Month: August 2026

Christian Unity: Can We Disagree Without Dividing?

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized

Christians don’t agree on everything.

We never have.

And perhaps we shouldn’t expect to.

Across Christian denominations, there is significant variation in worship practices, theological interpretation, biblical interpretation, and social and ethical questions.

Some differences are important.

Some are profound.

Some deserve vigorous discussion.

But an important question is often overlooked:

Will this disagreement prevent us from fulfilling the Great Commission?

Jesus gave His followers a mission:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…”
— Matthew 28:19

That mission was not given to one denomination.

It was given to His disciples.

Perhaps Christians need a hierarchy of agreement.

At the foundation are the core beliefs expressed in the Nicene Creed—belief in one God, the Father; Jesus Christ, the Son; His incarnation, death, resurrection, and return; the Holy Spirit; and the Church.

Around that foundation are many other beliefs and practices on which Christians disagree.

We might think of them this way:

 The problem isn’t necessarily disagreement.

The problem is what we do with disagreement.

Differences can become an opportunity when they lead us to listen, learn, understand the biblical reasoning of others, and recognize the limits of our own understanding.

But differences can also become a jail cell when they prevent us from working alongside another Christian whose beliefs differ from ours.

Tolerance does not mean acceptance.

Respect does not mean agreement.

And agreeing to disagree does not mean abandoning truth.

It can simply mean recognizing that none of us possesses a complete understanding of God’s mind.

Romans 12 offers an important challenge here.

Christian maturity is not demonstrated only by how we treat people who agree with us.

Perhaps one of the better tests is how we respond to fellow believers with whom we disagree.

Look at Acts.

The early Church did not begin by resolving every theological question.

The apostles proclaimed what they had witnessed.

They shared the Gospel.

They made disciples.

Those disciples shared what they had learned.

And the movement grew.

There were disagreements. There were conflicts. There were even serious disputes among the early Christians.

Yet the mission continued.

The Gospel moved forward.

That brings me to an example closer to home:

LifeWise Academy.

LifeWise provides Bible education to public-school students during school hours through released-time religious instruction. Its curriculum is powered by The Gospel Project and takes students through the Bible, connecting Scripture to Jesus and to the way students live.

And here is something worth recognizing:

LifeWise is non-denominational, yet its curriculum is based on The Gospel Project, a curriculum published by Lifeway Christian Resources. LifeWise describes its curriculum as operating under a license agreement with Lifeway and notes that the Gospel Project lesson content and Bible passages remain unchanged, while the language and organization are adapted for LifeWise’s setting.

Lifeway is closely associated with the Southern Baptist tradition.

That fact may cause some Christians to pause.

And that’s okay.

We should examine what we believe.

We should ask questions.

We should understand theological differences.

We should be willing to challenge one another respectfully.

But should those differences prevent Christians from supporting the larger mission of introducing children—and potentially their families—to Jesus Christ?

That is the question.

LifeWise is only one example.

There are countless opportunities for Christians from different traditions to work together:

To teach.

To serve.

To feed.

To mentor.

To encourage.

To defend human dignity.

To care for the vulnerable.

To strengthen families.

And most importantly:

To make disciples.

Imagine what might happen if Christians spent less energy determining who was most correct among ourselves and more energy helping people encounter Christ.

This is not a call to abandon doctrine.

It is not a call to pretend our differences don’t matter.

It is a call to distinguish between the essentials of our faith and the disagreements that should not prevent us from pursuing our shared mission.

Perhaps the question Christians should ask is not:

“Do you believe exactly as I do?”

but:

“Can we work together to fulfill the mission Christ gave us?”

The Great Commission is bigger than our denominations.

Bigger than our worship styles.

Bigger than our theological traditions.

And certainly bigger than our disagreements.

If we truly believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, perhaps it is time to ask what Christians could accomplish if we stopped treating every difference as a reason to separate—and started treating our shared faith as a reason to serve together.

The mission is waiting.

What could we accomplish together?

