It would appear that the group Presbyterian Voices for Justice doesn't fully trust people to make up their own minds or use their own judgement when it comes to how to vote ate the General Assembly.
It seems that;
"We will have a helpful General Assembly issue out in plenty of time that will tell you exactly how to vote on each overture."
I'm guessing that they'd rather have lemmings who just vote the way they are told and don't bother with any of that pesky thinking for themselves.
When I see stuff like this I rejoice that my congregation has ransomed itself away from the PCUSA and that we do not have to deal with this kind of brainwashing.
I've said for a while that the progressive/atheist wing of the denomination will eventually succeed in running out all of those who oppose their agenda and will be left with a top heavy shell of a denomination without enough members to support the overhead of a national organization. I have no idea how long it will take, and I realize the ransoms they are getting from congregations who leave (totaling tens of millions of dollars) will allow the shell of a denomination to appear viable longer than the flood of membership losses would seem to indicate.
I wish them well and hope that after they destroy a once significant denomination, that they will stay away from the ones they ran the rest of us off to. Y'all got what you wanted, a denomination to play with, enjoy it while it lasts.
34 comments:
Just for the sake of clarification, are you suggesting the churches not make voting suggestions to their congregants? I think there may be many who look to their pastors and church leaders for guidance in these matters. I would hope that they provide Biblical support for their political suggestions, but short of that, I have no objections whatsoever. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is well within the duty of our ministers to make a case for or against any given candidate, party or proposal if they feel so moved, if not as a matter of course. Am I understanding you correctly?
I don't have a problem with church leaders addressing issues and how they feel about them. I agree with the IRS restrictions (which democrats wees to ignore frequently) against advocating for specific candidates.
In this case, since we are talking about a church government vote, things are different. What I object to is the blatant "We're going to tell you how to vote" message being sent.
Call me strange, but I feel like we live in a place where we have the right and ability to vote our consensus that any attempt to do so is wrong. I may not agree with the position or person being voted for, but I believe strongly in peoples right to vote as they choose.
Is there any context for that quote?
I know nothing about this, but most progressives I know fully support egalitarian, all voices count sorts of systems. I have never met a Christian progressive who'd encourage lemming-like "Do as we say" sorts of messages. That is more of a trait of the sort of fundamentalism that progressive eschew.
So, any context?
I'd be willing to bet that if you actually asked the source if they meant that they want people to vote like thoughtless lemmings, they will tell you that you have misunderstood their intent. You think that is possible?
In trying to find your source for your quote, I cam across a link to this pdf from your John Schuck friend...
http://www.pv4j.org/network-news/network-news-winter-2016.pdf
...that doesn't say anything about pushing people to mindlessly vote in agreement, but there is some of the Marrakesh-like call for Christians to be open-minded about science and support the notion of the Gospel as it relates to good news to the poor, the marginalized, the foreigner. Good stuff. Like this...
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator.
Good stuff. Hard to argue with. And indeed, using critical thought and our God-given reasoning would argue in favor of NOT being lemmings, but fully rational people. Perhaps you misunderstood?
"So, any context?"
"Here is the Winter issue of the Network News published by Presbyterian Voices for Justice. We will have a helpful General Assembly issue out in plenty of time that will tell you EXACTLY HOW TO VOTE on each overture."
That's the entire paragraph.
Dan, can I make a polite and respectful suggestion. Please stop throwing anonymous generalities as if they are representative. It does no good at all, it's not helpful, and it damages your credibility. You and your small group of friends do not represent all of progressive thought, for all anyone knows you all don't even represent a reasonable cross section. So please, just stop.
We have a specific instance of a specific person speaking for a specific group about a specific agenda, for a specific General Assembly, for a specific denomination. Your anonymous generalization hardly seems relevant. The specific quote is accurate and in context. It is written in clear, simple, declarative language. It was written by s person who writes and speaks for a living and as such is unlikely to carelessly use words.
