The Bible is NOT Inerrant (But It IS Eschatological)

Growing up, I was taught to believe – firmly, absolutely – that the Bible is God’s truth.

While my Charismatic family didn’t quite put it in these words, what they meant was that the Bible is inerrant. Without error in the original autographs. Verbally and plenarily inspired such that every word of it is, in fact, the Word of God. This, after all, is the conservative evangelical bedrock, and my family were conservative evangelicals (even though they spiced it up with Jesus-Movement, Charismatic flare).

In Bible college, I indeed put those necessary theological terms to what I’d been taught to believe, and I was ready to defend it to the death. My newfound Calvinism gave me even more certainty about the precise system of information that the Bible was communicating, true and rational to the very last word. Well, there were lots of words I didn’t account for, honestly, but I subsumed them under words like “sovereignty,” “substitutionary atonement,” “divine election,” “eternal conscious torment,” etc., which made it all much easier to digest – and be absolutely certain about.

And I was certain, absolutely. Because the Bible is God’s truth. And it’s inerrant.


But then I started experiencing more of life, including some of its harsher realities. I began coming to terms with human brokenness and pain, in myself and others, and it was not so easy to be absolutely certain. In fact, the Bible began to look a lot messier – like life. Some of it seemed beautiful and true; some of it was bizarre and barbaric. Suddenly the sanctioned violence of the Old Testament seemed insane, an eternal hell seemed unjust (even irrational), and the bifurcating of the human race into elect and nonelect seemed utterly dehumanizing. Historical and scientific inaccuracies in the text were obvious, and the typical conservative appeal to “the original autographs” was a lame copout. The literalism that called for seven-day, young-earth creation – which is the only possible perspective consistent with inerrancy – was at least unlikely, at worst impossible.

Now, it’s true that the conservative evangelical response to my story would quite simply be that I began to lose faith, had a crisis of faith, or let my “feelings” get the best of me and take me away from the objective truth. But I never lost faith. My trust in Jesus, I daresay, my orthodox trust in Jesus, never failed. The point is, I have remained confidently Christian throughout my journey, because I have remained confident about Christ.

For me, the first big step away from inerrancy was accepting an incarnational view of scripture. That is, the Bible is not a collection of inerrant facts about God which one must attempt to master and defend. Instead, it’s an incarnational text, a narrative where the truth is embodied in a people that God is working with and through in a particular time and place. The Incarnate One is at the center of the narrative itself, the Word Made Flesh giving us the truth in a person, par excellence. Everything revolves around him. And the church continues to embody the truth of the Word, as God works in and through us as the Body of Christ.

But it occurred to me today that I have recently been looking at the Bible in a slightly new way, one that builds on this incarnational step.

Namely, I’ve been seeing the Bible as an eschatalogical text.

The Bible, the sacred text of the church of Jesus, is true, and is even authoritative for the people of God, but only in the sense that it bears witness to the eschatalogical event of the Messiah – his life, death, resurrection, and ascension – and throws the door wide open for an ongoing, unfolding realization of this event. What I mean is, even beyond being an incarnational narrative, the scriptures are witnessing to the defining moment in history that sets a trajectory for an eternal – literally, unending, unlimited, unstoppable – future.

I don’t use “eschatology” here to refer to how the world ends. Instead, I use it to refer to how the world begins. Because Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation, and the church of Jesus is born (again) into the reality of this new age. The sacred text exists to bear witness to that unfolding, not to give us a collection of static, inerrant facts about God (and, presumably, everything else).

I think what this eschataological approach to scripture might produce is BOTH a commitment to the authority of the text in the church AND a radical openness to the future. Instead of being entrenched in defending the absolute truth of things that are out of synch with Christ himself or history itself or science itself or justice itself or our own authentic experience, we can receive the ancient witness to the eschatalogical event, and then freely begin to participate in the unfolding of that event in our own lives together, right here and right now. The result will be a church that is both rooted and revolutionary.

In fact, as our current reformation pushes out all the old eschatalogical mythologies (like the premillennial rapture myth soon to be displayed in all its absurdity on movie screens across America), I think this will emerge as the only viable option. To continue to the old rationalistic view of the text – which produces either conservative entrenchment or liberal rejection – will be unworkable. The eschatological text for the eschatalogical church will be the only option.

And honestly, this option is way better than the alternatives, anyway.

