The Failure of Christianity
347997
Stark provides an interesting and thought provoking history of Christianity.  He develops the case for many ways in which Christianity has had a positive influence on society over the centuries.  However, Stark also makes it clear that Christianity has never had a substantial personal impact upon the majority of the population.  According to Stark, there has always been a small percentage of people who attended Church and during the Middle Ages, even many of the priests did not understand Christianity, let alone be able to teach and lead a congregation.  My conclusion from reading this book is that from the time of Constantine, Christianity has failed to reach the hearts and souls of all but a few.
2929945
This volume is perhaps the most heartbreaking in the series. It traces the failures of the early saints and shows what happened when the restoration was cut short with the death of Joseph Smith. With the saints left to what they were told would happen in D&C 124:48, they reform their rejected church and move on.

You won't hear about these details in church on Sunday, but the difficult transition from what Denver Snuffer called "Phase 1" to "Phase 2" Mormonism is shown in detail.
608800
I am going to recommend Chris White's book, False Christ, even though I disagree with his main premise.  It can be good to read about views you disagree with.  White does try to take a very logical unbiased approach.  And he is not motivated by any Anti-Semitism, or The Church is now Israel, type doctrines, in-spite of those problem lie at the source of this theory.

So I encourage people to read his book with an open mind.  I will explain now some of my key objections.

John 5:43 I come in my Father's name, and yes receive me not: if another come shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

This is the core verse to teaching that The Antichrist will be a Messianic Claimant that the Jews will accept.  The Problem is, elsewhere in this same book White's discussion of both Micah 5's Assyrian and Psalm 83 points out how those are in purely hypothetical contexts and therefore we shouldn't build Prophetic Doctrine on them.  Yet in terms of this verse he completely ignores the use of the word if.  This verse is also hypothetical and not one to build Prophetic doctrine on.

If it is Prophetic at all, I see it as Bar-Kochba.  White says none of the early post 70 A.D. Messianic claimants were significant enough to possibly fit this verse.  I find that disappointing, the significance of Bar-Kockba is sadly greatly underestimated.

Bar-Kochba persecuted Christians when they wouldnt accept him as The Messiah.  This persecution is when the full schism between Judaism and Christianity really happened.  The earliest Christians faced persecution from Jews documented in The Book of Acts, but they had no trouble following the example of Stephen. Father lay not this Sin to their Charge.

Lots of Anti-Semitic ideas entered the Early Church after this period.  It wasn't till after this revolt for example that any Christians started teaching that The Lord's Day was Sunday rather then Saturday/The Jewish Sabbath.  And started insisting on separating Easter from Passover.

And that brings me to White's discussion of the Early Church Fathers.  If he had a single example that could be proven to predate the Bar-Kochba revolt I'd be much more impressed.  But he doesn't, the earliest is Tertullian and Ireaneus.  The Didache makes no connection to him being Jewish, it's brief study on Eschatology just calls him the World Deceiver.  Other early Apocryphal works like the Ascension of Isaiah only talk about his connection to Rome, no Jewish link.

Tertullian's scenario with the Jewish and real Antichrist defeating a resurrected Nero makes him sound a lot like Bar-Kochba.  Bar-Kochba gave the Roman Empire one of the most humiliating military defeats in their history.

In the case of Hippolytus, White misrepresents his views.  I've read Hippolytus and I don't recall him saying anything about The Antichrist being a Messiah the Jews will accept, just that he'll be descended from the Tribes of Israel.  And the quotations White provided don't contradict my memory.  White insists the Tribe of Dan thing is a pet theory but is not the reason Hippolytus holds the view he does.  I'm afraid that's simply wrong, Hippolytus's discussion of The Antichrist begins with Jacob's prophecy of Dan in Genesis 49, just as his discussion of Messianic prophecy begins with Jacob's prophecy for Judah.  Dan was the foundation of how Hippolytus viewed The Antichrist.

As for Daniel 11:37.  The typical debate about this is a waste.  I agree it implies a Judeo-Christian background.  But what everyone overlooks is he's an Apostate.  I personally believe he's an Apostate to Islam.

On Tumblr and Twitter I'm JaredMithrandir.  I have an Invisionfree forum called MithrandirOlorinBlog  I have many Bible Studies there where I address the many other flaws of this theory.  Including one on Jerusalem, Babylon and Throne of the Beast.

