Commentary questioned
This letter is written in response to the commentary submitted by William “Ed” Nicholson on Feb. 17. Having read his printed commentaries in the 蘑菇视频 over the past several years, I feel compelled to reply to some of the issues he raised.
? We have different views on the nature of God. This is not a criticism, for no single perspective can define the infinite. However, as a balance to your presentation, may I suggest a (re) reading of Paul Tillich or N. T. Wright on this subject. Both of them have been helpful to me and my theological development.
? To suggest that the manifestation of God’s will is the province of an earthly political party with its own political agenda – and at the same time, denigrating those who do not embrace that political agenda as being somehow responsible for blocking the manifestation of God’s will – is idolatry.
? We seem to agree on many points regarding Jesus. Where we differ, however, is the emphasis I would place on Matthew 25: 31-46 and Luke 10: 25-37. These passages, I would suggest, define the discipleship of all who believe Jesus to be Lord and who seek to follow him.
In closing, May 1 – truly – wish God’s richest blessings upon you, your family and your congregation.
Rev. Paul A. Sandusky
Connellsville