Review: Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?

A companion peice to this article may found here -

Resolving the Genesis Story between Traditional and Contemporary Theologies

In it I propose a solution to the impasse found in the article below showing how

to connect traditional theologies with contemporary research and discoveries.

RE Slater

January 6, 2012

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This past fall we had conducted a thorough review of C. John Collins book found in the sidebar section: Science - The Search for Adam by Collins. From that study many conclusions were reached in which Peter Enns only mentions a few in the article below. Though I like reading Peter Enns, I found this current review only generally helpful, but limited, whereas our more formal study had included separate chapter discussions of the same book over a period of nine different articles by a Christian scientist who favors Evolutionary Creationism as the preferred model of explaining human origins.

As such, Peter's present digest requires uninitiated traditional Creationists better insider knowledge of the arguments that he is making here for the rejection of the traditional view. So that when reading through the article one is left lost and confused and not sure what to believe. To help alleviate confusion on this topic I have listed several articles below that could better pose the problems that Evolutionary Creation seems to resolve when faced with the scientific evidences of cosmology, geology, biology, and anthropology. And importantly, how Evolutionary Creationism is theistically different from the agnostic/atheistic views of (Darwinian) Naturalism which are commonly lumped together by undiscerning Christians to the former even though both systems apply themselves towards the same scientific researches.

That said, I have been following Peter Enns because he has shown a simple clarity to the evolutionary understanding of the Genesis record which we have been investigating this past year along with the additional help of biblical theologians and scientific review journals and abstracts. Here, Enn's review of Collins books typifies the difficulties traditional Creationists have when trying to reconcile the creation story within traditional (evangelic or orthodox Christian) parameters. As has been said, all of these difficulties have been written about before: For new readers please refer to the appropriate sidebars for further discussions (sic, the Bible, or Hermeneutics, or Science sidebars on the right side of the blog).

Peter then goes on to describe two groups of people - those traditionalists trying to come to terms with evolution; and those Evolutionary Creationists who understand that Collin's presentation doesn't go far enough and simply is recreating the bible into his own Creationistic preferences and assumed paradigms. And as we have said earlier this year, it's either one or the other as we now understand it. To be halfway just confuses the picture. One either has to deny all contemporary findings across all fields - both biblical and scientific; or begin accepting contemporary findings and re-integrating what all these new discoveries mean for today's Christian faith.

More importantly, C. John Collin's solutions confuse the authority and authenticity of Scripture by using naive and out-of-date arguments. And more to the point it creates an inauthentic and non-authoritative bible when using such arguments. And because this blog journal chooses to give priority to Scripture first, we have been investigating how to reconcile Evolutionary Creationism to the biblical records. Thus, we have been reworking our traditional understanding of Scripture into a more profound and authentic voice found within the biblical record itself. One that better accounts for cosmic process and theistic mediation.

And if all of this sounds oblique please refer to the sample articles below in addition to the sidebar listings mentioned above. There has been quite a lot of work put into this subject area by myself in this blog journal here, and many thousands of hours of research performed by scientists, theologs and critics as well. But do not despair in your research. There is enough here in this web blog to give you direction to discovering a very credible faith and authenticate Bible. But it requires movement in both directions - by science towards God and by the Bible towards science (actually, our understanding of the Bible is what is the problem within Christian circles). This type of study will take time to digest because it involves so many different areas of research (especially the Hermeneutics and Bible sections for one). It also will require a new line of contemporary critical thinking quite different from the non-postmodern mindset typically found within present-day Evangelic Christianity relying on extra-biblical dogmas and Enlightenment polemics.

Overall my arguments will be for Evolutionary Creation but within those arguments I will show the validity of the Christian faith and the authority/authenticity of the Scriptures we hold near-and-dear to our hearts without having to do sleight-of-hand tricks. From those presentations you will be better able to judge important and critical directions to both the traditional, and evolutionary, understandings of Theistic Creation, as they occur in colleges and universities around the world.

Thank you.

R. E. Slater

January 5, 2011

Sample Articles

Science - Human Origins

The God of Creation - Why Would God Use 4.6 to 6.2 Billion Years to Create the Earth? Subtitle: The God of Creation: Narrative, Hermeneutics, Theology and Creative Evolution

Academic Integrity in the face of Evolutionary Eviction by Evangelicals

Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve

Pete Enns - The Evolution of Adam, Parts 1, 2, 3

 Common Christian Mistakes Made about Adam and Evolution

Science - The Search for Adam by Collins

 * * * * * * * * * * * *

Did Adam & Eve Really Exist?

Stilhttp://www.rca.org/Page.aspx?pid=7796l in the Weeds on Human Origins

by Peter Enns

December 2011: Review

Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?

Who They Were and Why You Should Care by C. John Collins, Crossway Books, 2011
$15.99. 192 pages.

C. John Collins has taken on the important task of explaining who Adam and Eve were in view of evolutionary theory—which he accepts, at least in its broad outlines. More importantly, Collins wishes to instill in his readers a firm confidence in Adam and Eve as the historical "headwaters" of the human race, and so retains the biblical metanarrative of creation, fall, and redemption. In other words, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? is an apologetic for the traditional view of Adam and Eve

I see two audiences for this book. The main audience is those who share Collins's doctrinal commitments but may be skeptical of, or hostile to, the Adam/ evolution debate. Collins is professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary, the denominational seminary of the Presbyterian Church of America (in which he is ordained). The document that governs their theological deliberations is the seventeenth-century Westminster Confession of Faith, which clearly stipulates a first couple. I commend Collins for the courage to engage this group in a conversation about evolution.

The other audience is a broader Christian one, already invested in and knowledgeable about this discussion, but not necessarily committed to Collins's theological predispositions, and not pressured to conform to them.

Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? may help the former audience by nudging them toward some openness to accepting scientific realities and addressing the theological ramifications [of evolution]. Those familiar with these sorts of delicate negotiations will quickly perceive where Collins goes out of his way to remind readers of his firm theological commitments.

In the long run, however, I am not convinced that all—or even most—of these readers will feel comfortable following Collins. Collins's synthesis requires an ad hoc Although I am sympathetic to Collins's efforts to blaze such a path (and he is not alone), I do not see how such an ad hoc Adam will calm doctrinal waters, since the Westminster Confession of Faith leaves no room for anything other than a first couple read literally from the pages of Genesis and Paul, and therefore entails a clear rejection of evolutionary theory.

