Parliamentary Procedure (?)

I know this is going to sound horrendously wonky, and may make it sound like I'm against what the GS did, but it seems to me that revisiting R-59 (regarding the study of white privilege in the processes and procedures of GSC) was not parliamentarily cricket.  (I'm in FAVOR of the ultimate resolution!)

The problem is -- the Synod had voted, and moved on, to other business.  The action having been taken, it was done.  If the Synod wanted to reconsider its original action, then someone who had voted on the prevailing side in the original action would have had to move to reconsider, and then that would have had to be voted on prior to a re-vote on (presumably an amended) R-59.

Why does this matter?  Because, while 3 people did get up and say they were in favor of the intent of R-59 but opposed for technical reasons, the body really has no way to know why the rest of the house voted as it did.  Maybe people had the same reasons.  Maybe not.  It's just not possible to say.

Again -- I did mention that I am IN FAVOR of what ultimately happened -- but we have to be careful that stuff like this doesn't happen, because once the house speaks, it speaks.  There are ways to go backward, but this doesn't seem to me to be one of them. 

At least that's my opinion.  I'd be more than happy to be corrected by a more able parliamentarian than I.

Memorial Day, et. al.

This weekend is Memorial Day weekend in the US.  Thus there are parades, remembrances, sales, etc., commemorating (or capitalizing) on the memories of those who have given their lives in service to the nation.  It is a civic holiday.  It is also probably the holiday that brings puts the reality of civil religion right out there for all to see.

I wonder -- what happens (or doesn't) in your congregations to mark the day?  Why, or why not?

Disclosure:  this is what we do --

the service begins as usual, declaring that our help is in the name of the Lord... reading the Psalm of the day (or at least excerpts from it), and singing a hymn.   Then, we have a brief service of remembrance, modeled on a portion of the Book of Common Order of the Scottish Presbyterian Church: a remembrance (something like a declaration of purpose), the tryst ('they shall not grow old as we that are left grow old..'), silence, and singing "O Beautiful for Spacious Skies", because it is a prayer offered to God, and not a song to the nation itself.

It took me a while to overcome the the rather anabaptist leanings I imbibed during seminary.  My practice has been informed by the Belgic Confession, section 36, part of which I quote:

Moreover everyone,
regardless of status, condition, or rank,
must be subject to the government,
and pay taxes,
and hold its representatives in honor and respect,
and obey them in all things that are not in conflict
with God's Word,
praying for them
that the Lord may be willing to lead them
in all their ways
and that we may live a peaceful and quiet life
in all piety and decency.

and Our Song of Hope, one article of which I quote here:

We pray for the fruits of the Spirit of Christ
who works for peace on earth,
commands us to love our enemies,
and calls for patience among the nations.
We give thanks for God's work among governments,
seeking to resolve disputes by means other than war,
placing human kindness above national pride,
replacing the curse of war with international self-control.

Any thoughts, folks?  

Whence "Reformed"?

Recent discussions with a colleague have surfaced the following question:

Whence the term "Reformed"?

I'm not asking what you think "reformed" means.  I could say "reformed according to the Word of God," which is the standard answer we give people when they ask what reformed means.

But what I'm asking is if anyone out there has a quick answer to where the term came from.

How far back does it go?

Is it something we chose to describe ourselves, or did others choose the name, which we only eventually adopted?

Is it originally from Switzerland, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands?

I can find hints in my minuscule library, but nothing solid.

The OED says this:

1563 FOXE  A. & M. To Persecutors, In Countries . . and Churches reformed, your errours and superstitious vanities bee so blotted out [etc.]  Ibid. In these reformed dayes.

1588 FREGEVILLE Reformed Politicke Ded. A ij, so it is that the Reformed Princes haue bene sclandered by the Pope.  Ibid. 73 The Reformed Church began by poore men.

1646 EVELYN Diary (Geneva), the French Protestants would make no scruple to submitt to it. ., had they a King of the Reform'd Religion.  

1727-1741 CHAMBERS Cycl s.v. Church, The Reformed Church is again divided into the Lutheran Church, the Calvinist Church, the Church of England, &c.

1772 T. WARTON Sir. T. Pope 150 The English reformed clergy, who . . had fled into Germany, now returned in great numbers. 

1841 Penny Cycl. XIX. 355/1 Many of the followers of the Reformed doctrines suffered death.  

1894 EARLE Psalter Gt. Bible Introd. 63 The original hymns of the Lutheran worship constituted a feature which distinguished it from that of the Calvinistic or 'Reformed' branch of the continental Protestants.

So -- from way back, people were using "reformed" as if it meant something.

Have any clues?

Does Anyone Get Worked Up About the Poor?

It's pretty easy to document the amount of space devoted to the miasma of issues surrounding homosexuality.  Actually, I'm not sure the issue is homosexuality at all -- the pushes and pulls over the plethora of issues seem to me to be proxy arguments for questions of a) biblical interpretation and b) the nature of the biblical narrative itself.

