By David Horn
Director, The Ockenga Institute
His name was Vernon Corneil. To the best of my recollection, he was the very first person who huddled over a wee bundle of kindling that, in time, was to burst into flames. He was the first person who God used to instill a sense of call to ministry in me when I was in my early teens. I am quite sure Mr. Corneil had no idea of the impact he was having on my life. He was a layperson who just took an active interest in me and saw something that was not to be revealed to me for some years hence.
For those of you who are in vocational ministry, who was it for you? Trace your footprints back to the beginnings of your own sense of calling. Who was it that God used, in His providence, to fan the earliest embers of your own sense of service to God? Who first saw your gifts? Who took the risk to spend time with you? Who began to pray for you? Whose imagination went wild when they saw your future? Whose simple but consistent words of encouragement would, in time, be transformed into stouthearted confidence?
I am convinced that one of the great lost practices of the Church today is the purposeful identification and nurturing of its future leaders? Why is this? Have we relegated our responsibilities as pastors and lay leaders to the parachurch organizations? Have we marginalized the opportunity to shape the next generation of Church leaders to the borderlands of our youth program? Have we become so committed to the veracity of one truth—the priesthood of all believers—that we have neglected an equally important truth--the setting apart of some for special service and leadership? Have we leaned too hard on the subjective impulse of the individual that we fail to see an individual’s calling as part of the clarifying work of the larger community of faith?
Look across your sanctuary next Sunday. Can you identify one…two…maybe three individuals who you could see leading your church courageously into the future? Maybe it’s only a hunch that you have. Maybe all that you have is a hunch that some young person will leave your midst and make an impact either in your local church or somewhere else. Taking on the responsibility of identifying and nurturing the future leadership of the Church is risky business. But, what an exciting adventure for you and for a young person who is in the beginning stages of sensing God’s leading in his or her life!
This blog is an archive of Gordon-Conwell's (GCTS) faculty blog, Every Thought Captive (2008-2012). It contains posts of Dr. Jeffrey Arthurs, Dr. Maria Boccia, Dr. Roy Ciampa, Dr. John Jefferson Davis, Dr. David Horn, and Dr. Sean McDonough. Other posts with information of interest to alumni of GCTS may be listed occasionally by the Alumni Services office.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Tame Tigers
By Sean McDonough, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
A few weeks ago, I went to the circus. They had the usual circus-y things: a marginally amusing clown troupe, acrobats, and tightrope walkers, all “enhanced” by a booming twenty-first century audio system and unnecessary video supplementation (why watch a live clown when you can watch one on TV?). Two things stood out: a fellow named Bello, who, while a clown in name and dress, is a jaw-droppingly good acrobat. Dressed in his silly clothes, he does handstands on a swaying chair fifty feet or more above the crowd (with no net) or runs on the outside of a gerbil-wheel/pendulum contraption that again lifts him net-less far beyond where any sane human being would go. Bello: the LeBron James of clowns.
The other memorable figure was the Tiger Tamer, though here I had a much more mixed reaction. On the one hand, it was amazing to watch one man and his whip (was it electrified, as some in the crowd murmured?) make eight or nine tigers do his bidding. James the brother of Jesus knew that mankind had tamed every type of beast (James 3:7), but I suppose even he would have been impressed by the display of mastery here. Tigers shaking hands, tigers running through hoops, tigers hopping across the circular cage like friendly little bunnies…
And I think it was that last one that turned the tide for me. Watching the tamed tiger jumping on his back legs like that suddenly didn’t seem astounding or frightening or amusing. It was just sad, sad to see a beast of such power and dignity compelled to do something so out of keeping with his nature. Was it the whip, electric or otherwise, that drove him on, or the promise of a few steaks after the show? Where had the tiger in him gone?
Sadder still was the thought that all too often we Christians are the same tame tigers. Bearers of God’s Spirit, heirs of a kingdom that will never end, partakers of the powers of the age to come, we cower when the world cracks its whip of persecution. We, whom God has purchased with the life of his Son, hop around like everyone else and slink back to our cages as long as they toss us a few slabs of beef. It is a pretty sad spectacle.
And while I would not have wanted the tigers to break out of their cages right there in the Boston Garden, I do think the church could unleash a little mayhem to break loose from our Babylonian captivity. I remember the words of Bagheera in Rudyard Kipling’s Jungle Book. He had been a pet once, too, as he reveals to Mowgli, but he was a pet no more: “They fed me behind bars from an iron pan till one night I felt that I was Bagheera – the Panther – and not man’s plaything, I broke the silly lock with one blow of my paw and came away; and because I had learned the ways of men, I became more terrible in the jungle than Shere Khan. Is it not so?”
Associate Professor of New Testament
A few weeks ago, I went to the circus. They had the usual circus-y things: a marginally amusing clown troupe, acrobats, and tightrope walkers, all “enhanced” by a booming twenty-first century audio system and unnecessary video supplementation (why watch a live clown when you can watch one on TV?). Two things stood out: a fellow named Bello, who, while a clown in name and dress, is a jaw-droppingly good acrobat. Dressed in his silly clothes, he does handstands on a swaying chair fifty feet or more above the crowd (with no net) or runs on the outside of a gerbil-wheel/pendulum contraption that again lifts him net-less far beyond where any sane human being would go. Bello: the LeBron James of clowns.
The other memorable figure was the Tiger Tamer, though here I had a much more mixed reaction. On the one hand, it was amazing to watch one man and his whip (was it electrified, as some in the crowd murmured?) make eight or nine tigers do his bidding. James the brother of Jesus knew that mankind had tamed every type of beast (James 3:7), but I suppose even he would have been impressed by the display of mastery here. Tigers shaking hands, tigers running through hoops, tigers hopping across the circular cage like friendly little bunnies…
And I think it was that last one that turned the tide for me. Watching the tamed tiger jumping on his back legs like that suddenly didn’t seem astounding or frightening or amusing. It was just sad, sad to see a beast of such power and dignity compelled to do something so out of keeping with his nature. Was it the whip, electric or otherwise, that drove him on, or the promise of a few steaks after the show? Where had the tiger in him gone?
Sadder still was the thought that all too often we Christians are the same tame tigers. Bearers of God’s Spirit, heirs of a kingdom that will never end, partakers of the powers of the age to come, we cower when the world cracks its whip of persecution. We, whom God has purchased with the life of his Son, hop around like everyone else and slink back to our cages as long as they toss us a few slabs of beef. It is a pretty sad spectacle.
And while I would not have wanted the tigers to break out of their cages right there in the Boston Garden, I do think the church could unleash a little mayhem to break loose from our Babylonian captivity. I remember the words of Bagheera in Rudyard Kipling’s Jungle Book. He had been a pet once, too, as he reveals to Mowgli, but he was a pet no more: “They fed me behind bars from an iron pan till one night I felt that I was Bagheera – the Panther – and not man’s plaything, I broke the silly lock with one blow of my paw and came away; and because I had learned the ways of men, I became more terrible in the jungle than Shere Khan. Is it not so?”
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Evangelicals and the Environment: Learning from Thomas Payne?
By Roy Ciampa, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
It is the time of the year when academic societies dedicated to the study of the Bible meet. The Evangelical Theological Society met last Wednesday to Friday, the Institute for Biblical Research met Friday evening and Saturday morning and the Society of Biblical Literature met from Friday night until Tuesday morning of this week.
The Institute for Biblical Research is essentially the American counterpart to Britain’s Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical and Theological Research. They are both evangelical fellowships dedicated to supporting biblical research. Reflection on the papers given on Saturday morning reminded me of Thomas Paine’s saying, “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.”
Sandra Richter [MATS '90] of Asbury Theological Seminary read the Old Testament paper on “Environmental Law in Deuteronomy: One lens on a Biblical Theology of Creation Care.” Here’s the abstract, taken from the Institute of Biblical Research website:
The testimony of the Old and New Testaments as a whole is that God is interested in the well-being of the earth and its creatures. The creation narrative initiates this message with the command to humanity to tend and protect the garden; the Nhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifew Testament confirms it with its report of the redemption of the cosmos, and the description of the New Jerusalem. Throughout there is a recurring message regarding humanity's responsibility as the steward of God's creation. This essay investigates that message as it is communicated in the politeia of ancient Israel, the book of Deuteronomy. Here the laws of land-tenure, agriculture, produce, warfare, wild creatures, and livestock are investigated with an eye toward the larger biblical theological message of the Bible. Israel's practice is compared to the norms of its ancient society, and modern parallels are proposed.
Douglas Moo of Wheaton Graduate School read the New Testament Paper on “Creation and New Creation.” Here’s the abstract for his paper, also taken from Institute of Biblical Research website:
The ecological crisis of our times has stimulated considerable interest in the teaching of the Bible about the created world. As evangelical biblical scholars, we have a particular obligation to respond to this crisis by discovering ahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifnd teaching truly biblical perspectives on the created world. In this paper, I pursue such an agenda by arguing that Paul's language of "new creation" cannot be reduced to an anthropological or ecclesiological focus. The OT and second-Temple Jewish background for the phrase, the contexts in which Paul uses it, and its place within Paul's wider theology make clear that the renewal of creation has an important place within Paul's proclamation of the "new creation." Moreover, the phrase bears significant ethical implications, some of which have bearing on our current ecological crisis.
Both papers were well done and I hope we will see them published in the Bulletin for Biblical Research. What does any of this have to do with Thomas Payne? It seems to me that caring for the environment is an area where until now evangelical interpretation of Scripture has failed to provide the leadership it should and we find ourselves following behind the society in which we live. Usually it is assumed that in these cases our interpretation of Scripture has been corrupted by the dominant views of society. In some cases, however, and I think this is an excellent example of such a case, developments in the wider society lead us to go back and read the scriptures again to see if we have not actually missed something that should have been recognized all along. In these cases “following” does not mean following society in some unbiblical direction but being prodded by our environment [!] to reconsider the scriptural evidence and follow it more faithfully than we did before. We may end up wishing we had led the society in these areas but it is better to follow along sometime later than to dig in our heels and continue to neglect an important part of biblical teaching. Better late than never….
Sometimes, of course we must not choose between leading, following and getting out of the way, but between leading, following or standing in the way. That is, sometimes Scripture leads us to take a stand against unjust or unrighteous developments in society and we must be prepared to take bold stands and seek to let light shine into the darkness. We evangelicals have usually been better at seeing where society is going wrong than we are at seeing where it has gotten something right, something that we should have seen all along. It is important to go and get our eyes checked from time to time. Parts of the environmental movement certainly have serious problems, but that should not blind us to the fact that we have been negligent in the responsibilities that God has given us to care for the creation that Christ died to redeem.
The papers by Richter and Moo are important reminders that “The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it” (Psalm 24:1, NIV). When it comes to caring for it we should lead, follow or get out of the way.
Associate Professor of New Testament
It is the time of the year when academic societies dedicated to the study of the Bible meet. The Evangelical Theological Society met last Wednesday to Friday, the Institute for Biblical Research met Friday evening and Saturday morning and the Society of Biblical Literature met from Friday night until Tuesday morning of this week.
The Institute for Biblical Research is essentially the American counterpart to Britain’s Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical and Theological Research. They are both evangelical fellowships dedicated to supporting biblical research. Reflection on the papers given on Saturday morning reminded me of Thomas Paine’s saying, “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.”
Sandra Richter [MATS '90] of Asbury Theological Seminary read the Old Testament paper on “Environmental Law in Deuteronomy: One lens on a Biblical Theology of Creation Care.” Here’s the abstract, taken from the Institute of Biblical Research website:
The testimony of the Old and New Testaments as a whole is that God is interested in the well-being of the earth and its creatures. The creation narrative initiates this message with the command to humanity to tend and protect the garden; the Nhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifew Testament confirms it with its report of the redemption of the cosmos, and the description of the New Jerusalem. Throughout there is a recurring message regarding humanity's responsibility as the steward of God's creation. This essay investigates that message as it is communicated in the politeia of ancient Israel, the book of Deuteronomy. Here the laws of land-tenure, agriculture, produce, warfare, wild creatures, and livestock are investigated with an eye toward the larger biblical theological message of the Bible. Israel's practice is compared to the norms of its ancient society, and modern parallels are proposed.
Douglas Moo of Wheaton Graduate School read the New Testament Paper on “Creation and New Creation.” Here’s the abstract for his paper, also taken from Institute of Biblical Research website:
The ecological crisis of our times has stimulated considerable interest in the teaching of the Bible about the created world. As evangelical biblical scholars, we have a particular obligation to respond to this crisis by discovering ahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifnd teaching truly biblical perspectives on the created world. In this paper, I pursue such an agenda by arguing that Paul's language of "new creation" cannot be reduced to an anthropological or ecclesiological focus. The OT and second-Temple Jewish background for the phrase, the contexts in which Paul uses it, and its place within Paul's wider theology make clear that the renewal of creation has an important place within Paul's proclamation of the "new creation." Moreover, the phrase bears significant ethical implications, some of which have bearing on our current ecological crisis.
Both papers were well done and I hope we will see them published in the Bulletin for Biblical Research. What does any of this have to do with Thomas Payne? It seems to me that caring for the environment is an area where until now evangelical interpretation of Scripture has failed to provide the leadership it should and we find ourselves following behind the society in which we live. Usually it is assumed that in these cases our interpretation of Scripture has been corrupted by the dominant views of society. In some cases, however, and I think this is an excellent example of such a case, developments in the wider society lead us to go back and read the scriptures again to see if we have not actually missed something that should have been recognized all along. In these cases “following” does not mean following society in some unbiblical direction but being prodded by our environment [!] to reconsider the scriptural evidence and follow it more faithfully than we did before. We may end up wishing we had led the society in these areas but it is better to follow along sometime later than to dig in our heels and continue to neglect an important part of biblical teaching. Better late than never….
Sometimes, of course we must not choose between leading, following and getting out of the way, but between leading, following or standing in the way. That is, sometimes Scripture leads us to take a stand against unjust or unrighteous developments in society and we must be prepared to take bold stands and seek to let light shine into the darkness. We evangelicals have usually been better at seeing where society is going wrong than we are at seeing where it has gotten something right, something that we should have seen all along. It is important to go and get our eyes checked from time to time. Parts of the environmental movement certainly have serious problems, but that should not blind us to the fact that we have been negligent in the responsibilities that God has given us to care for the creation that Christ died to redeem.
The papers by Richter and Moo are important reminders that “The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it” (Psalm 24:1, NIV). When it comes to caring for it we should lead, follow or get out of the way.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Sermons I Wish I'd Heard, Part 1: Tithing
By Maria Boccia, PhD
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology and
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling at the Charlotte campus
As I was considering ideas about which to write for this forum, I got to thinking about some of the sermons that I have wished I’d heard, but which I have never or rarely heard preached over the years. So I thought that one of the things I might do is to write occasionally about one of these topics. A topic near the top of this list is on the question of tithing and money. In some churches, it is a tradition at the end of the fiscal year for the pastor to preach at least one and perhaps a series of sermons on stewardship (in anticipation of people pledging financial support of the church for the coming year). In others (like most of the ones I have attended), the topic of tithing and money is avoided like the plague, which I consider ironic in light of the fact that something like 50% of Jesus’ teaching is about money. Then, as I was preparing to write on this topic, I received an e-mail from our pastor in Chapel Hill in which he talked about tithing, and attached two columns he had written on this topic in 2007. I thought I might share some of his thoughts with you. Thank you, Rob Tennant.
Have you considered that tithing is never mentioned in the New Testament? That's right! It is not! Tithing is an Old Testament concept: Deuteronomy 14 in particular mentions that the people of Israel should tithe, that is give one-tenth to God. God gives some interesting instructions to his people about tithing in this passage. He says that the tithe is to be taken to the place God has chosen for his name (ultimately, I suppose this refers to the Temple in Jerusalem). However, the Law notes that a person may live too far to travel there, and be unable to carry the tithe to that place. In this case, a person is to convert it to money, go to the place that God has designated for his name, and have a party and celebrate God. Take our tithe and throw a party? I think this tells us something about how God thinks about the attitudes he wants us to have with respect to our resources, time, and money. I also think it goes quite nicely with New Testament teaching about giving.
As I said, tithing is not mentioned in the New Testament. What is mentioned over and over again is generosity, and giving out of a full heart, cheerfully. See the connection? Here are some of the things Jesus says about money and generosity:
And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:40-42, NIV)
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Matthew 6:19-21, NIV)
Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on." (Mark 12:43-44, NIV)
Clearly what matters to Jesus is our attitude. It seems to me more about overflowing generosity than about measuring out 10%. Paul's comment, in 2 Corinthians 9:7-8, is telling:
Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. (NIV)
God loves a cheerful giver. This has a very different feeling to me than the idea of tithing. As in so many principles of the New Testament in comparison to the Old Testament, it calls us to a higher standard based on the attitude of our heart rather than an external standard. That is why Jesus praised the widow who gave her last mite over the wealthy Pharisee who gave his measured tenth.
