Three types of Christian scholarship:

1. Exegetes (study) - Level one studies 

original research; learning; data; facts

 These are the type of people who are continually doing research. They primarily involve themselves in first hand resources. In biblical studies, they are concerned with original language, backgrounds, historical criticism, and textual issues. They are often (though not always) very timid to take theological stands due to their realization of the complexities of the issues involved. Because of this, they are sometimes accused of “academic agnosticism.” They are very precise thinkers and normally find it difficult to teach because they are always qualifying everything.  More often than not they limit their studies to very particular areas.

They find all the pieces of the puzzle.

Viewpoint: TREES

• Why they might dislike theologians: “They often lack the precise information and are sloppy with the facts.”
• Why they need theologians: To process the data and come to conclusions from a broader understanding.
• Possible problems with exegetes: Truth often dies the death of a thousand qualifications. They can lack common sense. Their precise studies can blind them to the obvious.

2. Theologian/Philosopher (think) – Level two studies

systematize; reflect; theories

 Theologians are the thinkers. They are not so much concerned about researching and discovering original data, but with the bigger picture of what the data means and exploring original ideas. They spend their time reflecting on issues and coming to conclusions about truth. They systematize the data in order that creeds can be reasoned, established, and defended. They are much broader in their thinking and studies, having to be familiar with many areas of scholarship in order to provide a systematic understanding of the complete truth. They are concerned with biblical studies, history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, logic, and the like.

They put the puzzle together.

Viewpoint: FOREST Continue Reading »

Added to the “. . . And Other Stupid Statements” series

The other day I was listening to a radio program. The speaker is someone who is very popular in Evangelical apologetics. He is someone that I have learned a lot from and whom I respect a great deal. However, he propagated something that I think is a very poor apologetic response to questions for which the individual does not have answers. It goes like this:

Apologist teacher: “We need to be ready to give an answer for our faith.”

Student: “But I am scared. What if someone asks a question that I don’t have an answer for.”

Apologist teacher: “Don’t be scared. It is okay if you don’t know. Don’t feel bad about your lack of knowledge. You just need to remedy it. Tell them that it is a good question and that you will go find the answer and get back with them about it.”

However, I find this sort of carte blanc response disturbing and quite demeaning.

I am not saying that it could not be a good answer in certain circumstances for certain questions. But when it comes to our defense of the faith we had better be more prepared and more reflective. What do I mean by this?

Think about it. Let’s put this in a particular situation. You are an enthusiastic Christian who believes deeply in the Gospel. You are talking to a co-worker about Christ one day. They begin to tell you about why they don’t believe in God. The crux of their issue is the problem of evil. “How could a good God allow evil?” That is their question. You respond, “I don’t know. Good question. I will research this some and get back to you next week.”

What you have just done here is illegitimized your faith to this person. As well, you have diminished the seriousness of the question and the person asking it. To this person, your faith is carried even though you have not dealt with one of the most serious theological questions that anyone can ask. You have just told the person, “Hmmm…Good question. Never thought of that.” Once this person (who obviously does think deeply) recognizes that you have not personally wrestled with this issue, they will see your faith as shallow and fake. By essentially saying, “I have never thought of that,” you have just lost your representation. Continue Reading »

Brett Favre  does the best commercials. I love them. I especially like the one that came out just after the new NFL season began. Brett Favre was trying to decide on a television to purchase. Right when he finally makes up his mind and expresses it with certainty saying, “I’ll take this one”, he changes it saying, “I don’t know…” Why do I like it?” He is putting on display his indecisive personality which, in popular NFL culture, is very frustrating. He always waffles. He can never decide whether he is staying in the NFL or retiring. What he does in these commercials is make fun of himself. He knows the culture is frustrated with his waffling. But instead of getting defensive, giving reasons for his waffling, and trying to saving face, he gets transparent. He let’s people know that he is just like them. He can’t make up his mind. What courage it must take to become so three dimensional.

