PCA GA minority Report on Insider Movements - trying to find the full report

[Pergamum]

At here: Post-Mortem on the 41st General Assembly of the PCA

I read this:

Second, with regard to the “Insider Movements” (IM) report: the entire report was sent back to the committee for reworking. My hope is that whatever strengths were in the minority report can be worked into the majority report in such a way that the author of the minority report will be satisfied. I was pleased to see that the proposal to accept the whole thing—majority and minority reports together—was defeated. The minority report has some good intentions in giving practical direction to converts from Islam to Christianity who still live in a Muslim context. But it was seriously undermined by less than careful theological thinking and expression. It probably would have flown in the PC(USA). I was glad it did not fly in the PCA.

I would love to get a hold of that minority report presented so I can read it myself. Any thoughts?

 

[Scott1]

While certainly well intentioned, the (short) minority report was not really what the General Assembly asked for.
Not only were there some seriously questionable doctrinal assertions in it, but it was a distraction from the biblical theological purposes of the report.
We ought never pit practical against biblical.

With the best of intentions, that was the effect.

Unfortunately, yet we must say providentially, its promotion prevented the clarity and a great work from being received this year, anyway.

There was no good reason the majority report should not have been received. All seven men (including the one man minority who wrote the supplement) produced that majority report document.

 

[Pergamum]

I am wondering who the author was and if perhaps he was trained or schooled in an evangelical school of missions (i.e. contextualization brainwashing).

 

[Covenant Joel]

I would love to get a hold of that minority report presented so I can read it myself. Any thoughts?

The majority and minority are available here: http://byfaithonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2101-Ad-Interim-Rept-with-Minority-Report.pdf

Scott and I already began discussing it at this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f109/2013-pca-general-assembly-78789/#post1004620

I'd prefer the discussion to stay there because it's a members only forum.

I am wondering who the author was and if perhaps he was trained or schooled in an evangelical school of missions (i.e. contextualization brainwashing).

The author is Dr. Nabeel Jabbour, and he is a dear brother. He was not trained in any institution in the US, as he did seminary in the Middle East many years ago and did his PhD in Islamics from the University of South Africa on Islamic Fundamentalism in Egypt.

I have disagreements with his minority report and some of his approach in general to these questions. But he is one of the most godly men I know. When he teaches at seminaries around the US, his wife stays back at the room and prays for him the whole 8 hours he's teaching. I am blessed to have the opportunity to know them.

His approach arises from his own experience serving in Egypt for 15 years and being from the Middle East, not from any particular school of thought. He would not classify himself as an IM proponent, though his approach shares some of their concerns.

 

[Hamalas]

Here is the text of both reports: http://byfaithonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2101-Ad-Interim-Rept-with-Minority-Report.pdf I'd love to hear your thoughts.

The Minority report begins on page 165 by the way.

 

[Pergamum]

Hello Mods,

Scott and I already began discussing it at this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f109/201...9/#post1004620

I'd love to gain access to that thread (but don't seem to have permission at present).

Reading the reports now.

 

[Edward]

I'd love to gain access to that thread (but don't seem to have permission at present).

I don't, either.

My understanding is that one of the concerns with the minority report is the language at lines 26-27 on page 229.

 

[py3ak]

Edward; Pergamum:

You should be able to see the discussion now.

 

[Romans922]

While not addressed at GA, the whole of the minority report is of concern (not just a couple sentences).

 

[Pergamum]

I'd love to gain access to that thread (but don't seem to have permission at present).

I don't, either.

My understanding is that one of the concerns with the minority report is the language at lines 26-27 on page 229.

Are Allah of Muslims and Yahweh the same God? Yes, when the veil is lifted from their
27 eyes and Muslims see Him as the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I guess this situation is analogous to whether the Jesus Christ of Catholicism is the same as the one we believe. In my country of service, we use the name "Allah" as the generic name for God. But I would state that the Allah of the Muslims is NOT the same God as the God of our Bible, since ours exist in Trinity. I am not against translating "God" as "Allah" though since both are generic. At first glance, I am not too happy with the minority report.

