So I’ll give my graduation speech/proverbs here, in no particular order.

 1. Everything until you’re 40 is education and most of what follows is, too. 
 2. We’ve worked 20+ years to get where we are and we’re not going to hand you the keys just because you show up with a slick piece of paper and some book-learning. And in 20 some odd years, when you’re talking to some graduating seniors, you’ll know exactly why I say that.
 3. It’s OK if you don’t have it all figured out at 18 or 23 or however old you are. Fewer than 1 in a thousand graduates really knows for sure what they want to be when they grow up and half of them will change their minds.
 4. The pursuit of excellence is always a good thing – even if you’re going to be a crook, it’s better to be good at it.
 5. Don’t be a crook.
 6. Don’t try to save the world. We already have a savior and it’s a one-person job.
 7. Some things can’t be fixed. Learn how to live with them.
 8. The converse is not true – there is nothing in this world that can’t be broken.
 9. Try not to break things.
10. God and people are important. Everything else, not so much.
11. Pray.
12. Don’t pigeon-hole yourself and don’t let others do so, either. If the only reason you’re doing something is that “everyone expects….” then maybe you should do something else, at least for a little while (they may be right).
13. No job is beneath you.
14. There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TANSTAAFL).  Somebody always pays.
15. Offer to pay.
16. Listen to your elders, even when you’re 50 – they’ve been your age, but you’ve never been theirs.
17. “Lighten up, Francis.”
18. “Fear God and keep his commandments.”

That should see you through the next four years or so.  Maybe longer.

I cannot vouch for the historical accuracy of the story.  Even if it is generally faithful to the historical record, given what usually happens in movies I’d be surprised if it were flawlessly so.  Most of the criticisms I’ve seen on this point, however, are misplaced.  In essence, they amount to, “It isn’t the story about King George VI of England that I would have told.”  No doubt it isn’t, but then these critics aren’t telling the story, are they?  Nor can I ignore the reason it was given an R rating, as some of the language is vulgar.  Granted, it’s no worse than what you might hear from any of a couple dozen cable TV shows and I know I’m hardly the one to be casting aspersions on this score (I was in the Navy), still my own guilt is no absolution for others.

What made the movie a good one in my opinion is the contrast between George VI and his elder brother Edward VIII – a contrast emphasized in the women they married. 

Edward VIII saw the job of king and Prince of Wales as a forum for advancing the rather narrow interests of Edward VIII not as the nominal leader of a people, but as an individual.  The women he wooed and the one he eventually married, his eventual abdication, and everything else about his actions indicated that he believed himself the most important person in the country.  His only duty was to himself.  To be sure, he was personable, amiable, and fun in his self-absorption, but whether it was making everyone else wait at dinner, chasing skirts, demeaning his brother, or raging at the restrictions imposed by the fact of royalty, he was fundamentally inconsiderate and rude.  The culmination of this selfishness was his renunciation of the throne.

George VI was a man whose driving motivation was to know, and then to do, his duty – to his country, to his king, to his family, and ultimately to the world.  He had no illusions about the power of the modern English monarchy or about his own suitability for it.  His determination to overcome his weakness was not out of a sense of pride or anything selfish.  He would have gladly continued a stammerer if it were possible to still do his duty.  It was not, so he struggled against it and, supported by his wife, overcame it.  This is what The King’s Speech is really about – a man’s struggle to do his duty, even though that duty should have belonged to another, even though it was incredibly difficult for him, about a loving wife who was willing to sacrifice her own desires to help him meet it, and about a devoted friend who helped him overcome.

“Duty” has become for some a dirty word, a confining, imprisoning word.  Outside of a military context, we do not often use it any more.  We think that somebody motivated by a sense of duty and obligation is somehow insincere.  Certainly he is not being true to himself and that, after all, is the culmination of our existence is it not? “To thine own self be true” and all that, right?  If you look at the problems facing us today – massive debts, both personal and public; abortion; divorce; lawlessness; fatherless children; drug wars; and more – how many of them do not spring from this “being true to one’s self” mentality at the expense of duty?  Contrast this with the divine call to deny one’s self, take up one’s cross daily, and follow Jesus.

