This is not to excuse Protestants for their lack of unanimity. When we squabble we once again prove our unworthiness to call ourselves by the name of Christ. I think we all look forward to the day when we will enjoy perfect harmony with the Lord and with each other. But until then, sin continues to cloud our eyes and keeps us from enjoying that kind of unity. Like many Christians, I am excited by the Together for the Gospel movement and its emphasis on putting aside secondary differences to focus on what is of utmost importance—the gospel of Jesus Christ. I pray that more movements like this show that, despite differences, those of us who affirm the gospel can work together for the glory of God.

I quote:

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
John 17:20ff

I ask:

Why are we not committed to the “complete unity” that our Lord prayed would be ours? The Gospel is a great starting place, but Christ seems to be saying that we find the same unity he had with his heavenly Father in the Glory they shared. When dear brothers of all Christian expressions going to get this right? Christ did not make concessions anywhere in these verses. I really would love your answers.

PEACE, AND UNITY.

Good interview from a lowly blogger (bourgousie)

http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2007/12/death-of-discernment-ps.html

Is teaching authorative only based on the actions of all who claim some allegiance to the teaching?

Furthermore, how is the situation of various Protestant groups any different other than in having less explicit clear teaching upon which to evaluate action & belief? What advantage is there in that?

Read the book.

But seriously, in the book I show that discernment has two goals. The first is to understand what God teaches to be true and the second is to live in a way that honors Him. We first need to understand who God is and then we can understand what He requires of us. So discernment does account for both areas of the Christian life.

It would be ridiculous of me to say that I am never guilty of the kinds of errors I sometimes write about. Hopefully, I take enough self-effacing shots at myself to make it clear that I do not believe Christianity arrived with me or is defined by me.

Part of my writing grows out of my own ordained and vocational ministry. To that extent, I believe I am set aside to preach, write, encourage, think, communicate, etc. as it pertains to what I do in my own ministry. The “post evangelical journey”- and I again note the misuse of that term by Phil J and others at least as it pertains to me- does take place for me in the context of passing on the faith to my students and working with our staff. I don’t preach what I blog by and large, but I don’t stop being me when I blog or when I preach.

My critique of evangelicalism is largely a critique of my own tradition. I do not write as a McLaren who claims to have recovered Christianity. I write honestly of the failure of my tradition, the hypocrisy in it and its own evolution/devolution into whatever it has become. You have hit me hard in the past for “hating conservatism” etc, but I simply do not believe any of us profit from an uncritical attitude towards what has shaped us. So I am not trying to a Ken Silva number when I critique shenanigans in the SBC. I’m a family member talking about my own house. (As you are in the alcohol discussion.)

My criticisms of the TR side of evangelicals is, again, my own journey. I’m not a sheriff of the blogosphere, and no one’s doctrine has to account to me. I simply don’t care for a monolog, and I naturally side with minority reports. The attitude of a CRN that applies a standard to all other churches and blogs is too big a pair of britches for me. My own writing has stirred up most of that dust for me. Remember: “I’m Not Like You” was an apologia for my individual journey, not for anyone’s church.

My theological questions about Calvinism aren’t an attempt to police the blogosphere either. Saying I am moving on past Piper isn’t saying he’s a bad guy or everyone else should follow me.

I do admit to discernment motives in my Osteen material, and I won’t defend that. We all should be discerning in such blatant error.

Part of my problem is that I started writing and the audience came to me. I don’t look at stats, lists, etc. I don’t try to promote the blog. It all came to me. I’m glad it did, but it’s still just my blog and the writing side of what’s in my head and heart.

peace

MS

As to “the grid”, you asked Tim about “a solo Christian writing a blog and calling it a ‘ministry of discernment’”. I know you eschew calling what you do either ‘ministry’ or ‘discernment’, but then you use phrases like you did in this response which say things like “reaching back into the larger Christian tradition” and “defense for the minority reports”.

You might prefer the words ‘project’ and ‘working it out with a pencil’ for what you do here (allusion to the punch line of the same name intended), but it amounts to the same thing — with more or less gravitas, depending on where you are right now.

I think that it’s possible to see your blog (and let’s be serious: my blog) as the same kind of thing you’re inquiring to Challies about. You say “no”. I’m kinda wondering how you justify that.

I think you tried here, so you can revise and extend if you see fit.

>So what’s the difference between what you do here, iMonk, and what happens over at Ingrid’s blog or at Steve Camp’s place, given the grid you’ve organized here for the blessed Challies to interpret through?

I’m not clear on what you mean about the grid I’ve organized for Challies.

I can’t speak for Ingrid or Camp in terms of their blog concepts. I don’t read Camp, and I haven’t read Ingrid much since she the first Slice retirement and certain blogs removed her from the sidebar. (ahem) I do get the idea that there’s sort of a “we own the reformation” idea there that I don’t subscribe to, and obviously I sponsor a larger conversation with more defense for the minority reports.

This is a personal blog, not a mission to anyone. It’s my place to write what I want. It’s my hobby. That it creates community is not my doing any more than the fact that I work at writing. I do have a post-evangelical point of view, but that term is totally misused and abused by Phil and James White so it really needs to be clear that I mean: 1) reaching back into the larger Christian tradition to 2) move beyond the current state of evangelicalism (as I define it.)

If you can clear up the grid comment I’ll be glad to respond.

And btw, several people are pretty sure that “truth unites…” is c.t. I’m not ready to vote, but it’s a strong possibility. No one else on the net gets that personal in their name calling.

peace

MS