About Me

My Photo
Robin Parry is the husband of but one wife (Carol) and the father of the two most beautiful girls in the universe (Hannah and Jessica). He also has a lovely cat called Monty (who has only three legs). Living in the city of Worcester, UK, he works as an Editor for Wipf and Stock — a US-based theological publisher. Robin was a Sixth Form College teacher for 11 years and has worked in publishing since 2001 (2001–2010 for Paternoster and 2010– for W&S).

Wednesday, 30 July 2014

Dawkins, rape, and paedophilia

Richard Dawkins has inflamed the twitterverse with some recent comments intended to illustrate the structure of certain arguments. The two tweets that create the firestorm were:

"Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think."

"Mild paedophilia is bad. Violent paedophilia is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of mild paedophilia, go away and learn how to think."

It seems that by grading rape and paedophilia in degrees of moral badness some people took Dawkins to be undermining the case that all instances of rape and paedophilia are morally bad. Or perhaps that while it is all bad, some is not worth getting all that worked up about.

Dawkins did not help himself here by speaking of "mild paedophilia".

These two issues are both highly inflammatory and Dawkins was less than sensitive to the feelings of those who have been victims of date rape and "mild paedophilia." To him, this was a simple matter of logic.

What he failed to adequately appreciate was the social context in which his comments were thrown out. Take rape. Western societies have not taken rape with the seriousness that it demands, and in particular, rape by one's partner or someone with whom one is on a date have been treated as relatively trivial. So campaigners have been working hard to drive home the message that such rape IS wrong and ought to be treated seriously. To this end, Dawkins' comments could be taken as trivializing the issue.

However, I want to say that I think that the basic point that Dawkins was making is surely correct. We do not want to say that all crimes that fall into a particular category must be ranked as equally bad. That is clearly nonsense, and we do not apply such thinking to other instances of sinful behaviour. It may be that in certain contexts, in order to drive home that all crimes in the category are bad, we will speak with equal ferocity about them all. That is appropriate in some contexts. However, to suggest that the only way to get people to take the horror of rape or paedophilia seriously is to treat all cases as maximally and equivalently evil is simply mistaken. And Dawkins is correct to say that pointing out that some evil acts are even worse than other evil acts is NOT a recommendation or excuse for any evil acts. Society is right to express its disgust at rapists and paedophiles, but society is wrong if in so doing it fails to distinguish degrees of evil in those categories. What we need is to find ways to do so that do not trivialize any particular instances.

Tuesday, 29 July 2014

What is polytheism? Do polytheists exist?

I have wondered recently what polytheism is. In theory it is simple: monotheists believe that there is one god and polytheists believe that there are lots of gods. Thus, Muslims, for instance, are monotheists and Hindus are polytheists.

But it is not as simple as that. The ambiguity concerns what we mean by "God" and "gods."

Take the Bible. In the Good Book the term "god" is not reserved for Yhwh, the god of Israel. The Bible recognizes many gods. (Ps 82:6, addressed to the divine council, is a classic instance of this, quoted approvingly by Jesus in John 10:34 on the very issue of a plurality of gods.) The gods of the Old Testament are heavenly beings that rule over the nations. Yhwh is one of many 'elohim (gods).

So is Yhwh just one god among many? Is the Bible polytheist?
Not in any simple way.

Yhwh created the other gods and rules over them. He alone is thus spoken of as "the god." Yhwh is incomparable and in a league of his own. Yhwh alone is the creator, the source of all things. The other gods simply mediate his rule over creation. So we are not wrong to cap "God" when we speak of Yhwh. He is not simply another god; he is the God of gods.

I've been reading a lot of Plato recently and sometimes he seems to offer a not dissimilar picture. Plato was an ancient Athenian and we all know that Athens was polytheistic, awash with multiple gods. Plato too recognized these gods (though he distanced himself from some of the crude and immoral stories of the gods). He even saw the cosmos itself as a living being, which he calls a god. So he was a polytheist, right? Well, that depends what you mean. Plato seems to see the ultimate ground of all things as single and unitary—the Form of the Good (what neoplatonists called "The One"). When he tells his creation story he tells it in terms of a single divine craftsman who creates the gods, including the divine cosmos. Not all gods are equal in Plato's cosmos. In one sense, Plato was a monotheist—though we'd need to be careful how we spelled out exactly what we meant by the term when speaking of him.