I do agree actually, for the most part, about the Gog and Magog invasion being Post-Millennial.  So that part of the book I can highly recommend.
4942776
If you consider yourself a Christian, then you have already lamented the sad state of American Christianity. And if you have had enough of whacko ministers and anything-goes theology, then you should be reading "When the Crosses are Gone" by Dr. Youssef. Dr. Youssef points out where seminaries, churches (and so-called Christians) are caving in, compromising the faith, and leading their congregations astray. Do some of these churches resemble the one you may be attending? Then read "When the Crosses Are Gone" and find out what you should be doing, before it's too late.
817615
In "The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips does an excellent job dismantling the intellectual pretensions, both risible and pernicious, of today's elitists and of the suckers who drink from the same trough:  The devotion to "progress" (novelties, fads, and trends) and to neo-paganism; the contempt for tradition, continuity, family, and religion; the moral relativism and, indeed, indifference; the fanatical commitment to scientism and Frankensteinism, including stem-cell research, global warming, and Darwinian evolution; and the concomitant persecution of those, including scientists, who dare to question the orthodoxy.

That being said, I must express my extreme dismay with Phillips' worshiping at the shrine of Israel and her accompanying Christophobia, most evident in her subtly titled chapter "The Revival of Christian Jew-Hatred".

Regardless of egregious Vatican II and post-conciliar trends and attitudes, Church teaching on Judaism is authoritative, definitive, and immutable -- the Old Testament has been fulfilled by the New, and Judaism has been superseded by Christianity.  Even more broadly erroneous is Phillips' opinion that Western Civilization is somehow based on Judaic mores.  Is she kidding?  The cradle of Western Civilization is the Church.  Any opposing contention is anti-historical in the extreme.

On page 366, Phillips asks, "So where does Christianity stand on the pivotal issue of Israel?  One might expect it [Christianity] to defend truth against lies...not least because it [Christianity] is founded on the religious precepts of Jesus the Jew."  Jesus the Jew?  Christianity isn't founded on the religious precepts (whatever they are) of Jesus the Jew (whoever that is), but by Jesus Christ, Who is the Truth, the Way, and the Life.

In short, Phillips' obsessive need to depict Christianity as little more than the quirky, rather silly, and too-big-for-his-britches baby brother of Judaism is delusional and reprehensible -- and, of course, offensive.

I don't gainsay that Phillips has made points that needed to be made, but her effort has been hopelessly marred by her startling and disturbing Christophobia (as well as by a heaping helping of neocon drivel).

It only remains for me to announce that Phillips' use of BCE and CE, rather than of BC and AD, was so annoying and insulting that, in and of itself, it cost her a star.
989694
This is a facinating book and informative read. I am Roman Catholic,and got it to haved a better understanding our Church "Roots."  Had I only read the first few pages, I would have been ok.  I challenge you to read this book with your own bible - whatever version IN HAND; and actually check out the footnotes in your bible for EACH and EVERY one of the references the author uses.  You will quickly find that he has taken most quotes out of context, and apparently has no understanding of the writing style of that day - especially when he gets to Paul. Nor does he understand the use of parables (stories) for teaching - which I find odd, as Jesus taught like many rabbis of the day by telling stories. He does not understand the "descrepancies" in the Gospels.  Moses, and/or someone he directed is credited with writing the Torah. David wrote the Psalms.  The New testament had many authors - each wanting to get across to their particular audience what they felt was important to remember.  So naturally they tell different versions.  The author sees this as "proof" that the Christian bible is NOT of God - as it has deviations. He makes reference to the Gospel of Peter - one of the books that many christans may have never heard of and which the Catholics view as not authentic(given that Peter was illiterate and the manuscript dates to a time after Peter's decease).