My pastor summarized the principles about giving which we learn from the New Testament as follows:
- Give generously
- Give humbly
- Don’t overvalue money; put a greater value on the things of the Kingdom of God
- Give to those in need
- Recognize that all you have is really God’s
My pastor encourages us to begin with giving 10%. But that is just the starting point. We also need to think about giving generously, giving where we see the need, giving of all we are not just of our money. Then I think we will see the blessings of Malachi who understood God's promise when he said, "Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it." (3:10, NIV)
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology and
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling at the Charlotte campus
As I was considering ideas about which to write for this forum, I got to thinking about some of the sermons that I have wished I’d heard, but which I have never or rarely heard preached over the years. So I thought that one of the things I might do is to write occasionally about one of these topics. A topic near the top of this list is on the question of tithing and money. In some churches, it is a tradition at the end of the fiscal year for the pastor to preach at least one and perhaps a series of sermons on stewardship (in anticipation of people pledging financial support of the church for the coming year). In others (like most of the ones I have attended), the topic of tithing and money is avoided like the plague, which I consider ironic in light of the fact that something like 50% of Jesus’ teaching is about money. Then, as I was preparing to write on this topic, I received an e-mail from our pastor in Chapel Hill in which he talked about tithing, and attached two columns he had written on this topic in 2007. I thought I might share some of his thoughts with you. Thank you, Rob Tennant.
Have you considered that tithing is never mentioned in the New Testament? That's right! It is not! Tithing is an Old Testament concept: Deuteronomy 14 in particular mentions that the people of Israel should tithe, that is give one-tenth to God. God gives some interesting instructions to his people about tithing in this passage. He says that the tithe is to be taken to the place God has chosen for his name (ultimately, I suppose this refers to the Temple in Jerusalem). However, the Law notes that a person may live too far to travel there, and be unable to carry the tithe to that place. In this case, a person is to convert it to money, go to the place that God has designated for his name, and have a party and celebrate God. Take our tithe and throw a party? I think this tells us something about how God thinks about the attitudes he wants us to have with respect to our resources, time, and money. I also think it goes quite nicely with New Testament teaching about giving.
As I said, tithing is not mentioned in the New Testament. What is mentioned over and over again is generosity, and giving out of a full heart, cheerfully. See the connection? Here are some of the things Jesus says about money and generosity:
And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:40-42, NIV)
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Matthew 6:19-21, NIV)
Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on." (Mark 12:43-44, NIV)
Clearly what matters to Jesus is our attitude. It seems to me more about overflowing generosity than about measuring out 10%. Paul's comment, in 2 Corinthians 9:7-8, is telling:
Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. (NIV)
God loves a cheerful giver. This has a very different feeling to me than the idea of tithing. As in so many principles of the New Testament in comparison to the Old Testament, it calls us to a higher standard based on the attitude of our heart rather than an external standard. That is why Jesus praised the widow who gave her last mite over the wealthy Pharisee who gave his measured tenth.
My pastor summarized the principles about giving which we learn from the New Testament as follows:
- Give generously
- Give humbly
- Don’t overvalue money; put a greater value on the things of the Kingdom of God
- Give to those in need
- Recognize that all you have is really God’s
My pastor encourages us to begin with giving 10%. But that is just the starting point. We also need to think about giving generously, giving where we see the need, giving of all we are not just of our money. Then I think we will see the blessings of Malachi who understood God's promise when he said, "Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it." (3:10, NIV)
Monday, November 10, 2008
Zephyrs Wanted
By Jeff Arthurs
Professor of Preaching & Communication and Dean of the Chapel
I teach preaching, and sometimes I get tired of my own teaching. I get tired of the constant emphasis in my classes on rhetorical skill. Somehow that emphasis seems to crowd out deeper, loftier, or more pressing issues like theology and spirituality. Don’t get me wrong, all of us could use a heapin’ helpin’ of rhetorical training (boring sermons are so . . . boring, and confusing sermons are so . . . boring), but I often like to breathe the fresh air of pastoral theology. Like this:
“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account (Hebrews 13:17a, NASB).
Preachers are soul-watchers. Is that how you think of preaching—as keeping watch over souls? When we preach, we should “look at” souls (as when we watch the sunset), “tend” souls (as when we watch the fire), and “guard” souls (as when we stand on watch through the night). That last nuance is closest to Hebrews 13:17 because it says we are to “keep watch,” attentively guarding our dear congregation. In the context of the book of Hebrews the idea is that pastors are responsible to help believers keep believing. Our preaching should help them not slip back and turn from the Faith. Pastoring is serious business! Notice also that the verse says we will have to give an account of how well we did this. Real serious business!
That’s clean air for my lungs. Do you have any ideas for how I can incorporate more clean air in my teaching? Remember that I have only ten 3 hour sessions (and that those sessions are really 2.5 hours); remember that homiletics is a performance class (student sermons take up half of the ten sessions); remember that students really do need help with rhetoric (boring sermons are so boring); and remember that my training is in rhetoric (I think God has positioned me in the Church to be of service in that area). But I still need a breath of fresh air. I think my students do too. Please post your zephyrs to this blog.
Professor of Preaching & Communication and Dean of the Chapel
I teach preaching, and sometimes I get tired of my own teaching. I get tired of the constant emphasis in my classes on rhetorical skill. Somehow that emphasis seems to crowd out deeper, loftier, or more pressing issues like theology and spirituality. Don’t get me wrong, all of us could use a heapin’ helpin’ of rhetorical training (boring sermons are so . . . boring, and confusing sermons are so . . . boring), but I often like to breathe the fresh air of pastoral theology. Like this:
“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account (Hebrews 13:17a, NASB).
Preachers are soul-watchers. Is that how you think of preaching—as keeping watch over souls? When we preach, we should “look at” souls (as when we watch the sunset), “tend” souls (as when we watch the fire), and “guard” souls (as when we stand on watch through the night). That last nuance is closest to Hebrews 13:17 because it says we are to “keep watch,” attentively guarding our dear congregation. In the context of the book of Hebrews the idea is that pastors are responsible to help believers keep believing. Our preaching should help them not slip back and turn from the Faith. Pastoring is serious business! Notice also that the verse says we will have to give an account of how well we did this. Real serious business!
That’s clean air for my lungs. Do you have any ideas for how I can incorporate more clean air in my teaching? Remember that I have only ten 3 hour sessions (and that those sessions are really 2.5 hours); remember that homiletics is a performance class (student sermons take up half of the ten sessions); remember that students really do need help with rhetoric (boring sermons are so boring); and remember that my training is in rhetoric (I think God has positioned me in the Church to be of service in that area). But I still need a breath of fresh air. I think my students do too. Please post your zephyrs to this blog.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Small Church, Good Church, Good Shepherds
By John Jefferson Davis
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics
Recently I had the opportunity to be the plenary speaker at the annual convention of the American Baptist Churches of Maine, meeting at the United Baptist Church of Caribou, Maine, not far from the Canadian border. I was informed that Aroostook County, the northernmost county in the state and a center of the potato farming industry, has the land area of the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined! I had the pleasure of connecting with a good number of our graduates who pastor ABC churches in Maine, including Al Fletcher, the executive pastor of the ABC churches in the state, and Ken Phelps, an area minister and “pastor to pastors” in the region.
As I talked with the pastors over meals and during the breaks in the program, I was reminded that small churches can be good churches, and that the New Testament model of ministry is that of a shepherd who cares individually for the flock, and not that of a CEO who manages a large corporation. These pastors were doing good pastoral ministry in small churches in an economically depressed region, but their faithfulness and commitments to long-term ministries are deeply consistent with New Testament values. I took away from the weekend a renewed sense that our school, Gordon-Conwell, needs to pay attention to the needs of the small churches in New England and elsewhere, and not just to the needs of the mid-size and larger churches.
My messages to the pastors were focused on the theology of worship and the theme of the real presence of the holy and living God among his people as they gather for worship, drawing on the research that I have done for my book manuscript on this theme, tentatively titled Searching for God on Sunday Morning: the Ontology of Worship. The term “ontology” is meant to point to the “weighty reality” of the God who is really present among his people, not just “up there” or “in our hearts,” but truly “among us.”
In the message titled “Meeting Christ at the Table,” I presented an argument for more frequent communion and for an understanding of the Lord’s Supper that is not just one of “remembering” an event from the past, but an encounter with the Risen Christ who is spiritually present with his people at the table through Word and Spirit. If you would like to pursue this line of inquiry, you can download this chapter by clicking on the "Download File" link below.
God’s blessings on your ministry wherever you may be.
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics
Recently I had the opportunity to be the plenary speaker at the annual convention of the American Baptist Churches of Maine, meeting at the United Baptist Church of Caribou, Maine, not far from the Canadian border. I was informed that Aroostook County, the northernmost county in the state and a center of the potato farming industry, has the land area of the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined! I had the pleasure of connecting with a good number of our graduates who pastor ABC churches in Maine, including Al Fletcher, the executive pastor of the ABC churches in the state, and Ken Phelps, an area minister and “pastor to pastors” in the region.
As I talked with the pastors over meals and during the breaks in the program, I was reminded that small churches can be good churches, and that the New Testament model of ministry is that of a shepherd who cares individually for the flock, and not that of a CEO who manages a large corporation. These pastors were doing good pastoral ministry in small churches in an economically depressed region, but their faithfulness and commitments to long-term ministries are deeply consistent with New Testament values. I took away from the weekend a renewed sense that our school, Gordon-Conwell, needs to pay attention to the needs of the small churches in New England and elsewhere, and not just to the needs of the mid-size and larger churches.
My messages to the pastors were focused on the theology of worship and the theme of the real presence of the holy and living God among his people as they gather for worship, drawing on the research that I have done for my book manuscript on this theme, tentatively titled Searching for God on Sunday Morning: the Ontology of Worship. The term “ontology” is meant to point to the “weighty reality” of the God who is really present among his people, not just “up there” or “in our hearts,” but truly “among us.”
In the message titled “Meeting Christ at the Table,” I presented an argument for more frequent communion and for an understanding of the Lord’s Supper that is not just one of “remembering” an event from the past, but an encounter with the Risen Christ who is spiritually present with his people at the table through Word and Spirit. If you would like to pursue this line of inquiry, you can download this chapter by clicking on the "Download File" link below.
God’s blessings on your ministry wherever you may be.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Snake Soul Sludge
By Sean McDonough, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
My tub, like my mind, sometimes doesn’t work as quickly as it ought. So once a year or so, I need to tackle the dirty, but oddly satisfying, job of getting rid of the sludge that keeps the water from draining. I lay down some newspaper, get down on the floor, remove the massive cover of the drum trap, insert the coiled snake as far into the pipe as I can, and start to twist the snake. After a few minutes, I pull it back up to see what I have caught. The result, if I am lucky, is not pretty. [CAUTION: THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE CONTAINS MATERIAL OF A GRAPHIC NATURE.] If I have snaked successfully, I will pull up a tangled black mass of sludge and hair, like a hunk of muddy wild boar flesh – the bigger and badder the better, because it means more room for the water to flow out. I clean up my tools and myself, replace the cover, and walk away a more contented man.
Alert readers who have read the title of this piece, and have managed to weather the storm of disturbing imagery in the previous paragraph, may sense where this is headed. Dirty bath water is not the only thing we need drained from our lives. Day by day, week by week, we face temptations, insults, resentments, confusion – and if all is going well we slough it off and keep moving on. But as all those little things can begin to accumulate in our soul, we can find it harder to keep the debris moving downstream. “Why do I always get stuck with the worst committee assignments?” “Why do my babies have to scream on the plane when no one else's do?” “I can’t believe my roommate borrowed my iPod again without asking!”
It’s not the big things I am talking about here. Occasionally, we have had to extricate a Playmobil helmet or some such thing from the plumbing, and that requires bringing in the heavy hitters of the pipe cleaning world. But the real problem is the gradual build-up of hair and dirt that slip past the screen and set up their secret and growing fraternity somewhere beyond the drum trap. I suspect that for most of us, the same holds true for our spiritual lives: we might not commit egregious sins that block us up all at once; we just grow ever more sclerotic from trivial grudges and petty distractions.
Snaking your soul sludge could take any number of forms, and my main purpose here is to identify the problem rather than to detail the solutions. You might find deliverance by going on a weekend retreat, or joining a small group, or committing to a new prayer regimen. The key is to realize that even the best-intentioned believer can find his or her spiritual progress blocked by the detritus of everyday life, and to seek by God’s grace to get rid of the blockage.
And if your time of reflection dredges up some things that are a bit unpleasant to look at, don’t be discouraged. Awareness can lead to repentance, and repentance leads to a healthier relationship with God. However you do it, start snaking your soul sludge.
Associate Professor of New Testament
My tub, like my mind, sometimes doesn’t work as quickly as it ought. So once a year or so, I need to tackle the dirty, but oddly satisfying, job of getting rid of the sludge that keeps the water from draining. I lay down some newspaper, get down on the floor, remove the massive cover of the drum trap, insert the coiled snake as far into the pipe as I can, and start to twist the snake. After a few minutes, I pull it back up to see what I have caught. The result, if I am lucky, is not pretty. [CAUTION: THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE CONTAINS MATERIAL OF A GRAPHIC NATURE.] If I have snaked successfully, I will pull up a tangled black mass of sludge and hair, like a hunk of muddy wild boar flesh – the bigger and badder the better, because it means more room for the water to flow out. I clean up my tools and myself, replace the cover, and walk away a more contented man.
Alert readers who have read the title of this piece, and have managed to weather the storm of disturbing imagery in the previous paragraph, may sense where this is headed. Dirty bath water is not the only thing we need drained from our lives. Day by day, week by week, we face temptations, insults, resentments, confusion – and if all is going well we slough it off and keep moving on. But as all those little things can begin to accumulate in our soul, we can find it harder to keep the debris moving downstream. “Why do I always get stuck with the worst committee assignments?” “Why do my babies have to scream on the plane when no one else's do?” “I can’t believe my roommate borrowed my iPod again without asking!”
It’s not the big things I am talking about here. Occasionally, we have had to extricate a Playmobil helmet or some such thing from the plumbing, and that requires bringing in the heavy hitters of the pipe cleaning world. But the real problem is the gradual build-up of hair and dirt that slip past the screen and set up their secret and growing fraternity somewhere beyond the drum trap. I suspect that for most of us, the same holds true for our spiritual lives: we might not commit egregious sins that block us up all at once; we just grow ever more sclerotic from trivial grudges and petty distractions.
Snaking your soul sludge could take any number of forms, and my main purpose here is to identify the problem rather than to detail the solutions. You might find deliverance by going on a weekend retreat, or joining a small group, or committing to a new prayer regimen. The key is to realize that even the best-intentioned believer can find his or her spiritual progress blocked by the detritus of everyday life, and to seek by God’s grace to get rid of the blockage.
And if your time of reflection dredges up some things that are a bit unpleasant to look at, don’t be discouraged. Awareness can lead to repentance, and repentance leads to a healthier relationship with God. However you do it, start snaking your soul sludge.
Monday, October 20, 2008
A Wicked Experience in the Big Apple
By Roy Ciampa, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
I just passed through one of those milestone birthdays. Let’s just say I can no longer say I’m in my 40’s…. For this special birthday my wonderful wife, Marcelle, planned a trip to New York City with a couple of our best friends. I had been to NYC a couple times before but never as a tourist. We were there for three beautiful days and filled our time with interesting and perhaps life-shaping events (it’s a bit too soon to say for certain…). We stayed in a hotel just off of Times Square and we were able to walk to just about everything we saw. I confess I experienced some sensory overload, but the experience was one I will never forget and one for which I am extremely grateful. What a great weekend!
The highlights included two Broadway musicals. We saw Hairspray and Wicked. Although they are very different stories they both address issues of prejudice. Hairspray is the more conventional (less thought-provoking) of the two, with its black-and-white characters (n.b. the double entendre) and the happy-ever-after ending. It was full of fun, energy and terrific music. Wicked is more brooding. It calls into question the overly simplistic application of terms like good and evil in a revisionist prequel to The Wizard of Oz which shows that Elphaba (the Witch of the West) was not so evil after all, while those who demonized her were acting duplicitously either out of prejudice or self-interest.
Some of the first lyrics include:
Let us be glad, Let us be grateful,
Let us rejoicify that goodness could subdue
The wicked workings of you know who!
Isn't it nice to know that good will conquer evil?
The truth we all believe'll by and by outlive a lie
This sounds very much like traditional Christian teaching (see, e.g. 1 Corinthians 15 on Christ’s victory over death, etc.), but it is subverted by the (about to be revealed) knowledge that the moral categories were being wrongly applied. The story would end up revealing that “the truth we all believe” would not outlive a lie, but rather was the lie!
Other lyrics almost sound as though they were taken from the book of Proverbs or other Old Testament wisdom literature. For instance:
No one mourns the wicked!
No one cries they won't return!
No one lays a lily on their grave!
The good man scorns the wicked!
Through their lives our children learn! What we miss when we misbehave!
Again, this traditional moral teaching is undermined by the knowledge that the terms good and wicked were being wrongly and simplistically applied thanks to the manipulation of perceptions by those who held power and influence in Ozian society.
I’ll share just one final bit of lyrics. This one ends with a paraphrase of Galatians 6:7:
Goodness knows
The wicked cry alone
Nothing grows for the wicked
They reap only what they've sown
I’m sure some will see all of this as merely an attempt to undermine traditional Christian moral categories but there is no real moral relativism here. We see both good and evil in the main characters and are shocked by the hypocrisy and wicked manipulation of society’s application of the categories of good and evil. Such a manipulation has been an often observed part of the modern and postmodern experience and not just something prevalent in story books or ancient times. Like the books of Job and Ecclesiastes, Wicked warns against the simplistic, naïve or socially convenient application of powerful terms like good and evil in a world filled with complex characters, mixed motives, deceitful hearts, hypocrisy and politics marked by self-interest. There is a certain shocking, Nathan-confronts-David nature to the message (see 2 Samuel 12:1-7) which is a healthy and important challenge for us to hear.
