The prelude sounded purposeful. “Going back to Jesus” tends to evoke a sense of seeking one’s “true north”. So not only did that prelude sound purposeful it also sounded promising. Going back to the foot of the cross was even more focused, even more poignant? The promise was of a new day dawning.
Yet how does one go back to Jesus at the foot of the cross but partake in scheming and lying and in a deceptive manner, get rid of a brother by delivering a public execution styled shaming? How can one preach returning to Jesus at the foot of the cross and yet look on as his team members go behind a fellow team member to get rid of him?
No sin has been committed by that condemned board member. He hasn’t committed any sin worthy of such public execution. He has not renounced his faith, has not rebelled against the Lord in a public manner – did absolutely nothing anywhere near capital. Stand him next to me and he’d be a saint.
So why was there a near unholy haste to remove Jason? How can one on a pulpit, in one breath say he sought Jesus at the foot of the cross and in the next, preside over the culmination of secret manoeuvres to remove a fellow church leader?
It sounded far too close to using the name of the Lord in vain. Somehow, to say he has returned to the foot of the cross but to proceed to allow a brother to be hurt and harmed as Jason was, appears to be a much greater sin than using the name of Jesus as a swear word.
Ante 