Majoring in the Minors: Amos
Amos begins his preaching to the northern kingdom in a clever way. Not clever with deceit, but with a disarming cleverness. He first proclaims the judgments coming on the neighboring enemies of Israel: Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, the Ammonites, and Moab. He even declares he southern kingdom is targeted for judgment.
About one hundred years before the northern kingdom was carried into exile by Assyrian armies, and just two years before the earthquake, the Lion roared from Zion. Yahweh raised up and sent his prophet, Amos of Tekoa, into the northern kingdom to announce a coming inescapable judgment. Exile.
Amos, a rural sheep herder and dresser of sycamore figs, was an unlikely choice for the Lion’s roar. Not only was he a country farmer sent to preach against an urban decadence that was crushing the poor, he was also from the southern kingdom of Judah. With Amos the Lord was about to smuggle an outsider into the north because Israel had officially silenced their own prophets (2:12). Jeroboam would try to silence Amos too (7:10-17).
Amos begins his preaching to the northern kingdom in a clever way. Not clever with deceit, but with a disarming cleverness. He first proclaims the judgments coming on the neighboring enemies of Israel: Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, the Ammonites, and Moab. He even declares he southern kingdom is targeted for judgment.
All of this perfectly paced to get Israel listening. They might welcome a new prophet after all, if he speaks to their advantage. But then, cleverly mentioning them last, the northern kingdom becomes the chief concern of Amos’s word of doom.
What entrenched and multiplied transgressions brings the Lord to come against his own people? In a word, oppression. In more words, oppression of the poor by an unchecked appetite for luxury and leisure.
The wealthy and powerful of Israel – and those who wish to be – “sell the righteous for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals” (2:6). They “trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth and turn aside the way of the afflicted” (2:7).
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
The Empirical Case against “Conversion-Therapy” Bans
A compassionate approach to trauma requires that individuals ought to be able to access therapy, in order to explore the relationship of these adverse experiences to their sexuality.
Currently a bill to ban “conversion therapy” is being considered in the Canadian Senate (Bill C-8), as well as in multiple states in the US. Unfortunately, in most cases there is tremendous ambiguity about which practices and services are being prohibited, which obfuscates a multitude of problems: the endangerment of previously established legal rights for individuals to choose health treatments, the removal of the professional autonomy of doctors in providing treatment according to their expertise, the question of whether “sexual orientation” includes pedophilia, and the controversy surrounding medical transition for gender identity.
This last concern relates to the irony that helping children become comfortable with their natal sex would be banned in favor of experimental drug treatments and surgeries that lead to sterilization and have not been shown to alleviate psychological distress long-term. More ironic yet, and tragically so, is the fact that the studies indicate that, for the majority of children for whom their gender dysphoria remits, roughly half are same-sex-attracted. This fact leads to the stunning conclusion that a ban on conversion therapy for transgender youth assures the worst kind of conversion therapy for same-sex-attracted youth—a kind of gay eugenics. Sadly, few politicians have read the primary research, and the prevailing narrative in the mass media is that it is social “justice” to ban conversion therapy.
Although it is the disastrous consequences of a conversion therapy ban for gender identity that have generated the most concern, there is also an important argument to be made against bans from the standpoint of compassionate counseling for those who have faced childhood trauma. Research over the last decade has solidified the finding that sexual minorities are far more likely to have faced adverse experiences during childhood. This is not a completely new finding, as researchers have known for some time that gay men, in particular, are far more likely than heterosexual men to have been sexually assaulted as children or adolescents. Two theories have been put forward to explain this finding. It has been suggested, firstly, that proto-homosexual children may be particularly vulnerable to predators because of their gender non-conformity. This non-conformity may mark children as outsiders among their peers or family members, and may be noticed by abusers who would take advantage of it. The second theory, one that is held by a minority of therapists and researchers, is that sexual abuse may at times be a confusing or causal mechanism in same-sex attraction, behavior, or identity. Richard Gartner writes that an abused boy,
may fear that he somehow invited the abuse and therefore is “really” interested in men. Or he may wonder why he was chosen by a man as a sexual target, and whether having been chosen means he is “truly homosexual.” Whether he is aroused or not during the abuse, he may fearfully assume he is “really” gay.