One of the other highlights of the weekend was an audio tour of Ground Zero. What a moving and highly recommended experience! A place marked by both human wickedness and human goodness and an event which has also been manipulated at times to advance simplistic views of good and evil in the world…. As the American presidential campaign approaches its end the American population finds itself occasionally being fed a diet of rhetoric in which the opposing candidates (all well-respected people before the campaigns began) are demonized for the sake of the advantage gained by the candidacy of the other. Sometimes this is done to the applause of those most clearly identified as “Christians.” We all know “The good man scorns the wicked!” Sometimes people are all too eager to let a strong voice tell them which is “the good” man and which “the wicked” so they can pour their scorn on the right one. May God give us all greater wisdom than that, for the sake of this nation and those affected by its leadership.
Back to our trip to NYC. Did I make any special contribution to the betterment of society while visiting the Big Apple? Well, we visited the Hard Rock Café and I bought a cap that says “Save the Planet” on the front and “Love all, serve all” on the back. I rejoicify (sic) in the knowledge that with a simple $20 purchase I have advanced such a wonderful agenda, promoting good and the overthrow of evil through one little act of consumerism. What a comfort it would be, I suppose, if we actually lived in such a morally simple universe…. My birthday trip is now over, however, and I hope that in remaining years that God gives me I might, by his grace and mercy, make a greater difference in this complex, broken and hurting world than I have in the years I have lived so far. “Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever! Amen” (Ephesians 3:20-21, NIV).
Associate Professor of New Testament
I just passed through one of those milestone birthdays. Let’s just say I can no longer say I’m in my 40’s…. For this special birthday my wonderful wife, Marcelle, planned a trip to New York City with a couple of our best friends. I had been to NYC a couple times before but never as a tourist. We were there for three beautiful days and filled our time with interesting and perhaps life-shaping events (it’s a bit too soon to say for certain…). We stayed in a hotel just off of Times Square and we were able to walk to just about everything we saw. I confess I experienced some sensory overload, but the experience was one I will never forget and one for which I am extremely grateful. What a great weekend!
The highlights included two Broadway musicals. We saw Hairspray and Wicked. Although they are very different stories they both address issues of prejudice. Hairspray is the more conventional (less thought-provoking) of the two, with its black-and-white characters (n.b. the double entendre) and the happy-ever-after ending. It was full of fun, energy and terrific music. Wicked is more brooding. It calls into question the overly simplistic application of terms like good and evil in a revisionist prequel to The Wizard of Oz which shows that Elphaba (the Witch of the West) was not so evil after all, while those who demonized her were acting duplicitously either out of prejudice or self-interest.
Some of the first lyrics include:
Let us be glad, Let us be grateful,
Let us rejoicify that goodness could subdue
The wicked workings of you know who!
Isn't it nice to know that good will conquer evil?
The truth we all believe'll by and by outlive a lie
This sounds very much like traditional Christian teaching (see, e.g. 1 Corinthians 15 on Christ’s victory over death, etc.), but it is subverted by the (about to be revealed) knowledge that the moral categories were being wrongly applied. The story would end up revealing that “the truth we all believe” would not outlive a lie, but rather was the lie!
Other lyrics almost sound as though they were taken from the book of Proverbs or other Old Testament wisdom literature. For instance:
No one mourns the wicked!
No one cries they won't return!
No one lays a lily on their grave!
The good man scorns the wicked!
Through their lives our children learn! What we miss when we misbehave!
Again, this traditional moral teaching is undermined by the knowledge that the terms good and wicked were being wrongly and simplistically applied thanks to the manipulation of perceptions by those who held power and influence in Ozian society.
I’ll share just one final bit of lyrics. This one ends with a paraphrase of Galatians 6:7:
Goodness knows
The wicked cry alone
Nothing grows for the wicked
They reap only what they've sown
I’m sure some will see all of this as merely an attempt to undermine traditional Christian moral categories but there is no real moral relativism here. We see both good and evil in the main characters and are shocked by the hypocrisy and wicked manipulation of society’s application of the categories of good and evil. Such a manipulation has been an often observed part of the modern and postmodern experience and not just something prevalent in story books or ancient times. Like the books of Job and Ecclesiastes, Wicked warns against the simplistic, naïve or socially convenient application of powerful terms like good and evil in a world filled with complex characters, mixed motives, deceitful hearts, hypocrisy and politics marked by self-interest. There is a certain shocking, Nathan-confronts-David nature to the message (see 2 Samuel 12:1-7) which is a healthy and important challenge for us to hear.
One of the other highlights of the weekend was an audio tour of Ground Zero. What a moving and highly recommended experience! A place marked by both human wickedness and human goodness and an event which has also been manipulated at times to advance simplistic views of good and evil in the world…. As the American presidential campaign approaches its end the American population finds itself occasionally being fed a diet of rhetoric in which the opposing candidates (all well-respected people before the campaigns began) are demonized for the sake of the advantage gained by the candidacy of the other. Sometimes this is done to the applause of those most clearly identified as “Christians.” We all know “The good man scorns the wicked!” Sometimes people are all too eager to let a strong voice tell them which is “the good” man and which “the wicked” so they can pour their scorn on the right one. May God give us all greater wisdom than that, for the sake of this nation and those affected by its leadership.
Back to our trip to NYC. Did I make any special contribution to the betterment of society while visiting the Big Apple? Well, we visited the Hard Rock Café and I bought a cap that says “Save the Planet” on the front and “Love all, serve all” on the back. I rejoicify (sic) in the knowledge that with a simple $20 purchase I have advanced such a wonderful agenda, promoting good and the overthrow of evil through one little act of consumerism. What a comfort it would be, I suppose, if we actually lived in such a morally simple universe…. My birthday trip is now over, however, and I hope that in remaining years that God gives me I might, by his grace and mercy, make a greater difference in this complex, broken and hurting world than I have in the years I have lived so far. “Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever! Amen” (Ephesians 3:20-21, NIV).
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Hope and Suffering
By Maria Boccia, PhD
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology and
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling at the Charlotte campus
When I used to think of Hannah, I used to think of God’s blessing in her life, the provision of the son, Samuel, for whom she had begged God. I used to think of the other sons and daughters he gave her to give her joy in her life. But I have a new perspective.
It started with revisiting the book of Ruth and seeing Naomi. She had many years of grief and suffering before she saw the blessing of God. She and her family were devastated by a famine. So devastated that her husband uprooted the family and moved them to a foreign country outside Israel who worshiped false gods. She must have been devastated watching her husband try to survive the drought, planting only to see it shrivel up and die. Finally, to move, to leave all her family and friends, her home and neighbors, and move to a country where she would be a stranger and would be surrounded by those who do not know the God of Israel. After uprooting her and moving her and her sons to Moab, he dies, leaving her alone. Her only resource was her two sons. While there, her sons married Moabite women. Did this bring her joy? Unlikely - they married women from outside Israel who did not worship God. They would be a temptation to her sons to lead them away from the one true God. In the ten years they were married to these women, they did not produce children. Both sons were childless! Then both her sons died. She felt worse than abandoned by God. She felt that God had dealt with her bitterly. When she returned to Israel, she urged her daughters-in-law to return to their families and not stay with her. Naomi had lost all hope. "Don’t come with me. You can expect nothing from me. My life is pretty much over and I have nothing left to offer." Orpah left. Ruth refused to leave her. She had become a believer in the God of Israel - how? Naomi? Her sons? When she returns to Israel, she is still impoverished. Her only means of survival is the grain that Ruth was able to glean in the fields - was Naomi so old at this point that she couldn’t even glean? It is at this low point that God turns things around. Boaz comes into the picture, marries Ruth and produces the grandson for Naomi that her own sons did not. And, she and Ruth are a part of the story of the coming of Jesus.
What did Naomi gain from all the misery in her life, before God turned it around? Naomi was so focused on what she lost that she failed to see what she had: God had blessed her and provided for her in Ruth, who loved her and cared for her so that she did not die nor have to beg to survive.
When I used to read Hannah’s story, I read either about how she dealt with her depression by having faith in God’s promise, or I saw the promise of God in that he blessed her with a child in her old age. But, I looked again after reading about Naomi and seeing her story in a new way. Hannah suffered unbearably for many years before she received God’s blessing. She was childless, so her husband took a second wife to produce heirs. She produced "sons and daughters." Hannah was more beloved of Elkanah than Peninnah, but this served only to embitter Peninnah against Hannah. Peninnah tormented Hannah - probably over her childlessness. This had to go on for years: If Peninnah had only 2 boys and 2 girls, and weaned them at 3 years old, she would have had to been Elkanah’s second wife for at least 12 years! It was in all likelihood much more than that. All the while tormenting Hannah. No wonder she was depressed!
She was depressed because her expectations for marriage had failed - she had not had the children her culture had taught her were a blessing to women. She believed the lie that barrenness was a sign from God of judgement. She had not been able to fulfill her responsibility to produce heirs for her husband, who loved her. She experienced the bitterness of the disruption of her marriage by the addition of a second wife, which she probably blamed on herself for being childless. Peninnah’s fruitfulness made her believe that it was "her fault" that she was childless. Something was wrong with her . . . God had closed her womb because of something in her.
To add insult to injury, Eli accused her of being drunk when she was in the Tabernacle praying to God for deliverance from this tormented life through provision of a son.
When Eli offered a blessing, however vague his understanding was, something changed in Hannah - she was no longer depressed by the circumstances of her life. She had not yet conceived, Peninnah still tormented her, but she was no longer depressed.
What happened? What did Hannah learn?
In her prayer she expressed the following truths:
The Lord God is holy and He is the only God
She learned to rely on God alone
God is the one who gives or takes away anything we have in life
God is the one who gives children
God’s favor is what brings joy, not the things of this life that society tells us we must have
God has the power of life and death, to give wealth and poverty, children and barrenness
Those who oppose God will be overthrown and judged
What had she learned before she conceived that enabled to overcome her depression, even before God gave her the son? Were these truths expressed in her song the things she learned? God brought Hannah to the place where she was able to give her son to God. If she had had children in the normal course of life, she would probably have not given Samuel to God. But she became willing to do so.
Did God give these difficult years to these two women to build character? What kind of women did they become? They were dependent on God for their comfort and sense of worth. They developed patience, no doubt. They became the kind of women who could raise sons like Obed, the grandfather of David, and Samuel, the prophet of God. They became Chayil women.
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology and
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling at the Charlotte campus
When I used to think of Hannah, I used to think of God’s blessing in her life, the provision of the son, Samuel, for whom she had begged God. I used to think of the other sons and daughters he gave her to give her joy in her life. But I have a new perspective.
It started with revisiting the book of Ruth and seeing Naomi. She had many years of grief and suffering before she saw the blessing of God. She and her family were devastated by a famine. So devastated that her husband uprooted the family and moved them to a foreign country outside Israel who worshiped false gods. She must have been devastated watching her husband try to survive the drought, planting only to see it shrivel up and die. Finally, to move, to leave all her family and friends, her home and neighbors, and move to a country where she would be a stranger and would be surrounded by those who do not know the God of Israel. After uprooting her and moving her and her sons to Moab, he dies, leaving her alone. Her only resource was her two sons. While there, her sons married Moabite women. Did this bring her joy? Unlikely - they married women from outside Israel who did not worship God. They would be a temptation to her sons to lead them away from the one true God. In the ten years they were married to these women, they did not produce children. Both sons were childless! Then both her sons died. She felt worse than abandoned by God. She felt that God had dealt with her bitterly. When she returned to Israel, she urged her daughters-in-law to return to their families and not stay with her. Naomi had lost all hope. "Don’t come with me. You can expect nothing from me. My life is pretty much over and I have nothing left to offer." Orpah left. Ruth refused to leave her. She had become a believer in the God of Israel - how? Naomi? Her sons? When she returns to Israel, she is still impoverished. Her only means of survival is the grain that Ruth was able to glean in the fields - was Naomi so old at this point that she couldn’t even glean? It is at this low point that God turns things around. Boaz comes into the picture, marries Ruth and produces the grandson for Naomi that her own sons did not. And, she and Ruth are a part of the story of the coming of Jesus.
What did Naomi gain from all the misery in her life, before God turned it around? Naomi was so focused on what she lost that she failed to see what she had: God had blessed her and provided for her in Ruth, who loved her and cared for her so that she did not die nor have to beg to survive.
When I used to read Hannah’s story, I read either about how she dealt with her depression by having faith in God’s promise, or I saw the promise of God in that he blessed her with a child in her old age. But, I looked again after reading about Naomi and seeing her story in a new way. Hannah suffered unbearably for many years before she received God’s blessing. She was childless, so her husband took a second wife to produce heirs. She produced "sons and daughters." Hannah was more beloved of Elkanah than Peninnah, but this served only to embitter Peninnah against Hannah. Peninnah tormented Hannah - probably over her childlessness. This had to go on for years: If Peninnah had only 2 boys and 2 girls, and weaned them at 3 years old, she would have had to been Elkanah’s second wife for at least 12 years! It was in all likelihood much more than that. All the while tormenting Hannah. No wonder she was depressed!
She was depressed because her expectations for marriage had failed - she had not had the children her culture had taught her were a blessing to women. She believed the lie that barrenness was a sign from God of judgement. She had not been able to fulfill her responsibility to produce heirs for her husband, who loved her. She experienced the bitterness of the disruption of her marriage by the addition of a second wife, which she probably blamed on herself for being childless. Peninnah’s fruitfulness made her believe that it was "her fault" that she was childless. Something was wrong with her . . . God had closed her womb because of something in her.
To add insult to injury, Eli accused her of being drunk when she was in the Tabernacle praying to God for deliverance from this tormented life through provision of a son.
When Eli offered a blessing, however vague his understanding was, something changed in Hannah - she was no longer depressed by the circumstances of her life. She had not yet conceived, Peninnah still tormented her, but she was no longer depressed.
What happened? What did Hannah learn?
In her prayer she expressed the following truths:
The Lord God is holy and He is the only God
She learned to rely on God alone
God is the one who gives or takes away anything we have in life
God is the one who gives children
God’s favor is what brings joy, not the things of this life that society tells us we must have
God has the power of life and death, to give wealth and poverty, children and barrenness
Those who oppose God will be overthrown and judged
What had she learned before she conceived that enabled to overcome her depression, even before God gave her the son? Were these truths expressed in her song the things she learned? God brought Hannah to the place where she was able to give her son to God. If she had had children in the normal course of life, she would probably have not given Samuel to God. But she became willing to do so.
Did God give these difficult years to these two women to build character? What kind of women did they become? They were dependent on God for their comfort and sense of worth. They developed patience, no doubt. They became the kind of women who could raise sons like Obed, the grandfather of David, and Samuel, the prophet of God. They became Chayil women.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Spiritual Formation
By John Jefferson Davis
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics
At a recent coffee hour in the seminary cafeteria our new president, Dr. Dennis Hollinger, gave an update on current happenings at the school and responded to student questions. The final question came from a student who asked, “Can you share with us some of your own experiences as a seminary student? What were some of the ‘highlights’ and ‘lowlights’?”
Dr. Hollinger paused for a moment, and then said the big highlights were the mind-stretching new studies and insights from scripture, theology, apologetics and other theological topics, and secondly, the friendships that he formed in seminary that have continued down to the present day. In terms of ‘lowlights’ or less than satisfactory aspects of his seminary days, he pointed to spiritual formation as an area that was not what it could or should have been: the “head” far outstripped the “heart” as a focus of growth during those years (though, he noted, the school in question has since tried to address this area in its curriculum).
The president’s remarks caught my attention, because I know that as a point of faculty discussion and concern spiritual formation is a topic that we need to address – and hear from you about. As a current student, or alum, are there observations that you can share with us as faculty that can help us to do a better job of training future leaders in the church in this area? How did you or do you find that classroom teaching, the chapel program, campus Bible studies, the Pierce Center, local churches, and other campus activities contributed to your spiritual growth? We need to hear from you and learn from your experience at Gordon-Conwell.
I am currently trying to integrate more fully into my theology courses practical applications that relate to spirituality, prayer, meditation, and worship. My current book manuscript, The Ontology of Worship, addresses the connection between worship as the high priority of the church and the spiritual formation of its members.
I would also like to make available to you, if you are interested in these matters, two annotated bibliographies that may help your own study and reading in the areas of spiritual formation and Christian spirituality: “Devotional Classics,” my list of all-time favorites in the history of Christian devotional writings; and “Testing the Spirits,” a resource for spiritual discernment and testing the phenomena of revival movements, based on principles gleaned from the early church, the Great Awakening, and the history of spiritual direction. You can access these bibliographies by clicking on the "Download File" link below.
May God continue to bless you as you seek to grow in Christ.
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics
At a recent coffee hour in the seminary cafeteria our new president, Dr. Dennis Hollinger, gave an update on current happenings at the school and responded to student questions. The final question came from a student who asked, “Can you share with us some of your own experiences as a seminary student? What were some of the ‘highlights’ and ‘lowlights’?”