Much the same can be said about sophisticated versions of Hinduism, in which the gods are aspects of a single ultimate divine reality. (By "sophisticated" I do not mean new versions of Indian traditions that aim to respond to monotheistic faiths by claiming to say the same thing. I mean ancient interpretations of those traditions that the most intellectually vigorous elements in the tradition have affirmed.) What may superficially seem like polytheism may turn out to be more complicated than that, and to affirm a single ultimate divine source of reality.

Indeed, one wonders whether the normal uses of monotheism and polytheism involve a category mistake. When monotheists affirm one God they are, among other things, affirming a single divine reality upon which everything else depends. The mistake is assuming that everything referred to as a "god" in a religious context is intended to fit into that category. It is not. So we need to look below the surface level of simply counting up the entities named as "gods" when deciding whether a religion is monotheistic or not.
Indeed, perhaps the categories themselves are only of limited value, concealing as much as they reveal.

Be that as it may—the biblical faith of the church is that there is one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. This, however, does not exclude acknowledging the existence of lesser gods (whatever we may mean by that); it only excludes the worship of them.

Tuesday, 15 July 2014

A bad argument for women bishops

After the Church of England's General Synod voted to in favour of women bishops I was reading The Independent newspaper, and there was a opinion column on the issue. Its author was not hostile to the Church of England and was very pleased that the Church had finally agreed to have women in its "top posts." However, her reasoning struck me as poor. It is very important for the Church to have women bishops, she said, because it needs to reflect the values of the society round about it.

On TV, after the news came out, various folk were being asked what they thought about the decision, and the sentiment was much the same — we're pleased because it brings the church more up to date. (Or as one person put it, "It's amazing! Next thing you know we'll land people on the moon!")

But is it the responsibility of the Church to reflect the values of the society round about it? Hardly! The NT ekklesia were often known for doing precisely the opposite. Not for the sake of being bloody minded, but for the sake of being true to the gospel.

Don't get me wrong. I support the idea of women bishops. My point is simply this:
for a Christian, the case for women bishops has to be made on grounds internal to the theo-logic of the Church.
In this instance the matter was especially tricky because there is a universal historical Christian tradition of restricting the episcopate to men. And one cannot simply set that aside as if it counted for nothing! A tradition that old and that universal would need to be taken very seriously indeed. One would need to show that the theological underpinning for a male-only episcopate was shaky and that the theological case for including women was strong. One would need to show that a restriction of the episcopacy to men is not consistent with ancient and central Christian notions.

That is why I am not dismayed at how long it has taken the Church to make this decision. The pressure is on all the time to CHANGE NOW! CHANGE FAST! While such quick change is all but required in our Speedy Gonzales culture, it is also likely to land you in a mess. Wisdom, for the most part, does not rush.

I am very pleased about the decision — it was, in my view, the theologically right one. (I appreciate that many will disagree.) But we must never seek to primarily justify it on the basis that it makes us fit in better with society at large. Such a consideration is, at best, secondary. The gospel must always call the shots.

Wednesday, 9 July 2014

Alleluia—wonderful contemporary choral music

"Alleluia" by Eric Whitacre

Deep Church Rising: Countdown to publication

Getting excited: Deep Church Rising is published in just eight days time (17 July 2014).

Here is the blurb:

The major cultural changes in Western societies since the Reformation have created a serious challenge for the church. Modernity in particular has been inhospitable to Christian orthodoxy and many have been tempted to reject classical versions of the faith. This has led to a division within churches that Walker and Parry name "the third schism," a divide between those who believe and practice the central tenets of Christian tradition and those who do not.

The authors have adopted and adapted C. S. Lewis' phrase "deep church" to highlight the necessity of remembering our past in order to recover historic Christian orthodoxy. This book is a call to deep church, to remember our future, to make a half-turn back to premodernity; not in order to repeat or relive the past, but in order to draw on its rich yet often-forgotten resources for the here and now.

Andrew G. Walker is Emeritus Professor of Theology, Religion, and Culture at King’s College, London.
Robin A. Parry is an editor at Wipf and Stock Publishers.

