Sunday, December 27, 2009

The Blue Parakeet

Dr. McGrath's class will be reading Scot McKnight's book The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible together.

We'll be reading chapter 1 for next time.

Copies of the book have been purchased on behalf of several people who asked for them, but if you weren't among them, it isn't too late to join in!

Monday, August 17, 2009

Thursday Nights "The Well"

The Well
“Whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst” John 4:14

Thursday evening classes for families of all ages will begin meeting on the following Thursdays: September 10, 17, 24 and October 1, 8, 15, 29. Dinner is available for the recommended donation of $2 for adults and $1 for children with a family maximum of $5. All classes will meet at Crooked Creek Baptist Church on this schedule:

5:45-6:30 p.m. Dinner
6:30-7:30 p.m. Education

To register for meals and/or classes please contact the church office.

Adult Choices:

A Deepening Spiritual Life- facilitated by Susan Matthews. This course will focus on different practices and techniques to strengthen and deepen the individual and corporate connection to God’s Holy Spirit.

Family Building- Licensed clinical psychologists Ann & Ken Lovko will lead this discussion based class with adults to help them develop a stronger sense of spiritual and familial leadership. Specific concerns of families will be addressed as well as concepts such as communication, modeling, etc...


Connections- facilitated by Mary Dickerson, Youth from Middle and High school will focus on understanding and developing the spiritual bonds that unite all Christians.


Children from kindergarten to grade 5 are encouraged to come join us for more time celebrating God’s love for us in music, story, and games.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Schedule Change

Beginning September 6th (the first Sunday in September) 2009, Crooked Creek Baptist Church will be moving to a new schedule. Sunday school will begin at 9:30 am on Sunday mornings, followed by a brief fellowship time. The Sunday worship service will then begin at 10:45 am on Sunday mornings.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

New Sunday School Series

Beginning next Sunday, May 31st, Pastor Tom Bartley will be offering a new Sunday school class, which will continue for much of the summer, on "Being Baptist". Regular attendees of Dr. McGrath's class are encouraged to attend Rev. Bartley's class, and Dr. McGrath's own class will cease meeting for the duration of this new class in order to facilitate attendance.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Introduction to Islam

To facilitate our discussion of how Christians might/should view other religions, we realized that many need or would benefit from an introduction to some other major religious traditions. Today we began with Islam, and just barely scratched the surface.

We will continue next time, and those who will be attending and who have specific questions and/or topics of interest they would like to be covered/addressed are encouraged to let Dr. McGrath know ahead of time. One easy way to do so is simply to leave a comment here!

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Christianity and Other Religions (continued)

Today in Dr. McGrath's Sunday school class we continued to discuss how we as Christians might, and should, view other religious traditions. To facilitate this, Dr. McGrath and Rev. Bartley will provide an overview about some major world religions in next week's class.

Dr. McGrath began today's class by presenting some Biblical reasons for Christians to expect to find they can learn from other religions. He began with John 1, which emphasizes that the Word "enlightens every human being coming into the world". That itself should lead us to expect that God is revealed not only in Jesus, or in the Bible, but elsewhere. More than that, the concept of the Word (Logos) is itself an example of something from another religious tradition (Stoic pantheism) that Jews and then Christians found they could utilize in expressing their own faith. Also mentioned was the fact that, when the Bible was translated into Chinese, the translators rendered John 1:1 as "In the beginning was the Way (Tao)".

Acts 17 is another key text in thinking about this subject. There we see Paul disagreeing with Greek idol-worship, but we also find him depicted in terms echoing the story of Socrates. In Acts 17:28 two Greek sources are quoted: "'For in him we live and move and have our being'. As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'"

Epimenides' poem Cretica is quoted twice in the New Testament. In the poem, Minos addresses Zeus thus:
They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one—
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.
The other text quoted in Acts 17 is "We are his offspring" from the Cilician poet Aratus (c. 315-240 BC) in his "Hymn to Zeus". And so clearly the author of Acts did not think that what was said about Zeus could not be applied to God as understood by Christians.

