Eternity, Evolution, and Emergence
By Nic Paton, re-posted from Sound and Silence:
“A mistake about Creation results in a mistake about God.” —Thomas Aquinas
.jpg)
from a Camille Flammarion woodcut
Some words have the dubious distinction of creating instant controversy. This is due to loosing our focus on their original meaning via habit, tradition, and misuse, but mostly to an unwillingness to recycle these words from the bins of cliché. One such word is “Evolution”.
So I’d like to complain: We have been short-changed! We have been served a false dichotomy, and feel forced to accept one of only two items on the Evolution menu: Darwin or Genesis.
What I hope to show here is how this dichotomy persists, by and large, due to post-enlightenment thought. And emerging from this hackneyed framework, how it is possible to re-engage the issues of our origins in a fresh way, enabling us to attain a far more robust worldview and a more mature faith as we do so.
But first, we need to take another word from the bin as well, and that word is “Eternity”.
To most contemporary believers, it appears self-evident that God’s Truth is perfect, absolute, and “Eternal”. This implies that it is everlasting, changeless, and complete. This view underpins current orthodoxy, and forms the basis for most western or monotheist ideas of Divinity.
For the literalist, fundamentalist Creationist, anything even hinting at “relativism”, is a challenge to Absolutes, and taken to be a frontal attack on God and Truth. For them it is inconceivable that the Genesis account be replaced by the Darwinian one, because their reading of the Genesis myth leads to a cosmic origin which was sudden, fully formed, and recent.
Christian Creationism goes hand-in-hand with a few other ideas. The work of Creation is “Finished”; the dominant narrative is the redemption of a fallen world, and after the return of Christ, there will be a new Heavens and a new Earth.
The important subtext is that Creation is a fait accompli, and man’s role is now one of obedience to the Word of God. Significant participation in the divine process, “divinisation”, is viewed as an arrogant attempt to be “like God”. But upon a closer examination, the Creationist ideology may not necessarily be the best or most faithful to the underlying biblical tradition.
The problem with our post-enlightenment understanding of what constitutes Eternity, Eternal Life, and Creation is that it is largely built on a Greek model of thought, more than its original Hebraic one. The Greeks, and specifically Plato, created a dualism between an Ideal and a Real world. This dualism was Christianised by the likes of St. Augustine, and forms the basis of our understandings of the dualities of Nature/Grace, Time/Eternity, Heaven/Earth, God/Satan, Flesh/Spirit, and Sacred/Profane.
In Hebrew, the dominant word translated or understood as “eternal” is olam (translated ever, everlasting, or ancient). In Greek, it is aionios, eon—essentially meaning an age or period of time, albeit long. With this in mind, one comes to understand that the idea of timelessness (implying unchanging) is not what is meant, either in the Old Testament Hebrew or even the New Testament Greek texts.
In fact, most scholarship seems to clearly refute the Greek sense of the word:
- The Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible states: “The bible hardly speaks of eternity in a philosophical sense of infinite duration without beginning or end … Olam means … no more than an indefinitely long period.”
- The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible claims that “The N.T. and the O.T. are not acquainted with the conception of eternity as timelessness.”
- Hastings Dictionary of the New Testament adds, “There is no word in either O.T. Hebrew or N.T. Greek to express the abstract idea of eternity.”
This same confusion between time and timelessness is evident in comparing the Greek doctrines of Immortality of the soul with Hebrew belief in Resurrection of the body. Many Christians simply accept that these are synonymous. Nowhere is the confusion greater than in understandings of “Eternal Punishment” (but that is a matter for another discussion).
A word of caution: what this thesis must not do is introduce a false Greek-Hebraic dichotomy. We must see that the Greeks had a well developed sense of journey—note the epic Homeric tale The Odyssey, for example, and that the Hebrews had a strong sense of YHWH as the Unchanging. But what must be emphasised is how the static Greek notion holds sway for us Westerners, such that we cling to biased ideas of the absolute and immutability, at the expense of those involving journey, discovery, and adventure.
Biologist Rupert Sheldrake argues that a more appropriate paradigm by which to read the Creation as well the Redemption Narratives—The Story of God—might in fact be in terms of evolution, rather than of eternity:
- “When Newton combined [the] Platonic notion of eternal laws with the atomist notion of eternal bits of matter, he created a cosmic dualism upon which deterministic science has been based and is still based to this day … By contrast, the evolutionary paradigm comes not from the Greek part of our heritage but from the Jewish part. It is based on the metaphor of the journey, the prototype being the journey of the chosen people out of Egypt through the wilderness and to the Promised Land.”