As the literature has expanded past the particular category of childhood sexual abuse, however, it has become a well-replicated finding that almost all categories of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are elevated for sexual minorities, and in particular for those who identify as bisexual. For instance, in one of the largest studies to date, the researchers found that a wide range of ACEs, from parental divorce to physical abuse, were elevated for both bisexuals and homosexuals when compared to heterosexuals.
What is particularly relevant for considering bans on treatments of sexual minorities, however, is that some of these adverse childhood experiences cannot be associated with the prevailing minority-stress theory. The minority-stress theory posits that sexual minorities face both overt victimization as well as more subtle structural stigma in society, and that these experiences are responsible for the elevated rates of mental disorder, substance abuse, and physical illness found in this population.
Read More -
When the Shorter Catechism Was Recited from Memory At Westminster Abbey! Really!
Once inside the room, the two women who had hoped for this moment, Elaine Edwards and Karen Scheibe, recited the first 10 questions. The lady in charge watched and listened and suddenly seemed to be interested. I then asked if these women, who had worked so hard for this time, could recite the entire Catechism? It would take only about 30-40 minutes? She said “yes.” By this time, she was on our side and listened intently.
When I married into the Horton Family in 1969, I realized quite soon that Joyce’s parent’s were quite serious about The Westminster Standards. My father-in-law, Frank Horton, was a very successful defense attorney, a godly man, and one of the six original founders of Reformed Theological Seminary in 1966. He told me once, “When you know and understand The Shorter Catechism, you know theology, PERIOD!” My mother-in-law, Joyce Horton, who was the greatest Christian I ever knew, wrote a book entitled, “How To Teach The Catechism To Children.”
As we raised our five daughters with this story, we told them that they had to learn, memorize and recite at one sitting The Children’s Catechism and The Shorter Catechism; of course, each at different times and ages. This was certainly not easy; and required that Joyce and I help and encourage them often. And one very motivating factor when they were teenagers was, “No driver’s license until you say the Catechism.” It worked and they all did it. There was a great celebration each time, as well as public recognition in our church’s worship services; there were even and some Christian periodicals that reported their accomplishment.
When I was an Associate Pastor with John Sartelle at Independent Presbyterian Church in Memphis in the 1990s, there was an amazing time of growth for that church both spiritually and numerically. And during that time, Joyce started a study group for women on The Shorter Catechism. It became very popular and was greatly blessed by God during those years.
Out of that group and from her Senior English teaching time at Evangelical Christian School in Memphis, we began to lead tours to the United Kingdom from the mid-1990s through 2010. During an adult tour, while we were at Westminster Abbey, I discovered that two of the women in our group had recently memorized the Shorter Catechism. They asked me if it would be possible for them to recite the Catechism from memory in the room, of course, referring to the Jerusalem Chamber, where the Westminster Assembly met, wrote, and eventually adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism and the Shorter Catechism, in 1648.
Most people do not know the origin of that name, the Jerusalem Chamber. It dates from the 13th Century when Henry IV was King of England. He had been planning a trip to Jerusalem when he had a stroke in Westminster Abbey, nearly died and was semi-comatose. It was a very cold winter and the king was moved to a side room near the front of the building where there was a fireplace. He soon awakened and asked immediately if he was in Jerusalem? Since that day, the room has been known as The Jerusalem Chamber.
So early one morning after a brief tour of the Abbey, I inquired at the Visitors Desk if we could see the Jerusalem Chamber. I was told “NO” that it was not open to the public that day. I then said that we were a group of “16 Presbyterians on a Pilgrimage from America,” and that it would mean very much to us if we could step into that room for a few minutes where several of the most meaningful documents in our church history were written. After a long pause, the lady in charge said, “yes.” Once inside the room, the two women who had hoped for this moment, Elaine Edwards and Karen Scheibe, recited the first 10 questions. The lady in charge watched and listened and suddenly seemed to be interested. I then asked if these women, who had worked so hard for this time, could recite the entire Catechism? It would take only about 30-40 minutes? She said “yes.” By this time, she was on our side and listened intently. My wife Joyce, and another lady, Candy Denton, asked and listened to each answer. The rest of us watched in awe!
When they finished, the Abbey official stood and said in British fashion, “Brilliant! I have never seen anything like that before. We must celebrate! I will be back shortly.” When she returned, she brought a tray with about 18 little glasses and a bottle of Sherry. She then said, “We must all take a “nip” in celebration and congratulations.” And we all did! It was such a happy, joyous, and God-glorifying occasion.