I might have my count wrong, but as I read the Bible, there are five (more or less) passages that deal with homosexual behavior (none, that I can recall, deal with orientation).  Perhaps it's not fair to go all dominical at this site, but Jesus is not recorded to have mentioned either homosexual orientation or behavior (note: it is important to have at least a scintilla of sensitivity regarding what 'homosexuality' meant then in contrast with what it's come to mean now), nor for that matter does he detail a careful strategy for biblical interpretation, to say nothing of what he believed about the nature of the written Word.

Seems we do get mighty exercised over some fairly marginal stuff.  I get that for many the arguments are about how best to love our neighbors.  I get that for many the arguments are about the need for humility before the written Word (i.e., we don't have the option to accept what God calls sinful -- the very point that is, by the way, at issue in arguments over interpretation!).  I get that for many the point is that the church's approach to homosexual behavior is the elephant's nose in the door, and if the elephant gets in he'll squash the reliability of Scripture itself.  At least I think I get that.  In order to agree with these arguments, one must buy their assumptions, but regardless of whether you agree on first principles, I think all Christians should agree that loving your neighbor , and humility, and the trustworthiness of God are really, really important.

Here's what makes me go "hmmmmm."  Depending on whose count you're going by, there are as few as 100+ passages, or as many as 300+ passages about how the people of God ought to address the needs of the poor. 

Can someone tell me why we don't get worked up about this?

It's not that "how the church approaches the poor" and "how the church approaches people who engage in homosexual behavior" are parallel questions.  "Poor" does not equal "homosexual behavior", for a whole host of reasons.

The question is this --  if one takes an approach to the Scriptures whereby all homosexual behavior is outside God's favor, then would one not as vigorously prosecute the church for any and all behaviors that neglect, or oppress, or perpetuate the plight of, the poor?  Isn't the church outside God's favor to the extent that it whittles away at fine points of dogma while the kids from the local trailer park are endlessly derided and told that they're trash, every day they go to school? 

I could go on with example after example, but I hope my question is clear:  Why does the church's approach to homosexuality get so much cyberink, relative to the actual ink on the pages of the Bible, while the church's approach to the poor gets virtually    n  o  t  h  i  n  g?  

A Covenant for Civility

I came across this at sojo.net and thought it a wonderful statement of how we can live together and maintain civility in an increasingly polarized environment -- polarized in both church and in wider society. (Go to the link if you want the list of signers.)  How many blogrollers can agree? 

Come Let Us Reason Together

How good and pleasant it is when the people of God live together in unity.—Psalm 133:1

As Christian pastors and leaders with diverse theological and political beliefs, we have come together to make this covenant with each other, and to commend it to the church, faith-based organizations, and individuals, so that together we can contribute to a more civil national discourse. The church in the United States can offer a message of hope and reconciliation to a nation that is deeply divided by political and cultural differences. Too often, however, we have reflected the political divisions of our culture rather than the unity we have in the body of Christ. We come together to urge those who claim the name of Christ to “ put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you” (Ephesians 4:31-32).

1) We commit that our dialogue with each other will reflect the spirit of the Scriptures, where our posture toward each other is to be “quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry” (James 1:19).

2) We believe that each of us, and our fellow human beings, are created in the image of God. The respect we owe to God should be reflected in the honor and respect we show to each other in our common humanity, particularly in how we speak to each other. “With the tongue we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God …. this ought not to be so” (James 3:9, 10).

3) We pledge that when we disagree, we will do so respectfully, without impugning the other’s motives, attacking the other’s character, or questioning the other’s faith, and recognizing in humility that in our limited, human opinions, “we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror” (1 Corinthians 13:12). We will therefore “be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love” (Ephesians 4:2).

4) We will ever be mindful of the language we use in expressing our disagreements, being neither arrogant nor boastful in our beliefs: “Before destruction one’s heart is haughty, but humility goes before honor” (Proverbs 18:12).

5) We recognize that we cannot function together as citizens of the same community, whether local or national, unless we are mindful of how we treat each other in pursuit of the common good in the common life we share together. Each of us must therefore “put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body” (Ephesians 4:25).

6) We commit to pray for our political leaders—those with whom we may agree, as well as those with whom we may disagree. “I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made … for kings and all who are in high positions” (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

7) We believe that it is more difficult to hate others, even our adversaries and our enemies, when we are praying for them. We commit to pray for each other, those with whom we agree and those with whom we may disagree, so that together we may strive to be faithful witnesses to our Lord, who prayed “ that they may be one” (John 17:22).

We pledge to God and to each other that we will lead by example in a country where civil discourse seems to have broken down. We will work to model a better way in how we treat each other in our many faith communities, even across religious and political lines. We will strive to create in our congregations safe and sacred spaces for common prayer and community discussion as we come together to seek God’s will for our nation and our world.