And here is the table of contents:

Part I. The Third Schism: On Losing the Gospel
1. Introduction: The Third Schism and Deep Church
2. Modernity and Postmodernity: The Roots of the Third Schism

Part II. Deep Church: On Recovering the Gospel
3. Deep Roots: On Relating Scripture and Tradition
4. Deep Calls to Deep: Introduction to Chapters 5–7
5. Deep Faith: Orthodoxia as Right Believing
6. Deep Worship: Orthodoxia as Right Worship
7. Deep Living: Orthopraxia as Right Practice
8. Deep Transformation: Recovering Catechesis
9. Deep Church: A Eucharistic Community

Appendix 1: The Nicene Creed and the Filioque
Appendix 2: Deep Church and Fundamentalism

Thursday, 3 July 2014

A song profound beyond words

This song is so unusual and striking . . . and so very deep. For me it is a fabulous demonstration of the way that form and content can work so powerfully together in music. Wow. You may not "get" it, but I am sure that some of you will.

I have only recently discovered Page CXVI and The Autumn Film (two different musical "projects," but the same people). Their music is really fantastic. This song, however, is not typical for them, except that it is in-formed by a Christian spirituality and a deep feel for music. Do check out the sites. If you sign up you get a bunch of free downloads.

Monday, 30 June 2014

Deep Church Rising—coming soon

Cascade Books and SPCK will be publishing Deep Church Rising on 17th July. It is a book written by Professor Andrew Walker of King's College London and myself. More info in the coming weeks.

So, in anticipation, here are the endorsements from the back cover:

“We don’t become either human or holy without the nurture and wisdom of others; this book helps us make contact with those others so that we can indeed grow in humanity, sanctity, and discernment as we need to.”
Lord Rowan Williams, Master of Magdalene College, University of Cambridge

“This is a powerful and persuasive call to the churches to ground themselves in the Christian tradition, and retrieve its riches. An essential antidote to the shallow theology of technique-based approaches to mission.”
Alister McGrath, Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion, University of Oxford

“This book, written with punctilious scholarship, vast scope, fidelity to history, and, perhaps above all, with great gracefulness, calls the churches to a sober scrutiny of themselves, and, perhaps thence, to fundamental reflection on what the church is. I am immensely taken with this book.”
Thomas Howard, author of On Being Catholic and other books

“This book is essential reading for all who care about the future of the church in the West. It represents years of seasoned research; it is written in a clean, accessible style; and its central claims and insights are exactly on target. Read it and be challenged and refreshed in mind and soul.”
William J. Abraham, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas

“Deep Church is a deep book, intrepidly and winsomely demonstrating the ongoing viability of orthodoxy.”
Rodney Clapp, author of Tortured Wonders: Christian Spirituality for People, Not Angels and other books

“‘Memory can be the life-giving path to the future, and in this book the Christian church is encouraged to recover its deep memories, not so that we can look back with nostalgia to a by-gone age, but so that we move forward with renewed confidence and depth.”
Jane Williams, Lecturer, St Mellitus College, London

Friday, 13 June 2014

RAP on The limited atonement rap

I love Shai Linne — Christian rapper extraordinaire. His rap is my kind of rap.

I love that he raps solidly theological stuff — no fluffy stuff here! And I love that he pulls no punches. I also love that his rap is rap offered in worship, not simply as intellectual data.

Sadly, he is a hardline Calvinist. This comes acrosss in lots of his songs, but perhaps nowhere clearer than in this one:

I actually agree with a lot of the theology in this. All it needs is to be mixed with the theology that "God is love" (see my previous post) and SHAZAM! — a case for universalism! Alas, Shai Linne does not consider this possibility (presumably because he considers it so far off the radar that it is not even worth consideration), and so ends up teaching the view that Christ only died for some people. He describes this view as controversial. That's an understatement!

The view certainly faces tricky challenges. For instance, it is inconsistent with the prima facie teaching of Scripture. Now that does not, of itself, make the view unbiblical. Defenders of the doctrine would argue that when the problem texts are read in the context of the canon they can be interpreted in ways that are compatible with limited atonement. I don't think that they can, but I can respect those who make the attempt to do so. There is nothing wrong with trying if one things that there are good biblical reasons for affirming the doctrine. Nevertheless, it is a problem, and it is a key reason why many Calvinists are four-point Calvinists.

