When did editor become a Bible scholar?
THE EDITOR, Sir:
While I have no desire to be so audacious as to suggest that Father Sean Major-Campbell's washing of the feet of two lesbians in his church was merely tokenism, I must join with the concerns expressed by one of his members as to why the same amount of efforts expended on the act was not being expended in rescuing the growing number of marginalised.
As to be expected, The Gleaner, through its editorial, rushed to the rescue of Father Major-Campbell, calling the act one of love, compassion, and bravery. And for those who expressed reservation about the pastor's gesture, the editorial remains faithful to its tradition in seeing them as "a narrow-minded Evangelical religious movement that, trapped in an intellectual cul-de-sac, intimidates lawmakers with unevolved and literal interpretations of Scripture ... ".
Wasn't it this same "unevolved and literal Scripture" the editorial writer used at the beginning of the article as he tried to convince us of the significance of love and compassion?
I need someone to tell me who appointed the editor of The Gleaner interpreter par excellence of the scripture? When will the editor be able to understand that by its very nature, truth does not evolve. Does he not know that it is only that which is incomplete and imperfect that is subject to change?
And why does he accept all other documents literally, including this newspaper, but the Scripture is being put on par with Greek mythology?
Berating the Pharisees who had a proclivity for pretentious pontificating, Jesus condemned them for their readiness to climb hills and valleys so as to make one disciple who they want to become just like themselves.
One of the saddest phenomena pervading the modern Christian Church is the readiness of so-called preachers to capitulate to the ungodly wishes and designs of secularism, forgetting that the preaching of the Gospel is never about being accepted and popular.