Especially an “absolute certainty” that turns a blind eye to the realities of the text itself – and the realities staring us in the face everyday - in a tragic act of denial.

I’d rather place my confidence in Christ and the new creation that is unfolding all around us.

Because honestly – that’s God’s truth.


Beyond Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: Building a Post-Complementarian Church on the Word of God
Man of No Reputation
The Heart of the Gospel is...Anger? Really? The Anatomy of a John Piper Tweet
Finding our Subterranean Way Again: Chapter 1 Review of Dan White Jr.'s New Book
About Zach Hoag

Zach J. Hoag is an author, preacher, and binge-watcher who writes and curates here at The Apocalypse Review. You can also catch him at his author blog,

  • T.G. Blankenship

    I think this is on target. John (and other New Testament authors) make it evident that the scriptures are incarnational in nature. I also agree with your use of the term ‘eschatology’ here. It bends the rules a bit but in a fair manner that doesn’t rob it of it’s theological position. I’d add that the reason we trust the authority of scripture and it’s accuracy as a faithful narrative (and not an inerrant work) is because of our faith in Jesus – who is the living Word (logos) – and his testimony about truth. Jesus leads the way for scripture just as it led the way for him (until he taught us that he led the way for it all along). The credit for that thought belongs to Greg Boyd though.

  • Rob Grayson

    Zach, I recently read a book called In The End God by John A. T. Robinson, a former Bishop of Woolwich in London, England. It was written in 1963 and the style is rather academic and a little heavy in places, but the substance I found very challenging – in a good way! It’s very much about eschatology in the way in which you describe it here (though he doesn’t really address the implications of such a view for the church).

    Anyway, all of which to say yes, I think you are onto something :)

  • zhoag

    heavily influenced by boyd here too!

  • Mike Kemp

    I disagree completely (but, hopefully, respectfully – but let me be clear about “respect”: I will at all times make a best effort to respect the person but feel no obligation to respect an opinion!).
    The Bible (I believe) is inerrant. So we differ at the outset. However to turn in your direction, the inerrancy of God’s word does not guaranty an inerrant interpretation.
    Your claim that a “7-day creation is at least unlikely at worst impossible” is – again: I believe – rooted in ignorance, bigotry and a fall to the seduction of lame excuses of science. That is to say – ALL actual scientific evidence supports a young-earth view, as difficult as it is to believe (based on our human experience and jaded frame of reference to what we see in nature, etc.).
    The question is where do we place our faith. You are – again, in my opinion (and I’ll not make that disclaimer again as you can just assume it’s the canvas on which I paint everything I say!) – placing your faith in human reason, human-collected data, human-interpretation of data with a perfunctory nod toward scripture. I hope I don’t have to remind you how unreliable human reason has been through the ages – and I am confident in my claim that it has been exponentially more unreliable than we know – so it is wholly irrational for anyone to place their faith here. It is infinitely more appropriate to place your faith in God’s Word with a perfunctory nod to human reason, data, etc. After all, God Himself endowed mankind with the ability to reason, collect data and make interpretations, so giving that some respect is wholly justified.
    I would just say you have the relationship between God’s Word and human reason precisely backwards.

  • Mike Kemp

    And, no, there are no “obvious historical and scientific inaccuracies”, there are only passages that are not understood. I would place my bet on the fact that there are more “inaccuracies” that through study and discovery have, over time, been proved to be true – or at least rationally plausible – than there are still outstanding inaccuracies (i.e. so-called “inaccuracies”). It’s easy to make a claim that there are “inaccuracies” – those limited and very few words flow from the mouths and pens and keyboards of the ignorant, the uneducated and the bigoted like water from a spout. But listing them – and harder still, defending such a list – is another matter altogether.

  • Mike Kemp

    We would all do well to remember the formula: “I don’t understand” “an inaccuracy”.

  • zhoag

    I like how you say you want to be respectful and then say my claims are rooted in “bigotry.” At any rate, thanks for engaging, and I’m familiar with your perspective. I probably held something similar to it at one time. Peace.

  • Mike Kemp


  • Beepela

    Zach, you are a genius, and I am consistently amazed at the way you take things I am struggling with, or have struggled with, and make complete sense out of them. Thanks for the insightful post!

  • zhoag

    thanks so much for the encouragement adam. i’m really glad the post resonates. :)

  • Mike Kemp

    I would like to remind you, however, that I did say I feel no obligation to respect an opinion. I don’t think you would say that every opinion that exists deserves respect. I do think you would agree with me, also, that every person does.
    I have to say I find it more respectful to the person to be direct and honest about what one thinks of another’s opinion than to be ambiguous, patronizing and dismissing when saying, “I like how you say …I’m familiar with your perspective. I probably held something similar … yadayada.”. What does that MEAN?
    I can offer a guess: First: “I like how you …”. That’s sarcasm. Is sarcasm “respectful to the person”? I think not. Second: Despite my explicit disclaimer you fail to recognize that I never called you a bigot, I only said I think an opinion you expressed is rooted in bigotry. It is disrespectful to the person to fail to listen to what they say. “I’m familiar with your perspective.” Patronizing because it’s as if you’re saying: “Oh, I already know about all THAT. Hurumpfff hurumpff. Yes, yes, bring me something NEW don’t bore me with all that stuff I’ve already heard about. I’m way ahead of you, boy.” Finally, “I probably held something similar …” Ah yes, more of the “When I was a young lad, not as advanced in my thinking, why I used to feel the same way.”
    Those are my guesses at to what your ambiguous response means, and it it all very disrespectful to me, the person. Which is fine, I don’t mind. I don’t even know you and should I meet you I would treat you like a brother.
    Again I would return the wish: Peace. Peace in full knowledge, forthrightness and disclosure. I will let you represent the ambiguity and patronization, while simultaneously hoping for you greater things.

  • alshaw

    Thanks Zach. I have two questions which I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on:

    1. Could you please give a couple of examples of instances in which you have found there to be “historical and scientific inaccuracies in the text”?

    2. Could you please comment on any ways in which your own doctrine of scripture is the same as, or differs from, liberal Protestant views of scripture found in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries?

  • zhoag

    oh, mike.

  • zhoag

    Because the first point is easy to answer with a Google search (and I would just be repeating what has been written ad infinitum), I’ll just try to briefly answer the second. I have no interest in denying the presence of miracle in the text. Nor do I hold in any doubt the creedal claims to Jesus’s divinity, the nature of the Trinity, or the physical/bodily resurrection and ascension. In fact, as the pinnacle of the narrative, the escatalogical event of Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension as recorded in the canon are the thing that MUST be true if any of it is true in any way. So this is not old liberalism (as Imentioned in the post), nor is it a human-driven postmillennial optimism. On the contrary, it is a recognition that the real eschatalogical event opens up a real escatalogical experience of the event that is ongoing, unstoppable, etc. etc.

  • Jessica Parks

    I really appreciate this post and like where you are headed. My questions is: what does this actually look like when it comes to reading the text (such as the book of Joshua which is, shall we say, ethically problematic)?

    Great post!

  • zhoag

    thanks Jessica. i think it might look like a two step process. first, looking forward to Jesus, how are these stories about the Canaanite conquest building toward the eschatalogical event of the Messiah’s arrival and inauguration of the kingdom/new creation. Then, how does this inform us as the eschatalogical people of God living out the peaceable kingdom? I think there is “truth” in those stories, but it is not the “truth” of divinely sanctioned genocide. Does that make sense?

  • Jessica Parks

    yeah, i like that. i think that’s a helpful approach.

  • T.G. Blankenship

    I had my suspicions haha

  • Thomas Foster

    When Jonah preached to the people of Nineveh, they repented, and therefore Judgement did not come upon them. Prophecy in the Bible is not a prediction of events necessarily to come, it is a warning of that which might be, if the people do not repent.

    This is even true of Christ’s prophecies of the Last Days and his Second Coming. If the people repent, there will be no Last Days or Second Coming. It will not be necessary. God forbade us to eat from the knowledgeable tree of Good and Evil, but he gave us free will. We may fall and have to be redeemed, but if we do not eat from that tree, we do not fall, and we do not have to be redeemed.

    Eating from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil is calling that which is Good, Evil, and that which is Evil, Good. For example, ‘I will steal, because I will enrich myself. Therefore, stealing is Good, because I will be rich even though I am Evil.’ Or, ‘Charity is no Good, because it does not enrich me, therefore to me, charity is Evil.’ This is what Christ is talking about when he says a ‘A good tree cannot bring forth corrupt fruit, nor can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.’

    Now all this is a self-evident fact to any serious student of the Bible, but the fact is, most Bible-bashing people are not. Forget the rants of Paul and Luther. They were preachers, not prophets; pharisees, not apostles. Christ does not predict the inevitable future, he warns us what our future will be if we do not follow the commandments of God, and assures us what our future will be if we do. This was understood by the ancient prophets, who did not believe themselves to be seers of the future, but as seers of eternal truth, for in this universe, if we do not do the good as God wills, we suffer Judgment; if we do Gods will, that is, truth and goodness, we do not.

    As William Blake put it, ‘Prophets in the modern sense of the word have never existed. Jonah was no prophet in the modern sense for his prophecy of
    Nineveh failed. Every honest man is a Prophet. He utters his opinion both of private & public matters: ‘Thus, if you go on So, the result is So.’ He never says, ‘Such a thing shall happen, let you do what you will.’ A Prophet is a Seer not an Arbitrary Dictator.’

    People who do not even know what prophecy is, both theists and atheists, have wondered at the fact Paul expected the imminent return of Christ, that did not come. But Christ never expected to return if his Gospel took hold, though he knew it would be preached in every corner of the world. The Gospel saves the world from ending, it is not fulfilled when the world ends.

    ‘They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’

  • Gavin Johnston

    Great insights! I believe many Christians put the cart before the horse. Since Christianity is entrenched, Christians are told from the start to dig into the Bible and the “system” and believe it like your parents did. One problem though, few people actually gain spiritual maturity and understanding in their life (Jesus “a narrow path”). So people read the instruction manual, but never figure out how to put the parts together. “The kingdom of heaven is within”, It isn’t in the Bible. If we first and foremost are taught to seek the kingdom within, we never need to even open the Bible, and if and when we do, we will then just confirm what we have come to know. We can also meet the Christ without ever having touched the Bible because as you said, Christ is the foundation of t all. The Bible is just a touching stone for people to reflect their spiritual maturity into and find the truth they already know or have fought hard to gain (as Jesus said, some take the kingdom violently). Biblical inerrancy is actually a sign of deep spiritual immaturity and the Bible was put together to use as a club by the early church and now we’re still confused by it. I highly recommend Rudolf Steiner concerning this, a Christ Freak extrodinaire.

  • Gavin Johnston

    In Matthew 13:10 the Disciples ask Jesus why he speaks in parables to the people and he says “”Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.” In a bit of the most divine irony, what leads so many Christians to believe that Jesus would not have to speak in parables to them no matter how much they have memorized the phrases of the Bible? The eschatology you speak of and the end times prophecy you so wisely avoid is just another product of theology and self-referential reinforcement for the continued self-serving status of the church. That isn’t meant to be a criticism, every institution must do the same thing. Pope Francis would be out of a job if eschatology was not believed and reinforced. We can’t get caught up in the belief that we need a “church” to have Christ. We need the “church” to have popes, ministers, and place to celebrate a common experience that has perhaps become a little too homogenized like institutional food. Your climatic statement “The eschatological text for the eschatalogical church will be the only option” is another axiomatic attempt to ensure “church” survival. Christ is alive and well regardless of the church and does amazing things well outside and without it. THE WHOLE POINT OF CHRIST IS THE SECRETS as the beloved Bible says! Otherwise we’re just digesting parables…

  • Gavin Johnston

    As far as going off the “heretical deep end” – when a group of people get together and want to share a common experience it is convenient if everyone shares the same jargon, uniform, and desire. That is why we need tens of thousands of denominations of the “church”, right? Since the Bible needs to be translated by the people in power in the church and in popularity contests, it is up to them to decide whether you’re heretical or not. If church A thinks you’re heretical, church B might not. After all, the whole Christian faith is built around a highly heretical man who plucked wheat on a Sabbath day among a few other things. Actually, the hero of Christianity was so heretical to another faith that the world turned a blind eye to the slaughter of 6 million Jews. I don’t think that is what Jesus quite intended by his heretical acts. Heretical is just another definition reinforced by the theology books and who happens to be in vogue at the moment. Nothing is heretical, all sins are forgiven, right? No eternal hell, nothing to sweat, right? Christianity often just becomes about nuanced definitions of what/who is in and what/who is out and if you get enough people together who believe the same thing some worship can start happening and anyone who throws a stick in the spokes can be declared heretical and kicked out of Church A and go to B or C…

