The interchange on commitment a couple weeks ago generated some good comments, not all of which made it to the blog. One comment which came directly to me is worth being thrown into the ring for consideration. In responding to my post and to the comments to it, this correspondent says
I agree with every thing, pretty much, so far. But I get the impression that the thrust of the articles has only to do with member’s commitments to their churches and not the commitment that the rulers of those churches have to them…. I believe that commitment runs both ways.
This is a valid point which is worthy of reflection. I am curious what others of you think.