During my Principles of Biblical Teaching course, I tell my students to be careful not to always set themselves up as the hero. When giving an illustration on how a certain principle should be carried out, sparingly use personal stories where you are the one who triumphs. In fact, I tell them, more often than not, when you are illustrating failure, use yourself if you can. This not only adds dimension to your character, it also lets people know you are real.  Don’t be like the old preacher who told his congregation, “I am going to preach today on humility, and might I say that it is the best sermon I have ever read.”

One of the Christian’s most beloved passages in all the Bible is Romans 7:14-25. This is where Paul lets his failures shine through. Listen to this:

“For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15 For that which I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. (Rom 7:14-25)

What a wonderfully transparent passage! Why do we love it so? We love it precisely because we can so identify with it. “Hey Paul, I am a wretch too! Thanks for identifying with me.”

The entire Bible is filled with the successes and failures of so many. The Bible is transparent about the human condition. Why do we feel such a burden to dress ourselves up so nicely and hide our sin? Adam ate the apple. Noah got drunk. Abraham gave his wife to a national leader for self preservation. Lot found fellowship with debauchery and loved it. David took another man’s wife and killed him to hide his sin. Peter denied that he even knew Christ. John fell down and worshiped an angel. Transparency at its best.

Reasons why we are scared of transparency:

Fear of rejection: “Its all about me. If I let others know about this or that struggle, what will they think about me. They will reject me and all that I say.” Continue Reading »

People ask me all the time if I ever think about starting a church. My answer? No, not much. Only about twice per day.

I have thought through quite a bit what an “ideal” church looks like. You know the old saying, “once you find the perfect church, you better leave since your presence makes it no longer perfect” . . . or something like that.

No, I am not talking about the “perfect” church. There is no such thing. Ideal. That is the key. How would it be structured? How often would you take the Lord’s supper? Liturgy? Type of preaching? All of these are great questions. But I want to talk only about one here today. Maybe we will follow this up with other issues, but let’s focus now on my (loosely held) opinion concerning the pastorate:

Michael, what would your pastoral staff look like theologically? Calvinistic? Premillenial? Memorialist Lord’s supper?

No, none of these. I would propose a call for a somewhat theologically diversified group of pastors.  I would not only allow for freedom in many areas of theology, but I would intentionally attempt to build a diversified staff, many of whom would disagree with me on issues about which I have very, very strong opinions.

I would have to distinguish between those issues upon which I have strong opinions and those which I am convicted are necessary for the proper functioning of the local church.

Non-negotiables:

• Belief in the central elements of the Gospel: The person and work of Christ (who he is and what he has done).
• Belief in sola Scriptura: Scripture alone is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian.
• Belief in sola fide: Faith is the only instrumental cause (from a human standpoint) that brings about justification (i.e., no works-based salvation).
• Belief in the future coming of Christ: i.e., cannot be a Preterist.
• Must be formally trained in Bible and theology (sorry, no online stuff).

(Oh, and then there is the 1 Tim requirements, but that goes without saying here).

Pretty Evangelical Protestant so far. Continue Reading »

Towards the end of last semester as I was immersed in studying Greek, I came across the names of a couple of female New Testament scholars.  Naturally my curiousity got the better of me.  My preliminary quest turned up a platform on gender issues amid other publications.  I must say I was disappointed.  I then sought to find a female NT scholar whose research and speciality did not involve gender issues.  Why did it bother me so much that women scholars utilized their platform for gender issues?  As a women with academic and leadership interests, it seems like I would have been pleased to see such efforts.  But I wasn’t.

To be clear, what I am referring to ranges from women’s role in leadership in a complementarian paradigm to full blown support for egalitarianism and everywhere in between.  I am referring to research that specifically addresses to what extent a woman can exercise authority over a man, if at all, and participate in ministry leadership.

So what’s my beef with gender issues?  I know I might get into a bit of hot water with the ladies for this one.  Maybe it’s just me and this is only an opinion, but I think it undermines the legitimacy of female scholarship, particularly in fields where issues are secondary.  I am not saying that Biblical theology of women, and particularly women in leadership should not be explored, but there is something about effort being exerted to promote a cause that can be perceived as self-beneficial.  And especially where the sword of gender issues is optional and research efforts can be focused on other topics.  It might be subtly or not so subtly saying, ‘I’m here and demand that you take me serious.’

