The Cornerstone University I graduated from is no more, my daughter won't be going there.

 

I'll admit, that's a bold title for this post, especially with my daughter only entering the fourth grade this fall, but it is true just the same.  I graduated from Cornerstone University in 1998 (and again in 2001) with majors in Religion and Social Studies, and minors in English, Philosophy, and Greek.  By far the greatest asset of that education were the men and women who taught my classes, professors like Mayers, Smith, Brew, Cole, Fabisch, and Webster, to name a few.  If you attended Cornerstone in the 1980's or 1990's you'd know those names, they were giants in their fields, people of deep knowledge and wisdom and abundant Christian character, I was honored to be their student.

Whomever this generation's version of these fine men and women had been up until recently, they're not there anymore.  In the fall of 2024, there won't be a single full-time humanities professor at Cornerstone University, not one.  Adjuncts, it seems, a much much cheaper option, will teach the few classes that are still required of undergrads, but majoring in the humanities, in any of them, is not going to happen.

At this point, news coverage of the purges of long-term employees is sparce, and the spin from the administration about "market oriented changes" doesn't tell much of the story.  The best article I've been able to find is this: Cornerstone University fires tenured professors and terminates all humanities and arts programs - by John Fea at Currentpub.com, June 16th, 2024 it paints a horrific picture.

From the article: Last Spring, ten Cornerstone faculty, including Matt Bonzo, either left Cornerstone or were forced out by the administration. This is the same administration, led by president Gerson Moreno-Riaño, that received a 42-6 vote of no confidence by the faculty in October 2021.

Last week, Cornerstone made more cuts. The humanities and music programs were eliminated. Seven tenured faculty were fired, including Michael Stevens. As I write, there are no full time faculty in history, literature, writing, languages, philosophy, or theology. If its website is any indication, Cornerstone actually still believes it is a “liberal arts college.”

Current students in the former Humanities Department, received an email this summer with the following:

A small number of majors will be merged into larger market-aligned programs for future students.

A small number of majors will be discontinued for new students even as we offer teach-outs to all current students.

A recent press release from the Board of Trustees highlighted its emphasis on "high demand programs" while offering this crumb:

Cornerstone will also offer new online programs in data analytics, counseling for ministry and Biblical studies.

The full-time professors that I spent hour after hour with during me years of study prepared me to be a pastor by teaching me, not what to think, but how to think.  They rightly didn't care if my thinking was liberal or conservative, only that it was Biblical {meaning derived from honoring and studying God's Word, built upon that foundation}.  Cheaper adjuncts and online classes will not produce the same education, it just won't.  I don't doubt the dedication of the men and women working in those less than ideal conditions, but they are indeed swimming against the stream.  Being an adjunct may work for some of them, but it will be far from ideal for most, especially the students.

I understand the financial pressures that Christian Higher Education institutions are under, but this is not the answer.  Eliminating the Humanities is not the answer, relying upon adjuncts is not the answer.  As someone who taught for ten years without benefits, I can assure you that denying your employees health insurance and other benefits to save money is NOT a pattern of Christian stewardship that we should applaud.

In addition to this bad news, today I learned that in the fall of 2023 Cornerstone University invited the ardent conspiracy theorist and "Christian" Nationalist Eric Metaxas to headline a "wisdom conversation," a mark of a serious lack of wisdom by the administration in making that choice.  In recent years Metaxas has said and done many things which have been not only un-Christian, but anti-Christian.  Had I been in MI at the time, I would not have attended his talk to hear from a "#1 New York Times best selling author," I would have been standing at the edge of campus holding a sign calling upon the administration to repent from the folly of embracing Metaxas' Culture War-fueled abandonment of democracy.  I am ashamed that my alma mater celebrated Eric Metaxas. 

SOLD-OUT WISDOM CONVERSATIONS COMMUNITY EVENT PRESENTED BY CORNERSTONE UNIVERSITY SPURS AUDIENCE TOWARD BOLDNESS IN CHRIST NEWS OCT. 10, 2023

My post about Metaxas from 12/20: The downward spiral of Bonhoeffer biographer Eric Metaxas

This has been a rough day, I knew that things were bad at Cornerstone, that the trend line wasn't good, but I had no idea that the University I graduated from had fallen this far.  My prayers will be for the professors, staff, and students who remain, and for the slim hope that the spirit that inspired the Grand Rapids School of Bible and Music isn't as dead as it seems.

There is no Christian justification for preparing to kill agents of your own government

 

For years I have been disturbed to hear again and again from those who claim to be Christians, or representing a Christian background, that they need various weapons, armor, and technology to defend themselves against the government of the United States.  In essence, they are saying that they need to be capable of killing representatives of the government if/when 'they' are threatened in some way by them.  It shocks my how casually people contemplate killing police officers, FBI agents, even members of the American military over issues of taxation, land use, various rules and regulations.  The thing is, there is ZERO theological justification for this attitude in the Christian Worldview.  Sadly, rather than leaning toward pacifism and making violence a resort only of protecting the weak against the strong, the Church for much of its history has tended toward militance and only used non-violence as a fallback position.  The passive resistance of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement should have been a tried and true tactic of Christian efforts to achieve Justice rather than an aberration, it should have had precedents going back to the Early Church which was non-violent, but it did not.

The Apostle Paul led a Church that faced an increasingly hostile Roman Empire, a government more powerful compared to its contemporaries and those living within it than the American government is to its citizens, and far more willing to use violence against those people, even enslaving more than a third of them.  And yet, one looks in vain in Paul's voluminous letters for any hint that Christians should be gathering weapons and preparing to kill Roman administrators and soldiers.  If any group of Christians were going to be told to 'fight fire with fire' and 'kill in Christ's name' it would have been those who would soon face the lions in the arena, but they were not.  What command, from God, did Paul offer to them?