Dr. Hollinger paused for a moment, and then said the big highlights were the mind-stretching new studies and insights from scripture, theology, apologetics and other theological topics, and secondly, the friendships that he formed in seminary that have continued down to the present day. In terms of ‘lowlights’ or less than satisfactory aspects of his seminary days, he pointed to spiritual formation as an area that was not what it could or should have been: the “head” far outstripped the “heart” as a focus of growth during those years (though, he noted, the school in question has since tried to address this area in its curriculum).
The president’s remarks caught my attention, because I know that as a point of faculty discussion and concern spiritual formation is a topic that we need to address – and hear from you about. As a current student, or alum, are there observations that you can share with us as faculty that can help us to do a better job of training future leaders in the church in this area? How did you or do you find that classroom teaching, the chapel program, campus Bible studies, the Pierce Center, local churches, and other campus activities contributed to your spiritual growth? We need to hear from you and learn from your experience at Gordon-Conwell.
I am currently trying to integrate more fully into my theology courses practical applications that relate to spirituality, prayer, meditation, and worship. My current book manuscript, The Ontology of Worship, addresses the connection between worship as the high priority of the church and the spiritual formation of its members.
I would also like to make available to you, if you are interested in these matters, two annotated bibliographies that may help your own study and reading in the areas of spiritual formation and Christian spirituality: “Devotional Classics,” my list of all-time favorites in the history of Christian devotional writings; and “Testing the Spirits,” a resource for spiritual discernment and testing the phenomena of revival movements, based on principles gleaned from the early church, the Great Awakening, and the history of spiritual direction. You can access these bibliographies by clicking on the "Download File" link below.
May God continue to bless you as you seek to grow in Christ.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Doing Your Job
By Sean McDonough, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
Last month I had the opportunity to speak to a group of relief workers who labor in some of the most forbidding places in the world: Darfur, Afghanistan, the Congo. As a young Christian, I had visions of doing this sort of thing, replete with half-formed, misty-eyed images of myself serving food to the wretched of the earth. But as I have spent time talking with the leaders of this organization, one truth has been hammered home: I am about the last person in the world who would be any good at the sorts of things relief agencies actually do. Warm feelings and an openness to new experiences do not qualify you to locate potable water sources or manage local contractors or ensure that new homes can withstand earthquakes. As much as I might have imagined love was spurring me on to get into this work, in the context of disaster relief, love boils down to…doing your job. And doing your job usually has little to do with sentiment, and everything to do with getting down to using the gifts God has given you.
Now, the timing of my next illustration is embarrassingly bad, given that the New England Patriots were just thrashed by the lowly Miami Dolphins. But over the last few years, the Patriots have been wildly successful while embracing two apparently contradictory principles: on the one hand, a submission of individual goals to team goals; and on the other hand, a remarkable creativity in the overall game plan. Linebacker Mike Vrabel may find his sack totals are down sometimes because the defensive scheme requires him to stay back more in pass coverage…but he then finds himself catching touchdown passes in the Super Bowl when he is inserted into the offense. What makes it work? A brilliant coach, and players who are willing to do their job.
It isn't hard to see the analogies with our service to God: as part of his surpassingly brilliant plan to get his creation project back on track, God has given each of us particular gifts (see especially 1 Corinthians 12-14); we are good at some things, and not at others, and as we bumble our way through life our strengths and weaknesses become pretty evident. But there is something which is sometimes hard for pastors and teachers to see: the need to let other people do their job. It's a natural human tendency to place the highest value on things we happen to be good at, and so we in the teaching profession put great stock in Ideas, which is fine…except that we sometimes make people feel as if ideas are the only things that matter.
I am reminded of one of my favorite scenes in Garrison Keillor's Lake Woebegon Days (Viking, 1985), where the crusty maintenance man Bud is recalling the night in 1965 when the water main froze: “Thirty feet of pipe he uncovered and laid hot coals on, and then it was two in the morning and hardly a soul around. Gone to bed so they could get up for church. Oh yeah. Go to church. Real good. But they hadn't called Father Emil or Pastor Inqvist when the water went out, now did they? No sir.” Bud's a little bitter, and a little too focused on plumbing as the centerpiece of life. But he has a point. I love teaching, and I believe it's an important job. But it's not the only job. Because if your pipes burst at two in the morning, you don't want to call me.
Call Bud.
Associate Professor of New Testament
Last month I had the opportunity to speak to a group of relief workers who labor in some of the most forbidding places in the world: Darfur, Afghanistan, the Congo. As a young Christian, I had visions of doing this sort of thing, replete with half-formed, misty-eyed images of myself serving food to the wretched of the earth. But as I have spent time talking with the leaders of this organization, one truth has been hammered home: I am about the last person in the world who would be any good at the sorts of things relief agencies actually do. Warm feelings and an openness to new experiences do not qualify you to locate potable water sources or manage local contractors or ensure that new homes can withstand earthquakes. As much as I might have imagined love was spurring me on to get into this work, in the context of disaster relief, love boils down to…doing your job. And doing your job usually has little to do with sentiment, and everything to do with getting down to using the gifts God has given you.
Now, the timing of my next illustration is embarrassingly bad, given that the New England Patriots were just thrashed by the lowly Miami Dolphins. But over the last few years, the Patriots have been wildly successful while embracing two apparently contradictory principles: on the one hand, a submission of individual goals to team goals; and on the other hand, a remarkable creativity in the overall game plan. Linebacker Mike Vrabel may find his sack totals are down sometimes because the defensive scheme requires him to stay back more in pass coverage…but he then finds himself catching touchdown passes in the Super Bowl when he is inserted into the offense. What makes it work? A brilliant coach, and players who are willing to do their job.
It isn't hard to see the analogies with our service to God: as part of his surpassingly brilliant plan to get his creation project back on track, God has given each of us particular gifts (see especially 1 Corinthians 12-14); we are good at some things, and not at others, and as we bumble our way through life our strengths and weaknesses become pretty evident. But there is something which is sometimes hard for pastors and teachers to see: the need to let other people do their job. It's a natural human tendency to place the highest value on things we happen to be good at, and so we in the teaching profession put great stock in Ideas, which is fine…except that we sometimes make people feel as if ideas are the only things that matter.
I am reminded of one of my favorite scenes in Garrison Keillor's Lake Woebegon Days (Viking, 1985), where the crusty maintenance man Bud is recalling the night in 1965 when the water main froze: “Thirty feet of pipe he uncovered and laid hot coals on, and then it was two in the morning and hardly a soul around. Gone to bed so they could get up for church. Oh yeah. Go to church. Real good. But they hadn't called Father Emil or Pastor Inqvist when the water went out, now did they? No sir.” Bud's a little bitter, and a little too focused on plumbing as the centerpiece of life. But he has a point. I love teaching, and I believe it's an important job. But it's not the only job. Because if your pipes burst at two in the morning, you don't want to call me.
Call Bud.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Confronting the Bible's Double Life
By Roy Ciampa, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
Karen Armstrong’s recent book, The Bible: A Biography (New York: Atlantic Monthly, 2007), provides an interesting discussion of some of the main emphases in biblical interpretation through the centuries. It is very narrow type of biography which, kindly, only occasionally mentions some of the dark sides or moments in interpretation of the Bible. One could write much more about many aspects of the history of the interpretation of the Bible, and much more about the dark side to the Bible’s biography. In Romans 7:12 Paul says “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good” (NIV). The same (and more) may be said about the Bible as a whole. But just as Paul points out that the holy, righteous and good law has been used by sin to produce evil and death, the Bible has continued to be abused by some people throughout church history.
I love the Bible. I have spent a good part of my adult life studying it and teaching others about it. Most semesters I teach a course called Interpreting the New Testament and I confess that it is an incredible privilege to help committed Christian men and women grow in their abilities as interpreters of Scripture. I am constantly reminded of the crucial role of engaging Scripture for the health of churches and believers. But I am also constantly reminded of the horrible damage that can be done and that has been done when Scripture has been wrongly interpreted and used as a weapon to oppress or abuse others.
Throughout history the Bible has been used to justify all kinds of injustice and to empower people with oppressive agendas. At different times and in different places, the Bible has been used to justify slavery, wife abuse, child abuse, the crusades, the inquisition, anti-Semitism, racism, apartheid, the use of violence (including deadly force) against those who were accused of not following its teachings, etc. In Armstrong’s view “A thread of hatred runs through the New Testament” (76). I would dispute that, but there is little dispute that a thread of hatred has appeared here and there throughout the history of its interpretation.
Ideological criticism needs to be added to the toolbox of evangelical pastors and leaders. Even those of us who have difficulty applying ideological criticism to the biblical texts themselves should not hesitate for a moment to apply it to the ways that people (including pastors) interpret the Scriptures. Christians need to be the first and the loudest to speak out against the use of Scripture to oppress and abuse others. Since there is such a history of people who consider themselves Christians supporting abusive and oppressive interpretations of Scripture, it might be a good thing for us to be slightly over-sensitive and to be on the alert for interpretations that empower the powerful rather than holding them accountable for the ways they use their power.
In the Old Testament, one of the differences between true and false prophets was that true prophets confronted the powerful people in society – including the king – while false prophets could be bought off or pressured to preach things that would empower the king to permit or sponsor injustice. Jesus said the two greatest commandments were to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” and to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39, quoting Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18). If these are the greatest commandments our teaching and preaching of Scripture should certainly be evaluated in terms of whether or not we are empowering people to abuse and/or oppress others rather than helping them grow in loving God and others. Jesus Christ used his power to liberate and redeem those who were under the power of sin. He sacrificed himself for those who were weak and who were powerless to help themselves.
As practitioners of the ideological criticism of biblical interpretations we need to ask ourselves some difficult questions: Is this biblical text being interpreted in such as way that it would empower some people (or person) to abuse others? Is this text being preached in a distorted way that serves the interests of some people at the expense of others? Is this text being taught or preached in a way that is consistent with Christ’s own loving and self-sacrificing commitment to the good of others, especially the weak and powerless?
Ideology often enters into biblical interpretation apart from any conscious intention on the part of the interpreter. Early on in my missionary career I taught some preaching courses. One of the first classroom sermons I ever heard was one in which a pastor’s son (a fine Christian and a good friend) took a text about the pastor’s sober responsibilities to shepherd a flock with love, wisdom and integrity and turned it into a message about the need for church members to obediently submit themselves to the authority of God’s anointed leader. The student was a fine Christian with a good heart, but his reading of Scripture was evidently being distorted by some of the difficult politics going on in his father’s church. He had taken a text that spoke of the pastor’s responsibilities to God and the flock and had unconsciously turned it into a hammer to beat his father’s flock into submission.
A few months ago I was chatting with a friend who had attended a conference of Bible translators in Kenya. One of the things that he heard while there was about the need for teaching on biblical interpretation to be given along with the preparations of Bible translations so that those translations are not interpreted in abusive ways. For example, he heard about men (pastors, if I recall correctly) with HIV/AIDS who were insisting that their wives submit to them by having unprotected sex with them because they did not want to use any protection. Their wives were supposed to just trust God not to let them become infected as their husbands were!
Of course in this country one may witness people using the Bible to teach warped views of God and of the gospel message through materialistic and egocentric “prosperity gospels” by turning to any number of “Christian” TV stations at virtually any time of day. These teachings lead their followers down destructive paths and pervert the good news into something perverse. Many passages of the Bible warn about those who would twist Scripture to teach dangerous things (e.g., 2 Peter 3:15-16; Acts 20:29-30; Jude 4; 1 Timothy 1:5-7; 2 Timothy 2:16-18; 2 Peter 2:1-2).
We are all grateful for tremendous good has been done out of obedience to the teachings of Scripture. But we must not shrink back from admitting that much harm has also been done and we must never stop speaking out against those who would use the Bible in abusive ways. I’m curious about ways in which you might have observed the Bible being used to the detriment of those exposed to the teaching (without naming names or places...). Do you have any suggestions about how we might all guard more effectively against adding to the dark side of the Bible’s biography?
Associate Professor of New Testament
Karen Armstrong’s recent book, The Bible: A Biography (New York: Atlantic Monthly, 2007), provides an interesting discussion of some of the main emphases in biblical interpretation through the centuries. It is very narrow type of biography which, kindly, only occasionally mentions some of the dark sides or moments in interpretation of the Bible. One could write much more about many aspects of the history of the interpretation of the Bible, and much more about the dark side to the Bible’s biography. In Romans 7:12 Paul says “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good” (NIV). The same (and more) may be said about the Bible as a whole. But just as Paul points out that the holy, righteous and good law has been used by sin to produce evil and death, the Bible has continued to be abused by some people throughout church history.
I love the Bible. I have spent a good part of my adult life studying it and teaching others about it. Most semesters I teach a course called Interpreting the New Testament and I confess that it is an incredible privilege to help committed Christian men and women grow in their abilities as interpreters of Scripture. I am constantly reminded of the crucial role of engaging Scripture for the health of churches and believers. But I am also constantly reminded of the horrible damage that can be done and that has been done when Scripture has been wrongly interpreted and used as a weapon to oppress or abuse others.
Throughout history the Bible has been used to justify all kinds of injustice and to empower people with oppressive agendas. At different times and in different places, the Bible has been used to justify slavery, wife abuse, child abuse, the crusades, the inquisition, anti-Semitism, racism, apartheid, the use of violence (including deadly force) against those who were accused of not following its teachings, etc. In Armstrong’s view “A thread of hatred runs through the New Testament” (76). I would dispute that, but there is little dispute that a thread of hatred has appeared here and there throughout the history of its interpretation.
Ideological criticism needs to be added to the toolbox of evangelical pastors and leaders. Even those of us who have difficulty applying ideological criticism to the biblical texts themselves should not hesitate for a moment to apply it to the ways that people (including pastors) interpret the Scriptures. Christians need to be the first and the loudest to speak out against the use of Scripture to oppress and abuse others. Since there is such a history of people who consider themselves Christians supporting abusive and oppressive interpretations of Scripture, it might be a good thing for us to be slightly over-sensitive and to be on the alert for interpretations that empower the powerful rather than holding them accountable for the ways they use their power.
In the Old Testament, one of the differences between true and false prophets was that true prophets confronted the powerful people in society – including the king – while false prophets could be bought off or pressured to preach things that would empower the king to permit or sponsor injustice. Jesus said the two greatest commandments were to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” and to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39, quoting Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18). If these are the greatest commandments our teaching and preaching of Scripture should certainly be evaluated in terms of whether or not we are empowering people to abuse and/or oppress others rather than helping them grow in loving God and others. Jesus Christ used his power to liberate and redeem those who were under the power of sin. He sacrificed himself for those who were weak and who were powerless to help themselves.
As practitioners of the ideological criticism of biblical interpretations we need to ask ourselves some difficult questions: Is this biblical text being interpreted in such as way that it would empower some people (or person) to abuse others? Is this text being preached in a distorted way that serves the interests of some people at the expense of others? Is this text being taught or preached in a way that is consistent with Christ’s own loving and self-sacrificing commitment to the good of others, especially the weak and powerless?
Ideology often enters into biblical interpretation apart from any conscious intention on the part of the interpreter. Early on in my missionary career I taught some preaching courses. One of the first classroom sermons I ever heard was one in which a pastor’s son (a fine Christian and a good friend) took a text about the pastor’s sober responsibilities to shepherd a flock with love, wisdom and integrity and turned it into a message about the need for church members to obediently submit themselves to the authority of God’s anointed leader. The student was a fine Christian with a good heart, but his reading of Scripture was evidently being distorted by some of the difficult politics going on in his father’s church. He had taken a text that spoke of the pastor’s responsibilities to God and the flock and had unconsciously turned it into a hammer to beat his father’s flock into submission.
A few months ago I was chatting with a friend who had attended a conference of Bible translators in Kenya. One of the things that he heard while there was about the need for teaching on biblical interpretation to be given along with the preparations of Bible translations so that those translations are not interpreted in abusive ways. For example, he heard about men (pastors, if I recall correctly) with HIV/AIDS who were insisting that their wives submit to them by having unprotected sex with them because they did not want to use any protection. Their wives were supposed to just trust God not to let them become infected as their husbands were!
Of course in this country one may witness people using the Bible to teach warped views of God and of the gospel message through materialistic and egocentric “prosperity gospels” by turning to any number of “Christian” TV stations at virtually any time of day. These teachings lead their followers down destructive paths and pervert the good news into something perverse. Many passages of the Bible warn about those who would twist Scripture to teach dangerous things (e.g., 2 Peter 3:15-16; Acts 20:29-30; Jude 4; 1 Timothy 1:5-7; 2 Timothy 2:16-18; 2 Peter 2:1-2).
We are all grateful for tremendous good has been done out of obedience to the teachings of Scripture. But we must not shrink back from admitting that much harm has also been done and we must never stop speaking out against those who would use the Bible in abusive ways. I’m curious about ways in which you might have observed the Bible being used to the detriment of those exposed to the teaching (without naming names or places...). Do you have any suggestions about how we might all guard more effectively against adding to the dark side of the Bible’s biography?
Monday, September 15, 2008
Falling In Love
By David Horn, ThD
Director, The Ockenga Institute
This column originally appeared in the Summer 2006 edition of the Ockenga Connections.