Christians were looking to the Heavenly Kingdom, NOT the day to day worries (Lillies of the Field story), hence their focus is different than the Jews.  The author continually asserts that James was the first leader of the Way, after Jesus died (one of many concepts that Jews say can not happen ie God cannot be a man. God cannot die). The deeper one gets into the book, the more the author uses the very techniques he accuses the would be missionaries to the Jews of using.  I learned a lot about Judism. I learned TONS about the Christian bible.  I came to understand how really radical Jesus was for his times.  Christianity is NOT the fulfillment of Judism (as they view it.) The MAIN reason Jews don't accept Jesus as the Messiah is that he preached a paradigm shift which most Jews then, as well as today, are not willing or able to take in.  The Messiah must fulfill the Messianic prophecies of the Torah.  Jesus didn't do this to the letter of the Torah's law.  Hence he CANNOT be the Messiah the Jews await.  This book has a lot of "meat" in it and it NOT a "quick read."  I am currently re-reading it.  There is much food for thought.  I highly recommend reading it, just be aware that the author literally comes from a culture that does not understand Christianity any more than most Christians understand that Judiasm is MORE than "just" a religion.  There is MUCH in Judaism that Christians would be wise to hark back to and emulate - especially how devoted Jews are to their G-d. (pre-VaticanII Christians will remember these days and hopefully return to their own devotion and teach it to the current generations).  IF not - God help us all!
2089819
This is a dangerous and irresponsible method of church planting. Because it is so short it runs the risk of developing churches with leaders that are syncretistic and heretical in doctrine. It also is man-centered and decisionistic in its soteriology rather than God-centered. It's gospel message is also skewed to cater to the desires of man rather than encouraging people to count the cost of following Christ's suffering if they truly believe, repent, and live for God. Teaching obedience to all the commands of Christ is not in focus. The whole premise of the short cycle is based off of apostolic speed of church planting in the book of Acts. Church planters today do not have apostolic authority and we are not in the apostolic age, which was a transitional period. The author of this book has a poor hermeneutical approach to the book of Acts. In summary, this church planting method runs the risk of quickly creating many assemblies of unbelievers.
4565324
I received this book through winning a Good Reads giveaway. Quite frankly I was unimpressed the first 100 pages. I thought this was yet again another thinly veiled critique of Christianity. All of the major discoveries for mankind were the result of some super long-living Forest Gump.  Totally unbelievable. Now that I have ended the book, I realize that it is a critique on organized religion. I don't like that the book denies the deity of Christ, hence the 3 stars. But I have to also admit that institutional Christianity is problematic. We can be so hateful.  Faith is internal and eternal not through dogmas of institutions.

This book made me think.
2968168
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

I urge you to beware of this book and its lies. Rob Bell has done a fine job of manipulating and twisting the foundational truths of Christianity. This book will seem most appealing to new Christians, who may not be well versed or educated in the Word of God, as well as older Christians who are looking for something to jump start thier weak faith.

I admit, sometimes its useful to pick up a good book so we can experience God in a new way, but we must remember, that the Gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ never changes. God is the same today, yesterday and forever. There are no mysteries or hidden truths in the bible. The bible simply means exactly what it says. But according to Rob Bell, "The more people insist that they are just taking the Bible for what it says, the more skeptical I get." A very interesting statement from a so-called Christian. Rob Bell also believes the bible to be completely mysterious and opened to interpretation. I find this interesting because the Bible tells us "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful in training, rebuking, correcting and teaching in righteousness, so that the man of God will be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16) If the bible is opened to interpration, how could it be useful in these four attirbutes listed above? It couldn't be, because there would be no absolutes. It would be too confusing, too hard to follow, too opened to interpretation.

Rob Bell also makes the comment of, "Sometimes, when people are backing up thier points and the Bible is used to prove they are right, everything within me says "There is no way that's what God meant by that verse." I counted three ill-used verses before the end of the 2nd chapter, so I guess you could say that this statement would be no different than a Hypocrite calling another man a hypocrite. Didn't Jesus mention something against telling your brother about the plank in his eye?

Rob Bell also suggests that God ordered the massacre of innocent people when he sent the Israelites to take over Jericho. For Rob to make the statement that our loving, gracious and just God would demand the violent slaughter of innocent people is absolutely revolting and is flat-out blasphamy. The inhabitants of Jericho were NOT without sin. On the contrary, they were as bad.....and possibly even worse...then the Egyptians. To make such a statement is to call God a liar. To make such a statement is to condemn your very own soul.

Rob Bell also condemns an evangelistic woman he knows who urges others to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ so they can know God the Father. He believes that since the phrase 'personal relationship' isn't found anywhere in the bible, that somebody made up this phrase then said you could have one with God. Again, this is in complete contrast with the very teachings of Jesus Christ himself, who desperately wants and hopes for a personal relationship with all of his creation. God told Moses "I am passionate about my relationship with you." And 2 John 9 says "...Anyone who remains in the teaching of Christ has a relationship with both the Father and the Son."

The Velvet Elvis is an attempt to repaint the Christian faith. It is the replacement of God's precious truth with Satan's lies. Rob Bell could be considered a false prophet. I am saddened that so many Christians have fallen into this false doctrine and New Age philosophy of his. Rob believes himself to be a Christian, yet he doesn't seem to have faith in Christ. He has never been to any seminary, and even states that he 'teaches and tries to understand the bible." Shouldn't one understand the bible before he teaches it? This would be a warning come to pass when Jesus told the parable of the blind leading the blind.