Further, this type of hybrid "Adam," [that is] clearly driven by the need to account for an evolutionary model, is not the Adam of the biblical authors. Ironically, the desire to protect the Adam of scripture leads Collins (and others) to create an Adam that hardly preserves the biblical portrait. Evolution and a historical Adam cannot be merged by positing an Adam so foreign to the biblical consciousness.

As challenging as Collins's synthesis is for conservative Reformed readers, numerous obstacles exist for a broader readership of theologians, scientists, biblical scholars, and others who have circled around the block on these issues more than once. In my estimation, Collins's efforts will not advance this discussion. It is evident that Collins's assessment of the biblical and extrabiblical data is driven by a doctrinal position he feels compelled to defend, which leads him to numerous questionable conclusions, some of which, if presented in other intellectual contexts, would be summarily dismissed.

I outline these problems below.

1. Ancient Near Eastern mythology. Collins stresses that ancient authors were under the conviction that they were writing about real people (which is debatable, but I leave that to the side). Curiously, Collins believes that we need to allow the intentions of these ancient authors to shape our own thinking about whether or not these literary figures actually were real people. But surely, what ancient authors intended does not determine historicity. If Collins's defense of a historical Adam is rooted in such a claim, it is only a matter of time before he reaches his desired end. He need only point to Paul, who (and I agree with Collins here) assumed Adam was the first human, thus making further argumentation superfluous.

Collins finds support for the above notion in the work of the Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen, who claims that ancients tended to mythicize historical accounts (however minimally historical they might be), rather than simply conjuring up mythical stories out of whole cloth. I agree that "mythicized history" accounts well for the manner in which biblical authors spoke of their past (e.g., the "cosmic battle" theme that appears throughout the exodus story).

But Collins spends much time discussing the mythicized history of the flood story. This is a problem for two reasons. First, Collins apparently thinks that what holds for the flood story holds automatically for any part of the primeval history, including the Adam story. But this is not the case. To support his argument that the Adam story is mythicized history, Collins would have needed to focus on origins stories of the ancient Near East. But these origins stories can scarcely be considered "mythicized history." What, after all, is the historical "core" of the Babylonian Enuma Elish, which includes many well-known parallels to Genesis 1, or the creation of humans in Atrahasis, which bears striking similarities to Genesis 2–9? One cannot read these stories and extract from them a historical core to be used as support for a historical Adam.

Second, even though I would concur that a massive local flood around 2900 BC accounts for the existence of the flood accounts in Atrahasis, Gilgamesh, and Genesis, this does not help us address whether the stories themselves have any historical value. The flood-event has been so mythicized in the written accounts that we can conclude only that they have no historical value whatsoever, other than reminding us of an ancient echo of a cataclysmic flood.

Stepping back from these details reveals a much deeper difficulty. Collins is appealing to ancient Near Eastern parallels to Genesis 1–11—the very texts that generated the historical problem of Genesis to begin with—to establish the historicity of Adam. This is a stunning move that, if taken seriously, amounts to a complete reorientation of biblical scholarship on this matter. The monumental impact and pressing hermeneutical and theological challenges of the ancient data cannot be credibly handled like this.

2. Second Temple Judaism. Collins catalogues how Paul's Jewish contemporaries all understood Adam to be a real person, and I generally agree with his observations. But, as with his use of the ancient Near Eastern texts, Collins again presses this observation in a baffling direction. He somehow considers the Second Temple Jewish view of Adam to be evidence that should be included in our own deliberations over human origins. This is an inexplicably odd use of ancient sources. One can only ponder what would happen if we treated all ancient points of view in this manner. The Second Temple view of human origins is not part of the solution—it illustrates the very problem before us, the divide between ancient and modern ways of thinking of origins.

3. The view of other biblical authors. Collins claims that biblical authors all bear witness to Adam as a historical figure (e.g., the author of Chronicles and Luke's genealogy), and so we should follow their lead. But here, too, what biblical authors thought about Adam (sparsely mentioned as he is) does not solve the problem—it exacerbates it.

We all know that the biblical view of origins and scientific models are in tension in many areas, not merely human origins. The whole point of this discussion is to address how we today, confronted with the compelling evidence for human evolution, can view that biblical metanarrative. Stating "the biblical view" of Adam is simply restating the problem, not solving it. Bringing ancient and modern views into conversation requires a willingness to explore hermeneutical and theological territory, not a mere rehearsal of biblical passages. Moreover, as I mentioned above, the hybrid "Adam" Collins leaves us with is most certainly not the Adam of these biblical authors, so it is not clear to me what is gained by this line of argumentation.

4. Scientific data. Collins makes a questionable move by implying that some debates in genomic studies implicitly support a single first pair of humans in relatively recent history (an ad hoc Adam of about 40,000 years ago) from whom all current humans are descended. Although I am neither a geneticist nor the son of a geneticist, Collins seems to dispatch mainstream genomic studies far too quickly in this regard, particularly for a readership with likely little means to evaluate the scientific literature. Also, the sources Collins cites (a 1997 study, years before the human genome was mapped; another study now five years old; an essay from a well-known Christian apologetics organization) would be viewed with suspicion by the mainstream scientific community.

Further, Collins argues that scientific studies on human origins must account for the apparently universal "intuitions" that the world is not as it should be. Since the biblical story of Adam and Eve "makes sense of these intuitions," Collins asserts, science must also account for these intuitions when offering scientific models of human origins. I am sure scientists will want to weigh in on whether religious intuitions are the stuff of scientific investigations.

5. The biblical story. Collins insists that, contrary to common opinion, Adam is a prominent character in the biblical narrative. His catalogue of biblical passages, however, refers to the Garden story in general, not to Adam and Eve specifically—which actually undermines his point about Adam's prominence. (After Genesis 5, Adam is mentioned only one other time in the Old Testament, in 1 Chronicles 1:1).

Further, the Adam that Collins finds typologically in the Old Testament is indeed prominent: Noah, Abraham, David, and others are "Adam figures." But I fail to see why typological Adams require an historical antecedent. Moreover, these typological Adams do not fit the description of Paul's Adam in Romans— the first human, cause of universal sinfulness and death. Collins does not address satisfactorily that the Adam needed to support the Christian metanarrative is absent from the Old Testament.