End Notes

Acknowledgments: The ideas presented here were refined through an iterative process of study, reflection, discussion, and dialogue with artificial intelligence tools. In the spirit of continuous improvement, the conversation served as a catalyst for learning rather than as an authority. The resulting conclusions remain my own.

Introduction to the basic concepts, examples, and tools of quality at SuccessThroughQuality.com

Humble Service in the Body of Christ: Love in Action

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized
A Living Sacrifice

12 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Humble Service in the Body of Christ

3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. 4 For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your[a] faith; 7 if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; 8 if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead,[b] do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.

Love in Action

9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11 Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12 Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13 Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.[c] Do not be conceited.

17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
    if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e]

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Footnotes

  1. Romans 12:6 Or the
  2. Romans 12:8 Or to provide for others
  3. Romans 12:16 Or willing to do menial work
  4. Romans 12:19 Deut. 32:35
  5. Romans 12:20 Prov. 25:21,22

No Space for Extremism

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized
Gemini Summary:
In “No Space for Extremism,” author Mark Franke draws on Harvard Professor Harvey C. Mansfield’s insights from The Rise and Fall of Rational Control to argue that political change involves replacing foundational ideas rather than simply building upon them.
He concludes that voter disillusionment drives the appeal of extremist promises and warns that electing candidates who reject founding principles risks eroding core liberties like free speech, religious freedom, and property rights.

If American voters play out their frustration by electing DSA candidates, what will disappear? Individual liberties such as freedom of speech and worship? The right to accumulate and enjoy property?

by Mark Franke“There is no vacant space left in the world today; founding something new requires destroying something old.” — Harvard Professor Harvey C. Mansfield

I ran across this quote in Mansfield’s recently released book “The Rise and Fall of Rational Control: The History of Modern Political Philosophy.” Mansfield, sometimes called the last conservative standing at Harvard, lectured on political philosophy for more than 60 years. This book is taken from those lectures.

His point, I think, is that new ideas take hold by replacing earlier ideas previously held by its new adherents. He traces the rise of the conceit that the human race is rationally in control of its destiny, and for the better. He calls this conceit “modernism.”

It is nearly impossible to summarize great thoughts by great thinkers like Mansfield in a few paragraphs but here goes. Beginning with Machiavelli and progressing through Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Marx and Nietzsche, he describes each philosopher’s theory of how mankind left a state of nature and entered into civil society with a sovereign government. Modernism gives way to postmodernism with Marx and Nietzschke and a rejection of liberal values in the classical sense of the Founding Fathers.

Mansfield’s thought process is well above my pay grade but I do see applicability to the state of America in 2026.

The success of extremists in controlling party primary elections is a documented fact, to the chagrin of the old-line party leadership. Today it is the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA); a decade or so back it was the TEA Party. Are these two movements siblings, just from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum?

A recent op-ed column in the Wall Street Journal offered an analysis of these two movements which presented a compelling case that they are demonstrably different in strategy and tactics. The DSA is much better organized at the national level and quite willing to use violence in furtherance of its ultimate goal — the overthrow of American republicanism based on individual liberty and free market economics.

That may sound like a partisan observation when coming from a conservative like me. But the WSJ article was written by ex-Democrat Congressman Daniel Kapinski, who does not like what he sees.

His description of the TEA Party movement aligns with what I was told in its early days. I asked a local Republican operative what the TEA Party’s platform was, and he told me it varied by county. One county’s committee was pro-life; another was focused on Second Amendment rights; still another on lower taxes and so forth. It was a local, grass-roots organization to the extent that it was organized at all. The foundational ideal of our nation’s creation was not challenged.

The DSA movement, on the other hand, is clear in its goal of destroying what America is and always has been. The Declaration of Independence is irrelevant and the Constitution is an impediment to be removed. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? The 18th century classical liberals spoke of happiness within a construct of limited government and personal freedom, freedom of conscience and of property.

So what does the appeal of an extremist platform such as these self-identified socialist politicians offer?

