I have served mostly troubled churches for the last 22 years (excluding my present place of service) so I have learned to appreciate a direct approach, over and against passive-aggressive approaches, etc. I do not suggest yours is that, but if your purpose is to encourage pastors to teach doctrine, this motion seems anything but direct. You write, “If I could sum up the resolution in one sentence it would be, ‘I encourage the pastors and teachers to teach lay people doctrine so they are able to withstand the false doctrines that are prevalent within our world’.” Seems to me it would eleminate a lot of the suspecion and uncertsintly if you worded your resolution as simply as your summary. What would be the problem with that?

John Fariss

the first ‘whereas’ is incorrect. We are to make disciples by teaching them to OBEY all Christ commands. This little four letter word has been omitted for many many years to the spiritual death of too many. By leaving out the word ‘obey’ you get a religion of knowledge.

I say, “AMEN!”

His peace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East

I am sorry that you are unaware of the particulars of Ascol’s plight for the last two years to get his resolution out of committee. Maybe you are aware of Steve Lemke’s recent (and ill-worded) email to his faculty at NOBTS decrying that the reason Ascol’s resolution never saw the light of day was because of it’s wording. Despite those who claim the contrary, Ascol’s resolution neither instructs nor commands churches to do anything. There is language such as ‘urge’ and ‘encourage’, but there is no language that impugns the autonomy of local churches. Your resolution uses very similar wording as Ascol’s.

My question then, is, what hope do you have that your resolution will make it out of committee if it strikes of the same language as Ascol’s?

You certainly have misjudged me.

I would not own one of them Italian Salvus Mox “Tractus.”

My “Tractus” is a John Deere.

:-)

cb