Subversive Christian Unity

If the gospel is indeed once given for all (Jude 1:3), then we do not have the option to adjust what it says to suit us better. If a thing is the truth, it is true whatever you think of it. If you have trouble with what it says, welcome to the club, for parts of the gospel are challenging to all of us. We may not all be challenged by the same parts, but all of us have to make some concessions and accept changes in ourselves as we become Christ's followers. If that were not true, there would be no reason for moral teachings to be given to us, because we would already be Christlike. That is a point that seems useful to emphasize--that we all need to change in the face of unchanging truth. There are many in today's church world who see it differently, apparently not believing in immutability as a characteristic of divine truth. I think their error is very great, and extremely dangerous to them. It is also destructive to unity among Christians. If you have one group that accep

This idea of an apolitical clergy could have big implications in the quest for Christian unity. While browsing among the Tubers, I came across these fellows saying some things that are similar to what I said in my previous post . It is agreeable to see my observations corroborated. Moreover, one of them goes beyond that to outline a case that clergy should not be political players, on either side of this or that issue. That makes sense to me: The laity can and should have their political voices, but is it really proper for clergy to become involved, as if to place a religious mantle upon the cause du jour? He thinks the clergy should keep hands off when it comes to politics. It's an interesting idea, and quite novel in present day American politics. This idea of an apolitical clergy could have big implications in the quest for Christian unity. If the idea is that you hear of spiritual and timeless truths in the church, and if you want to pursue the passing fancies of secul

If you have a higher belief than Christianity, and you certainly do if you will bend Christianity to fit it, what do you need church for? America's Christian left, and similar movements elsewhere, want to adjust Christianity to conform it more closely to the dictates of political correctness, socialism, pacifism, environmentalism or the cause du jour. Of course if you do that you make the gospel less than what it truly is. The leftists see it as an improvement, though. That is the motivation when, for example, Christianity's traditional and biblically rooted aversion to homosexual conduct is set aside. I use that example simply because it is a hot topic at the moment. Other examples can easily be thought of and more will be along next week, as the left reimagines Christianity into something more in line with their ideas and preferences. After all, if one deeply feels the tenets of leftism to be true, one will feel that the gospel ought to be in agreement. They have the m

The great J.I. Packer takes on the difference between the primary, essential doctrines of the faith and secondary issues on which faithful Christians may disagree. I spend a lot of time on this blog talking about the difference between essentials and nonessentials , and I was glad to find something about that so clearly and concisely stated. The context of his remarks is the schism between liberal and traditional Anglicans, and the snippet posted here is a part of a longer discussion about that. The rest of the discussion can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_vm4UucJOTP8l4rR_Oi6Iw

There is some question, on the face of the evidence, whether God reestablished the Jews in Israel in 1948, or whether it was the British. I bring this up because some Christians are treating the formation of modern Israel as an article of faith: that the return of the Jews to their homeland in the 20th century was the prophesied return and, therefore, a major a milepost in end times prophetic history as it unfolds. The problem is that someone who thinks that, without any doubt or reservation as to the rightness of his own judgment, will be devastated if the present nation of Israel gets thrown off its patch of ground. They will think prophecy itself has failed, not their understanding of it. Their faith will be shaken and  will crumble around them. After all, if you can't believe the Bible... What they have done is create an understanding of prophecy that has, built into itself, a catastrophic single point of failure. If Israel falls, so does their whole reading of the Bible.

A reflection about online heresies I had a very strange dream last night--or rather, while caught in a kind of half-asleep twilight of the mind, very early this morning. Too early. I do not say it was a dream from God; most are not. It did draw together a couple of things I have been thinking about and doing lately--web postings and thinking about modern heresies. In my dream I was trying to publish a number of Christian websites. Some ran through the system and posted with no difficulty, while others would not go online whatever I tried. The system was rebelling against me and I could not figure out why, until I took a look at the contents of the various pages.  The pages that would not post, whatever I did, were all either useless or heretical. I am no Daniel, but after a several cups of coffee I worked out the dream, and the interpretation. Some of what is placed on the Internet to tell about Christianity is of no use at all in getting people to heaven. It might as well not