It is obvious that so many places are relying on distance education—virtual distance education. After all, it is more convenient for all parties in many ways. People who would never have the option of going to seminary are now being trained by the best teachers the church has to offer. Institutions are able to stay afloat because of the minimal overhead that they have to sustain, all the while providing the same courses by the same teachers. Soon, seminaries may not need campuses at all. It will simply require a virtual campus. No one has to travel…not even the professors!

Not only this, but think of the students in other parts of the world who certainly would not have this opportunity. As well, what about the isolated pastors who have shepherded their flock with not much more than a Bible. They are now able to join with the church worldwide and feed from some of the most gifted members of the Body of Christ.

However, with all of these benefits, I don’t think we (the Church) should be too quick to rejoice to the detriment of the better option. I believe that traditional on-sadite training is by far the best option and I think we need to recognize this before we celebrate ourselves to the point of the demise of one of our most important and valued assets—the local seminary.

A couple of, side-notes, caveats, or whatever:

1. I know that I am going against the grain here. I also realize that I am going against the grain to, what some may believe, is my own detriment. Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, of which I am the founder and president, exists in large part due to our virtual constituency. We are facilitating the training of thousands of lay-people, ministers, and ministers-in-training all over the world. I think that we do online education just as good as anyone out there. However, we have never purported to be a seminary or a substitute for seminary. At best, we are a stepping stone for those who might go into seminary. However, in reality, we are here to make theology accessible to those who may never have a chance to get the type of education that a seminary provides. We do not encourage our students to use our ministry instead of seminary training. As well, one of our main thrusts is to get people to use our curriculum locally. We have thousands of churches who have used or are using The Theology Program in their local venue. This is part of the reason why we built the Credo House and why I still teach at local churches.

2. I am going to use somewhat of a heavy-handed conversation stopper (or at least primer). I have been to local seminary. I have experienced the rigors of being on campus at an experienced institution that knows what they are doing. I took 126 hours of courses on campus at Dallas Theological Seminary. I have also experienced online education in many different forms. Since 2001, I have been engaged in utilizing the power of the internet to educate people in theology. I will continue to do this. Therefore, I speak from experience. I know what both are like. (Here comes the heavy hand): One simply cannot compare the level of training—the type of training—that is available onsite to that which does not come readily or easily online. Onsite training from a good institution that knows what they are doing is simply much more effective. Those who have not experienced onsite and online training like this do not have the experience to make effective arguements otherwise.

Okay, now to a few particulars:

RE: Online Ed vs. Onsite Ed

“But online education is just as good as onsite education. Michael, you need to get with the times.”

One thing that you have to understand about my thinking here is that preparation for ministry involves much more than education. If education is all you seek, I agree that online venues can provide such. But preparation for ministry goes beyond education in the proper sense. Besides many intangibles, the primary thing I speak of is mentorship that includes particular encouragement, shaping, fellowship, and discipline. Is it theoretically possible that these things can happen online? Maybe. But not only are they much much more difficult, it simply is not happening. Continue Reading »

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 »

It has been three years since I started blogging. Here is what I have learned.

1. Loneliness because of the “Blog Lobe”

This one is a joke with a bit of truth. My friends are sometimes scared to talk to me because they know that in the back of my mind there is a new “Blog Lobe” section of my brain. It is there . . . I promise. You can do an MRI and see it. I will upload pics later and blog on it. The blog lobe is that part of the brain that is unique to bloggers that is perpetually and involuntarily writing a blog out of every circumstance and conversation. I have a permanent disclaimer tattooed to my forehead that says, “Warning: this conversation has a good chance of turning into a blog. Proceed at your own risk.” My closest friends just don’t want to talk to me anymore. My pastor is always scared about what I am going to broadcast about his sermon. My wife…well…Ahem. Moving on.

2. Count the cost: It takes a lot of time. . . a lot of time.

A blog can eat your lunch. To get one started, you really need to post often. If you are an original content type of blog like this blog (not simply pointing people to others’ content) and you want the content to be meaningful and good (don’t we all?), it takes a big commitment of time that most people don’t have. Count the cost here.

