In some circles, the hope for immortality is criticized as unbiblical and sub-Christian. In others it is affirmed as empirical fact.
Offering the elements to the unbaptized can be seen as a development and not a revolution, but it is a significant change. Is it a good one?
For over a thousand years, Christian communities flourished in India. Their first real identity crisis? The arrival of European Catholics.
Scholars who devote themselves to interpreting Baptist tradition must contend with a community that is not sure it has one.
The phrase "separation between church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. Nor does the concept originate with Thomas Jefferson.
Scholars traveling to Chicago for the joint AAR–SBL meeting will have to make hard decisions—beginning with where to lay their heads.
My sister went to St. Olaf; I went to Wheaton. The differences are many--she chose Olaf after hearing both orchestras--but one that's always struck me is the fact that she was able to study world religions with tenure-track professors who actually practice them. I was not, because Wheaton requires faculty to sign a statement of faith--a model that has upsides but also pretty serious downsides. I have no problem with people of faith who maintain, in a pluralistic world, that their particular tradition offers something crucial and unique. I am one. But when it comes to learning about another faith tradition, given the option why would you want to learn from someone who isn't personally invested in it?