Let’s call her Martha Kavinski. She was my first secretary at the first church I served as pastor just out of seminary. When they invented New Englanders, they carved her in New Hampshire granite and pointed to her thereafter as the model for the rest of us. She was tough as nails, she was utterly undiplomatic, and most of all, she did not like me. She met me at the stairways leading up to my office at the church on my first day, and right then and there, I felt like a first grader on the first day of class looking up at raw authority.
It did not take me long to realize that Martha was not the only one not immediately enthralled with my presence. The congregation was peppered with individuals who had been at the church a long, long time, and they wanted to make it clear to me early on that life had gone on reasonably well before I arrived and probably would go on just as well after I departed.
My experience, I am sure, is not unusual to most of you in ministry. Although my first years were not a disaster, they were not easy. Who would have thought that moving the church library to a more public location so that it actually could be used by the children of the congregation would provoke three meetings and an act of the full board of the church?
In hindsight, perhaps the only thing that saved me was what many would consider a grave liability on my part. I entered into the world of this three hundred year old church without a clear set of ambitions for the congregation. Perhaps too naïve for a clear plan, I fell back on something far more basic: Gradually, unconsciously, seemingly against my will, I found that I began to fall in love with this congregation, Martha and all.
In working with students and young pastors these past years at the seminary, I have noticed a growing trend that hints at good news and bad news. Perhaps buoyed by a cottage industry of church resources, pastors are entering their ministries with a growing awareness of the envisioning process required for healthy congregational life. That’s the good news. The bad news is that often time these well-intended visions of what a congregation should become comes with airtight, tone-death agendas.
A look at these agenda-driven processes from the inside looking out bears reflection. As a person who is now facing his mid-fifties, I can more readily fit into the skin of the long-time parishioner who has committed years of labor and well-intended, if often misguided, leadership in a church. The parishioner’s kids may have been born and nurtured in the church; he or she may have helped to develop and taken ownership of a program that at one time clearly met the needs of the congregation; he or she may have spent countless Saturday mornings toiling over the church lawn.
What does that parishioner see and feel when a pastor enters into the life of a church with a satchel full of good ideas on how his or her church needs to change. Change the worship service. Eliminate the hymnal. Get rid of a timeworn program. Re-organize the committee structure of the church. No doubt many of these things might benefit the church greatly and might be essential for new growth, both spiritually and numerically. But, on the face of it, what do these things say to those who, apparently, are in need of change?
I am convinced that churches are less in need of pastors’ well-designed agendas than their love. Falling in love with a congregation is an amazing legacy to give to a church. The measure of that love, like marriage, involves loving churches exactly as they are, with all their imperfections, before seeking more of them.
Martha died at 75 and I count one of the high moments of my ministry at that church the eulogizing of her at her funeral. We became fast friends in Christ. In the end, she saw what I saw in the subsequent six years of our ministry together. That creaky old church grew ten fold. I am convinced it changed and grew in large measure because the congregation genuinely felt loved by its pastoral staff. It is amazing what love can do when love comes without strings attached.
Director, The Ockenga Institute
This column originally appeared in the Summer 2006 edition of the Ockenga Connections.
Let’s call her Martha Kavinski. She was my first secretary at the first church I served as pastor just out of seminary. When they invented New Englanders, they carved her in New Hampshire granite and pointed to her thereafter as the model for the rest of us. She was tough as nails, she was utterly undiplomatic, and most of all, she did not like me. She met me at the stairways leading up to my office at the church on my first day, and right then and there, I felt like a first grader on the first day of class looking up at raw authority.
It did not take me long to realize that Martha was not the only one not immediately enthralled with my presence. The congregation was peppered with individuals who had been at the church a long, long time, and they wanted to make it clear to me early on that life had gone on reasonably well before I arrived and probably would go on just as well after I departed.
My experience, I am sure, is not unusual to most of you in ministry. Although my first years were not a disaster, they were not easy. Who would have thought that moving the church library to a more public location so that it actually could be used by the children of the congregation would provoke three meetings and an act of the full board of the church?
In hindsight, perhaps the only thing that saved me was what many would consider a grave liability on my part. I entered into the world of this three hundred year old church without a clear set of ambitions for the congregation. Perhaps too naïve for a clear plan, I fell back on something far more basic: Gradually, unconsciously, seemingly against my will, I found that I began to fall in love with this congregation, Martha and all.
In working with students and young pastors these past years at the seminary, I have noticed a growing trend that hints at good news and bad news. Perhaps buoyed by a cottage industry of church resources, pastors are entering their ministries with a growing awareness of the envisioning process required for healthy congregational life. That’s the good news. The bad news is that often time these well-intended visions of what a congregation should become comes with airtight, tone-death agendas.
A look at these agenda-driven processes from the inside looking out bears reflection. As a person who is now facing his mid-fifties, I can more readily fit into the skin of the long-time parishioner who has committed years of labor and well-intended, if often misguided, leadership in a church. The parishioner’s kids may have been born and nurtured in the church; he or she may have helped to develop and taken ownership of a program that at one time clearly met the needs of the congregation; he or she may have spent countless Saturday mornings toiling over the church lawn.
What does that parishioner see and feel when a pastor enters into the life of a church with a satchel full of good ideas on how his or her church needs to change. Change the worship service. Eliminate the hymnal. Get rid of a timeworn program. Re-organize the committee structure of the church. No doubt many of these things might benefit the church greatly and might be essential for new growth, both spiritually and numerically. But, on the face of it, what do these things say to those who, apparently, are in need of change?
I am convinced that churches are less in need of pastors’ well-designed agendas than their love. Falling in love with a congregation is an amazing legacy to give to a church. The measure of that love, like marriage, involves loving churches exactly as they are, with all their imperfections, before seeking more of them.
Martha died at 75 and I count one of the high moments of my ministry at that church the eulogizing of her at her funeral. We became fast friends in Christ. In the end, she saw what I saw in the subsequent six years of our ministry together. That creaky old church grew ten fold. I am convinced it changed and grew in large measure because the congregation genuinely felt loved by its pastoral staff. It is amazing what love can do when love comes without strings attached.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Of Second Miles and Boundaries
By Maria L. Boccia, PhD
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling Charlotte campus
The Sermon on the Mount contains many teachings which challenge us deeply, so much so that some commentators retreat from the challenge by saying this it is an ideal and perfection never to be attained in this life, but only aspired to. One passage in the Sermon on the Mount that I've been thinking about entails some teachings on personal relationships. Jesus tells us not only that we should not take revenge when someone does something against us, but that we should actually extend ourselves:
You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. - Matthew 5:38-42 (NASB)
As a counselor, I have listened to sincere Christians who desire to grow spiritually struggle with the demands of this passage. This sounds like Jesus requires us in all in every circumstance to do whatever a person demands of us and then some. Could this possibly be how God wants us to live?
Another important teaching of Jesus is contained in the familiar story of the good Samaritan. In response to a challenge from a lawyer, who, when Jesus adequately answered his question about what he must do to have eternal life, challenged him with a second question, 'who is my neighbor?' Jesus responded with the parable of the good Samaritan:
A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.' Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?' And he said, 'The one who showed mercy toward him.' Then Jesus said to him, 'Go and do the same.' - Luke 10:30-37. (NASB)
Now, at first blush, this might resemble the previous passage in which we are taught to extend ourselves to others, in this case on the basis of need, rather than demand, as in the previous case. But recently, as I was reflecting on this while listening to a client struggle with the unreasonable demands of some relationships, I noticed something else about this story. The good Samaritan had good boundaries!
When the good Samaritan came across this man who had been robbed, he interrupted his journey to attend to the immediate crisis and get him situated in a place where he could be adequately cared for by another. He then went about his business, returning to check on him and pay the innkeeper for the care he provided. He met this man's needs, but he did not abandon his own. He did not take care of the man himself, abandoning his responsibilities for his own life and work to do this. Rather, he did what was necessary to deal with the crisis and then left others in his place to do the rest while he returned to his responsibilities.
I think there is an important lesson here. I believe God wants us to be available to others. He wants us to be available whether, as in the first Scripture, because others demand it of us, or as in the second Scripture, when others are in need. But the story of the good Samaritan suggests to me that God wants us to take care of ourselves as well. God wants us to have healthy boundaries. This makes sense to me because without healthy boundaries we cannot have healthy relationships, and we cannot sustain the energy and resources necessary to continue to help others. So sometimes we respond to others' needs directly ourselves. Other times, we may need to let others respond. At the same time, in either case, we need to maintain healthy boundaries to ensure we remain healthy and energized and enabled to continue to serve others.
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling Charlotte campus
The Sermon on the Mount contains many teachings which challenge us deeply, so much so that some commentators retreat from the challenge by saying this it is an ideal and perfection never to be attained in this life, but only aspired to. One passage in the Sermon on the Mount that I've been thinking about entails some teachings on personal relationships. Jesus tells us not only that we should not take revenge when someone does something against us, but that we should actually extend ourselves:
You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. - Matthew 5:38-42 (NASB)
As a counselor, I have listened to sincere Christians who desire to grow spiritually struggle with the demands of this passage. This sounds like Jesus requires us in all in every circumstance to do whatever a person demands of us and then some. Could this possibly be how God wants us to live?
Another important teaching of Jesus is contained in the familiar story of the good Samaritan. In response to a challenge from a lawyer, who, when Jesus adequately answered his question about what he must do to have eternal life, challenged him with a second question, 'who is my neighbor?' Jesus responded with the parable of the good Samaritan:
A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.' Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?' And he said, 'The one who showed mercy toward him.' Then Jesus said to him, 'Go and do the same.' - Luke 10:30-37. (NASB)
Now, at first blush, this might resemble the previous passage in which we are taught to extend ourselves to others, in this case on the basis of need, rather than demand, as in the previous case. But recently, as I was reflecting on this while listening to a client struggle with the unreasonable demands of some relationships, I noticed something else about this story. The good Samaritan had good boundaries!
When the good Samaritan came across this man who had been robbed, he interrupted his journey to attend to the immediate crisis and get him situated in a place where he could be adequately cared for by another. He then went about his business, returning to check on him and pay the innkeeper for the care he provided. He met this man's needs, but he did not abandon his own. He did not take care of the man himself, abandoning his responsibilities for his own life and work to do this. Rather, he did what was necessary to deal with the crisis and then left others in his place to do the rest while he returned to his responsibilities.
I think there is an important lesson here. I believe God wants us to be available to others. He wants us to be available whether, as in the first Scripture, because others demand it of us, or as in the second Scripture, when others are in need. But the story of the good Samaritan suggests to me that God wants us to take care of ourselves as well. God wants us to have healthy boundaries. This makes sense to me because without healthy boundaries we cannot have healthy relationships, and we cannot sustain the energy and resources necessary to continue to help others. So sometimes we respond to others' needs directly ourselves. Other times, we may need to let others respond. At the same time, in either case, we need to maintain healthy boundaries to ensure we remain healthy and energized and enabled to continue to serve others.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Pushing Yourself Outside the Box: Colorado Rocky Mountain High
By John Jefferson Davis, PhD
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics
“If you find yourself getting winded, just stop and relax. Take another 25 steps, stop, relax, do it again, and soon you will be at the top.”
That was the sage advice given to to me and my wife Robin by the Rev. Jurgen Lias of Christ Church, Hamilton, as we began with him the ascent to the top of the 14,000 foot Mount Quandary in the Rockies about an hour and a half from Denver.
“Am I crazy, or what,” I found myself thinking that morning. “Here I am, a rather sedentary 62 year old seminary professor whose idea of ‘vigorous exercise’ is a 30 minute walk around the indoor track at the Bennett Center, tackling a “14er” in the Colorado Rockies?! How did I let myself be talked into this?”
My adventurous wife Robin, had originally suggested that we accompany our pastor, who is an avid hiker and climber, on some preliminary “warmup” hikes in the foothills – but the game plan had suddenly morphed into a venture of Everest-like proportions. Have you ever found yourself in a situation like this when you felt totally over your head?
I began the ascent, trying to practice some “walking meditation” (“Help me, Jesus”), not really understanding at the time what a 3.5 mile climb in thin air would do to my aching and aging body. 25 or 30 steps, huffing and puffing, stopping to rest and to enjoy the magnificent mountain vistas, and even close-range views of mountain goats: we did not make it to the summit, but had to turn back at 13,500 feet elevation because of a threatening afternoon thunderstorm.
Push yourself outside the box:
So much of life is a matter of expectations, isn’t it? For me, not making it to the top was not a defeat, but a moral victory; reaching 13,500 feet was in fact a new personal high.
Push yourself outside the box:
As I reflected later on that day’s climb, I realized that our experience was in many ways a metaphor of life: we need to “push ourselves outside of the box” – physically, emotionally, spiritually – in order to experience personal growth and to resist our natural tendencies to stick to the safe and the predictable, to our personal comfort zones.
The next morning, Jurgen suggested that we do morning prayer together, following readings and lessons from the Book of Common Prayer. We read the psalms and lessons for the day, and had a time of free prayer for common concerns. Even this was a bit of “pushing outside the box” for me devotionally, for as a Myers-Briggs “INTJ” I tend to gravitate toward introspective rather than group-oriented forms of spirituality. But the experience was a good one, and Robin and I expect to continue the practice from time to time in the future.
Push yourself outside the box:
Are there ways that you need to “push yourself outside the box” in your ministry or in your relationship to God? Do you feel that you may be “stuck in the same old place” in your ministry or devotional life? You don’t need to go to the Colorado Rockies or attempt a 14,000 foot climb to break into some new areas of personal growth.
I hope that God will be leading you into new areas of personal and professional growth during the days ahead.
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics
“If you find yourself getting winded, just stop and relax. Take another 25 steps, stop, relax, do it again, and soon you will be at the top.”
That was the sage advice given to to me and my wife Robin by the Rev. Jurgen Lias of Christ Church, Hamilton, as we began with him the ascent to the top of the 14,000 foot Mount Quandary in the Rockies about an hour and a half from Denver.
“Am I crazy, or what,” I found myself thinking that morning. “Here I am, a rather sedentary 62 year old seminary professor whose idea of ‘vigorous exercise’ is a 30 minute walk around the indoor track at the Bennett Center, tackling a “14er” in the Colorado Rockies?! How did I let myself be talked into this?”
My adventurous wife Robin, had originally suggested that we accompany our pastor, who is an avid hiker and climber, on some preliminary “warmup” hikes in the foothills – but the game plan had suddenly morphed into a venture of Everest-like proportions. Have you ever found yourself in a situation like this when you felt totally over your head?
I began the ascent, trying to practice some “walking meditation” (“Help me, Jesus”), not really understanding at the time what a 3.5 mile climb in thin air would do to my aching and aging body. 25 or 30 steps, huffing and puffing, stopping to rest and to enjoy the magnificent mountain vistas, and even close-range views of mountain goats: we did not make it to the summit, but had to turn back at 13,500 feet elevation because of a threatening afternoon thunderstorm.
Push yourself outside the box:
So much of life is a matter of expectations, isn’t it? For me, not making it to the top was not a defeat, but a moral victory; reaching 13,500 feet was in fact a new personal high.
Push yourself outside the box:
As I reflected later on that day’s climb, I realized that our experience was in many ways a metaphor of life: we need to “push ourselves outside of the box” – physically, emotionally, spiritually – in order to experience personal growth and to resist our natural tendencies to stick to the safe and the predictable, to our personal comfort zones.
The next morning, Jurgen suggested that we do morning prayer together, following readings and lessons from the Book of Common Prayer. We read the psalms and lessons for the day, and had a time of free prayer for common concerns. Even this was a bit of “pushing outside the box” for me devotionally, for as a Myers-Briggs “INTJ” I tend to gravitate toward introspective rather than group-oriented forms of spirituality. But the experience was a good one, and Robin and I expect to continue the practice from time to time in the future.
Push yourself outside the box:
Are there ways that you need to “push yourself outside the box” in your ministry or in your relationship to God? Do you feel that you may be “stuck in the same old place” in your ministry or devotional life? You don’t need to go to the Colorado Rockies or attempt a 14,000 foot climb to break into some new areas of personal growth.
I hope that God will be leading you into new areas of personal and professional growth during the days ahead.
Monday, August 18, 2008
As You Go, Make Disciples?
By Roy Ciampa, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
One commonly hears that the opening line of the Great Commission is, literally, “… as you go, make disciples…” (a Google search for “as you go, make disciples” gets “about 787” hits). It is pointed out by many that the verb “go” is a participle and it is stated that the participle suggests “as [or while] you go…” From this a very fine pastoral and missiological point is made, namely, that we are all going here and there with our normal life activities and rather than making evangelism and discipleship a special separate part of our lives we should make evangelism and discipleship integral parts of our lives, using whatever opportunities normally and naturally arise as we go about our daily activities. While the point that we should take advantage our the opportunities our lives already present us is valid, as is the point that evangelism should be a natural and integral part of our lives, these miss the usage of the participle in the text, which actually emphasizes something different. First let me explain how we can tell what kind of participle we are dealing with in this case, then I will explain what difference it makes.