I know you don't like to admit that there are Progressive Christians who are more extreme than you and your little church, but there are. As long as you continue to claim the "Progressive Christian" mantle (or however you want to put those terms together), you are associating yourself with folks like this.
Of course you find it hard to argue with an atheist, that doesn't surprise me in the least. Thanks for giving us a glimpse of your true colors.
so answer the question directly, Craig. Do you really think whoever wrote this actually believes that it is good to act like a lemming, brainlessly following orders?
For instance, you made an assumption, you made an assertion, about what I am trying to do... that I am speaking for all progressives. of course, progressives are a spectrum. I am NOT speaking for all progressives. Your assumption is mistaken.
Nonetheless, I do not for one second believe that you have one ounce of data to suggest that this is anything like the norm, or indeed that this fella even believes what you are assuming and suggesting he believes.
Can you support your claim, or do you allow that you are almost certainly mistaken?
Can I make a polite and respectful suggestion? Quit assuming that because you read one line in someone's writing, in an ancient text, in the Bible, etc and think that you are able to draw accurate conclusions about what the author meant. You has an impressive record of being demonstrably mistaken.
Can I make a polite and respectful suggestion? Quit assuming that because you read one line in someone's writing, in an ancient text, in the Bible, etc and think that you are able to draw accurate conclusions about what the author meant. You has an impressive record of being demonstrably mistaken.
One final point. While I know firsthand some fundamentalist types of teachers and people who would like for people to follow their teaching like lemmings, I would not extrapolate from the that most or even many conservatives would want that. It's just an irrational conclusion.
"so answer the question directly, Craig. Do you really think whoever wrote this actually believes that it is good to act like a lemming, brainlessly following orders?"
I believe that I will take him at his word. What else should I do?
Recognize that you have misinterpreted him as you so often misinterpret me as you, no doubt, misinterpret biblical authors intent. you have a habit, a demonstrable record, of misunderstanding people's actual words. As I have suggested, you should, if you think mr.smith believes X, assume that he believes not x.
look, there's some conclusions that are so stupid on the face of it you should assume if you hold that position that you have made a mistake. Those who say that Obama, or bush, or Reagan, or Liberals, hate America, want to destroy America, etc, they have clearly made a mistake. It is not a rational conclusion. It is beyond rational belief.
I know nothing about John schuck however I am willing to bet you have almost certainly drawn a false conclusion for exactly the reasons I offer above. it strains credibility.
I actually said that you were speaking of how your assumptions about a general anonymous group somehow apply to a specific situation.
"Can you support your claim, or do you allow that you are almost certainly mistaken?"
I can only react to the standard English meanings of the actual words he chose to use. I see no reason to stray beyond that, in to trying to make assumptions about things I don't know. He said what he said, I take him at his word.
"Quit assuming that because you read one line in someone's writing, in an ancient text, in the Bible, etc and think that you are able to draw accurate conclusions about what the author meant."
Are you suggesting that you have some mystical knowledge that he meant something other than what he said? Are you suggesting that I should make assumptions about what was meant? Are you saying that he was using the words he used in some non standard manner? Are you suggesting that his direct quote means something other than the normal standard English usage of the words?
"You has an impressive record of being demonstrably mistaken."
So now we know this is the go to excuse. It's not original nor particularly accurate.
" I would not extrapolate from the that most or even many conservatives would want that. It's just an irrational conclusion."
Again, it's fine for you to nake that assumption,
"make"
While I would never insist that it isn't possible that I might be mistaken on some point, with regard to specific Biblical issues commonly discussed with Dan, he has never failed to demonstrate that I might be. Instead, he defaults to the fact that it is possible, as if that implies that I might be with regard to the specific subject at hand.
As it refers to his positions, it is more than possible there, but only as a consequence of his apparent difficulty in articulating his position in a manner that prevents any wrong conclusion about his position.
Just thought I'd clarify that for all interested.
Dan,
Your presumed ability at interpretation of what you presume to be others interpretations is just amazing. I cannot help but to be impressed.