Romans 12:14 (NIV) Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

Romans 12:17-21 (NIV) Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;

    if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.

In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Where is the militant attitude?  Where is the warning to prepare to fight?  The Word of God commands Christians to do the opposite from what large numbers of Americans who profess to be Christians have, by word and deed, declared their intention to do.  This is not an esoteric point of theological debate, but a core tenant of the Christian understanding of our world and our role in it.  God is the Judge, God is solely responsible (with governments deputized to protect the innocent as stewards, see Romans 13) for violence (wrath).  We, as Christians, have no legitimate reason to 'take matters into our own hands'.  When we do so, we demonstrate a lack of faith in God's sovereignty, in God's promise to reward good and punish evil, and in our commitment to judge the next life as more important than this one.  In other words, when Christians become militant, individually or collectively, embracing violence as a means to an end, they abandon the heart and soul of faith, choosing power in this life over devotion to the next.

It isn't just Paul whose words we should be following, Paul is but echoing Jesus when he told the Roman Christians, living in the very heart of the Empire that would soon be persecuting them, to "overcome evil with good."

Matthew 5:38-48 (NIV) “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

How do we go from this radical teaching of Jesus that flies in the face of our default human attitude, to "I need a stockpile of guns, ammunition, and body armor to protect myself against the government"?  Where is the love of our enemy? {Side note: that the American Government is 'the enemy' worthy of a violent response is itself a frightening thought}  Where is the willingness to sacrifice rather than respond with violence?

That our nation has those living in it so opposed to its laws that they would be willing to kill rather than follow them is nothing new, nor is it terribly surprising, most nations have at least some people violently opposed to the society they live in.  What is shocking, disturbing, and another sign of an unhealthy Church, is how little pushback is given to self-professed Christians who fall into this camp.  This is not a call for unthinking acceptance of any and all governmental policies.  In fact, the non-violent protests of the Civil Rights Movement illustrate how one can combine a Christian passion for Justice with a Christian ethic of loving one's enemy.  It is, however, a warning that the path of militancy, in the name of Christ, is stain upon the Bride of Christ, a detriment to Gospel witness, and a direct violation of the Word of God.

Thou shalt not murder is still in the Ten Commandments, being upset at the government in no way erases what God has written.

Your stockpile of weapons is a refutation of your claim to be living by faith.

"Satan controlling the Church"? Marjorie Taylor Greene's dangerous view of Catholic Relief Services assistance to migrants

 

They really need to stop pretending to be theologians.  Politicians who claim to know the will of God are not only a danger to the Church and an detriment to evangelism, but they're also begging for God's judgment when they pervert his Word.  For their sake, and ours, this needs to stop.

James 3:1 (NIV)  Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, first term congresswoman, recently told Church Militant {One of the most extremely political 'religious' sites I've ever seen} that the work being done by Catholic Relief Services to help migrants in the U.S. is, “What it is, is Satan’s controlling the church, the church is not doing its job, and it’s not adhering to the teachings of Christ, and it’s not adhering to what the word of God says we’re supposed to do and how we’re supposed to live."  She then went on to say, with a mocking voice and gestures, "What they're doing by saying 'Oh, we have to love these people and take care of these migrants and love one another.  This is loving one another'.  Yes, we are supposed to love one another, but their definition of what 'love one another' means destroying our laws, it means completely perverting what our constitution says, it means taking unreal advantage of the American taxpayer, and it means pushing a globalist policy on the American people and forcing America to become something we are not supposed to be."

MTG interview clip {To watch the clip quoted above, click on the link}

Ok, so a politician has declared that when Catholic Relief Services helps migrants they are abandoning the Word of God and the teachings of Christ, that any definition of 'love one another' is only applicable to those who, evidently, have not broken society's laws (in this case regarding immigration).  What then did Jesus say on the matter?

The text that MTG appears to be quoting (and horribly misunderstanding) is John 13:34-35

John 13:34-35 (NIV)  “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.  35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

In that context, Jesus is telling his disciples that once he is gone, they will be known to the world as his followers if they demonstrate love to each other.  In other words, the followers of Jesus Christ are commanded to love each other, it is not optional.  What then does love look like?

I'm glad you asked, because the answer is important.

1 John 3:17-18 (NIV)  If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.

The Apostle John gives an illustration of what Jesus' command means.  In order to love a brother or sister in need, one must be willing to share material possessions with them. A person who claims to be a Christian, but is unwilling to help someone in need, especially a fellow believer, is not really a believer at all, as John said, "how can the love of God be in that person?"

James 2:14-17 (NIV)  What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

Likewise, James the half-brother of Jesus, is incredulous that anyone could claim to be a person of faith and yet not do anything to alleviate the physical needs of a brother or sister in Christ.

Are the migrants trying to come to America Christians?  So as to remove any wiggle room, there isn't any either way, but this sharpens the point, yes they are.  Overwhelmingly the migrants coming from Central and South America are professed followers of Jesus Christ.  They are NOT 'them', they are NOT an 'other'.  As believers in the universal Body of Christ, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, they are us, and we are them.  They are as much a part of the Universal Church as we are, and failing to help them, when and where we, individually and collectively, can is not simply a political choice, it is a sin.

1 Corinthians 12:12-13 (NIV) Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

So, rather than being a perversion of the Gospel, helping migrants in need, who are also Christians, is exactly what Jesus would command us to do.  We are all a part of the Body of Christ.  Need more proof?  That's fine, the Scriptures have plenty to spare.

Matthew 25:34-40 (NIV) “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Because they may be in our country illegally, MTG (and many other politicians and pundits) have declared their need to be 'off limits'.  To help them is to encourage their lawbreaking, to have compassion on them is to endanger our nation, they say.  This is the opposite of what God's Word declares.  It is thinking like an American, not a Christian, and it is yet another illustration of the oft proved fact that when the Church and State mix together, it is the Church whose reputation is sullied.  When we think of America First, and our Christian obligations sometime later (if at all), we sin.

