See the article from Bob Munday making the point that there are now two religions calling themselves Christian, and we have to choose which one we will be part of.
I think I agree with him. At the very least, the issues at stake are at least as important as the Greek/Latin split and the Reformation, if not more so.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Saturday, December 3, 2011
God's Economic Justice Interlude
Hans Cornfelder, Editor of Presbyweb, published a Viewpoint article which made reference to many, though by no means all, of the Scriptures I plan on addressing in this series.
I would add this observation about the First Century Jerusalem Church. Among those churches described in the New Testament, only the Jerusalem Church is described as "holding all things in common." And it only for the Jerusalem Church for which Paul needs to collect money.
Lastly, in this season of Thanksgiving and Advent, I would quote from our Calvinist predecessor William Bradford's diary Of Plymouth Plantation:
"[Thy Plymouth colony initially held all land and crops in common. Harvests were poor and there was great hunger among the colonists.] All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor . . . gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves . . . And so assigned to every family a parcel of land . . . This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means . . . The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."
"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours and victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat . . . etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery . . . Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitting for them."
I would add this observation about the First Century Jerusalem Church. Among those churches described in the New Testament, only the Jerusalem Church is described as "holding all things in common." And it only for the Jerusalem Church for which Paul needs to collect money.
Lastly, in this season of Thanksgiving and Advent, I would quote from our Calvinist predecessor William Bradford's diary Of Plymouth Plantation:
"[Thy Plymouth colony initially held all land and crops in common. Harvests were poor and there was great hunger among the colonists.] All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor . . . gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves . . . And so assigned to every family a parcel of land . . . This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means . . . The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."
"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours and victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat . . . etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery . . . Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitting for them."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)