<Theofragen>

As I continue to reflect on my conversations with fellow 'Emergers' at the Central Jersey Cohort meeting last week, I sense a need to expand my vision a bit further. I had some good conversations with Brian and Jarred from Koinos Community Church and Brad and Todd from the Well regarding the challenges and joys of planting an emerging church. I really like what Todd had to say on his blog. He writes from a pastor's perspective and offers those of us who wish to contribute something meaningful to the emergent conversation a caveat: "We've [pastors] found that sometimes its really healthy to reconstruct some of your [academics]deconstruction." Is that all that we've been offering...deconstruction? Todd tempers this criticism by acknowledging the benefit of sound theological reflection bolstering ministerial praxis. Yet, as I ponder the direction that Emergent is heading I think that Todd's comment is strikingly apropos.

During the past months I have listened carefully to my professors talk about the recent presidential election. Following the results, some of those profs look as if they had just been gut-kicked. They are incredulous that, despite all of their academic articles and speeches, despite all of the interviews and social action, the people ignored their 'enlightened' opinions and voted Bush into office for a second term. This observation is not about politics, per se; rather, it serves as an interesting example of what has been taking place in academic circles for hundreds of years. There seems to be a disconnect between what scholars tell people they ought to care about, and what the majority actually do care about. Too long have scholars engaged in theological and philosophical dialogue obvlious to the fact that there is a larger world outside the hallowed corridors of Princeton, Harvard and Yale. My critique of this modus operandi is that it produces a one-sided discussion. Dialogue demands more than scholarly pontification and passive obedience. This being said, I would like to offer a futher suggestion about the shape of the Emergent conversation: I think pastors should set the tone of our dialogue!

This conversation ought to be shaped and molded by those who are 'in the trenches' not by those of us enjoying the cushy-asylum that is the academy. It seems that the theologians and biblical scholars who wish to contribute to the discussion ought to shape their criticism and suggestions to fit the pastors' needs in the churches, because that is were all of our pallid ruminations take on variegated vibrancy in the 'real world'. I do not wish to see the Emergent conversation morph into a false-dichotomy between the 'intelligencia' and the hoi poloi. And sadly, I see some of this taking place. When we bifurcate between churches that are emergent in style and churches that are emergent theologically, we lose some of the theological fecundity that can emerge from ecclesiastical praxis. I echo the frustration of Steve in a post not long ago, in which he sees two facets of Emergent: 1) the "Emergent Conversation" ( which runs the risk of being a glorified book-club for the academics) and 2) the "Emergent Churches" (which run a similar risk of being little more than evangelical churches with candles). We are not too far into this discussion to modify our trajectory. In the next Central Jersey Cohort, I would like to do more listening than speaking. I would like to listen carefully for the melody exuding from the pastors and find a way to harmonize with that melody theologically. If all that academics are offering the emergent conversation is decontruction, we ought to shut-up! Better, we can find a way to meld sound theological reflection and philosophical inquiry into the lived experience of emerging pastors. Then, perhaps, the blurred lines of Emergent may become more lucid.

P.S. My buddy, Mark, has just posted a critique of preaching in the emergent church. I am sure he would appreciate your feedback as he attempts to amalgamate academic criticism with lived church experience.

posted by Jake at 12/21/2004 03:01:00 PM

I have a vision

Last night I went to the Central Jersey Emergent Cohort meeting. It was nice to meet with friends and engage in meaningful discussion but it was also frustrating. It seems that no one can really say what Emergent is. Even our unofficial leader, Tony Jones, seemed not altogether sure about the boundaries of Emergent. Many of us have ideas of what Emergent could look like, but we are somewhat divergent as to what that vision is.

There was some good dialogue about Emergent in light of church history's many movements. Everyone appeared unanimous in maintaining solidarity with many reformers of the church over the millennia. Some good thoughts on the radical reformation were shared by our resident scholars, Matt and Andrew. They helped to keep the discussion grounded in light of the myriad reformation attempts made in the past. Last night I felt a bit like the villain from Spiderman 2: Dr. Octopus. In the picture I have included above, we see him attempting to control his fusion reaction with the four bio-mechanical arms he has welded onto his own body. For those of you who have seen the film, you know that the larger the reaction grows the harder he has to work to keep the reaction stable. "Sunbusts" begin to jolt out from the reaction and he has to use his four arms to keep the reaction from exploding. To the detriment of his observers, the reaction soon becomes unmanageable and Spiderman has to save the day by pulling the plug.