This teaching of Jesus is not something confined to the New Testament, it is simply taking the lessons of the Hebrew Scriptures and broadening them to fit the New Covenant's global ambitions.  A classic and powerful example of this is the book of Ruth.  Ruth is a Moabite, a nation connected to Abraham's nephew Lot, and by the time of the her story, a bitter enemy of the Israelites.  Ruth marries a Jew when he travels to her land with his family as refugees from a famine.  When he dies, Ruth travels with her mother-in-law Naomi back to Judea to Naomi's husband's (also now deceased) village with little hope for the future.  Ruth in Judea is not 'one of us', she is an outsider.  The entire story's gloomy trajectory changes when a righteous man named Boaz ignores Ruth's ethnicity by going above and beyond what was required in the Law of Moses of landowners at harvest time to support widows, orphans, and foreigners.  The extra kindness of Boaz begins a process which leads to his eventual marriage with Ruth and the bearing of a son named Obed, the grand-father of the great King David.

Leviticus 19:9-10 (NIV) “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God.

It can be difficult to interpret and apply the Scriptures.  Some passages are hard for us to understand, and some circumstances in life are convoluted enough to make finding the moral choice challenging.  Whether or not to help migrants in need, no matter what nation they come to, or what nation they come from, is not such a case.  It is a 'textbook example' of God's Law in action, reminiscent of Boaz's compassion on Ruth, and following the words of Jesus, James, and John.  

Catholic Relief Services is NOT an example of "Satan controlling the Church".  Helping migrants in need is NOT a perversion of 'love on another'.  Politicians really need to stop pretending that they know the Bible well enough to speak for God.

Isaiah 5:20 (NIV)

20 Woe to those who call evil good

    and good evil,

who put darkness for light

    and light for darkness,

who put bitter for sweet

    and sweet for bitter.

** Another implication of MTG's worldview is that 'they' don't deserve our help.  This too is a massive fallacy when compared with the actions of Jesus.  Jesus spent time, purposefully, among tax collectors, prostitutes, and 'sinners' precisely because the self-righteous in his generation declared them to be off limits to God's love; by finding faith among them and bringing them to repentance, Jesus proved otherwise.

We are not absolved of our command to help others in the name of Christ if those others in question are deemed by our society to be unworthy of compassion.  No such distinction exists in the Christian worldview, all alike are sinners saved by grace, the hope of the Gospel is for everyone.  When the AIDS crisis first hit, many self-righteous Christians didn't want to get involved because it was a 'gay problem', this was an abandonment of Jesus' own strategy, let us not repeat the mistake by casting aside those seeking refuge in our nation. 

Luke 5:30-32 (NIV) But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

31 Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Our place, a Christians, and as a Church, is among the lawbreakers, the outcasts, and the forgotten.  

Further reading:

"You do you, I'll do me" - Quintessentially American, but incompatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview

Martin Luther's experience with the plague spoke powerfully during COVID, his understanding of our obligation to our neighbors fits here as well.

How should Christians act during a pandemic? - Wisdom from Martin Luther's experience with the Plague

The 'sin of empathy' fiasco is cut from the same cloth as MTG's new definition of 'love one another'

The folly of the "Sin of Empathy" - A self-inflicted wound to Christian Fundamentalism

Sermon Video: "You stood aloof", the failure to love your neighbor - Obadiah 10-21

The Folly of Angry Witnessing and the Folly of attacking Christians who befriend the Lost

Where Mayor Pete Buttigieg's interpretation of Scripture goes awry.

In a recent interview with Rolling Stone magazine's Alex Morris, presidential candidate, and mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg made a variety of comments from his own viewpoint regarding Christianity, faith, and morality.  (The Generous Gospel of Mayor Pete)  Whether one likes Mayor Buttigieg as a candidate or not, there is great import in understanding the way in which he views Scripture as it impacts his interpretation of the Word of God throughout.  From this point forward, I'll interact with the quotations from the article, the portions in italics are from Mayor Pete.

"Well, I think for a lot of us — certainly for me — any encounter with Scripture includes some process of sorting out what connects you with the God versus what simply tells you about the morals of the times when it was written, right? For example, the proposition that you should execute your sister by stoning if she commits adultery. I don’t believe that that was right once upon a time, and then the New Testament came and it was gone. I believe it was always wrong, but it was considered right once, and that found its way into Scripture."

Before delving into the nature of Scripture itself, this first quote contains a dangerous false dichotomy.  What connects us with God is NOT an either/or with the morality contained in Scripture.  What connects us with God is precisely the moral code contained within Scripture.  For it is by measuring our own lives against this standard that we see how woefully short we are apart from God's grace.  The moral code of the Mosaic Law, for example, is not what saves us, for we all would fail to uphold it (Paul's argument in Romans 3), but that code sets a foundation for our encounter with God.  When we, as finite flawed human beings, compare ourselves to the holiness and righteousness of our Creator, we will invariably fall short.  These are not just history lessons about ancient morality, for our amusement if nothing more, they are an indictment again human rebellion, a charge against human self-reliance that will draw those who take it seriously to repentance by assuring even the best among us that we cannot possibly stand before a Holy God without fear and trembling because of our failures to, "be Holy as I am Holy."  

Colossians 2:12-14 English Standard Version (ESV)

12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

The Law is not useless, to be set aside as a quaint reminder of our ancestors viewpoints, it is the legal charge against us that Christ has answered on our behalf.  Let us not dismiss as unnecessary the moral code which propelled Jesus to the Cross on our behalf.