If your looking for a book to jumpstart your faith, recommend to a new Christian, or even just a good read, try "Everyday with Jesus" by Greg Laurie, or any book by Max Lucado.
3778887
The greatest strength of this book is also its greatest weakness.  The author does a fine job of critiquing the culturally-accommodated "ministry" of the American megachurch.  His arguments and  comments are right on mark.  However, what the author fails to do is give  enough concrete examples of churches that fit the mold he is  characterizing. This absence creates a variation of the  "straw-man" dilemma: many church leaders will agree with  Guinness' critique, but few will believe that it actually applies to them.  One would hope that leaders of American megachurches will read Guinness'  book and take heed.
409295
Walker and Parry claim we have lost, or are in danger of losing, the gospel and they blame the likes of Don Cupitt, John Robinson, David Jenkions, John Hick, Maurice Wiles and Shelby Spong and the more widely read Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan.
In so doing, they show their ignorance of these theologians. They are not all the same. Robinson and Jenkins were orthodox. To put them under the same banner as Spong and Cupitt is ridiculous.

They say that Christianity isn't a lump of clay that can be remoulded to suit  but in fact that is what Christianity has always been doing  adapting itself to successive generations.

This loss of the gospel is leading to what they call the third schism. (The first schism was the split between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church in the eleventh century. The second was the split between Roman Catholics and Protestants arising from the Reformation in the sixteenth century. The third schism, they say, is the divide between those who believe in the orthodox core of the Christian faith, as expressed in the historic creeds, and those who do not. They argue for unity among all those who hold to the orthodox core of the Christian faith, whether they be evangelical Protestants, traditional Anglicans, Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. This means those who, as Justin Welby says of himself, say the creed without crossing my fingers at any point.

The challenge for evangelicals is whether they are prepared to see as our allies those whom we have traditionally seen as our enemies  Anglo-Catholics, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox. Where do we draw the battle lines? Which issues do we regard as fundamental and which are secondary? This boils down to the question, who do I count as a fellow Christian?

I don't understand evangelical charismatics so did not warm to the theme of this book.

I am aware of high, low and broad church, a fan of short church but  have never heard of deep church and I don't like C. S. Lewis who coined the phrase.

They have some dodgy ideas about Scotus where they suggest he puts the being of God on the same plane as humanity but I don't know enough about this topic.

They are right to see the reformation as leading to secularism.

They are also right to challenge evangelicals suspicion of tradition  the NIV always translates it negatively whereas Paul uses the term in two senses: negatively about Jewish tradition but positively about apostolic teaching.

Because churches tend to attract old people, many are tempted to turn worship into entertainment, to pull in the punters we need to be hip-hop rather than hip-op.

I didn't know before why some churches have elaborate ceremonies when a bishop arrives  he represents Christs first and second comings.

Theres a good section on the centality of the eucharist. I thought that evangelicals had rediscovered it at Keele but it seems to have lapsed again.

There is also a good section on how Christians tend to share the same values as the secular world because it brainwashes us just as much as did the Roman Empire.
754743
As an academic theologian, I was intrigued when this book was not only being passed around among my friends and students but was recommended as one of the finest explications on the body, gender, and sexual intimacy as seen through the writings of John Paul II.  It is not.  And I say this not as a critic of those with conservative Christian beliefs (I am one), I say this because what West teaches in this volume is so sadly misdirected.  In fact, I shared an outline of this book with a number of colleagues who gasped just as I did.  "Surely," one said, "this guy doesn't have a degree in theology."  And that was it.  To the trained reader, this book falls apart not long after one begins to read it.  West needs a theological mentor.

In a word (a fuller exploration is impossible), West thinks our society has become "Gnostic" and so flees from this heresy into the arms of a materialism ('monism') with an application to sex that we haven't seen since the 1960s.  A colleague linked it to ancient near east pagan fertility religions.  West exploits our understanding of marriage and misconstrues the place of sexual intimacy within it.  For West, sex is no longer a gift from God, it is a "participation" in divine life -- on a parallel to how one participates with God in sacramental worship (e.g. the eucharist).  Therefore to have sex (within marriage) is to gain some access to divine reality that one does not gain elsewhere.  And with this surprising announcement, West thinks that the church will not only protect the sanctity of sex but recharge marital sex with all the exciting goodness God planned for it.  There is a lot more, but this is the gist of it.

