The issue at hand.
Many in our fellowship appear to be in a "damage control" mode. But is the damage irreparable? Is the rift being exaserbated by letters, e-mails, and articles posted on websites?
Incoming!
Letters and articles are circulating, being sent, re-sent and forwarded. Phone conversations and face-to-face discussions continue unabated. More and more polarization is taking place. The hot topic is the hot button issue of resolution #4 that refuses, for many, to be resolved ... refuses resolution.
Accusations are being hurled toward anyone who cannot, because of conscience, passively accept the outcome of this hotly-contested, divisive issue. The long campaign for its passage has been fought and won. Now the victors seem intent on taking issue with those who have ben negatively effected. Really, this sort of fallout, this "negative effect", should not come as a surprise.
Think it not strange.
Most likely the dissenting members and former members are part of the 39.6% in the Television Survey that said "Yes" when asked: "Would the adoption of even a limited use of TV have a negative effect on your relationship with the UPCI?" Or the whopping 63.8% who felt "that any reversal of our traditional positions relative to television will eventually lead to a reversal of all our positions regarding television."
What's at stake?
Is resolution #4 really the issue after all? Those on both sides of the debate give a resounding "NO!" It is deeper. Shall we simply say, "the tip of the iceberg." There is much more to it than meets the eye.
If not TV advertising/Television Evangelism, what then is at issue here? Someone has very publicly stated his opinion: "It is not about holiness; it's about evangelism." The old campaign phrase used awhile back: "It is not about character; it's about the economy-stupid!" comes to mind. Although the author of the first phrase surely didn't mean for his comment, (dismissing any relationship of this issue to our holiness stand), to come across in such a cutting and caustic manner as the second one did, I am finding that many of the follow-up statements are doing just that. They do damage to our brothers and sisters.
Verbal Attack!
I see a new turn taking place in the debate. Now , almost two months later, the issue appears to have more to do with judging and vilifying any and all dissenting voices. Glib, irresponsible remarks are being written and passed around. Those who have chosen to leave our fellowship are being labeled with demeaning names, accused of having "bad attitudes," and of woefully lacking integrity. This type of rhetoric, whether from the puplit or the pen, will in the end, be counterproductive. The attitude will only serve to drive people further away.
Judge not!
I don't like it-denigrating remarks toward those who leave, or those who stay. And though I can't speak for Him, I feel certain that God doesn't like it either. A lot of issues are at stake here and our Christian character is one of them. God reserves for Himself the right to judge the thoughts and intents of a man's heart.
This is my first attempt at being a blogger, so please bear with me. I simply can no longer remain silent.
Sincerely
TWB
