And let us also be thankful for the men and women who are called to the fossil fuel industry. Their pursuit of this noble call has allowed humanity to flourish in modern times at levels few could have dreamed of in past centuries.
The problem is so called "civil religion" which those of us in evangelical (or if you prefer "orthodox Reformed") traditions have sought to avoid. It is a difficult balancing act of wanting to be out among our communities proclaiming the Gospel but not pretending that Jesus Christ is simply "another path" and putting him on a mantle next to pagan gods of other religions. In the U.S. a lot of these tensions arose in the wake of 9/11 when there were several "interfaith vigils".
I am no theologian and I don't have a simple answer, I would just say that we need to carefully consider interfaith engagement and certainly steer clear of any forum where we are not able to declare Christ as "the way, the truth and the life".
I have found, even in our small tradition, there are many different understandings of common grace. At a minimum we should be able to agree that certain institutions such as the government or civic organizations like a Rotary Club are a form of mercy that God graciously provides all people. Historically, we have discouraged members from engaging in institutions that imply equality of different religions, this is why the CRCNA has been strongly critical of Freemasonry, for example.
It is good for Christians to engage in all spheres of life including those ruled by the "Left Hand" (to use a John Calvin term) such as government, commerce and other institutions. Not only are these venues where we may interact, build relationships with and hopefully share the Good News with non-believers, but they are honorable unto themselves- ordained by God. I can also see the legitimacy of dialogue with leaders of other faith traditions, particularly in missions context for example where we are attempting to maintain peace and find ways to live and work together while respecting our differences.
I would still be very reluctant, though, to attend an "interfaith" service where prayers and ceremonies to other gods are performed. My 2 cents, fwiw
I have my disagreements with the current President over immigration but at the same time I am often troubled by the tone of our denominational staff as their advocacy seems to imply, at least in my reading, that it is somehow "unjust" for a modern nation-state to regulate or restrict immigration. We also seem to forget that the United States takes in more immigrants than any other developed country and, even if all of our President's proposals were enacted, that is unlikely to change. Thoughtful Christians need space to disagree.
Again, supporters of the Office of Social Justice continue to speak in vague platitudes, but do not respond to any of the specifics in the overtures. The fact that this particular Council cannot, for example, explain why drilling in ANWR or repealing the personal mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act are things that "Christians must stand up against" as the OSJ has asserted leads me to conclude that they are not seriously reflecting on the issue. Instead it seems we are seeing a steady stream of reactions from people who either 1. Are personal acquaintances with CRC leaders and want to support them for personal reasons or 2. Simply happen to be sympathetic to the political causes that the OSJ has championed. Either way the obfuscation by way of speaking in broad platitudes rather than addressing he specific concerns in the overtures is unfortunate.
I personally have no issue with agreeing to disagree with people at the foot of the cross. Prudential public policy ought not be an issue to divide the church over. I have passionate views about many public policy issues, but would never even consider asking the denomination to endorse them, out of respect for my fellow believers. My suspicion is that if the CRCNA officials were reactively aligning themselves on the other end of the political spectrum there would be no call to "Support rather than restrict or reduce" this activity.
The other possibility is that a pastor or seminary professor has nothing of substance to add to a discussion beyond what a layman already knows. It would be one thing to preach texts dealing with creation stewardship. It is quite another thing to make particular policy prescriptions related to fishing or logging regulations. It simply isn't within the sphere of competency given to the institutional church. Unfortunately, the tendency among academics is to assume expertise in their respective field somehow translates to other areas and that they are uniquely free from political or cultural biases.
It makes me wonder if Professor Hoezee would admonish pastors to boldly preach on CRC views related to sexual ethics in certain other congregations or classes in the CRC?
Either way, clergy are better sticking to the text and proclaiming the Gospel, not in making specific public policy prescriptions even if sometimes challenging a congregation in their thinking. The sooner more of our Seminary faculty and clergy accept this, the sooner we'll see real revival in the CRCNA.
