You make a very good point about the use of the word liberal. That said, I personally question the wisdom of inviting ANY political commentator (hypothetically speaking, of course) to address the General Assembly. The mission of the church is to make disciples for Christ and teach them to observe everything that Christ has commanded. We would be well advised to focus on our mission. We are not the PC(USA) or the United Methodists. Neither are we a political action committee. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. By the way, I enjoyed your “colloquium” on the Christian Prince political theory. The one point I think could have been emphasized a little more is the insight of America’s Founding Fathers that because of total depravity, we can no more trust a “Christian” Prince than we can any other prince.
Always thankful for you, Brad. And now some requests of you.
This post is your response to things some of your readers haven't seen/heard. Would you please name the folks this post admonishes for inaccurately or imprecisely tarring the PCA as liberal or liberalizing? Or if not naming names, how about posting links?
Also, now that you've critiqued certain critics of French's inclusion on that pre-GA panel, would you also weigh in on that issue directly? As a long-time PCAer and Franklin neighbor of the Frenches who used to be a big Frenchophile till Trump started living in that brilliant brother's head rent-free, I believe many of your readers and listeners would benefit from your thoughts on whether and why French ought to have been included on the panel, and whether and why he ought to be disinvited.
I don't think his inclusion was a good idea, but I don't want to say much more at the moment. Just log on to X.com and you'll see a whole range of French bashers, many from outside the PCA and many who already hated or who had written off the PCA as...LIBERAL. Some make good points, many go overboard. It matters whether you're church-centric or politics-centric. I would say French and his harshest critics are too politics-centric.
I can't help thinking there's some measure of eye-poking going on behind this invitation. Perhaps I'm merely being...uncharitable here. But...How is his invitation amenable to the studying of the peace of the Church? I'm with you (Brad) on the point that we ought not overreact. Disinviting French would be easily and fairly criticized as "canceling" him. A better way may be to take a long, leisurely breakfast that morning. Enjoy a local nosh. Have a smoke. Peruse the exhibit hall and gather a few free pens & logo'ed knickknacks and tschotkes. Tell someone hanging around the premises the Good News, even. Watch it on Yoots Toob later...maybe.
You make a very good point about the use of the word liberal. That said, I personally question the wisdom of inviting ANY political commentator (hypothetically speaking, of course) to address the General Assembly. The mission of the church is to make disciples for Christ and teach them to observe everything that Christ has commanded. We would be well advised to focus on our mission. We are not the PC(USA) or the United Methodists. Neither are we a political action committee. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. By the way, I enjoyed your “colloquium” on the Christian Prince political theory. The one point I think could have been emphasized a little more is the insight of America’s Founding Fathers that because of total depravity, we can no more trust a “Christian” Prince than we can any other prince.
I agree, we don't need divisive political figures at GA.
Always thankful for you, Brad. And now some requests of you.
This post is your response to things some of your readers haven't seen/heard. Would you please name the folks this post admonishes for inaccurately or imprecisely tarring the PCA as liberal or liberalizing? Or if not naming names, how about posting links?
Also, now that you've critiqued certain critics of French's inclusion on that pre-GA panel, would you also weigh in on that issue directly? As a long-time PCAer and Franklin neighbor of the Frenches who used to be a big Frenchophile till Trump started living in that brilliant brother's head rent-free, I believe many of your readers and listeners would benefit from your thoughts on whether and why French ought to have been included on the panel, and whether and why he ought to be disinvited.
I don't think his inclusion was a good idea, but I don't want to say much more at the moment. Just log on to X.com and you'll see a whole range of French bashers, many from outside the PCA and many who already hated or who had written off the PCA as...LIBERAL. Some make good points, many go overboard. It matters whether you're church-centric or politics-centric. I would say French and his harshest critics are too politics-centric.
Checking née Twitter. Hadn't occurred to me. Never does. Suppose I must. Thanks again.
I can't help thinking there's some measure of eye-poking going on behind this invitation. Perhaps I'm merely being...uncharitable here. But...How is his invitation amenable to the studying of the peace of the Church? I'm with you (Brad) on the point that we ought not overreact. Disinviting French would be easily and fairly criticized as "canceling" him. A better way may be to take a long, leisurely breakfast that morning. Enjoy a local nosh. Have a smoke. Peruse the exhibit hall and gather a few free pens & logo'ed knickknacks and tschotkes. Tell someone hanging around the premises the Good News, even. Watch it on Yoots Toob later...maybe.