The GA Junkie: Recent Comments

Comment on PresbyLimpic Events over at QG

Quotidian Grace — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:56:22 GMT

Thanks for the shout-out, Steve! I love the creative ideas the commenters are contributing!

Comment on The Church -- Integrated Not Institutional?

Demesne Lord — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:29:39 GMT

Indeed, it does help. I don't disagree that the Jewish Law was meant to be as broad and all-encompassing as you say. I don't even dispute that Christianity can be applied that way, nor do I have a problem with the notion that it should be applied that way.

My only question was related to whether equality of incomes is the correct Biblical standard. There are certainly alot of economic issues on which the Bible takes a firm stand: wealth for its own sake, covetousness, greed, cheating in business, mixing religion and commerce, charity, poverty, social justice, etc.

I just don't happen to think that income leveling is one of those, and I haven't seen any Scriptural basis for it. The Bible may have said "let there be no poor among you", but it certainly never said "let there be no rich among you"! Moreover, there is no way to get rid of the rich without sacrificing other Biblical principles that we also cherish: personal responsibility, reward for hard work, individual freedom, and the pursuit of happiness (an unalienable right we have long held to have been endowed upon us by our Creator).

I see no basis for saying that "equitable" means the elimination of the rich along with the poor. That isn't equitable. Some people are always going to be wiser, luckier, and/or more industrious (and therefore more prosperous) than those who, for their own reasons, make bad choices that keep them impoverished.

In any case, sometimes the poor cannot be helped. Christianity (or Jewish Law) does not offer a solution to the problem of the drug-addict who simply chooses to remain addicted and unable to work. Giving him money to make him less poor doesn't strike me as a good strategy. As long as he chooses to put whatever money he has up his nose, even the Church cannot change his circumstances. That isn't systemic, that is God allowing us the free will to fail. Until the Lord returns, we are always going to have those among us who choose to be disobedient and therefore are not blessed as richly.

The verse you cite merely says that there SHOULD BE no poor, since obedience to God will give you all you need. The necessary corrolary to that is that those who are disobedient will be the poorer for it. No system can fix that. It is as God ordained it.

Comment on The Church -- Integrated Not Institutional?

Steve — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:39:25 GMT

Hi Demesne,
Thank you for your comment. I can see what you are saying based upon the history of the Hebrew people as described in the Old Testament and you are correct.

But the section that you quote is pretty much what I meant to say although maybe I should have written "no extremes of rich or poor." You are correct that through providence, hard work, luck, cooperation, any number of reasons, some individuals will prosper and some won't.

My distinction is in the next paragraph where I write that ancient Israel was "intended to be a complete system."

This was a brief post and I really did not develop Rev. Linthicum's viewpoint on the Old Testament to do it justice. But it is centered on the Law in the Pentateuch and the regulations that include caring for the poor and the systems that it describes for prevention of accumulating wealth at others expense and redistributing the wealth in the cancellation of debts and in the return of land in the Year of Jubilee. And I say "intended" because the people had the Law and did not follow some of these provisions almost from the start, resulting in some of the extremes you point out. For the next 1500 years, or longer, the prophets were calling them back to obedience. But here is the intent, as set out in Deut. 15:4,5:

However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today.

Again, this is brief and I am not doing his systematic approach to, and his viewpoint on, the Old Testament Law and systems justice. As I indicate in the original post, my personal understanding is somewhere between his and yours. My intent was not so much to lay out this understanding in a full way, but to point out that there are Christian scholars who see Christianity as a full system (inherited from the systems of ancient Israel) that includes all aspects of the culture and does not compartmentalize our spirituality to Sunday morning and Wednesday night.

I hope that helps.

Comment on The Church -- Integrated Not Institutional?

Demesne Lord — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:05:06 GMT

"there are no rich or poor but a culture that is equitable to everyone"

How is the elimination of rich and poor related to whether the culture is equitable? That a lazy person becomes poor while an industrious person becomes rich doesn't strike me an inequitable or unBiblical. Didn't God Himself bless David with riches as a reward for obedience and a sign of divine favor? Didn't God make Solomon fabulously wealthy? Didn't God impoverish those with whom He was displeased?

To be sure, the Bible takes issue with wealth acquired for its own sake and hoarded. And the Bible deals with coveting the wealth of others. And the Bible deals with charity for those who have fallen on hard times. But none of that has anything to do with giving everyone equal incomes. Really, I think this was inartfully worded. Surely this wasn't what you meant to say, was it?

Comment on For All Have Sinned And Fall Short Of The Glory Of God

jim — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:23:45 GMT

As I wrote in a blog post earlier on this sort of thing:

Some have argued that ‘amendment b’ as it currently stands is about much more than homosexuality, that it really is about all ministers holding to a standard of sexual faithfulness. Now, in theory as one reads the amendment that may very well be the case, but in practice it’s simply not true. In my own experience, I was single, dating, engaged, and then married at various stages during my ordination process and no one dared or bothered to ask me about either my fidelity or chastity during any stage of that process. Surely if this was of concern and if someone cared enough, they would have asked me?