We also touched on Romans 2 and the parable of the sheep and the goats, both of which suggest that it may be more important what we do than the doctrines that we hold. Paul's choice of Abraham as an example of saving faith points in this direction too, since Abraham probably didn't assent to anything in the Nicene Creed beyond "We believe in one God".

So can Christians learn from other religions? Yes, we already have, and there is no reason in principle why Christians today ought to take a more negative view of other religious traditions than the New Testament authors themselves.

Dr. McGrath shared an example of something from another religious tradition that he found positively challenging, namely the famous prayer of the Sufi mystic Rabi'a:

O my Lord, if I worship you from fear of hell, burn me in hell. If I worship you from hope of Paradise, bar me from its gates. But if I worship you for yourself alone, grant me then the beauty of your Face.
He also mentioned the experience of meeting a Muslim autorickshaw driver in India who spoke of how much he loves Jesus. Whatever one's views on this subject, cases like this need to be part of the discussion, since they raise the question whether it is our knowledge and beliefs about Jesus, or our love for him and obedience to his teaching, that is most important.

As was already mentioned, next time there will be presentations about some of the major world religions.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Christianity and Other Religions

A thought that has come up in the series about "When Christians Disagree" time and again is that most of would agree that it is OK to agree to disagree about non-essentials. What we really disagree about is what those essentials are, and on what basis they are to be identified. And so, after asking about that and how we figure out what is essential, in Dr. McGrath's Sunday school class today we found ourselves talking about Christian identity and other religions.

Among the subjects we discussed was whether Christian identity is a matter of doctrine, practice or both. It was pointed pointed out that conservative Christians and Muslims would agree over against many liberal Christians in believing in the virgin birth. We also discussed whether it makes sense for Christians to think of Muslims as "worshipping a different God", or whether it makes more sense to acknowledge that the belief in one supreme deity is something held in common, while we may disagree about certain details of our doctrine about God. Over the coming weeks we'll be thinking more about the subject of the relationship between Christianity and other religions, and how Christians might/should view those religious traditions. In the mean time, Dr. McGrath shared what he calls the flaming meteorite test, as well as introducing the notions of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism.

At the end of May, Dr. McGrath's class will take a hiatus so that all its participants can attend the Sunday school class Pastor Bartley will be teaching about "Being Baptist".

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Stages of Faith

Dr. McGrath has posted some thoughts on today's Sunday school class, as well as some links with further information about James Fowler's idea of "stages of faith", over at Exploring Our Matrix.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Easter Sunday School

Yesterday's sermon focused on the ending (or lack thereof) of Mark's Gospel. The pastor compared Mark to a "choose your own adventure" story, particularly when it comes to the ending.

In Dr. McGrath's Sunday school class, we discussed this as well as another possibility, namely that the original ending of Mark's Gospel could have been lost. Papyrus manuscripts are easily damaged, and most of our ancient manuscripts from this period are significantly damaged. Although we have a great many relatively early manuscripts of the New Testament writings, including some on more durable types of "paper", it is not impossible that the earliest Gospel could have been damaged in some way.

The likelihood that the original ending was lost is increased when we consider that two different scribal traditions, as well as Matthew and Luke who used Mark as a source, felt it necessary to "improve" Mark's ending.

If one considers the different geographical locations for the resurrection appearance stories in Matthew and Luke, it seems impossible to argue for "inerrancy" in any meaningful sense of the term. But if one is asking not about inerrancy but about historicity, then a historian's approach can help us make sense of why Matthew and Luke diverge, with one having the disciples told to go to Galilee while the other has them told to remain in Jerusalem.

In 1 Corinthians 15 we find an example of the sort of tradition about resurrection appearances circulating a decade or more before the Gospel of Mark is thought to have been written. Dr. McGrath pointed out that no geographical setting is provided. And thus a plausible explanation for the divergence between Matthew and Luke is that neither had information on the setting of such appearances, and each independently turned the tradition into a narrative, locating it where it seemed to fit, with the resulting tensions when one has copies of both these Gospels.

Towards the end of the class, the Rev. Bartley brought up the question of whether a rationalistic, post-Enlightenment reading of the text is not alien to the worldview in which these writings were penned. Dr. McGrath replied that, on the one hand, he appreciates what reason and science have given to us. On the other hand, the attempt to require the text to provide certainty, or reject it if it fails to do so, is indeed at odds with these stories. Matthew's Gospel has the apostles doubting even after their "encounter" with Jesus. And so the desire for certainty is the desire for something that even the earliest Christians may not have had.

Sunday, April 5, 2009

Palm Sunday Q&A

Today's installment of Dr. McGrath's Sunday school class took the format of an informal conversation/Q&A on matters related to the passion week. Some of the subjects touched on include:

  • The nature of historical study of the Bible and the burial of Jesus (including why I wrote my book on the subject, the Talpiot tomb, and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher).
  • What the historical context (and precedent) might have been for the "triumphal entry" into Jerusalem. Among other things, the size of the temple and the resulting "Where's Waldo?" effect, and the lack of immediate Roman intervention, both seem to suggest that Jesus' actions around this time were symbolic and relatively small.
  • The story of Jesus sending disciples to take someone else's donkey.

Next week we'll continue the conversation!

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Romans 1-3 and Homosexuality

Today in Dr. McGrath's Sunday school class it was emphasized that those who use the material in Romans 1 about homosexuality as a weapon with which to condemn and "clobber" others have clearly made the error of stopping reading at the end of chapter 1 - which, like all the chapter and verse divisions in the New Testament, was not in the letter Paul wrote. If we continue reading, we discover that Paul engaged in a stereotypical Jewish condemnation of Gentiles (compare for instance Wisdom of Solomon 13-15) not as an end in itself, but in order to get Jewish readers who joined in the condemnation to understand that they themselves were in the same situation.

It was also noted that the dominant form of homosexual act in the Greek world in Paul's time was between a teacher and his male student. It is thus worth considering that Paul may have been more interested in condemning pederasty/paedophilia rather than addressing committed same-sex relationships. We also discussed whether an appropriate Christian outlook today is to condemn homosexuality in general, or to expect gay and lesbian Christians to hold themselves to a higher standard (monogamy) than prevails in our society, whether among homosexuals or heterosexuals. Also worth noting is that no one today practices "Biblical marriage", and to the extent that our view of the "nature" of men and women has changed (considered in Paul's time to be inherently active and passive respectively), is there any reason in our time to continue to view it as inherently demeaning for a man to take on a passive (i.e. female) role?

It is worth noting that in Romans 1, Paul apparently views homosexual practices as a punishment for Gentile turning away from God, rather than as something that itself is a cause of the divine wrath. Time prevented us from looking at the ways in which objects of wrath are turned into objects of mercy on numerous occasions in the Bible. Also left for consideration on another occasion is whether, should we wish to welcome homosexuals in a Christian community, we cannot find at least as much justification for doing so in the Scriptures as we have for other groups that might, on Scriptural grounds, be excluded (e.g. for instance the divorced).

The aim is to conclude the series on homosexuality next time, after which will follow some Easter-related topics.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Leviticus 17-20 and Homosexuality

Today in Dr. McGrath's Sunday school class, we continued our discussion of homosexuality. Today's class began by focusing on the section of Leviticus that includes its two mentions of the prohibition against "lying with men the lyings of women", usually understood to prohibit same-sex male intercourse.

It was crucial to begin by pointing out that some of the things in this part of Leviticus we do not consider necessary. And in spite of slogans that affirm belief in the whole Bible, it should be clear to those who have actually read the whole Bible that those who claim to do so in fact don't. We need to be honest that we not only are not doing everything the Bible says, but deep down we don't think that we should. And so a key question becomes was whether there is any underlying rationale for why some things continue to be practiced while others do not.

One route that is sometimes followed is to defer the matter to the New Testament: those things that are reaffirmed there remain in force, those things that are set aside there do not. But apart from the question of whether all the New Testament authors agreed about what did and did not remain in force, it must be asked whether there is an underlying rationale for what is and isn't maintained in the New Testament. We will, at any rate, discussion Romans 1-3 next time.

Whether we are dealing with homosexuality, shaving, tattoos or other subjects mentioned in this part of Leviticus, we are not given a clear rationale explaining why these things are prohibited. Sometimes attempts have been made to give a rationale - e.g. pork was prohibited to prevent disease, tattoos were prohibited because infection as a result was far more likely back then. But it must be asked whether such concerns are likely to have been in the minds of the Biblical authors.