—Rupert Sheldrake (with Matthew Fox), Natural Grace, pg. 163
Instead of Evolution being the mortal enemy of biblical truth, it may in fact hold a key to our being able to move forward from the impasse of modernism (truth as infallible, all-or-nothing, absolute proposition) in which the Church finds itself today.
If we start to view God’s dealings with the creation as an unfolding story rather than a textbook or a closed, finalised, and pre-determined canon of truth, it would give us a far greater sense of shared life in a continuing adventure. But we would also have to accept the responsibility of “divinisation”; becoming “co-creators”, and it is perhaps the terror of this exalted status that holds us back in servile religious frameworks.
Cosmologist Brian Swimme has pioneered this approach by combining western scientific knowledge with a new mysticism. He points out,
- “We are the first generation to live with an empirical view of the origin of the universe. We are the first humans to look into the night sky and see the birth of stars, the birth of galaxies, the birth of the cosmos as a whole. Our future as a species will be forged within this new story of the world.” (The Universe is a Green Dragon, p 29)
Swimme acknowledges Thomas Berry to be a primary influence. Berry articulates this new approach to scientific investigation when he says that the Universe is a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects. Subjects tell stories, and objects are described by facts. Story is a worthy vessel for mystery, because it can contain ambiguity, and unlike objective truth, is not obliged to dissect, map, or reveal.
Rupert Sheldrake informs us that the Universe is now thought to be 90-99% “Dark Matter”. He also points out how visible light forms a small sliver on the full spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. Most of what is out there or even in here, goes unperceived. Quantum mechanics has shown us how, at a subatomic level (outside of the Newtonian horizon), sheer unpredictability reigns.
And building on Rene Descartes’ dictum “I think therefore I am”, Enlightenment knowledge was limited to consciousness. Who can quantify how small or large human consciousness is on the full scale of existence? Today, most at least accept the notion of the Unconscious, pioneered by Freud and Jung. But when it comes to modernist-tainted theology, we still struggle with the great unknowns of God, instead insisting on “clarity”, a static, systematic, absolute, and objective “Eternal” view.
The Enlightenment optimism that “full” knowledge was within our grasp, has been shown to be misguided. Modernity occurs at the height of the Enlightenment project, and probably also marks its demise. In this time, we are being forced back to a far more humble, integrated appraisal of the World and its processes, but one in which we play an integral part.
What I enjoy about Emergent thinking is the fact that it has stepped beyond Modernity’s prescribed, clockwork universe into the unknown of God’s ongoing creation. It acknowledges the unfinished nature of life, as well as the ultimate unknowability of the Divine.
Emergent writer Phyllis Tickle has just written The Great Emergence which contains (together with Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy) perhaps the grandest vision yet of the Emergent movement. Whereas most Emergents have been provisional, tentative, limiting their description to “conversation”, Tickle is suggesting that this age of Emergence is a once-in-five-centuries event, following The Great Reformation of 1517, the Great Schism of 1051, and the Council of Chalcedon and Gregory the Great in 451, and of course the Great Transformation—the life of Jesus and the birth of Christianity out of Judaism in the first century.
She suggests that four quadrants of the Church—Liturgicals, Social Justice (Liberal), Renewalists, and Conservatives—are interacting on a new scale to provide a broad, ecumenical backdrop for what is to come. Old categories are breaking apart, and newness is appearing in many forms.
Other postmodern prophetic voices, such as that of Matthew Fox and Creation Spirituality, have held a similarly grand (and arguably broader and more ecumenical) view for some years now. In his book A New Reformation: Creation Spirituality and the Transformation of Christianity (2006), he draws unabashed parallels with Luther, particularly in his (Fox’s) somewhat controversial 95 theses. Fox believes that “we can start anew … a new reformation for a new millennium is upon us.”
Much of the momentum required by Emergents will be found in the past. One such impetus will be the re-imagining of contemporary spirituality by appropriately reinterpreting many of our big themes, such as that of a transcendent yet imminent Lord, who though everlasting, is deeply involved with their people in the process of Creation.
The tasks ahead for Emergent Christianity include:
- Wresting questions of eternity away from its Greek “timeless” bias.
- Wresting evolution—the story of life—away from both Literal Creationism and Materialistic Darwinism.