I have always wondered if anyone else in history had recited entire Shorter Catechism at one sitting in the room where it was written and adopted?.
The Westminster Assembly was like none other in church history. Those men had prayed, fasted and studied together for many days over several years (1643-1649), and produced unique materials that have served as an anchor for “true truth” through the centuries.
So remember: “If you know and understand The Shorter Catechism, you know theology, PERIOD!”
Wayne Herring is a retired Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America living in Raymond, Miss.
Related Posts: -
When Justice is Out of Order
When a woman’s case is twice as likely to be blocked on procedural grounds, it is difficult indeed to perceive “that our system is just.” Based on the data alone, it looks quite unjust. And the men who made that statement were aware that “perception [of justice in the PCA system] is essential to the moral and spiritual force we trust our discipline will have for the good of the church.” Can there be any “moral and spiritual force” for disciplinary processes that appear unjust?
Did you know that PCA church courts are more likely to block complaints from women than those from men? I suspected that to be the case, but didn’t have the data to prove it until digging through the past 49 years of PCA judicial proceedings.[1] I was curious if there is objective support for concerns raised by others in the PCA about how the church courts are serving its members, especially the vulnerable. For example, the PCA magazine byFaith did a write up when the Ad Interim Study Committee on Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault[2] published their report[3] earlier this year. One of the committee members interviewed for that article expressed concerns in particular about help for female church members:
“Women in the PCA must recognize there is more work to be done (a lot of educating to be done!) before they can have assurance their case will be shepherded well.”[4]
That comment raises a question: why would women want or need “assurance [that] their case will be shepherded well”? We could easily answer that question through personal testimony, but in my experience, the testimony of women carries much less weight than men. So consider with me some objective data to see if it answers why women need assurance their cases will be shepherded well.
In the last 50 years the highest court of the Presbyterian Church in America, the General Assembly and its Standing Judicial Committee (SJC), has heard 429 cases.[5] Of those 429 cases, 138 were ruled “out of order” on either administrative or judicial grounds. These out of order (OOO) rulings are based on the requirements of the PCA constitution, the Book of Church Order (BCO). The BCO provides detailed and often complex rules to which a case must conform in order to be adjudicated, including time frames for filing complaints, questions of jurisdiction and which church court is responsible, and who has the right to seek assistance from PCA courts. Once a case is ruled OOO, the church court is essentially done with the matter unless the member objects to the ruling and seek assistance from the next higher court.
So 138 out of 429 cases were determined to be OOO. That is a high percentage (32%), nearly 1/3 of all cases.[6] There has also been an increase over the last 40 years, starting in 1992, in the rate of OOO rulings. If we take the last 10 years since 2011, the average number of OOO rulings is 47.25%.[7] That’s quite a big jump from the overall rate of 32%. With that average and overall increase, one wonders if members of the PCA should expect future cases to have a 50/50 chance of being heard.
Read More[1] See Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, https://pcahistory.org/pca/ga/index.html. Data from 2022 is not available yet, I plan to update and revise my findings once the 2022 GA Minutes are published.
[2] https://dasacommittee.org
[3] https://dasacommittee.org/committee-report
[4] https://byfaithonline.com/pca-abuse-study-committee-releases-its-report/
[5] Calculating total number of cases is not straightforward. For these statistics I omitted cases that were either abandoned or withdrawn. Additionally, there are often multiple “cases,” “complaints” and “appeals” each year that relate to the same substantial matter. As much as possible, I counted the number of cases in accord with how the SJC reported them, e.g., if they grouped multiple cases together and ruled them as one, it only counted for one case.
[6] This is in the ballpark of a calculation from ruling elder and SJC member Howie Donahoe in a dissenting opinion from 2018: “In the 18 years between June 1997 and June 2015, the SJC rendered out-of-order rulings in 94 cases, i.e., in 36% of the 257 cases it received” (https://pcahistory.org/pca/ga/46th_pcaga_2018.pdf, p. 579).
[7] 2019 and 2021 are anomalous, with 100% and 0% out-of-order rulings respectively. If 2022 likewise had zero cases ruled OOO there might be cause to rethink the overall trend.
Related Posts: