Skip to main content


I got into an insightful conversation the other day.  It was with a group of people from the church group I currently work with (The Church of England).  It was not a group of people that I knew particularly well but it included a couple of vicars.

What struck me was their use of the word "right wing" or "conservative".  It was always a word which they seemed to use of someone else with whom they disagreed and their voices intonated with a bit of scorn when it was used... but only ever so slightly.  In doing so they seemed to assume that their views were moderate, middle of the road, mainstream, etc.

As I continued to listen to these people it seemed that there were two distinguishing characteristics which made the people they were critiquing so extremely "right wing".  These "right wingers": 1. Believed bishops should be men and 2. They took the Bible literally.

Are these the views of only a small segment of right wing extremists?

In actual fact, here are the biggest Christian blockings:
1. Roman Catholic: 1 Billion +
2. Orthodox: 300 million
3. Pentecostal: 250 million
4. Anglican: 80 million
5. Assemblies of God: 60 million (included in Pentecostal grouping as well)

Of these 4/5 groupings, the Anglican grouping is the most theologically liberal.  The Church of England ( a mere 1.7 million) is among the most liberal within the Anglican communion.  So, when these people were dismissing the views of a few "right wingers" the were actually referring to beliefs held by the vast majority of Christians both past and present.

Here's the danger for all of us.  Because these people only tended to hang out with people like themselves, they began to assume that their beliefs were mainstream.  When they met people with different beliefs they assumed them to be "right wingers" because they had not realised how far they had drifted.  They had been looking at the other people on their boat and not at the shore.

If we only look at people who are on "our boat" we fall in danger of drifting.  If we are Methodist, Reformed, Non or Charismatic people who only read books from within our camp and fellowship with people from within our camp we risk drifting.  And while acceptable Christian doctrine is not what the majority believes, but rather what Scripture teaches, listening to other groups will often expose the weaknesses in our own theology whether we are drifting left, right, up or down.


  1. New blog! Nice! Hope this one lives longer than the last one;) Just a little thing about the catholics and the orthodox. I'm not so sure they have a literal understanding of the Bible. At least as far I my understanding goes, they tend to read it more allegorically. Otherwise: Good post:)

  2. No, you're right, they do not have the same approach to scriptural interpretation as we do. Woman do not serve as priests more out of respect for tradition than by scriptural exegesis.

  3. An interesting class at church, a study of some major religions and denominations both past and present. At first, I was a little unsure of its benefit, but now seeing how Jews view Christians as Christians view some religions of the past is insightful. Also reading Yancy "Blue like Jazz"; he is different. Of course, how would I know what qualifies as "outside of my camp"; at least I know God can point me to so valid sources if I get too inwardly focused.

  4. Sounds like an interesting class Cooley. Was it not Donald Miller who wrote "Blue Like Jazz"?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Pro-Gay Christian Friend

[Response to the letter Dear Non-Affirming Christian]
Dear Pro-Gay Christian Friend,

Thank you for taking the time to write me. Sadly, it seems you misunderstand why I met with you for coffee. Please let me explain my motives by defining the words in my salutation above. Would this be too terrible a way to go about it?
Let’s start with ‘friend’ shall we? You rightly question this term as an accurate description of our relationship. For now, let's simply say I mean it as an expression of goodwill. But we will return to it again at the end of the letter.
Then there's this term, 'pro-gay'. By this, I don't mean your personal sexual urges. There have historically been―and are today―countless godly leaders in the church who have deep sexual and romantic attractions to people of the same gender. In spite of their desires, they remain celibate and teach orthodox views of gender and marriage. In your letter, you repeatedly refer to me as a ‘non-affirming Christian’, but I affi…

Jezebel: Our Whorable Queen

[Extract from the bookElijah Men Eat Meat]

Ahab married Jezebel, then he proceeded to worship Baal.’ -1Kg 16
Queen Jezebel is a Baal-snogging, fake-teaching, boob-flaunting, pride-marching, man-manipulating, Yahweh-blaspheming, prophets’ blood-drinking monstrosity of a female.
And that’s being nice.
This daughter of Ethbaal, the Phoenician King, grows up surrounded by power, education, luxury, and evil. Of course, she doesn’t think of it as evil. No one sees their culture’s sins for what they are. It is like air to a child or water to a fish: it’s so much a part of us that we don’t even know it is there. She thinks her culture is the rule by which others should be measured. Yes, Israel is used to being surrounded by pagan neighbours and their debauched royalty. But now we have a problem. The problem is that this ghoulish gal now has a throne in the midst of God’s holy nation. It’s one thing for a boat to be in the sea. It’s quite another thing for the sea to be in the boat. And the nati…

Driscoll Returns, ‘Christian Today’ Melts.

Sometimes in the course of events, a peculiar thing happens that then triggers a response more peculiar still. This is what we now see with the return of Pastor Mark Driscoll to the church scene.
For those unfamiliar with the drama, Mark Driscoll was a church planter and Bible teacher who made a big impact in the least churched city in the USA: Seattle. Thousands professed faith in Christ through his ministry. But he left the church that he had started under dark circumstances. No, it wasn’t adultery as is so often the case with some of these big-name preachers. Rather, it was heavy-handed leadership―resulting in many spiritually crushed church members―that drove him to resign.
Now, three years later, he is leading a new church and many are downloading his sermons once again. This is not without some valid controversy―for reasons we’ll mention soon. But what is most noticeable is not his peculiar return. It is the reaction among those who lean left of classical Christian teaching: the …