Jesus Creed

Jesus Creed


Spiritual Formation Forum

posted by xscot mcknight

The following outline was used for my talk at the Spiritual Formation Forum in Milwaukee last week. My week was more hectic than I wanted — owing to about five things happening at once, not the least of which was major house repairs, and so was unable to attend the whole forum. Next year I hope to. But, this is my outline. My central thesis, which I outlined in Embracing Grace, is that a theory of spiritual formation is at work in how we present the gospel and that everything flows from that gospel. To change spiritual formation from an individual emphasis to an ecclesial emphasis will mean that we have to broaden our sense of the gospel so that Church is vital to the gospel.
Robust Gospel, Robust Spiritual Formation
Scot McKnight
North Park University
Spiritual Formation Forum
Elmbrook Church
Milwaukee
Introduction: Here I talked about developing “skills” in basketball — like shooting and dribbling. But some skills can’t be learned alone in your driveway — like passing and rebounding and team play. Spiritual formation is too often too much about shooting and dribbling and not enough about about passing and rebounding. (And reading the defense.) So, this talk is dedicated to a one-sided emphasis on the need for a gospel that will lead Christians to realize that spiritual formation is not just about individual spiritual formation but also about ecclesial spiritual formation.
1.0 The Standard Gospel Presentation
God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.
Your problem is that you are sinful; God can’t admit sinners into his presence.
Jesus died for you to deal with your “sin-problem.”
If you trust in Christ, you can be admitted into God’s presence.
Problems:
1. No one in the NT really preaches this gospel.
2. This gospel is about one thing: Humans gaining access to God’s presence.
3. This gospel creates an individualist Christian life.
4. This gospel sets the tone for the entire evangelical movement.
5. This gospel leads to spiritual formation being entirely about “me and God.”
6. The evangelical gospel has created a need for evangelical monasteries.
7. The evangelical gospel turns local church into a volunteer society.
8. The evangelical gospel is rooted in Theism or Deism, but not perichoretic Trinitariaism.
2.0 A Robust Gospel Presentation
1. A Robust gospel can’t be “tractified.”
2. God made you as an Eikon to relate in love to God, to self, to others and to the world.
3. The “fall” cracked the Eikon in all four directions.
4. Bible readers can’t skip from Genesis 3 to Romans 3.
5. Genesis 4—11 reveals the “problem” of sin: the climax is a society of Eikons trying to build their way to God.
6. Genesis 12 begins to restore the Eikon by (1) covenantal commitment and (2) forming the family of faith. THE REST OF THE BIBLE IS ABOUT THIS ELECTED FAMILY OF FAITH.
7. The “problem” is finally resolved in “four atoning moments”: the life of Jesus, the death of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
8. The “locus” of resolution is the family of faith: three big words in Bible are Israel, the Kingdom, and the Church.
3.0 Robust Gospel, Robust Spiritual Formation
Individual spiritual disciplines are important; they aren’t the point.
I assume their importance and their disciplined practice.
Jesus
1. Jesus thinks with the term “kingdom”: society in which God’s will is done.
2. Jesus’ primary category for spiritually formed people is the Jesus Creed: Mark 12:28-32.
Paul
1. Paul thinks with the term “church”: the fellowship of the Spirit that realizes through the Spirit the kingdom vision of Jesus.
2. Paul’s primary category for spiritually formed people is “giftedness”: 1 Cor 12—14.
John
1. John thinks with the term “life” or “fellowship”: the light of God invading a person’s life so that they live in the light of fellowship and love.
2. John’s primary category for spiritually formed people is “love God, love one another”: 1 John.
4.0 Conclusions
1. The Church is what God is doing in this world.
2. Spiritual formation is both personal formation and ecclesial formation.
3. The gospel is something that is both proclaimed and performed and what we see is what we are really preaching.
4. Our biggest needs:
A gospel that is robust.
A spiritual formation that flows out of that robust gospel.
A spiritual formation that is shaped by the kingdom/church vision.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(46)
post a comment
John

posted June 11, 2007 at 2:12 am


Thank you Scot. I am anticipating your new book. Maybe some of these thoughts will be represented there.
One questions – when you say “The Church is what God is doing in this world.” that is what I think of as the Kingdom. Do you distinguish the two? Is the Church more a spiritual reality that exists in the way people relate, rather than it is the people who are commited to following Christ (who sometimes royally mess it up)?
I hope my question is clear. If not, we can continue the conversation.