What is Scripture?  How did it come to be, and what does it reflect, God, man, or both?  I myself have recently completed a discourse on the topic that you can watch here: What Every Christian Should Know About: The Bible  The viewpoint that is being put forward by Mayor Buttigieg is a common one, the idea that Scripture is a human creation that perhaps can lead us toward God, but certainly not a divine creation, as evidenced by the term Word of God.  The theological question in focus here is inspiration.  Did the authors of Scripture, nearly all Middle-Eastern Jewish men over a span of about 1,500 years, impart to us their cultural viewpoint or that of God? {Another false dichotomy, it assumes God cannot impart his Holy Word through a time-bound cultural viewpoint without it losing its timeless authority}  If inspiration is viewed simply akin to the talent of an exceptional artist, something rare but purely human, we would expect the Scriptures to be nothing more than a reflection of the culture in which they were written, including its flaws (from our point of view).  If, on the other hand, inspiration entails a communication from God, it will transcend the morality of the men who wrote it and instead reflect the character and nature of God.  That is not to say that God didn't utilize the cultural framework of the authors, including, for example, their cosmology (geocentric with the heavens beyond the firmament), or their understanding of human biology, for how else would a message from the divine be comprehensible to its original audience if it wasn't communicated to them within their own cultural framework?  In the same fashion, God worked with the limitations of his people, offering further fullness of his revelation as time went on (for example: stating clearly the marriage ideal in the beginning of Genesis but not rejecting the Patriarchs despite their tendency toward polygamy, and proclaiming monotheism despite Ancient Israel's ongoing flirtation with polytheism and idolatry).  These efforts of cultural condescension are evidence of the grace of God, not a comprise with the unchanging nature of God's righteousness and holiness.  Thus, while cultural factors are certainly readily apparent throughout the Scriptures, they do not equate with God saying, "Let us do evil that good may result"? (Romans 3:8).  The Scriptures do NOT advocate immorality.  Which brings me to Mayor Buttigieg's apparent understanding of the Mosaic Law.  Unless I'm misunderstanding his point, he believes that the Mosaic Law contains within it a number of evil commands and requirements that the people of the time (Ancient Israel) believed, erroneously, to be moral, when in fact they were always immoral, and thus did NOT reflect the nature/purpose of God.  Are there examples of God's people behaving immorally in Scripture?  Absolutely, the previously mentioned polygamy of the patriarchs is one example, the adultery of David is another, but in such cases the Scriptures are not commending the behavior (and in David's case he is explicitly condemned by God's prophet) only dealing with the flaws of God's messangers.  However, when Scripture declares, "thus says the LORD", and is clear that the viewpoint being represented is that of God, we cannot allow ourselves as a Church to open the Pandora's Box of saying, 'Well, that was just the Israelites (or Early Church), it wasn't God.'  If that door is opened, any and all things which an individual or a culture objects to can be tossed aside, even when Scripture is quoting God (including quoting Jesus in the Gospels) it can be easily dismissed as a human invention not a divine command.  We certainly do need to acknowledge the cultural element of Scripture, we certainly do need to view it as an ancient document written by people with that frame of mind, because if we don't we risk forcing modern interpretations onto the text (Eisegesis instead of proper Exegesis), but we cannot let a proper understanding of the divine/human nature of the text itself convince us to take the step advocated by Mayor Pete of treating the text as a primarily human product that we can sit in judgment over.

And to me that’s not so much cherry-picking as just being serious, because of course there’s so many things in Scripture that are inconsistent internally, and you’ve got to decide what sense to make of it. Jesus speaks so often in hyperbole and parable, in mysterious code, that in my experience, there’s simply no way that a literal understanding of Scripture can fit into the Bible that I find in my hands.

I think this helps explains where Mayor Pete's thinking went astray.  The issues of inspiration addressed above should not be intermixed with the issues of interpretation given here.  The Bible isn't to be taken "literally", no large body of speech or writing can possibly be taken "literally".  The reason is very simple, speech (and hence writing) is full of things like metaphors and hyperbole.  Our tendency to use such figurative language is one of the things that makes translation work difficult, because our idioms and figures of speech are culturally learned and often don't translate well, or at all, into a different language.  However, and this is very important, just because I agree (as do all Christians, even those who insist that they take the Bible 'literally' are not doing so in the poetic/figurative/metaphorical sections) that the Bible cannot be taken 'literally' does NOT mean that I am willing to jettison the need to take the teaching of the Bible authoritatively and seriously.  

I would be interested in learning what Mayor Pete's is talking about when he says, "there's so many things in Scripture that are inconsistent internally".  An inconsistent interpretive framework, especially one built upon faulty premises and techniques, will certainly yield a view of Scripture that is internally inconsistent.  The very existence of interpretive inconsistencies is a strong indication of a poor hermeneutic.  If you believe that the Scriptures are not the Word of God, but rather something much less, a collection of the words of men, one would expect to find inconsistencies, one would expect contradictions and incompatibilities.  The Scriptures themselves, though, are not to blame if people interpret them wrongly, to put the blame on the source material for failures of proper interpretation is egregious.  Because the interpretation that Mayor Peter, and many like-minded people, have arrived at does contain inconsistencies, the solution they have chosen is to arbitrarily declare the portions they agree with to be more important than the portions with which they disagree.  He doesn't think this is 'cherry-picking', but the end result is the same.

Now, I actually think that if you look at an issue like choice, there’s so many parts of the Bible that associate the beginning of life with breath that there’s plenty of scriptural basis to reach different conclusions about that. But only if you believe that the government must legislate these metaphysical questions does the debate about choice have to be about the government deciding where life begins.

Is is possible for Christians to be so skeptical of their own government that they fear the power of the government to be an arbiter or a question as important as when life begins.  That is not what is happening here.  Only a selective reading of Scripture could lend one to conclude that the Bible's stance on the beginning of life is a person's first breath.  We must contend with the whole counsel of God, not just the parts that conform with our desired result.   Below are just two examples that the Bible's viewpoint of life begins far earlier than birth.