I was not taking a broad swipe at the Seminary, but your essay came across, at least to me, as a bit condescending toward the local group. As a whole, I believe CTS is one of more positive institutions of the CRCNA.
If your lectures were as you characterize them here, I am a bit puzzled as to why there would be any "push back"? I read your essay as basically stating that a. the locals felt you were taking a political stand that impacted their livelihood and b. on reflection reaching the presumptuous conclusion that you should have doubled down harder.
I may be reading your essay through a certain filter, one that is increasingly skeptical of ministers who are too quick to advocate political causes whether "left", "right" or "other". I regret if I have misinterpreted your intent.
I would clarify that some of the questionable actions of the CRC's Office of Social Justice i.e. sanctioning President Obama's Agricultural bill over the Republican alternative as well as the actions of conservative groups like the Christian Coalition (I once sat in a church that had a bulletin insert comparing candidates based on their support for an anti-flag burning amendment to the U.S. Constitution!) are what I had in mind reading Scott Hoezee's article. I have a hard time seeing that the biggest problem for the CRC or the broader church in North America today is a reluctance of clergy to speak on political matters.
I do qualify this by saying there are, obviously texts and issues that demand attention. I have no problem with a pastor lamenting the destruction of human life by abortion, for example. I strongly disagree with churches that engaged in a campaign called "Justice Sunday" some years back to rally support for then President GW Bush's judicial nominees.
I have no problem breaking bread with professing believers who disagree on public policy. I also concur pastors must sometimes address difficult topics. I only hasten to add it needs to be done with humility and reasonable restraint if we are going to move forward as a denomination. That is well there may very well be instances where pastors are too reluctant to take on topics, there are other times when, imo, there has been a lack of maturity and discernment which results in "push back".
Posted in: Thank God for Fossil Fuels!
And let us also be thankful for the men and women who are called to the fossil fuel industry. Their pursuit of this noble call has allowed humanity to flourish in modern times at levels few could have dreamed of in past centuries.
Posted in: Where Are the Evangelicals?
The problem is so called "civil religion" which those of us in evangelical (or if you prefer "orthodox Reformed") traditions have sought to avoid. It is a difficult balancing act of wanting to be out among our communities proclaiming the Gospel but not pretending that Jesus Christ is simply "another path" and putting him on a mantle next to pagan gods of other religions. In the U.S. a lot of these tensions arose in the wake of 9/11 when there were several "interfaith vigils".
I am no theologian and I don't have a simple answer, I would just say that we need to carefully consider interfaith engagement and certainly steer clear of any forum where we are not able to declare Christ as "the way, the truth and the life".
Posted in: Where Are the Evangelicals?
I have found, even in our small tradition, there are many different understandings of common grace. At a minimum we should be able to agree that certain institutions such as the government or civic organizations like a Rotary Club are a form of mercy that God graciously provides all people. Historically, we have discouraged members from engaging in institutions that imply equality of different religions, this is why the CRCNA has been strongly critical of Freemasonry, for example.
It is good for Christians to engage in all spheres of life including those ruled by the "Left Hand" (to use a John Calvin term) such as government, commerce and other institutions. Not only are these venues where we may interact, build relationships with and hopefully share the Good News with non-believers, but they are honorable unto themselves- ordained by God. I can also see the legitimacy of dialogue with leaders of other faith traditions, particularly in missions context for example where we are attempting to maintain peace and find ways to live and work together while respecting our differences.
I would still be very reluctant, though, to attend an "interfaith" service where prayers and ceremonies to other gods are performed. My 2 cents, fwiw
Posted in: Where Are the Evangelicals?
In reading Kuyper's views on common grace, he seems to start not with creation order, but with the Noahic Covenant.
The PR's do indeed reject common grace, but they are an extreme outlier on the issue.
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
I have my disagreements with the current President over immigration but at the same time I am often troubled by the tone of our denominational staff as their advocacy seems to imply, at least in my reading, that it is somehow "unjust" for a modern nation-state to regulate or restrict immigration. We also seem to forget that the United States takes in more immigrants than any other developed country and, even if all of our President's proposals were enacted, that is unlikely to change. Thoughtful Christians need space to disagree.