report abuse
 

Patrick Lowthian

posted June 11, 2007 at 4:10 am


Scot,
Three cheers for these ideas. Recently I have been asking Christians what the gospel is. They give the standard answer. Then I point them to Mark 1:14, 15. The gospel is that the kingdom of God is near/here. Dallas Willard has been very influential in teaching me this. And N.T. Wright’s new book (especially parts 2 and 3–I didn’t care much for part 1) gave a brilliant explanation of the robustness of the gospel.
By the way, I’m the chaplain in Iraq who commented a few months ago. Currently I’m in a holding location awaiting a flight to Kuwait, then home to Colorado Springs for two weeks with my family!



report abuse
 

John Frye

posted June 11, 2007 at 6:13 am


Scot,
Out of sight!! “To change spiritual formation from an individual emphasis to an ecclesial emphasis will mean that we have to broaden our sense of the gospel so that Church is vital to the gospel.” The reduced gospel of USAmerican evangelicalism allows the church to be superfluous, a nice addition if you choose it; but you can “go to heaven when you die” without the church.
I wish I could have heard and learned from your presentations.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted June 11, 2007 at 6:45 am


John,
Yes, I believe “kingdom” and “Church” are not so much two distinct items but two linguistic variants of largely the same thing: what God is doing here and now in this world. Both, obviously, also have some kind of eschatological future.



report abuse
 

Diane

posted June 11, 2007 at 7:02 am


Scot,
“3. The gospel is something that is both proclaimed and performed and what we see is what we are really preaching.”
Could you expand on that? Does the first part mean, in the old Quaker terminology, the gospel is both professed and possessed (you live it as well as talk it)? In part 2, “what we see is what we are really preaching:” Is it that we need to resee the gospel to preach it well? The society? Both?



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted June 11, 2007 at 7:12 am


Diane,
Yes, that expression comes from an early chp in Embracing Grace, and it is rooted in the Sermon on the Mount, Acts 2-4, and 1 Cor 12-14 — passages that emphasize Church as something done and visible.
And Patrick,
I’ve prayed for you a number of times … thrilled to hear you will be coming back to visit family. May your trip be safe and your time with your family restoring.



report abuse
 

Matthew Glock

posted June 11, 2007 at 7:12 am


Hello Scot,
Thanks for the outline. I’ve alway thought what Paul said to the Colossians,
“So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.”
cut both ways. You can receive Jesus, well or not so well. If you recieve him in an insufficient way, it would mean that your walk would be deformed…
Thanks again.
Matt



report abuse
 

Joel Kurz

posted June 11, 2007 at 8:24 am


Great insights, Scot. As a youth pastor, we have changed our approach to the gospel over the past few years and are finally seeing kids (even middle schoolers) grasp the story of God and begin to understand this “robust” gospel. It is much more meaningful than a self-help, individualistic, “I-don’t-want-to-burn” gospel. The challenge that I see, however, is the communication, or presentation, of this robust gospel. The standard is much easier to communicate and understand at a very basic level. The only problem is that it is wrong :-). I believe that it will take a long time for some lay people (as well as those in ministry) to fully grasp this robust gospel without defaulting to the standard.



report abuse
 

Joel Kurz

posted June 11, 2007 at 8:26 am


Great insights, Scot. As a youth pastor, we have changed our approach to the gospel over the past few years and are finally seeing kids (even middle schoolers) grasp the story of God and begin to understand this “robust” gospel. It is much more meaningful than a self-help, individualistic, “I-don’t-want-to-burn” gospel. The challenge that I see, however, is the communication, or presentation, of this robust gospel. The standard is much easier to communicate and understand at a very basic level. The only problem is that it is wrong :-). I believe that it will take a long time for some lay people (as well as those in ministry) to fully grasp this robust gospel without defaulting to the standard.