But then again, we never talk about such things...

Comment on PC Ireland Church Technology Camp Follow-up

Steve — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:22:27 GMT

Thanks Alan, the extra links add a lot to the experience all of you had.
Steve

Comment on PC Ireland Church Technology Camp Follow-up

Alan in Belfast — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:17:23 GMT

And you can check out the camp blog, photo tumblr blog, and leader-in-charge Ruth made a few comments on her blog too.

(Some animation clips still to upload to YouTube.)

Comment on Modern Echos of the Adopting Act of 1729

Steve — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:40:59 GMT

Hi Merilyn,
Thanks for your comment about the ecumenical delegates at GA.

Any denomination walks a fine line having ecumenical delegates from other traditions or faiths at their assemblies. While there may be partnerships in ministry as they both try to address the same needs, and there might be arguments for them as resources in discussions, care needs to be taken in their role in decision making. It is fair to neither them nor the commissioners to have them helping make decisions on theological or polity issues which are outside their background or perspective. This year in particular I was concerned about the high-profile presence of representatives of other faiths while at the same time the accusations were being made against our Reformed siblings in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

But interestingly, while your comment may not be as applicable to Part I of the book, it does have a significant tie-in to Part II. In 1801 the Presbyterians joined in ministry with the Congregationalists in a Plan of Union for their joint ministry in the Northeast. While it made for cooperation rather than competition in church planting throughout the region, it became a "thorn in the side" of those concerned with doctrinal identity and a stumbling block to both branches' polity. The Plan was dissolved leading up to the Old School/New School split of 1837.

Comment on Modern Echos of the Adopting Act of 1729

Toby Brown — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:26:09 GMT

I would posit that there IS something new in this, as what is not being advocated in the PC(USA) under the guise of local option in ordination standards is a debate over practices that are clearly, definitively condemned in the universal church's 2000 year-old reading of Scripture.

The old debates were similar in regards to methodologies being proposed certainly, but what we have now is a new thing--what once was never even up for question is now being questioned. Every other issue that Presbyterians have debated was never of such a level of universal Christian agreement.

What we are seeing now is a wholesale effort to redefine Christianity itself, as a faith. I'd say this is pretty new.

Comment on Modern Echos of the Adopting Act of 1729

Merilyn Vaughn — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 15:45:56 GMT

Steve -- This comment doesn't have so much to do with this particular post except that I clicked the PFR link and from there went to VOW and found a couple interesting articles by Sylvia Dooling, who was a commissioner at GA. The full article can be found at:
http://www.vow.org/viewpoints/opinions/08july25-sdooling-embarrassment.html

Below is pasted an excerpt:
"In San Jose, I became aware, as never before, that a cultural shift has taken place in the way in which we understand our relationship to the rest of the world’s religions. And the shift has happened without discussion or debate. In past Assemblies we have argued about the “sole, saving Lordship” of Jesus Christ. But, the organizers of this Assembly apparently think that the argument is over, and that “open mindedness” has carried the day.

"This, for example, was the first Assembly in my memory to include “Interfaith Guests” – representatives of other religions who were granted the privilege of the floor in committees as the commissioners did their work. These guests included a Rabbi, a representative of the Islamic Society of North America, and the executive assistant to the Bishop of the Buddhist Churches of America. Beyond that, the Buddhist was invited to speak during plenary, and concluded his remarks with a Buddhist prayer. I was stunned. But there were many commissioners who seemed to think that it was wonderful.

"This is a dramatic shift in the culture of our church – a change that would be unheard of even ten years ago, and a choice that speaks much louder than our creeds about what we really think when it comes to Jesus."

I, too, was stunned when the Buddhist gentleman spoke at GA and closed with a Buddhist prayer. I looked for your comment on it later and was disappointed that that was the evening that you took a long dinner break and had missed that portion of the business meeting. I myself was a little late and was somewhat gratified to realize, after some research, that he was not the one who opened with prayer, but was bringing ecumenical greetings. Still, this even goes beyond the action calling us, as Christians, to worship together with Jews and Muslims and claiming that we are worshiping the same common (yes, I know that phrase was taken out) God. What about Jesus? Isn't He the point of it all? We would be lost without Him, wouldn't we? How can we really worship together if they don't believe that Jesus is the author and perfecter of their faith, and the Way and the Truth and the Life, and that no one goes to the Father except through Him?

Anyway, I am curious as to your take on all that and the idea that we would invite someone from a completely separate faith with no hint of commonality to address the General Assembly.

Thanks for your astuteness and your willingness to share. The book sounds really good -- I need to understand Presbyterianism more than I do and that sounds like a good history lesson.

God's peace be with you.
--Merilyn Vaughn