The rendering “..as [or while] you go…” suggests the participle is taken as a temporal participle, indicating when the main action (discipling the nations) should take place. But when a participle is used to indicate when an action took place or is to take place (the temporal use of the participle) the present tense is used for actions that are to be simultaneous. So to communicate the idea that we are to make disciples “as/while we go” a Greek would use a present participle, not an aorist participle, as we find in this case. (Of course, there are other uses of the present adverbial participle as well). If the aorist participle were functioning as a temporal participle the idea would be “having gone, make disciples” pointing to the disciple-making process as one that is to take place immediately after going. But that is not the most natural understanding here. It is does not work as well as a very common usage that fits perfectly here. None of the participles in Matthew 28:19 are temporal participles. (The participles [baptizing and teaching] that follow the main verb [make disciples] function differently from the one which precedes it and will be discussed in a separate post in the future.)
Students taking basic Greek are commonly taught to translate all adverbial participles as temporal participles, with the understanding that they will later learn other ways that participles might function (for a full discussion of adverbial participles I recommend Daniel Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], pages 622-650). All too often they never learn, or at least do not gain great familiarity with, other ways the participles might function.
The first participle in Matthew 28:19 (the one that precedes the main verb, usually translated “Go”) is a participle of attendant circumstance. The most common use of the participle of attendant circumstance, the usage found here, is one where an 1) aorist adverbial participle 2) comes before the main verb and 3) refers to an intentional action that had/has to take place as a prerequisite to the realization of the action of the main verb (adverbial participles that do not fit all the criteria do not fit in this category). This is one of the two most common uses of the adverbial participle in narrative texts and should be the default interpretation whenever a moment’s reflection makes it clear that the action of the main verb could/would not be realized if the action indicated by the participle were not realized first and is something that someone would intentionally do in order to accomplish the action indicated in the main verb. It would have been the default interpretation of any ancient Greek. When translated into English the participle of attendant circumstance is translated as a finite verb, sharing the mood (indicative, imperative, etc.) of the main verb.
Once this pattern is identified [aorist adverbial participle preceding the main verb and referring to an action that is a prerequisite for the realization of the action of the main verb] it becomes easily recognized. Here is a series of examples from the Gospel of Matthew (in some cases I abbreviate the text for brevity’s sake):
• Matthew 2:7: Herod summoned (← participle) and ascertained from them when the star had appeared (he had to summon them to ascertain anything from them).
• Matthew 2:8: Go (← participle) and search diligently for the child (one cannot search for someone while remaining stationary [without going]).
• Matthew 4:3: The tempter came (← participle) and said to him (this is a common usage – people typically approach others for the purpose of speaking with them, and with human subjects, at least, one cannot speak with another unless one goes to them first)
• Matthew 5:2: And he opened (← participle) his mouth and taught them. (Have you ever tried teaching something [verbally] without opening your mouth? In cases like this we open our mouths in order to say or teach something).
• Matthew 8:2: a leper came (← participle) to him and knelt before him (one cannot kneel before another without going to them first).
• Matthew 8:3: Jesus stretched (← participle) out his hand and touched him (touching in cases like this requires reaching out first – it’s a prerequisite)
Hopefully this is enough to give you the idea. When we exegete participles like these we should not be asking what all the possible interpretations are and which ones we like best or which ones fit our theology best. Rather, we should be asking which interpretation is the one to which the original readers would be expected to come based on the standard usage of the language. In cases where an aorist adverbial participle precedes the main verb and refers to an action that would be a natural prerequisite to the action given in the main verb (an action which one would intentionally take as a step towards the goal indicated in the main verb) a modern interpreter should work with the same assumption that would guide an ancient Greek, namely, that the participle refers to an action done as a step towards (that is, as a prerequisite to) the action indicated in the main verb.
We should note that the exact form of the participle used in Matthew 28:19 (poreuthentes) is used seven times in just that gospel and fifteen times in the New Testament as a whole (Matt. 2:8; 9:13; 11:4; 21:6; 22:15; 27:66; 28:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 7:22; 9:12, 13, 52; 13:32; 17:14; 22:8), and it is almost always used in this way. It never means “as/while you go.” It is most often used, as here, in conjunction with imperative verbs, indicating that the hearers are to go (and do something which could not be done if they just sit there). Remember, the mood of the main verb casts its shadow over the participle of attendant circumstance so that when the participle introduces an imperative it gains an imperatival force as well, even though the main point is found in the main verb and the participle points to a first step that must be undertaken to accomplish the action of the main verb. That is the usage we find in Matt. 2:8; 9:13; 11:4; 28:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 7:22; 13:32; 17:14; 22:8. In all these cases it is best translated, “Go and ….”
Sometimes it is used with indicative verbs to indicate that someone (or some people) went and did (that is, went in order to do) something that needed to be accomplished elsewhere. That is the usage found in Matt. 21:6; 22:15; 27:66; Luke 9:52. It is used in a similar way with subjunctive verbs in Luke 9:12, 13 to refer to something that might be done to accomplish something elsewhere (they may have to go [← participle] and buy food).
Whether it is used with indicative, imperative or other moods, this kind of participle of attendant circumstance highlights intentionality or deliberateness. The participle is not the main point (that is indicated by the main verb) but it is used for an action intentionally or deliberately carried out with a view to realizing the action mentioned in the main verb.
So what does all this tell us about Matthew 28:19 and the Great Commission? It means no ancient Greek would take it to mean “while/as you go, disciple the nations” but would understand, from intimate familiarity with this common usage, that the meaning was “Go and disciple the nations” and that the main point was not to go but to disciple the nations, but that the nations would never become disciples if the apostles and those converted by them did not take the gospel to them. Going is not the ultimate point, but it is a prerequisite, a necessary step towards the goal of making disciples of the nations and we must be intentional, deliberate, about going everywhere and leading all peoples to (willingly) obey the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus never suggested that the nations would be discipled as long as we simply shared the gospel as we went about the normal routines of our lives. He indicated that we needed to be intentional/deliberate about making sure all nations got the message and were taught how to follow Jesus.
This does not mean that every Christian must up and move to the far corners of the Earth to make disciples. If the CEO tells his leadership team (of, let’s say, eleven people) that they needed to take their product global (and, yes, I cringe at my use of a commercial analogy), it would not mean that those particular eleven people needed to go to all the nations. It would mean that they needed to take whatever steps would be necessary to make sure people all over the world had sufficient knowledge of and easy access to their product. In the case of the church it means we must accept the fact that there are people who will never hear and respond to the gospel message if we do not take it to them. The disciples could not all stay on that mountain or stay in Jerusalem, but needed to get the gospel to those who would never hear unless it was brought to them. That challenge is still ours. Some of us may contribute best to that mission by staying where we are and partnering with others who go, sent and supported by the rest of us. And even those of us who do not go to distant lands must not simply wait for people to come to us but must be intentional about finding bridges that can be used to take the good news to others in our communities and we need to be intentional about supporting the growth and health of the church around the world. After all, Jesus commanded us, as a church, to “go and make disciples of the nations….”
Associate Professor of New Testament
One commonly hears that the opening line of the Great Commission is, literally, “… as you go, make disciples…” (a Google search for “as you go, make disciples” gets “about 787” hits). It is pointed out by many that the verb “go” is a participle and it is stated that the participle suggests “as [or while] you go…” From this a very fine pastoral and missiological point is made, namely, that we are all going here and there with our normal life activities and rather than making evangelism and discipleship a special separate part of our lives we should make evangelism and discipleship integral parts of our lives, using whatever opportunities normally and naturally arise as we go about our daily activities. While the point that we should take advantage our the opportunities our lives already present us is valid, as is the point that evangelism should be a natural and integral part of our lives, these miss the usage of the participle in the text, which actually emphasizes something different. First let me explain how we can tell what kind of participle we are dealing with in this case, then I will explain what difference it makes.
The rendering “..as [or while] you go…” suggests the participle is taken as a temporal participle, indicating when the main action (discipling the nations) should take place. But when a participle is used to indicate when an action took place or is to take place (the temporal use of the participle) the present tense is used for actions that are to be simultaneous. So to communicate the idea that we are to make disciples “as/while we go” a Greek would use a present participle, not an aorist participle, as we find in this case. (Of course, there are other uses of the present adverbial participle as well). If the aorist participle were functioning as a temporal participle the idea would be “having gone, make disciples” pointing to the disciple-making process as one that is to take place immediately after going. But that is not the most natural understanding here. It is does not work as well as a very common usage that fits perfectly here. None of the participles in Matthew 28:19 are temporal participles. (The participles [baptizing and teaching] that follow the main verb [make disciples] function differently from the one which precedes it and will be discussed in a separate post in the future.)
Students taking basic Greek are commonly taught to translate all adverbial participles as temporal participles, with the understanding that they will later learn other ways that participles might function (for a full discussion of adverbial participles I recommend Daniel Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], pages 622-650). All too often they never learn, or at least do not gain great familiarity with, other ways the participles might function.
The first participle in Matthew 28:19 (the one that precedes the main verb, usually translated “Go”) is a participle of attendant circumstance. The most common use of the participle of attendant circumstance, the usage found here, is one where an 1) aorist adverbial participle 2) comes before the main verb and 3) refers to an intentional action that had/has to take place as a prerequisite to the realization of the action of the main verb (adverbial participles that do not fit all the criteria do not fit in this category). This is one of the two most common uses of the adverbial participle in narrative texts and should be the default interpretation whenever a moment’s reflection makes it clear that the action of the main verb could/would not be realized if the action indicated by the participle were not realized first and is something that someone would intentionally do in order to accomplish the action indicated in the main verb. It would have been the default interpretation of any ancient Greek. When translated into English the participle of attendant circumstance is translated as a finite verb, sharing the mood (indicative, imperative, etc.) of the main verb.
Once this pattern is identified [aorist adverbial participle preceding the main verb and referring to an action that is a prerequisite for the realization of the action of the main verb] it becomes easily recognized. Here is a series of examples from the Gospel of Matthew (in some cases I abbreviate the text for brevity’s sake):
• Matthew 2:7: Herod summoned (← participle) and ascertained from them when the star had appeared (he had to summon them to ascertain anything from them).
• Matthew 2:8: Go (← participle) and search diligently for the child (one cannot search for someone while remaining stationary [without going]).
• Matthew 4:3: The tempter came (← participle) and said to him (this is a common usage – people typically approach others for the purpose of speaking with them, and with human subjects, at least, one cannot speak with another unless one goes to them first)
• Matthew 5:2: And he opened (← participle) his mouth and taught them. (Have you ever tried teaching something [verbally] without opening your mouth? In cases like this we open our mouths in order to say or teach something).
• Matthew 8:2: a leper came (← participle) to him and knelt before him (one cannot kneel before another without going to them first).
• Matthew 8:3: Jesus stretched (← participle) out his hand and touched him (touching in cases like this requires reaching out first – it’s a prerequisite)
Hopefully this is enough to give you the idea. When we exegete participles like these we should not be asking what all the possible interpretations are and which ones we like best or which ones fit our theology best. Rather, we should be asking which interpretation is the one to which the original readers would be expected to come based on the standard usage of the language. In cases where an aorist adverbial participle precedes the main verb and refers to an action that would be a natural prerequisite to the action given in the main verb (an action which one would intentionally take as a step towards the goal indicated in the main verb) a modern interpreter should work with the same assumption that would guide an ancient Greek, namely, that the participle refers to an action done as a step towards (that is, as a prerequisite to) the action indicated in the main verb.
We should note that the exact form of the participle used in Matthew 28:19 (poreuthentes) is used seven times in just that gospel and fifteen times in the New Testament as a whole (Matt. 2:8; 9:13; 11:4; 21:6; 22:15; 27:66; 28:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 7:22; 9:12, 13, 52; 13:32; 17:14; 22:8), and it is almost always used in this way. It never means “as/while you go.” It is most often used, as here, in conjunction with imperative verbs, indicating that the hearers are to go (and do something which could not be done if they just sit there). Remember, the mood of the main verb casts its shadow over the participle of attendant circumstance so that when the participle introduces an imperative it gains an imperatival force as well, even though the main point is found in the main verb and the participle points to a first step that must be undertaken to accomplish the action of the main verb. That is the usage we find in Matt. 2:8; 9:13; 11:4; 28:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 7:22; 13:32; 17:14; 22:8. In all these cases it is best translated, “Go and ….”
Sometimes it is used with indicative verbs to indicate that someone (or some people) went and did (that is, went in order to do) something that needed to be accomplished elsewhere. That is the usage found in Matt. 21:6; 22:15; 27:66; Luke 9:52. It is used in a similar way with subjunctive verbs in Luke 9:12, 13 to refer to something that might be done to accomplish something elsewhere (they may have to go [← participle] and buy food).
Whether it is used with indicative, imperative or other moods, this kind of participle of attendant circumstance highlights intentionality or deliberateness. The participle is not the main point (that is indicated by the main verb) but it is used for an action intentionally or deliberately carried out with a view to realizing the action mentioned in the main verb.
So what does all this tell us about Matthew 28:19 and the Great Commission? It means no ancient Greek would take it to mean “while/as you go, disciple the nations” but would understand, from intimate familiarity with this common usage, that the meaning was “Go and disciple the nations” and that the main point was not to go but to disciple the nations, but that the nations would never become disciples if the apostles and those converted by them did not take the gospel to them. Going is not the ultimate point, but it is a prerequisite, a necessary step towards the goal of making disciples of the nations and we must be intentional, deliberate, about going everywhere and leading all peoples to (willingly) obey the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus never suggested that the nations would be discipled as long as we simply shared the gospel as we went about the normal routines of our lives. He indicated that we needed to be intentional/deliberate about making sure all nations got the message and were taught how to follow Jesus.
This does not mean that every Christian must up and move to the far corners of the Earth to make disciples. If the CEO tells his leadership team (of, let’s say, eleven people) that they needed to take their product global (and, yes, I cringe at my use of a commercial analogy), it would not mean that those particular eleven people needed to go to all the nations. It would mean that they needed to take whatever steps would be necessary to make sure people all over the world had sufficient knowledge of and easy access to their product. In the case of the church it means we must accept the fact that there are people who will never hear and respond to the gospel message if we do not take it to them. The disciples could not all stay on that mountain or stay in Jerusalem, but needed to get the gospel to those who would never hear unless it was brought to them. That challenge is still ours. Some of us may contribute best to that mission by staying where we are and partnering with others who go, sent and supported by the rest of us. And even those of us who do not go to distant lands must not simply wait for people to come to us but must be intentional about finding bridges that can be used to take the good news to others in our communities and we need to be intentional about supporting the growth and health of the church around the world. After all, Jesus commanded us, as a church, to “go and make disciples of the nations….”
Monday, August 11, 2008
"I Enjoy Being a Girl"
By Maria L. Boccia, PhD
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling Charlotte campus
To me, the song "I Enjoy Being a Girl," sung by the Linda Low character in Rogers and Hammerstein's 1958 musical Flower Drum Song, has always represented the nadir of the entertainment industry’s presentation of women’s values, motives and desires. Low enjoys being a girl when she can wear makeup and frilly clothes, and celebrates how the curves of her body attract men, using that to manipulate them and get what she wants from them. Her total focus and only goal in life is to get married, it hardly matters to whom. If one examines TV characters from that decade, this is typical of how women were presented and portrayed.
Our society has seen two major women's movements, one starting in the mid-1800s, which culminated in women winning the right to vote in 1920, and the second starting in the 1960s, which had more-difficult-to-measure goals about the quality of women’s lives. [It has always fascinated me that both of these movements followed on movements related to race (abolition in the 19th century, and the civil rights movement in the 20th century), when women involved in these movements recognized their own disenfranchisement and lack of social and political power.] Both of these movements have resulted in significant improvements in the lives of women in this country. When considering this, we may be tempted to think of sociological indicators, such as changes in legal standing or economic well-being, but I’d like to focus on a more personal, psychological impact.
I did not enjoy being a girl. When I was growing up, that is. As an adult, I have had to “work through this issue,” as we say in the trade, doing the hard emotional/psychological work of understanding why I felt this way, from where this feeling about myself came, and changing it. At one point, I asked my therapist, "I wonder how common this is among women." Her response was, “you’re the researcher; do the research!” I did not do a formal, NIH-funded, multi-million dollar research project. But I did do a little internet-based study.
I had access to two email listservs focused on evangelical women (this was not a “representative sample” but a sample of convenience, with all the limitations that implies). I sent them an email questionnaire in which I asked them about whether they enjoyed being a girl (or not), and why. I also asked some other questions like birth year, if they had brothers or sisters, and so on. I found that a significant percentage of women, like me, did not enjoy being a girl. But there was an interesting phenomenon in the data. Things like having brothers or sisters and such did not effect how likely the women were to report not liking being a girl. The year 1960, however, seemed to be an important year. Among women born before then, who would have been taught to be like Linda Low, over two-thirds of the women did not enjoy being girls. The reasons they gave tended to be about the restrictions they felt: things they could not do, games they could not play, stuff they could not have, because they were girls and not boys. Women born after 1960 were much less likely to say they did not enjoy being girls: less than half responded this way. They reported feeling no such limitations on what they could do or aspire to do or be.
I was born before 1960 and I saw myself reflected in these women’s answers. That was pretty heady, and healing, stuff. There are things to criticize about the women’s movement of the 60s, including some excesses. But I cannot criticize the empowering effect on young girls and their aspirations of being told “I am woman, hear me roar . . . I am strong . . . I can do anything,” to quote a different old song by Helen Reddy. To my mind, that was the power and success of the modern women’s movement. Women discovered that it is a good thing to be a woman. We could enjoy being a girl!