- Wresting Orthodoxy back from Enlightenment modernity.
- Wresting Imminence (God in Creation) away from Pantheism (God is creation), as well as Deism (God is separate from creation) in a Panentheistic approach (God is in All and All is in God).
- Developing a new cosmology, a new universe story, based in what the “new” science is making known, and a postmodern view of creation, and discovering the Cosmic Christ within this story.
This means new opportunities to re-imagine faith, to steward the bounty of the created order, and to share in the privileged process of cosmogenesis, the ongoing, “eighth day” of creation. And, tantalisingly, the potential for the rediscovery of an integrated, creation-centred, and truly awe-filled worship of a Worthy Creator, is becoming increasingly apparent.
Nic Paton—Postmodern Liturgist, multi-instrumentalist, VJ, and scullery theologian—lives in Cape Town, South Africa, and contributes to Emerging Africa.
Bookmark this article using Remarkable!
Welcome to the Reader's Forum
Ryan
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. Your questions are very valid. I realise that I use terms that might be taken the wrong way.
I speak of “myth” not as meaning “untrue”, but meaning a deeply held story. It is a way of knowing quite alternative to “propositional statement”, which is often the way of doctrine.
Specifically, I refer to the “Genesis myth” because 1) It is a story containing truth, 2) its authorship is unclear (as far as I know) and 3) It is comprised of multiple documents, which at a certain point were synthesized.
When I say creationism is not necessarily the best explanation for the biblical tradition, I am not denying that God created the world. But I am trying to re-vision how this might have occurred, especially in the light of scientific evidence. I am keen not to fall into a literal rendering of Genesis, because that is where our trouble starts, not in what evolutionary science, or even some of its speculations, shows us.
Regarding story, yes the bible is a collection of many stories, but it is more than that. It contains history, allegory, poetry, eyewitness accounts, letters, law, tradition. What is a problem is trying to remove or reject the essential narrative nature of the collection and reduce it to a textbook of doctrines.
“New” science is science coming back to its premodern roots, where there is not such a distinction between religion and scientific endeavor. Examples of what I would consider “new” start with Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Bohr in the early part of the 20th Century and later on include Brian Swimme, Thomas Berry, and Rupert Sheldrake, who all have a strong mystical faith, and find few incompatibilities between this and their understanding of the universe.
To call Christ “cosmic” is to give the God worship as Lord of All, and to affirm that what God has made is very good.
Lastly, “eternal punishment” is a very big topic. But in one sentence, the word eternal on which much of Christianity bases its eschatology is a mistranslation; and I question whether God has a punitive heart, despite the fact that God is Just.
Ryan,
I would suggest doing a search on ‘cosmic christ’ (note I didn’t capitalize it, because it’s not worthy of it) and ‘matthew fox’. That could prove to be very eye-opening.
Also, for a quick summation, check this out.
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2008/04/false-imagining-of-false-christ.html
As that article succinctly puts it…
“Concerning our relationship to all of the christ-imagining being advocated by the gurus and promoters of New Ageism and the New Spirituality, the apostle Paul warns: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8, NASB).”
emergent pillage
I tried to post a comment to herescope, but it seemingly does not allow dialog. I wonder why?
Thanks for the link. It’s a well written article and I do believe it understands the nuances of the topic at hand quite well: the problem of transcendance versus imminance. It’s fairly well informed too, and as you say, eye opening.
However, I’d see the conclusions reached by the authors as unhelpfully biased. I do not think it distinguished well enough between pantheism/monism and panENtheism, which Fox is at pains to make.
So a statement like “If the universe didn’t exist, this christ wouldn’t exist.” begins really undermine the credibility of its thesis.
I also think you need to stop bandying about the term “New Age” as though we all know what it means. It has long been a catchall cultural cliche, pretty much devoid of useful meaning. There are at least 15 traditions which may or may not be intended when people discuss the new religious synthesis under that banner.
Having said that, please note that Matthew Fox is himself quite harshly critical of the “New Age”. His frame of reference is medieval christian mysticicm, and deep ecumenism, not as you suggest the “new age”.
Oh and “emergent pillage”? Don’t you see that as provocative? Can’t we just converse over our shared faith here?
Oh and “emergent pillage”? Don’t you see that as provocative?
Of course. But then, you emergents take pride in your forms of “provocativeness”, so don’t be a pot.
Can’t we just converse over our shared faith here?