It also faces the challenge that it is inconsistent with the claim that "God is love" (see my previous post). This is an even harder challenge for the defenders of limited atonement. There are attempts to reply to it, but none that I have seen come close to being adequate, and it is hard to imagine how they could do. The problem is that God's sovereignty and glory is made to look like God's sovereign right to fall short of being God. You'll have to excuse me for not finding this a theologically tempting avenue to explore.

Wednesday, 11 June 2014

The imperfect God of classical Calvinism

One thing has always perplexed me about classical Calvinism — it so strongly insists on God's perfection (I love that theme within the Reformed tradition) and yet it simultaneously insists on a God who is, despite their protests to the contrary, less than perfect. This is not a new criticism, but it bears repeating.

Anselm insisted that God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." But it seems that, in Christian terms, it is easy to conceive of a God greater than the God of classical Calvinism.

Consider: for Christian theology "God is love." Which, at very least, means that in his very essence God is love. He is not loving by some happy accident but by virtue of being who he is.

Now, if you love someone you desire the best for them. Not necessarily what they think is best for them, but what is actually best for them. So if God loves someone then God will desire what is actually best for them. In a Christian view of things, what is actually best for human creatures is for them to be united with God in eschatological glory. That is the fulfillment of the human telos.

Further, if God is loving in his very essence then God cannot not love his creatures without ceasing to be the God that he is — which is, of course, impossible.

So if God is love in his very essence then he must love all his creatures and must desire to actualize what is best for them. For humans that entails a desire to unite them to himself in glory (which, given sin, requires that he desire to save them from sin).

The Calvinist God, however, does not desire to unite all humans to himself in glory, and thus does not desire to save them all from sin. This can only be because he does not love them enough to desire what is best for them. He may love them somewhat (offering them common grace), but not perfectly (refusing them saving grace).

But surely, if love is a divine perfection then loving all creatures perfectly is greater than loving only some creatures perfectly. God's not loving some creatures would be God falling short of his very being — impossible. Yet the Calvinist says that God only loves some creatures perfectly. I can imagine something greater than that. Imagining something greater than God is impossible. So the Calvinist vision of God is, in Christian terms, impossible, because it falls short of divine perfection.

At least, that is how things appear to me.

Thursday, 5 June 2014

Free Randal Rauser book on heaven (today only)

Baker is running a promotion for the Kindle version of Randal Rauser's new book, What on Earth Do We Know About Heaven? 20 Questions and Answers about Life after Death.

It’s scheduled to be free at Amazon.com on June 5, and then $3.99 from June 6-12.

The promo is also running at amazon.ca and amazon.co.uk.

Check out these blurbs on the book:

"Rauser's book is the most important work on heaven in the last two millennia."

-Paul the Apostle-

"I must admit, I used to think I had heaven figured out. But What on Earth Do We Know About Heaven? has completely revolutionized my view of heaven. I'm picking up a copy for all the archangels."

-Michael the Archangel-

You've got to love him! I wish I could get endorsements like that.

Here is the blurb from Amazon
There's been a curious upsurge in interest about the afterlife lately, but we're too often limited in our concept of heaven. The reality is we all do have questions about heaven: What does a resurrected person look like? What does a resurrected earth look like? Do we get our heart's desire in heaven? In What on Earth Do We Know about Heaven?, Randal Rauser considers twenty thought-provoking questions, each of which winds back to the core concept of heaven: what it is and what it isn't. Rauser uses Scripture to remind us that God's ultimate purpose is that the whole creation will be transformed and renewed, guiding readers through a vision of a glorious afterlife, consisting of a perfected earth, perfected bodies, perfected human culture, and perfected relationships.

Monday, 2 June 2014

UK Conference on Preaching (July 2014)

OK preachers, listen up! Here is some information on what looks to be a great conference in Guildford, at Millmead Baptist Church.

A day conference (9:30am – 4:30pm) on 19 July, entitled


It is hosted by Ian Stackhouse, the minister at Millmead Baptist Church. Ian is a good bloke and a modern-day pastor-theologian after the fashion of P. T. Forsyth.

The keynote speaker is Dave Hansen, pastor and author.

Here is some info.

You can download a PDF version of this flyer here.

There will also be a book launch for a new book on preaching edited by Ian Stackhouse and Oliver D. Crisp, entitled Text Message: The Centrality of Scripture in Preaching. I have read the book and it contains some really excellent, thought-provoking chapters. More info here. Copies of the book will be available at a special price.

