It is come, I know not how, to be taken for granted, by many persons, that Christianity is not so read more

It is come, I know not how, to be taken for granted, by many persons, that Christianity is not so much as a subject of inquiry; but that it is, now at length, discovered to be fictitious. And accordingly they treat it as if, in the present age, this were an agreed point among all people of discernment; and nothing remained, but to set it up as a principal subject of mirth and ridicule.

The difficulties arise when we ask how much this polar complementarity [of the sexes] should be reflected in the structure read more

The difficulties arise when we ask how much this polar complementarity [of the sexes] should be reflected in the structure of social life, both domestic and public. The New Testament [again, and notoriously, in the person of St Paul] assumes that there will be places other than the bedroom in which men and women assume consciously differentiated roles. They will do so in the affairs of the home, in which the wife is to "submit" to her husband (Eph. 5:22ff) as head. They will do so even outside the context of family life, since man is "head" of woman in some sense; in quite another context, when the Church is at worship (I Cor. 11:2ff). In order that St Paul should not be misjudged, we must note--(a) that this relational ordering of male and female presupposes a fundamental generic equality (I Cor. 11:1 ff); and (b) that the "submission" of the wife is a special case of a "submission" of all Christians to one another, and complements a husband's love that is to be expressed in self-sacrifice (Eph. 5:2lff, 25ff). The apostle is not an apologist for male tyranny.

Commemoration of Amy Carmichael, Founder of the Dohnavur Fellowship, 1951 If souls can suffer alongside, and I hardly read more

Commemoration of Amy Carmichael, Founder of the Dohnavur Fellowship, 1951 If souls can suffer alongside, and I hardly know it, because the spirit of discernment is not in me, then I know nothing of Calvary love.

Some have said that the power of a Redeemer would depend upon two things: first, upon the richness of the read more

Some have said that the power of a Redeemer would depend upon two things: first, upon the richness of the self that was given; and second, upon the depths of the giving. Friend and foe alike are agreed on the question of the character of Jesus Christ... Whatever our creed, we stand with admiration before the sublime character of Jesus. Character is supreme in life, and hence Jesus stood supreme in the supreme thing -- so supreme that, when we think of the ideal, we do not add virtue to virtue, but think of Jesus Christ, so that the standard of human life is no longer a code, but a character.

Each of these foregoing states has its time, its variety of workings, its trials, temptations, and purifications, which can only read more

Each of these foregoing states has its time, its variety of workings, its trials, temptations, and purifications, which can only be known by experience in the passage through them. The one only and infallible way to go safely through all the difficulties, trials, temptations, dryness, or opposition of our own evil tempers is this: It is to expect nothing from ourselves, to trust to nothing in ourselves, but in everything to expect and depend upon God for relief. Keep fast hold of this thread, and then let your way be what it will -- darkness, temptation, or the rebellion of nature -- you will be led through it all, to an union with God: for nothing hurts us in any state but an expectation of some thing in it and from it, which we should only expect from God. (Continued tomorrow).

Feast of Anskar, Archbishop of Hamburg, Missionary to Denmark and Sweden, 865 Only by critical questioning can I read more

Feast of Anskar, Archbishop of Hamburg, Missionary to Denmark and Sweden, 865 Only by critical questioning can I tell whether I am reading into the text, not only my own presuppositions and questions, but also those of my own generation and even those of my own church and religious tradition. Evangelicals have been too afraid of the word "criticism", when only by critical questioning can I sufficiently disengage myself from my own worldly or religious (even evangelical) tradition to ask: Is this what the Bible is really saying?

Feast of Etheldreda, Abbess of Ely, c.678 One might think that, with the Bible as the center of read more

Feast of Etheldreda, Abbess of Ely, c.678 One might think that, with the Bible as the center of Christianity, the unity of Christians could be easily realized. But unfortunately this has not proved true, though we can consider it fortunate indeed that, as this inability to unify proves, the letter of the Bible cannot really replace the living Christ as the center of our faith. The Bible is the expression of the life and work of God, and since life is greater than its expression, it cannot be expressed completely in any logical or theological form. Therefore, the Bible itself cannot escape being understood in many different ways. Thus we see how in the wisdom of God it is impossible in practice to make the Scriptures the end or final authority to those who live in fellowship with the Spirit.

It was a real body; there can be no doubt about that. Hundreds of people could not have been so read more

It was a real body; there can be no doubt about that. Hundreds of people could not have been so mistaken, especially when Jesus offered clear evidence of it. But it was not an earthbound body. It was something that bore a developmental relationship to an earthly human body, but it was not identical with it. There was clearly a continuity of life between the body of Jesus and the body of the resurrected Jesus, but in the process of resurrection it had undergone a very fundamental change. That, at least, seems obvious. So much for the list of dissimilarities; the body of Jesus after the resurrection had a different appearance and also a different "form". It was "like" the previous body, it had some sort of developmental relationship to it, but it was obviously not "identical" with it. Now we must consider the similarities. Strangely, they all came down to one factor, but that factor is so important that it outweighs all the dissimilarities. It is simply this: Jesus before and after the resurrection was undeniably the same person. No matter what extraordinary changes had taken place in his bodily form, all who knew him well had no doubt at all who he was. They "knew" it was the Lord.

Feast of Willibrord of York, Archbishop of Utrecht, Apostle of Frisia, 739 The great need today among the young read more

Feast of Willibrord of York, Archbishop of Utrecht, Apostle of Frisia, 739 The great need today among the young is the strengthening of belief in things spiritual, for in spite of the superhuman advances in science, invention, and culture, none of this is attributed to God's gift to man; in fact, the increase of knowledge and the cult of education have but given to youth a self-reliant independence where religion has no place, and beyond admitting that Christ was "the best man that ever lived," there are few who concede any other tribute to the Creator. And yet the saving principles of the world are rooted in Christ, implanted in him; the Truth by which men live is the Truth as taught and lived by Jesus.