The Monday Morning Theologian has the honors this month. Enjoy!
Have I really missed posting that many? Sorry about that. Here’s the June Carnival, hosted by Reading Acts.
Jacob J. Prahlow hosts this month’s Biblical Studies Carnival at his Pursuing Veritas blog. Enjoy!
Here’s an honest question to which I’d love to receive dozens of honest answers:
(1) If you are a college professor: Do you require your students to use a particular note-taking method, and if so, which one? What is your rationale for this decision?
(2) If you are a college student: Does your institution—or do your professors—require you to use a particular note-taking method, and if so, which one?
Posted for your reading pleasure by Jim West at his Zwinglius Redivivus blog.
Evangelicalism has been a problematic term for a long time. It seems to evade all attempts to define it, at least over the last few decades. Part of the problem is that there are, in fact, several different “evangelicalisms.” Scot McKnight highlights a few, bouncing ideas off of Kenneth J. Stewart’s In Search of Ancient Roots: The Christian Past and the Evangelical Identity Crisis. McKnight suggests there are at least four kinds of evangelical:
- Pragmatic. (He sees this as characteristic of megachurches.)
- Belligerent. (Also known as fundamentalist.)
- Politicized. (McKnight’s category, not Stewart’s. Obviously very prevalent in the US these days.)
- Historic. (Rooted to the Great Awakening[s], the Reformation, and even earlier expressions of Christianity.)
This reminds me of a spiel I did years ago when I taught church history and proposed a typology of “Conservative Resurgences.” (I specifically chose the term “conservative resurgence” for reasons that may be obvious to anybody who was a Southern Baptist in the 1980s and 1990s.) I may have to see if I still have those notes.
So, have you left evangelicalism? Have you left one or more of McKnight’s categories but held firm to another?