I am NOT saying that is the motive behind such a platform but I can’t help but wonder if that is the ultimate impact.  I can’t help but wonder if the perception of self-promotion can be self-defeating, and perhaps undermine the premise that such scholarship aims to promote.

Yes, somebody has to research them.  To be honest, I appreciate the men that take up the cause for gender issues.  I think far too many men, particularly in more conservative evangelical circles, are prone to lethargic study and easy dismissal of understanding a woman’s place in leadership.  After all, why should they be concerned?  But for the ones who do, I think it does give a little more credibility to the issue because it is no longer perceived as a woman trying to insert herself where some believe, she should not be inserted.  Again, I am not saying that those who take up the cause with their research interest and literary publication are doing this, but perception can say a lot.

Why do I have concerns?   While I maintain an active complementarian perspective regarding male headship in the home and church, I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that it is not as neatly packaged as the more conservative platforms would espouse.  I don’t believe I will ever accept the abolition of an authoritative order, aka, egalitarianism.  But I do believe there is ample room, in present day context, for women to legitimately hold leadership roles more than some segments within conservative evangelic circles are willing to accept.  I say this not in support of my own ambition, but as a student of Scriptures that seeks to honestly digest what the whole counsel of Scripture would say on a topic.  This also involves evaluating what is contextualized versus commanded.

Yet, there have been solid lines drawn in the sand.  For those that hold to #1-4 in Michael’s chart (here), I think there is the expectation that women will rebel and possibly construed as outward defiance against God’s authority.  A smart, capable, degreed and well-read woman taking up the cause against restrictive views most likely support this expectation.  Moreover, for the stricter conservative branches of evangelicals with low incentive to investigate issues further, I can’t help but wonder if the cause of scholarship in the area of gender issues would not be construed as further motivation for strengthening those lines.

Regardless of one’s position in the complementarian/egalitarian debate, perhaps the best support for the legitimacy of female leadership is demonstrating scholarship in a variety of disciplines within theological study.  Rather than concentrating research on why women can hold leadership positions or to what extent women can hold leadership position, perhaps the greatest proof would be in the pudding of demonstrated capability and meaningful contributions in all areas in the body of Christ.  I know this can mean various things depending on ones position, (whether a woman can pastor, for example) but the argument of the position is not really the point here nor is this post in support of one position vs. the other.   The point is that if there is a place for women in leadership, it might be better to demonstrate leadership in that area rather than proving why you should.

So getting back to my search, I came across Dr. Karen Jobes, a professor of New Testament study at Wheaton College.   No gender studies, only research involving the LXX and New Testament exegesis.  And her commentary on 1 Peter is bar none, where she also gives props to her husband for modeling Ephesians 5.  I do not know much more about Dr. Jobes than is written here but am eager to learn more.  I would like to believe there are others like her, who quietly work out their giftings for expedient contribution to the body of Christ amongst the din of gender promoters.  I am likely to take Dr. Jobes a little more serious because of it.

Does my title give me away? So much for being coy with my proposition. Let me say that this post is going to get me in trouble with some dear friends who preach God’s word every week. My message to them: Bear with my critique. I pray that my thoughts will be considered as “wounds from a friend”—a very fallible friend.

Here, let’s start this way. Have you ever heard someone (probably a preacher or teacher in the church) say something like this:

“I had prepared all week to teach on __________, but the Holy Spirit changed my lesson at the last minute.”

I have. Dozens of times. The idea it conveys is that the particular message that was prepared was not of God (at least at that time) and this new message was most certainly of God. In fact, the new message is miraculously of God! Why? Because I did not really prepare for it. It must have been God who prepared it. “I just step back when that happens and let God do his thing. Who am I to interrupt God?”

Can I say something? (Wait, let me hide behind something first . . .There.) That is a stupid statement!

My basic thesis is this: The type of assumptions required to adopt the occurrence of such homiletic detours is irresponsible both to yourself and to your audience and misunderstands the way God works in the life of the church.