Collins has not arrived at a conclusion about Adam but has begun with one, and finds creative—but unconvincing—pathways through various scholarly terrains to support a first pair of some sort. Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? offers a succession of "it's possible" arguments: casting doubt, however minimal, on alternate positions is presented as counterargument and, ipso facto, as support for the possible plausibility of the traditional position. Such arguments will have little effect on those Christians who are seeking lasting solutions to a very real and pressing hermeneutical problem.

Peter Enns is a biblical scholar, teacher, and author. He is the author of Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Baker, 2005). His book The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins (Brazos) has just been released.

What is Pietism?

By way of commentary I would like to say I have always been interested in this subject but somehow never felt much attracted to it personally, as curious as that sounds. Perhaps its my personality or my upbringing that makes me feel that I'll never be holy enough to exhibit this type of behavior. But then again the cynical side of my being always has been wary of my own motives knowing how strong pride and ego can be. And even more, how strong the old man of legalism can be... which I think is our ultimate struggle... that of trying to justify ourselves before God when it is not necessary.

For our self-righteousness is the very thing which must be submitted to God at the time of our rebirth or conversion. And for which Jesus provided through His sacrifice on the Cross when He took our sins upon Himself and gave to us His atoning work of redemption, justification, and reconciliation in transaction. But even then. Even after conversion. We are prone to trying to please God through the works of our old man, or inner sinful self. Which is unnecessary. Why? Because we stand pleasing to God through His Son Jesus. What God wants from us is to rest in the provisional work of His Son. And in reliance upon His Holy Spirit through whom the works of God must flow through our lives. And not the practice of our own sinful works done in the flesh. For the quality of legalism is a very, very strong force within us. Which would do battle with God every day of our lives. Which we must understand is unpleasing to God. And unnecessary. Which has been made vitally dead through the Cross of Christ and by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within us. Even though the flesh's practice of self-justification (legalism) would seem to live-and-breath through us so unpleasantly day-after-day as we try to live for Jesus in our daily practices and worship. It is but a living, daily struggle that the Spirit of God replaces day-by-day with His grace gifts. His presence. His assurance and direction.

That said, I actually am attracted by the pietistic qualities that I find in believers whom I discover from time to time. What most attracts me in those rare few is that they do not seem to work at this type of behavior. It just is part of their makeup. Its not forced. Its not contrived. It isn't fake. It doesn't seem like a performance that they put on for others. Or a mask that they wear for themselves. Or for show. Or for personal need. It is just part of their makeup. Their behavior. Their personality. Which must somehow be their own personal blessing through the inner grace of the Spirit of God within them. I feel it and it feels strong like a mighty river reaching out to drown me within the mighty embrace of God in His goodness, and love, and peace, and holiness.

But I do not envy it. Nor am I jealous of that behavior and blessing which seems so strong and part of another's being. For I know with assurance that God's inner grace and power is as strong within me as it is within them. However, His grace and peace flows in a different manner through me than through another. And it is this quality that I must recognize and be thankful for. I do not need to grasp it. Nor to seek it (in a sense). Nor pray for more of it (in a sense). It is already mine that God has given to me. It simply flows through me differently. Through mine own personal makeup of who I am. As God has made me before Himself and men. And it is enough. Thanks be to God.

So in a sense, pietism is that quality which inhabits every believer as part-and-parcel of the receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit at the time of spiritual rebirth - the bible calls this rebirth "baptism" or "faith" at times. I do not mention this gift in the sense of a Pentecostal second blessing which I believe to be a contrived doctrine, which I do, and don't, understand of Pentecostalism. But please forgive me for those of you who do follow this teaching. May God's blessings be yours in abundance and in the fullness of His Spirit! But for me, the gift of God of His Holy Spirit comes with rebirth. Not at another time of second blessing. His grace is always full. Always abundant. Because I am always indwelt by God's Spirit at every moment of my life and breath. He came to live within me at the time of my faith in Christ as Lord and Savior. This is God's promise and blessing for each and every believer.

But let us return to the subject at hand... my argument is that because our old man, or inner sinful self of legalism, of self-justification, of self-righteousness, is so very strong, it may force us to seek pietism for all the wrong reasons. Perhaps shame. Guilt. Trauma. Life choices. Whatever these may be. Moreover, when coming across this grand doctrine of pietism we may be urged towards it innocently at first. Perhaps at the direction of a preacher. Or a friend. Or some reading in Scripture. Or through a book. Or from within a pietistic movement. And yet, when starting down this road of behavior and observance, we next meet our old friend "Legalism" telling us to do even more (or less) than what we had first set out to do. It attracts our old man in unnatural ways.

And while making allowance for a wide gulf of pietisticisolations and fleshly denials - I might irreligiously say that perhaps we may apprehend God in our lives by NOT taking these very actions and observations which is so encouraged within our flesh. As example, I see a lot of this behavior during the time of Lent. The denial of foods, activities, disciplines, etc, which are purported to bring us closer to God. And perhaps they do. And perhaps we should deny ourselves and our flesh of those things. But remember that our fleshly man lusts to make us righteous before God through our own efforts, and not through Christ, who gives to us true righteousness. And so, I might suggest an alternative to the shutting "on" and "off" of our daily activities and behaviours in an unnatural manner....

That alternative goes by the term of "moderation." Become moderate in your fleshly appetites. Your body is a gift of God. Praise Him for those unique desires that make you you. If passionate, praise God for this. If driven by your vision of life than seek His help. What may appear as weakness in the flesh may be God's gift of understanding others with those same desires, needs and wants. The days of flailing our flesh, of submitting the body to unnatural experiences must cease in the truths of God's Word. Jesus is man's Justifier. Not ourselves. Not our deprivations. Nor our striven desires to quit the flesh. Use this very same flesh to praise God. It is holy and is what sets us beautifully apart from the angels that look down from heaven upon the grand estate of man.

Seek moderation in your quiet times of reflection before God. And learn in your moderation to find those same quiet times with God in the company of men and in the busyness of life. And in the practices of isolation don't overstay your presence to the destitution of your responsibilities with your family, friends, work mates, and society at large. Be therefore moderate in your isolations and in your walk with God. Do not feed the lusts of the flesh which would make us do unnatural things. Which makes us think that we are pleasing God when perhaps we are only pleasing our own flesh in its self-righteousness. God is our Justifier. Not our own works. Be at peace and know your justification has already come in Christ.