The only explanation I can suggest is a growing discontent among the populus, a pessimism that opens voters to listening to extreme rhetoric and promises of free stuff paid for by other people. It’s always other people who will pay for it all, of course. Never underestimate the political coin that can be earned by appealing to humankind’s envy. I think there is a commandment or two warning us against that.

It’s not that socialism can offer an historical success story. I’m still waiting for even one example of a socialist society that allowed individual freedom while achieving a high level of economic well-being.

The Soviet Union was described by Lincoln Steffens as a future that works. It’s now on Ronald Reagan’s trash heap of history. In my lifetime Sweden was the poster child for social democracy, assumed to be the logical transition to full socialism. But Sweden has repented of its flirtation with socialism as a former minister of finance admitted: “What we believed in as young socialists simply turned out to be impossible in practice:” In fact, Sweden has risen above the U.S. on the libertarian Cato Institute’s Freedom Index.

So are we reduced to a zero-sum game as Prof. Mansfield claims? If American voters play out their frustration by electing DSA candidates, what will disappear? Individual liberties such as freedom of speech and worship? The right to accumulate and enjoy property?

I’m not the only one concerned about where our election results might take us. Lapinski concluded his op-ed column on the threat presented by DSA candidates with this clarion call: “This isn’t a prediction. It is a warning.”

We have been warned.

Mark Franke, M.B.A., an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review and its book reviewer, is formerly an associate vice-chancellor at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne.

The Indiana Policy Review Foundation is a nonprofit education foundation focused on state and municipal issues. It is free of outside control by any individual, organization or group. It exists solely to conduct and distribute research on Indiana issues. Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors, the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, or its board of directors. Nothing in this journal, whether in print or pixels, is an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill or influence the election of any candidate.

Gary Varvel: Faith of the Founding Fathers

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized

Message on the Faith of the Founding Fathers

Gemini Summary:

In his message, “Faith of the Founding Fathers,” delivered at Chesterfield Community Church of God, Gary Varvel presents historical evidence arguing that America was explicitly founded as a Christian nation, reliant on biblical principles and faith in Jesus Christ.

Key Themes & Historical Arguments

Lifewise: Bible-based instruction during the school day

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized

LifeWise gives parents a fully legal way to bring Bible-based character classes into their child’s weekly public school routine, without any extra scheduling. And if your school doesn’t have a program yet, our proven 10-step process makes it simple for a community to start one together.

Post at Brown County Matters

As of July 30, 2026. Brown County School Corporation is at 19 signatures right now and needs to reach 50 signatures or more! 

The churches that are represented in the community interest list so far are:

Legal Basis

Zorach v. Clauson – Wikipedia. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), was a release time case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a school district allowing students to leave a public school for part of the day to receive off-site religious instruction  did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[1]

  • Religious Accommodation: Writing for the majority, Justice William O. Douglas famously stated: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”  The Court reasoned that government accommodation of religious practices does not constitute an unlawful “establishment” of religion as long as public resources aren’t directly funding or conducting the classes.

The landmark Supreme Court decision in Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) prohibited government-sponsored devotional Bible reading and prayer in public schools. It did not prohibit teaching about the Bible. In fact, Justice Tom C. Clark, writing for the Court, made an important observation that is frequently overlooked:

“It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.”

The Court recognized an important distinction between religious instruction and academic study.

The Ten Commandments and American History: Why Biblical Literacy Belongs in Public Education, By Tim Clark

Additional Resources:

1. What is LifeWise Academy?: A brief overview of LifeWise.

2. Program Overview  Robust brochure with 10-step process, Statement of Faith, curriculum link, and FAQs

3. OSP on Angel Studios (direct link): LifeWise documentary. It’s Awesome!! You will need to create an Angel account, but it costs nothing to do so.

4. Impactful stories:
Connor’s Story
Christian’s Story This one is my favorite.

5. All of our most popular videos in one place:
https://lifewise.org/videos/

6. Catholic students do participate in LifeWise. We consider them a denomination but are welcome to join a LifeWise program.

7. Social media,  LifeWise Academy Facebook Page