Parchment and Pen » Teaching

The Benefit of Many “Teachers” and Why Diversity is Important

Lisa Robinson — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:20:48 +0000

(by Lisa Robinson)

I have read John 11 many times and have been immensely ministered by it. It seems each time I do, there is something fresh to be gleaned in the text. So as I listened to this radio broadcast the other day whereby the preacher was identifying three reasons why Jesus wept, I got a little stuck on one point – because of sin. It was through a discourse about the topic on Theologica, that I realized what I had missed as one of the members pointed out to me. For whatever reason, I was not drawing that out of the text even though it was quite obvious, especially when correlated with the complete witness of scripture.

In reality, this happens to all of us. There is something we miss. We will read our Bible and draw out certain conclusions that may or may not be consistent with what is actually being communicated. We may understand or we may draw erroneous conclusions. To be sure, whatever conclusions we draw will impact how we think about God and how we live out our faith.

Needless to say, this is why teachers in the body of Christ are important, to help us understand the Bible better in order to live out a fruitful, Christian life. It is one of the reasons I believe those charged with the pastoring and teaching task should have training that encourages a comprehensive evaluation of the Biblical text accompanied by spiritual maturity and accountability.

But what happens if the teacher is missing something or drawing conclusions that are not consistent with what God is actually communicating through the text? What happens if that teacher is relying exclusively on teachers that agree with him and dismissing those who don’t? What happens if the teacher insists that he believes his illumination of the text is correct because of what he believes the Holy Spirit has communicated to him? What happens if we only listen to one teacher or teachers that teach everything alike?

I contend that in reality, we need many teachers. Now those teachers are not restricted to the ones who stand in the pulpit at your church or lead your Bible study. Bible commentaries are teachers. The voices of the past through annuls of church history are teachers. Discourse with other members of the body of Christ is a teacher. For teaching comes when we learn something about what it is we are trying to understand. Teaching is done by those who are trying to understand it themselves. This is why I reject the notion that the study of systematic theology and church history is unnecessary or antithetical to spiritual growth. Because it presents a plethora of people who were striving to understand the faith that has been handed down themselves. And if we are trying to understand the Bible better, it seems reasonable to me that we engage in a process that will provide perspectives that maybe we had not considered.

More important, we need diversity. Diversity in teaching is important that encompasses a diversity of viewpoints. Diversity should present options that drive us to quest to understand what is being communicated. It should temper renegade and rogue conclusions, which is most likely if there is a single source. Diversity dispels the fact that I alone can come to right conclusions with just me and my bible or that teacher who is accountable to no one and will not participate in honest investigation. Diversity presents us with the possibility that maybe we are not understanding something clearly or missing something entirely. Diversity should hone discernment. Diversity should humble us.

This is not to say that one should go out and make sure they know all competing viewpoints, especially if they are younger Christians. But I know of those who will only listen to one teacher or type of teacher. I know of those who reject diversity of thought since they are convinced that the ones teaching them possess the truth. I know of those who reject investigation of tools presented by other teachers. I know of myself, that like all people are subject to misunderstanding. No one person can hold the corner on truth and understands everything perfectly. The only one who has, was born in a manger, died on a cross and now sits at the right hand of the Father. That leaves those of us who strive to understand him better based on what He has communicated, with our imperfect understanding to recognize we need others to help us understand what we may be missing. The one who won’t do this most likely leads a cult.Similar Posts:

Cracked

C Michael Patton — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 20:35:35 +0000

A few weeks ago we were trying to sell our SUV. It was a great car we just could not afford it anymore. I like the heavy cars for the wife and kids. It puts my mind at ease. However, it had some problems. Nothing big, just “cracks,” bumps, and bruises here and there. Since we did not have the money to fix the “cracks,” we thought we would just try to sell it as-is. When I was writing up the ad for the car, I told of the problems. I did not want to hide anything. That would have been deceptive. Sure, I might have been able to get it out the door without anyone noticing, but sooner or later they would have figured it out. It might have been too late for them to return the car, but it would not have been too late for my integrity to have been tarnished.

As important as it is for us to reveal the “cracks” when selling our car it is infinitely more important for us to be up front about the cracks in our lives to others. Chuck Swindoll told a story on his blog the other day. Early in his ministry he was looking for the “keys to success” and sought the advice of a man he admired very much:

“How do you do it, Jim?” I asked him. “Tell me the secret of ministering to people.” I expected him to say, “Always set the pace,” or, “Be strong no matter what,” or, “Model the truth, and stand against the adversary as he attacks you.” I got none of that. Jim just smiled in his inimitable, casual way and answered, “Chuck, let people see the cracks in your life, and you’ll be able to minister to them.”

That’s it. That’s the distilled essence of all he told me.