But at the last, this must be your decision. Not mine. Not others. As we each struggle to determine before God how to live as His fleshly servants thankful for our estate and yet resisting the flesh's urges to over-do, or under-do, God's command of rest and peace in Christ's salvation that has come to our souls.  Our prayers go with you in the sincerity of your prayers, and your habits of devotion, while urging you not to forget the remembrance of your gifts of ministry to mankind. For Jesus came to seek and to save. To minister and serve. Not in isolation but in the throngs of humanity desiring living waters. Light. And life. Then let your piety walk and talk. Let it breathe and be seen. Follow then Christ's earthly example. Be then true disciples of Jesus.

So let me end where I first began. Pietism for me just doesn't seem to be my calling. Perhaps due to my faith background, which was an admixture of Lutheran and Baptist. Then again, I have felt its compulsions and have learned to wrestle with my flesh while being thankful for who I am. It is God's gift. In the end, I think it better to learn to find the practice of pietism in the daily walk of life as we live with one another. Not in its abstinences but in its quality of reliance on the quiet strength of God. His peace and wisdom. Pietism can be that quality or condition that may flow through us as naturally as when we commune with nature. Or with mankind. At work. Or at play. And in our daily habits.

Pietism is ours because God's Spirit dwells within us. And it is the Person of the Spirit from whom all qualities of holiness, righteous, and careful pietism flows out. It does not need to be forced. Or contrived. Or faked. It is as natural as our very personalities which flow through our characters, minds, hearts, tongues, eyes, ears, mind, hands and feet. If God dwells in you than you are holy. And you may walk pleasing to Him. God's gift to us is Himself. He is pleased with us as we are. Be satisfied with His work and grace in your life. It is a blessing rich and rewarding. His peace is ours. Which peace we must accept. And practice. And be content in. Know then that Christ is our Piety.

R.E. Slater

January 4, 2011

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Practice of Piety

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/01/04/pietism-what-is-it/#more-23916

by Scot McKnight

January 4, 2012

I was once speaking to an audience of students and professors when a respondent suggested something I had said was “pietistic.” I reacted viscerally to it because for the respondent “pietism” was a slur and evoked such things as individualism, legalism, experientialism, lack of sound theology, and anti-intellectualism, while that respondent thought he was an example of biblical theology and genuine Reformation theology.

It is so easy to stigmatize a group in the way a term is used. Pietism is one of those terms being used by some as a way of calling into question the sufficiency of one’s Christian orientation.

Is Pietism a completion of the Reformation or a distraction? Where do we find Pietism today?

Which all raises the question of what pietism is…

… but before I get there two more ideas. I teach at North Park University, NPU is connected to the Evangelical Covenant Church, the ECC is overtly connected to the Pietism of European Christianity and many draw much of their faith orientation from the likes of Philip Jakob Spener, whose famous 1675 book Pia Desideria (Pious Desires/Wishes) really did set the table for Pietism.

The second point I’d make is this: I didn’t appreciate being called a Pietist in part because my orientation is Anabaptism and not so much Pietism. Do they overlap? Of course, in a number of ways, but they are not the same. Not that I have anything against Pietism and in fact I embrace Pietism (as sketched below), so let me outline how Spener more or less sketched what Pietism was:

 

1. A commitment to the Word of God. (He proposed more attention to small groups!)

2. Spiritual priesthood: all Christians are priests and not just ministers. (He did not equate this with qualification for public ministries as on Sunday morning.)

3. Knowledge of the Christian faith is not enough; practice of the Christian faith is what matters. Love is the real mark.

4. Learn how to conduct ourselves better in public controversies, and here he was talking about theological debates among clergy and Christians in Germany among the Lutherans. He hoped for greater cooperation among Christians. So there is an ecumenical dimension to Pietism.

5. Converted and pious ministers — a necessity.

6. Teachers are to teach toward genuine conversion.

In its essence, Pietism is a Scripturally-sound convertive piety that seeks to reform the church beyond what the Reformation’s successors offered. In other words, Pietism (like Anabaptism) sought to complete the Reformation, and it is combined features of Lutheranism and Calvinism. It’s beginning point is right here: Genuine conversion as a work of God in the inner person leading to a kind of life that reflects that conversion in all ways.

Roger Olson, in his essay called “Pietism: Myths and Realities” (in The Pietist Impulse in Christianity, ed. by C.T. Collins Winn et al), sees a progression from an inner conversion into a devotional life marked by personal relationship with Christ and a commitment to holiness, prayer, devotional reading of the Bible, the cross as saving and as symbol for the Christian life, and evangelism. It is set over against baptismal regeneration, sacramentalism, creedalism, liturgical worship drained of feeling and emotion and the reduction of evangelism to social work. (See Olson, p. 7.)

The Pietist Impulse

Loving the Bible for what it is, not for what I want it to be

http://rachelheldevans.com/bible-series

by Rachel Held Evans

January 2, 2011

My relationship with the Bible has been a lot like that of a daughter to her parents.

I’ve been through the happy, childlike dependency stage, the one where I believed the Bible was impenetrable, the stories of Adam and Eve, David and Goliath, and Joshua and the Battle of Jericho as true and as good as my mother’s scent.

Then, as a young adult, I fumbled through an angry stage, one where I realized that after Joshua “fit the battle of Jericho,” God told him to kill every man, woman, and child in the city, and that coursing through some of my favorite Bible stories were the currents of genocide, xenophobia, patriarchy, and misogyny. I began to doubt what I’d been told about the Bible’s exclusive authority, inerrancy, perspicuity, and internal consistency. Like a teenager suddenly made aware of her parents’ flaws, I screamed and hollered and slammed doors. I sunk into quiet withdrawal, feeling angry and betrayed that the Bible wasn’t what I’d once believed it to be.

Over the past few years, however, I’ve worked up the courage to re-approach the Bible, this time with a different set of expectations, and I get the feeling that I’m in the early stages of learning how to relate to it the way that an adult child relates to her parents, a way that honors and respects the Bible for what it is, not what I want it to be.

The Bible isn’t an answer book.

It isn’t a self-help book.

It isn’t a science or history textbook.

It isn’t even a single book – but rather an ancient collection of letters and laws, prophecies and proverbs, stories and songs, spanning thousands of years and written in languages and cultures far removed from my own.

And so the question I’ve been asking lately—especially after my “year of biblical womanhood”—is how do I relate to the Bible as a grownup? How do I honor it and value it and celebrate it for what it is, not what I want it to be?