I'm just taking the man at his word. Just like I do for you.
You are right, that to come to a conclusion based on something other than reality is a bad move. You should know, you do it often enough.
Craig,
For the record, I have no problem with pastors preaching against specific candidates, and the IRS is wrong for daring to prohibit the free speech rights of pastors under threat of lifting tax exempt status. It is a clear violation against the 1st Amendment, and instituted by Democrats who could not persuade ministers that their positions were worthy of the support of Christians. It is no more than, "Shut up or else". Totally unAmerican.
Are you suggesting that you have some mystical knowledge that he meant something other than what he said? Are you suggesting that I should make assumptions about what was meant? Are you saying that he was using the words he used in some non standard manner? Are you suggesting that his direct quote means something other than the normal standard English usage of the words?
I am saying, for a fact, you almost certainly have misunderstood him. I am saying that if you asked him to clarify, "By this, did you mean people should mindless vote the way you're telling them to vote?" he would say, "Good, God, no."
It has nothing to do with mystical knowledge. It's all about being a reasonable adult. People who say "Obama/Bush/Liberals hate America" are wrong. It doesn't take mind-reading to know that. Why are they wrong? Because if you read something that is hard to believe and conclude, "This is a rather hard to believe claim, but it must be true, because that is how it seems to me...," you are concluding something that is less than rational. The BETTER CHANCE of the matter is that, "I'm almost certainly misreading this."
You will note that when Stan made a statement that seemed as if he were longing for the days of burning heretics at the stake, my response was NOT "OMG, Stan wants to burn people at the stake!" but, "WTF? What in the world did you mean by this, surely not you want to burn people at the stake, but what then?"
Or when you read my "I got no answer" and conclude that "he's got no answers" even with a direct quote, you concluded wrongly. If an answer seems hard to believe, you almost certainly should not believe it. ESPECIALLY when it is a slanderous view of someone you consider to be an "enemy."
So, I ask you again, do you SERIOUSLY think he means what you are suggesting he means? Or is this just your way of giving grief to someone you disagree with? I certainly understand the latter, but not when your own credibility is at stake.
That is, if you are unable to recognize so obvious a false claim on your own part, you become less credible, and it becomes difficult for people to take anything you say seriously.
Art,
In theory I agree with you, but once a church accepts tax exempt status they are choosing to place themselves under certain restrictions and limits in return for tax exempt status. If a church wants to opt out, then I have no problem with whatever a pastor chooses to say abut any political issue or candidate. However, if one freely and knowingly accepts the benefit of exemption from tax, then one must keep their word and abide by the agreement that was made. If this was a government mandate instead of an agreement in which both sides know the terms before entering into it, the you would have a point. I see this as much about personal integrity than anything else.
"I am saying, for a fact, you almost certainly have misunderstood him."
I am saying for a fact that he wrote what he wrote. If he meant something else that's his problem not mine.
As long as all you have is that you just assume that everyone is wrong and unable to understand simple clear English grammar, that's fine. But you have to realize how divorced from reality you sound. Your increasing use of "You don't understand me" and the constant blame of others for virtually every thing, your attacks based on knee jerk assumptions, your inability to admit certain facts that are empirically demonstrable while insisting that your contra factual claims are true, makes me seriously wonder if you might be suffering from some sort of paranoia or something.
I'm not making a claim or stating a fact, I'm just suggesting that it's just not realistic and healthy to constantly blame others for everything and refuse to acknowledge what is right there in black and white.
I'm not going to delete you, these comments are simply a gold mine of quotes that will come back to haunt you in the future, but if I were you. I'd seriously consider backing way down and thinking about what you are saying,
"...tell you exactly how to vote on each overture."
These are all very simple unambiguous words arranged in a simple straightforward easy to understand English language sentence.
Please feel free to offer some alternative interpretation that makes more sense than the plain meaning.
