Jesus Creed

Jesus Creed


Emergent Voices

posted by xscot mcknight

The future of emerging theology fascinates me. I’ve said this before, but let me say it again. In the 80s and 90s, historical Jesus studies and studies about the new perspective on Paul dominated academic discussions. It was fun to watch and be there and see it all take place. New voices arose and made enduring contributions. Nothing, and let me emphasize that — nothing whatsoever — is now capturing the biblical academic discussion like historical Jesus studies and the new perspective on Paul. Studies in those fields are now good and solid, but there is nothing hopping and popping.
But, theology is hopping and popping, and it is fun to watch. Just look at Eerdmans’ books and you will see a shift in the last five years from biblical studies to theological studies. Look at Baker Academic and Brazos — tell me which titles fascinate. Look at WJKP — in fact, look at most of them. The good titles are theological ones. And Brazos or Baker, one of them, now has a series of commentaries written by theologians — ah, it is about time. And the reason it is time is because biblical scholars have grown stale in method and mind and are now turning in on themselves with adventurous explorations into minor issues so small they can’t capture the imagination. I hear this interesting voice: “Move over, Bible guys, because we theologians are now ready to take your stuff to the next level.”
I could go on, but here’s the point:
Emerging theological voices are running with some of the fast horses in theology and it is lots of fun to watch and listen. Keep your eyes open because shifts are occurring and in ten years theology won’t be what it is today — and it’s a good thing.
Perhaps one of the more notable features of the emerging movement is its use of divergent and even discordant voices to shape its praxis and its theology. I have no truck with the usefulness of standard textbooks that are used in theological education; they have, in fact, sustained the evangelical movement for a century. But new voices are being heard when one listens to the concerns of the emerging movement. Who are they?
Many of the leaders and thinkers of the emerging movement were nurtured theologically on books like those of Donald Bloesch, Millard Erickson, Wayne Grudem, or even older lights like Berkhof. Emerging leaders know this stuff — and often have moved beyond it or have rejected it.
Here’s a good question: When you went to seminary (if you did), whom did you read? There’s a place for textbooks; and there is also a place for reading seminal thinkers. Did you get both?
Take, for instance, LeRon Shults. An emerging thinker, a young theologian, and one who has drunk deeply from seminal thinkers. What I find central to the major discussions of theology in the emerging movement is its turn to seminal thinkers and broad, sweeping trends. Shults deals in his book, Reforming Theolgocial Anthropology, with the turn to relationality and sketches the discussion through Aristotle, Kant, Hegel and Levinas. We have Barth and Pannenberg, and we have Leontius of Byzantium. And we have the impact of this turn toward a relational understanding on how we understand human nature, how we understand sin, and how we understand the imago Dei.
Others could be mentioned — John Franke, Stanley Grenz, Miroslav Volf, Kevin Vanhoozer.
What you won’t find in these new discussions is the return to dog-eared discussions like whether or not human nature is tripartite or something else. The issues are bigger, the questions are deeper, and the scope of the discussion wider. When they ask about eschatology, they don’t ask about the rapture, they inquire into what history is, how God relates to history, what the goal of history is. When they ask about Scripture, they don’t begin with inerrancy and inspiration but (like Vanhoozer) how the drama of doctrine is meant to be played out using the script of God as its text.
Which also means the answers will be bigger and deeper and wider. Perhaps I’ve misstated: this kind of theology might not be pursuing the “answer” but probing the question — theologizing, exploring, pondering, and wondering. Go ahead, check out Shults some time: you’ll see he is biblically alert, philosophically rigorous, and theologically expansive and all the while responsible.
In LeRon Shults’ book with Steven Sandage, The Faces of Forgiveness, LeRon proposes that we not look for an “ordo salutis” but for a salutary order. Clever, and at the same time revealing.
The major impact, as I’m seeing it, will be that bigger questions will be asked, newer approaches will be seen, and over time some dog-eared discussions will find their appropriate corner with questions no longer asked. Theology has always been the attempt to bring biblical theology into a new day, and that is exactly what we find in (to use Westerns) in Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Edwards, Barth, and the like. To stick to the categories and discussions of the 16th Century may be a learning experience, but theology always asks for new expressions in new times. I find the theology of the emerging movement trying to do just that.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(36)
post a comment
Greg

posted March 2, 2006 at 8:28 am


Scot:
One of the things I took away from the Emergent critical concerns course was a renewed desire for theological striving. It’s easy (post seminary) to drop the greek, hebrew and theology–at least the rigorous theology. Curt and I have purchased some of LeRon’s stuff and are going to begin a “theology on tap” sort of thing at a local pub. Hope we find one that allows cigars…



report abuse
 

Dan

posted March 2, 2006 at 9:34 am


Dr. McKnight,
I’m curious as to how emergent voices would dialogue with the likes of Lindbeck, Hauerwas, Cavanaugh, and Dan Bell Jr. I think that they offer a much needed perspective on being Church. As Lindbeck says,
“Religious communities are likely to be practically relevant in the long run to the degree that they do not first ask what is either practical or relevant, but instead concentrate on their own intratextual outlooks and forms of life.”
Granted emergent folk seem to be asking a lot of questions about Church but, it seems to me, that many of those questions are focused on the aesthetics of Church (soul patches and all), and not on what it means to be faithfully set apart as the people of God. Emergent questions about Church seem to be rooted in a primary question about relevance which, from the perspective of Lindbeck et al, is a rather backward set of priorities.
In The Crucified God, Jurgen Moltmann argues that the Church faces a twofold crisis: a crisis of identity and a crisis of relevance. When the Church has emphasised her unique identity she has tended towards detached sectarianism; when she emphasises her relevance she has tended to loss sight of her true identity. I wonder if the Emergent movement has been a little to willing to sacrifice identity for the sake of relevance.
But, then again, I’m not too conversant with emergent authors (although I have greatly enjoyed the writings of two other authors mentioned in your post: Miroslav Volf and Kevin VanHoozer). I wonder if you could tell me how the Emergent might respond to postliberals like those I mentioned above.
Grace and peace,
Dan



report abuse
 

Robertson

posted March 2, 2006 at 9:40 am


The term “theological” is used here in some sense according to this definition?: (An) attempt to reconcile modern science and reason with the Christian faith. Perhaps “reconciliation” should become another of your buzz words! The idea might provide some connection between what you appear to be doing (touchy / feelie, but otherwise GODless social reform) and the God of the Old Testament (as one who is actively involved in the life of believers). Speaking of terminology: Everything is “emerging”. So, you might help me by explaining the difference between emergent and emerging in terms of of AGENCY (emergent) and AGENCIES (emerging)? This is to say (regarding form without function): Where does “will” come from (as contrasted from “love” in a Rollo May sort of way); thus, what about “prophecy” (as in what WILL, or “can” happen) and “daemons” (psychological or otherwise)? This movement calls to mind another distinction: That between “intelligence” and “military intelligence”.



report abuse
 

Van S

posted March 2, 2006 at 9:48 am


When I started studying at Bethel Seminary, I never expected to find any theological depth. In my undergraduate studies at an evangelical school, I was constantly frustrated by the limited theological scope, and lack of theological depth. I assumed that it would be the same at Bethel. But at Bethel, I met LeRon. He has given me a tremendous gift–he helped me see the world with new eyes, gave me new categories, helped me make some sense of my faith. We read folks like John Zizioulas, Colin Gunton, Irenaeus…we started with Trinity, embraced a sort of mysticism in our approach to theology. It was both worshipful, in that it let God out of the boxes we’ve constructed for him, yet deeply academic. So when folks suggest that emerging thinkers lack theological rigor and/or don’t care about doctrine, I get confused. It is as though we aren’t even talking about the same movement.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted March 2, 2006 at 10:05 am


SmartChristian.com » Blog Archive »

short swing trading
short swing trading
short swing trading – short swing trading
Q: What do they call the alphabet in Arkansas?
A: The impossible dream.
Q: What does friendship among Soviet nationalities mean?
A: It means that the Armenians take the Russians by the hand;…—–
[...] [...]



report abuse
 

Dan

posted March 2, 2006 at 10:25 am


Van S.,
You’re at Bethel? I don’t suppose you know Pam Erwin, do you? She’s a good friend of mine and I had the joy of helping her develop a course called “Youth and Homelessness”.



report abuse
 

Greg Mc

posted March 2, 2006 at 10:26 am


Van; I think you have myst the point.



report abuse
 

rick

posted March 2, 2006 at 10:28 am


Great post, Scot.
My NT professors placed great emphasis on understanding scripture through the lense that the writers of scipture were writing mainly theology. For me, it opened and expanded the Word in a way that I could not imagine, which opened my understanding, questions, and view of the world and life.
My theology professors structured the classes so whatever topic we were studying we’d read from several perspectives
he always included fresh perspectives, so when we read Augustine, Aquinias, Calvin… and Barth, we’d also explore the same topic from a feminist, Third-World, “post-modern”, and one of our personal interest.
I took a class just on atonement theologies– we looked at numerous perspectives from various tradtions to new recent perspectives. Wow! Amazing amountbof thought and material out there. Perhaps one of my favortite classes in seminary.
Interesting, now that you have me thinking, my history classes were structured around three areas: theology, spirituality, and history. So every area we studied we focused on those three areas. Again, one cannot have a perspective on history without attempting to understand the spirituality and theology of its time– the three shape one another.
Good stuff!



report abuse
 

Greg Mc

posted March 2, 2006 at 10:47 am


Scot I am so relieved that after 2000 years someone is finally getting it and asking the big questions without the bother of thinking there actually are “answers”. What is that verse? Always learning but…. sounds more like a recipe for ruin than revival.
Greg



report abuse
 

Sivin

posted March 2, 2006 at 11:05 am


I’m reading a book by LeRon right now and found him amazingly helpful.



report abuse
 

Bruce Smith

posted March 2, 2006 at 11:23 am


Scott, you may want to check out John Feinberg’s, “No One Like Him.” It is the most rigorous and fresh discussion of the doctrine of God that I have ever read. Thanks for the interesting post.



report abuse
 

paul delsignore

posted March 2, 2006 at 11:48 am


good post Scott,
would you define the current ‘theological’ pursuit as “spiritual theology” rather than “theology,” kind of like Peterson defines in his Christ Plays book?
It sounds like the theology you are describing is focused on less abstract thought and more practical grounding (not really using the word experiential, but you get what I mean).
paul del signore



report abuse
 

Jim

posted March 2, 2006 at 1:19 pm


I just graduated (May) from Dubuque Seminary. Of course, Donald Bloesch having been a faculty member there was on our reading list. Alistar McGrath’s primer on Theology was a good basic source.
Presbyterian scholars John Leith and Daniel MigLiore were also featured. T.F. Torrance was very predominate (considering my prof Dr. Colyer is a Torrance scholar.) And for a class in eccleisology we studied Volf’s work “After our Likeness.”
Personally I’ve leaned toward Moltmann in my own thinking and the trinity is my most predominate line of thought. I wish we had dabbled some more in the post-liberal works of Lindbeck and other voices now being heard in emergent theology, but at a school for training mostly mainline protestants that line of thinking has not yet caught on.
What I appreciate about Dubuque’s philosophy was its aim to thoroughly ground one in the orthodox, catholic tradition so that you could be convesant and know what you were talking about when looking elsewhere. So I suppose where I go from here is pretty much up to me…



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted March 2, 2006 at 1:58 pm


Bill Smith,
Let’s read LeRon Shults, Faces of Forgiveness, together.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted March 2, 2006 at 2:01 pm


Dan,
I can’t speak for the scope of emerging thinkers, but these are just the sort who are involved.
Robertson, you are more than welcome, but I can’t make heads or tails of your questions.
Greg, Van indeed got the point.
Paul, I doubt it can be simply classified that way. I fail to see the value in positing that old-fashioned theology didn’t have spirituality about it. Well, maybe not all did.



report abuse
 

LeRon Shults

posted March 2, 2006 at 6:47 pm


Hi Scot,
Thanks for the kind words about me in your post! I too am enjoying the energy around emerging theology and it was wonderful to meet you last week at the NPC. As a theologian, it’s encouraging to me to find creative biblical scholars that are committed to reconstructing theology for contemporary culture.
Today I am in St. Louis and in about an hour I’m going to be giving a lecture for the Society for Psychology and Wesleyan Thought and the Wesleyan Theological Society. The issue of emerging churches has already come up at the conference, and I’m sensing that more and more evangelicals are becoming enthusiastic about what the movement can contribute to the life of the church.
God bless,
LeRon



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted March 2, 2006 at 7:11 pm


My friend at IVP, Dan Reid, sent this note to me via e-mail, mentioning the fine series from IV on the Ancient interpretation of Scripture:
By the way, interesting observations on the state of biblical studies vs
theology in your blog today. I think you are basically right. And on the
theological commentary side, I’d put the Ancient Christian Commentary on
Scripture (and the Reformation Commentary on Scripture, which is now
underway), which is amazingly popular and is feeding the same general
trend–hunger for theological and “spiritual” exegesis.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted March 2, 2006 at 8:56 pm