So for the next several months, I’ll be dedicating most Mondays to addressing this important topic, at both an academic and personal level. We’ll discuss books (like The Bible Made Impossible by Christian Smith and Inspiration and Incarnation by Pete Enns). We’ll confront myths (that the Bible presents us with a single prescriptive formula for how to be a woman, that the Bible’s meaning is self-evident, that we can somehow read the Bible without interpreting it). We’ll tackle practical questions (how do we teach the Bible to our children? what should our “devotional” times look like? how can we go on being transformed by the Bible, even in the midst of questions and doubts?). We’ll conduct interviews and roundable discussions (three views on “inspiration,” four views on “inerrancy.”) We’ll talk about our own struggles and triumphs (passages that have changed our lives, passages that have made us doubt). And sometimes, we’ll just “sit” with the Bible (a poetic excerpt, a troubling passage, lectio divina).

As I’ve said before, I believe the evangelical community is on the precipice of engaging in a difficult and honest conversation about how we relate to the Bible, a conversation that may very well divide us, but that also has the potential to be beautifully refining and redemptive. I hope that, in some small way, we can represent the best of that conversation here on the blog by engaging one another and the Bible in honest, civil, and constructive ways.

So, how has your relationship with the Bible changed over the years?

What, specifically, would you like to see from this series?

Comments

Emerging Church, Version 2.0

According to Ryan Bolger, from Fuller Theological Seminary, and Steve Knight of Knightopia.com, we are involved in a game-changer known as "social networking." This is no surprise, actually, when considering tech sites such as Facebook and Xbox game sites that are involving users in personal interaction. But Ryan makes an astute observation when declaring that churches should better involve their fellowships in a personal, participatory nature, in all phases of its ministries.

Also, in an end-of-year post I made a number of observations about the Emergent Church from a personal perspective entitled "Becoming Emerging, or Emergent, Christians." This article may help in thinking through what Emergent Christianity has been from a personal perspective and what its version 2.0 form could become. It should be quite exciting to see in the years to come!

Finally, according to Bolger, we may now say that we are no longer within a postmodern era but a post-postmodern, or participatory era, or even an authenticising era of flux and change which the Church must step up into and figure out how to do ministry, worship, instruction and community in the opening stages of the 21st Century. Interesting. I was just getting adjusted to trying to think in postmodern terms!

R.E. Slater
January 2, 2011

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Are We on the Verge of Participatory Church?

by Steve Knight

December 11, 2011

In an op-ed piece in this Sunday’s New York Times, former NPR correspondent Eric Weiner describes his feelings as he faces the holiday season as a religious “none,” as in “none of the above.” Weiner is currently “unaffiliated,” but he writes, “We Nones may not believe in God, but we hope to one day. We have a dog in this hunt.”

That hopeful note is followed by a description of the kind of religion Weiner would like to see in the world (and particularly the United States):

“We need a Steve Jobs of religion. Someone (or ones) who can invent not a new religion but, rather, a new way of being religious. Like Mr. Jobs’s creations, this new way would be straightforward and unencumbered and absolutely intuitive. Most important, it would be highly interactive. I imagine a religious space that celebrates doubt, encourages experimentation and allows one to utter the word God without embarrassment. A religious operating system for the Nones among us. And for all of us.”

I would like to suggest to Weiner — were we sitting together at Starbucks or Caribou having a conversation over a cup of joe — that for more than a decade, the emerging missional church movement has been seeking to agitate for and begin to construct such a path. My friends and colleagues who have been the architects and thought leaders of this movement may not be so bold as to claim that title or status as “the Steve Jobs of religion,” but I’d like to be bold enough to say that Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Rob Bell, Shane Claiborne, and Peter Rollins (among others) have each, in their own way, played this role to some extent.^*

Besides acknowledging the Jobs-like work that has already been done, I’m beyond ecstatic to hear this clarion call from a self-described “None” for “a religious operating system” that will serve both the Nones/Unaffiliated and the rest of us. This is what fuels the work I’m doing with Hope Partnership for Missional Transformation and TransFORM Network.

And I’d like to suggest that faith leaders — from across denominations and traditions — need to begin reflecting deeply on this idea of participation. What Weiner calls “highly interactive” and “experimental.” It’s essentially the same message that Landon Whitsitt wrote about earlier this year in his book Open Source Church, and it’s an idea that Dr. Ryan Bolger, from Fuller Theological Seminary, has been playing with recently, as well (see video below).

In an interview with Luther Seminary, Bolger suggests^** that we are now living in a post-postmodern era that is characterized primarily by the participatory nature of the Internet and technology culture that has shaped it:

Bolger says, “The shift from postmodernity to participatory culture means people find their identity through what they create as opposed to maybe what they consume. … Our churches are still structured in such a way that we do it to them, not inviting them to create worship with us. So, if that’s the case, there’s really no space for people who’ve been formed by our participatory culture in our churches.”

Bolger’s provocative comments, coupled with Whitsitt’s book and Weiner’s op-ed in the Times, beg the question: Who will create the religious communities of the future that will engage participatory people?

That’s a revolution I want to be a part of.

^* Yes, I’m very aware that these are all white males, and that has been the legacy of the first 10 years of the emerging missional church movement. The next 10-20 years promise to be far more rich and diverse, with broader participation from women and people of color as this leveling of hierarchies provides greater opportunity for developing platforms for greater influence. Stay tuned …

^** Forgive me, Dr. Bolger, if I’m putting words in your mouth! I think my interpretation of what is said in the video interview is accurate, but it is my interpretation and may not reflect the actual views held by Dr. Bolger. In other words, results may vary.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

For additional reference see - Becoming an Emerging, or Emergent, Christian

 

* * * * * * * * * * * *

2011 Books of the Year

Jesus Creed Books of the Year

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/01/01/jesus-creed-books-of-the-year/#more-23691

by Scot McKnight

January 1, 2012

An article in The Atlantic on writers and their books, an article well worth your read, sets the right tone for our annual list of Books of the Year. That article in The Atlantic appeared on one of the days I was clearing out my library. I’ve already packed up more than fifteen boxes of books — and some of these boxes are big honkin’ boxes — and probably have another fifteen to go. I came to this conclusion: for nearly every book that gets put on a shelf one has to be taken off. But this post is about Books of the Year.