Psalm 139:13-14 New International Version (NIV)

13 For you created my inmost being;

    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

    your works are wonderful,

    I know that full well.

Jeremiah 1:5 English Standard Version (ESV)

5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

and before you were born I consecrated you;

I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

The fault in an argument about the Catholic Church firing a gay teacher

 Below is the text of an article written by Ellen Kobe, a professed Catholic.  I will intersperse my response to her argumentation (not the question of whether or not a Christian school should hire/fire any particular staff member per se) throughout using brackets and bold: {Like this}  This is not a question of what ought to be legal in America regarding employment, but rather what moral principles ought to guide any institution/organization which claims to be following the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Ellen Kobe has charged the Church with "repulsive" "bigotry", but on what  basis?

Ellen Kobe is an associate producer on CNN's social publishing team. She is a 2009 graduate of Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School. The views expressed here are solely those of the author.

Why a Jesuit School was right in refusing to fire a gay teacher

(CNN)Catholics in my hometown of Indianapolis are in the midst of a culture war -- a battle between church leadership and some of its parishioners that could be played out in other communities if it hasn't already.
Last month, news broke that the Archdiocese of Indianapolis would no longer recognize my alma mater, Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School, as a Catholic school. Why? The Archdiocese insisted the school dismiss a longtime teacher who is in a civilly-recognized, same-sex marriage, a statement from the school said.
The archdiocese also released a statement saying: "This issue is not about sexual orientation; rather, it is about our expectation that all personnel inside a Catholic school -- who are ministers of the faith -- abide by all Church teachings, including the nature of marriage."  {An important question: What moral standard ought a Christian school/charity/church require of its non-ordained personnel?  We ought to expect those who have taken ordination vows to uphold a higher moral standard (sadly we are too often disappointed) but what about people for whom their work is more akin to a job than a calling?  The expectation of the Catholic Church, at least regarding school teachers, is that they support Church teaching with the way they live their lives.  If this is unreasonable, are there any standards at all that the Church could enforce without being accused of imposing morality upon its employees?}
Brebeuf firmly pushed back, saying this "highly capable and qualified teacher" will continue to teach here.
Brebeuf's actions protected this employee and other LGBTQ members of its community by sending the message: You are welcome here; you are safe here. On my social media feeds, it was a day of celebration among the Brebeuf community and local Catholics. I saw only positive messages about the decision.  {This is not a moral argument, of any kind, let alone one pertaining to what Christianity ought to be.  Social media opinion is the last place we should turn to gauge a question of theology...Secondly, in order to be "welcome" and "safe" within the Church, the Church must accept/celebrate the choices made by people?  All choices, regardless of what they are, or just the choices being celebrated here?  What happened to the idea of the Church as a place for sinners seeking repentance and depending upon grace?}
But the mood took a turn just days later when nearby Cathedral High School was faced with the same command by the Archdiocese regarding a teacher in a same-sex marriage. Cathedral decided to dismiss, not support, its teacher.
There was resounding anger, heartbreak and disappointment from members of the Cathedral community on social media. It's not lost on me that my social media feeds could be reinforcing my own beliefs or that those who believe these employees should've been fired aren't voicing their opinions. {At least she sees the danger of living in a self-reinforcing bubble.  Again, social media feeds have ZERO to do with what is morally acceptable for a church that claims allegiance to Jesus Christ.  Christianity is NOT a democracy, nor even a representative republic.  It is a benevolent dictatorship; one founded by, directed by, ruled by, and in service to, Jesus Christ.  What we think, how we feel, what we want, is immaterial compared to this question: What promotes holiness and righteousness?  What brings glory to God and empowers the Gospel to save the Lost?}  Nonetheless, there is a distinct fissure in the way many practicing Catholics feel about the LGBTQ community versus how the Church's leaders believe we should treat them.  {Has the Church in the past, and in the present, treated some sins as "acceptable" while harshly condemning others?  Absolutely.  This is human failure, our sinful nature and weakness in action.  At the same time, "the way many practicing Catholics feel" is once again NOT a theological/moral argument but an appeal to numerical support.  Might the majority, or even a vocal minority, be theologically/morally correct on an issue and the Church's leadership wrong?  Certainly, but not on the basis of, "this is how we feel", instead the question must hinge upon a proper understanding of the Word of God, an appeal never made in this opinion piece, nor even hinted at.}
The stark contrast in these schools' decisions is just one of reasons I strongly identify with the Jesuit philosophy. When I think of my Catholic identity, nearly all of it stems from the values instilled in me at Brebeuf.
The Jesuit tradition focuses on the education of the person as a whole, emphasizing these five virtues: being open to growth, intellectually competent, loving, religious and committed to promoting justice. These "grad at grad" values, as the Jesuits call them, might sound like a hokey mission statement, but they were taken seriously at Brebeuf. They weren't just written on hallway walls, T-shirts and in the school handbook, they were preached and exemplified by each of our teachers on a daily basis. Living out these qualities wasn't simply a goal, it was a duty.
It is the last of these principles -- committed to promoting justice -- that launched me into a career in journalism. When my teachers saw I was interested in writing, they didn't just teach me how to write better. They encouraged me to write for the greater good.  {The Greater Good!  Absolutely, but on what basis is the Greater Good to be determined?  Hopefully not social media support, nor the whims of the culture at large.  Surely Ignatius Loyola and Francis Xavier had some objective standard in mind built upon the Word of God, Apostolic teaching, and Church tradition.  The Greater Good cannot blow where the wind takes it, it must be anchored or it will twist about endlessly and be capable of justifying anything.}
When Brebeuf defied the Archdiocese's demand, I thought of the "grad at grad" moral standards that Brebeuf is living out and which the Archdiocese sorely lacks.  {This is a high-handed claim, the Archdiocese lacks a moral standard, but the portion of the Jesuits in question have one?}