As we left their cabin that cool evening, I felt somewhat like the deflated, rich young ruler, who had just asked Jesus how to inherit eternal life (Mark 10:17). Like Jesus’s surprising answer to the ruler, Jim’s reply was not what I expected. Frankly, it convicted me. I was looking to minister from my strengths. Jim challenged me to serve in weakness. He made that statement to me over fifty years ago, and it remains one of the greatest lessons I have learned in ministry. I have never forgotten it.

I immediately related that to theology. I look out across the spectrum of all those I admire, all those I read every day, all those I listen to, and find myself coming back to those who have cracks. They write the books I read a second time (or just get through the first time!). They record the sermons I listen to again and again. They are the ones who are real. I can relate to them. Why? Because I have cracks.

None of us have it all figured out. Sure, we have some success stories that can wow the listeners. Yes, we have some convictions that are set in cement. But we also have cracks. We have a lot that confuses us. We have skeletons in our theological closet. We have doubts that we don’t allow to surface. We have experiences that don’t quite add up. Many times we are walking on the tight rope of life with the weight of pain and hope sharing space on the balancing pole and sometimes pain wins the day. These are cracks.

Just once I would like to see someone conceded a debate. Just once! (Or at least a point in debate.) Just once I want to see someone give themselves as the negative illustration—the “what not to do.” Just once I would like to see a testimony of someone who loves the Lord that is not concluded with a nice red bow. Sometimes we are still a mess. But we have our image to keep up. And, sometimes, we can get caught up into thinking that image is more important than truth. The sell is more important than integrity. But when push comes to shove cracked people will not listen to uncracked people very long. And believe me, they know. Sooner or later people will start looking for someone more like them.

I talked to a pastor the other day who shared with me in confidence a terrible emotional trial he went through last year. I had no idea. I had to pry it out of him. But as I sat and listened to his story, for the first time in a long time I felt as if he knew pain, discouragement, and doubt the way I had. For the first time, he became real. And you know what, his stature and authority did not diminish a bit. It actually rose five or six notches.

He told me that he had never told anyone but his wife. I asked him why not. He said he did not want to discourage his people. But you know what? They are already discouraged. They are not looking to you for perfection, but for hope. There is a lot more to be said for a person who has battle wounds (yes, even open battle wounds) and is still fighting than for the one who has none.

Showing cracks is really the only way to be real. Whether it is in your life or in your theology, don’t be afraid to let them see your cracks. If you don’t have them, then you are not in the battle. It’s that simple.Similar Posts:

How to Choose a Seminary

C Michael Patton — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 04:29:18 +0000

There are a lot of things that you must think through when choosing a seminary for your ministry preparation. I will attempt to cover them here.

Type of Seminary

There are three types of seminaries you need to be aware of:

1. University – These are those that are connected to a larger university and sometimes are simply a department within the institution (e.g. “Department of Divinity”). The spectrum of education will be very broad, ranging from conservative to liberal. Sometimes it will just depend on the professor. The advantages here normally include the broadness of the education provided and the lack of conservative and traditional assumptions. The disadvantage will be that many times these type of seminaries have as their purpose to deconstruct with no intention of reconstructing. In other words, there will be a greater chance the purpose of your education will be to produce a confused student (which is a construction itself).

If your purpose is to be prepared for ministry by godly leaders, you will find university-type seminaries and divinity schools to be weaker than the other options as the standards of belief and commitment to the historic Christian faith will be very loose. Some of the professors might even be atheists!

In my opinion, Duke and Notre Dame stand out above the rest here.

2. Denominational or Traditional - These are those seminaries that are connected to a particular denomination or Christian tradition. Their primary purpose is to establish the student in the dogmas and doctrines associated with their tradition. Baptist schools will train up Baptist leaders, Presbyterians schools will prepare Presbyterians, Reformed schools hope to produce Reformed graduates, and so on. Many times there is overlap with this type of seminary and the university as some universities are sponsored by a particular tradition (e.g. Baylor; Notre Dame). The advantage here is that you will be trained and educated in a way that will fit the needs of a said tradition. The disadvantage is that the outcome of your education is more predetermined.

3. Independent – These are those seminaries that don’t neatly fit into either of the previous categories. They are usually independent Evangelical training institutions that are representative of a movement or idea. They are often thought of as the tertium quid (“third way” or “middle ground”) between the denominational or university types. However, this is a little simplistic as many independent seminaries have just as much of an predetermined plan as the other two. The advantage here is that you may be able to get a broader education than the denominational-type while maintaining the ministry focus. This is especially the case with Evangelical seminaries who, at least in theory, fit under the broad umbrella of Evangelicalism.

Field of Study

There are also issues that involve particular fields of study. Some seminaries are going to have a stellar language department, but lack in theology. Others are going to be strong in preaching, but weak in apologetics. Others will be known for their Christian counseling, but void of worship (music) ministries. If you already know your passion, you should find a seminary that is going to serve that passion well.