These are my choices, and I have no claim to have seen even all of the most important books or to have read adequately in all fields, so go ahead and make your own recommendations. I’m woefully unread this year on Old Testament books, so nominate some books.

At the end of this post (after the jump) I will announce my Book of the Year.

Reference:

J.J. Collins, D.C. Harlow, The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism
Timothy George, gen. ed., The Reformation Commentary on the Bible

New Testament:

N.T. Wright, The Kingdom New Testament
James D.G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels
Morna Hooker, Holiness and Mission
J. Beilby, Paul Rhodes Eddy, Justification: Five Views
Craig Keener, Miracles
Rodney Reeves, Spirituality according to Paul

Theology:

Hans Boersma, Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry
M. Volf, Allah: A Christian Response
Theresa Latini, The Church and the Crisis of Community
Roger Olson, Against Calvinism, and Michael Horton, For Calvinism
Alan Padgett, As Christ Submits to the Church

Missiology:

The Cape Town Commitment

Ministry:

Eugene Peterson, Pastor: A Memoir. [Kris and I were gone for a week and I haven't "checked" my list for some time, but somehow I forgot to put this book on the original list. This book was my rival to Christian Smith's book for Book of the Year.]

Kara Powell, Sticky Faith
John Dickson, Humilitas
The Collected Sermons of Fred Craddock

Church History:

Michael McClymond, Gerald McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards
John Fea, Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?

Science and Faith:

Richard F. Carlson and Tremper Longman III, Science, Creation and the Bible

Karl Giberson and Francis Collins, The Language of Science and Faith

Deborah B. and Loren D. Haarsma, Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (This is a new version of their book reviewed a few years ago, now aimed at a general Christian audience.)

Current Trends:

D. Fitch, The End of Evangelicalism
Brad Wright, Upside: Surprising Good News About the State of Our World
Christian Smith, Lost in Transition

World Issues:

Carolyn Custis James, Half the Church
Lee Camp, Who is My Enemy? Questions Christians Must Face about Islam and Themselves

Controversy:

Rob Bell, Love Wins

Jesus Creed Book of the Year

Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture. In spite of being panned by a few notable evangelicals, Smith is one of America’s finest scholars of evangelicalism, knows theology, and has poked populist evangelicalism in the eye — both eyes in fact. He has laid down a challenge that must be met: How to read the Bible in a way that does not lead to pervasive pluralism but leads to conclusions on which we can agree enough to say “Thus saith the Lord.” Until that happens, we’ve got too many lone rangers claiming “Thus saith the Lord.” What good is it to say we’ve got the very Word of God if we can’t agree on what the Word says?

Emergent Christianity - Relevancy22: Becoming an Emerging, or an Emergent, Christian

Dear friends,

Lord of the Harvest



On the last day of the year 2011 I would like to express gratitude for your support and a continuing prayer that Jesus be lifted up in our lives. This blog site is a story not only of mine own journey, but the journeys of so many others, seeking to lift Jesus up in their lives in as many ways as is humanly possible. May God bless you in your service and ministry as we proclaim the name of Jesus to all nations.

First, let me say that I am thankful for the wide spectrum of Christian fellowship that has been discovered in this journey. I have found many Christians who are as disquieted with the directions that modern day Christianity has strayed as I am. Who understand that postmodernism has brought with it a differing set of concerns, issues and topics that must be addressed. That by ignoring those concerns we do a disservice to the church at large and to our local fellowships specifically.

Secondly, in addressing a wide variety of Christian topics through this web blog I have found that God has been addressing as wide a spectrum of humanity as we could imagine in all its many lives and involvements. From scientists to liturgists. From philosophers to theologians. From humanitarians to Gospelers. From work-a-day worlds to high-level disciplines. From sports writers and columnists to poets and novelists. From disconnected communities of faith to global societies seeking greater positive communication with each other. God is providing a lens to Himself for all of humanity to see. That is being expressed in-and-through the many activities of man. And it has been exciting to behold the Spirit of God at work on so large a cosmic scale.

A Personal Story

For myself, my experience with Emergent Christianity took a long time to warm up to. About ten years altogether. At first I considered it a rouge Christian sect. Then a Gnostic sect dressed up in the postmodernism of Christian garments (for those new to this blog postmodernism wasn't the problem... gnosticism was). At times it felt overtly political and biased. Or as a new form of retrograde OT worship with its emphasis on Jewish customs, dress, calendar dates and diets. Or simply a revitalized Protestant liturgy providing a visual warmness to the stark barrenness of evangelic worship. But when any of these events occurred and ran their course God would do an amazing thing. He would always bring the discussion back to Jesus. Why? Because the people around me had their heart set on God. They were sincere. And wished to sincerely follow God wherever He would lead. And in their sincerity they veered off course from time to time. But God blessed them and moved them back into the truer Gospel of Jesus. One that could be discerned, and debated, and reasoned. They were learning to disengage and refocus back to the core of their beliefs. It was messy. It was not perfect. We had side discussions that tried to become core discussions. But eventually became seen for what they were. God was blessing this congregation of sincere followers and it was evident.

So then, Emergent Christianity's birth for me was by those who spoke it unclearly. Who were searching for this new postmodern day movement's core message. Its themes. Its character and distinctions. Who saw the parts but not the whole. Who had a limited grasp of interconnecting doctrinal subjects. Who viscerally reacted against a brand of Christianity they did not want but would only later learn to speak more fully. And in more positive terms to the brotherhood at large. In less scandalising terms of provocation. Who belatedly would emphasize community, growth, unity, wisdom and discernment. They were learning to be confident in God's love and peace rather than continuing to harshly judge the same folks who were harshly judging them. It took maturity to do this. It began with repentance. And a newer patience with people who reacted to the stings of Emergent Christianity's very different themes from their own evangelical or progressive themes. And mostly a patient trust in God's leading.

For this movement was as new to this congregation of emergents as it was for myself when it was first introduced. What we were witnessing was the birth of an unknown thing called Emergent Christianity. It was unformed and immature. It was in its stages of infancy. No one really had a clear idea of what it was. Just what it wasn't. Or didn't want to be. As an example of its many changeling forms let me speak to one of its earlier ideas....

