscient knowledge of the many and varied people, congregations, pastors, and situations than I think you can claim to have.
Posted in: What Do You Call Your Benevolence Ministry?
I would add that there is beauty and grace in the term "benevolence" that we would do well to embrace rather than flee. The definition of benevolence includes the ideas of a "disposition to do good, an act of kindness, a generous gift". These are indeed marks that are a testament to God's grace at work in the church, radiating out from those who have received *the* generous gift to others with various needs. I think we loose something beautiful if we discard the term, which of course would not by itself solve the problem that the church has not been educated about the important work of the church in this area.
Posted in: Background Checks: What Screening Services Does Your Church Use?
"Along with an application, an interview, and reference checks, a criminal background check should be part of the screening process, especially for those who work with children, youth, and vulnerable populations."
Nope, not necessarily. Your use of the word "should" here is inappropriate. You don't know our people. We do. You are not in a position to tell us what we "should" be doing to vet the various members of the church for roles of service. This is not a helpful approach.
Posted in: Background Checks: What Screening Services Does Your Church Use?
I'm not ignorant of broad stats, but also realize that people aren't statistics.
I didn't say that your position grants you no influence, I merely stated that you are not well positioned to tell every church what they *should* be doing in regards to their people serving in the church.
Should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness
To say that you know what churches *should* be doing in this regard is to say that those churches who are not are not living up their obligation, their duty, and are doing things incorrectly. Simply put, you can't make that judgment.
Posted in: Background Checks: What Screening Services Does Your Church Use?
Put another way, Eric, your language assumes *authority*, not *influence*. Should is generally understood as authoritative language, the language of imperative. That is authority that you do not have over the local church council.
Posted in: Background Checks: What Screening Services Does Your Church Use?
Hi Frank,
Thanks for asking. I’m glad to give further insight into my thoughts on the matter. As you begin by revealing part of your story (abuse survivor), allow me to begin by saying that my prayer for you is that God has granted and will continue to grant you healing and peace - the kind which the world cannot offer. Only our Savior, who knew abuse and suffering like no other, can ultimately offer the healing balm that lasts and makes whole the wounded soul.
I should begin by noting that my comments here have not been primarily a pushback on background checks, per se. You’ll see that my initial and follow-up pushback was aimed mainly at the paternalistic tendency of the Safe Church office, which is a subset of the larger paternalistic tendency among CRC agencies and staff. As I noted to Eric, he is really in no position to tell my local church council what they should or should not do in regards to the pastoral care of their congregation, yet he has assumed the role of doing so. He has neither the intimate knowledge nor the authority to coherently do so, and his denominational employment does not make him automatically qualified. As office bearers in the church, we answer to the head of the church, Jesus Christ, for our care of the congregation, not to Grand Rapids. And you’ll notice that criminal background checks are conspicuously absent from 1Timothy 3 and Titus 1. If Eric had simply offered resources or thoughts on criminal background checks, you would have read no response from me, but he went further. And that additional distance he went is in keeping with a larger pattern that I think is worth pushing back against, for the health and unity of the church.
Secondly, it is worth noting that Eric deftly illustrates another besetting flaw of many agency staff in his response, that of patronization. The first reaction of many agency staff when challenged is to position themselves as the teacher, with whomever their respondent is being the student in need of education. So, Eric goes immediately to the de facto response of so many agency staff: point to some inane statistic or study, as if that settles the matter. As I noted to Eric: people aren’t statistics, and proper pastoral care is not beholden to any set of numbers. To make the matter personal, the question of whether or not my 16 year old daughter should be subjected to an application, interview, reference checks, and a criminal background check before serving in the church nursery is not a question to be answered by any statistic, nor entrusted to denominational staff. That is a question to be answered by my church council, the members of which have also not undergone a criminal background check, yet have been entrusted with the spiritual care of the church.
As to criminal background checks in and of themselves, they are simply a tool, which like all tools can be wielded for good or for ill. Also like all tools, there is a time to avail oneself of the use of a criminal background check, and a time to refrain. Such judgments require wisdom and discretion, the likes of which can only be properly exercised in close relationship with people. That is a closeness that agencies don’t possess, yet elders must possess. When Jesus tells us in Matthew 10:16 to “be wise as serpents and innocent as doves”, he does not say how that will look in any or all situations. Sometimes the shrewdness demanded in that command will result in use of such a tool, sometimes not. Therein lies the problem in receiving moral or practical absolutes from detached agency staff. I have no doubt as to the pure and honorable intentions of Eric Kas, but that does not mean that he or his agency are always going to make decisions or pronouncements that are healthy for the church.
Thanks again for interacting. God bless you.
Eric
Posted in: Background Checks: What Screening Services Does Your Church Use?
Hi Frank,
Thank you for your response. I too value dialogue – iron sharpening iron.
I respect and honor the decisions made in your local church in this arena. That is in keeping with the thrust of my interaction here. I have no interest in attempting to dissuade you from your convictions in that respect. A couple follow-up notes:
1) It seems as though the reasoning that you proffer could quite consistently be applied to mandatory criminal background checks for the whole congregation and all visitors. After all, can we really know who is lurking, what their intent is, and when/how they might attempt an assault? Don’t all of our members come into contact with children and other potential victims? Now, you may think this unpastoral and unnecessary. But suppose for a moment that someone from outside your church, perhaps a denominational agency, assumed to tell you that you should do this at the local level. And suppose if you didn’t acquiesce to the protection protocol of the denomination, they threatened to “name and shame” you until you did. Not so conducive to unity and harmony in the church, it seems to me.
2) Switching to a slightly different, but related, topic in order to drive home the point: Imagine with me a denominational agency called Armed Church Ministry. This agency is equipped with studies, statistics, and stories about mass shootings in places of public gathering and realizes that the common link in most of these shootings is the assailant’s conclusion that he has identified a soft target. Now, this agency knows how God values human life, and how much grief, destruction, and trauma results from such incidents of violence. Additionally, this agency takes seriously the recognition in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 107 that God wants us “to protect [our neighbor] from harm as much as we can.” In this light, the Armed Church Ministry devises safety protocols under the creative moniker “Armed Church” and begins to encourage churches to adopt the protocols and the moniker. Over time, encouragement turns to urging, turns to telling churches what they should do, turns to demanding, turns to public shaming for noncompliance. The protocols are as follows:
- All churches should have a message on their website and on their visible church sign that they are an Armed Church and that violent offenders should be aware that armed personnel are present at every gathering.
- All churches should have a metal detector at each entrance.
- All visitors should be screened before attending public worship services.
- All churches should have armed guards who open-carry their weapons, so that violence can be dissuaded.
Initially, there will be some push back, but eventually most will be ok with it. After violent incidents in public places, we so often hear “I had no idea Johnny was capable of that”.
I don’t say those things to mock or belittle Safe Church or its staff. I love each person involved. I do think that the church can experience mission creep, and I do think that a recurring theme from Grand Rapids is the top-down mentality that we profess to not believe in. This top-down mentality does not strengthen or vitalize the denomination, but leads to a greater and greater disconnect and loss of unity (witness denominational ministry shares struggles). This is a real problem in the CRC, and it is evident in numerous arenas.
Posted in: Background Checks: What Screening Services Does Your Church Use?
Hello Jane,
Please call me Eric – no need for the formality. Thank you for engaging. I accept your thoughts in the spirit in which you offer them.
It’s not just my impression that Eric was saying what churches “should” do, I reacting to him saying exactly that. I quoted him – I didn’t just make that up.
It’s also worth noting that there is a larger context at play here. The Banner article that I linked in my conversation with Bonnie notes that some Synod delegates said “that in addition to telling the classes and congregations what should happen, synod should use its power to make them happen.” The article goes on to state the following: “The question kept coming back to what more can synods do. Are they limited to “naming and shaming” or can they in a more direct way enforce Safe Church policies?” It is in this context that I read Eric’s statement of what churches should be doing.
I am most pleased that your church has benefited from the work of Safe Church Ministries at its staff – God be praised! I have not here undertaken to disparage or tear down the Safe Church office, but to defend the autonomy and wisdom of the local church from heavy handed, GR-centric dictates.
Thanks again for engaging, and I share your desire for God to be glorified in all that we do.
Posted in: Background Checks: What Screening Services Does Your Church Use?
Hello Jane,
I'm not really wanting to belabor the matter any further, but your inquiry is made in good faith, and so I mean to provide clarification in response.