I have to confess that I only have two hands. I was telling my friend Matt last night that I don't know near enough to keep everything in balance at the same time. As my knowledge of philosophy or theology becomes stronger I forget some crucial facet of Church History that subverts what I am trying to do. Likewise, when I attempt to situate this 'conversation' in its socio-historical context, I am pressed about practical theology and ecumenism from another friend. I am trying to understand what Emergent might look like and it is exhausting. I cannot integrate what everyone is saying at the same time. So, I quit.

Rather than keep everything balanced, I will just share with ya'll what I hope Emergent will become. I hope that Emergent will find a way to work within denominational structures rather than against them. I desire to see this 'conversation' morph into an actual movement (like Steve insists, but I'm not sure that we are there yet) that transcends our differences. I have a vision in which an Emergent Baptist can bump into an Emergent Roman Catholic at some coffee shop and experience a sense of solidarity and mutual appreciation for each other's differences. I have a vision that one day Emergent minded pastors and lay persons will come together to address evangelism and social justice and not view them as an either/or. I have a vision that Emergent will continue to evolve in such a manner that people other then Gen-X white guys who have a penchant for cigars will express interest in the conversation. I have a vision in which Emergent will transcend socio-economic status and geographical boundaries. And I have a vision that is hopeful of a time when all Christians can come together to have table fellowship and not divide over theological/racial/ecclesiological/political/missional or liturgical differences.

I know this sounds kind of warm and fuzzy (maybe in my next post I will ask us all to hold hands and sing Kumbaya). I am ready to hear the discussion take a turn towards logistics and praxis. I'm wondering if my vision jives with any of ya'll?

posted by Jake at 12/17/2004 11:35:00 AM

Is Emergent emerging for ministers or parishoners?

Recently I have been doing a lot of thinking about the purpose of emergent. Or better, I was contemplating why I want to be involved in Emergent. I have been listening closely to the rhetoric that some of my friends use to bolster the need for the emergent movement. From what I have heard, most people contend that Emergent exists to share the Gospel with people who are so utterly opposed to expressions of both liberal mainline denominations and the evangelical project that they can not go to church as it now exists. This sounds good, but I can't help but wonder, if Emergent exists more to meet the needs of ministers who are disgruntled with traditional expressions of church than to reach the lost. Amidst both denominational and church conflict, the rigmarole of ordination requirements, demands by ecclesiastical bodies that ministers sign their professions of faith, etc, I am discouraged. As a senior seminary student I frequently ask myself, "Will there be a place for me to minister when I graduate? And even if there is, would I be happy serving there?" Are Emergent ministers trying to substantiate the creation of an environment in which we feel more comfortable?

One of my professors, Dr. James Charlesworth, made a profound statement in class today. He said that over half of the students who graduate from Princeton Seminary will not serve churches when they graduate. Of those students that will, 1/3 of them will quit within three years. Charlesworth attributed this to the radical disconnect between what we are taught in seminary and what is expected of us in traditional ministries. He informed us that we are being trained to be theologians, but most churches will demand that we chair building committees five nights a week, spend twenty hours per week doing hospital and home visitation, get involved in the community and still preach a dynamic and powerful sermon at least once a week. Most of what happens in the church, my professor argued, should be handled by people with MBAs not MDivs! As a result many pastors leave the church to become Walmart managers or business executives. Those who know me are well aware that I have a strong desire to share the Gospel with the lost and work diligently to disciple and equip the saints. In today's understanding of Church, especially the models espoused by those influenced by the Willow Creek and Saddleback empires, I fear that I would not fit in.

I am not suggesting that Emergent be either for postmoderns seeking a church or for postmodern pastors seeking a flock. I just thought that I should be honest about what is at stake for me in Emergent. I'm wondering if this sentiment resontates with anyone else?

posted by Jake at 12/15/2004 06:05:00 PM

You are Wrong Mister President!

Al Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said something on his radio broadcast that deserves a moderating response. I want to thank my friend Blake for the tip.

Mohler writes, "If Jesus was not conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of a virgin, if he was not born in Bethlehem as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophesy, if there were not shepherds on a hillside visited by angels, then good bye Christianity."

