If anyone deserves a Mathethes award, it’s Alan. His “why I cannot sign” article apparently caused an issue with someone, but that now appears to be resolved. I may not agree with Alan that the UPC is a Romans 14
issue, but I think everyone involved can agree that Alan has real class.
I hope those receiving a certain email hear from the other party soon.
To be clear, I think that a church or group of churches deciding their common doctrine and practices is not always a bad thing. One good thing about a catechism is that it teaches a short form of the basics to young Christians pretty quickly. I think that the way the ICoC is using the UPC is a sin. I believe that allowing major and minor players to make comments about ‘non-signers’ unchecked is a sin of omission. At this point and time, calling Bruce, Doug Arthur, and others on their comments has been the only way to get an acknowledgement that something wrong was spoken. I believe that those implying that non-signers want to be isolated or want to be disunified are slandering their brothers. This attitude has still not really been addressed on any scale.
I do not think ill of those that signed. The church I attend signed and I love everyone here. I look forward to working with other ICoC and non-ICoC congregations on a variety of projects. Using the UPC as a spiritual litmus test is wrong, whether you agree with it or not.
But I digress. What I really wanted to do was honor a man with real class, Alan. There’s a reason that he is an elder. Thanks for being a great example.
Comments
4 Responses to “A Note about Communication”
Leave a Reply
I second that thought about Alan. A class act.
I’m sure he’s worthy of the praise you are giving him. But I for one would like to encourage him to read more about Luther (like the book, “Bondage of the Will” would be a good place to start).
I agree with Alan that the UP causes a faction and his explanation of working with disagreements is humbling. Thanks for pointing to it.
Your point about not calling Bruce and Doug’s comments “sin” is a good point. When someone sins publicly, using reckless and slanderous speech – which creates real hardships for local elders and leaders leading in their churches – they should repent publicly. Isn’t that what they claim Henry did with his “broad-brush” or what Kip is guilty of too. How can so called leaders not hold these men to the same standard they hold Henry and Kip to? Picking and choosing when to point out sin, based on whether it’s beneficial or popular is simply wrong.