First, the link that you requested: https://www.thebanner.org/news/2018/06/synod-2018-confronts-abuse
Second, note that Eric did not respond with his "I didn't mean it that way" response until very late in the game, well after I had talked about and explained my concern. His first response to me made no such mention, so there was no way for me to have any idea that he was intending something different than what he said. He might have done well to simply initially recognize the problematic nature of the language he chose, acknowledge as much, make clarification, and amend his original post. Seems simple enough if he was more intent on listening to feedback instead of rebuffing me.
As to semantics, by all means, lets talk about semantics for a bit. First, some definitions are in order, beginning with a definition of semantics: "the study of the meanings of words and phrases in language". Infer: "to form an opinion or reach a conclusion through reasoning and information ". Should: "to be under necessity or obligation to". Synonyms for should: "have (to), must, need, ought (to), shall". (all definitions from Merriam-Webster online - variations are present based on source, but all contain the same core ideas)
To say something is about "semantics" is not properly understood as a way to dismiss the real and actual meanings of words used, but rather it is to delve into what words actually mean. Yes, it does matter what Eric is quoted as saying. I did not "infer" the meaning of what Eric said, as if I had to reason my way to a conclusion, because the word "should" has a distinct definition which I have reproduced here. We reach inferences when things are not directly stated - such was not the case here. If Eric did not mean to say that, it would have easy for him to correct it, but he chose a different route - first he deflected, and then he denied. He would have done well to choose his words more carefully, particularly in the climate in which churches are in fact being sent the message that they must (synonym for should) comply with program labeling and content from headquarters or they will be held up for public shame. This is the very real atmosphere in which Eric is speaking. If he is wise, he will seek to be pastoral in this atmosphere, and being pastoral also means being able and willing to listen.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
A1B already affirms what you fear will be inevitably affirmed. They have and do talk about the BTQ+ regularly.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Andrew, I concur.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
It doesn't work to use Paul to say matters of sexual immorality are "debatable matters" in which we should just agree to disagree when Paul specifically teaches the wickedness of sexual immorality, in full concurrence with the rest of scriptural witness.
The fact that Jesus is Lord is immutable, no matter the wickedness of man. But the apostles still taught very clearly that a life marked by being given over to sin is not the life of one saved unto eternal life. Yes, this matters. Paul said those whose life is defined and marked by unrepentant sin will not inherit the Kingdom of God. These are matters that bear on the gospel. Is not the mortification of the old self part and parcel to the gospel of salvation? Is new birth a birth unto the same practices of old? Is sanctification a mark of those who have been declared righteous?
Hermeneutics matters because if scripture is made to be putty in my hands based on my preferred approach, then I can (and will be inclined to) fashion the word in my image and to my liking. There is no end to the self-justification that can occur when the scripture is allowed to be handled carelessly. Will we ever have a perfect understanding or approach to scripture? Clearly not. But to act as if our approach to scripture does not matter is incoherent. Muslims have a hermeneutic when they read scripture as well. Does it matter that their hermeneutic differs from ours? It matters how we approach scripture because God's Word actually means something.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Hi Adam, I think you are probably both correct and incorrect. No doubt there have been cases of ostracization and indifference, if not at times outright cruelty. Where we as individuals and churches fail by turning our back on any struggling sinner, we ought rightly to repent and change. I don't think, however, that you are in a position to judge generally that Christians have not come alongside other Christians struggling with sexual temptation in this area. Just because you don't see a "movement", does not mean that this sort of discipleship and love is not happening day in and day out. Discipleship, friendship, and love don't rely on "movements".
It can also become very difficult to walk alongside someone when a section of the church and most of society continues to tell them that the discipleship and comfort we offer is in fact hate. Once that message is believed and internalized, the only message that is put out is that the church fails to accept, when the church may have tried mightily. The headlines often fail to honestly reflect truth.
There is no doubt that we can all make improvements in bearing each other's burdens, not just on this particular topic. But I think you are not well-positioned to make the sort of charge that you seek to leverage from Scripture that the CRC simply ties heavy burdens and does not lift a finger to move them. The burden that is there is first of all not tied or bound by the CRC, to the extent that the moral law in question is not a man-made law. Jesus was speaking of the laundry list of man-made minutiae that the Pharisees had added to the moral and ceremonial law. The burdens they tied were above and beyond what God had commanded. The CRC seeks to do no such thing. Also, in order to judge that no finger has been lifted to help those in need requires a much more omniscient knowledge of the many and varied people, congregations, pastors, and situations than I think you can claim to have.