3. Blogging provides some good accountability or “The Angel on Your Shoulder”

If you are a teacher, you know that it is pretty easy to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Those who are being taught normally give you the benefit of the doubt that you know what you are talking about. In a small audience of 10 or 20, you can scope out how smart others are and then adjust accordingly. If most are uneducated in the topic of discussion, you can get away with quite a bit. Believe me, I know. A blog—this blog—has really helped to keep me honest and careful in every venue. I know that there are people out there in the blog world that know what they are talking about. I can count on the fact that there will be some who read my posts who know more than I do about the subject. I know that they will publicly give me a whipping if I try to pull rank. You never know who is going to show up.

There are four solutions for this:

a) Don’t allow comments on your blog. I don’t ever suggest this since it is an immediate signal that reveals that you are not confident enough to be challenged.

b) Hope that you never gain much of an audience. That is pretty easy to pull off since there are millions of blogs out there and it is easy to never get noticed.

c) Write a traditional blog where it is merely your thoughts and opinions, not the proliferation of ideas. Then it does not really matter what you say.

d) Take your topic very seriously and be very careful. But then you must consider again #2.

This accountability is a good thing.

4. Be ready to pull out your hair (if you have any) or “The Devil on Your Shoulder”

Since I don’t suggest turning off your comments, you need to be ready for the troublemakers who are only there to challenge you in public. I have a lot of those. It is hard enough to find time to keep up with the blogging, but having to respond to every challenge is even harder. Here is what I do: I delete every comment that makes me look bad. I rely on my audience to be able to give an answer. If that doesn’t work, considering that only about 10 percent of blog readers even read the comments, I evaluate whether it is a serious and valuable challenge and whether a response will benefit the audience. Also, I have built a culture where most of my readers know that I rarely engage in posts that are more than two days old. It is hard enough to get me to comment on the post of the day!! (As a side note: I normally do read about 50% of the comments).

5. Blogs perpetuate their own kind (but this does not make you cool)

This can be a great curse as people who should not be teaching can, if done “right”, gain an audience who will listen. Let me repeat this: anyone can gain an audience if they know what they are doing. But just having an audience does not mean that you should be writing. Some of the biggest blogs, like some of the biggest churches, should not be allowed to exist. I have learned that the size of a blog audience does not necessarily mean that you are writing in a way that glorifies God. I could give some examples, but see #3. Continue Reading »

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 »

I imagine that most of you who read this blog recognize that I make my living teaching theology. Primarily, I teach The Theology Program. The Theology Program is a six-course program of systematic and historic theology primarily focused on lay people. Given that the online class starts tonight (there is still time to enroll), I wanted to give a brief overview of my philosophy of teaching.

Here are six ideals of my teaching.

1. I do not seek to confirm anyone’s prejudice. There is nothing a preacher likes more than a hearty “amen” while preaching. I don’t get too many of those (at least at first!) The “amen” normally represents that what you are preaching or teaching, the people already agree with. In this case, you are probably just confirming their prejudice. They already agree with what you say and they like that you are holding the fort. This is not always bad, but this is not my purpose (sometimes I wish it were!). While The Theology Program is by confession Evangelical, we are not a program bent on defending Evangelicalism. In fact, I hope to challenge Evangelicals to rethink what they believe. This rethinking is not necessarily purposed on changing what people believe, but the way they believe and why.

2. I do not desire to give people a proposition, then back it up with verses. Theology has to be more challenging than that. It is just too important for such methodology to be the norm. Save this for your catechism and membership classes. When I teach, I seek to help people enter into a theological conversation that is two millennia old. There are some real challenges that need to be dealt with and not hidden due to fear of conversion or de-conversion. However, being Evangelical, I believe that Evangelical theology presents the best – not perfect – expression of the Christian worldview.