report abuse
 

Mark Farmer

posted June 11, 2007 at 8:33 am


The traditional evangelical gospel presentation relegates spiritual formation to an add-on at the end of the tract. The result is that prayer, Bible reading, fellowship, giving, etc. have no apparent organic connection to the gospel itself. And pastors spend a lot of energy trying to get people to do this “extra” stuff.
Yes, the Gospel cannot be “tractified.” But it can be summarized in Paul’s expression “Jesus is Lord.” That sentence is an implicit deep narrative that we see unfolded, for example, in the evangelistic sermons in Acts. And while we can distinguish the ways in which the NT writers bring out the meaning of the gospel, I find it helpful to see “Jesus is Lord/Kingdom of God” as the unifying overarching theme. Acts 28:30-31 shows Luke, the gospel-writer, summing up Paul’s traching in K of G language.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted June 11, 2007 at 8:39 am


Mark,
Liked your first paragraph a lot.
Tom Wright’s thesis that the gospel is Jesus is Lord, while if unpacked can get to the heart of the gospel, is not the way Paul defines “gospel,” which is the “power of God for salvation.” That Christological claim on his part too easily, in my view, can become reductionistic.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted June 11, 2007 at 8:40 am


Joel,
So true about the ease of communication, but whoever would read the Gospels or Paul and say “now that is easy stuff to communicate”?



report abuse
 

Julie Clawson

posted June 11, 2007 at 9:20 am


Scot #12 – in attempting to convey a more robust conception of the gospel to family and friends, I often get the line “but the gospel is easy enough that a child can understand it” thrown back at me. Anything that apparently requires thought, discipline, and a long term journey is just too hard and therefore can’t be true…



report abuse
 

Tom Hein

posted June 11, 2007 at 9:28 am


Isn’t “Kingdom” the overarching biblical paradigm worked out through a biological family nation(Israel) and then through a spiritual family (the church)?



report abuse
 

Joel Kurz

posted June 11, 2007 at 9:36 am


Good point, Scot.



report abuse
 

brad

posted June 11, 2007 at 9:45 am


Scot
Thank you for your outline. I have not yet read Embracing Grace but from your notes here I think I should and will.
I am struggling a bit with your comment #4 when you write: “‘kingdom’ and ‘Church’ are not so much two distinct items but two linguistic variants of largely the same thing.”
I have never thought of the two in this way? Maybe this would be best for another post for another day but I have been uncomfortable in my denominational circles when people have equated the church and the Kingdom. When they do so it seems as if people believe that God is only active in what ever or when ever the church is involved. But it seems to me that the Kingdom is much larger than the church.
Maybe I am missing something here, but when Jesus said that the Kingdom was near/at hand wasn’t He saying that we can now enter the Kingdom and actively participate in what God is doing through Chirst? And isn’t the church simply a part of that participation? (although a vital part)
Thanks



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted June 11, 2007 at 10:19 am


Brad,
This is really quite an issue, but I think Kingdom is Jesus’ “vision” term and Church is Paul’s “vision” term. I don’t think they are the same thing, but I do think we need to expand “church”.



report abuse
 

Mark Farmer

posted June 11, 2007 at 10:49 am


Scot #11 – What do think of considering I Cor. 15:20-28 as the continuation of Paul’s summary of the gospel in 15:1-4? If it is, then this is Paul’s definition of the gospel. Isn’t Rom. 1:16 more a description of the effect of the gospel than a definition?
One could also argue that the evangelistic sermons in Acts 2 and 3, for example, focus on the gospel as the present reign of the crucified and risen Jesus as Lord. Does that seem like a fair summary of their thrust?



