|
(Date Posted:03/04/2009 16:57:54)
Good morning, all.
I find the 'sudden' muck-raking that's been taking place here (and in the chat-room) of late to be particularly interesting. To begin with we have a situation that's well-and-truly in the Public Domain, that is, the apparently criminal behaviour of two RCI pastors with respect to questionable business dealings (with the collateral involvment of other RCI pastors in the affair recently coming to light). Naturally enough, this has generated a bit of topical discussion over the past few weeks, discussion which has now led to 'quid-pro-quo' accusations of a completely different sort being aired against particular individuals (e.g. homosexuality, the conceiving of children out of wedlock, etc). However, the principle discussion has focussed on the questionable ethics of certain RCI shepherds, men who by dint of their 'callings' require a far higher level of ethical and moral probity than is required of 'ordinary' believers. Well, at least insofar as Scripture is concerned.
Is it not interesting that now the RCI has come 'under the pump' in a truly public sense--with said exposure being completely of their own doing--that instead of acts of contrition, acceptance of error coupled with apology we note behaviour of the sort more befitting the unregenerate? Interesting to be sure, but hardly surprising.
I would suggest the following: even if such claims of immorality as have been levelled against certain forum members were true, significant responsibility for such can be placed squarely at the door of the RCI. Why? The answer is simple. Theology leads to ethics which leads to morality. The RCI's theology is so off-kilter that it concerns itself more with outward displays of the supposedly 'supernatural' than it does with the quiet display of the fruits of inwards, personal regeneration. Or to put things differently, given that RCI theology isn't Christian, why should there be the expectation that Christian behaviour is what results? Unchristian RCI theology has led to unchristian ethics, which has been outworked in unchristian morality. We see such profoundly displayed in the behaviour of the Dukers, we see such profoundly displayed in the "don't blame us" approach of the senior RCI leadership; so why should such not have been the case with other former Revivalist pew-sitters? The principle difference, as I see it, is the potential for change that occurs post-exit. Those who have intentionally removed themselves from the unchristian influence of the RCI, and who have intentionally sought to be influenced within the sphere of the Christian Church,
stand a far greater chance of displaying Christian grace and
regeneration into the future than do those who choose to remain.
God bless,
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On
03/04/2009 17:01:24)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com | 
