Stepping back from the individual congregational level a moment, would you say that it was helpful for denominational branding to drop any frontline mention of CR in the newly-named World Renew and Resonate? I would assume (perhaps incorrectly?) that your job would have placed you in position to have significant input into the renaming process. Can we really expect individual congregations to follow a different path than that which is modeled by the denomination?
“But, the overtures go too far; they draw the lines too rigid. By these overtures the denomination should not have spoken against, or taken action to oppose: slavery, racism, Nazism, Apartheid, or the current Canadian government’s curtailment of religious liberties.”
That’s simply not true, Nick. For the church to say that murder and genocide are immoral is not practicing politics. Sending delegations to Paris to opine on international climate pacts is practicing politics. For the church to say that God has instituted marriage as between a man and a woman is not practicing politics. Lobbying in the halls of congress for particular immigration policies that bend in one direction is practicing politics. For the church to say that stealing and owning people and not paying them for service is immoral is not practicing politics. Giving church members one-sided information about the conflict in Israel/Palestine is practicing politics. For the church to say that the government has no business impinging on freedom of religion is not practicing politics. For the church to say that hatred for fellow man is immoral is not practicing politics. The church always has spoken to moral issues, and for millennia has managed to do it without the church forming groups to lobby the government for certain preferred policies.
1. You have said things about overtures 13 & 14 that are not true. You would do well to acknowledge that. These overtures would in no way stop the church from speaking clearly on pressing moral issues. You have missed the mark with this criticism.
2. If you think that overtures 13 &14 are simply "quibbling over who the messenger should be", then you misread them badly. It is not simply about who is saying what, but also about what is being said and with what authority. Whether or not you want to recognize the fact, OSJ and Race Relations (among others) have said and continue to say things that violate and at times seek to bind the consciences of faithful CRC members. That should concern you.
3. Overtures 13 & 14 don't seek to "lay bare hidden fissures", but rather seek to stop denominational employees form exacerbating hidden (or not so hidden) fissures. The fissures are there. Some are normal and healthy diversity of opinion. Some are basic and foundational and grounded more in interpretation of the gospel and approach to scripture. Acting as if these fissures are not there is foolish. Exacerbating these fissures by "lording it over" others in using the bully pulpit is unbiblical and not promoting of unity. Overtures 13 & 14 can promote unity by recognizing and promoting principles of love and justice without impinging on each others' freedom in Christ. That is conducive to unity.
4. The idea that if we just work harder to understand the implications of justice we will all arrive at some unanimous conclusion of what love and justice require in public policy is naive and ignorant of what the entirety of human history teaches us. Simply put, the Bible does not dictate many of the things we encounter is daily life. There is no one Christian immigration policy. There is no one Christian economic policy. There is no one Christian environmental policy. Christians of good conscience will always and forever disagree on these matters. The question is, will those in power lord over those not in power? The answer to that question will go a long ways toward determining the future of the CRC.
"In contrast, today most messages from the pulpit are designed to take us away from this life."
Wow, Nick, that's quite a sweeping accusation. I bet there are quite a few ministers of the Word out there who would disagree that are not preaching from the Word in the light of the Catechism for how to "live life Christianly". I'm sorry if you've been so deprived, but I hear sermons continuously on how to live in light of "all that Jesus commanded." But my minister also doesn't try to pass off OT civil instructions to "welcome the stranger" as immigration policy.
I have no problem, personally with healthy immigration numbers, but consider for a moment the outworking of what you insinuate. Isn't any limit on immigration "restricted immigration"? Do you advocate for no restriction? If you advocate for some restrictions, how are you not then unloving by your standard? Love your neighbor and welcome strangers are not immigration policy prescriptions. The only way to consistently use your standard of "love your neighbor" as immigration policy would be to let in anyone who wanted to enter, which would be an end to the nation-state. There is no such thing as a nation-state if there is no such thing as national sovereignty.
The church is equipping the saints for ministry, however imperfectly. The fact that people don't engage in political reasoning in the same manner that you do is not prima facie evidence to the contrary.
Thanks for your response. I should clarify quickly before going any further that I am using the term “nation-state” in the broad sense of the term, as follows: “a nation-state is simply a large, politically sovereign country or administrative territory”. This is contrasted with the narrow sense of the term that sometimes is used: “a country where a distinct cultural or ethnic group (a "nation" or "people") inhabits a territory and have formed a state (often a sovereign state) that they predominantly govern”.
