“we’re not going to challenge each other’s motives”
This is called unilateral disarmament. The issue IS the motives of the left, which need to be exposed.
Actually, I rethought this wording based upon your post, and you're right! (Good to challenge Chuck!)
I think when the fruit smells rotten, we can question/challenge motives -- but those are still best rendered in "question" form/format. I think if we smell rotten fruit we can assume its presence; but, how we go about manifesting it is the key...I think we can assume questionable motives without automatically publicly presuming that we're mind-readers & we know all or most of what's going on inside of others. (That's where we all often overreach)
Still, I hit the link Lee N. Field provided as to the text of this covenant (lacks Lee) in post #173...and Colson didn't frame the language in the covenant well in this CNN interview...the covenant language doesn't mention not challenging others motives, but rather to not impugn their motives...there's a difference. Here's the exact language:
We pledge that when we disagree, we will do so respectfully, without impugning the other’s motives...