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted June 11, 2007 at 10:52 am


Mark,
It’s not one or the other: but Jesus is Lord leaves out “salvation”; “salvation” always includes the work of Christ. My book attempted to work out a definition of the gospel. It is a pressing issue for many of us.



report abuse
 

Nathanael

posted June 11, 2007 at 10:52 am


pardon my ignorance…what is an Eikon?



report abuse
 

Mark Farmer

posted June 11, 2007 at 11:17 am


I look forward to reading the book!



report abuse
 

Dana Ames

posted June 11, 2007 at 11:46 am


Mark and Scot:
If one reads “salvation” as “healing” of the cracked-ness in all four directions, then unpacking what Wright says Paul says is the good news includes that, at least. Wright’s is actually: “Jesus the Jewish messiah has risen from the dead and is the world’s true Lord.” The “Jewish messiah” and “risen from the dead” parts would include the “salvation” work of Christ, however you want to read “salvation”. I would say the concept of “salvation” is a pressing issue more for the believer who is trying to understand it, than for the unbeliever…
V. good outline, Scot.
Dana



report abuse
 

T

posted June 11, 2007 at 12:11 pm


Scot,
Thanks for posting this. Re: your comment to Mark (#11) that Paul doesn’t ‘define’ the gospel as “Jesus is Lord” but rather as “the power of God for salvation [for everyone who trusts]”–these quotes don’t seem very far apart to me. Saying that “Jesus is Lord” seems to be a statement about power and ultimate authority, specifically about who has it. It would seem that the second quote is talking about the same thing, adding only a rough description of what good this “power” is used for. Of course, they both need further explanation–who is this ‘Jesus’ that has this power? What exactly does he intend on doing with it? (Even the term ‘salvation’ needs a lot more explanation, especially today). Given the traditionally reduced scope of the word/concept of ‘salvation’, ‘Jesus is Lord’ seems to be less vulnerable to reductionism and more inherently expansive in scope. Am I missing something of what you’re saying or that you think Paul is/isn’t saying? I just don’t see the distinction between these quotes as very sharp.
Relatedly, this concept of power/authority (and who has it) seems to be the only common denominator in Paul’s and Jesus’ (and the OT’s) shorter articulations of the good news; it’s been jumping out to me more lately as a significant and often overlooked and/or misunderstood component of the gospel–who has the power to act for our good? I don’t think we can trust anyone or anything that lacks power. Even our loyalty to our idols is due largely (solely?) to our trust in their (exclusive) power to do something we perceive as important. If the gospel is supposed to trigger a response of trust, a statement about power has to be central to its content, which is what I see as the core of both of these articulations. Am I missing something that you see here or in Paul in general?
Thanks again for bringing up some great topics.



report abuse
 

Nathanael

posted June 11, 2007 at 12:18 pm


Nevermind on the Eikon question.
I found my answer in your “Image of God: Meaning?” thread.
This is a wonderful outline.
I am definitely wrestling through this right now in my own heart, so thanks for posting it.



report abuse
 

Paul Johnston

posted June 11, 2007 at 12:18 pm


Perhaps the real genius of the Gospel (like all real genius) is that it’s complexities distill into simple, universally accessable truths. Rhetorical skills may help us better understand the nuances of holiness, but that fact in no way ensures the holiness of the rhetorician.
(See Romans 7:19)
In the end it is the measure of what we’ve done with what we’ve believed that defines us. Justification through faith is both an abstract and a concrete; tangible and intangible. Simply put, the truth about an individuals faith claim is readily observable in the “good fruit” of her works.
Believing in the word of God as attested by His Son, Jesus Christ, puts us on the road. Sincerely committing to loving God, ourselves and one another, is the way home.
While such love requires great effort and discipline, particularly for the mature and learned, I would contend, based on my observable experiences that such expressions of love are best exemplified by small children. They love fully and completely, without guile or conscious concern of self interest. No expression of love holds more power and resonates more truth than one expressed by an infant child. Sadly this endowed characteristic seems to be something we unlearn. Mostly because, in our affluent cultures at least, we feel the need to learn other stuff instead….
A right ecclesiastic community will depend on the supernatural grace of our Lord to secure it and will develope simple and loving traditions among the faithful to help sustain and promote it….
Now is there any way an eclectic managerie of mostly well intended blogosphere Christ seekers can move beyond rhetorical postures and begin to pray and fast together so as to advance His will among us?