On the face of it the Bible actually does command us to recognize, respect, and honor the nation-state. Romans 13 tells us that God himself instituted government and appoints the governing authorities. Just like Jesus told us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, Romans 13 also tells us to pay our taxes. How can there be government if there is no nation and no sovereignty? Who pays taxes if not citizens of a nation? God institutes government to restrain evil. Nation-state in the narrow sense may be weakening historically, but not in the broad sense. Just because heaven will not have nation-states does not mean that it is “moving in the direction of the kingdom” for nation-states to weaken on earth. Take law-enforcement, for example. There is will be no law-enforcement in the fully realized Kingdom of God. But the weakening or doing away with law enforcement here and now would not be moving in the direction of the Kingdom.
I absolutely do not think that the European Union represents a model worthy of Christian support. There is simply nothing more Christian about the European Union than the more complete sovereignty of the United States or Canada. The EU simply represents a confederation of mostly-sovereign nation-states who have banded together for some economic and political reasons. There are other choices between the EU and “isolationism”. Have you been lobbying your Canadian MPs to dissolve the Canadian government and become the 51st state of the union? Canada is pretty much the 51st state already, why not make it official? :) Wouldn't that be moving toward the Kingdom?
People in separate nation-states can just as easily see each other as image-bearers as can neighbors in the same small town in the middle of the U.S. or Canada. You state generally that Christians should advocate for immigrations laws that value humans as image-bearers, but you give no specificity. Many faithful Christians will differ greatly in what those laws will then look like, and neither you nor the institutional church has the authority to bind my conscience in the matter.
Money is not the only revered value of our culture, and there are many other worldly things to parrot. It is just as easy and tempting to parrot various political values of our surrounding culture regarding matters such as race and immigration. We don’t need the church dictating biblically debatable political and social matters to her members, and thereby acting as the hand saying to the eye “I don’t need you”.
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.
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.
Posted in: Why Your Church Needs a Brand
Hi Kristen,
Stepping back from the individual congregational level a moment, would you say that it was helpful for denominational branding to drop any frontline mention of CR in the newly-named World Renew and Resonate? I would assume (perhaps incorrectly?) that your job would have placed you in position to have significant input into the renaming process. Can we really expect individual congregations to follow a different path than that which is modeled by the denomination?
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
“But, the overtures go too far; they draw the lines too rigid. By these overtures the denomination should not have spoken against, or taken action to oppose: slavery, racism, Nazism, Apartheid, or the current Canadian government’s curtailment of religious liberties.”
That’s simply not true, Nick. For the church to say that murder and genocide are immoral is not practicing politics. Sending delegations to Paris to opine on international climate pacts is practicing politics. For the church to say that God has instituted marriage as between a man and a woman is not practicing politics. Lobbying in the halls of congress for particular immigration policies that bend in one direction is practicing politics. For the church to say that stealing and owning people and not paying them for service is immoral is not practicing politics. Giving church members one-sided information about the conflict in Israel/Palestine is practicing politics. For the church to say that the government has no business impinging on freedom of religion is not practicing politics. For the church to say that hatred for fellow man is immoral is not practicing politics. The church always has spoken to moral issues, and for millennia has managed to do it without the church forming groups to lobby the government for certain preferred policies.
You are making a category error.
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
Nick,
1. You have said things about overtures 13 & 14 that are not true. You would do well to acknowledge that. These overtures would in no way stop the church from speaking clearly on pressing moral issues. You have missed the mark with this criticism.
2. If you think that overtures 13 &14 are simply "quibbling over who the messenger should be", then you misread them badly. It is not simply about who is saying what, but also about what is being said and with what authority. Whether or not you want to recognize the fact, OSJ and Race Relations (among others) have said and continue to say things that violate and at times seek to bind the consciences of faithful CRC members. That should concern you.