In one fell swoop, Mohler has essentially excommunicated droves of deeply committed Christian men and women all over the world who do not agree with his fundamentalistic, inerrantist hermeneutic. Mohler seems adept at offering his audience one-sided fallacious arguments and them knocking them down like he is Mike Tyson. By Mohler's standards, the only biblical writer who would pass his test of orthodoxy and could thereby be considered a Christian is Luke. Luke is the only biblical writer who mentions a virgin birth in Bethlehem amongst the presence of angels on a hillside. Although he discusses the virgin birth in Bethlehem, Matthew does not say anything about shepherds. Neither Mark nor John even mention the birth narratives (indicating at least that the birth accounts were not crucial to their telling of the Jesus story and at most that they were later additions--which is the position held by most real scholars. Neither Paul nor any of the other biblical authors say one thing about the virgin birth. In fact, since he wants to get all biblical, it would help if Mohler would read things other than his 101 Ways to Defend Inerrancy book! Maybe try reading about the kind of faith that Paul was proclaiming in Romans 10:9-13. I would argue, along with the majority of Christians world-wide, that faith in Christ alone is requisite of salvation. To paraphrase Paul, "Neither inerrantist heresies, nor tyrannical seminary presidents, nor gynecological obsessors, nor geographic pedants can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

If assent to gynecological virginity was SO important, why do we only find it in Matthew and Luke? Futhermore, if Jesus HAD to be born in Bethlehem for Christianity to be valid, why are all of the biblical authors in unison in calling him "Jesus of Nazareth?" His likely name in a first-century, Jewish context would have been "Jesus son of Joseph." However, given the questionable nature of his conception, Jesus was probably considered a mamzer by many of his contemporaries--especially if Joseph died when Jesus was young, as tradition attests. FYI: Neither biblical scholars nor historians have been able to provide any extra-biblical attestation of a census every taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. It seems that Matthew and Luke have arranged their source traditions in such a manner in order to bring Jesus' birth into alignment with OT prophecies. To quote one of my undergraduate professors, "Any idot can claim that the moon is made of blue cheese but that does not make it so."

Mohler is reacting to the Newsweek article about Jesus that suggests a hermeneutic other than his inerrantist position. I think he needs to understand that he is propitiating a rigid, indefensible understanding of what a Christian is or isn't. Just because he has a radio program and he and his cronies were successful in overthrowing a denomination with their virulent rhetoric and macarthyistic practices doesn't mean that they are right. When one checks out Al Mohler's blog and reads "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" one may ponder whether he is more concerned about propagating the truth of Jesus Christ or the truth of Al Mohler. My money is on the later!

posted by Jake at 12/13/2004 09:44:00 PM

Jake's Top Film Recommendations

1. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
2. The Last Samurai
3. The Matrix Trilogy
4. Office Space
5. Shawshank Redemption
6. Fight Club
7. Tears of the Sun
8. Rock Star
9. Space Balls
10. Legends of the Fall

posted by Jake at 12/13/2004 11:12:00 AM

Jake's Top Book Recommendations

1. The Contemplative Pastor: Returning to the Art of Spiritual Direction
2. Cultural Interpretation: Reorienting New Testament Criticism
3. Beyond the Matrix: Revolutions and Revelations
4. Theo-Drama: Theological Dramatic Theory (5 vols)
5.Text, Church, and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective
6. The Church on the Other Side
7. How (Not) to Speak of God
8. In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership
9. Decolonizing Biblical Studies: A View from the Margins
10. Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation

posted by Jake at 12/13/2004 11:11:00 AM

Jake's Top Travel Recommendations

For those of you wanderluster/jet setters out there, here is a list of my top travel recommendations. Enjoy:

1. Mt. Pelion, Greece
2. Biltmore Estate-- Ashville, NC
3. Snorkeling with Sting Rays--Grand Cayman
4. Skydiving--Atlanta, GA
5. White Water Rafting in Hell's Hole--Occoee River, TN
6. Day hiking--Cinque Terre, Italy
7. Grand Tetons National Park--WY
8. Spa Day--Baden-Baden, Germany
9. Puerto Viejo--Costa Rica
10. Hiking Mt. Olympus--Greece

posted by Jake at 12/13/2004 11:06:00 AM

Reflections on Miroslav Volf's Lecture

One of the many advantages of living in Princeton is the opportunity I have to hear great lectures by world class scholars. Last week I had the privilege of listening to a lecture delivered by the eminent theologian, Miroslav Volf. His lecture was entitled, "Memory, Salvation and Perdition: The Importance and Ambiguity of Memory." Here's what he said (according to my choppy scribble).