The Archdiocese is unfairly targeting members of the LGBT community, bigotry {Christianity (as Judaism before it) is inherently bigoted.  Let that sink in.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ claims to be the sole path to God, the only means of salvation, and the necessary answer for every man, woman, and child who has ever lived.  It condemns as false all other paths, whether self-help or organized religion.  It condemns as immoral a host of human behavior that affects everyone, and declares that none are righteous apart from a righteousness gifted to us by Jesus Christ.  It declares a moral standard that must be present in its followers and condemns those who speak but don't act as Christ-followers.  There can be no Truth without condemnation of falsehood.  There can be no Morality without condemnation of immorality.  If this essence is removed from Christianity, it ceases to be, becoming devoid of all power and less than meaningless...To make the case that to single out one particular type of sin is unfair, while ignoring others, is one thing (a sense of balance Pope Francis has repeatedly called for), but to label that bigotry is to reject Christianity for what it is and must be.} that is beyond repulsive in 2019 {What does 2019 have to do with a question of morality?  Is the standard by which we are to judge matters of morality based upon the year in which we live?  We all know that our ancestors had blind spots concerning certain immoral behavior (slavery comes to mind, as well as antisemitism) but they were still wrong to behave that way, even if they couldn't see it for themselves...Evidently, by 2019 the author thinks the Church ought to have capitulated and abandoned its teaching regarding sexual ethics and marriage, the past 3,500 years of Judea/Christian ethics be damned.  The "failure" to do so, is evidently repulsive.} but all too real in religious communities across the globe. {The anger here is directed inward toward Christianity, but other religions will be targeted next.}  Gay or otherwise, Brebeuf employees provided me with a rigorous education and a caring environment. Brebeuf's tolerance -- no, outward support -- for its LGBTQ faculty and students has fostered thousands of accepting and loving alumni.  {Results based morality.  A person can accomplish good and positive things without being morally upright, the Church always works with flawed people.  However, "accepting and loving" is an odd standard for gauging success the way it is being used here.  We, as Christians, certainly are called to be loving, and to love both friends and enemies, both family and strangers, but the relatively recent choice to connect "acceptance of behavior" with "loving people" as a take it or leave it, all or nothing, proposition is not associated historically with Christianity.  Jesus called people, all sorts of people, to follow him, but he did so on the basis that all of them needed to repent, to leave their lives of sin, and be like him.}
Fr. James Martin, a Jesuit priest, tweeted about the contradictions of what the Archdiocese is asking Catholic schools to do. If employees must be "supportive of Catholic teaching," as Martin points out, a wide swath of Catholic school employees would be subject to termination, including straight people living with a significant other outside of marriage, married couples using birth control and Catholics who don't go to Mass, {Because Justice is not applied to all, evenly and thoroughly, it must be abandoned?  Fr. Martin is correct that the Church has often focused more energy upon certain sins than upon others, and he is correct that the sins of people who are unlike ourselves are more readily condemned than sins that hit closer to home.  This is a failure of God's people that is neither new nor acceptable.  However, this is NOT an argument against having a moral standard at all, but only one against having a poorly articulated/applied moral standard.} as well as those who practice another religion or none at all. {Do Fr. Martin and Ellen Kobe believe that Catholic schools should be forced to hire teachers who are Muslims, Hindus, and Atheists?  This is a new frontier facing Christian Education, the demand that they abandon the reason why they exist in the first place and replace a Christ-centered education, and a Christ-following staff with something more broad and less restrictive.} I think that's pretty much every person I know.  {I know this is meant to be sarcasm, but really?  Everyone you know is either defying the Church's teaching on marriage, birth control, and/or not going to Mass at all?  You don't know anyone who lives according to the traditional teachings of the Church?  Is this not a cause for concern?  How can one claim ownership over the direction of the Church, call it "repulsive" and "bigoted" when one's viewpoint is surrounded by those who reject the teachings of, and participation in, that same Church?}
Brebeuf didn't have much to lose in its relationship with the Archdiocese, which doesn't provide the school with any funds or ministers, according to the Indianapolis Star. Cathedral's defense of their decision notes everything they would've lost, including permission to refer to itself as a Catholic school, the ability to celebrate the Sacraments and its status as an independent nonprofit organization.
These would be tough challenges to face. But when leaders of Catholic institutions focus solely on doctrine, status or other rules of the Church, {Agreed.  To focus solely upon doctrine is to lose touch with its application among human beings.  Is this really what Catholic institutions are doing?  Have all the hospitals, orphanages, schools, and charities ceased to exist?  Have the thousands of parishes living in community together while seeking Christ disappeared?  When you disagree with a particular doctrine, make a rational case for that disagreement, one that seeks some grounding in Scripture.  To claim those who disagree with you are heartless is not the same as making a case for your position...On the flip side, when doctrine/theology is no longer central, when Truth is relegated to secondary status, Christianity's days are numbered, its churches are adrift, and its people will latch on to all manner of ideas and beliefs that would have found no home among the Apostles.} they lose sight of what this religion is all about -- {What is the purpose of religion?  An important question, but far more relevant here ought to be: What is the purpose of the Church created by Jesus Christ after his resurrection and empowered by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?  What religion, in general, is all about is not a relevant discussion for what Christianity should be.}  God's unconditional love for all people. {Not the right answer by a long shot for one very important reason: God's love is not unconditional.  Period.  God's love is in complete harmony with his holiness and justice.  If God's love for all people was unconditional, why do we worship a crucified and risen Savior?  Why did God institute the Mosaic sacrificial system, why did he call Abraham and replace his polytheism with monotheism?  Even a cursory reading of the Scriptures reveals God's anger at sin, his judgment upon those who defy him, and his absolute insistence upon obedience.}
Brebeuf unified around faith. Cathedral allowed doubt to take over. What good is the designation of being a "Catholic" school if you lose your values in the process? {A very important question: What is the point of wanting to be Catholic, or any subset of Christianity, if that designation is no longer anchored to the teachings of Jesus, the Apostles, and Holy Scripture?...Is it truly "doubt" to remain committed to what the Church has taught for 2,000 years?  Is standing firm in the midst of change somehow a lack of faith?} As Martin says, Brebeuf protecting its LGBTQ employee "is the most Catholic thing that the school, and the Jesuits, could do."  {Wow, "the most Catholic thing"?  Again, what is the basis for this claim?  Upon what Biblical principle does this rest?  What teaching of Jesus, and how is that being applied?}
By the way, wasn't June Pride Month?  {And this has what to do with a moral question within the Church of Jesus Christ?}