Posted in: Communication to Synod - Let's Discuss
Again, supporters of the Office of Social Justice continue to speak in vague platitudes, but do not respond to any of the specifics in the overtures. The fact that this particular Council cannot, for example, explain why drilling in ANWR or repealing the personal mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act are things that "Christians must stand up against" as the OSJ has asserted leads me to conclude that they are not seriously reflecting on the issue. Instead it seems we are seeing a steady stream of reactions from people who either 1. Are personal acquaintances with CRC leaders and want to support them for personal reasons or 2. Simply happen to be sympathetic to the political causes that the OSJ has championed. Either way the obfuscation by way of speaking in broad platitudes rather than addressing he specific concerns in the overtures is unfortunate.
I personally have no issue with agreeing to disagree with people at the foot of the cross. Prudential public policy ought not be an issue to divide the church over. I have passionate views about many public policy issues, but would never even consider asking the denomination to endorse them, out of respect for my fellow believers. My suspicion is that if the CRCNA officials were reactively aligning themselves on the other end of the political spectrum there would be no call to "Support rather than restrict or reduce" this activity.
Posted in: Think Globally, Push Back Locally
The other possibility is that a pastor or seminary professor has nothing of substance to add to a discussion beyond what a layman already knows. It would be one thing to preach texts dealing with creation stewardship. It is quite another thing to make particular policy prescriptions related to fishing or logging regulations. It simply isn't within the sphere of competency given to the institutional church. Unfortunately, the tendency among academics is to assume expertise in their respective field somehow translates to other areas and that they are uniquely free from political or cultural biases.
It makes me wonder if Professor Hoezee would admonish pastors to boldly preach on CRC views related to sexual ethics in certain other congregations or classes in the CRC?
Either way, clergy are better sticking to the text and proclaiming the Gospel, not in making specific public policy prescriptions even if sometimes challenging a congregation in their thinking. The sooner more of our Seminary faculty and clergy accept this, the sooner we'll see real revival in the CRCNA.
Posted in: Think Globally, Push Back Locally
Professor Hoezee:
I was not taking a broad swipe at the Seminary, but your essay came across, at least to me, as a bit condescending toward the local group. As a whole, I believe CTS is one of more positive institutions of the CRCNA.
If your lectures were as you characterize them here, I am a bit puzzled as to why there would be any "push back"? I read your essay as basically stating that a. the locals felt you were taking a political stand that impacted their livelihood and b. on reflection reaching the presumptuous conclusion that you should have doubled down harder.
I may be reading your essay through a certain filter, one that is increasingly skeptical of ministers who are too quick to advocate political causes whether "left", "right" or "other". I regret if I have misinterpreted your intent.
Posted in: Think Globally, Push Back Locally
I would clarify that some of the questionable actions of the CRC's Office of Social Justice i.e. sanctioning President Obama's Agricultural bill over the Republican alternative as well as the actions of conservative groups like the Christian Coalition (I once sat in a church that had a bulletin insert comparing candidates based on their support for an anti-flag burning amendment to the U.S. Constitution!) are what I had in mind reading Scott Hoezee's article. I have a hard time seeing that the biggest problem for the CRC or the broader church in North America today is a reluctance of clergy to speak on political matters.
I do qualify this by saying there are, obviously texts and issues that demand attention. I have no problem with a pastor lamenting the destruction of human life by abortion, for example. I strongly disagree with churches that engaged in a campaign called "Justice Sunday" some years back to rally support for then President GW Bush's judicial nominees.
I have no problem breaking bread with professing believers who disagree on public policy. I also concur pastors must sometimes address difficult topics. I only hasten to add it needs to be done with humility and reasonable restraint if we are going to move forward as a denomination. That is well there may very well be instances where pastors are too reluctant to take on topics, there are other times when, imo, there has been a lack of maturity and discernment which results in "push back".