Professor Volf focused a great deal on the salvific aspects of memory. He deems memory to be a means of salvation, rather than the content of salvation. Before the salvific aspects of memory are able to be received, four things must first happen.

1) Personal healing--we must recall pain in order to heal from it and we must interpret and inscribe those painful memories into our metanarratives.

2) Acknowledgment--memory must not rationalize wrongs. Here the truth must be stated honestly. Often people who have been hurt in traumatic ways allow the story to take over and to alter the truth of the memory. Volf urges that this must be avoided.

3) Solidarity of victims--it awakes us from the slumber of indifference. Hurt people tend to have a hard time empathyzing with others who are suffering due to their own overwhelming hurt.

4) Protect victims of further violence--memory of evil can be a shield against evil.

Conclusion: Memory can create violence or justice. An example noted by Dr. Volf occurred in Serbia. Here a negative use of memory (many Serbs have harsh memories of violence inflicted upon them) causes further violence. We ought to remember in redeeming not violent ways. Memory is a precondition of reconciliation and forgiveness and a dialectical relationship exists between memory and forgiveness.

My thoughts: It seems to me that Volf was advocating more of a 'psychology of memory' than a 'theology of memory.' Many of these ideas I have already learned from my wife from her experiences as a counselor. Dr. Volf brings lived pain with him to his lectures, having suffered horrible interrogations by Communists earlier in his life in Croatia. Rather than drifting to the extremes of repressing our lived pain on the one hand or inflicting similar pain on other people on the other, Volf offers us a way out of the dialectic. By living into our memories we are able to own them as an aspect of who we are. Then we may begin to enter into solidarity with other marginalized peoples who are suffering from painful memories. Memory, then, can lead either to salvation or perdition... the choice is up to us.

posted by Jake at 12/12/2004 02:41:00 PM

Jake's Movie Reviews

Last night Abby and I went to see Ocean's 12 (you can check out the trailer here). I must admit, following the success of Ocean's 11, I was skeptical as to whether Soderbergh would be able to pull off a sequel of commensurate splendor. Yet, I was also quite hopeful that this all-star cast would be able to pull off another heist with the same facility. Abby greatly enjoyed the film, but I was disappointed. Don't get me wrong, its not that the film is bad when viewed in isolation from its prequal. However, I wanted the film to impress me by employing the same cast to make another robbery with the same finger-snapping coolness as the first film. If that is what you are hoping to see, I would advise against seeing this film at the theater--wait for the video.

One of the greatest models for all mystery-type films to follow was set by Scooby Doo. In every episode of Scooby Doo they were able to baffle me because the villain was the person you least expected. It was always the friendly janitor or amicable busdriver who turned out to be the evil ghost or werewolf. But, the ruse is always someone/something that you have seen before. Soderbergh seems to have forgotten this essential ingredient in his sequal. I don't want to give too much away, in case you want to throw caution to the wind and see the film anyway. So let it suffice to say that the ending did not follow the Scooby Doo model.

Ocean's 11 was great because in one complicated sequence of events they 1) stole the money, 2) tricked the bad guy, 3) won the girl, and 4) didn't get caught. In Ocean's 12 this is accomplished in three or four sloppy steps. How disappointing. Jake gives this film:

posted by Jake at 12/11/2004 04:37:00 PM

Evangelism with a "Dope Ass Beat?"

CBS, who shied away from airing the “controversial” United Church of Christ commercial, recently offered commentary on Christianity and secular music on 60 minutes. Correspondent Bob Simon interviewed such bands as Third Day, POD and Kanye West and asked them about their “Christian” music in a secular context. Simon described this phenomenon as a “seismic shift in American culture.” This seems a bit much, but the $4 billion industry is certainly a force to be reckoned with.

Third Day, who gained mainstream notoriety lately by performing at the Republican National Convention and by their new sponsorship deal with Chevrolet, is making the transition to mainstream by signing with a secular label. Powell, the band’s lead singer notes that they are on a mission to “be dangerous for our whole culture,” a culture he described as post-Christian. With tongue-in-cheek, Simon described the band’s crossover as “coming out of the closet.” This is not far from the truth, for Third Day may be presenting a new model for evangelicalism—forcing them to stand up for their faith before a hostile culture.

