My interest in the confessions in particular is that they go beyond the historic creeds and articulate what they deem as sound doctrinal interpretation, not just laying out the core essential beliefs of Christianity.

As we’ve discussed before, the problem with the view that some take of “no creed but the Bible” is that there can be an awful lot of disagreement about what the Bible says, and there are no guides for comparison of disparate views for determining which are more “orthodox.” I think the same problem exists to a certain degree with the creeds.

You’ve mentioned that we look to the Church and to tradition to test our understanding of what is biblical. I see the confessions as an attempt to write down what the Church has traditionally understood about the Bible.

We’ve also talked before about the draw that the Catholic and Orthodox churches have on some evangelicals because then doctrinal debates are “settled.” I think to some degree a well-established confessional standard can provide the same sort of “certainty.” (Of course, you still have to decide whose standard to adopt.)

I did this about this as well, however. Dwight Pryor is fond of saying, “We are to live redeemed and redemptive lives.” In other words, we were redeemed for a purpose beyond our own eternal destiny. We are intended to partner with God in the healing of the world.

So a movie that tells a story of someone practicing “the good works that God created beforehand for us to do” (Eph 2:10) can definitely be accurately called “redemptive.”

Part of the issue is that those good works, both in real life and on the silver screen, are often practiced in the midst of a world desperately in need of redemption.

How often is it healthy to view reality? Certainly it is not healthy to view it gratuitously, but there is a place for the Schindler’s List’s of the world. By the same token, since movies are made by profit-driven corporations there is certain to be an overabundance of movies, and most today make no claim on having redemptive value, but are blatantly and solely for entertainment. When the realities of life become warped or abused for entertainment the line between entertainment and pornography becomes blurred and often crossed (one thinks of slasher flicks, for example).

I appreciate them because they seem to be the most middle ground between Catholic and Protestant, Reformed and Arminian that I have ever found, while still not skimping on the essentials.

England had been torn apart by religious warring (as had many other countries) and they deliberately chose to find a via media that would permit folks of orthodox yet varying faiths to worship together in one church.

A question. Are you distinguishing creeds from confessions? Because if you’re looking for earliest, the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed certainly antedate any of the ones so far mentioned and certainly enjoy a broader embrace that crosses all denominational or theological divides among Christianity.

I’m sorry for your loss.

Thanks for the info on the schools. Certainly good food for thought.

I was aware that Colin Powell endorsed Obama, but I did not hear/read his reasons for doing do.

On just about every social issue, such as abortion, homosexuality, marriage, cloning, etc., Obama favors (based on his own statements and his voting record) expansion and/or protection of the exercise of immorality. I don’t doubt that he thinks he is helping people, but I think he has developed his morals based on humanistic philosophy, borrowing from non-controversial Biblical values, but not actually letting Scripture stand as universal, non-negotiable truth.

On economic issues, Obama favors a socialistic redistribution of wealth that I believe is 1) not a valid role of the government and 2) harmful to the economy. While he wants to help people by providing needed services, I believe his policies would further entrench people into reliance on government as their “savior.”

On foreign policy issues, I believe Obama would be swayed by public sentiment, including international pressure, rather than steadfastly pursuing policies that protect Americans and keep America in a position to provide maximum benefit to the rest of the world.

While McCain is by no means perfect, I believe that his stances on the moral, economic, and security issues mentioned are better for America and the world than Obama’s.

There are a number of excellent essays at the Witherspoon Institute’s site for Public Discourse (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com) that I recommend reading, particularly the ones by Gerard Bradley, Robert George, and Michael New.

This post (http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/10/illogic-of-obama-on-abortion.html) is also insightful in revealing the gap between Obama’s claims and reality.

A survey of 751 CEO’s showed that they favored McCain 4:1 over Obama. I don’t think it’s just because they think they will get richer under McCain. I think CEO’s in general have a better-than-average understanding of business and economics, and they understand that their business will struggle (and perhaps fail) if the economy tanks.

Economist Thomas Sowell also has some excellent articles discussing the upcoming election (http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=NDA3Mw==).