to requiring clergy to sign belief statements that there is no salvation apart from confessing Christ.

Was that pastor implying that he could not sign such a statement?

If so, then I think his status as Christian is definitely open to debate.

I support the primacy of Scripture and of Christ, but I suppose I see those matters through a somewhat different lens.

My understanding is that Christ is the Savior of the World and the Lord of All Creation. However, what constitutes an adequate confession of Christ is ultimately up to God and what I see developing is a trend toward humans judging the souls of others. As I have expressed elsewhere, I think John 14:6 is something of a hyperbole. That doesn't mean it isn't to be taken seriously, however.

John Wesley, Godly man as he was, was also at times a grand plagiarist and one who didn't necessarily go to great lengths to keep his marriage together. At times it seems that the counter-revolutionaries want to invoke a higher standard than Wesley himself lived.

One can have all the "right" views and be anything but grace-filled. There are some on both ends of the spectrum that fit that bill.

As a blogging friend, I think Josh is reluctant to apply the term "heretic" (heretic in the sense of standing outside a few traditional beliefs, as opposed to heretic in the sense of non-believer)to me, or indeed to any one individual. But I think admitting to your friends the detrimental conequences that will result from an ideal one espouses is the mark of true character. Indeed, it can actually lift a lot of tension, because it makes it easier to share honestly and openly.

I respect Josh for his views, but I might be more comfortable if I saw him as perhaps a little more empathetic to the pain and anguish resulting in individual lives if the denomination were to be torn apart. Logic and reason may be the masters of God's call to truth, but there is the danger that a Christ so concerned with suffering would be viewed as wielding only a sword. Groups such as IRD and the Confessing Movement are armed for war, but I see no evidence that they have an idea for enacting God's shalom afterwards.

Josh, thanks for a fine post.

Joel, The type of judging your talking about is the very kind that God commands against in Matt. 7:1 and I strongly agree with you but John 14:6 needs to be literal.

If John 14:6 needs to be literal, then those children held in cages by parents or guardians without exposure to the love of Christ, let alone to Scripture, and underfed and physically abused must necessarily perish. I dissent with the most mocking tone I can muster. That isn't agape. It is perverted filth that would make the largest dung pile smell sweet by comparison.

Joel,

It sounds like your objection to John 14:6 is the classic question "What of those who have never heard of Christ?" As you surely know, there are many ways to answer that question without denying the literal truth of John 14:6. To me, the main point of that verse is that you can't willfully reject Christ and then successfully seek God through Muhammad or Buddha, etc.

Erc,

Agreed, but once that is done, the passage is no longer literal. That is, unless you change the definition of literal, which you have just done.

Joel, In order for God to forgive sin and still be righteous He provided Jesus as a sacrifice. I personally believe that God accepts those unable to make an informed descision which would include the little children you are worried about but He still has to do it on the basis of Jesus sacrifice. Therefore John 14:6 must be literally true.

Joel,

I am sorry for the appearance of passing judgment on you. I do not have any way of knowing your soul, and I do not know your status as a Christian, nor do I presume that logic and reason could deduct that status.

Fascinating conversation.

For me, this is a matter of church discipline. I won't sign any 'statements of faith' as a matter of principle. Every year I'm required by the (British) Connexion to reaffirm the promises I made at my ordination. If that isn't good enough for others, that's tough. I don't know whether the UMC has a similar annual rededication of its ministers.

Josh seems to have picked up the idea that decline in British churches is down to the loss of faith of its pastors. That's laughably simplistic and completely isolates the church from the rest of what's happening in society. There may be a few ministers in mainstream British churches who don't believe what they preach, but in my experience they are a very few.

Here's an interesting fact. Pubs in Britain are closing at a faster rate than churches.

Josh seems to have picked up the idea that decline in British churches is down to the loss of faith of its pastors.

No, I did not pick up that idea and do not believe that to be the cause. It is a complex issue and not one that is easily reducible to a simple cause and effect analysis with few inputs. I know that it is easier to refute a simpler observation, but do not over-simplify my observations.

