Jesus Creed

Jesus Creed


Blog-debating

posted by xscot mcknight

The recent blog debate about what the emerging movement is and what it isn’t brings home to me what can be and can’t be accomplished in the blog world. I learn from many of the individual posts, and I learn about the various views that are held about the subject I choose to post about. I learn that off-handed comments come back to haunt you, as I am learning now with what I think was a misguided choice to use P-Bics. I retain the view that pastors of big churches can swing their weight behind various subjects, sometimes for the good and sometimes not, and sometimes as experts and sometimes as misinformed. But, I should not (and I apologized for this in a previous comment) have suggested that James MacDonald was doing this: like other pastors of mega-churches his influence is considerable and I think that means he needs to be careful with what he says. I have learned as well that many may perhaps think the same about professors, and I’m sorry if he thinks I’ve done what I am suggesting has been done by others.
But I will say this: what he says about the emerging movement is a caricature and not indicative of either what the movement intends or what it is doing in general. That is what I want to emphasize. I can’t think of a better place to work out what one thinks or what is going on somewhere than the blog world.
I want to glorify God with the calling he has given me to teach and to write and to think and to help pastors and lay persons to live more responsibly before God for the good of others and the world, and because I feel called to focus on Jesus of Nazareth (in an academic field, but even more personally), I tend to want to see more of our faith expressed in Jesus’ categories. I do work hard at having a biblical balance in my theology, but being limited and fallen and all that I know that I find myself imbalanced at times. But, more than anything else I want to balance my academic calling with my ecclesial calling. I hurts to think I fail at these things, but I do.
What I’ve also learned is that the emergent and emerging leaders need to make some things clearer than they perhaps have. But, I will state what I have stated before: this emerging movement is diverse and all over the theological map. But, it needs perhaps to be noted again that theology is not the distinguishing mark of the emerging movement (again I appeal to Emergent-US for its orientation — and it is not theology but something both theological and beyond simple theological articulation). It refuses to reduce its “faith” to a statement, partly because the Church has done this for all of us and partly because it wants to wed theology and praxis — and a statement can’t do that. A summons to a new life can.
When it comes to what the emerging movement is, though, I think there is a need for some clarification. First, it cannot be narrowed to a theological view (neo-orthodoxy or anything else) or to any one leader or even to a group of leaders. Most tend to operate with a leader=movement procedure. For instance, I hear this frequently about four leaders though there are others — McLaren, Pagitt, Kimball, and Tony Jones. Others will point to others. The tendency is to identify the movement with one of these leaders. Or, to say “so and so believes this, therefore the movement believes this.” Since the term “neo-orthodox” has now been used for one of its leaders, let me say something about that.
Before I do that this needs to be said: no one is suggesting the whole movement is neo-orthodox and no one is suggesting that I am neo-orthodox (that I know of), but by using this term perhaps we can shed some light on the emerging movement.
There is one thing that ought to be made clear: the emerging movement is not neo-orthodox in it central senses. Neo-orthodoxy, spear-headed as it was by Karl Barth, fought against Protestant Liberalism’s theory that religious experience was the defining core of the Christian faith and that the Christian faith could be embedded in a cultural matrix, and Neo-orthdoxy posited in its stead a radical transcendence of God and clear distance of God from humans and his creation and, on top of this, a more radical challenge of the world with the Christian faith and God’s redemptive grace. (This is why so many Evangelicals, both conservative and not so conservative, have found Barth to be an ally rather than an opponent.)
If there is anything the emerging movement is theologically it is not neo-orthodoxy: it argues, instead, for a more radical identification of God with creation and culture rather than over against creation and culture. In other words, part of the issue that is challenging the emerging movements is their lack of an emphasis on transcendence, and therefore holiness and purity and separation and the like. In other words, the emerging movement could learn from neo-orthodoxy. (No, I don’t think the “Neo” character in Brian’s novels is a cipher for “Neo-orthodoxy” but for “Neo-kind-of-Christian.”)
Neither would I want to say that therefore the emerging movement is theological Neo-Liberalism. In fact, while it might be more “incarnational” than Neo-Orthodoxy and more “liberal” than evangelicalism, what I see so exciting in the emerging movement is the possibility of another way that transcends the older lines of division that have brought us to where we are. The search for a new paradigm, which means working hard and fumbling at times, is beginning to take its shape around the Kingdom vision of Jesus, and I want to be a part of the discussion if I can. So, I like what I see and I see great possibilities here. I don’t agree with everyone who is a leader or with everyone who has a voice, but that is part of what the emerging movement is: a group of like-missional people who are offering a variety of models of thinking and practicing but who do not always agree with one another.
Because emerging is neither neo-orthodox nor neo-liberal, and not even simply old-fashioned evangelicalism, it will have features from each of the movements behind it — including (God be thanked) classical creedal Christianity. The frustration of many in trying to define it is, in my judgment, the fault in part of emerging itself for it is both in process and unwilling to let itself be defined by a theological system.
Instead, it seeks to be faithful to the summons of Jesus to live as followers of Jesus, to live out the Kingdom in everything we do and say, and to let the chips fall where they may.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(31)
post a comment
Kerry Doyal

posted October 29, 2005 at 7:44 am


Grace & peace, my / our brother. Kerry



report abuse
 

tony

posted October 29, 2005 at 9:12 am


Right on, Scot. I guess it should not be surprising to any of us that we are being caricatured and misrepresented, nor that people try to put us into boxes into which we don’t fit.
As you’ve discovered, one of the great things about blogs (whether it be in politics, the church, or other spheres) is their ability to hold others accountable…immediately. James may not like to be held accountable for his thin reading of the ECM, but others may be less quick to unfairly disparage the conversation because of your criticism.
On a substantive note, it’s really silly for James to say that the theological defense of individual leaders in the ECM is that they’re (we’re?) “sincere.” Brian is, indeed, a nice guy, and that is not side issue to his theology — his sincerity is a direct outgrowth of his theological convictions (and it’s notable how many young Christians find his personal sincerity unusual among high profile Christian leaders). But Brian does have significant and definite theological convictions. To suggest otherwise is a sign that one has not met him or really even read his writings.
So, thanks for your theology, and your blog journalism.
Tony Jones
National Coordinator
Emergent-US



report abuse
 

Jamie Arpin-Ricci

posted October 29, 2005 at 11:49 am


Scot,
I recently sat on a panel about the emerging church led by Dr. Gary Collins (who mentioned he would love to sit down with you sometime). Dr. Collins spent a few minutes explaining the good & the “bad” of the emerging conversation, then allowed us as a panel respond (it should be noted that Dr. Collins is extremely generous and open to this conversation).
Another panelist made an excellent point when Gary asked what we agreed and disagreed with in his assessment. He said something to the manner of:
“We could probably agree with 70% of what you said. For 20% of it, we would have something to discuss and explore. The last 10% we would likely disagree with you on. However, and here is the important part, each of us probably takes issue with a different 10% than the others.”
The emerging conversation is in its youth in many ways, filled with the zeal, vision and imagination that makes that stage so important to honour and nurture. However, we cannot expect too much definition too soon. Additionally, we need to reaccess by what criteria we are measuring and defining as well.
It is in honest and humble posts like the one you have written here that gives me confidence that we are moving in a good direction (and that, perhaps, blogging is not as limited a medium as you suggested). Thank you for your wisdom.
Peace,
Jamie



report abuse
 

Big Chris

posted October 29, 2005 at 1:29 pm


Those within the Emergent Movement would be mistaken to think that they independtly can define who they are. The true definition is both internal and external. Those on the outside, whether you agree with them or not, are adding to the definition. You can say all day that you are something, but if the outside observers don’t agree it doesn’t really matter in the larger context. Those in the Emergent Movement only worsen the issue by being so afraid/resistant/frequently avoiding definitions. If you do not define yourself, someone else will. Even if you define yourself, someone will add to that definition.
Big Chris
Because I said so blog



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted October 29, 2005 at 1:36 pm


Chris,
I agree with you, and this is indeed helpful. And the external definition needs to be responded to and so the dialexis of definition will aid the conversation.
However, blatant misdefinitions will continue to hurt the conversation and distort Christian fellowship.
I happen to think the misdefinitions are helpful because they present to the Emerging movement how it is being perceived.



report abuse
 

John Frye

posted October 29, 2005 at 2:57 pm


Scot, I’m not so amiable toward Big Chris’ remarks about defining ourselves less someone else define us. I say this in light of the multiple “definitions” of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. I don’t think Jesus worried too much about how people defined him; he went about redefining God, people, Israel’s mission and purpose, Messiah, life itself away from the prevailing definitions in his day. Big Chris tips his modernism hand by crying for “definitions” from Emergents. Like you say, definitions are nothing compared to a daily devoted following of Jesus as a way of life in community with others for the sake of the world.



