"Last Easter there was an article in The Spectator," he tells me. "It asked loads of people whether they really believed that Christ died and physically rose to heaven? Tony Blair said he didn't talk about religion, Ann Widdecombe said something or other, the Archbishop of Canterbury came up with some theological stuff I didn't understand. The only manjack who didn't seem to equivocate was Cardinal Cormac [Murphy-O'Connor], who said something like 'Yes, of course. Full stop.' And I thought: 'That's it! If you're going to believe in any of it you might as well believe in the whole lot.'"2 Corinthians 3:12 says: "Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:". Christians have a message to communicate. Not to pontificate over; not to twist; not to apologise for - but to communicate. Many modern people realise the emptiness and fruitlessness of secular humanism. Such people realise that the liberal perversion of Christianity espoused by such as the Archbishop or Tony Blair has nothing to offer them, because it is really little different in practice to secularism with a thin varnish of Christianity on top. Such people, though, are ripe pickings for false religions and cults, whose members are ready to communicate with clarity and make a cogent criticism of modern unbelief. What a tragedy if such hungry souls never hear a clear and forthright presentation of the true gospel and end up having to choose between liberal waffle or a false salvation-by-works system instead.
Christians and particularly preachers - can you say that you, when explaining the gospel, use "great plainness of speech" ?
No comments:
Post a Comment