 

[Pergamum]

I also notice that the report references the "C-Scale" - but I long for the days when we move beyond this scale as a flawed tool.

 

[Scott1]

I am not too happy with the minority report.

For good reason.

Remember, all seven men recommended receiving the majority report, including the one dissenter.

But six of the seven specifically did not recommend receiving the minority report. It creates confusion, rather than clarity. It presumes pitting pragamatism against Scripture- a false dichotomy in the first place.

Somehow, the situation is being used by some to claim that the lack of clarity in the supplement demands a re-write of the majority. Rather, the exact opposite- the majority needs to be adopted and the supplement re-written in line with clarity of Scripture, if that can be done at all.

 

[Edward]

Edward; Pergamum:

You should be able to see the discussion now.

Thanks.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I haven't spoken to all of the men on the Study Committee but did speak to one this past Sunday after Worship. He was on his way back from GA and worshiped with us. His view of the minority report was that it made some points that are worthy of consideration but not so much that he was unwilling to adopt the majority report. I'm not certain what parts he may have more or less agreed with in the minority report and have only scanned it so far.

That sentence in Attachment 4 is really strange. I even searched back into the minority report to determine if there was any reference to it that might shed more light on what he means. I read it over and over again. The only way I can reconcile what he means with what follows is that he's using the word "Muslim" in a different way here. He doesn't state, for instance, that the Allah of the Koran is the same as the Yahweh of the Scriptures. His qualifications within the sentence seem to say that they're the same after they understand God as He is revealed (i.e. they are regenerated and the veil is lifted from their eyes). Now I wouldn't call such a person a Muslim any more but he does.

Again, I need to read the whole minority report but some of the things he points out are worthy of thinking about. I don't know if the majority report doesn't mention them so I'll have to read that first.

Nevertheless, he points out in one story the process of transformation that one Muslim went from being devout (having a bruise on his forehead) and the fact that he still spoke and thought in "Muslim ways" to the point that even the local congregation of Christians he was part of didn't trust if he was a Christian. He eventually was "enculturated" in Christianity to the point that he changed his name and became, more externally, what we might expect of a Christian.

It's possible that he has this in mind because he points out how difficult it is to detangle "Muslim" from a culture that one grows up with. We have some sense of this from Romans 14 and Galatians where believing Jews were having trouble bridging that chasm and every party is enjoined to give some time for that work to occur. It's not an exact analogy but its apt. Sometimes, for instance, I don't understand how some continue to call themselves Jews when they are now Christians.

It's interesting how this relates to a conversation I had over a cigar with a Pastor from California on Wed night. He was of Indian descent but was second generation American so he had no discerible accent. Anyhow, he ministers in the Hollywood area and had a Hindu man come to his Church for several weeks. After a Sunday Service the Hindu man told him that he didn't know what happened during the sermon but that, suddenly, he believed in the Resurrection and asked what that meant. The Pastor told him that he thinks it means he's a Christian and so the man asked: "What's next."

You get baptized.

At this point, the Hindu man became extremely concerned. His family was still in India and, if he became baptized, they would lose all the privileges that he had within his Caste. He wrestled with it for months and could not be settled so he finally told his family that he now believed in the Resurrection. His wife and family flew out to CA from India and convinced him he needed to return to India and forget the nonsense.

I'd like to give you some sort of dramatic testimony about how this man denied all but he ended up leaving asking the Pastor for a small bible so that he might continue to read the Scriptures.

Now why did I wrestle with this?

It's because I've been wrestling with the issue of whether or not we, as American Christians, really have left our own idolatry to follow Christ.

Seriously, it's easy for us to fold our arms and "Tsk, tsk" this Hindu man because, on the face of things, he didn't leave everything to follow Christ. I agree that this is what Christ demands of him so that's not my problem. My problem is that Christ demands the same thing of us and the last time I looked around the people that are pointing their fingers at others for not leaving everything to follow Christ don't seem to have given up much of anything. That's not true in all cases but I would ask all of us to be in a process of constant self-examination about such things.