report abuse
 

Big Chris

posted October 29, 2005 at 2:58 pm


I’m tracking with you on the blatant misdefinitions. That is the case with just about anything. It’s like when a Dodge car fanatic claims anything that isn’t Dodge is junk. Those that are blatantly misdefining remove themselves from the conversations with anyone but themselves. But the genuine (even if/when misinformed) definitions that are critical need to be heeded for the precise reason of discerning how things are perceived to develop a full definition. I think this is very important, and I hope the Emergent Movement keeps this in mind, it’s insiders and outsiders that create a definition, and without the input of both, a skewed definition is created.
Big Chris
Because I said so blog



report abuse
 

Wolf Paul

posted October 29, 2005 at 6:12 pm


And I tend to have question marks popping up in my mind when folks make comparisons with Jesus the way John Frye did. That was Jesus – we are not, and when others perceive us a certain way, it may well be due to some deficiency in us and in our understanding of God’s truth and call for us. So, unlike Jesus, we do well to heed the way others perceive/define us and to take that opportunity to examine ourselves.



report abuse
 

Jamie Arpin-Ricci

posted October 29, 2005 at 6:16 pm


I think I am with John, though I appreciate where Big Chris is coming from. The issue is about both relationship & identity. We receive/discover/develop our identity in relationship- our relationship with God being the primary. However, we cannot deny that our identity is reflected in the way we relate to others as well.
That being said, I think we could potentially sidetrack our development by worrying too much about what other think or say we are. We should listen, always allowing the critiques and comments to help us evaluate and mature, as well as grow through the gift of diverse perspective, but this should not be our central emphasis in formation. This should never justify dismissive attitudes or reactions, but rather give direction.
Our culture is so market-driven that it would be too easy for us to pander to every outside “identifying”. Additionally, it is also too easy to find identity in being “counter-cultural” (which happens too often in emergent circles- further evidence of early formational maturity). It is truly a journey between Scylla and Charybdis, one that demands a new formulation of how we perceive ourselves on this journey.
While it is perhaps impossible to expect that the “EC” (I still dislike the title) will not become another group, expression, etc., but my deepest hope is that it will become a pervasive conversational movement that transforms everyone in relationship with, both those of us who find ourselves at home in it and those who engage it critically.
Peace,
Jamie



report abuse
 

Wolf Paul

posted October 29, 2005 at 7:01 pm


Here are a few more thoughts and questions:
1. I want to echo the approval of others for Scot McKnight & James MacDonald dialoging right here in this blog, in such a gracious and courteous manner. That in itself is a testimony.
2. We need to realize that labels can take on a multi-faceted life of their own. If, as James MacDonald asserts in a comment, Brian McLaren told him he was neo-orthodox, and that does not jive with how Scot McKnight understands that label, we may need to find out what it means to Brian and James. It also highlights why labels have only limited usefulness.
3. I am disturbed by the approach of some critics, exemplified by ‘max’ in his second comment on Scot’s previous post on this topic: “If I would go to emergent web sites I think I would find people saying, for such and such reasons I dont go to an orthodox or evangelical church.” That’s implying that the emergent movement is intentionally and openly unorthodox and unevangelical; I don’t think that’s true.
4. I think I have some idea of what this movement is about; what I can’t figure out is the meaning of the name ‘emergent’ or ‘emerging’ – what’s the difference? – can someone, here or by e-mail (wnp@doulos.at), point me towards an explanation?
Thanks, and have a blessed Lord’s Day.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted October 29, 2005 at 8:47 pm


Wolf Paul,
Your #4 is important: “emergent” is an institution (Emergent-US) that coordinates the activities of the emerging movement for those who care to be affiliated with it. I use the term “emergent” only for that part of emerging.
Emerging, then, refers to the global developments of the Church that are along such lines — and I’ll be posting some of my article on defining the emerging movement.
So, use emerging for the big, global development. (Incidentally, from what I can see Barna thinks there are 20 million of these sorts of Christians in the USA.) Emergent is a more narrowly defined part of emerging, and in some ways the leading voice and cutting edge, but not always and not in every way — and that is the way (to the best of my knowledge) everyone wants it. It is not a denomination, but a movement of Christians who want to see the Church become more “missionally” oriented and balance “articulation of faith” and “living the faith.”
Hope this helps, friend.