With respect to pubs, that's interesting, but of course the issue is a complex one. That pubs are increasingly forced to close early must surely play a role, as might recent smoking ordinances. A more indicative statistic would be alcoholic consumption. I would suspect that it continues to rise or at least remain constant. Therefore people may simply be leaving the pubs and drinking elsewhere.

I have to admit that I was a little confused about the amount of credence he was giving related to preachers not believing what they preach because he was quoting someone else. In an earlier comment I had gotten the idea that a division was being drawn between faithful Christians in the pews and radicals with a political agenda. I think we need to ponder carefully and make distinctions between those we consider to hold heretical views and outright heretics. Since it is likely we all get something wrong about doctrine, we are all then technically promoters of heresy. At some level, though, maybe the move to outright heretic is a combination of a stubborn brain and a dead heart. That is a quality that can be possessed of the left or the right. My point in objecting to "progressive left" is that the label seemed to be spread too widely. Is someone who votes for an environmnental or foreign policy resolution opposed by church conservatives to be viewed as standing against classical Christianity even if their theology is peas-in-a-pod to orthodox beliefs? A few years back, many Oklahoma delegates voted against a moratorium on the death penalty. I didn't go out and blame the radical right, or the far right wing or whatever might be an equivalent for "progressive left."

Standards are important, but unity in Christ is a standard, too. And if doctrinal purity is supreme in all regards, Calvinists must be run out as members of Methodist churches, and vice-versa. In my naive early teen years, I saw the Church as a voice standing for good in an evil world. It is far short of that ideal, but since it was founded at Christ's behest, that future possibility cannot be ruled out.

Honest debate about standards and doctrine is good. Former North Caolina Governor and Senator Terry Sanford might have liked such a debate when the Methodist leadership of his church stripped him of his positions and duties for campaigning for integration. Does the Volvo issue rise to the level of segregation?

Sorry Josh, I didn't mean to oversimplify your argument. But it seemed to me that this paragraph

The United Methodist Church (UMC) is like most mainline protestant denominations in that membership and attendance has waned in recent years, as has its societal influence. Many critics argue, with considerable justification, that vocal factions within the denomination have challenged the primacy of Scripture and Christ, thereby undermining the church's very foundations. As one British Christian put it to me, "if the pastor doesn't really believe what he's preaching, why bother going to church?"

I mentioned the closure of pubs because I'm pretty sure that it's a symptom of the same ailment evidenced by the closure of churches. We're facing an increasing individualism that is clawing at most of the institutions that require participation and commitment. The church has not been immune from this.

As a matter of simple fact, pubs are not 'increasingly forced to close early'. Quite the reverse. Since 2005 it has been possible for pubs to obtain extended licences that allow the serving of alcohol for 24hrs. It is far too soon to say whether the smoking ban will impact the business of pubs - it only came into force in England on July 1st - but the evidence from Scotland and Ireland suggests that it will not adversely affect the pub trade.

As you say, the causes of church decline are complex. But I'm as sure as I can be that unbelief on the part of ministers and priests is not part of the mix.

Richard,

When you speak of pubs closing faster than churches, is that a net "closure rate" after accounting for newly opened bars? In America, membership is dropping in mainline churches, but that is at least partially offset by membership growth in evangelical churches. Of course, it's still an issue for those mainline churches.

Joel,

I disagree that I have changed the meaning of "literal" with my interpretation of John 14:6. It says that no one comes to the Father except through Christ and, indeed, even those who are saved through God's grace without ever hearing a Biblical presentation of the Gospel, are coming to the Father through Christ. Jesus didn't say that no one comes to the Father without reciting the "Sinner's Prayer."

However, I can see how one might have a problem signing a statement that there is "no salvation apart from confessing Christ." The problem word there is "confessing." Some (e.g. young children) are unable to confess Christ, but they are still saved through Him.