According to the gospel accounts, Jesus reached out to lift up the disenfranchised and powerless, including the women. Women flocked to him because his affirmation helped them see themselves as he saw them, as daughters of the King. Peter, quoting Joel, told the first hearers of the gospel on Pentecost that “your sons and daughters shall prophesy” as God promised. The Holy Spirit came and fell on both male and female disciples, in equal measure, with an outpouring of power and gifts for ministry. Those first disciples spread out from Jerusalem, using those power and gifts to spread the good news of Jesus’ saving work on the cross to the world.
Unfortunately, the church has too often sided with Rogers and Hammerstein, telling women they need to be satisfied with the life of Linda Low. Not only does this rob God of the gifts he places in women’s bodies, but it sends messages to little girls about who they should aspire to be and what they can and cannot aspire to do. They grow up to be women who do not like being girls. Sadly, they also grow up to be women who do not like the church or the God the church reflects to the world. As a professional scientist, I have been the sad listener of many intelligent, educated women’s explanations about how they would have nothing to do with a God who devalues women so much. The irony of this is that many of the passages of Scripture used to restrict women’s opportunities in the church were initially written with the intent of helping the church to avoid allowing anything to interfere with unbelievers hearing the gospel.
Well, I have done the hard work. I have made peace with my gender. Sometimes, I even enjoy being a woman. I know that God has made me this way and that he has declared that very good. I also know that being a woman does not mean I cannot do this or that. I am satisfied knowing that it is God who chose to make me a woman, and that he has called me and given me gifts to fulfill that calling. I am definitely with Helen Reddy on this one. I can do anything, . . . through Christ who strengthens me.
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling Charlotte campus
To me, the song "I Enjoy Being a Girl," sung by the Linda Low character in Rogers and Hammerstein's 1958 musical Flower Drum Song, has always represented the nadir of the entertainment industry’s presentation of women’s values, motives and desires. Low enjoys being a girl when she can wear makeup and frilly clothes, and celebrates how the curves of her body attract men, using that to manipulate them and get what she wants from them. Her total focus and only goal in life is to get married, it hardly matters to whom. If one examines TV characters from that decade, this is typical of how women were presented and portrayed.
Our society has seen two major women's movements, one starting in the mid-1800s, which culminated in women winning the right to vote in 1920, and the second starting in the 1960s, which had more-difficult-to-measure goals about the quality of women’s lives. [It has always fascinated me that both of these movements followed on movements related to race (abolition in the 19th century, and the civil rights movement in the 20th century), when women involved in these movements recognized their own disenfranchisement and lack of social and political power.] Both of these movements have resulted in significant improvements in the lives of women in this country. When considering this, we may be tempted to think of sociological indicators, such as changes in legal standing or economic well-being, but I’d like to focus on a more personal, psychological impact.
I did not enjoy being a girl. When I was growing up, that is. As an adult, I have had to “work through this issue,” as we say in the trade, doing the hard emotional/psychological work of understanding why I felt this way, from where this feeling about myself came, and changing it. At one point, I asked my therapist, "I wonder how common this is among women." Her response was, “you’re the researcher; do the research!” I did not do a formal, NIH-funded, multi-million dollar research project. But I did do a little internet-based study.
I had access to two email listservs focused on evangelical women (this was not a “representative sample” but a sample of convenience, with all the limitations that implies). I sent them an email questionnaire in which I asked them about whether they enjoyed being a girl (or not), and why. I also asked some other questions like birth year, if they had brothers or sisters, and so on. I found that a significant percentage of women, like me, did not enjoy being a girl. But there was an interesting phenomenon in the data. Things like having brothers or sisters and such did not effect how likely the women were to report not liking being a girl. The year 1960, however, seemed to be an important year. Among women born before then, who would have been taught to be like Linda Low, over two-thirds of the women did not enjoy being girls. The reasons they gave tended to be about the restrictions they felt: things they could not do, games they could not play, stuff they could not have, because they were girls and not boys. Women born after 1960 were much less likely to say they did not enjoy being girls: less than half responded this way. They reported feeling no such limitations on what they could do or aspire to do or be.
I was born before 1960 and I saw myself reflected in these women’s answers. That was pretty heady, and healing, stuff. There are things to criticize about the women’s movement of the 60s, including some excesses. But I cannot criticize the empowering effect on young girls and their aspirations of being told “I am woman, hear me roar . . . I am strong . . . I can do anything,” to quote a different old song by Helen Reddy. To my mind, that was the power and success of the modern women’s movement. Women discovered that it is a good thing to be a woman. We could enjoy being a girl!
According to the gospel accounts, Jesus reached out to lift up the disenfranchised and powerless, including the women. Women flocked to him because his affirmation helped them see themselves as he saw them, as daughters of the King. Peter, quoting Joel, told the first hearers of the gospel on Pentecost that “your sons and daughters shall prophesy” as God promised. The Holy Spirit came and fell on both male and female disciples, in equal measure, with an outpouring of power and gifts for ministry. Those first disciples spread out from Jerusalem, using those power and gifts to spread the good news of Jesus’ saving work on the cross to the world.
Unfortunately, the church has too often sided with Rogers and Hammerstein, telling women they need to be satisfied with the life of Linda Low. Not only does this rob God of the gifts he places in women’s bodies, but it sends messages to little girls about who they should aspire to be and what they can and cannot aspire to do. They grow up to be women who do not like being girls. Sadly, they also grow up to be women who do not like the church or the God the church reflects to the world. As a professional scientist, I have been the sad listener of many intelligent, educated women’s explanations about how they would have nothing to do with a God who devalues women so much. The irony of this is that many of the passages of Scripture used to restrict women’s opportunities in the church were initially written with the intent of helping the church to avoid allowing anything to interfere with unbelievers hearing the gospel.
Well, I have done the hard work. I have made peace with my gender. Sometimes, I even enjoy being a woman. I know that God has made me this way and that he has declared that very good. I also know that being a woman does not mean I cannot do this or that. I am satisfied knowing that it is God who chose to make me a woman, and that he has called me and given me gifts to fulfill that calling. I am definitely with Helen Reddy on this one. I can do anything, . . . through Christ who strengthens me.
Monday, August 4, 2008
An Examination of I Timothy 2:12
By John Jefferson Davis, PhD
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics
I have recently written an article titled “I Timothy 2:12, the Ordination of Women, and Pauline Use of Creation Narratives,” which is currently being considered for publication by the Priscilla Papers. Since many students have expressed interest in this article, and have copied it from the hard copy posted on my bulletin board, I have decided to make it available to a wider seminary audience through White Papers.
Here are the first two introductory paragraphs of the article, which will give you a sense of what the article is about, and whether you might want to read it for your own study on White Papers this month:
"I Timothy 2:11-15, and especially v.12, has long been a focal point in modern discussions of the ordination of women. Traditional reservations about the ordination of women as pastors and elders have generally made two assumptions in the interpretation of this passage: 1) that the meaning of authentein in v.12 is clearly known and should be translated simply as “have authority”, and 2) that the appeal to the creation narrative naming Adam and Eve in vv.13 and 14 implies a universal, “transcultural” principle that prohibits the exercise of ecclesiastical authority by women over men in all (or some) circumstances.
The purpose of this article is to argue that both of these assumptions are faulty, and that I Timothy 2:11-15, rightly understood lexically and contextually, does not teach any universal prohibition of the ordination of women as pastors or elders. The primary focus of this discussion will be the second assumption, regarding the appeal to the Genesis creation account of Adam and Eve.1 It will be argued that Paul’s contextual and church-specific appeal to creation texts makes it not only possible but preferable to see the limitation on women’s teaching roles in I Tim.2 as a circumstantial and not universal prohibition. Before proceeding with this analysis, however, a few observations will be made regarding the meaning of authentein in v.12."
To read the remainder of the first installment of the paper, visit White Papers. [This link no longer works]
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics
I have recently written an article titled “I Timothy 2:12, the Ordination of Women, and Pauline Use of Creation Narratives,” which is currently being considered for publication by the Priscilla Papers. Since many students have expressed interest in this article, and have copied it from the hard copy posted on my bulletin board, I have decided to make it available to a wider seminary audience through White Papers.
Here are the first two introductory paragraphs of the article, which will give you a sense of what the article is about, and whether you might want to read it for your own study on White Papers this month:
"I Timothy 2:11-15, and especially v.12, has long been a focal point in modern discussions of the ordination of women. Traditional reservations about the ordination of women as pastors and elders have generally made two assumptions in the interpretation of this passage: 1) that the meaning of authentein in v.12 is clearly known and should be translated simply as “have authority”, and 2) that the appeal to the creation narrative naming Adam and Eve in vv.13 and 14 implies a universal, “transcultural” principle that prohibits the exercise of ecclesiastical authority by women over men in all (or some) circumstances.
The purpose of this article is to argue that both of these assumptions are faulty, and that I Timothy 2:11-15, rightly understood lexically and contextually, does not teach any universal prohibition of the ordination of women as pastors or elders. The primary focus of this discussion will be the second assumption, regarding the appeal to the Genesis creation account of Adam and Eve.1 It will be argued that Paul’s contextual and church-specific appeal to creation texts makes it not only possible but preferable to see the limitation on women’s teaching roles in I Tim.2 as a circumstantial and not universal prohibition. Before proceeding with this analysis, however, a few observations will be made regarding the meaning of authentein in v.12."
To read the remainder of the first installment of the paper, visit White Papers. [This link no longer works]
Monday, July 28, 2008
Re-creating Churches
By David Horn, ThD
Director, The Ockenga Institute
You could shake all of the contents of the entire series of books into its corners with room to spare: children, fauns, dwarfs, friendly giants, the White Witch, even the great lion. I’m telling you, it is huge!
I refinish furniture for relaxation when I’m not working at the seminary. One of my previous projects was an old walnut wardrobe that could accommodate all of Narnia…literally. One week the wardrobe almost got the best of me. Alone for hours, up to my elbows in skin-blistering stripper, filthy dirty, the thought actually crossed my mind: Why am I doing this? I could be upstairs reading Narnia rather than down here finding it a new home.
I won’t bore you with the results of such ruminations (brought on by stripper fumes no doubt), except to say that, like perhaps many of you with your methods of relaxation, part of my satisfaction in restoring furniture I attribute to my tendency toward distraction.
To restore furniture—to be a really good furniture refinisher—you have to be a really good daydreamer. You have to let your mind wander back to see the piece of furniture for what it was at one time, the glory days of the piece when it wore its newness so naturally. I wonder about the original creator of the wardrobe. What tools did he use; what obstacles did he have to overcome; what purposes drove him to make such a fine piece?
To see the piece for what it was at one time is key in seeing the piece of furniture for what it could be again. What potential is there in an old beat up wardrobe? Look at it again. Scrape off the blistered old finish, glue back the free edges of veneer, replace the broken hardware and you will see its past, and in seeing its past, you will give it a whole new life.
What I am speaking about, of course, is the act of re-creating something, an act that begs reflection on our human, divinely ordained mandate in Genesis 2. The reader can do this for him or herself while I reflect one more time on my re-created wardrobe. Even when refinished, that old piece bears the marks of its past. I have yet to restore a piece of furniture to its original condition. The beauty of my wardrobe is in the newly applied stain that only partially covers the conspicuous missing chips of veneer. It’s newly found beauty is partially in comparing its past with its new present.
This isn’t a handyman column, so why do I bring up my wardrobe? I bring it up because the very same act of re-creation goes on with pastors in their own churches. Without ignoring the wonderful things God is doing with the church planting processes throughout the country, most of us—most of our graduates who leave us—are dealing with old furniture when we consider the churches and other places of ministry we serve. Who of us doesn’t live with years of old varnish and bleached stain when we enter our sanctuaries on Sundays, interact with our leadership, administrate our threadbare programs, or counsel weak and battered members within our church?
What should our expectations be as we seek, through the Spirit, to restore old churches back to usefulness? One of the things we see with some of our students who leave us after their years of study here are well-intended church re-creators who put their newly acquired tools to the task of reshaping old ministry contexts. Their desires to polish these old churches back to new luster are very good. In their tool chest, they may often pull out a newly sharpened church model that, on the surface, would seem to be just the thing to bring new life to these old places.
Then why don’t these old churches polish up? Too often, I am afraid, they—we—who dream about new life in our churches—new programs, new leadership, new potential— seek to change these antiques after our own image without seeing them for what they are, wonderful old places with rich histories of God’s faithfulness. They may have gone astray. They often are filled with old, entrenched leadership. They don’t move very fast. Dump them on the table and you will find tired old programs rolling aimlessly around the edges. We want to change all this and the sooner the better.
But, to be a good daydreamer of these old churches, is there not something to be said for first accepting them for what they are in all their uniqueness, in the context of their rich histories, and with appreciation for what has brought them to their present condition? It seems to me, to be a good restorer of old churches begins first with letting our minds wander back to their glory days. How did they start? Why did they start? In what context were they placed? How has that context changed? What kind of leaders have led these unique churches in the past and how do they represent leadership needs in the present? What kinds of programs worked earlier? Is there a relationship between these kinds of programs and what could be offered, in new ways, in the present?
I wouldn’t trade my house full of old furniture for all the furniture stores full of new furniture in the world. I love old things. I love to re-create old things. To be a re-creator of churches, I think, too, requires that we love, we truly love, old things.
Director, The Ockenga Institute
You could shake all of the contents of the entire series of books into its corners with room to spare: children, fauns, dwarfs, friendly giants, the White Witch, even the great lion. I’m telling you, it is huge!
I refinish furniture for relaxation when I’m not working at the seminary. One of my previous projects was an old walnut wardrobe that could accommodate all of Narnia…literally. One week the wardrobe almost got the best of me. Alone for hours, up to my elbows in skin-blistering stripper, filthy dirty, the thought actually crossed my mind: Why am I doing this? I could be upstairs reading Narnia rather than down here finding it a new home.
I won’t bore you with the results of such ruminations (brought on by stripper fumes no doubt), except to say that, like perhaps many of you with your methods of relaxation, part of my satisfaction in restoring furniture I attribute to my tendency toward distraction.
To restore furniture—to be a really good furniture refinisher—you have to be a really good daydreamer. You have to let your mind wander back to see the piece of furniture for what it was at one time, the glory days of the piece when it wore its newness so naturally. I wonder about the original creator of the wardrobe. What tools did he use; what obstacles did he have to overcome; what purposes drove him to make such a fine piece?
To see the piece for what it was at one time is key in seeing the piece of furniture for what it could be again. What potential is there in an old beat up wardrobe? Look at it again. Scrape off the blistered old finish, glue back the free edges of veneer, replace the broken hardware and you will see its past, and in seeing its past, you will give it a whole new life.
What I am speaking about, of course, is the act of re-creating something, an act that begs reflection on our human, divinely ordained mandate in Genesis 2. The reader can do this for him or herself while I reflect one more time on my re-created wardrobe. Even when refinished, that old piece bears the marks of its past. I have yet to restore a piece of furniture to its original condition. The beauty of my wardrobe is in the newly applied stain that only partially covers the conspicuous missing chips of veneer. It’s newly found beauty is partially in comparing its past with its new present.
This isn’t a handyman column, so why do I bring up my wardrobe? I bring it up because the very same act of re-creation goes on with pastors in their own churches. Without ignoring the wonderful things God is doing with the church planting processes throughout the country, most of us—most of our graduates who leave us—are dealing with old furniture when we consider the churches and other places of ministry we serve. Who of us doesn’t live with years of old varnish and bleached stain when we enter our sanctuaries on Sundays, interact with our leadership, administrate our threadbare programs, or counsel weak and battered members within our church?
What should our expectations be as we seek, through the Spirit, to restore old churches back to usefulness? One of the things we see with some of our students who leave us after their years of study here are well-intended church re-creators who put their newly acquired tools to the task of reshaping old ministry contexts. Their desires to polish these old churches back to new luster are very good. In their tool chest, they may often pull out a newly sharpened church model that, on the surface, would seem to be just the thing to bring new life to these old places.
Then why don’t these old churches polish up? Too often, I am afraid, they—we—who dream about new life in our churches—new programs, new leadership, new potential— seek to change these antiques after our own image without seeing them for what they are, wonderful old places with rich histories of God’s faithfulness. They may have gone astray. They often are filled with old, entrenched leadership. They don’t move very fast. Dump them on the table and you will find tired old programs rolling aimlessly around the edges. We want to change all this and the sooner the better.
But, to be a good daydreamer of these old churches, is there not something to be said for first accepting them for what they are in all their uniqueness, in the context of their rich histories, and with appreciation for what has brought them to their present condition? It seems to me, to be a good restorer of old churches begins first with letting our minds wander back to their glory days. How did they start? Why did they start? In what context were they placed? How has that context changed? What kind of leaders have led these unique churches in the past and how do they represent leadership needs in the present? What kinds of programs worked earlier? Is there a relationship between these kinds of programs and what could be offered, in new ways, in the present?
I wouldn’t trade my house full of old furniture for all the furniture stores full of new furniture in the world. I love old things. I love to re-create old things. To be a re-creator of churches, I think, too, requires that we love, we truly love, old things.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Resurrection: Not a New Concept?
