In Depth:  Mark Johnston

The US debt crisis has dominated the headlines for months.

First, because of the wrangling between the two main parties that took the US economy to the brink of a theoretical default (which everyone knew all along was more posturing than reality). But then in the aftermath, as the implications of the crisis — and the way it is being handled — have continued to send aftershocks through the world economy.

The debate surrounding the trustworthiness of the Bible has flared up again with something of a vengeance. It has been triggered by the recent publication of two books by professors in well-known theological institutions with Reformed credentials. Each in their own way has raised questions about the doctrine of inerrancy. Not surprisingly, the said institutions have been caught up in the fallout from views that have been stated on this subject.

It is all too easy to rush into taking sides in a debate like this for the wrong reasons. For some, the words themselves have become a kind of shibboleth: ‘Do you believe in a Bible that is “inerrant”, or just “infallible”?’ Before you answer that question for yourself, maybe there is merit in stepping back for a moment and asking just what they mean. All too often the debate over this issue (as often in theological arguments) has been muddied by semantics — not simply the meaning of words in themselves, but also the way they are used by particular individuals in different situations.

In the opening paragraph to his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin wrote, ‘Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists in two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.

‘But while joined by many bonds, which one precedes and brings forth the other is not easy to discern. In the first place, no one can look upon himself without immediately turning his thoughts to the contemplation of God, in whom he “lives and moves” …’ It isn’t surprising that this is not the way the average person thinks about themselves today; but it surely is surprising that neither is it true of most professing Christians. That should give us pause for thought and confront us with the question, ‘Who do you think you are?’

While the churches that hold to the Reformed faith tend to be a feature of the leafy suburbs and the middle classes in Britain, their counterparts in America have seen some exciting exceptions in US cities.

Over the past 30 years Reformed pastors and theologians have seen the need to target the city with the gospel in its fullest sense and they have witnessed God's blessing upon their labours on a truly remarkable scale. This influx of Reformed Christianity to urban areas has impacted many American cities, but the experience of the Reformed community in Philadelphia has had a very significant part to play in the overall picture.

There are few more significant challenges facing the church and churches of our day than that of pursuing meaningful unity.

The fact that Jesus prays for a unity which can be witnessed by a watching world in such a way as to endorse the credibility of the gospel (John 17.20-23) and the fact that Paul uses a verb which can be translated 'spare no effort' to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4.3), both point to a Christian responsibility which too many Christians too easily shirk.