One last thought. If Shuck wants to edit his post and insert other language (an acknowledgement that the original wording left something do be desired would be nice), then I will gladly remove this post and replace it with something positive about his willingness to clarify his position.
But beyond that I am not obligated to do anything other than to respond to what people say, it's not my job to hunt down someone else's intentions.
I actually wrote a post about how I responded to a similar situation. I took responsibility for my poor job of communicating. I know it's a radical concept, but it seems right to me.
These are all very simple unambiguous words arranged in a simple straightforward easy to understand English language sentence.
Please feel free to offer some alternative interpretation that makes more sense than the plain meaning.
Easy. Again, I know nothing about this guy or this source, but let's assume this is going out to be people who agree with him/want to hear his opinion. Here, he says, is how you can vote if you agree with me and my thinking... can reasonably be implied. Again, I'd be willing to bet $100 to the candidate of your choice if you are actually correct and he actually meant that he doesn't want people to think for themselves. You are flat out wrong and not only wrong, you are slandering and bearing false witness by your accusations.
IF you are mistaken in your interpretation (and you are, Craig, really, you are), you would agree, wouldn't you, that this is false witness and slander? Because in our culture, people voting their will is highly valued and those who'd deny that, well, that would be scandalous and awful if someone were actually advocating that.
That is, you are staking a claim then that this man is scandalous and awful, that he holds reprehensible views and you are broadcasting it to the world. IF YOU ARE MISTAKEN (and you are), you are engaging in slander. The Bible tells us that slander is NOT part of the realm of God. Does that not worry you in the slightest? Do you feel no compunction to verify your claim before you make it?
Have you no decency?
beyond that I am not obligated to do anything other than to respond to what people say, it's not my job to hunt down someone else's intentions.
Not your brother's keeper, eh? That claim didn't work so well for Cain. IF you are going to make a claim that somebody holds an EVIL position, you damned well verify, because if you don't, YOU ARE ENGAGING IN SLANDER, in behavior that is not part of the realm of God.
Have you no decency? No sense of humility?
Pride goeth before a fall, Craig. Back down.
Craig,
I could be wrong about this, and I will be researching it as time allows, but I do not believe it is a matter of ANY church "accepting" tax exempt status. They were never taxed in the history of this country to my knowledge. They were never considered for taxation to my knowledge. All I know with certainty is that during the 50's while LBJ was a senator, he got the IRS to establish this self-serving rule that was never "a part of the deal", so to speak, and he did so because some ministers were known to preach against support for certain Dem candidates whose positions were contrary to Christian teaching. Imagine how few Dems would support abortion and the homosexual agenda if preachers weren't afraid to speak directly about candidates who do!
More to come on this question. Sorry that it might be a bit off topic.
"Here, he says, is how you can vote if you agree with me and my thinking... can reasonably be implied."
You are free to infer anything you want, the fact is that his literal words do not support your inference.
The problem you have on this one is that you are arguing (as you admit) from ignorance. I've read thousands of posts articles and sermons by this guy and have had multiple conversations with him and others who agree with him. The fact is that he is intentionally provocative and enjoys the notoriety he gets for his stances. I get that you found one out of context quote that you agree with, great, but I'd be shocked of you agree with him on things like the existence of God and the historical Jesus. I'm sorry to bring this up but he's one of yours. He is a self identified Progressive christian just as you are. I'm sure you don't line up 100%, but you logically can't lump every single person in the GOP in with Trump supporters and make broad sweeping generalizations about them and their views, while picking and choosing who you count on your side of things. You can't extrapolate what you and your small group of friends believe out any further than that group. You've been trying to do it for years and it's just ridiculous.
"You are flat out wrong and not only wrong, you are slandering and bearing false witness by your accusations."
So, your response to that is to "bear false witness", you admit you can only infer what you think he might mean (as long as that inference helps you), yet all I am doing is taking the plain meaning of the text at face value. I have not slandered or borne false witness. I have allowed his words to speak for themselves.
This constant string of "your wrong" (even though I can't/won't prove it, my assertion is enough), "your lying/slandering", whatever the excuse is getting old.