A number of issues were touched on but set aside until we can consider them in their own right in a well-informed way. These included whether homosexuality's acceptance in society threatens traditional marriage, whether this is an issue about which Christians ought to agree to disagree, and whether, even if Christians agreed in viewing homosexuality as a sin, that would necessarily translate naturally into an attempt to impose Christians' views on others through legislation. The historic Baptist committment to the separation of church and state seems to point in a particular direction on this last point.

Perhaps the most important point to note, however, is how those who claim to be "defending traditional marriage" or "defending Biblical morality" in fact are picking and choosing in ways that suggest ulterior motives on their part. This part of Leviticus includes laws about honesty in business, payment of workers' wages, and treatment of foreigners living in one's territory. Why are such topics ignored by some in favor of a focus on homosexuality? Clearly it is not a desire to be faithful to the Bible that is at the heart of this, since the other matters mentioned are scarcely less pressing issues today. Why do those claiming to "defend marriage" not focus more on divorce, which is the subject of much clearer Biblical teaching and is more obviously a threat to heterosexual marriages? It seems obvious that there must be other motivating factors than those claims. Indeed, one possibility is that this simply reflects an instinct we all have, if we are honest, namely the tendency to focus on that which others are doing, to shift blame, find scapegoats, and see the shortcomings of others more clearly than our own. But on this matter the teaching of Jesus is clear: our focus ought to be on the beams in our own eyes, not on the splinters in others'.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Homosexuality and the Bible: Genesis 19, Judges 19

Today we began a new topic in our series "When Christians Disagree": homosexuality. We're beginning with those passages that have often been singled out as relevant to the issue, although in the present instance, Dr. McGrath suggested that Genesis 19 might not be about homosexuality so much as about hospitality, rape, violence and a number of other issues. Also noted was Ezekiel 16, which condemns Sodom in particular for lack of concern for the poor. The question of what rabbinic tradition had to say about this story was also posed, and there are some interesting web sites that address that question.

It is important to read Judges 19, one of the most horrific stories in the Bible, when considering this subject. There a rape does actually take place, and the victim dies, yet even though the originally-intended victim was a man, because the actual victim ends up being a woman, few would say that this is a story about homosexuality, i.e. about sexual orientation. In neither story are we given the impression that the men of the city who surrounded the house wanted to take the male visitors to the city to a local bar, get them drunk, and then be promiscuous with them. Whatever else the people of Sodom or of Gibeah may have been up to at other times, in both these stories we appear to be dealing with acts of violence intended to humiliate and victimize strangers who came into these cities.

Over the next few weeks we'll look at some other passages from the Bible that may be relevant to our topic. For next time we'll read Leviticus 17-20, then Romans 1-3, and after that 1 Corinthians 6-8.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Fearfully and Wonderfully Evolved

Today in Dr. McGrath's Sunday school class, we had our "evolution weekend" conversation that was postponed from last Sunday, when he was away at the Midwest SBL meeting.

Dr. McGrath emphasized that there is nothing specifically limited to evolution that singles it out for a greater degree of conflict with a literal reading of the Bible than other scientific fields. Some examples offered include:

(1) Genetics and embryology: Psalm 139:13 says that God knit the psalmist (and presumably humans in general) together in the mother's womb. Literalists ought to be up in arms about this and opposed to the contemporary scientific understanding, since it is not merely about the origin of our species but the status of each individual as a divine creation. Yet not only is there apparently no Christian antiembryological movements, but many Christians find it comforting to believe that God does not directly cause congenital birth defects.

(2) Meteorology: Leviticus 26:4 attributes the rain directly to God, and so how can meteorologists dare to attribute it to natural phenomena such as barometric pressure and who knows what else?

(3) Astronomy and Australians: We had an entertaining discussion about the plausibility of the existence of Australians. But not only does Joshua 10:12-14 suggest a different view of the solar system than that accepted today, but it seems to involve Joshua addressing the sun and moon, which is a whole other discussion. When it comes to the movement of the earth, here we do find people who reject mainstream science on the basis of an appeal to the Bible. Passages like Psalm 104:5, Psalm 93:1 and 1 Chronicles 16:30 are pretty clear.