{In the end, this article is an opinion piece, what it is not is any reason to justify its author's very strong moral condemnation of the Catholic Church with anything beyond how the author feels, a reference to the "greater good" that is not defined, and the consensus of a particular social media bubble.  While reasoning such as this may be standard within the culture as a whole, or in the political realm, it is not how the Church of Jesus Christ discusses, debates, or even changes theological positions.} 

When Protestants and Catholics agreed: the sun revolves around the earth

Despite the mathematical proofs of the Greek mathematicians Pythagoras (580-500 BC) and Eratosthenes (276-194 BC), the later of whom calculated the earth's circumference within 2% by comparing the angles of shadows at different locations on the earth, it was still possible to find Early Church leaders hundreds of years later who rejected the notion of a spherical earth based upon references in the Scriptures to the "foundations of the earth, "corners of the earth", pillars of heaven", and the "waters above the firmament".  While the prevalence of those believing in a "flat earth" prior to Columbus is often over-stated by prideful modern people disdainful of the wisdom of the ancients, it is clearly true that some within the Church had theological reasons for doing so that had nothing to do with scientific observations.

Eventually the Church embraced the Ptolemaic system (Ptolemaeus AD 83-161) which continued to place the spherical earth at the center of the universe and posited ten concentric spheres which rotated around it containing the heavenly bodies.

"The geocentric model represented the best that science had to offer during the time when it was firmly held.  It was entirely consistent with both naked-eye observation and philosophy.  It was equally accepted and endorsed by both science and religion.  The problem is that while scientific conclusions are always tentative, the Christian Church - just as some did with the ancient cosmogony - decided to build an elaborate theological and scriptural defense of the geocentric model.  By failing to apply the lessons of the past, the church once again foolishly committed itself to a popular scientific theory supposedly based on the testimony of the Scriptures." (Gordon Glover, Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation)

In the 16th century, when Copernicus proposed that the earth and all the planetary bodies revolved around the sun, a theory which would soon be confirmed by observation's made by Galileo Galilei with the newly invented telescope, it became a theological issue rather than merely an astronomical one because the Church had previously decided that the Ptolemaic system had the support of Scripture.  Thus Copernicus and Galileo would eventually be condemned as heretics by the inquisition; a stain upon the reputation of the Church that remains to this day {Galileo was not officially rehabilitated by the Catholic Church until Pope John Paul II did so in 1992}.

Protestants might want to snicker at the following words of Pope Paul V in response to Galileo, but they might want to hold that thought.  "The first proposition, that the sun is the centre and does not revolve about the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.  The second proposition, that the earth is not the centre but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and from a theological point of view at least, opposed to the true faith."

There were few issues of agreement between the leaders of Catholicism and Protestantism during the 16th and 17th centuries, the two sides couldn't even agree to present a united front against the ongoing threat of Ottoman invasions.  And yet, both sides had chosen to elevate the language of Scripture into the scientific realm, turning any contrary scientific observations and theories into challenges to Church authority and potentially heresy.

Martin Luther (1483-1546): "People give ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon.  Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best.  This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." (Martin Luther, Table Talk)

Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560): "The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours.  But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun revolves...Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious.  It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it." (Philipp Melanchthon, Elements of Physics)

John Calvin: "We indeed are not ignorant, that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the center." (John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis)

With hind-sight, the words of these respected and often brilliant theologians seem both appallingly arrogant and exceedingly foolish, and yet they are a symptom of a larger problem that even those gifted by God to lead his Church can fall victim to: The Pride of Certainty.  I'm all for certainty in its proper place, without it we have only shifting sands and chaos.  We, as a Church, must be certain about the core tenants of our faith and the essence of the Gospel.  But what happens when we elevate other issues, other ideas and interpretations to the level of dogma and with disdain dismiss those who disagree with us as heretics?  In that case, not only does the Church suffer a lack of humility and grace, not only does it foster anger and divisions, but it also appears foolish to the Lost, to those with whom we are called to share the Gospel.

Consider, then, how the lesson of these futile attempts to deny that the earth revolves around the sun might be applied to the Church in our world today.  Let us take great care to distinguish between the Truth revealed to us by God's Word, a Truth that never changes and has no fear of knowledge and fact, and the interpretations and theories of men, however brilliant we might think them to be.

