I don't think it too likely that anyone can source this without cheating. I'll keep the identity of the writer a mystery for just a bit, to make it fun. But go ahead and discuss the content of the quotation. I will tell you in advance that the context of the quotation will be essential in understanding it. This will unfold, DV, in the meta.
As to the quotation's source, for now, no tricks—
- Use your memory (or guessing) alone
- No electronic tools
- No Googling
Is it not offensive and intolerant to suppose that anyone can distinguish true Christians from others? Are there not, it is said, many kinds of followers of Christ and does not love demand that we regard them all as 'fellow Christians'?Have at it.
UPDATE: after a few hours' discussion in the meta, I've decided to provide the answer and context in the post.
The source is Iain H. Murray, from Evangelicalism Divided (Banner of Truth: 2000), 151. You may not know this Murray, but you really should. He's authored a number of really helpful, solid works. This one focuses on the changes within evangelicalism between the years 1950 and 2000.
I'm re-reading it, and a sad read it is. It put John Stott, J. I. Packer, and Billy Graham in lights of which I'd been previously unaware, and confirmed suspicions about F. F. Bruce.
You really should read the book rather than relying on my summary. HSAT, Murray's argument is that evangelical leaders became overly concerned with the wrong things, which led to a disastrous fragmentation, pollution, and derailing of the movement. Those concerns included:
- Academic respectability (in the eyes of the Gospel's enemies)
- Impressive numbers
- Ecumenical/denominational/ecclesiastical unity at any price
So you see, this is germane to a great deal of our discussions — including Frank's open letters.