J.I. Packer puts his finger on it

J.I. Packer, no stranger to thinking Christians in or out of the Anglican Communion, in 2007 published the short booklet "Taking Christian Unity Seriously." It's free to download here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5925e7646a49636041956a8d/t/5952cbfb440243684b92b980/1498598397404/07-Taking+Christian+Unity+Seriously.pdf

It is part of a series of booklets called The Anglican Agenda (Ginger Group) series, all of which may be read here: https://www.anglicannetwork.ca/resources/

"Taking Christian Unity Seriously" frames the question of unity in light of a notable disunity, the Anglican Communion's strife over efforts within it to approve homosexual conduct and same-sex marriages. Packer frames a scriptural case for what unity actually means and concludes it does not mean compromising about that. There are points upon which one cannot compromise without doing violence to the very religion one is trying to unify.

Here are a few quotes that I found striking. But please do go and read the whole booklet, and more in the series besides.

  •  Full unity with merely partial believers is not possible.

  • The yawning gulf between those who cherish and those who obstruct Christian unity becomes very clear when Christian hope comes up for discussion and the prospect of changing this world is set forth in glorious technicolour, while the prospect of heaven’s joy is dismissed as mere escapism. 

  • It is not loving, in the Christian sense, to confirm anyone, let alone fellow-Christians, in wrong ways, and it is certainly not the way to acknowledge our Christian unity with anyone. Christian love is unconditional in the sense of accepting, respecting and showing goodwill to people just as they are, but it is not unconcerned or undiscerning about being beneficent as distinct from merely indulgent. True Christian love holds to Christian standards all the way.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reality, fantasy and ecumenism

By Charles Marsh Recent conversations online and off have shown me something very curious. Some of what I believe to be Christian verity some other Christians take to be mere fantasy. They are cessationists and I am not . According to them, the things that I believe about tongues and prophecy and words of wisdom and of knowledge are sheer moonshine. So while in some churches I am thought orthodox enough, in others I am regarded as delusional or something rather like it. There are other matters in which, in like manner, some Christians view certain beliefs of other Christians as no better than free imagination, runaway fantasy or perhaps something worse: damaging falsehoods not harmless nuttiness. I admit to being somewhat dismayed by other Christians' newspaper novenas and Facebook prayer schemes. I do not think that is how prayer works. Their idea seems to be that if you repeat such and such a prayer x times, or republish it or "like" it or retweet it, then you w...
Read more

Science versus religion is a phony issue

By Charles Marsh The problem is that science, well suited to look at repeatable events, is at a loss about singular ones.  Some people suppose that science trumps religion, that a modern understanding of the world through science renders religious understandings obsolete. Some others suppose that religious understanding can be used to refute science. Both views are wrong. Science is rooted in philosophical naturalism. That is the stance that says we will explain what we see without reference to supernatural agencies. Science describes what happens without recourse to explanations involving angels, demons, gods, fairy godmothers, humors, vapors or ghosts. Acting on this basis, science has done a great deal of good. It has gotten rid of superstitions about what causes disease, where insects come from and a good many other misunderstandings. Notice that science is morally neutral. The same disciplines that give us vaccines and disease prevention can as...
Read more

What is a "Francisism"?

The first time I used the word I used it in attempting to explain some of Pope Francis's headline-grabbing remarks. This is what I said: This strikes me as another one of those Francisisms that generates lots of good press for Francis and then is walked back via more careful statements by others in the Church. I have remarked before on his tendency to do things like this. But it was not the first time I had encountered the concept. My remarks on this habit of Francis's go back a couple of years, to the early days of his pontificate. Francis tends to make sweeping-sounding statements that sound nearly un-Catholic in their generosity, toward gays, socialists, atheists, Lutherans and others. But when the statements are unpacked in light of Catholic faith and practice, they do not mean all that they seem to suggest. The statements are narrowly and logically true in some sense but really say less than they seem at first to say. Before I coined the word I wrote Pope Franc...
Read more