3. Overtures 13 & 14 don't seek to "lay bare hidden fissures", but rather seek to stop denominational employees form exacerbating hidden (or not so hidden) fissures. The fissures are there. Some are normal and healthy diversity of opinion. Some are basic and foundational and grounded more in interpretation of the gospel and approach to scripture. Acting as if these fissures are not there is foolish. Exacerbating these fissures by "lording it over" others in using the bully pulpit is unbiblical and not promoting of unity. Overtures 13 & 14 can promote unity by recognizing and promoting principles of love and justice without impinging on each others' freedom in Christ. That is conducive to unity.
4. The idea that if we just work harder to understand the implications of justice we will all arrive at some unanimous conclusion of what love and justice require in public policy is naive and ignorant of what the entirety of human history teaches us. Simply put, the Bible does not dictate many of the things we encounter is daily life. There is no one Christian immigration policy. There is no one Christian economic policy. There is no one Christian environmental policy. Christians of good conscience will always and forever disagree on these matters. The question is, will those in power lord over those not in power? The answer to that question will go a long ways toward determining the future of the CRC.
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
"In contrast, today most messages from the pulpit are designed to take us away from this life."
Wow, Nick, that's quite a sweeping accusation. I bet there are quite a few ministers of the Word out there who would disagree that are not preaching from the Word in the light of the Catechism for how to "live life Christianly". I'm sorry if you've been so deprived, but I hear sermons continuously on how to live in light of "all that Jesus commanded." But my minister also doesn't try to pass off OT civil instructions to "welcome the stranger" as immigration policy.
I have no problem, personally with healthy immigration numbers, but consider for a moment the outworking of what you insinuate. Isn't any limit on immigration "restricted immigration"? Do you advocate for no restriction? If you advocate for some restrictions, how are you not then unloving by your standard? Love your neighbor and welcome strangers are not immigration policy prescriptions. The only way to consistently use your standard of "love your neighbor" as immigration policy would be to let in anyone who wanted to enter, which would be an end to the nation-state. There is no such thing as a nation-state if there is no such thing as national sovereignty.
The church is equipping the saints for ministry, however imperfectly. The fact that people don't engage in political reasoning in the same manner that you do is not prima facie evidence to the contrary.
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
Hi Nick,
Thanks for your response. I should clarify quickly before going any further that I am using the term “nation-state” in the broad sense of the term, as follows: “a nation-state is simply a large, politically sovereign country or administrative territory”. This is contrasted with the narrow sense of the term that sometimes is used: “a country where a distinct cultural or ethnic group (a "nation" or "people") inhabits a territory and have formed a state (often a sovereign state) that they predominantly govern”.
On the face of it the Bible actually does command us to recognize, respect, and honor the nation-state. Romans 13 tells us that God himself instituted government and appoints the governing authorities. Just like Jesus told us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, Romans 13 also tells us to pay our taxes. How can there be government if there is no nation and no sovereignty? Who pays taxes if not citizens of a nation? God institutes government to restrain evil. Nation-state in the narrow sense may be weakening historically, but not in the broad sense. Just because heaven will not have nation-states does not mean that it is “moving in the direction of the kingdom” for nation-states to weaken on earth. Take law-enforcement, for example. There is will be no law-enforcement in the fully realized Kingdom of God. But the weakening or doing away with law enforcement here and now would not be moving in the direction of the Kingdom.
I absolutely do not think that the European Union represents a model worthy of Christian support. There is simply nothing more Christian about the European Union than the more complete sovereignty of the United States or Canada. The EU simply represents a confederation of mostly-sovereign nation-states who have banded together for some economic and political reasons. There are other choices between the EU and “isolationism”. Have you been lobbying your Canadian MPs to dissolve the Canadian government and become the 51st state of the union? Canada is pretty much the 51st state already, why not make it official? :) Wouldn't that be moving toward the Kingdom?
People in separate nation-states can just as easily see each other as image-bearers as can neighbors in the same small town in the middle of the U.S. or Canada. You state generally that Christians should advocate for immigrations laws that value humans as image-bearers, but you give no specificity. Many faithful Christians will differ greatly in what those laws will then look like, and neither you nor the institutional church has the authority to bind my conscience in the matter.
Money is not the only revered value of our culture, and there are many other worldly things to parrot. It is just as easy and tempting to parrot various political values of our surrounding culture regarding matters such as race and immigration. We don’t need the church dictating biblically debatable political and social matters to her members, and thereby acting as the hand saying to the eye “I don’t need you”.
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: 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.