Friday, 30 May 2014

New Frank Schaeffer book free—today and tomorrow only.

Frank Schaeffer's new book, Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God, is available for free on kindle today and tomorrow only.

I have not read the book, so I cannot comment on it myself. Here is the info on Amazon.

How to Create Beauty, Give Love and Find Peace

Frank Schaeffer

Caught between the beauty of his grandchildren and grief over a friend’s death, Frank Schaeffer finds himself simultaneously believing and not believing in God — an atheist who prays. Schaeffer wrestles with faith and disbelief, sharing his innermost thoughts with a lyricism that only great writers of literary nonfiction achieve. Schaeffer writes as an imperfect son, husband and grandfather whose love for his family, art and life trumps the ugly theologies of an angry God and the atheist vision of a cold, meaningless universe. Schaeffer writes that only when we abandon our hunt for certainty do we become free to create beauty, give love and find peace.

“As someone who has made redemption his work, Frank has, in fact, shown amazing grace.” — Jane Smiley, Washington Post

“To millions of evangelical Christians, the Schaeffer name is royal, and Frank is the reluctant, wayward, traitorous prince. His crime is not financial profligacy, like some pastors’ sons, but turning his back on Christian conservatives.” — New York Times

“Frank Schaeffer’s gifts as a writer are sensual and loving. He’s also laugh-out-loud funny!” — Andre Dubus III, author of House of Sand and Fog

Thursday, 29 May 2014

"Return to Sender" (musings on the weirdness of worship)

I was reading Revelation 5 this morning and paused to puzzle over a familiar passage (vv. 11–12):
Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice,
“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain,
to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might
and honour and glory and blessing!” (ESV)
Why would the Lamb (and elsewhere, God the Father) need to receive power, wealth, wisdom, might, honour, glory, and blessing?

Is he lacking in any of these things?

Does he not already possess them in their fulness?

What, in other words, are God's creatures giving him that is not already his?

Here is what popped into my head — and I claim no more for it than that:

All the power and wealth and wisdom and might and honour and glory and blessing belong to God's Be-ing. They are part of the divine fulness. However, creation, by the will of God, lives and moves and has its be-ing in God. God allows creation to participate, to varying degrees, in Godself. (This notion will need a careful explication.)

Creation is from God
Creation is through God
Creation is to God

So wisdom and power and glory (etc.) come from and through God to creation, but they only reach their perfection, their goal, their telos, when they are surrendered back to God. They only become fully what they are when the circuit is completed; when we go with the grain of the universe and orientate ourselves correctly towards the creator; when we cast our crowns before him — the crowns that he himself bestowed upon us.

So the giving of glory, wisdom, and power (etc.) to God is not to supply a lack in God, but to bring creation to its divine perfection and goal, so that the whole earth can be full of the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.

Tuesday, 13 May 2014

Sacramental ontology—wisdom from Thomas Traherne

Who was it that said that seventeenth-century poets from Hereforshire (England) have nothing worth saying? Let them sit dumbfounded before the inspirational words of the Anglican priest and poet Thomas Traherne (1637–74):

Your enjoyment of the world is never right, till every morning you awake in Heaven: see yourself in your Father's palace; and look upon the skies, the earth, and the air as celestial joys: having such a reverend esteem of all, as if you were among the angels.

This is a view predicated on a highly sacramental ontology, an appreciation of the heavenly dimensions of "mundane" earthly reality. I love it.

Syndicate is LIVE—hooray!

The long-awaited Syndicate website (www.syndicatetheology.com) has gone live.
SYNDICATE IS HERE! The Syndicate staff, along with our fantastic contributors, are very pleased to announce the official launch of what we hope will become "a new forum for theology." Our goal is to provide you with a novel and unique space for theological discussion, starting this week with our much anticipated, inaugural panel on Ephraim Radner's A Brutal Unity with essays from luminaries such as William T. Cavanaugh, Paul R. Hinlicky, Timothy J. Furry, and Peter Ochs.
I would strongly encourage you to check out the site. It promises to be a major new site for furthering high quality theological discussion online. Some of the things lined up for the next few months look smoking hot. And the site itself looks beautiful. I for one am impressed.