  • Gavin Johnston

    Besides, according to the Jews, Jesus wasn’t who he says he was, he was just a “heretical” Jew and the “New” Testament has no validity and is a pillaging of the Hebrew Testament. But that is heretical to Christianity! But, if Christianity is just another faith like all others, then it’s just a belief system (the liberal rejection of eschatology). If Christianity is the only true faith, then the New Testament can be used to define who is heretical (the conservative inerrancy). But wait! We’re trying to tread a path between the two without being too liberal or too conservative so that means we need to borrow definitions from both sides and slip through on a progressive stance where we avoid theology of heretics and just soak in the glory of Jesus’ love which you beautifully spoke to when you said:

    “BOTH a commitment to the authority of the text in the church AND a radical openness to the future. Instead of being entrenched in defending the absolute truth of things that are out of synch with Christ himself or history itself or science itself or justice itself or our own authentic experience, we can receive the ancient witness to the eschatalogical event, and then freely begin to participate in the unfolding of that event in our own lives together, right here and right now. The result will be a church that is both rooted and revolutionary.”

  • R Vogel

    I think the answer is exegesis, midrash, wrestling with the angel if you will. Came across this meditation on Joshua recently and found it very compelling.

  • R Vogel

    I find for a very large portion of American Christians (the only kind I know, I’m not singling people out) the bible has become an idol. It is cast in stone and therefore dead. Living things change and grow. The ironic part is those who cling most tightly to an inerrant view of the bible, sometimes down to a specific translation, are simply killing their own sacred book. It may remain a potent symbol for them, but if their example is followed it is doomed to irrelevancy in future generations. I guess if you believe in the whole Jesus coming back in the clouds thing that’s OK with you because you don’t believe in the future. I am glad to see lots of people, yourself included, that are loathe to see that happen. Keep up the good fight, brother. (I missed your last post so I will say it now: You are awesome!)

  • Andrew Catron

    I appreciate the time that you have taken to publish your thoughts; I follow you on twitter and saw a link to this blog post and have been reading your other posts as well! I look forward to reading more of what you have written. For this particular post, I respectfully feel compelled to say that your attempt to reconcile calvinism with the greater Gospel message has led you into perplexing territory. I know Calvinism, Arminianism and the void in between is very much a current debate; I would say that the sovereignty of God and the free will of man is reconcilable in a way that does not have God banishing people into eternal separation from Him for reasons other than their lack of profession to the Lordship of Christ.
    I think you are looking to take a Christ-centric view of Scripture (especially the OT) rather than an eschatological view where the latter is specific to the end times of Christ’s second coming. A hermeneutical approach to Scripture would serve you well to see what the intended message of a particular passage was to its original audience and then bring that original intention into our time for a modern application and understanding. Christ is not a “main character” in every situation, however, following the covenants through the OT into the NT would be a valid approach to tracking the specific work of Christ in the OT.
    I would also say that the Bible is inerrant; that is a foundational doctrine of Christianity. To assert that any one verse is with error would be to assert that every verse could be with error which is in conflict with God’s own nature.
    One thing that I think we can agree on easily and what I believe is at the heart of your post is the occasion of errant application by a strong minority of christians in the United States where the culture of the church was not always in line with Scripture. I would love to discuss further with you if you were interested and again; I appreciate you putting your thoughts “out there.”
    with love, -Andrew

  • zhoag

    Andrew, thanks for the kind words but I”m not sure you’re reading me correctly here. I’m not trying to reconcile Calvinism with the gospel – I’ve long since rejected Calvinism. Likewise, your sense of the word “eschatology” is one I reject as well – it is not pertaining primarily to “the end” but to the inaugurated new creation that has already occurred in the life, death, resurrection, & ascension. That said, thanks for your charity here :).

  • Gravity Traveler

    This is the hope we need to see in the world, the incarnational narrative that should be titled “God and the Humans; A Love story: to be continued”. The notion that we are all still part if this narrative breathes so much more life into the real, ongoing work of Christ, much more so than a story deemed already written, and one for us to strive through, knowing the ending. The outlook described in your post makes the Bible, dare I say more human; it connects us as imagebearers of God. It’s meant to be real, and relational; we’re meant to be pulled and pushed throughout our interpretation of it- divinely inspired, it was penned by humans in certain times and certain situations as to convey the best and the worst of mankind’s potential for love, hate, greed, compassion, sacrifice, and all the confusion that experiential learning lends. Frankly, I love it. Your post is just damn hopeful, healing and engaging. You’ve got the point, and you’re doing a fine job navigating the icebergs of our human baggage to steer the conversation towards growth and activation with what Christ is doing right now, wherever we are, in the midst of our own timelines. Thanks man, truly right on.