LeRon,
I’ll be reading more of you in the near future, and we’ll be discussing it on this blog. Great to meet you, and dang I loved some of those thoughts up in the suite (and in the sessions, too).



report abuse
 

Robertson

posted March 2, 2006 at 11:07 pm


“The term “theological” is used here in some sense according to this definition?: (An) attempt to reconcile modern science and reason with the Christian faith.”
Interpretation: The Christian faith precedes, or goes beyond, theology. Instead of reconciling the Christian faith with science and reason, you should be reconciling science and reason with the Christian faith. Or, do you disagree that theology is “an attempt to reconcile modern science and reason with the Christian faith?”
“Perhaps “reconciliation” should become another of your buzz words!”
Interpretation: I sense that there is an attempt to take words that are used by Christianity and redefine them to fit this movement. But more specifically, between the “power-ties” (soul patches) and the “synergy” (social networking) I’m turned off by the superficiality of it all (suggesting an even “deeper” lack of meaning).
Thus, “The idea [of reconciliation]… ”
with a) the Christian faith, and b) “meaning” …
” … might provide some connection between what you appear to be doing (touchy / feelie, but otherwise GODless social reform) and [a] the God of the Old Testament (as one who is [b] actively involved in the life of believers).”
Regarding “AGENCY (emergent) and AGENCIES (emerging)”
Where does the “motivation” (agency) for this “movement” (agencies) come from?

Admittedly, the stuff about Rollo May was abstract; especially assuming my other “questions” were irrelevant or offbase. I had meant to suggest that this approach will likely be unable to address some of the more hardcore issues of religion … specifically prophecy, as “will” (qua CAN) and “daemons” (loosely, EVIL). My reasoning behind this observation: I contrast will from love and so assume an approach that regards group compatibility lacks an inherent impetus (thus would become stagnant, even foul).
“This movement calls to mind another distinction: That between “intelligence” and “military intelligence”.”
Interpretation: I’m calling you stupid (I thought it was witty, sorry). But mostly, I’m suggesting that group “intelligence” isn’t *intelligence*. I don’t believe that the works of Shakespeare will emerge from a group of monkeys; though, this sounds more likely than an emerging church since the former, at least, presupposes the existence of a Shakespeare.



report abuse
 

ray slaybaugh

posted March 2, 2006 at 11:11 pm


I found scott’s comments very helpful. as an aside i have noticed that a few of those you mentioned have mentioned their use of cultural anthro. i find this encouraging. keep up the good work, scott. iam looking to hearing your further comments on emergent theoos.
ray slaybaugh



report abuse
 

Ken

posted March 3, 2006 at 12:28 am


Scot,
For my information, since I’ve not raed any of this material, and going on your comments alone, are you saying that, for example, Emergent theology doesn’t care about the doctrines worked out by the Christian church in its first four centuries because such questiosn as whether Jesus is divine don’t matter, even though emergent theologians would affirm such doctrines, or are you saying that Emergent theology has dispenesed with this discussion and one can believe anything and everything about God? In the _little_ I’ve read by Brian MacLaren my impression is certainly that orthodoxy is an irrelevant concept. What you believe doesn’t matter.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted March 3, 2006 at 7:29 am


Ken, I’m not saying anything of the sort in either option. And it disappoints to see such stereotypes repeated — have you read LeRon Shults or Stanley Grenz or Lesslie Newbigin or John Franke? These are the sorts the emerging theology will look like. And no one can say what you say about any of them.



report abuse
 

the Foolish Sage

posted March 3, 2006 at 7:52 am


Dear Mr. Roberston:
Saint Paul wisely advised that when someone speaks in tongues, someone else should give the interpretation. Perhaps that is what might be needed in order for your utterance to edify.
And calling Scot “stupid” makes about as much sense as calling you “intelligible.”



report abuse
 

Dan

posted March 3, 2006 at 9:57 am


If emergent theologians sound like Newbigin, Franke, VanHoozer, Volf, and Grenz, and are also dialoguing with the likes of Barth, Pannenberg, Kant and Levinas then I think the movement as a whole has suffered from significant misrepresentation.
Why is this so?
Is it because McLaren is perceived as such a dominant figure (if not the dominant figure) to those on the outside of the movement? I know that that is part of the reason why I’ve had such a cautious/negative reaction. But I am not well versed in emergent writers, nor am I much involved in emergent communities. I have read some (not a lot — although enough to not want to read him anymore) of McLaren and disliked it quite a bit, and all the emergent people I have encountered (again, not a lot of people) sounded an lot like McLaren.
Certainly reading the writings of people like Brian Walsh (and this blog by Scot McKnight) has caused me to reconsider the impressions I have received.
And so, emergent folk, please bear patiently with me. I am not attempting to “bash” any of y’all, I am just expressing a faith that is seeking understanding.
I thought I should make that clear in light of some of the other comments on this post.
Grace and peace.