Friday, 25 April 2014

McCord Adams on resurrection

I just read this reflection on resurrection in an essay by Marilyn McCord Adams:

"The Bible’s God does not usually step in to prevent the worst, but waits until it is already too late—until the worst has already happened—before acting to turn the plot around."
Marilyn McCord Adams, "Eucharistic Drama: Rehearsal for a Revolution," 218.

Tuesday, 25 March 2014

The Value of Johannine Dualisms

I have recently been re-reading 1 John (and parts of John's Gospel). One of the things that always strikes me about Johannine literature is its dualism. Everything seems to fall into one of two categories: truth or falsity, light or darkness, love or hate, obedience or disobedience. Similarly people fall into these two categories: children of God and children of the devil, of God and of the Antichrist, those who walk in the light or those who walk in the darkness, and so on.

1 John in particular sets forth some stark oppositions. Here are just a few of them:

If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth (1:6)

And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked (2:3–6)

Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes. (2:9–11)
And the book carries on in the same manner.

This can sound like our faith is either on or off, light or dark, pure or corrupt. And it can be very troubling because I imagine that almost all believers see their experience of faith as on something like a dimmer switch with varying degrees of light and dark and complexity. We might read 1 John as suggesting that if we see any darkness in us then the light is actually off.

I don't think that would be right. Before most of these challenging texts the letter has already made clear that all followers of Christ sin, that to deny our sin would be a lie, and that God has made provision in Christ to deal with our sin (1:8—2:2).

So what are those dualisms about? Well, I have never studied the book properly so I am not sure. Here is my best primitive guess:

What John is doing is setting forth the fundamental antipathy between light and dark, love and hate, obedience and disobedience, etc. It is not that any person exemplifies all of one or all of the other; every believer is an ever-shifting and complex mix of light and dark. However, to the extent that we are not loving a fellow Christ-follower (say) then to that extent we are not walking with God. John will not allow us to make excuses for ourselves.

Imagine a bottle that can either be filled with air or water. The value of the dualism is not in saying that the bottle is either full of water or full of air. Rather, the value is in pointing out that the air and the water cannot occupy the same space at the same time—they exclude each other. The extent to which you have air is the extent to which you lack water, and vice versa.

Looking at the dualisms in 1 John in this way may help put some of them in perspective and allowing them to function as they were intended—not as a means of making us insecure and depressed but as a challenge to draw closer to God and as a means of pulling the rug from under our excuses.

Wednesday, 19 March 2014

Ian Paisley on Protestantism

True Protestantism is Bible Christianity, the Christianity of the Bible.
Protestantism is Christianity, the Christianity of Christ.
Protestantism is Christianity, the Christianity of the Apostles.
Protestantism is Christianity, the Christianity of the Early Church.
Protestantism is nothing less and nothing more than that Holy Religion revealed supernaturally to mankind in the pages of the Inspired Word and centered and circumscribed in the glorious adorable Person of the Incarnate Word, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Ian Paisley, “Are We to Lose Our Protestant Heritage Forever.” August, 2004. Online: http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=heritage.

This is a quotation I found in Joshua Searle's forthcoming book on apocalyptic and the Northern Ireland Troubles.

Wow! I am almost speechless. Every line of the quotation is simply wrong. On a positive "benefit of the doubt" interpretation one can happily concede that Protestantism aspired to conform its faith and practice to the teachings of the Bible — a noble aspiration indeed — so the words could be taken as aspirational.

But as a simple matter of brute fact the various versions of Protestantism are not to be identified with any of the things above, and emphatically not to be exclusively identified with them (to the exclusion of non-Protestant versions of Christianity).

I think that Jesus of Nazareth, the apostles, and believers in the early church would find many aspects of Protestantism in its many guises to be very alien to the "Christianities" they knew. And that's fine — the church develops over time. But to collapse the gap between then and now and to imagine that what we do is no different from what they did is simply self-deluded.

Steve Stockman, “The Belfast Beatitudes”

Cursed are the peacemakers
For they might compromise
Cursed are those who mourn
For they might apologise
Cursed are the poor in spirit
For they might confess and regret
And cursed are the merciful
For they might forgive and forget
And cursed are the meek
For they won’t ride their high horse
But blessed are the arrogant
For they will maintain this curse

I just found this in a book I am editing about the use of apocalyptic beliefs in the "troubles" in Northern Ireland. It's relevance extends far beyond the limited social context in which it was penned.