As introduction, usually when observing something new its meaning for the Christian believer brings about a certain amount of wariness and concern, as we think critically about the teachings of a heretofore unemphasized, or unknown, perhaps popular, insight or teaching. There is at first a personal/public resistance that occurs. Along with some historic provisioning of support for - or against - the present Christian tradition or popular understanding of the Christian faith. Too, its newness might simply be a counterfeit truth arising from its proponents in an unbiblical direction. A direction that takes the focus off Jesus and puts it onto some other aspect of worship or intermix of religious dogma with pagan beliefs. Rather than being a positive, directional change in attitude, foundation or theme of Christian doctrine, it could also be a negative, misdirectional change that had lain dormant within, or beside, Christianity until now. For 2000 years Christians have reacted to cultural and historic events by adapting their faith to these type of events. To changes that may later become cultural tradition that would last century after century. Or that may last no longer than the lifetime of its proponents.

Because of Emergent Christianity's relative newnessmistaughtmore personal, inside knowledge of God. His truths. And His teachings. And in the case of this fledgling movement that I found myself unsuspectingly in the middle of, I beheld a form of early Christian Gnosticism that claimed a freshness of insight that would revitalize personal worship. "All well and good!" I thought, until seeing that its adherents were claiming a level of secrecy or mystery about themselves (and of Jesus himself!) that the rest of us more common followers of Christ seemed unable to obtain for whatever reason. Apparently we weren't privy to a certain knowledge; or did not act in a certain way; or believed certain things. Largely it was an excluding form of faith and worship warmly performed by various mystical followers believing they had the inside track to God. It was a gnostic form of what these untrained laymen were claiming to be "Emergent Christianity." It threw me off at first and made me very wary of "Emergent Christianity." But later I was to discover that it was the teachers, not Emergent Christianity itself, that had gotten it wrong. In their fervency to discover God's mysteries and wonders these brethren had added a gnosis of understanding to the Gospel which the Gospel did not need nor require.

And so I waited. Patiently. Praying for God's leadership and discernment. Seeking illumination from the Holy Spirit to guide me in my thoughts and heart. Participating where possible. Listening. And interacting. Attempting to discern the many nuances that were being presented to me by a wide variety of people. It took time. Lots of it. About ten years before I could make a reasonable decision on how to interact with the material that I was being given and digesting.

The Start of a New Story

But at the last I finally decided on what the Emergent message was (or at least should be). And decided to become a self-proclaimed spokesperson for this movement to friends, family and any who would listen. I came to this decision in the spring of 2011 when listening to hasty Evangelical messages of judgment and condemnation made upon Rob Bell's book, Love Wins. God's love didn't seem to be winning at all, I thought. It was only serving to create hard-and-fast boundaries between Christian brothers and sisters. I was ashamed. And embarrassed for my faith. How could a book on God's Love so divide so many assemblies of believers as to shout out harsh sentiments that caused so many to scratch their head and wonder why?

And it was from those self-same speeches, sentiments and articles that a whole new world opened up to me of  mankind. I now better understood the Emergent Christian message. And better knew where I should go with it. The heated Christian rhetoric and dissension was moving me from a place of neutrality towards a discriminatory position that would actively seek to re-construct my historical faith in postmodernistic terms. It was a good place to be. It seemed like the first place where we had once begun with God at rebirth when all things were new and possible. I liked that place. And having turned to follow the Lord into this direction am glad that I have.

Now whether Emergent Christianity is a true movement or not, or just an attitude implanting itself into the various vicissitudes of the Christian culture I don’t know. At present, I take it as a general church movement. One that is without boundaries and owned by no denomination or movement. It is a movement unto its own that is widely supported by both local and global Christian writers, theologs, pastors, and fellowships, as each explores its meaning for the revitalization of their Christian faith.

Overall, I take the position that however God wishes to use it, it’s ok with me. It’s His to use or not use. We are but God's vessels that He uses to carry streams of living water to humanity. Its basic message is Jesus. Who He is and what He would look like if He were with us today. His message and ministry is given to His followers to proclaim. It is our task, then, to resemble Jesus. To speak God's love and grace. To disciple. To mentor as many as we are given in Christ Jesus.

Moreover, it is mine own journal of discovery birthed this past spring from the confusion and affliction of words I was hearing by evangelical Christians not understanding emergent Christian concerns. Nor making any attempt to understand it. They had deemed it a threat to their traditional faith as they made it out to be. And sought to protect its religious dogmas by pulpit, by word, by printing press, news article, and digital blog. I knew then what had to be said. And it needed to be said well.

The Postmodern Themes of Emergent Christianity

In my attempt to create an Emergent Christian web blog I have had the following criteria and goals:

First and foremost it must somehow capture in writing Emergent Christianity's structure, thought processes, and arguments. As much as possible this web blog has attempted to do just that by journalizing as many emergent articles and subjects as possible for future referential material.

Secondly, this blog will attempt to be open to new emergent discoveries. Especially when pertaining to postmodern discoveries. To be open to self-examination while reviewing past church traditions and historical interpretations of Scripture. To allow irenic debate and discussion. And examining all models of church, doctrine, worship, and ministry against the newer postmodern models as they arise.

It will not argue for one way or another. One style or another. But remain upon to a multitude of ways as can be adapted by followers of Jesus. Consequently there is no wrong way of apprehending Jesus to humanity. It is as wide as we are imaginative. There are no restrictions so long as God's love and grace are received and dispatched.

But it will also argue its idea of Emergent Christianity against other more conservative, or more radical, ideas of Emergent Christianity. Overall, it will seek to be faithful to Scripture without abandoning Scripture's relevancy or authority for the Church today. But it will not pretend to cling to church dogmas and traditions should those efforts not reflect the same singularity of purpose. It will be critical (in a positive sense) of those interfering humanistic structures as they are found and discovered.

Too, this blog was developed as “An Emergent Christian web journal for contemporary doctrinal expression and theology with web links to authors, speakers, institutions, and organizations.”

As such, the lowest common denominator I will use when writing is the expression of God's love demonstrably seen in service of people to one another. Who exampled Christ in their lives and considerations regardless of their faith distinctions.

It should also be partly academic, partly devotional. Academic to re-teach Christians their living faith. Devotional to keep us humble before God.

In it I intend to communicate what I know while exploring things I don’t know. It’s my own spiritual journal that I wish to share with both followers of Jesus and with those who don't know Jesus.

But it is also a reference site. As such, when I blog on a subject I may go back and re-edit it until I feel I have it right as I think about it in later hindsight as an evolving discussion. Or as a series of discussions.