When I lived in Okinawa there was a woman who attended our Church who was very poor. She was poor not because she had no family that could support her but she was poor because she had a family that refused to support her in a culture that takes care of each other. She was spurned because she's a Christian and I was privileged to have known and loved a woman who loved Christ more than family and I have to reflect upon that because you just don't see examples of it every day.

Look, I can hook and jab with the best of them to put an extremely fine point on theology but I want to give the minority report the most generous possible reading that I can, in some measure, because one of the members of the majority said he made some good points and I have very little experience dealing with Muslims in order to pretend as if the issues are cut and dry. There is a place in Christianity for converts being completely clueless and not completely understanding what Chrsitianity is really about. In fact, I sometimes feel like most of the American Church is completely clueless and doesn't know what it's really about but I also have faith in Christ that He'll work with our selfish, banal, and slothful culture to perfect His Bride.

As much as possible, imagine a minority report, written by Christians from another country having to describe the cultural milieu of our own country and cautioning against the idea that we need to allow Americans some time to cut through a ton of obstacles in their thinking to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That's what I see this minority report functioning to remind us of and it would be a shame if we think of Muslims who are in the process of casting off the old man to be so much different than we are simply because we mistake our own culture as inherently Christian to begin with and have so many blindspots to our sin that we judge others incorrectly.

 

[Covenant Joel]

Rich, thanks for your post. I think it captures the humility that I would hope all of our commissioners would have as they consider cross-cultural issues like this one.

I do agree that the language of attachment 4 is a bit strange and not entirely clear. However, I do believe he is saying basically what I said in the other thread: (1) We are speaking of the same referent, namely, the God who created the world, is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, supernaturally caused Jesus to be conceived in the womb of Mary, and so on. So there is a sense in which we can say that we look to the same God.

But (2) is also important: we do not both worship that God of whom we speak because one can only do so through Christ. Any "attempt" to worship him outside of Christ necessarily transforms such worship into idolatry. I think that this basic framework is what was in mind with the formulation, "...yes, when the veils are taken away." Unfortunately, it was stated in a way that raised some large question marks.

 

[Hamalas]

I also notice that the report references the "C-Scale" - but I long for the days when we move beyond this scale as a flawed tool.

I don't want to derail the thread (so if you'd like to just reply with a PM that's fine by me) but could you sum up the "C-Scale" and the problems you see with it? I've never heard of it!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I also notice that the report references the "C-Scale" - but I long for the days when we move beyond this scale as a flawed tool.

I don't want to derail the thread (so if you'd like to just reply with a PM that's fine by me) but could you sum up the "C-Scale" and the problems you see with it? I've never heard of it!

I assumed he was talking about this song about the scale of C:

Doe, a deer, a female deer
Ray, a drop of golden sun
Me, a name I call myself
Far, a long, long way to run
Sew, a needle pulling thread
La, a note to follow Sew
Tea, a drink with jam and bread
That will bring us back to Do (oh-oh-oh)

 

[SRoper]

I also notice that the report references the "C-Scale" - but I long for the days when we move beyond this scale as a flawed tool.

I don't want to derail the thread (so if you'd like to just reply with a PM that's fine by me) but could you sum up the "C-Scale" and the problems you see with it? I've never heard of it!

I assumed he was talking about this song about the scale of C:

Doe, a deer, a female deer
Ray, a drop of golden sun
Me, a name I call myself
Far, a long, long way to run
Sew, a needle pulling thread
La, a note to follow Sew
Tea, a drink with jam and bread
That will bring us back to Do (oh-oh-oh)

Rich gave a good summary of the C-scale, but you may be wondering what the problem is with it. Douglas Adams pointed out the most serious one: "La, a note to follow Sew" is obviously a placeholder until R&H could come up with a better line.

 

[Pergamum]

I also notice that the report references the "C-Scale" - but I long for the days when we move beyond this scale as a flawed tool.

I don't want to derail the thread (so if you'd like to just reply with a PM that's fine by me) but could you sum up the "C-Scale" and the problems you see with it? I've never heard of it!

A good explanation of the C-Scale is found in the Report itself that is linked (in one of the attachments).