Thanks for the response and the answer with respect to your evaluation of Mr. Packers reasons for his involvement with ECT.
I must say that you seem to be rather beside your self about this matter and while repeatedly claiming to be one who doesn't "judge" others motives, you evidence a perfect willingness to judge mine.
As I clearly said, before, I will state again that it "appears" to be pragmatism on it's face. I don't think that is a rediculous conclusion or totally unwarranted as you seem to, and perhaps some such similar concern prompted your call to Mr. Packer about this issue?. Nor do I think I am alone in thinking it appears to be a questionable action. Therefore, I would have to disagree with your assesment that my postion wasn't reasoned from scripture or the facts. The facts are that Mr. Packer is/was working with the Roman Catholic church and has taken a controversial position in doing so. The facts are that this does appear to be a pragmatic step to take, not just to me but to others. It may be true that Mr. Packers stated reasons may be totally other than pragmatic, but that doesn't change the appearance of the situation.
I'm perfectly willing to revise that assesment if I am appraised of facts to the contrary, but actions do speak louder than words in spiritual as well as natural things. So if the situation is other than it appears, and as I recall we are taught to "avoid even the appearance of evil", I am glad to hear of it.
If you believe his reasons are other than pragmatism as they appear, at least to me, to be, than I am willing to accept that, brother.
By the way, in what way, specifically, did you find his reasons not "justifiable"?.