The hard-rock hit, POD, presented a similar model for evangelicalism. POD, which stands for “Payable on Death” has appeared regularly at Ozfest (a heavy metal rock festival hosted by Ozzie Ozborne) and last toured with Korn. Their variegated body art and dread locks have led to their success, which is split between evangelical and secular teens. In response to the negative criticism from some evangelicals, POD’s drummer noted, “We were never Christian enough anyway.” How sad. Perhaps such “Christians” should receive a word from the Shiverian Gospel.

Kanye West, the recent rap phenom who is currently nominated for 10 Grammy awards, was also interviewed by Simon. When asked about his musical style, West attributed his success to his “dope ass beat.” West fought against the counsel of his colleagues in the rap industry and told Simon, “the word Jesus was like saying the word nigger.” West blends profanity and theology into his tracks (often in the same rhyme). This has reaped a flood of criticism from evangelicals. To such quips, West notes, “My songs are not for evangelicals, they are for who God is really trying to reach.”

With other bands like Switchfoot and Evanescence crossing over to the secular music world from their Christian roots, we might ask about the virtue of crossing over. Should evangelicals get behind these new forms of evangelism? Perhaps pastors who sense a similar calling to reach the hoi poloi should incorporate profanity into sermons (I’m still waiting for PTS to offer that preaching course).

In my opinion, most Christian musicians suck! I am impressed with bands like POD and Switchfoot that do not sacrifice musical prowess in the service of the Gospel. I thought the recent South Park commentary on the Christian music industry, though hyperbolic, was fitting. It seems that evangelicals ought to expand their vision of what ministry is in a post-Christian world. Or maybe, such performers have overstepped their bounds. Any thoughts?

posted by Jake at 12/08/2004 09:56:00 PM

Is Emergent emerging only in style?

The relentless onslaught of work abated a bit this weekend and I finally got around to reading the Christian Century article, "The Emergent matrix." The author asks a great question:

"As younger generations of evangelicals find themselves dissatisfied with the dominant expressions of "contemporary" church, will they simply engage in a new style, seeking relevance for a new generation, or will they engage in a change of substance including a more radical rethinking of the evangelical project?"

This is a helpful question. One of my profs said in class today, "You can tell when a pastor graduated from seminary by the books s/he has on the shelf." In other words, ministers engage in intellectual/theological/ministerial exploration while they are forced to by their professors and, upon leaving the luxuries of academic life, they desist. If this is true, there is no need to wonder why so many people are leaving the Church in droves. People need to be engaged as whole persons, not disembodied souls. I have noticed what is on the shelves of some pastors who are coming from an evangelical perspective and I must say, it's no wonder that people are disappointed with the depth of their pastor's thought. When all one reads are the overly simplistic books on Lifeway shelves, depth of insight is a commodity difficultly attained.

Yet,when I listen to my friends, some of whom have been out a seminary for years, talk about the theology that is undergirding some of what emergent is doing, I hear them quote thinkers like Moltmann, Gadamer, and Abelard. In this I am encouraged. Maybe one way that Emergent will be different from our evangelical predecessors is that we will offer a change in both style and theology. If all that may be said about the depth of Emergent, is that "emerging worship looks like a Christian version of Starbucks" we are in serious trouble. Any thoughts?

posted by Jake at 12/04/2004 04:43:00 PM

Questions about the UCC commercial

I was speaking to my friend, Eric, last night and he told me about the new United Church of Christ commercial that has been rejected for viewing by CBS and NBC because it is "too controversial." This morning my buddy Wes already had a blog post about the controversy. I watched the commercial (click here to watch it) and I'm having a hard time understanding what all the fuss is about.

I find it interesting that these networks will air shows like Ellen and Will and Grace but will not air a commercial from an ecclesiastical body endorsing openness. It seems that the networks would want to embrace the notions of tolerance, diversity and inclusion. Furthermore, I find it abhorrent that any church would EVER turn someone away because of anything (be it race, sexual orientation etc). The issue for me is not whether they should air the commercials...They should (in fact I think I read something about that in, hmmm the Bill of Rights). Plus, I have seen hundreds of Mormon commercials over the years, which are clearly advocating a religious group.