It is a paradox, I’ll grant you, and difficult to get one’s mind and heart around, but self-fulfillment is rarely obtained by those who pursue it single-mindedly.  It is instead obtained by those who make their first object someone outside themselves, to be precise, God and his people – by those who heed the great commandments to love the Lord our God with our whole being and our neighbors as ourselves.

A lot of good things have been said about George VI and his leadership during World War 2, but I can think of no higher earthly tribute to him or any man than this:  He did his duty.

E. That synod affirm the following findings (see section IX, C) concerning climate change and that it commend them to the churches as guides to prayer, discussion, direct action, and advocacy:
1. Climate change is occurring and is very likely due to human activity.
2. Human-induced climate change is a moral, ethical, and religious issue.
3. Human-induced climate change poses a significant threat to future generations, the poor, and the vulnerable.
4. Human-induced climate change poses a significant challenge to us all.
5. Urgent action is required to address climate change. This includes actions at the personal, community, and political levels toward reducing human causes of climate change and mobilizing ourselves to urgent assistance of those who are forced to adapt to its negative effects.

This has fostered some serious questions.  Does the Church, as institution, really possess the competence to make a definitive pronouncement on this – do 192 ministers and elders from the CRC really have the knowledge and experience necessary to declare positively that climate change is (or is not) occurring and that human activity is (or is not) causing it?  And is it the proper role of the Church, as Church, to take direct action or advocate “at the…political levels” in such a matter?  The editor of the denomination’s magazine, The Banner, clearly thinks that Synod can and should.  He asks in a recent editorial

…shouldn’t we, as church, sometimes risk muddying our collective boots by addressing political issues that have profound religious and ethical dimensions?

Yes and no.  We should, as Church, address the profound religious and ethical issues that underlie the political debate, clarifying them, helping to set the moral objective towards which specific policies should aim and this may well muddy our boots.  Getting into the nuts and bolts of advocacy for specific policies, however, isn’t just muddying our collective boots.  It is claiming divine sanction for those specific policies.

The Church speaks as the voice of the Lord – ex cathedra, as it were.  When we say, as Church, that abortion is murder and should be stopped, we are not merely saying that this is our policy preference.  We are saying that this is Truth, with a capital “T”, and thus the Word of the Lord.  This is also what we would be saying if we were to say that “Abortion should be classed as a type III Felony, punishable by 15-20 years in the state penitentiary and fines of up to $250,000.”  I can back up the first assertion – that abortion is murder – with the Bible, and so I am justified as a pastor, speaking for the institutional Church, in saying that this is the Word of the Lord.  I can back up the second assertion only with my own opinion, which makes it merely the word of Eric (NB: That is not my preferred policy, by the way – just a hypothetical). 

It is dishonest, even bordering on blasphemous, to claim that my political opinions are the Word of the Lord.  In making such a claim I would not be encouraging Christian engagement in politics but instead attempting to shut down politics, squelching debate, and avoiding the need to demonstrate the prudence and practicality of my favored course of action.  After all, the Lord says we should do what I think best!  In addition to being insulting of fellow Christians and dishonest as a method of argument, it has the added problem of being untrue.  When the Church marries itself to statements that are not true it becomes a false Church.

This is not to say that Christians cannot advocate, or that they cannot argue for policy provisions that they think most likely to achieve the moral and religious imperatives of, in these cases, protecting human life and caring for God’s creation.  Indeed, Christians must do so.  But the institutional Church should focus on clarifying those moral and religious imperatives for the world and her members without attempting to avoid the struggle we all must endure, both individually and collectively, to live out our confession in this broken world.  Abraham Kuyper, a Dutch theologian and politician, called this distinction “sphere sovereignty.”  He had a point.