report abuse
 

MarkE

posted June 11, 2007 at 12:25 pm


Scot:
I like your definition of “Church” but it is somewhat confusing the way you are laying it out. You use the terms Church, church, and ecclesial. Do you mean all of these to be synonomous? I think many would assume you are also talking about the congregation(s). By definition, institutional churches and congregations may or may not have some overlap with “what God is doing” (Church). It is nice when they do, but it cannot be assumed.



report abuse
 

Jon B

posted June 11, 2007 at 2:00 pm


Paul (#22),
I know this isn’t your point, but this:
“Perhaps the real genius of the Gospel (like all real genius) is that it’s complexities distill into simple, universally accessable truths.”
has an impressive host of assumptions that most postmodern Christians would not accept. I am not at all convinced that a marker of genius (or the Gospel) is its ability to be explained in reductionist fashion. Nor am I convinced that any remotely successful attempt at reducing the Gospel would result in truths that were either simple or universally accessible.
That statement (though not your post as a whole) seems to lead away from a more robust gospel instead of toward it.



report abuse
 

Matt Dabbs

posted June 11, 2007 at 2:54 pm


Scot,
I can’t resist. I just read your blurb on Can We Trust the Gospels.
““What F. F. Bruce did for my generation of students, Mark Roberts has done for the current generation. Any student who asks me if our Gospels are reliable will be given this book, and then I’ll buy another copy for the next student!”
Scot McKnight, Karl A. Olsson Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies, North Park University”
That begs two questions.
1 – Why should we consider the gospels reliable?
2 – Do I have to be your student to make good on the offer?
Just kidding. Have a great day!



report abuse
 

Diane

posted June 11, 2007 at 4:04 pm


Dear Paul Johnston,
I am very interested in your question about how a blogosphere of Christ seekers becomes a “church” community. I am interested in this experiment and what would come of it.
Jon B.: I appreciate the postmodern critique of reducing ideas to simplistic universals, but I do break with (some)postmoderns on the accessibility question. Ideas can and must be broken down into pieces that are accessible.



report abuse
 

Kel Vickers

posted June 11, 2007 at 5:05 pm


Great post: I was just thinking about all this last week:
The Bible along with many other ancient religious texts tells a story of what is referred to as “the tower of Babel.” (Genesis 11) In the story early mankind all live near one another and speak one language and are in union. This unity is powerful, and they build a tower, a demonstration of their communal force. God is outraged by this, destroys their tower, confuses their languages and scatters them all over the earth.
The best guess is that there are now 6800 languages in the world. Humankind have divided into thousands of tribes—often with agendas that conflict violently with their neighbors. How was this God’s solution to man growing too powerful or too conceited? In John 17 Jesus prays for all mankind “that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.” Wait a minute! Wasn’t it God that caused them to scatter and lose the ability to communicate? (my fundie friends will respond that it was man’s fault not God’s.) The last words of Jesus (Matthew 28) instruct His followers to go to the ends of the earth and make disciples of all men. It’s ironic that God scatters and divides mankind in the first part of the Bible then spends the rest of the book trying to put the monkeys back in the barrel.
I am still very much mulling all this over. I recognize that literal interpretation of the Bible is often deceptive and destructive. One must see this and other religious texts as man’s evolving quest for Truth. I suspect the answer to the tower of Babel story is in the principle of sowing and reaping. The wind or a farmer scatters seed in and over the earth. What springs forth in due season is greater than the former. The farmer then gathers and harnesses the goodness of the harvest. The key is recognizing that we are indeed stronger in our diversity, that the creator choose for us to be different and that those differences must be celebrated and made useful for all.