The book ends -- really, it is a major part of the book -- with an angry screed against any form of contraception.  The ethical and medical arguments are considered, but the theological conclusions are utterly irresponsible.  To use contraception is to reap the most severe criticisms.  It is to deny any relationship with God, to void one's marriage, and to sin in the most profound sense.  Of course, Natural Planning is the only option offered.

There are a lot of solid orthodox books of sexuality, the intimacy of persons, marriage, and the relationship of sexual life to marriage.  One will find solid Catholic works on the relationship of marriage to sacramental life.  But this is not one of them.

I couldn't help thinking that the outrageous, pop-theology style of West is one of the things that make people want to read him.  Surely Christian theology, even bright laity like West, can do better than this.  At least we should stop recommending him to our friends.
908944
With an abundance of often startling examples and facts, The Silence of Our Friends forcefully conveys the message that long established Christian communities throughout the Middle East are being victimized with survivors driven to flee their homelands.  Readers will learn that the cause of this violence and persecution is the actual or attempted overthrow of despotic regimes and the subsequent rise of radical Islamist groups engaged in religious cleansing. British author Ed West, a journalist and Deputy Editor of the Christian Herald, focuses his reporting on civil war torn Syria, but also describes similar persecutions that are occurring in Egypt and Iraq.  In Syria, sectarian violence has repeatedly devastated ancient Christian villages.  In Iraq, the Christian population has fallen from over a million in 2004 to a current estimate of 150,000. History is replete with examples of war or civil upheaval resulting in the persecution of religious minorities and the author provides interesting and informative historical background on Middle Eastern Christianity that aids in understanding the current situation.  The author bemoans the medias failure to bring attention to this crisis to the US and British publics and assails their respective national foreign policies as  designed to hasten the destruction of the (middle east) regions religious minorities.  West fails to recognize the significant  dilemma that now confronts the major western democracies as they struggle to find an effective Middle Eastern  foreign policy approach for the spread of insurgencies across the region that might support the development of democracies without resulting in civil and social chaos  Is there a moral obligation among Christian majority nations to come to the aid of their Christian brethren in the Middle East?  West clearly infers that such an obligation exists.  Unfortunately, the bitter wake of over ten years of war by the US and Britain in Iraq and Afghanistan has chastened the ardor of both governments and their publics for further intervention efforts.  Consequently, The Silence of Our Friends may be yet another sad chapter in history with little hope of a positive resolution.
4084504
This book is one of many recent efforts to understand Christianity within the matrix of the Pax Americana, which the authors describe clearly and denounce strongly. Its authors are some of the leading thinkers in theology and international relations and have many strong insights into the causes of the disease of empire.

It is disappointing, then, to conclude that their "political, economic, religious statement" comes out as rehashed 60s progressivism, rather than an authentic Christian response to global empire. One suspects, and then discovers near the very end of the book, the reason: they simply don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event, but present it instead as a (weak) metaphor for maintaining one's identity in the face of imperial threats. This lack of faith in the heart of the Christian message unfortunately undermines any power the book otherwise might have had as a manifesto for inspiring a revitalized Christian movement for peace and justice.

While professing to be familiar with and energized by recent biblical scholarship which roots the gospels (and Paul) in the matrix of the Roman empire, they collectively cite only one such book, Richard Horsley's fine "Jesus and Empire." But there is so much more (including Horsley et al's "Paul and Empire" and "Paul and Politics") that would have given them a fuller understanding of a field which is clearly outside each of their individual familiarity (Griffin and Cobb are esteemed "process theologians," while Falk is an international lawyer and Keller is a feminist theologian). For instance, the landmark work of NT Wright has demolished their claim that early Christians (including the NT writers) didn't understand Jesus' resurrection as "of the body." As Wright definitively and exhaustively shows, there would have been no other explanation of the "empty tomb" and the gospels' reports of Jesus' risen presence that would have made any sense to Jewish disciples. It is precisely resurrection of the body (in fulfillment of the Danielic prophecy in Dan 12) that inspired the otherwise terrified disciples to stand up both to the Empire and to their own collaborator religious leaders. Our own contribution, "Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now," is also a modest attempt to contribute to this new biblical movement.