Then I realized that it is good and proper for a man to eat and drink and to find satisfaction in his toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given him, for this is his lot. (Ecclesiastes 5:18 NIV)

Some time ago, Marsha Sinetar wrote a book entitled Do What You Love, the Money Will Follow.  I can’t claim to have read it, but there is truth in that title.  We have among Christians a concept known as “vocation.”  It is the idea that each of us is called by God to a particular life’s work – a vocation.  Sometimes the job we do enables the vocation, such as a vocation to motherhood or to some other task that, in the grand scheme of the economy, does not pay the bills.  Although it is often thought that only missionaries or clergy have a vocation, each of us has a calling.  The janitor is no less called of God to his task than the minister is to his.  When we discover that vocation and fulfill it, when we find satisfaction in our toilsome labor under the sun, then we find true contentment and lasting significance.  Money is useful, to be sure, but (to quote a Don Henley song) “you don’t see no hearses with luggage racks.”  It’s not the money, but the work itself which brings true and lasting joy.

We will learn that anything is possible with God.  There will be singing, games, snacks, science experiments, and even a hot air balloon!!  Bring your friends to this amazing, fun-filled week.

The days and times are as follows:

June 17 (Sunday) – 5:30-8:30

June 18-21 – 6:30-8:30

**We hope to see you there!!  You can click here to register your child.

 Guard your steps when you go to the house of God.  Go near to listen rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools who do not know that they do wrong.  Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty in your heart to utter anything before God.  God is in heaven and you are on earth, therefore let your words be few. (Ecclesiastes 5:1,2 NIV)

Most of us think of prayer as talking to God.  We tell God what we want, that we’re thankful, that we’re sorry, and so on.  That certainly is a part of prayer and not to be ignored, but the writer of Ecclesiastes reminds us that there is much more to prayer than talking.  Most of prayer should be listening.  When we do all the talking, we sometimes put words in God’s mouth – a dangerous thing to do.  As you draw near to God in prayer this week, heed the Preacher in Jerusalem, and go near to listen.

If you go to the CRCNA home page, you will find various links to statements of faith (the ecumenical creeds, the Reformed Confessions, etc.), position papers on various moral issues, some links to the denomination’s agencies and ministries, and a few other things of the “who are we” variety – vision statements, mission statements, etc.  Check out other denominational web sites and you’ll find pretty similar stuff.

Yet, for all that, the CRCNA at present is struggling with the issue of identity.  This essay is a bit long to put up as a blog post, but I put it up here as my own contribution towards resolving that struggle.

The other danger is that I might end up sounding the same every Sunday. One feels passionately about some things and not about others. If I just let it go, then the sermons will all sound alike. Some kind of discipline is necessary so the congregation hears – as much as is in my power – the whole counsel of God, not just the parts I like. So I use three basic methods.

The first is to trust those who have gone before. We Protestants are fond of saying “sola Scriptura” against the Catholic “Scripture and Tradition.” The real issue there is the primacy of Scripture, not the absence of tradition for in some sense we all rely on tradition.  My grandparents used to call this “not re-inventing the wheel”. I come to the ministry from the heart of the Church – the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and also within the branch of it that is Dutch Calvinist transplanted to these shores as the Christian Reformed Church in North America. Traditionally in the CRC, one service each Sunday (we have a morning and an evening service, and they’re different) is to be from the creeds of the Church. So I work through the 52 Lord’s Days of the Heidelberg Catechism, about 10-15 articles of the Belgic Confession that are not addressed in the Catechism, and the 5 “chapters” of the Canons of Dort. With the Sundays I have off because of vacation or other duties, that gets me through about a year and a half. These creeds cover pretty much all the basics of the faith and it is good to go over the basic on a regular basis. Lectionaries can be helpful in this regard, too, but the creeds are good, worthwhile guides.