3. I am not teaching to make people Calvinists or Inerrantists. I would that all men were such as me but, alas, indoctrinating does not really accomplish such a purpose. Besides, there are a lot of smart people who love the same Lord just as much as me who are Arminian and don’t believe in inerrancy. Can you believe it?! Whether it is the Nestorians of the fifth century or the Emergents of the twenty-first, they deserve to have their positions and perspective explained well. I try to follow the philosophy that if you don’t defend other people’s positions in such a way that if they were in the room they would give you two thumbs up, you are not representing the Lord well. Therefore, I seek to represent all positions that have historic or contemporary significance (e.g., not flat-earthers), thus helping students understand the issues and decide for themselves. Continue Reading »

I argued in the previous post that big words are often necessary to communicate particular concepts. I also argued that language, being created by God, is the primary way that he has designed for communication. Big words are not necessarily long or hard to pronounce, but they are words that are technical and precise in communicating ideas, and words that most people have not ever heard of. I encouraged people to use them strategically.

However, there have been some objections that I feel warrant another post.

Some people feel as if I am promoting an elite communication style that does not take into account the “common man.” Some believe that what I have said promotes a form of accuracy that leaves little room for understanding.

Nothing I have said mitigates against understanding. In fact, the whole post is just the opposite. To teach people in any situation assumes the audience has some degree of ignorance of the subject. Whether it is ignorance in concepts or ignorance in words, the case is the same. The point is that if the word usage is limited, the comprehension of the concepts will be limited accordingly. Therefore, we use words to increase understanding. We assess where our audience is so that we can determine the degree to which we define ourselves.

Look to Paul as an example. He used words and concepts that were very foreign to most people, often bridging them with concepts that were already understood. In fact, when a word did not exist to fit his concept, he would make up a word in order to better communicate and articulate this concept to his audience! Now those are words that NO ONE knew!!! Yet Paul valued the use of words precisely because he valued the concepts he communicated.

This process is a gradual progression. I don’t suggest using too many words that people don’t understand in each lesson. In fact, one should limit themselves quite a bit. This is a standard pedegogical (teaching method) approach to every discipline. Just think if the fields of medicine, law, or agriculture were limited in such a way. There would be so low a bar set that all of these industries would be simplistic and/or corrupted. No advancement could be made.

Now you might argue that no one teaches in this fields except to those who are going to become professionals of the same. This is true, but aren’t all Christians called to be such in our understanding and seeking of God? Of course we are not with agriculture! But our call is to be a “kingdom of priests”!

Let us value truth enough so as not to set the bar so low under the assumption of apathy or ignorance. What I have found in my ten years of teaching theology to lay-people is that they are neither apathetic nor ignorant. To assume otherwise is not in line with the way things really are and, more importantly, demeans the imago dei which is present in every “common man.” Have more confidence in your audience.

My two year old son Zach has just entered that stage where he says a new word or phrase just about every day. It is wonderful to watch, listen, and laugh. The other day he said “Batman” perfectly. I was so excited. I assured my wife (even though I am the world’s biggest superhero fan) that I did not know where he got it from. He just picked it up somewhere—seriously. Tonight at the church while we were eating, he put his blanket over Will’s (my 5 year old) head and said “Where’s Will?” That was awesome. New word every day. No kidding.

Switch gears…

I remember when I first started teaching, fresh out of seminary, I was going to really shake things up. No matter where I taught or what I taught, I was determined not to dumb things down. If people did not understand the language of theology, they would just have to learn it. Like playing tennis with someone much better than you, just weather the storm and you will raise to new heights. This did not last long. While I am staying the course, determined not to dumb things down, I now know that I have to be more strategic.

One of the most difficult assignments I have as a teacher of theology is to convince people of the need to be familiar with and engage in theological discourse. People simply are not used to it. In all our ministries, from Parchment and Pen, Theology Unplugged, to The Theological Word of the Day, I am attempting to be intentional in the ways we bring a timid and intellectually insecure culture to a place where true learning can become a reality. I am still learning—a lot.

One of the most difficult things that I have to convince people of today is the need to learn a new language. No, it is not something other than English, but it is a sub-set of technical terminology that exists in Biblical and Theological studies. For the most part, people don’t expect nor (think they) desire to engage in such a learning experience. In church, we are told that people don’t understand this word or that phrase so you have to speak in such a way where all difficulty in comprehension is removed. When speaking about the “atonement,” don’t use that word. Replace it with “What Jesus did on the Cross.” When speaking about “redemption,” change it to “What Jesus accomplished.” When speaking about “predestination,” change the topic all together. No one is ready for that!