Sorry, but you seem to have little “shared faith” with me.
I tried to post a comment to herescope, but it seemingly does not allow dialog. I wonder why?
May want to ask the haters on your side that question.
So a statement like “If the universe didn’t exist, this christ wouldn’t exist.” begins really undermine the credibility of its thesis.
Only if it is wrong. But when Fox states that “Ecojustice is a necessity for planetary survival and human ethics and without it we are crucifying the Christ all over again in the form of destruction of forests, waters, species, air and soil”, I think it’s getting pretty close to what he’s saying.
I also think you need to stop bandying about the term “New Age” as though we all know what it means.
Perhaps you should get out more. The term “New Age” is quite well-known out here in the real world. Whether Fox has problems with part of it may be true, but just as some call themselves christians while denying everything worthy about Christianity (Spong, Borg, and Crossan come to mind), so the fact that Fox doesn’t agree with all in the New Age doesn’t make his ideas any less New-Agey.
emergent pillage:
Can you please tell me your real name? Mine is Nic.
I am not “proud of being provocative” – I am interested in the Unity of the Spirit. I do not hate you, or know of anyone who does. I view us as having something in common. I might not “get out” as much as you, or have your “real-world” credibility, but I know when I am hearing a term that is unhelpful, and “New Age” is one such term. It needs to be discussed openly without assumptions.
You are obviously an intelligent human being. Are you at all interested in a conversation? If so, we can continue talking.
I think I’ll pass on getting into any kind of emergent or postmodern conversation. To this outsider, that seems like it means “compromise” in the sense that liberal politicians mean the word—to agree with them and not stand on one’s own principles and promises.
Nor do I agree that the term “New Age” is unhelpful. If anything, your objection to it makes me think it very acutely accurate indeed.
But let’s get down to it, shall we? You use a good bit of language in your entry that I’m seeing the what Fox says. Very well.
One thing Fox makes a big deal about is the “cosmic christ”, a name or phrase you use and explain in a vague way a few comments ago. Here is something he wrote in regards to the concept.
“3. In Christianity the archetype for mysticism is the “Cosmic Christ.” While the quest for the historical Jesus has preoccupied modern scholarship for two hundred years and has reached a fruitful climax in our time, where oh where is the research on the Cosmic Christ? Is the Cosmic Christ studied in our seminaries and theological literature? One cannot study it if one is working exclusively from a left-brain perspective, for the Cosmic Christ, like its Eastern counterpart, the Buddha Nature, is the Divine Image (Imago Dei) found in all beings. It is the image and likeness of the Divine in all things. It requires heart work to encounter it.”
http://www.matthewfox.org/sys-tmpl/htmlpage5/
Perhaps you can clarify if this is what you mean when you use that term? And do do so simply and plainly.
sheesh pillage, my appetite for the type of conversation you are stipulating is not that huge. why does everything have to be so confrontatory?
I’ll answer that as clearly as I can, on one condition – you tell me your real name.
“Emergent Pillage”,
I really wonder why those of you who want to “bring the fight” to us here on “our turf” are so afraid to use your real names. Are we really that scary to you? We are not going to bite, I promise. Or perhaps you’re afraid of your fundamentalist friends attacking you for even “fraternizing” with “the enemy”? Whatever it is, please – let it go! Anonymity is a weak place to try and take a stand from.
Steve, until you said that, I had not thought about it.
Anonymity might be useful in espionage, but I hardly think it reflects the character of a loving, intimate God.
Thanks for the insight.
I really wonder why those of you who want to “bring the fight” to us here on “our turf” are so afraid to use your real names.
I like to see people like you grasp at straws in your attempts to not answer the real questions. My anonimity is your straw, and the fact that you make such a big deal out of it tells me quite a lot about you.
For myself, I couldn’t care less what you call yourself.
And how brave is it to say such things on a site that the author like this where he knows the readers are going to accept it? Why, there are plenty of places out there where he could put out these views, and have remarkable reactions. Here’s one right here.
http://forums.christianity.com/default.aspx
Now, posting the contents of this blog entry there would likely lead an interesting conversation. Heck, he can even use his real name, if he wants.
sheesh pillage, my appetite for the type of conversation you are stipulating is not that huge.
We’re not having a conversation. Get that idea out of your head, brace yourself like a man, and deal with it. Or do you expect to hear only from the cheering section when you make public such things as you wrote above?