If you don't have evidence, if you don't have an actual counter argument or rebuttal, if you can't live in the reality of the situation, if you don't have anything original to say then why bother with the same old tired false crap?
"You are flat out wrong..." or "IF you are mistaken in your interpretation..."
If you are willing to contradict yourself within two consecutive paragraphs, maybe the problem is not me.
"Because in our culture, people voting their will is highly valued and those who'd deny that, well, that would be scandalous and awful if someone were actually advocating that."
Of course, the problem is that when someone says:
"...tell you exactly how to vote on each overture."
That pretty much sounds like advocating for telling people to vote in a certain way.
"That is, you are staking a claim then that this man is scandalous and awful, that he holds reprehensible views and you are broadcasting it to the world. IF YOU ARE MISTAKEN (and you are), you are engaging in slander."
Oh good Lord. Hell yes that man holds views that I consider reprehensible. He glories in those views. He publicizes those views.
This little gem isn't even close to reprehensible. This is simply ironic. It's amusing. It's stupid. Reprehensible not even close.
"IF YOU ARE MISTAKEN"
How can copy/pasting the actual words and using standard English grammar and syntax lead to a mistake? Again, this is your opinion, not a fact.
"(and you are), you are engaging in slander."
If I'm simply mistaken, then all it would take for me to correct my mistake is proof that I am mistaken. Absent proof, that I care little for your endless repetition of the same baseless charges. Of course, accusing someone of slander without actual definitive proof of slander seems like it might just be slander as well.
"Does that not worry you in the slightest?"
Not in the least. I do not worry one bit whether you think I am not in the Kingdom of God. Mainly because you're not God, nor do you speak for Him.
"Do you feel no compunction to verify your claim before you make it?"
No. Are you really suggesting that every time you quote Stan out of context in one of your "Stan's being mean to me." screeds, that you contact Stan and verify every single quote you use. I call bullshit.
"Have you no decency?"
I have plenty thanks. I appreciate the offer to share,but it looks like you don't have any to spare.
"Not your brother's keeper, eh?"
Well, I'm not sure in what sense he's my brother. But, in this case I see no reason to try to divine someones intentions or hidden meanings when I accurately quote them.
Again, when was the last time you verified Stan's intentions before you quote him?
"IF you are going to make a claim that somebody holds an EVIL position, you damned well verify, because if you don't, YOU ARE ENGAGING IN SLANDER, in behavior that is not part of the realm of God."
Are you really suggesting that copy/pasting someones exact quote is an EVIL position? Are you suggesting that telling people that we will "...tell you exactly how to vote on each overture.", is EVIL? Really? By what standard is saying we will "...tell you exactly how to vote on each overture." EVIL.
If these folks were engaged in something beyond hubris, say physically forcing people to vote a certain way, or tampering with ballots, then I guess you could stretch and call that EVIL. But simply announcing we will "tell you exactly how to vote." not even to evil. What a colossally stupid charge.
"Have you no decency?"
Have you not enough self control to wait until I answer this the first time you ask?
Have you not enough self control to only ask questions once?
Have you not get anything better to do that keep up with this crap?
"No sense of humility?"
If I say: "Yes I do have a sense of humility.", it sounds like I don't. If I say: "No, I don't have one single shred of humility in my entire body, and never have.", then I've just told a lie. So I guess I'd say that the bast way to get an accurate answer to that question would be to ask my family and close friends what they think. I'm not objective enough to give an appropriate answer. I do feel confident that you have absolutely no clue or any way to accurately even make a guess about my personal level of humility.
"Pride goeth before a fall, Craig. Back down."
This little gem is fascinating.
You have made numerous pronouncements about me and about my character over the last few comments, while I've simply accurately quoted someone. Yet, somehow that equates to me being overly proud.
Art,
Whatever the origin, the fact is that at this point in time if Churches want to continue their tax exempt status, they accept some limits on what can be said as part of the deal. I don't know if you've noticed, but there have been some churches that have given up their tax exempt status in order to be more vocal on issues.
