If there’s anything that the church should really be striving for, it’s approval from secular groups: “An official with the One Campaign, the global anti-poverty program backed by rock star Bono, said that his organization strongly supports the Christian Reformed Church’s Sea to Sea 2008 Bike Tour.”

I guess who tells you “Well done, good and faithful servant!” is illustrative of who is your master.


  • Dan

    “I guess who tells you “Well done, good and faithful servant!” is illustrative of who is your master.”

    That is a completely unfair accusation. Simply because the CRC does something which is noticed by a secular group as being a good thing does not in away way mean that the One Campaign is the CRC’s master.

    If anything, the fact that a secular group can concern itself with an issue such as poverty is a testament to God’s common grace, not the CRC’s allegiances.

    The CRC has no control over who takes note of their work. By your logic, if I had replied with, “nice post”, I would be *your* master.

  • http://blog.acton.org/ Jordan

    I think it is an example of common grace that the One Campaign is concerned about poverty. But I think the church is supposed a bit more [b]special[/b], if you catch my meaning.

    CRCNA proposed budget for FY 2007-2008:

    CR Home Missions: $8.88 million
    CR World Missions: $13.45 million
    Total: $22.33 million

    Compare that with the church funding for:

    CRWRC: $21.66 million (total 2006 [i]revenue[/i] was $31,250,492, including $9.5 million in “grants from Partners Worldwide, foundations, and [i]the United States and Canadian governments[/i].” (emphasis added)

  • Dan

    So what’s the problem? That 2/3 of the revenue was allocated to CRWRC? Or that the CRC applied for and apparently received grants from outside sources, including the U.S. and Canadian governments?

    I guess I should return the grant money I got from the U.S. government to go to Calvin.

    In any event, nice post.

  • http://blog.acton.org/ Jordan

    Dan,

    I think there are a couple problems and they are interrelated. I think the spending on “deed ministry” as opposed to “word ministry” is unbalanced, especially considering the nature of “deed ministry.”

    Similarly, I think that government funding for “deed ministry” throws into question to what extent it is to be considered “ministry” at all (given the state’s interest in keeping things like that free from religious influence).

    I also there’s an important issue of ecclesiastical independence with regard to government funding (whether that’s a church/state issue, a sphere sovereignty question, or something else).

    And you going to Calvin isn’t a function of the institutional church in the same way that the work of CRWRC is. Perhaps the CRWRC (and the OSJHA for that matter) should spin off and become it’s own thing. Then, like the NCC or other “para” church organizations, it could take money from whomever it wanted.

  • Dan

    “I think there are a couple problems and they are interrelated. I think the spending on “deed ministry” as opposed to “word ministry” is unbalanced, especially considering the nature of “deed ministry.””

    Then say that (Matthew 5:37, James 5:12). That would actually be a legitimate point of concern (and a much better read). One that ought to be questioned. Don’t go off accusing the CRC of being someone else’s prank-monkey simply because it receives money from outside sources. Aside from the accusation being ridiculous, by doing that it becomes quite apparent that you are blogging for shock-value instead of substance. Think about it, it took 4 comments to get to the real point behind your blog. Blog the point, not the punchline. I think Lord Acton would expect better than that.

  • http://blog.acton.org/ Jordan

    Thanks for the blogging advice. I’ll take it under advisement.