Pastor Bob Campbell, of Tully Memorial Presbyterian in Sharon Hill, PA, has posted, on his blog, some questions and comments he is asking about both the FOG report, COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE NEW FORM OF GOVERNMENT , and the Foundation of Presbyterian Polity report, COMMENTS ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF PRESBYTERIAN POLITY .
I think Bob has some well thought out questions and comments and so I have linked to them and posted some of them here.
Some comments and questions on the former are:
"G-1.0101: “All the gifts of the gospel necessary to being the church are present to the congregation.” This sentence would be clearer if it said . . . present in the congregation.
Old G-5.0103 new G-1.0302: I think the deletion of this: “No persons shall be denied membership because of race, ethnic origin, worldly condition” is a mistake. I think our racism is still with us and needs to be stated directly rather than indirectly.
New G-1.04: I think the removal of the category of inactive members is a missiological mistake. Granted too few congregations reach out to inactive members but it is an important ministry that should be revived rather than abandoned.
New G-3.0107: “Presbyteries may apportion requested funds to sessions within their bounds.” Does this mean that presbyteries may require sessions to pay particular amounts to the presbytery? Since we have eliminated per capita apportionments, what does apportion mean in this context?"
Some comments on the latter are:
1.0202 Why exchange the word “Kingdom” for “new reality? Isn’t Kingdom more Biblical?
1.01 Why leave out the clause about the resurrection? The current FoG 1.0100 is a clear quote from Scripture. Why change it?"
2 comments:
we're having a series of presbytery discussion on FoG this week. I ran across Bob's thoughts recently and will take them with me. I have serious reservations about this work- not the sincerity of the folks doing it- but the end result leaves me very concerned re: the unintended consequences, and it seems to concentrate power away from sessions towards presbyteries.
Thanks for posting this..
dm
Hi Dave,
Bob wrote to me, "Mark Tammen was here last night and when I asked this question:
1.01 Why leave out the clause about the resurrection? The current FoG 1.0100 is a clear quote from Scripture. Why change it?
"I was told that Bob Davis had already called or emailed and the Task Force said they made a mistake. They are returning the whole quote from Colossians."
So that part is good.
I agree with you about the "unintended consequences" and concentrating "power away from sessions toward presbyteries"
Bob Davis is offering a complete breakdown of FOG. I think it is filled with serious problems. And I am glad that there are people, like Bob Campbell and Bob Davis who are good at taking it piece by piece and analyzing it.
Post a Comment