The second is to trust the wisdom of the Church here. I regularly solicit input from the Council, the Worship Team, the other staff members, and the congregation at large. What is their sense of the congregation? What questions do they have, or have they been facing at work and among friends that they would like to have addressed? What books of the Bible intrigue them and why? The Spirit moves in the whole congregation, and I should listen when He speaks to me through them.

Finally, I trust the wisdom God has given me personally. I prefer to work through entire books in series rather than pop around from one to another, though I do not do this invariably. I will also adjust for the seasons of the church year, such as Lent/Easter and Advent/Christmas (Reformed Worship can be very helpful at these times). Some books are too large to do this, so I’ll either take a major theme and follow it through that book or take a sub-section of the book (like the Elisha stories in Kings). In choosing the book, I spend some time in prayer and meditation as well as study. It helps me to talk it through with someone, too (see the wisdom of the Church, above).

For all that, it will still happen that the Lord directs me to something else and I am compelled to ignore my own inclinations, the advice of others and traditions beyond faithfulness to God’s call. Is this foolproof? No. Is this what others should do? I don’t know.

But it is a question.

Right here we have the basic, fundamental principle of biblical organization.  Whether one is in authority or under it, whether one makes decisions or carries them out, good organizations practice mutual submission.  The apostle Paul goes on to explain what he means by mutual submission in three relationships – husband and wife, parent and child, master and slave.  Often, when we see something like this we react in one of two ways – we either rebel against the notion of submitting at all, or we start thinking about how others can submit to us.  But Paul’s imperative runs counter to both.  Submit to one another.

The part of this passage dealing with husbands and wives has been hard to take in an age that emphasizes rights, but there it is: “wives submit to your husbands”.  If you think Paul is commanding wives to be little more than slaves of their husbands, however, you misunderstand him.  Remember to take what follows in light of what precedes.  That is, the command for wives to submit to husbands is to be understood in light of the original “submit to one another.”  That this is so is reinforced by the following command that husbands love their wives “and give yourselves up for them” in the same way that Jesus loves the Church and gave himself up for her.  This is not a recipe for penile servitude or subjugation in which wives are devalued.  It is a recipe for mutual sacrifice in service to one another and to God.

Again, when it comes to being parents, the over-arching principle is mutual submission.  For children, that means to obey the parents – specifically, to obey them “in the Lord.”  That phrase indicates that parental authority is God-given and obedience to parental authority is obedience to God.  It also indicates that parents are accountable to the Lord for the way they exercise that authority.  Paul makes this part of mutual submission explicit.  Fathers are told not to exasperate their children (in older translations, the word used is “provoke”).  Rather, since the authority a parent has over his or her children comes from God, it is to be used for God’s purposes – to teach and train our children to also serve the Lord.  The needs and desires of the parent must submit to the child’s needs, and in particular, the child’s need to learn about God.  My need to be loved by my children, my need to feel good about myself, my need to whatever must submit to my child’s need to grow up in the discipline (training) and instruction of the Lord.

Frequently we steer a little clear of the final portion that deals with slavery, too.  We have, in this country, a rather bad taste in our mouth concerning slavery – a well earned bad taste.  Slavery, though, at the time Paul wrote this was not typically racist in its application.  And, while the slave’s status was cruelly oppressed by modern standards, his lot was not radically different from that of the average man at that time.  Even so, the principle Paul teaches here is still mutual submission – submission of slave to master, but also of master to slave.   While Eph 6:6-8 enjoin the slave to whole-heartedly serve his master, verse 9 begins with “Masters, treat your slaves the same way…”  In other words, masters are to whole-heartedly serve their slaves and Paul reminds them that, if they do not, they also have a Master to whom they are accountable.

This principle of mutual submission points to a key fact of authority, regardless of its nature, whether in a family, a military unit, a business, a nation, a church – AUTHORITY ALWAYS EXISTS IN ORDER TO SERVE THOSE OVER WHOM IT IS EXCERCISED SO THAT BOTH LEADER AND LED MAY BETTER SERVE GOD.