report abuse
 

Ken

posted March 3, 2006 at 11:40 am


What does this mean?
“In the strength of a humble setting, we were blessed to learn to listen, to grow in patience, to see the Icon in the other, to love, and to call out to the Image there. Call out with love, but not with answers from a reduced, discursive, objectified knowledge.”
This sort of abstract talk seems to me quite obtuse and could mean any number of things.



report abuse
 

Ken

posted March 3, 2006 at 11:46 am


Scot,
You said “And it disappoints to see such stereotypes repeated — have you read LeRon Shults or Stanley Grenz or Lesslie Newbigin or John Franke? These are the sorts the emerging theology will look like.”
I’ve been reading Grenz’s The Social God and the Relational Self of late. I’ve not read any of ther other people and I believe I said that. At the same time, Newbigin wrote well before there was an “Emergent” church movement. Can you really claim that Newbigin is an Emergent theologian? That seems anachronistic to me.
So I’m not making an assertion based on having read the people you initially pointed to. I’m asking a question based upon what you wrote about going beyond doctrine to larger questions. If you go beyond doctrine, you can do so by asking questions that are based upon doctrine or you can do so by rejecting doctrine as irrelevant or untrue. I can’t tell from what you wrote which it is.



report abuse
 

Dennis

posted March 3, 2006 at 12:10 pm


Mr. Robertson,
I will pray for your understanding as you read on these blogs, as it seems somewhat closed-minded right now.
Second, let’s not confuse a head full of facts or knowledge with wisdom. For both sides, let’s pray together for much wisdom, noone knows yet what will be encountered on the journey down the proverbial “yellow brick road”
Lastly, because of negative nuances, because of a cultural affinity for our “traditional” and enlightenment understanding of the faith, many are not willing to step out, yet, into anything emerging out of fear. And some may never, there isn’t always need to. Unfortunately, hatred talk, fear and hellfire and brimstone are being used to keep people in line. When Christ talked like that he was trying to snap people out of religiosity that did not connect the individual with God. For my part and about 3 years of emerging, I can say that my connection to God has strengthened beyond any other point in my life (growing up in the culture, bible college, youth ministry/biblical studies undergrad, current seminary training). My thinking, my reasoning and my ministry but especially my believing have undergone growth unparalleled in the rest of my life. I think many can attest to this and that is why emerging means so much to so many.
Again, let’s pray for the movement that is seen to encompass all of the little emergings that are going on out there. We surely could use your support.
Dennis



report abuse
 

Dan

posted March 3, 2006 at 12:40 pm


Two quick comments, one for Robertson and the other for Dennis.
Robertson,
In a rather polemical manner you suggested that “group intelligence” isn’t *intelligence* and my thoughts automatically went to the Eastern Orthodox and the Anabaptist traditions where a group intelligence is very highly valued when it comes to doing hermeneutics and theology. You can, therefore, imagine my surprise when I clicked on your name and discovered that the link led to an Orthodox Church. Is this the tradition of which you are a part? If it is, I would be curious to hear how you can be faithfully Orthodox while also also comparing group intelligence to a group of monkeys trying to write Shakespeare.
Ken,
Notice that Dr. McKnight was not saying that Newbigin et al. are Emergent theologians (although, of the list provided, Grenz could possibly be put in that category… I don’t know if you ever came out explicitly as Emergent but he was very sympathetic towards the movement, and he rigorously defended the Emergent and Brian McLaren at a forum at my school about a year before he passed away). Scot is simply suggesting that Emergent theologians will look like Newbigin and Co. An suggestion that, if true, is quite exciting.
Peace.



report abuse
 

Dan

posted March 3, 2006 at 12:42 pm


Oops, I said “Dennis” in my first line but I meant to say “Ken”. Sorry for the confusion.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted March 3, 2006 at 4:22 pm


Ken,
Who is this question for?



report abuse
 

Ken

posted March 3, 2006 at 4:29 pm


Scot,
My question about the quote was for Mr. Robertson.