report abuse
 

Paul Johnston

posted June 11, 2007 at 8:42 pm


Hey Jon B,
Thanks for the politeness of your last post, it speaks well of you. Ironicly though I did, within context, equate genius to be synonomous with truthful reductionism. :)
I understand how that perspective could be viewed as alarmingly simplistic to the well educated but I feel it a perfectly natural and defensible perspective for a Christian. (Luke 11:25, 1 Corinthians:17-30)
In the end, John, from my perspective, all that matters, all that remains, is the character of our relationships with God, self and one another. Everything else dies.
Believing that then, I must also believe that goodness of heart takes priority over sharpness of wit and that the simple joy of a loving relationship is more likely to bring a person to Christ then even the most persuasive arguements, however “robust” they might be….
Hey Diane,
It’s so nice to talk to you directly. It has been a pleasure to read your many contributions to Scot’s site. You speak with great compassion and intelligence and while we may not always agree, I always find myself open to your spiritual influence.
With regard to forming a more intimate spiritual community, perhaps yourself and others who are interested could all help identify what that could/should look like. As for myself I would like to be part of a group that while at the same time as considering our faith conceptually, was willing to extend their participation into prayer and fasting with regard to the issues being discussed.
While I must say that my participation at this and a couple of other blog sites has had a positive effect on my faith relationship, there has emerged a persistent soft voice that suggests we bring Jesus more directly into the conversation.
May God bless you and you’re loved ones.



report abuse
 

Krista

posted June 11, 2007 at 11:06 pm


Scot,
This is fabulous, but it leaves me wondering how one should react to those preaching the traditional “Romans road”– especially at Bible Camps or other distinct Christian functions. Moreover, should that teaching be discouraged?
If the Church is what God is doing in this world, is it still sacred or is it untouchable in that it is divine and cannot be twarted? Does it then transcend the body of believers?



report abuse
 

Tim Markle

posted June 11, 2007 at 11:16 pm


Scot,
I had the fantastic pleasure of being able to attend the Spiritual Formation Conference and I thank you for your teaching. As a new comer to this conversation, I wasn’t sure what to expect. I’ve looked over your blog and heard some good things about you, but after hearing you speak, I might have to buy a book or two.
I wanted to share with you an experience with the beginning stages of the robust gospel and the problem your talk has given me. On returning home Thursday night, a young lady in the maternity home where I live/work was full of questions. It took all the little self-control I had to not fire off my 2 minute testimony and draw a picture on the napkin. The basis of the conversation revolved around everything in 2.0 of your talk. I didn’t want to short change God by presenting “Jesus” as a solo act, but found myself wanted to share God. She ended up realizing for the first time that Jesus is God, the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God. It was not easy, but I know she has Trinitarian jumping point for your next step in her journey.
Your closing comments about the “Gospel is drawing us into a perichoretic dance of God and worship is participating in this dance” struck me in a deep way. It is a joyous description of the “doctrine of relationality.” I thank God for the openness of this young mom, for having you speak (so I could be closer to right enough) and for his Holy Spirit’s guidance.



report abuse
 

Ted Gossard

posted June 12, 2007 at 3:57 am


Scot, I look forward to reading more from you and others in seeking to understand the gospel and its impact on us as church and as individuals in this world and for this world.
The gospel needs to be nothing less than a part of who we are, in Jesus. And together. Somehow, as you say, this is missing in action, in the equation and in practice in so much of our “Christianity”.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted June 12, 2007 at 8:21 am


High fiber gospel? « Come to the waters

[...] Here’s are McKnight’s own notes on the talk he gave. [...]



report abuse
 

Paul Johnston

posted June 12, 2007 at 8:26 am


Hey John B,
Aren’t parables reductionist? :)



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted June 12, 2007 at 11:18 am


What “Gospel” are we preaching? at billycalderwood.com

[...] Continue reading for a description of a robust Gospel coupled with a robust emphasis in spiritual formation… tags:Kingdom Robust Gospel Scot McKnight Scripture spiritual dynamics spiritual practices Theology western christianity [...]



report abuse
 

JR Rozko

posted June 12, 2007 at 1:49 pm


Scot, any change of the full manuscript or audio of this talk being made available for those of us who couldn’t make the conference? I am especially curious and encouraged by your thoughts on 4 atonimg moments.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted June 12, 2007 at 1:52 pm