And so, on the one hand, a genuinely and consistently literalistic approach to the Bible would put one at odds with all science and many other fields of knowledge, and not just evolution. On the other hand, the evidence for evolution is every bit as solid as for other scientific fields. That doesn't mean that our knowledge is not growing. At times new discoveries do cause us to revise or supplement our earlier thinking. But what is striking is that, while scientists love making new discoveries that show where other great minds have been wrong, propelling the discoverer/pioneer to the front cover of science magazines, we've yet to see a young-earth creationist or proponent of intelligent design accomplish that, because they are not offering research that improves our understanding, but mere empty criticism that neither correctly identifies problems with current theory or offers genuinely helpful improvements or alternatives.

We concluded with me pointing out that those who claim that science, or more specifically evolutionary biologists, reduce human beings to a mere pile of chemicals of little value, simply misunderstand the nature of scientific analysis. Genesis 2 says humans are dirt, if one wants to talk about physical make-up. Neither religion nor science claims humans are more or less valuable because of our composition. If there is anything that makes us valuable, it is the complex arrangement of the matter that makes us up, and our capacity to relate to one another and to God, to compose and appreciate works of beauty, and in other ways transcend what might be expected of the atoms that make up our physical composition.

To use another analogy, one can accurately analyse a symphony in terms of the chemical composition of the instruments or the physical vibrations in the air. Such analyses are not scientifically incorrect. They are just different perspectives, and ones that we may well deem insufficient on their own, since it is also appropriate (perhaps necessary) to do justice to our appreciation of the symphony as beautiful. The problem, in other words, is in no way with scientific analysis, but with reductionism, that is to say, the attempt to say that humans are "nothing but" the chemicals of which we are made, or a symphony is "nothing but" vibrations. But the natural sciences claim that the analysis they offer are part of the story, not that there is nothing more to be said at other levels and from other perspectives.

Next week we'll connect up the current series with our previous topic by looking at Romans 5.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Sunday School: Genesis 1:1-2:3

Today in Dr. McGrath's Sunday school class we started a series on the creation stories. Before trying to ask how the natural sciences might cause us to reflect in new and different ways about God and our place in the universe, it is usually helpful for Christians to look first at the creation stories, and consider what they do and do not tell us. Today our focus was on the story of creation in 7 days found in Genesis 1:1-2:3. Many of the subjects we touched on are ones Dr. McGrath regularly covers in his course on the Bible, such as the similarities and differences between Genesis 1 and the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elish being a key to understanding the text.

A key point Dr. McGrath made is that no one (even if they call themselves literalists) takes the dome literally. To single out evolutionary biology as though it were more at odds with Christian faith than other realms of scientific explanation is likewise unjustified. Also mentioned was the fact that the text of Genesis 1 depicts God commanding the earth to bring forth life, rather than creating in some more direct manner.

The question of authorship came up briefly. Next time we'll discuss whether there is more than one creation story in these early chapters of Genesis.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

What Do You Say That I Did?

In Dr. McGrath's Sunday school class this past Sunday, we moved on from discussing who Jesus was to discussing what he did, and how it relates to the Christian experience usually placed under the heading of "salvation".

We began with the story of a child who, in church on Good Friday, asked her parents why anyone would crucify a 3-month-old baby. Apparently the church's year, celebrating Easter a few months after Christmas, was being taken somewhat too literally. The reason for telling this story is that, for some Christians, if Jesus had died at 3 months old it would apparently not have much of an impact on their understanding of what Jesus had come to accomplish. He had come to die, and between birth and death Jesus was simply "killing time" waiting to die. Any view of the cross that ignores the life that preceded it is going to be problematic.

It is not surprising that some Christians view Jesus in this way. On the one hand, since Paul had not followed Jesus in the pre-Easter period (although he may have become aware of the movement centered on him as soon as it reached Jerusalem, whether before or after Easter), and because he was writing to individuals who could be presumed to have had Christian tradition passed on to them, Paul never fills his letters with stories about Jesus' life. The cross was also the part of the story of Jesus that was potentially the most troubling, and thus the early Christians had had to make it central, and come up with an explanation that would regard the cross as a necessary and intelligible part of God's plan, and so they had found a way of interpreting it as salvific.