report abuse
 

Bill Smith

posted October 29, 2005 at 10:57 pm


I don’t think Jesus worried too much about how people defined him; he went about redefining God, people, Israel’s mission and purpose, Messiah, life itself away from the prevailing definitions in his day. Big Chris tips his modernism hand by crying for “definitions” from Emergents. Like you say, definitions are nothing compared to a daily devoted following of Jesus as a way of life in community with others for the sake of the world.
John, I think it may be somewhat misleading to compare any indivdual or movement directly to Jesus the way you have. Jesus saw the points of critique with razor sharp clarity. We do not or at least I do not and neither do the folks that I agree with or that often agree with me. The “modernist” label you throw out there seems kind of funny to me. Actually it seems kind of modernist. As far as definitions go “daily devoted following of Jesus as a way of life in community with others for the sake of the world” seems to me like a good start at defining.
Scot, you say,”It is not a denomination, but a movement of Christians who want to see the Church become more “missionally” oriented and balance “articulation of faith” and “living the faith.”
I agree with you that it is that but you have just stated a couple of the main points that unify the movement. Some of the people who are critiquing the movement are critiquing individuals or groups within the movement that hold to questionable (at least in the minds of the critiquers) beliefs and practices. I think you make a good point about being specific, focused, and accurate about critiques. I am not convinced that the problems and the solutions are where many in the emergent movement say they are. Martin Luther said the church is often like a drunk peasent trying to mount a horse (or something to this effect. It swings from one extreme to the other.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted October 30, 2005 at 1:01 am


Sophia kai Arete » Jesus Creed » Blog-debating

[…] Jesus Creed » Blog-debating […]



report abuse
 

John Frye

posted October 30, 2005 at 10:44 am


Jamie, thanks for your encouragement, and for making clearer what I tried to communicate.
Bill Smith, thank you for the very thoughtful and corrective feedback. It helps me. I agree that I too cavalierly use the term “modernism.” Also, I am a little hesitant to right off being like Jesus as quickly as you, especially if 1 John 2:6 means anything. Of course, we’re not Jesus. But it is God’s predestined purpose to make us like Jesus (Rom. 8:29) and it seems that process begins at the new birth. Those who so quickly say, “well, we’re not Jesus” seem to want to keep an area of fallenness that allows us to act very unChristlike with each other. For example….
Max, your comments trouble me in that a movement of some 20 million can be lumped together by you and defined as lacking humility and “using the grace of God as a veil for evil.” That’s harsh language that I know for a fact doesn’t apply to my friends in the EC. The ones you know may very well fit your descriptions, but not all 20 million. Would you agree?



report abuse
 

bob smietana

posted October 30, 2005 at 5:16 pm


Scot,
Some of the misconceptions of emergent are self-inflicteds, as a number of writers/pastors/blooggers in the movement have not been as clear as they could. When a group or movement can’t define it with any sense of clarity, how are outsiders supposed to be expected to?
On the other hand, emergent folks have only been at this for a short time, relatively speaking. They find themselves in a new world, where many of the old paradigms don’t work, and so they are foundering their way around. Perhaps emergent critics (and I’ve been one) are expecting too much too soon.
The use of the word “authentic” in emergent circles, can be troublesome too. It can give them impression that emergent Christians are a superior brand of Christians, a kind of inner circle of “true believers.”



report abuse
 

Wolf Paul

posted October 30, 2005 at 7:19 pm


John Frye,
the “well’ we’re not Jesus” comment was mine, and I did not mean it as an excuse for anything, but as a caution against being as unconcerned about others’ perceptions of us as Jesus was. If people perceived/defined Jesus as sinful/deficient, he did no have to worry, he knew the problem was with them, not with him. If people perceive US as sinful/deficient, we need to worry, because they may well be right. THAT is the difference between Jesus and us I was getting at.
Jamie,
I know most of what you describe about the EC movement, my question was more: why is it called ‘emerg[ing|ent]’ – what or who is emerging from what or whom?
And the alternate usage ‘emerging’ and ‘emergent’ predates the forming of the E-US entity, are the two perfectly synonymous apart from the name of the entity?



report abuse
 

Jamie Arpin-Ricci

posted October 30, 2005 at 8:05 pm


Wolf,
I think you ask a good question, in that the bredth and diversity of ideas and expressions that identify with this conversation are hard to narrowly define. I am not found of the word emergent or emerging, but alas, I think they are here to stay.
Peace,
Jamie



report abuse
 

John Frye

posted October 30, 2005 at 8:32 pm


Wolf, thanks for explaining your comment that “we’re not Jesus.” It helps me to know where you’re coming from and what you mean by it. My comments then do not apply to you.
Thanks for the blogologue.
Peace!



