Subversive Christian Unity

It is a perennial question in theology: If someone dies never having heard of Jesus, might it be possible for him, somehow, to be saved without the gospel? There is a curious feature embedded in the question. The question can only be formulated by those to whom it does not apply. So the question cannot arise in the only context in which it is significant.  As it is written, How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? (Rom 10:14-15) That makes me think the question is a theological curiosity, one of those things we can debate along with how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, rather than a question that is of serious use to anyone. It is all right--at least I feel no embarrassment about it--to say I simply know nothing about the answer. Think of a Venn diagram of three sets, those who have heard the gospel, thos

As I have noted before , Anglicanism is a splendid possibility to consider when thinking about what one church for all believers might look like. Anglicanism accommodates catholic and reformed streams of faith and practice, and variations within those streams. In today's Anglicanism you find charismatics and Anglo-Catholics, determinedly "low church" worshipers who like to keep things simple, evangelicals, Reformation doctrine buffs and more than a few open-minded believers who are comfortable in all those settings. Unfortunately, heterodoxy set in during our era, as some people exploited Anglicanism's genial tolerance that gave countenance to a range of ideas and opinions that all--until recently--stayed within the pale of historical Christian orthodoxy. Here Fr. Gavin Ashenden takes a look at what went wrong--the current split-up in progress in Anglicanism, as the orthodox take stock of what has become of their church:  Leaving home: The Future of the Faith in

Charismatic believers have a great deal to offer, in the area of Christian unity and in others. The problem is that much of the rest of the church world looks at charismatic Christianity askance, knowing all about the aberrations but little about the sincere and, indeed, holy people who represent the movement at its best. I previously described a general structural problem with the charismatic movement, its failure to keep its own house in order. When some preacher (perhaps self appointed) starts spewing nonsense from his pulpit, the voices rising against him are few and easily drowned out in the general hubbub. What the public hears is the nonsense: The service of God requires that the preacher have a fast and fancy Gulfstream bizjet. You will be blessed if you give. That kind of thing owes to a lack of hierarchy and accountability; in the charismatic church world, preachers are often autonomous. There is no wise bishop to step in and tell an aberrant preacher to take a year in

The resurrection. Something we all believe in.

Saw this online and had to share it.

In previous posts, here  and here , I put forth the problem of unrequited love between man and woman as analogous to people's rejection of God's love, and their condemnation to an eternity without God's favor as the result. It is not a perfect analogy but I think it is a sensible one. If the church is the bride of Christ, it is safe to say that those who reject him hold no such status--they could if they would, but they won't. This is rather like the situation of my unhappy young friend Jack. Anna could be the bride of Jack, if she would have it so, but she simply won't. Who in this world is (are) the bride of Christ? I would say, in a genial and ecumenical spirit, that it is all who love the Lord in sincerity. (Eph. 6:24) No narrower definition, such as just Catholics or just Protestants or only left handed evangelical Baptists, really does justice to what scripture is trying to tell us. Christ loves you. Love him back--the real Christ and not some false image o