JR,
I’m informed there will be CDs of the talks, but the four atoning moments comes from my book due out in August called A Community called Atonement. And I touch on the same in Embracing Grace.



report abuse
 

Diane

posted June 12, 2007 at 7:54 pm


Hi Paul J.,
I am sorry to take so long to get back to you but I have to jump in and out of this forum based on the demands of my work schedule, which has been utterly crazy lately. Thanks for the kind and supportive words. I would like to pursue this community idea further but have a few concerns. Do we want to piggyback this on Scot’s blog or set up a link, and obviously Scot needs to weigh in on this. Would Scot set up a topic for this? I’d be willing to fast/pray around an issue and then blog about it with others but you may be thinking in some totally different way.
Please comment when you have a chance!



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted June 12, 2007 at 8:09 pm


Diane,
Articulate the issue for me with your typical clarity.



report abuse
 

Paul Johnston

posted June 12, 2007 at 9:33 pm


Hi Diane,
Thanks for the response. I completely understand hectic work schedules, they seem to be more and more common these days…
With regard to “prayerblogging” I’m really not sure yet what specific form to suggest, though I remain convicted by the Spirit that it is what I am supposed to suggest to all the members of this forum.
Paradoxicly though, I’m not yet sure of my level of involvement or if I’m meant to invite Scot to participate. I’m still not sure if this cite’s primary purpose is to be self promotional and to perhaps provide insights and inspiraton to Scot’s muse or a sincere attempt to make disciples of all people.
I fully understand if you take offense, Scot but I am and will remain what I would call, prudently suspicious, of Christian forums that merchandise as they dialogue.
Your “wealth of community” is however, undeniable, Scot and if you would consider a sister-cite free of commercial interference or innuendo, I believe your participation could only be a huge positive.
As for my partcipation, Diane, I’m going to the Blessed Sacrament tomorrow evening. I will sit and listen to our Brother, our Lord. Maybe my desire to serve Him in a way that I believe I can with the time that I have, is misguided. Maybe it is solely a well intended desire on my part, but not our Lord’s intention for me. I’m not sure yet. I don’t know about you but for me the hardest part about discernment isn’t the idea itself but rather knowing if the idea is mine, or the Lord’s.
I should be home by about 10 pm. est (Canadjun time, eh!) and will comment shortly thereafter.
To any other brothers and sisters who feel drawn to this suggestion I simply ask you to talk with the Lord in a way that you know to be true and to ask Him if he would like you to participate. Likewise if any of you are Charasmatic and gifted with prophesy would you please test my inclinations before the Holy Spirit for the purpose of confirmation or to voice concern and/or rebuke.
May the Spirit of the living God be alive in us, always.



report abuse
 

Diane

posted June 13, 2007 at 11:51 am


Paul,
I’ll await what you have to say. I have no problems with Scot’s blog. I think it transcends self-promotion and forms a safe and rich community. I wouldn’t be here otherwise. However, it’s wise to have the radar up about the money aspect of the religion biz. The story that EmergentNo and other groups is missing, IMO, is the money angle. As best as I can figure, Emergent is to some extent an invention (or merchanidiing ploy) of Zondervan. My question is: has Emergent transcended that or is it primarily about making money? (“Buy my book.”)Who is getting rich? Somebody needs to write the book that follows the money.



report abuse
 

Paul Johnston

posted June 13, 2007 at 9:30 pm


Hey Diane,
Sorry dear but I mistakenly answered this thread in Scot’s latest “Roman’s Road” post….clearly the Spirit reminding me that in spite of whatever lofty opinions I might hold I’m really not “All That!”…lol



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted June 18, 2007 at 6:25 pm


Evangelikales Evangelium – Probleme | Vries-Land.de

[...] Scot McKnight identifiziert einige Probleme mit dem standardmäßigen evangelikalen Evangelium und macht auf notwendige Ergänzungen aufmerksam. Im Folgenden eine Übertragung seines englischen Textes (der nur die Gliederung seines Vortrages ist): [...]



report abuse
 

enexunciany

posted March 16, 2011 at 6:34 am


thanks



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.