T4G and Greenville
I appreciate what "Eric from Kansas" posted in the last article: I think the whole document, it is a very needed line in the sand for this generation. Some may ask, "Why the need to draw the line?"
I think Greenville provides the perfect example. Within the last few months, the Greenville Ministerial Association has begun associating with the Mormon Church. Just a couple months ago, a ministerial meeting was held at the Latter Day Saints Temple. Then, just last week, the head elder of the Mormon church, who identified himself as the secretary of the ministerial association sent a letter to our church, inviting us to an informational meeting.
Eric Knight, a local pastor in the community who I've had the privilege of working with before, wrote an editorial to the paper, imploring people to ask their pastor if he participates in the GMA, and if so, why he would allow a cult member to become an officer in such an association. I appreciated Eric's letter, though I've talked to at least one pastor who isn't thrilled with the idea of his parishioners questioning him. (As if pastors don't need accountability too.)
But how did things get to this point? How does a group, originally formed around the gospel, begin to allow a person who believes Jesus and Satan are brothers, men can become gods, and God was created be allowed fellowship? It happened a long time ago. It happened when they began letting clergy who believe righteousness is infused instead of it being imputed into their fellowship. And that could only happen when the gospel quit being defined and started being assumed.
That's why documents like this are helpful. That's why even in a rural conservative community like ours, we still need to define who is truly together for the gospel.
I think Greenville provides the perfect example. Within the last few months, the Greenville Ministerial Association has begun associating with the Mormon Church. Just a couple months ago, a ministerial meeting was held at the Latter Day Saints Temple. Then, just last week, the head elder of the Mormon church, who identified himself as the secretary of the ministerial association sent a letter to our church, inviting us to an informational meeting.
Eric Knight, a local pastor in the community who I've had the privilege of working with before, wrote an editorial to the paper, imploring people to ask their pastor if he participates in the GMA, and if so, why he would allow a cult member to become an officer in such an association. I appreciated Eric's letter, though I've talked to at least one pastor who isn't thrilled with the idea of his parishioners questioning him. (As if pastors don't need accountability too.)
But how did things get to this point? How does a group, originally formed around the gospel, begin to allow a person who believes Jesus and Satan are brothers, men can become gods, and God was created be allowed fellowship? It happened a long time ago. It happened when they began letting clergy who believe righteousness is infused instead of it being imputed into their fellowship. And that could only happen when the gospel quit being defined and started being assumed.
That's why documents like this are helpful. That's why even in a rural conservative community like ours, we still need to define who is truly together for the gospel.
posted by danny2 @ 10:09 AM
2 Comments:
At 10:52 AM,
Anonymous said…
I wonder if most if not all of the variety and conflict in churches' views of the gospel are the direct result of the variety and conflict in their views of scripture.
Is it really possible that men who are sincerely striving to base their understanding of the gospel upon the scriptures alone could come to such radically different views? Isn't the Bible clearer, and the work of the Spirit more effective than that?
It is abandoning the principle of Sola Scriptura that leads to the kind of doctrinal freak shows exemplified by the Mormons, and it seems to me that this is where the line ought to be drawn.
At 8:30 PM,
Charity said…
Really good thoughts. A line definitely needs to be drawn; when we choose to affiliate ourselves with any group, we basically send the message to the community that we endorse, or at least tolerate, their beliefs. Neither should be true in this case.
It may be helpful to define "imputed righteousness" vs. "infused righteousness."
Post a Comment
<< Home