This debate makes me wonder. In our post-colonial, post-Christendom world it seems that we need to understand that people disagree and that is okay. I find nowhere in the church's history any point in which their was unanimous agreement on anything. The question regarding homosexual ordination is still open for debate, for me. I continue to wrestle with this issue theologically. I respect those congregations that have stepped out in affirming the homosexual lifestyle as well as those churches that, having wrestled seriously with the issue, are still opposed to it.

My buddy Adam just put up a great post on embracing the other. I'm curious, does embracing the other necessitate absolute agreement? In other words, must we embrace every alternative lifestyle unequivocally in order to truly embrace the other? A big issue in the news up here lately involves a United Methodist pastor who, as a practicing lesbian, is in danger of losing her credentials (you can learn more here). I find this intriguing, given that the slogan for the UMC is "open hearts, open minds, open doors." Are this issue and the UCC commercial discussion essentially the same debate? Is this discussion merely about power and control? I'm not sure. Sadly, I know that if any denomination would consider having bouncers at the front doors of the church it would be my own. In order to be like Jesus must the church bow the knee to the vox populi on every controversial issue? How do my emergent minded friends feel about this?

posted by Jake at 12/03/2004 11:45:00 AM

Unto us a child is given...

Advent season is upon us. If you can't find time to read the birth narratives in Matthew or Luke take a look at this site, for a quick run-through of the highlights. If you have surplus time then I recommend also reading this. Shalom.

posted by Jake at 12/02/2004 09:20:00 PM

John Mellencamp makes a comeback

As we discuss what it means to embrace the other in a post-colonial world, John Mellencamp's new video, "Walk Tall" is quite thought provoking. You can watch the video here. Check it out. Peace.

posted by Jake at 12/02/2004 04:46:00 PM

Jake's Movie Reviews

Today I went to see the new Robert Zemeckis film, The Polar Express. Don't trust the synopsis given on the apple trailer website (You know better than to trust those Mac peeps ;)). They write, "A boy's faith is rewarded one Christmas Eve when he's awakened by a steam train that pulls up in front of his house and takes him and other children to the North Pole..." This is not what happens. The real story is about a boy who is rewarded despite his lack of faith.

My friend Jourdan and I got into an interesting discussion about how this film relates to salvation. It seems that regardless of one's faith, or agnosticism, everyone who gets on the train receives a ticket for admission. Yet, when one of the main characters finds that her ticket is nowhere to be found, the conductor (played by Tom Hanks--who also plays 4 other roles in the film) leads her away from the other children. The main character, afraid that the conductor is going to throw her off of the train, races to her aid only to find that she is the one driving the train. This has interesting implications for universalism, election and exclusion of the other. If/when you see the film, I'd be anxious to get your take on this.

This film also promts me to ask, "What is the true meaning of Christmas?" The name Christmas seems to give the answer away. I'm curious as to why we don't call this "Santa's Day" or "Go Max out the Credit Card Day." After all, we changed our dating system from AD/BC to CE/BCE, why not change this as well? There have been flyers up all over campus advocating that we buy nothing for Christmas this year. Is that going to do it for us?

One thing I especially enjoyed about this film was its emphasis on the spirit of Christmas. I remember with longing the days when Christmas season caused some change in me. I smiled a bit more, perhaps loved a bit harder. Last year I barely noticed Christmas. Here at PTS our semester ends in January. That means that the trustees of the seminary have graciously allowed us to feed our workaholism over the holidays. Amidst papers and final, can we hold on to the spirit of Christmas? I hope so!

Overall, the film was quite entertaining. The special effects are in the spirit of Shrek (but without green ogres and talking donkeys). I have heard that some theaters are showing this film in IMAX theaters in 3-D. If you have a chance to see it there, I recommend it. This is a great film for those of you who need an emotional trip down nostalgia lane to recapture that Christmas spirit you had when you were a kid. Jake rates this film:

Should pastors set the tone for Emergent?

I have a vision

Is Emergent emerging for ministers or parishoners?

You are Wrong Mister President!

Jake's Top Film Recommendations

Jake's Top Book Recommendations

Jake's Top Travel Recommendations

Reflections on Miroslav Volf's Lecture

Jake's Movie Reviews

Evangelism with a "Dope Ass Beat?"

Is Emergent emerging only in style?

Questions about the UCC commercial

Unto us a child is given...

John Mellencamp makes a comeback

Jake's Movie Reviews