Saved in spite of, not because of, their church

Last night was the first of three classes I'm giving on What Every Christian Should Know About: World Religions (You can watch the video, read materials here: World Religions class ) During that discussion, we talked about two religious groups that are associated with, but not a part of, traditional Christianity: Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.  It was my conclusion, and I believe a fair and accurate one, that the theological differences  between these two groups and traditional Christianity (as typified by the Nicene Creed, as both of them are non-trinitarian) prevents them from being considered a part of the Church/Christianity.  It should be understood that such statements, whether coming from a simple local pastor like myself or an official body like the Southern Baptist Convention, the UMC General Assembly, or the Vatican (to name a few), are pronouncements directed at the official organization and its stated beliefs.  Such assertions ought not, and cannot, in a blanket way apply to individuals belonging to those groups anymore than they could speak on behalf of an American Baptist, Lutheran, or Presbyterian.  What applies to the whole does not automatically apply to its parts.  The reason why is very simple: Not everyone in any given church believes what that church officially believes.  I know, shocking, right?  Each church has people who rebel against official teachings, those who mistakenly believe things other than what their church officially believes , and those who are simply ignorant on the issues.

Which brings me to the point that prompted this post: The further that a church is from the heart of the Gospel, the more likely it will be that those who are a part of it who are/will be saved (however many that might be), were/will be saved in spite of not because of that church.  This could be true at a local church under the sway of a false teacher or faltering under a culture of apathy or pride, in a denomination which has forsaken its Gospel roots, or with groups that like the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons who seem Christian to the general public despite their rejection of that which is affirmed by the Church as a whole.  God, and God alone, will judge the living and the dead.  He alone knows what level of belief and understanding (about who Jesus is, how redemption works, etc.) is necessary for salvation, what level of mistaken ideas can be present and yet the Spirit will still regenerate and indwell that person.  It does not seem radical to me to recognize that there are people in even the most theologically correct church/denomination who are unsaved due to an unrepentant heart (they have not heard the Gospel though it was preached to them), and at the same time, that there are people in some of the worst examples of theologically warped churches (even cults) who despite being exposed to false ideas about Jesus or salvation, have been called by the Spirit of God, have repented of their sins, and have been saved by his grace.  Far better, of course, for a church to be working with the Gospel than against it, far better to dwell in truth, than to see dimly through falsehood.  Far better to be a part of a church where the Biblical Gospel is preached and affirmed, than one where it can barely be glimpsed.

In the end, God will judge hearts and welcome those into his kingdom whom he has called, and he isn't asking us for our opinion on the matter.  As a people called to witness to the Gospel, we can only weigh statements and pronouncements whether from individuals or churches, judge them according to the Scriptures, and seek to promote truth and counter falsehood wherever it be found.  May the whole Church of Christ be a benefit not a hindrance to the Gospel.

Don't let your assumptions about the End Times define the Church.

I could have entitled this post, "Don't let your Eschatology determine your Ecclesiology", but that would probably have made most people skip reading it.  How we define the Church is a very important part of our theology as Christians.  It is imperative that we work together with everyone else who is a genuine part of the Church of Jesus Christ in order to fulfill our mission to share the Gospel.  There is danger in defining the Church too narrowly, which would turn those who are supposed to be our brothers and sisters into rivals, or at worst enemies, and there is danger in defining the Church too broadly, which would turn those who are supposed to be the object of our witness to the Gospel into those we wrongly assume to have already accepted it.  For a doctrine this important, we ought not allow anything other than the entire teaching of Scripture on the subject to be our guide.
In reality, however, a significant segment of those claiming to be Christians are allowing their assumptions about the End Times to be the most significant factor in determining their conclusions to these very important questions.  Most of those who believe that we're currently entering into the final days before the beginning of the Apocalypse also believe that one of the supporting evidences of that conclusion is their belief that 99% of all those who think that they are Christians, are in reality not.  This pessimism about the current state of the Church is a reflection of a theology of the End Times that requires the Church to be in a dire state prior to the return of Christ.  If the return of Christ is imminent, then the Church must be in a dire state, and therefore the definition of those who truly belong to the Church is made to fit that expectation in a predictably gloomy fashion.
There is, of course, great danger in making assumptions about when Christ will return, something that Jesus himself warned about.  One example of that danger is the pessimism and antagonism it fosters among those have convinced themselves that his return is imminent.  The Church, all of the Church, ought to be working together for the sake of the kingdom.  The question of how we define the Church is far too important to let it be influenced by anything other than the Word of God.

Sermon Video: The Foolishness of the Cross - 1 Corinthians 1:18-20

The Message of the Cross, that is the Gospel message about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, has always been foolishness to those who don't believe it.  In the first century, it was the shame of dying upon a cross that Paul had to overcome, and while that connotation has been replaced by the much more positive symbolism of the cross following the triumph of Christianity within the Roman Empire, the message itself still remains hard to accept.  Why is that?  It isn't the message, per se, but what the message requires of us.  To accept the Gospel, we must first admit our own failure and allow God to save us from our sins.  The problem with this step is of course human pride.  It is an act of humility and submission to bow before Jesus Christ, and plenty of the Lost are unwilling to countenance that step.
The difficulty of the Gospel message raises an important question about the relationship between faith and reason.  Do we arrive at faith through reason or do we abandon reason in order to have faith?  While there have been famous Christian philosophers who embrace their God given reasoning ability in service to their faith, there have also been Christian theologians who reject the use of philosophy in connection with theology.  In modern American Christianity, those rejecting the role of reason in faith evidence an anti-intellectualism that in particular tends to despise science.  It is not, however, all wisdom that God thwarts, only that of the world that in opposition to God, his people ought to be using their God given reason to serve his kingdom.  It is true that we do not arrive at faith by reason alone, nor is it true that faith ought to be devoid of reason, when we understand our faith properly it has reason as a partner.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

A Brief Theology Derived from the Nicene Creed

I put this document together in order to have a brief overview of Christian theology set within the framework of the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed was adopted in 381 A.D. and was accepted by virtually all of Christendom. We as a Church have splintered badly in the last 1700 years, but it is important to realize that the Church was able to overcome its differences and unite behind this powerful statement.

Read and enjoy,

An overview of theology derived from the Nicene Creed