Let me give you some characteristics that I see in such statements.  They can:

Neglect the Holy Spirit. The idea that is conveyed is that the Holy Spirit is not present in the sermon/lesson preparation process. Without God’s presence and guidance in the study, does he somehow show up at the pulpit? There is no justification for such thinking. In fact, I would argue that we are in more need of the Spirit’s guidance in the study than we are when we deliver. If the Spirit is not present when you are in preparation, how can he be there when you deliver? The delivery is simply the product of your life, study, preparation, and daily walk with God. If this is true, why would God miraculously change what he has been preparing you to present? Can he not make up his mind? Did some new unforeseen circumstance arise that caused him to adjust, shift, or compensate for? Be careful. Continue Reading »

Leadership is a hot topic today. Colleges and universities and seminaries and churches and Christian organizations of all varieties are developing leadership programs. I cite my own denomination, the Christian Reformed Church. To celebrate its 150th anniversary, it is raising millions of dollars to launch a leadership institute. My alma mater Baylor University has recently established a school of leadership. The list goes on and on.

I myself jumped on the bandwagon several years ago when I proposed a course on leadership at Calvin Seminary where I was teaching. I would approach the topic from a biblical, historical, and biographical perspectives; seeking to identify role models. It was not until I was teaching through the course a second time that I realized what a crock this whole topic is. It’s phony from beginning to end especially as it relates to biblical models.

That Jesus was a failed leader both by example and by teaching is something we already know at least unconsciously. Jesus taught that the first shall be last; take up your cross and follow me; to be a minister or to be great in the eyes of God is to be a servant. His teaching on leadership was upside-down and backwards. Indeed, it was no leadership teaching at all. We all know that, but we easily try to fix Jesus’ teachings or put the prefix servant in front of the word leadership. But the effort falls short.

It falls short because with Jesus we get a lot more than theory. He modeled his teachings. He was a servant, to be sure. But he was not, I argue, a servant leader.

First, let me seek to define leader or leadership. I’m not breaking any new ground here. I look to others. Malcolm Forbes offers the most basic stock definition: "No one™s a leader if there are no followers.†Peter Drucker agrees: “The only definition of a leader is someone who has followers.â€

Others have emphasized influence. But we all know there are many people of influence – scientists, authors, musicians – who have great influence but are not leaders in any sense of the term. The dictionary examples of a leader are typically conductor, guide, and military officer.

Let’s look at Jesus within the framework of this definition and these examples.

True, Jesus had 12 disciples who were followers. But 12 is a low number by leadership standards, and the followers were fickle at best. One betrayed, one denied, one doubted, the rest hid out. None of the followers have a profile that a conductor, a guide, or military officer would put up with.

As for the leader, Jesus is executed in his early thirties. Not exactly a demonstration of leadership success.

This model of leader/followers is hardly one that would serve today’s leadership seminars. Something is dramatically wrong with the picture. Plain and simple, Jesus was a failed leader though it’s critical to point out that Jesus did not aspire to leadership.

But Jesus has become the ultimate model for many Christian leadership gurus today. Books and websites abound. The Leadership Lessons of Jesus: A Timeless Model for Today’s Leaders by Bob Briner and Ray Pritchard is just one example. Of hundreds of websites one is "58 leadership secrets of Jesus."

Both the secular world and the Christian community have drifted far off course on the matter of leadership. That is the subject of my soon-to-be published book: Leadership Reconsidered. My emphasis in that book is not merely the wrong-headedness of leadership training, but the right emphasis that must take its place that of legacy.

The heart of the gospel and how it relates to us is not that we should follow Jesus who shows us a pattern for leadership. Indeed, leaders are as fickle as are followers. News stories of political and business and religions leaders feature that profile every day of the week. A leader’s star rises as quickly as it falls.

Legacy is what matters. Obviously no one will every match Jesus in the realm of legacy. But as we contemplate our pilgrimage in life, we must get over the self-serving concept of leadership and set our hearts and minds on legacy.