I’ll answer that as clearly as I can, on one condition – you tell me your real name.
Then don’t. But I’m right sure I already know the answer.
Emergent Pillage goes head to head with Detergent Spillage:
EP: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
DS: I told you once.
EP: No you haven’t.
DS: Yes I have.
EP: When?
DS: Just now.
EP: No you didn’t.
DS: Yes I did.
EP: You didn’t
DS: I did!
EP: You didn’t!
DS: I’m telling you I did!
EP: You did not!!
DS: Oh, I’m sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
EP: Oh, just the five minutes.
DS: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
EP: You most certainly did not.
DS: Look, let’s get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
EP: No you did not.
DS: Yes I did.
EP: No you didn’t.
DS: Yes I did.
EP: No you didn’t.
DS: Yes I did.
EP: No you didn’t.
DS: Yes I did.
EP: You didn’t.
DS: Did.
EP: Oh look, this isn’t an argument.
DS: Yes it is.
EP: No it isn’t. It’s just contradiction.
DS: No it isn’t.
EP: It is!
DS: It is not.
EP: Look, you just contradicted me.
DS: I did not.
EP: Oh you did!!
DS: No, no, no.
EP: You did just then.
DS: Nonsense!
EP: Oh, this is futile!
DS: No it isn’t.
EP: I came here for a good argument.
DS: No you didn’t; no, you came here for an argument.
EP: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
DS: It can be.
EP: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
DS: No it isn’t.
EP: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
DS: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
EP: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
DS: Yes it is!
EP: No it isn’t!
DS: Yes it is!
EP: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
DS: No it isn’t.
EP: It is.
DS: Not at all.
EP: Now look.
DS: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
EP: What?
DS: That’s it. Good morning.
EP: I was just getting interested.
DS: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
EP: That was never five minutes!
DS: I’m afraid it was.
EP: It wasn’t.
(pause)
DS: I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to argue anymore.
EP: What?!
DS: If you want me to go on arguing, you’ll have to pay for another five minutes.
EP: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
DS: (Hums)
EP: Look, this is ridiculous.
DS: I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid!
EP: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
DS: Thank you.
(short pause)
EP: Well?
DS: Well what?
EP: That wasn’t really five minutes, just now.
DS: I told you, I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid.
EP: I just paid!
DS: No you didn’t.
EP: I DID!
DS: No you didn’t.
EP: Look, I don’t want to argue about that.
DS: Well, you didn’t pay.
EP: Aha. If I didn’t pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
DS: No you haven’t.
EP: Yes I have. If you’re arguing, I must have paid.
DS: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
EP: Oh I’ve had enough of this.
DS: No you haven’t.
“I guess all of this is to say that I’ve been involved in a few tussles on-line in my time. I understand the passions that such discussions can rouse, and have myself had to more then once go back and edit something I had just posted because I on my second thoughts I figured it was too sharp or too insulting. I’m not particularly proud of that, it’s just how things were at times. Nor am I still above the use of sarcasm when I figure it’s called for.
I understand as well the desire many people have for their ideas. For example, I am very strongly on the ‘sound doctrine over feelings ’ side in debates on doctrinal issues. There have been debates over such things as the Trinity, the humanity or divinity of Christ, and the reliability of the Bible that I have been one of the main contributors to, as well as discussions on the modern prophetic and apostolic movement, and more recently some things said by those who claim to be in the Emergent/Emergin Church Movement.
I have been among fundamentalists, evangelicals, and I think among emergents, and there are some things in each I can respect, and other things in each that rub me wrong. I am one person, so making me happy is not and should not be necessarily a big deal to any particular movement, but I am also one who must make the best decisions I am able to on any particular church.”
Dear Mr Pillage
The above quote is from a posting you did roughly 2 years ago on Jazzact13 (your other blog). You are being open and respectful, which is something I can appreciate. What has caused you become so violently opposed to Christian brothers and sisters working out the salvation in ways different to you?
I believe that we do share a common faith and share a love for Jesus and his teachings.
Each of us have a unique Spiritual Journey and what has bought all of us to this moment is the Grace of God and we must give thanks and pray for one another. Let us not seek to destroy what is not evil.
To quote scripture:
” John said to Jesus, “Teacher, we saw someone using your name to cast out demons, but we told him to stop because he wasn’t in our group.”
