Oh, no. Not the slavery thing again.
Who is she to jump on bad theology? Why does she think she can publicly rebuke anyone?
Isn’t this just quibbling over non-essentials?
Doesn’t this cause disunity in the Body of Christ, all this criticism and attention to error?
What good does any of it do, anyway?
Yes, I’ve read the thought bubbles over many of your heads; no worries, though, because I’ve heard it all before. I’ve lived in Moscow for about six and a half years, and for most of that time I’ve been discussing the effect of Christ Church on our community. I don’t think it’s a good one, and mine has been a pretty lonely voice, given the silence of Moscow’s pastors and other Trinitarian Christians. No one elected me to represent them, and I don’t — I speak for myself and only myself, and no one else is responsible for my words. But why would I bother tilting at this particular windmill, with its towering presence and serrated blades? And what gives me the right, anyway?
“Contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints . . .” (Jude 3). The theology and practice, conduct and community, of Christ Church doesn’t represent the faith “once for all entrusted to the saints,” and this Scripture and others tell me to contend — to plead earnestly for — the truth of the Gospel. Terrifying a thought as it might be to some, I and other Christians are, Jesus said, those saints to whom the Gospel has been entrusted. I’m called, and it matters.
There is no other question more important in a person’s life than what to do with Jesus Christ. By his grace, I’ve chosen to live for him. When I see, then, a church that doesn’t represent well the character of Christ or his teachings, tha’s a threat to the Gospel I’m supposed to contend for. Simply put, I don’t want people to reject Jesus because of what they see coming from Anselm House. But it’s not enough to criticize the wrong and confront the wrongdoers, and that’s why my next posts will suggest a “Third Way of the Cross” in thinking about race and poverty.