report abuse
 

Robertson

posted March 3, 2006 at 5:28 pm


Ken,
I chose to quote someone else instead of continuing in the same vein I had begun. The quote seemed (to me) to express a willingness to listen. I understood my previous comments to contain “reduced, discursive, objectified knowledge” (in the sense of their having a point which is “illuminated” through example). As such, the quote was a “case in point” and thus might similarly be illuminated by the content of these comments. Certainly, I didn’t find anything objectionable in the quote! That alone should be an improvement :)



report abuse
 

Anthony Smith

posted March 5, 2006 at 8:42 am


I have drunken from the wells of most if not all of the thought-leaders Scot posted. I especially remember in 2000 I took a course with Dr. Richard Cohen of University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He teaches Judaic studies and is a Levinas scholar (He personally knew him). It was a fascinating class. I never saw the connections until I read David Ford’s book on salvation where, as a Christian theologian, he engages Levinas and some other thinkers.
But I would also include my own list of seminal thinkers that have helped me navigate the waters of the emerging church conversation:
James Cone, Cornel West (esp. his thoughts on blacks and postmodernity), bell Hooks, Katie Cannon, Traci West, Kathryn Tanner, J. Deotis Roberts, Howard Thurman, James William McClendon, John Howard Yoder, Cain Hope Felder. This is the short list. But these voices speak from traditions and social locations that historically were from the margins of Christendom.
It has been helpful to me in this journey to have a more expanded ‘canon’ that doesn’t reflect the politics of Christendom.
Scot. Thanks for showing the connects.
pax



report abuse
 

Melody Unruh

posted March 12, 2006 at 3:44 pm


Dear Gentlemen Bloggers,
The term “Emerging Church” is relatively new to me but I have spent many hours researching the “great theologians” spoken of on the many websites such as Brian McLaren, Walter Brueggman and others. One central theme seems to be that while there are a tremendous number of words being exchanged, they actually say nothing. The “emerging church” theology that desires to erase “evangelical christianity” is the same old ecumenical movement that killed the mainline denominations including the Methodist Church, the Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church and others. The bottom line (to use a tired old cliche) is that we all want a relationship with God but we want it on our own terms. We want to do what we want to do and we want God to bless it and we want to feel good about ourselves and we want to think of ourselves as righteous. The beauty of God’s word is that a person doesn’t need to go to seminary to read and understand it. I hold a degree in Bible from a prominent Christain university (near Fuller) and though I graduated many years ago (1975), I remember you guys from my college days. Absolutely nothing has changed. You have no belief in the work of the Holy Spirit and cannot see the joy in a life changed by the forgiveness of one’s sins thru the shed blood of Jesus Christ. You are so similar to Jehovah’s Witnesses who are trying to earn some salvation through your good works. The more I read and the more I search the web on this whole movement the more I see the continual effort of this whole group to massage each other with your “buzz” words that serve no useful purpose either in furthering the knigdom of God or for making anything better on this earth. I was not impressed with hyper-intellectualizing (see I can make up big words too) then and I’m not now. The truly sad part is that you are leading many astray from God’s truth. Thankfully you will not need to answer to me for that but you definitely will answer to Him. And I am also thankful to have the secure knowldege, dare I say CERTAINTY that God is still on the throne and He doesn’t need my vote or yours to keep Him there.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 11, 2006 at 10:05 am


reverse mortgage

forex uk
forex uk
forex uk – forex uk
Q: What do you get when you cross a mobster with an international standard?
A: You get someone who makes you an offer that you can’t understand!
The true Southern watermelon is a boon apart, and not to be mentioned with
co…—–
loan rates
loan rates
loan rates – loan rates
A Tale of Two Cities LITE(tm)
– by Charles Dickens
A lawyer who looks like a French Nobleman is executed in his place.
The Metamorphosis LITE(tm)
– by Franz Kafka
A man turns into a bug and his family gets an…—–
as seen on tv cat steps
as seen on tv cat steps
as seen on tv cat steps – as seen on tv cat steps
They have been at a great feast of languages, and stolen the scraps.
– William Shakespeare, “Love’s Labour’s Lost”
“Life, loathe it or ignore it, you can’t like it.”
…—–
reverse mortgage
reverse mortgage
reverse mortgage – reverse mortgage
“… an experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often quite often
picturesque liar.”
– Mark Twain
Chicken Little was right.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 25, 2006 at 2:23 pm


mortgage rates

mortgage rates
mortgage rates
mortgage rates – mortgage rates
Of course you have a purpose — to find a purpose.
FORTUNE PROVIDES QUESTIONS FOR THE GREAT ANSWERS: #15
A: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Q: What was the greatest achievement in taxidermy?



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.