“Don’t stop him!” Jesus said. “No one who performs a miracle in my name will soon be able to speak evil of me. Anyone who is not against us is for us. If anyone gives you even a cup of water because you belong to the Messiah, I tell you the truth, that person will surely be rewarded.”Mark 9 38-41NLTBe blessed brother
What has caused you become so violently opposed to Christian brothers and sisters working out the salvation in ways different to you?
As you said, that was some time ago. Perhaps the best way you can find the answer to your question (which has some questionable positions in it, btw) is to read what’s been written after. Particularly in the EP blog.
I believe that we do share a common faith and share a love for Jesus and his teachings.
I thought that checking out the blog you link to in your name may be a fair way to determine if you what you thought is true or not. After reading through some of your most recent entries, I think that, no, we don’t share a common faith, and you would do well to realize that.
The Greeks, and specifically Plato, created a dualism between an Ideal and a Real world. This dualism was Christianised by the likes of St. Augustine, and forms the basis of our understandings of the dualities of Nature/Grace, Time/Eternity, Heaven/Earth, God/Satan, Flesh/Spirit, and Sacred/Profane.
What I find rather telling is that, if one bothers to actually read the Gospels, one finds that Jesus was rather a strong dualists by the definitions above.
Where shall I start with His dualisms? The house built on the rock, and the one on the sand. The sheep and the goats. The wise and foolism virgins. Those who are for Him and those against Him. The prodigal son and the one who stayed. The wheat and the weeds. The one the prayed to justify himself and the one who prayed in humility and repentence. The narrow way and the broad way.
And other in the New Testament—those who believe and are saved, and those who do not believe and are damned. Those whose name is in the Book of Life, and those whose name is not. Children of God and Children of the Devil.
And I find it most disturbing that your list of dualities has God/Satan in there. Come on, is this some kind of “Sympathy for the Devil” type of thing?
Dear Audie
I feel that our “conversation” has sadly ended as I cannot, with a clear conscience, continue, as I feel I would be perpetuating your anger. This is something I do not want to do.
To quote Pope John XXIII:
“There will be no peace nor justice in the world until men return to a sense of the their dignity as creatures and sons of God, who is the first and final cause of all created being.”
Be blessed
Andrew
I feel that our “conversation” has sadly ended
What conversation? You wrote something addressed to me, I responded that I disagreed, and now you bail out. That’s not a ‘conversation’ by any definition.
Oh, and I’m so glad you respect people’s privacy so much. Such bravery and class you are showing. Makes me want to be like you when I grow up (NOT).
So, person who wrote the blog entry, have you taken up the offer to post your work at the Christianity.com forums yet? I did look through there yesterday for it, and didn’t see, though it is a big place, so I could easily have missed it.
The offers still there, if you haven’t yet. If you want some real give-and-take on what you’re writing, you’ll get it there.
And don’t worry, there are several FoEs there, too, so you’ll be far from alone.
Just saying, if conversation is what you really want, a genuine exchange of ideas, you don’t have to look far to find it.
In reference to the banter by EP and DS above:
How do you guys expect anyone to take us Christians seriously?
Add Emergent Village to
Join our mailing list:
Subscribe!
You can subscribe to the Emergent Village RSS feed or get the same updates e-mailed to you.
Recent Weblog Posts
Current Podcast
Reader Comments
- Spica (What Are Emerging Churches Doing to Reproduce Themselves?)
- Ron Cantrell (Eternity, Evolution, and Emergence)
- Atone (The Palatable Gospel)
- frank Speer (The Palatable Gospel)
- Michael Dixon (How to Be a Spiritual Person)
- Michael Dixon (How Churches Are Like Record Labels and Newspapers)
- Michael Dixon (The Palatable Gospel)
- ScottL (The Palatable Gospel)
- Andrew Hendrikse (The Palatable Gospel)
- Chad (The Palatable Gospel)
Best Weblog Posts
Links
Simply, I would like to inquire as to what the meaning is of the term the “Genesis myth”.
Also, what do you mean that creationism might not be the best explanation for the biblical tradition? What do say the biblical tradition is (please provided biblical support seeing that you did say we are to obey the Word of God)?
And does this statement, “Story is a worthy vessel for mystery, because it can contain ambiguity, and unlike objective truth, is not obliged to dissect, map, or reveal.” insist that the Bible is a story?
Would you also please explain what you mean, in the last of the tasks for Emergents, by “new” science and Cosmic Christ?
Finally, can you please touch on what is out of place in the understanding of “eternal punishment”.