By Roy Ciampa, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
Time magazine recently published a short article under the title “Was Jesus’ Resurrection a Sequel?” (To read the article, click here.) Written by David Van Biema and Tim McGirk it discusses a “first-century BC tablet, thought to originate from the Jordanian bank of the Dead Sea, that tells the story of a Messiah who rose again after three days from the grave.” The hyped drama here is based on the idea that, if the proposed reconstruction is correct, “Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day — and it might even hint that they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified.” The authors suggest this reconstruction “undermines one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection (in which they believe on faith): the specificity and novelty of the idea that the Messiah would die on a Friday and rise on a Sunday. Who could make such stuff up?”
Funny thing is, I have to confess I don’t recall ever hearing or using that argument before. Only now, am I discovering it is supposedly one of our strongest arguments to support the historicity of the resurrection and it is being undermined.
The authors think it provocative and shocking to suggest that when they proclaimed the death and resurrection of Christ “maybe the Christians had a model to work from.” Israel Knohl (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) points out that “for the first time, we have proof” that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah “was there before Jesus." This, he thinks, “should shake our basic view of Christianity. ... What happens in the New Testament [could have been] adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story."
OK, I guess I should be panicking. But wait…. Thankfully (to the authors’ credit) they do check with Ben Witherington (Gordon-Conwell graduate and Asbury Seminary professor). His reported responses are (as usual) right on point. Among other things he points out that the verb Knohl wants to translate from the tablet as "rise!" could as easily mean "there arose," as in “showed up on the scene“ (cf. Matt. 11:11; 12:42; 24:11; Mark 13:22; Luke 7:16; 11:31; John 7:52). Oh yes, and “Witherington notes that if he is wrong and Knohl's reading is right, it at least sets to rest the notion that the various gospel quotes attributed to Christ foreshadowing his death and Resurrection were textual retrojections put in his mouth by later believers — Jesus the Messianic Jew, as Knohl sees him, would have been familiar with the vocabulary for his own fate.”’ But according to the main thrust of the article this last possibility is supposed to be undermining one of our most important arguments for the resurrection!
This last of Witherington’s points highlights the silliest part of the article’s hype. Matthew 14:2 indicates Herod thought the reports about Jesus suggested that he was actually John the Baptist, risen from the dead. Here again the New Testament itself suggests Jewish people of his day considered the possibility that God might vindicate a righteous man by raising him from the dead. According to the gospels Jesus himself indicated that his followers should have known ahead of time, based on the Scriptures, that he, as the Messiah would die and then be vindicated by being raised by God from the dead. Luke 18:31-33 says Jesus told his disciples that “everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be handed over to the Gentiles; and he will be mocked and insulted and spat upon. After they have flogged him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise again" (NRSV). After the resurrection we are told that Jesus told the disciples, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you-- that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.” Luke says Jesus then “opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem‘“ (Luke 24:44-47 NRSV). Mark and Matthew both record Jesus referring to his upcoming death in the words “the Son of Man goes as it is written of him” (Matt. 26:24; Mark 14:21; emphasis added).
Paul also indicates that Jesus and the rest of the early church had a scriptural model to work from. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul says,
“I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me” (NRSV).
Here again it is understood that Christ’s death and resurrection took place “according to the [Old Testament] scriptures.” This was not thought to be a new idea. Just exactly which Scriptures Jesus, Paul and other early Christians might have had in mind is debatable. Certainly Daniel 12:2-3, Hosea 6:1-2 and Ezekiel 37 must be included in the mix. For a full discussion of the resurrection, see N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God [Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003]). He provides a fine discussion of the Old Testament background on pages 108-28. Part of the key turns out to be that God had done for Jesus, in the middle of time what he had been expected to do for Israel at the end of time [raise them from the dead after suffering oppression at the hands of pagans]: “In and through Jesus Israel’s hope had been realized. He had been raised from the dead after suffering and dying at the hands of the pagans” (N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 127).
Christians do not base the belief that Jesus died and rose from the dead on the uniqueness of the idea or because we can’t imagine anyone making the story up. We believe it because of the testimony of those who saw him (see again 1 Cor. 15:3-8 above) and gave their lives for the sake of that message and because of the evidence of Jesus’ resurrection life demonstrated in and through his disciples down through history and into our own time and our own lives. It is not part of the Christian message to say Jesus had such an idiosyncratic interpretation of Scripture that no one else could have understood it before hand. Jesus himself said his disciples should have understood the Scriptures to teach that the Messiah must experience Israel’s destiny: He must die and rise again.
I am not suggesting that Knohl’s interpretation of the tablet will turn out to be correct. That may be unlikely. What I am suggesting is that believers do not have a horse in this race. Clearly most Jews did not expect the Messiah to die and rise again, but Jesus and the authors of the New Testament suggest they should have. If we ever find (or have just found) an ancient Jewish text suggesting the/a Messiah would rise from the dead, it will make clear whether or not others had come to understand that as well as Jesus and the other early Christians. That would be an interesting discovery. But undeserving of the “this completely undermines the Christian faith” hype that publishers hope to work up about such things. If there is any hype to be made about the tablet being discussed, perhaps it should go more like this: News from Jerusalem! Perhaps Jesus was right! His disciples should have understood that he needed to die and then rise again!
Associate Professor of New Testament
Time magazine recently published a short article under the title “Was Jesus’ Resurrection a Sequel?” (To read the article, click here.) Written by David Van Biema and Tim McGirk it discusses a “first-century BC tablet, thought to originate from the Jordanian bank of the Dead Sea, that tells the story of a Messiah who rose again after three days from the grave.” The hyped drama here is based on the idea that, if the proposed reconstruction is correct, “Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day — and it might even hint that they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified.” The authors suggest this reconstruction “undermines one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection (in which they believe on faith): the specificity and novelty of the idea that the Messiah would die on a Friday and rise on a Sunday. Who could make such stuff up?”
Funny thing is, I have to confess I don’t recall ever hearing or using that argument before. Only now, am I discovering it is supposedly one of our strongest arguments to support the historicity of the resurrection and it is being undermined.
The authors think it provocative and shocking to suggest that when they proclaimed the death and resurrection of Christ “maybe the Christians had a model to work from.” Israel Knohl (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) points out that “for the first time, we have proof” that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah “was there before Jesus." This, he thinks, “should shake our basic view of Christianity. ... What happens in the New Testament [could have been] adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story."
OK, I guess I should be panicking. But wait…. Thankfully (to the authors’ credit) they do check with Ben Witherington (Gordon-Conwell graduate and Asbury Seminary professor). His reported responses are (as usual) right on point. Among other things he points out that the verb Knohl wants to translate from the tablet as "rise!" could as easily mean "there arose," as in “showed up on the scene“ (cf. Matt. 11:11; 12:42; 24:11; Mark 13:22; Luke 7:16; 11:31; John 7:52). Oh yes, and “Witherington notes that if he is wrong and Knohl's reading is right, it at least sets to rest the notion that the various gospel quotes attributed to Christ foreshadowing his death and Resurrection were textual retrojections put in his mouth by later believers — Jesus the Messianic Jew, as Knohl sees him, would have been familiar with the vocabulary for his own fate.”’ But according to the main thrust of the article this last possibility is supposed to be undermining one of our most important arguments for the resurrection!
This last of Witherington’s points highlights the silliest part of the article’s hype. Matthew 14:2 indicates Herod thought the reports about Jesus suggested that he was actually John the Baptist, risen from the dead. Here again the New Testament itself suggests Jewish people of his day considered the possibility that God might vindicate a righteous man by raising him from the dead. According to the gospels Jesus himself indicated that his followers should have known ahead of time, based on the Scriptures, that he, as the Messiah would die and then be vindicated by being raised by God from the dead. Luke 18:31-33 says Jesus told his disciples that “everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be handed over to the Gentiles; and he will be mocked and insulted and spat upon. After they have flogged him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise again" (NRSV). After the resurrection we are told that Jesus told the disciples, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you-- that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.” Luke says Jesus then “opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem‘“ (Luke 24:44-47 NRSV). Mark and Matthew both record Jesus referring to his upcoming death in the words “the Son of Man goes as it is written of him” (Matt. 26:24; Mark 14:21; emphasis added).
Paul also indicates that Jesus and the rest of the early church had a scriptural model to work from. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul says,
“I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me” (NRSV).
Here again it is understood that Christ’s death and resurrection took place “according to the [Old Testament] scriptures.” This was not thought to be a new idea. Just exactly which Scriptures Jesus, Paul and other early Christians might have had in mind is debatable. Certainly Daniel 12:2-3, Hosea 6:1-2 and Ezekiel 37 must be included in the mix. For a full discussion of the resurrection, see N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God [Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003]). He provides a fine discussion of the Old Testament background on pages 108-28. Part of the key turns out to be that God had done for Jesus, in the middle of time what he had been expected to do for Israel at the end of time [raise them from the dead after suffering oppression at the hands of pagans]: “In and through Jesus Israel’s hope had been realized. He had been raised from the dead after suffering and dying at the hands of the pagans” (N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 127).
Christians do not base the belief that Jesus died and rose from the dead on the uniqueness of the idea or because we can’t imagine anyone making the story up. We believe it because of the testimony of those who saw him (see again 1 Cor. 15:3-8 above) and gave their lives for the sake of that message and because of the evidence of Jesus’ resurrection life demonstrated in and through his disciples down through history and into our own time and our own lives. It is not part of the Christian message to say Jesus had such an idiosyncratic interpretation of Scripture that no one else could have understood it before hand. Jesus himself said his disciples should have understood the Scriptures to teach that the Messiah must experience Israel’s destiny: He must die and rise again.
I am not suggesting that Knohl’s interpretation of the tablet will turn out to be correct. That may be unlikely. What I am suggesting is that believers do not have a horse in this race. Clearly most Jews did not expect the Messiah to die and rise again, but Jesus and the authors of the New Testament suggest they should have. If we ever find (or have just found) an ancient Jewish text suggesting the/a Messiah would rise from the dead, it will make clear whether or not others had come to understand that as well as Jesus and the other early Christians. That would be an interesting discovery. But undeserving of the “this completely undermines the Christian faith” hype that publishers hope to work up about such things. If there is any hype to be made about the tablet being discussed, perhaps it should go more like this: News from Jerusalem! Perhaps Jesus was right! His disciples should have understood that he needed to die and then rise again!
Monday, July 7, 2008
All Together Now...
By Maria Boccia, PhD
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling Charlotte campus
I just returned from a week teaching at a family camp sponsored by PRMI (Presbyterian Reformed Ministries International). In the past, organizers of family camp divided the attendees into age groups for teaching times. We decided, however, to do things differently. We asked that, except for the youngest children, the families attend the teaching periods together. Thus, we had the pleasure and challenge of teaching people aged 10 to 60+ in ways that were relevant and engaging to them all.
We taught a series on building strong families, based on Ephesians 6:10-18. In this passage, Paul tells us to stand strong against the evil one by putting on the full armor of God and by persevering in prayer. Paul, under house arrest, was reminded of the armor, no doubt, by the constant presence of the Roman guard to whom he was chained. The pieces of armor include the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of the preparation of the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit. As I studied in preparation for this week, I was struck by how the image of the Roman soldier and his armor led me to consider the corporate nature of our faith. Most commentators I read discussed the critical importance of the Roman soldiers' coordinated formations, standing firm in a united front which both afforded protection from the enemy and created an imposing front for assault.
During the course of the week, as we presented lessons on each piece of armor, we drew out this emphasis on the individual family and the family of God, the Body of Christ. Yes, we are each individually saved by faith in Christ, but we are born into the family. God's intention for us is to live and grow into the person he intended us to be in the context of that family, the Body of Christ, the Church. God does not want solo Christians. We need each other. Even the soldier's armor, which seems at first glance to be designed for one person, needs others to be most effective. The large Roman shield, for example, was made to interlock with the shields of other soldiers. When the soldiers did this, they could create an impenetrable defense against the enemy's flaming arrows. What a wonderful image of the Body of Christ, united against the schemes of the devil!
We also had plenty of time, during the week, after the morning teaching for fun and fellowship before evening services. I found myself sought out repeatedly by one man who kept telling me about lots of people he knew who had been hurt by churches in the past and now refused to be a part of any church. We discussed the teachings on the armor and the implications for Christians remaining in fellowship to accomplish the work of the Kingdom. I encouraged him that he could be an important mediator of God's truth to these people about the need for fellowship with other believers. The church, composed of fallen, redeemed human beings, is not perfect. But it is God's chosen instrument for the living out and proclamation of the gospel. That is why we are told to not give up on coming together (Hebrews 10:25). This is the only way we can build up, encourage, and support one another as we seek to grow into the people God wants us to be and proclaim the gospel to a world that desperately needs it.
On the final morning of family camp, we set aside some time for “debriefing,” giving attendees the opportunity to share whatever they would like about their experience of the week. This man stood up and spoke, with tears, about how he now finally understood that God wants us to be together, not alone, and that it is important for him to be part of a church. The woman sitting next to me, who apparently knew this man quite well, raised her eyes to heaven in thanksgiving for his words. She had known that he was one of those people he kept talking with me about who have been hurt and were intent on staying away from any church.
Many churches have the practice, as was true of previous times at this family camp, of separating people by age. For teaching children, I can understand this, as their cognitive abilities are developing over time and what a 3 year old is capable of understanding is quite different from a 13 year old. But most churches take this much further and separate 20 somethings from 30 or 40 somethings, singles from couples, young marrieds from empty nesters. But I think this cheats us of the advantage of the family of God sharing experience and wisdom across the generations. Some people at family camp commented on how much they appreciated being together, old and young and everything in between. It had indeed been a delight during the week to see teenagers praying for their elders as well as vice versa, each encouraging the other and bringing to each other the perspectives unique to their age and life status. It does take some additional effort to make the teaching relevant and meaningful across the age ranges. But I find the value of the generations sharing their experiences to be well worth the effort.
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling Charlotte campus
I just returned from a week teaching at a family camp sponsored by PRMI (Presbyterian Reformed Ministries International). In the past, organizers of family camp divided the attendees into age groups for teaching times. We decided, however, to do things differently. We asked that, except for the youngest children, the families attend the teaching periods together. Thus, we had the pleasure and challenge of teaching people aged 10 to 60+ in ways that were relevant and engaging to them all.
We taught a series on building strong families, based on Ephesians 6:10-18. In this passage, Paul tells us to stand strong against the evil one by putting on the full armor of God and by persevering in prayer. Paul, under house arrest, was reminded of the armor, no doubt, by the constant presence of the Roman guard to whom he was chained. The pieces of armor include the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of the preparation of the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit. As I studied in preparation for this week, I was struck by how the image of the Roman soldier and his armor led me to consider the corporate nature of our faith. Most commentators I read discussed the critical importance of the Roman soldiers' coordinated formations, standing firm in a united front which both afforded protection from the enemy and created an imposing front for assault.
During the course of the week, as we presented lessons on each piece of armor, we drew out this emphasis on the individual family and the family of God, the Body of Christ. Yes, we are each individually saved by faith in Christ, but we are born into the family. God's intention for us is to live and grow into the person he intended us to be in the context of that family, the Body of Christ, the Church. God does not want solo Christians. We need each other. Even the soldier's armor, which seems at first glance to be designed for one person, needs others to be most effective. The large Roman shield, for example, was made to interlock with the shields of other soldiers. When the soldiers did this, they could create an impenetrable defense against the enemy's flaming arrows. What a wonderful image of the Body of Christ, united against the schemes of the devil!
We also had plenty of time, during the week, after the morning teaching for fun and fellowship before evening services. I found myself sought out repeatedly by one man who kept telling me about lots of people he knew who had been hurt by churches in the past and now refused to be a part of any church. We discussed the teachings on the armor and the implications for Christians remaining in fellowship to accomplish the work of the Kingdom. I encouraged him that he could be an important mediator of God's truth to these people about the need for fellowship with other believers. The church, composed of fallen, redeemed human beings, is not perfect. But it is God's chosen instrument for the living out and proclamation of the gospel. That is why we are told to not give up on coming together (Hebrews 10:25). This is the only way we can build up, encourage, and support one another as we seek to grow into the people God wants us to be and proclaim the gospel to a world that desperately needs it.
On the final morning of family camp, we set aside some time for “debriefing,” giving attendees the opportunity to share whatever they would like about their experience of the week. This man stood up and spoke, with tears, about how he now finally understood that God wants us to be together, not alone, and that it is important for him to be part of a church. The woman sitting next to me, who apparently knew this man quite well, raised her eyes to heaven in thanksgiving for his words. She had known that he was one of those people he kept talking with me about who have been hurt and were intent on staying away from any church.
Many churches have the practice, as was true of previous times at this family camp, of separating people by age. For teaching children, I can understand this, as their cognitive abilities are developing over time and what a 3 year old is capable of understanding is quite different from a 13 year old. But most churches take this much further and separate 20 somethings from 30 or 40 somethings, singles from couples, young marrieds from empty nesters. But I think this cheats us of the advantage of the family of God sharing experience and wisdom across the generations. Some people at family camp commented on how much they appreciated being together, old and young and everything in between. It had indeed been a delight during the week to see teenagers praying for their elders as well as vice versa, each encouraging the other and bringing to each other the perspectives unique to their age and life status. It does take some additional effort to make the teaching relevant and meaningful across the age ranges. But I find the value of the generations sharing their experiences to be well worth the effort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)