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted October 30, 2005 at 9:27 pm


Bob,
I think your point is one of the most important ones — that some comments have been unclear and that it is a movement in motion and not yet clear enough to be “labeled” accurately. Until it is, it will frustrate most of us who care about the movement.
Bill Smith,
You are no doubt accurate — and time will clarify some of those statements. Many have received their share of lumps for careless articulations, and we can only hope that we all learn from it.



report abuse
 

John Frye

posted October 30, 2005 at 9:41 pm


Milo,
I scanned back through the comments and saw no “Milo” that I was responding to. Are you also Max or Wolf Paul? However, I observe that you, Milo, are quite engaged in the conversation. For this I am glad.
First, George Barna is the one who in one of his polls came up with the 20 million figure.
Second, while I do believe the Holy Spirit anoints us so we can discern error, I’m not as ready as you are to use the “anointing” to write off a whole movement.
Third, I agree with you that the emergent movement tends to be primarily a “white thing” in the USA, yet the movement is a global reality. I’m a little stunned by the adjective “masturbatory.” I think I know what you mean, but I could be way off base.
Fourth, I am in total agreement with your last paragraph–both its content and passion. Many in the emergent conversation are longing to go beyond words to life—to incarnate the truth revealed in Jesus Christ—to be “living letters written by the Spirit and read by everyone.” Incarnations not just of “be like Jesus” piety, but like Jesus in social justice issues, imbalances of resources, racism, sexism, and apathy toward the lost.
For any offense I’ve caused you, forgive me.
Peace–
John



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted October 30, 2005 at 10:46 pm


Max,
You can e-mail me all you want at my personal e-mail site (see sidebar).
Scot



report abuse
 

Milo

posted October 31, 2005 at 12:09 am


I started an yahoo account and sent you an email.



report abuse
 

Bill Smith

posted October 31, 2005 at 1:55 pm


John,
It seems that we would need to determine what it means to “walk in the same manner as Jesus walked” since I am sure that you would agree that we cannot live/walk axactly as Jesus did at every point in our lives. Some of the most deceived people that I have ever met were people who were convinced that they were able to “seperate the wheat from the chaff” without mixture. Do you think that this passage means that every individual Christian will be able to know any detail about the Christian life as it relates to personal and social ethics with same level of surety and precision that Jesus did during his time on earth? Even in addressing social issues the difficulty is that Christians disagree on what is the best mechanism for helping the poor. Some say captitalism some say socialism. Is one right and one wrong or are there general principles regarding economics that would allow for different economic systems within the general priniciples. I use this example because I think that if we are not careful we end up becoming dogmatic in every area of theology. I have oberved that in the area of theology people in the emerging/emergent movement call for graciousness in speech and actions toward those who disagree or are unsure about various beliefs but when it comes to “social issues” they tend to be willing to bring out prophetic guns. I agree that both are important to speak to but I see the emphasis in the other direction with the Creeds.
Bill



report abuse
 

John Frye

posted October 31, 2005 at 5:34 pm


Bill,
Of course I do not think we can be exactly like Jesus at all times in every point of our lives. He was sinless; we’re not. However, as a fully human being living and serving in the power of the Spirit, we can be more like Jesus than a lot of evangelical think—especially if we pursue Jesus in community with devoted Jesus followers. The magnificent character of Jesus is too weighty and glorious for any one individual to bear—that why we are “part” of “the body of Christ” in the world.
I also think that there is a very strong theologically informed backbone in the “emergent movement.” In general terms (ala Grenz), it is deeply Trinitarian, devoted to authentic community (incarnating the presence of Jesus in the world) and eschatological (seeking to be “outposts” now of the coming age). With the emphasis on the immediacy of the kingdom of God, and knowing that the kingdom of God bristles with social justice concerns, the emergent movement wants to redemptovely engage the world where it is hurting. As NT Wright suggests, “…to be people of prayer in the world’s places of pain.” Creeds don’t speak strongly to social justice issues, do they?