In the absence of this crucial and necessary faith affirmation, it is no surprise that the remainder of this book's proposals lack true biblical courage and insight. They offer, for example, a vague kind of "global democracy" that would be somehow free of the very corruptions (money, self-interest) that they acknowledge lead to both empires and the corruption of every other human-made governmental form. In their inability to specific how or why this imaginary body (different from the UN?) would "work," they reveal the flaw at the heart of their entire argument: even the most well-meaning and "thoughtful" counter-imperial proposals are doomed to fail. The hope for humanity lies not in any kind of centralized global power structure, but rather, as the Bible consistently strives to show, in the devolution of power back to local networks of kinship grounded in the love (agape) of God and love of neighbor.
1723765
Need I say more? This book is another sad attempt, of which is becoming more and more of the trend these days, to integrate Biblical Truth into an area of life of which the authors know very well will enlarge their bank accounts, while all along destroying the Scriptures and putting forth false teaching. Daniel vowed not to eat the King's food because it would have been food offered to the pagan idols of his day and he was more concerned about keeping himself pure of the kosher laws and most importantly, pleasing the Lord by being a man of integrity who refused to eat food offered to idols. This book will sell in abundance because discernment is a gift which has all but disappeared these days. Whatever tickles the ears is what fly's off the bookshelves these days
2015827
In this book McKinsey is preaching to the choir, i.e. immature atheists, skeptics and freethinkers, it will of course bolster their young faith; it is published by Prometheus Books (need I say more). It can of course be used for Christian bashing, especially the young and immature. However the more mature and scholarly Christian apologist will hardly bat an eye-lid. It might upset the faith of some, but it is hardly a serious assault on the faith. Sure there are bible difficulties and many years ago we had Haley's Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (1874). Even the apostle Peter admits that Paul's letters "contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Pet 3:16). McKinsey is hardly a scholar, his advice is to "avoid Christian commentaries" and "just read it cold" i.e. biblical literalism. Most of his difficulties have been refuted in books and on the web. Some of the moral bible difficulties that upset Christians and Skeptics alike are answered by Glenn Miller's site. Even the skeptic Farrell Till remarks that biblical discrepancies are often discussed only superficially in works like... (EBE) see details below. The skeptic Jeffery Jay Lowder says "I do not recommend skeptics rely on McKinsey's scholarship without first independently verifying his claims in a reliable source" (details below). So there we have it, McKinsey does not claim to be a scholar and the more mature skeptics agree.

The material in the Encyclopaedia of Biblical Errancy (EBE) is also available on-line, so no need to buy the book. Dennis McKinsey has done the Christian world a favour by listing the various ways in which the bible can be misunderstood and distorted through the eyes of unbelievers. Since, he sets out to attack it, rather than to understand it in any scholarly way; his articles are designed to throw the bible in the worst possible light. He is writing from the point of view of an atheist and free-thinker, in which Christianity is a maze of religious superstition which is unhealthy for society in general. He is a proselytizer for the atheist persuasion, and his book is fodder for skeptics to try to undermine the faith of immature Christians. He has no qualifications that are relevant to biblical criticism, most pastors have to go to Bible College for three years and learn the original languages. It is worth mentioning that in the church, God has appointed teachers, that is, people gifted in expounding God's word. Ultimately he is a blind guide, if people want to believe the lie, then they have C Dennis McKinsey.
1824850
J. Gresham Machen's magnum opus, Christianity & Liberalism, is a book that everyone concerned about the demise of American Christianity should read. At first one might not find the title of his book all that striking, but in its day (1923), it had a little more punch. Machen was trying to show that Christianity and liberalism were two separate plans of salvation, two separate faiths--in short, two entirely different religious systems. In his day, it was thought that liberalism was a fresh new approach to Christianity, a way of practicing the faith in the modern context. But in Machen's thinking, however, liberalism had "relinquished everything distinctive of Christianity, so that what remains is in essentials only that same indefinite type of religious aspiration which was in the world before Christianity came upon the scene." Machen set out therefore to bring all the issues out into the open and make clear-cut distinctions between the two faiths: "What that message is can be made clear, as is the case with all definition, only by way of exclusion, by way of contrast." But this approach wasn't always well received:
"Presenting an issue sharply is indeed by no means a popular business at the present time....Clear-cut definition of terms in religious matters, bold facing of the logical implications of religious views, is by many persons regarded as an impious proceeding...But with such persons we cannot possibly bring ourselves to agree. Light may seem at times to be an impertinent intruder, but it is always beneficial in the end. The type of religion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional phrases, regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from "controversial" matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life. In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight."
Machen was an extremely clear writer!  and thinker.  His insight with regard to the battle of orthodox Christianity in the liberal context of the 20's is of tremendous relevance for modern Christians of all stripes concerned about the loss of substance, meaning, theology, etc, in the contemporary church. After reading Christianity & Liberalism, you'll definately want to order his other classic, What Is Faith (1925).