Latest on the PCA and the NAE

[tcalbrecht]

Being discussed over at the Warfield List regarding a recent resolution passed by the NAE board on immigration, and an explanation of the action by Dr. Roy Taylor, stated clerk of the PCA GA and chairman of board of the NAE.

 

[SRoper]

While I agree with the contents of the resolution, I'm not sure the church should be making such political statements.

 

[lynnie]

Hum, I read the resolution and it sounded OK. Then I read this at the link....

( bold added by me). May God raise up a host of men like Lloyd-Jones in this hour!



******************
First Name:
Andrew

Last Name:
Webb

Location:
Fayetteville, NC

Comment:


Brothers,

At this point, it's undeniable that the NAE has become explicitly political, and distressingly liberal. First we had their embrace of global warming, then Richard Cizik's statement "I'm shifting, I have to admit. In other words, I would willingly say that I believe in civil unions" on NPR and now embracing a liberal/progressive political view on immigration.

Why are we still part of this organization? Evangelicalism may once more be taking a left turn, but we don't have to go along with them.

 

[he beholds]

What is the purpose of the NAE creating this resolution? They say themselves that the denominations within the NAE don't necessarily agree, so if it is not binding to the denominations, what is it? Peer pressure?
I don't really know how I feel about illegal immigration, so I am not really talking about the decisions of the resolution. My question is more why does this group make an opinion at all about any issue and what does that mean for the churches in it. What does it mean for any single person, even? Is this just a chance for rhetoric?

 

[Scott1]

I think Christians need to be involved in politics individually and do, on ocassion, need to speak out on clear biblical moral issues (I would include sanctity of life, sex immorality, and religious freedom to be examples of this).

I also think there is room for lower level eccumenical contacts that are firmly limited in the above way.

It seems to me the NAE has crossed the line, has some time ago, and is not even a clear witness for the gospel of Christ any longer, let alone clear biblical precepts. It has continued on a trend away from, rather than toward biblical precepts.

The issue referenced is couched in ambiguous language, obviously reflecting compromise, and does not commend clarity, let alone moral authority.