Cover, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
|
|
|
Cover, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 |
| Letters |
The Rev. Clifford D. Schutjer, “No Dry Bones Here!” epitomizes the frustration the NACCC gives me, stressing polity, not Christianity. You take pride in welcoming all, as long as they do not impose faith on anyone. Pride in a lack of creed is your undoing. Your articles talk about Spiritless faith and brotherly love. They do not indicate that it is the blood of Jesus on the cross that is significant in Christianity. If the writers are proclaiming what the NACCC believes, the denomination does not believe enough.
Our Pilgrim forebears devised a great polity. In addition, they espoused a lively faith in Jesus Christ as God, not just his ethical teachings. They recognized sin and Jesus’ redemption; the authority of Scripture; and New Testament pattern of worship. The confession of John Smythe’s congregation in Amsterdam in 1609 is Christocentric and bibliocentric.
The Cambridge Platform gave order and discipline in 1649. Congregational forebears recognized that in addition a declaration of faith was necessary. Founded on the 1647 Westminster Confession, in 1658 they published The Savoy Declaration of Faith. Today, churches, pastors, and members who do not adhere to the faith described therein, regardless of what they call themselves, are not Congregationalists.
There are many church polities, but only two types of people; either adopted into God’s family through faith in Jesus Christ, or a creature of God. God has established standards of admission into His family. Our forebears recognized this and accepted only those called and redeemed. Public confession of faith and witness of salvation experience was required.
It is collegial Congregational tradition for elders to teach, admonish, and lead individuals and associated church bodies along the way. Please form your editorial policy to proclaim publicly the full Gospel. Please urge the NACCC to do the same.
May the Holy Spirit encourage you for your work. May He strengthen you in body, soul and spirit. And may He give you discernment and wisdom in all your decisions.
Yours in the fellowship of seekers after God’s truth.
Ted Bradshaw, Seattle, Washington
In the latest issue of The Congregationalist George Brown poses the provocative question: “Who Speaks for Congregational Way?” In the same issue we discover that NACCC Moderator Steven H. Ware Bailey believes he has been granted this privileged position. In his article “The Congregational Way, A Progressive Approach to Religion” he uses broad sweeping statements which are tinted with his “rose-colored glasses.” These statements wrongly assume that all Congregationalists agree with him. He concludes his article with the bold assertion that the progressive, ever evolving perspective of Congregationalism is prepared to engage the future with courage and intelligence in the genesis and the genius of the Congregational Way. Personally, I love the Congregational Way. However, I cannot let this love blind me to the present day situation of Congregationalism. Our treasured way of life is a fractured fragment of the force for the glory of God and the good of man it once possessed. Why? We have a unifying method in the autonomy of the local church. However, we do not have a unifying message to present to our world today. Rev. Bailey rightfully states that Congregationalism has changed, is changing, and will always change. He talks about Congregationalists moving from their Calvinist roots to rationalism, to rampant liberalism, and then to neo-orthodoxy (which is non-orthodoxy). I concede this is probably true of the majority, but throughout the years there were those who stood on Scripture as stated in the Bible. They were people who lived in changing times but believed in the unchanging truth of God’s Scripture. God changes not; His truth changes not. Our application of the truth changes with contemporary times, but God’s truth does not change.
Rev. Fred Neal, DeBary, Florida
I was surprised by the content of your January 2003 editorial. I am glad that the NACCC did not attend this rally in Detroit on “What Would Jesus Drive?” I hope that you will read the automotive industry trade magazine response to your position. Christians can always show their support or lack of support for any item by one of the greatest powers they have, their purchasing power. History shows Detroit will respond quicker to the car buying dollar than to government mandates and pressure groups. Detroit makes what the public will buy. The minister of my church drives a Ford Explorer SUV. You need to rethink your editorial position and what you are suggesting to your readers.
James Brown, Toledo, Ohio
Don’t Mix Morality with MPGThe Detroit visit with executives at General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. And the United Auto Workers union touched off a new advertising campaign titled “What Would Jesus Drive?” aimed at forcing auto companies to make more fuel-efficient vehicles and shaming self- indulgent Baby-Boomers out of their gas-guzzling SUVs. The caravan of religious leaders beseeching Motown to improve fuel economy was a great story for the media and generated discussions around water coolers across the country. Considering his vocation as a carpenter and his devotion to helping mankind, I picture Jesus driving a 4-wheel drive, fullsize pickup. While the 4WD option does hurt fuel economy, it would better enable him to help folks in need during the winter and in more remote areas. The big bed would prove useful in distributing bulk food in poor areas, and would handle a full sheet of plywood. However, if Jesus needed to haul around 12 apostles, he probably would be forced into a fullsize 15-passenger van. They’re hard on gas, but it would still be less expensive and better for the environment to all go to supper in that than to drive in separate cars. But ownership of these vehicles would make Jesus “immoral,” according to the logic of these activists. In their totalitarian, one-dimensional view, the relative “morality” of a vehicle is tied directly to its fuel efficiency, which in turn reflects directly on the moral character of its owner. Hence, you are “moral” if you buy a small, frugal vehicle, and you are “immoral” if you drive something more extravagant. Perhaps the ICEC [Interfaith Climate and Energy Campaign] is even preparing scarlet letter “G’s” for sinners who drive gas-guzzlers. But in this scenario, who would have the moral high ground: someone who owns a fuel- efficient car that gets 40 mpg (5.9L/100 km) and commutes 60 miles (96 km) each way to work, or a person who drives a less-efficient SUV only six miles (10 km)? |
Dear James,
I thought the message was clear that the NACCC does not officially participate in social action. Thanks for your comment.
Joe Polhemus
I am the publisher of our church newsletter “The Voyager” from Conejo Valley Congregational Church in Thousand Oaks, California. I read your editorial, “One Nation, Under God” in the October/November Congregationalist magazine and I would very much like permission to reprint it in our newsletter.
Mary McLoud, Thousand Oaks, California
| LETTERS TO THE EDITOR are welcome. Send your letters (300 words maximum) to 1105 Briarwood Road, Mansfield, Ohio 44907; by fax to (419) 756-5834; or e-mail to mail@congregationalist.org. Please include your name and street address. The Congregationalist and the NACCC offer freedom of expression to authors and readers. We only ask that comment be temperate and expressed with tolerance in the Congregational Way. |
|
|
|
Cover, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 |