  • Ben Garrett

    Thank you for your willingness to share your thoughts. I am sympathetic to both your overall understanding of the Bible as an eschatological text as well as your concerns about the consequences of the Bible being read through the inerrant framework (culminating in either overly simplistic acceptance or outright rejection). This being said I have a few questions that I would appreciate your thoughts on. 1) Are the texts that actually describe the “Christ Event” (Gospels mostly) inerrant? 2) If so, then how would you say that your hermeneutic avoids special pleading? 3) If not, then on what grounds can we say that Christ’s Life, Death, Resurrection etc. are the source for our understanding of the rest of Scripture? If the Christ event is recorded improperly then it would seem our whole interpretative lens is on very shaky ground (I am not necessarily looking for certainty just trying to understand the logic behind your starting point). Again thank you sharing your thoughts and some of your struggles with us.
    Grace and Peace,

  • zhoag

    Chad – thanks so much. I think I said “Amen” too loud when I read this! Especially dig, “God and the Humans; A Love story: to be continued”. Yes!

  • zhoag

    So I don’t know that my hermeneutic avoids special pleading, and I’m not sure I feel the need to avoid it! My starting point is, I am a Christian, I am part of the church, and the church finds its identity in the NT, especially the Gospels. So yes, there is a special degree of “truth” (I wouldn’t use the word “inerrant” but it is factual, historical, etc.) in the Gospels that form and shape our perspective and practice of the rest of scripture. For the record, I think the rest of the narrative is more or less historically and factually true, and fully true as a witness to the eschatalogical event. But here’s the thing – my starting point (Christian identity in the church) forms a kind of reverse-engineered hermeneutic that is itself eschatalogical in nature. That is, the primary thing is the experience of the reality of the unfolding eschatalogical event…now. This establishes the truth of the text, though it is not discerned not independent of the text, if that makes sense.

  • alshaw

    Thank you.

    If I’ve understood you correctly, you differ from some “old liberals” in terms of your views on miracles, the Incarnation, the Trinity and the person and work of Christ.

    But on the doctrine of Scripture specifically, would you not agree that the view you are expressing shares some significant common elements with “old liberalism”? In particular, by asserting that the scriptures should be understood as “a narrative where the truth is embodied in a people”, would you not agree that this perspective is similar to the “old liberal” view of scripture as “containing” the word of God and needing to be separated from its fallible human elements?

  • Kelly Cooper

    Spot on

  • James M

    Very interesting indeed – definitely a keeper.

    How about this:

    1. The truth of the Bible is Christ Himself – a Divine Person: not a body of inerrant propositions, or even their content. None of the Bible is unimportant – but all of it is capable of being death-dealing, if the Spirit of Christ does not make it alive. As others have suggested, the inspiration of Scripture is as much a constantly-occurring reality as an one-time, foundational, Divine act.
    IOW, it is: past
    and present
    and still to be fully realised;
    - just the like presence of the Kingdom of God in the NT.

    That would dove-tail with the idea that is eschatological.

    2. Christ is the Canon of Scripture, prior to the canon of books.

    3. Therefore, this truth is ordained for our salvation – it is practical.

    4. Because it is Incarnational, the Bible is sacramental as well. And communitarian, not individualistic. This matters because sin divides – Christ reconciles, & unites.

  • PBlake

    Thanks Zach

    Im currently studying with the Epicsopalian church and I’ve faced many of the issues described in your post.

    It’s quite frightening to speak to other believers who have strong views on the various issues we get embroiled in. I share many of your views and it worries me that many see the greatest threats to the future of the church as

    Accepting gay people
    accepting that God just might have used the self creating creation to bring about the world as we know it.

    That’s not to say that I feel empowered to repudiate anyone but I really worry that here in post Christendom Europe we are going to sideline ourselves as intolerant and belligerent and lose generations.

    I have to say I see a great example of Christian love in the new Pope. Strangely I’ve never listened to much of what He says but I hear what he does.

    Maybe if more of us had less to say and more love to give.

    Just a thought.

    Thanks for all of your hard work,