On and on I could go. We live in a time when people are “seeker-friendly” to such a degree that unless you dumb things down to the point where everyone can handle the serve, you are going to run them off. In this, we are saying a couple of things: 1) Even though my two year old boy can learn a new phrase in passing everyday, once people get out of college the have exhausted their ability to learn something new. 2) People don’t come to church or lessons to learn new concepts and ideas, but to take what they have already learned and have it restructured and/or be reminded of it. Therefore, we are limited in how we can communicate.

These presuppositions are completely unjustified and unfounded. I have never heard anyone defend this mentality outside of a desire not to offend people with “bid words.” But the problem is when we take this to its logical conclusion. Why stop at adults? Why not bow to the least common denominator. Let’s include Zach. Sometimes my wife brings him into the service and we don’t want to offend him, right? Therefore, let us preach “goo, goo” and “gaa, gaa” with an occasional “Batman” thrown in. That way we are sure not to offend anyone.

Here are reasons why I still use big words:

1. God created big words. Words are the basic building blocks of language. There is a reason why God created language. It was not so that people could communicate through a minimalistic paradigm, but so, as language is understood, concepts and truth can be further communicated.

2. Big words work. Have you ever had an abstract concept in your mind only to find out later that there was word associated with that concept? I have. In fact, I am continually searching for a verbal articulation of what I am thinking. I remember having an epiphany (i.e. a sudden realization) when I learned what the phase “irenic theology” (i.e. taking a peaceful approach to theological matters in order to stimulate learning in a non-threatening environment). I had this concept in my mind as I often thought about how much better I learn when opposing positions are presented in a persuasive yet peaceful manner. I just could not articulate it. But when the word “irenic” was applied to this, I could communicate it more tangibly to myself and others.

3. Big words legitimize. I often say that when you have a theological word or phrase that comes from the Reformers and you can say it in Latin, the concept that the word represents is de facto (i.e. as a matter of fact) true! In reality, there is a grain of truth to this. Continue Reading »

Ok, after the first seven parts of this series it should be almost clear where I stand on this issue. But I ended the last post by saying that I am neither a continuationist or cessationist. Let me clarify just what I am . . .

I define a Charismatic as one who thinks that the supernatural sign gifts such as tongues, prophecy, healings, etc. are normative for the church today. Therefore, believers should expect them. A cessationist is one who believes that these gifts ceased due to an exhaustion in purpose around the first century (some would say with the death of the last Apostle).

I don’t think that one can make a solid case for the ceasing of the gifts from Scripture. However, I don’t think that one can make a solid case from Scripture for the closing of the canon. I believe that both of these issues are very similar. Could God add books to the Bible if it were his purpose? Of course. Could we cry “foul” and say “You cannot do that because our traditions and councils have said you cannot? No. We (Protestants) believe in the de facto closing of the canon. What does that mean? We believe in the closing of the canon because it, indeed, closed. It is a historical and experiential reality. God just quit adding books to the canon. Only after this does our theology step in and attempt to explain this by saying it closed because soteriological history was completed.

I believe the same about the gift of prophecy, tongues, and other supernatural sign gifts. I believe they have ceased because they ceased in church history (as I argued) and I, personally, have never experienced them. Therefore, I am a “De Facto Cessationist.” Some may call it “Soft cessationist” and that is fine, but I like the term de facto since it describes the reasoning behind my position.

To those of you who are Charismatics out there:

I think that you have to understand my reasoning and the reasoning of those like me. It is not as if we are putting God in a box. We are just being responsible with our beliefs (which are precious to God) by attempting to explain the way we see things. I don’t judge all claims with the same standard. I don’t have a “guilt by association” default drive with this issue, tagging the back of the shirts of all Charismatics with a Benny Hinn label. I respect many who are Charismatic and think they are very bright and have something going on that persuades them to believe as they do. But I have been in the church all my life, traveled the world on missions trips, and partaken in many Charismatic services and never seen anything that would make me change my positions. Were I to see something that compels me to change, I would change. Continue Reading »