Another key focus in the Sunday school class was on what theologians call the "penal substitution" view of atonement. It is problematic for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it is based on a view of justice that no one would otherwise accept. If the U.S., failing to apprehend Osama bin Laden, claimed that it had nonetheless accomplished its mission because they executed some other innocent individual in his place, I doubt if anyone would be happy with this as a resolution of the matter.

It is also a view of the cross that is not found in the Bible. Sure, it can be read into it, but it cannot be found there unless one is already looking for it. For Paul, the key meaning of Jesus' death is summed up well in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15: "one died for all, and therefore all died". That's almost the exact opposite of the popular Evangelical message, "one died instead of all, so that they might not have to die". Even if we conclude that Paul's language of "dying with Christ" is just another way of talking metaphorically about denying ourselves and self-sacrifice, it nevertheless makes clear that the Christian view of "salvation" expressed here is not about Jesus doing something instead of us, but of something that involves us and happens to us and in us. Ironically, while some feel they are glorifying God by making atonement something that involves no action or effort on our part, they've also radically departed from a central component of early Christian belief.

There has never been a single creed defining for all Christians what the cross means. Many have agreed that no one image or metaphor will do justice to its significance. But it certainly is important to ensure that the element of challenge and its transformational effect on our lives is not relegated to the margins or neglected altogether.

Next week we'll begin a new topic, spending some time in the creation stories in Genesis 1-3 and discussing matters of creation, cosmology, evolution and science.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Different Views of Jesus

Today in Dr. McGrath's Sunday School class, we moved beyond our discussion of the varied portraits of Jesus found in the Gospels to begin to answer the question posed in Mark's Gospel, "Who do you say that I am?" Dr. McGrath's own personal answer was to focus on Jesus as crucified Messiah. Historians may debate (as illustrated by the book by Tom Wright and Marcus Borg mentioned in class, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions) how Jesus viewed himself and how various Christian understandings of Jesus developed. But one thing seems clear. Christianity continued, while other messianic movements disappeared after the individual who was their focus was killed, because instead of concluding that Jesus was not the Messiah because he had been crucified, instead they reinterpreted what was meant by Messiah, leaving us with the challenge of following a path that does not lead to our own personal gain. It is the power of that message that has changed countless lives, and it does not ultimately depend on historical reconstruction in detail of all that Jesus said and did.

Other subjects came up which will be the focus of our discussion next time. It is common in a Christian context to speak about Jesus as "God". But what does that mean? When Jesus behaves humanly, is that "just his humanity at work" at that moment? Did God accept human limitations in the incarnation (the term for that being kenotic Christology)? Was Jesus striding the earth getting the answer to every question right?

That last question led to an interesting side debate about whether Superman could get a haircut.

O Holy Night

From our Christmas Eve service:

Sunday, January 4, 2009

From John's Gospel to the Creeds

Today in Dr. McGrath's Sunday School class we arrived at the last of our classes on the ways Jesus is presented in the canonical Gospels, focusing on the Gospel of John with its unique features such as the notion of Jesus as the Word-become-flesh and the pre-existence of the Son of Man. Dr. McGrath gave a brief overview of his book and his conclusion that the developments in the Gospel of John result from an attempt to defend Christian beliefs, during which process developments and expansions to Christian though take place.

We discussed whether the aim of Christians ought to be to combine the Gospels or to pick one that resonates with us; whether our aim should be to repeat what the Gospel authors said or to follow their example in using language of our time to address questions and issues of our time, just as they did in relation to their own historical setting.

The subject of the creeds came up, and as one might expect in an American Baptist context, voices soon were heard that said, in essence, "Whoa, wait a minute, what are these creeds you're talking about exactly?" The classic creeds of Christian orthodoxy have no precise or official authority for Baptists, and yet they are part of our heritage, ignored and unknown but there as historical influences nonetheless.

Those interested can find the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds here.

Our next subject will be sharing our own answers to the question in Mark's Gospel: Who do we, each of us, say that Jesus is?