And because it is a reference site I will try to compact large topics into a single blog space. This may make for longer blogs - though I try to keep these within reason. For most readers anything beyond a couple of paragraphs will be too long. But there are better blog sites for this type of reader that I have listed as helps for daily input (see the Blogger Link List along the sidebar).

At times newer sidebars will be created to re-filter past topics with newly discovered topics that I've found in order to help streamline research efforts.



Jack awakening in the first and last
moments of LOST

Within the blog itself I try to provide direction. Not answers. And if answers, then baseline discussions that instill further exploration and discoveries. If you’re a LOSTIE (used of followers of the TV show LOST) you’ll know what I mean. The Christian faith seems to raise more questions than it provides answers. God is that large. And so is humanity.... But I firmly believe that the answers must come through us. We just need better questions.

Sometimes I must un-teach what Christians think they know. At other times I must better teach what we all assume that we think we know.

I use mine own words along with the words of others. Mostly, they are from emergent speakers and writers, theologs and preachers, as I can find them. They will be posted either without comment or with comment. But always with a correspondent link to the site or blog being reviewed. This is the journal side of this blog.

Generally I try to speak lucidly about the distinctions of the Emergent Christian faith with other faiths to the right or left of Emergent Christianity.

Because it is an emergent Christian journal of exploration it asks modernistic Christianity to lay down its own modernisms and to recover Christianity through postmodernistic discovery. This affects both language and the linguistic mechanisms behind that language to better help widen the scope of our conception of God. Of His Gospel. Of our place in this world. Consequently it may feel unfamiliar. Different. Odd.

It intends to be radical. To be provocative. To unsettle readers. To broaden the basis of contemporary discussion in a fast-paced world networking with dissimilar faiths and beliefs. I make no apology for this.

It requires deconstructing the Christian faith as much as reconstructing the faith (most think emergent Christianity is simply the first idea!). My gifts lie in the latter. Others the former. I try to include both.

Working towards a Christianity that works

It is asking for another way. One that untangles itself from the verbiage of Catholic and Protestant statements built-up over 2000 years of church ideologies. It is meant for recovering Calvinists and for Latinists both! It is meant as a help. A guide. A new line of thinking beyond our parochial understandings given to us by our parents. Our teachers. Or the hard lessons we have received from life's over-eager and broken hands.

The Global Themes of Emergent Christianity

It is a blog whose task must be global. That is missional to all religions and faiths of the world by declaring Jesus to all nations. To the philosophies of man. To his private theologies. And to his myopic belief structures.

It is one that tries to see beyond Western Civilization’s judgments upon the Gospel. To de-Westernize it. To de-Americanize it as much as is possible. But with an attitude of thanksgiving to the hosts of legacies given to this same task over the many centuries behind us. From these legacies we can and must improve!

To uncover and declare cultural and national missional outreaches through global perspectives, ministries, and writings, as they are performed and enacted.

To globalize doctrines that were not meant for exclusive cultural consumption. It is the right of the Gospel to do this. Emergent Christianity wishes to recognize that right and not limit the Gospel by our cultural, or personal, biases.

As such, Christianity needs to find ways to talk to Muslims, Hindus, and Oriental cultures. Jesus came to all humanity. Not simply our own American, Westernized, Christianized societies. He is not our own. Jesus belongs to all men everywhere. It must be so.

Offering streams of living water
to all nations

Globalizing the understanding of the Gospel by Emergent Christianity is a very necessary task. It is integral with the uplifting of Christianity in general. Evangelicalism has done a lot in this regard. But it has also delimited the Gospel by its own regional and popular dogmas. Emergent Christianity wishes to build upon these efforts and proclaim Jesus to the Nations beyond popular folklores and sentiments.

Emergent Christianity must allow for global input. And for global assimilation. But this does not mean that Christianity gives up its fundamentals of the faith when assimilating Christ to the Nations. It simply means that we do a better job of expanding the Gospel of Christ to the Nations. Of unhooking it from its many local, regional, and societal preferences and religiosities.

Some Concluding Thoughts

Additionally, this web blog is focused on contemporary theology. My academic background is in biblical theology but my concern is speaking the bible’s passages into contemporary thought and actions.

There are other blogs which can provide more extensive biblical dissertations than this one. But if a strict biblical section were to be added it would occur as a whole other sidebar that would run parallel to the one that is already present. And it would be labeled as "biblical theology” providing word and contextual studies; more focused biblical narrative/story development; and tying all these subject matters into the larger meta-narratives of the bible.

Consequently, other websites can provide biblical passage denouement and explanation. Mine is to take those sites’ discoveries and relate them back into the real world. As contemporary theologies. With an emergent focus.

The ancient Greek Titan Atlas
holding up the heavens before
St. Patricks Cathedral, NYC

This blog seeks to lend direction to the Emergent Christian faith. To provide a sense of continuity from modernistic Christianity to postmodernistic Christianity. To give followers of Christ a more relevant faith in sync with the world at large without losing its “saltiness.”

It is wholistic. Intending to meld together the many separate discoveries of the Christian faith into one Theistic whole of ideologies and practicums.

It is imperfect. It is subjective. It is specific in its interests and focus. It is limited in its subject matter. It is limited by myself. And in my understanding. And by my spiritual gifts. And by my makeup as a person with specific interests, perspectives, and desires.

Because of these imperfections I have conjoined my thoughts and insights with other emergent blogger's thoughts and insights in hopes of providing a fuller space of ministry to a wider-range of audience and issues than I alone can hope to provide.

It also proves that there is a community of writers, thinkers, doers, and activists, who are likewise investigating these similar Emergent truths and themes with myself. That it is not a solo effort by an elite, mostly ignored,  movement of people charged with the oblique tasks of re-righting Christianity's ponderous oversights and neglects. But one showing a community of effort from many differing realms and avocation's. And hopefully one providing a wisdom of unity and accountability as it is being worked out. Studied. And put into action.

It is therefore my hope that in the telling of this new story of Christianity - an Emerging story - that some of its qualities and uniqueness may be better understood. Thank you for your support in these efforts and your willingness to consider new territory. And through it all may Jesus Christ be proclaimed as Lord and Saviour to all men everywhere. May God's peace and blessings follow you through the remainder of your days.

R.E. Slater
December 31,1 2011

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/

.
.
.

For further follow up please go to this next article that identifies everything that we have been talking about here. (It's short, by the way!) - Emerging Church, Version 2.0