report abuse
 

Wolf Paul

posted October 31, 2005 at 5:55 pm


Just wanted to clarify that I am neither ‘max’ nor ‘milo’ – I don’t use pseudonyms. Any ‘handles’ I have ever used derive from my real name (i.e. wnp and wnpaul = Wolf N. Paul). And because that often confuses folks: ‘Wolf’ is my first name. I am a catholic Evangelical from Vienna, Austria.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted October 31, 2005 at 6:01 pm


Wolf Paul, Gruess Gott!
I spent two summers in Wiener Neustadt in Zeltmissionen.



report abuse
 

James MacDonald

posted October 31, 2005 at 10:01 pm


hey tony:
final try; of course “Brian does have significant and definite theological convictions.” I never said otherwise, only that when people disagree with that substance we should be able to dialogue about the SUBSTANCE and not have to retreat into what a “nice guy” he is. Ok? clear? THANKS :)
james macdonald



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted October 31, 2005 at 10:39 pm


James,
I know this argument, and I’ve heard it a few times myself about Brian and others. And I know it can frustrate the life out of theologians who want to fight out a position that is not clear on the part of others.
But, there has always been a pietistic side to our evangelical faith where we say, “he or she is godly, he or she believes this, he or she deserves respect.” Some overdo this, and some overdo it with Brian, but in general this sort of argument is not inconsistent with our faith. We are to seek out leaders who are godly and loving and who have a track record of doing the good thing and the right thing and who have much fruit. (None of this, of course, makes anyone right on everything.)
I’m glad you’ve visited my site again tonight.
Tomorrow’s will touch on what you spoke about in your criticisms, but the post on Wednesday will touch on things central to all evangelicals.



report abuse
 

Bill Smith

posted October 31, 2005 at 11:23 pm


John,
One of the main points that I made was that it amazes me how some people in the emergent/emerging movement are quick to bring out the prophetic justice gun and blow away people whoever doesn’t adopt the same remedy to social ills as they do. My point about creeds was to point out that in the other direction they seem to want to bend over backward to point out how we need to be gracious and allow for differences, give people the benefit of the doubt, etc. I stand by my observation. My point about the early church was that they seemed at least as concerned about getting their doctrine of Christ right. Interestingly the passage you quoted from 1 John occurs in a letter where some people were denying what we would call the orthodox view of Christ. Many would day they were docetic or Gnostic in their views. I am not saying that we should not expect actions will follow beliefs but I am saying that is curious to me how many recognize the need to be gracious regarding people’s theological beliefs but seem to call down fire on someone whose remedy to racism or poverty differs from their own. It cause me to wonder why that is the case.
Bill



report abuse
 

John Frye

posted November 1, 2005 at 5:43 pm


Bill,
I have to admit that my acquaintance with the “emergent movement” is quite limited. I don’t kow too many who “bring out the social justice gun and blow people away.” I think you’re calling for a balance in grace toward theological differences and toward social justice differences. I agree–as long as both the theological and justice issues get discussed. Peace!
John



report abuse
 

Majestic

posted April 12, 2006 at 2:51 pm


Does anyone have information on Jesus the Christ ever worrying? I need supporting evidence that JTC experienced a situation that worried him? Respond to mjohnson12961@yahoo.com



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Jesus Creed. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:15:58am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Our Common Prayerbook 30 - 3
Psalm 30 thanks God (vv. 1-3, 11-12) and exhorts others to thank God (vv. 4-5). Both emerge from the concrete reality of David's own experience. Here is what that experience looks like:Step one: David was set on high and was flourishing at the hand of God's bounty (v. 7a).Step two: David became too

posted 12:15:30pm Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Theology After Darwin 1 (RJS)
One of the more important and more difficult pieces of the puzzle as we feel our way forward at the interface of science and faith is the theological implications of discoveries in modern science. A comment on my post Evolution in the Key of D: Deity or Deism noted: ...this reminds me of why I get a

posted 6:01:52am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Almost Christian 4
Who does well when it comes to passing on the faith to the youth? Studies show two groups do really well: conservative Protestants and Mormons; two groups that don't do well are mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics. Kenda Dean's new book is called Almost Christian: What the Faith of Ou

posted 12:01:53am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Let's Get Neanderthal!
The Cave Man Diet, or Paleo Diet, is getting attention. (Nothing is said about Culver's at all.) The big omission, I have to admit, is that those folks were hunters -- using spears or smacking some rabbit upside the conk or grabbing a fish or two with their hands ... but that's what makes this diet

posted 2:05:48pm Aug. 30, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.