Craig,
It is my understanding that no church has ever had their tax exempt status revoked for speaking politically from the pulpit. I'm unaware of any churches that have given up their tax exempt status in order to speak freely. Could you name any for me? I'd like to research it a bit and see the details.
I'd have to search as it's been a while since I heard it. It's also possible that I may have misheard as it's not something I intentionally paid specific attention to.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that churches shouldn't speak out from the pulpit, just that to the extent there are legal limits they should be aware and act accordingly. Obviously, ever campaign we see Democrats spending all kinds of time in black churches (Hilary even has a special fake accent she uses only in black churches [not patronizing or racist at all]). While most conservative Churches take a more hands off or evenhanded approach (voter guides for example).
Anyway, as long as Churches behave with integrity in terms of abiding by the tax code, I don't have much problem with it.
My non tax code concern is that pastors will (intentionally or not) attempt to use their influence in way that is manipulative or inappropriate.
"Is there any context for that quote?"
Yes, I provided it.
"So, any context?"
Still yes. You ask these as a part of the same comment as if somehow I could have ignored the first and responded before I got to the second one.
"You think that is possible?"
Anything is possible. It's possible that you will stop the excuse making and answer all of the questions you've been asked as well as respond to all of the other points that have been made. Possible, sure.
"Perhaps you misunderstood?"
Perhaps. Perhaps my native language is Urdu also. But really this is either rhetorical or a paraphrase of the question before. In either case, a waste of time.
"Do you really think whoever wrote this actually believes that it is good to act like a lemming, brainlessly following orders?"
I believe the author thinks that they know better how people should vote and is arrogant enough to say so in writing.
But, I'd suggest that given the most likely destination of the denomination on question (over a metaphorical cliff) that the lemming analogy works on at least 2 levels.
"Can you support your claim, or do you allow that you are almost certainly mistaken?"
Yes, and no.
"Can I make a polite and respectful suggestion?"
I notice that you didn't wait for permission to make your suggestion, so from that perspective, please go right ahead. I must point out that your capacity for politeness and respectfulness are legendary.
"I am saying, for a fact, you almost certainly have misunderstood him."
Not a question, but I'm just struck by how absurdly conflictingly stupid and presumption based this statement is.
"Or when you read my "I got no answer" and conclude that "he's got no answers" even with a direct quote, you concluded wrongly."
How convenient, you now think that you can say one thing then expect everyone to somehow conclude that you meant precisely the opposite of what you said, one wonders what anyone would write one thing while meaning the opposite.
"The Bible tells us that slander is NOT part of the realm of God. Does that not worry you in the slightest?"
No.
"Do you feel no compunction to verify your claim before you make it?"
I didn't make a claim, I copy/pasted a direct quote. I then expressed my opinion about the direct accurate quote I posted.
"Have you no decency?"
None, I frequently walk around places full of women and children wearing no pants. What a condescending stupid question. I answer them all no matter how stupid. that's the difference between us, you assume that you can know the motive of the question or decide it's not worth answering so you ignore it. I answer yours no matter how stupid that are.
Not your brother's keeper, eh?
I'm not sure in what sense we're talking about anyone's brother, but I see no reason why I have a responsibility to keep him or you from saying stupid things.
"Have you no decency?"
Still no pants either.
"No sense of humility?"
If I say: "Yes I do have a sense of humility.", it sounds like I don't. If I say: "No, I don't have one single shred of humility in my entire body, and never have.", then I've just told a lie. So I guess I'd say that the bast way to get an accurate answer to that question would be to ask my family and close friends what they think. I'm not objective enough to give an appropriate answer. I do feel confident that you have absolutely no clue or any way to accurately even make a guess about my personal level of humility.
There we go, one more thread with EVERY SINGLE (EXPLETIVE DELETED)ING QUESTION ANSWERED.
Post a Comment