However, many of you are going into seminary not knowing anything other than that you want to serve the Lord full-time. Therefore, this criteria is not going to be as useful. So many of you will discover your calling while engaged in a broader training environment. This is okay.

Size of the School

You must also consider the size of the school and the advantages and disadvantages this offers. Small schools will provide more intimacy with both students and professors. It is a wonderful thing to build this type of community. However, the larger schools will be able to draw the more well-known professors for every department (and most of the time they are well-known for a reason!). This will provide a more balanced and robust education all around. Larger schools will also be able to provide you with more opportunities as the placement department will be larger (see below).

Accreditation and Notoriety

Most seminaries will be accredited by an official accrediting organization such as The Association of Theological Schools (ATS). You want to check into this. Accreditation not only evidences that the school is up to par on time-tested standards, but gives them notoriety. If your school has notoriety, then your degree will share the same.

Placement Department

This is normally one that you don’t think about or appreciate until its too late. But you must consider the placement department. Placement departments are responsible for opening doors of opportunity for you upon graduation. Some seminaries may not even have placement departments, therefore it is up to you to find a place of service upon graduation. Others have very large placement departments who can hardly keep up with the demand of ministries and churches in need. When a seminary has a good reputation, this is the first place that many will look to fill a vacancy.

Purpose

In the end, your choice for seminary must be guided by your purpose. Are you seeking to be a Baptist pastor? Then your best bet is to go to a Baptist school whose candidates are chosen from the placement offices of these schools. Are you looking to be a professor at a university? Then you will be presented with the most opportunity by attended a university-type seminary. Is your desire to be involved in a non-denominational Evangelical church or parachurch ministry? Then you should look to one of the independent seminaries.

One thing that you must understand is that education is not the goal of a seminary. Preparation is. Education will always be involved, but often there must be some practition that moves beyond languages, systematics, and doctrine. You can train with the most intelligent professors who have the best information. You can train with the professors with the most wisdom who can see things others cannot see. You can train with those who have a great deal of experience in pastoral care who will help you understand what it will be like when you are in the pastor’s office. You can train under those who have a passion for truth who will challenge your assumptions. Or you can train under those who are passionate about Christ and are completely focused on him. In my opinion, it is ideal to have all of these together in one place!

Some ideals

Critical studies: While I believe that a seminary should be understood as preparation for Christian ministry, this should not mean that your education is simply an exercise in confirming your prejudice. Your most dearly held beliefs—even the most fundamental beliefs—need to be challenged. This is the advantage of university-type seminaries. They usually (though not always) have more academic freedom to challenge and be challenged. In the end, you want your beliefs to have intellectual integrity. If the education is nothing more than indoctrination, then the seminary is not doing its job. This is why I don’t normally prefer denominational or traditional seminaries.

Faithful professors: While there is a lot to learn from unbelievers and those who are not committed to the historic Christian faith, most people who go to seminary are preparing for ministry. A student will eventually be like his teacher. If the professor does not have much faith or conviction, his teaching will have the same result. You want professors who are committed to that which they teach and therefore teach with conviction. If the seminary does not produce those who are convinced of the truth of historic Christianity, I would have a hard time truly classifying them as seminaries. This is going to be the weakness of the university-type seminaries. (As a side-note, I think for those going into ministry that the university-type seminaries are best for PhDs, not Masters.)

Correction: You don’t want to attend schooling where the professors are intelligent and godly, but too nice to tell you when you are wrong. While we all need affirmation, we all need correction just as much. The professor is there to shape and change you. This is not going to happen without the professor being seriously committed to sometimes ”wounding his friends.” The best way to find this out is to talk to current students. In high school you used to take only the classes where the teacher would give you an “A” for doing nothing more than making paper airplanes. Seminary is much more serious than that. Make sure the professor is willing to fail you.

In the end, one of the best ways to choose a good seminary is to look at its graduates. Who do you admire most? Who do you feel has the best training and balance? Who comes out of their education more deeply committed than they were when the went in? Find out where they went and go there.

By the way, if I could do it all over again, while there are so many good seminaries that I love and respect, I would go back to Dallas Theological Seminary.

For those of you who have been to seminary:

How did you choose?
Are you happy with your choice?
What advice to you have for the person who asks you how to choose a good seminary?

Similar Posts:

Christian Scholarship in a Nutshell

C Michael Patton — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 23:11:58 +0000

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

Why they might dislike exegetes: “They lack wisdom.”
Why they might dislike pastoral-types: “They compromise the truth for acceptance.”
Why they need exegetes: To provide accurate data from which to derive their conclusions.
Why they need pastoral-types: To test the truth in the real world.
Possible problems with theologians: They can be traditionalistic, being concerned with their preconceptions more than the truth. Can be rash about coming to conclusions without having done sufficient homework.

3. Pastoral/Missional (apply) – Level three studies

integrate; contextualize; communication

These are concerned with how to distribute the information to others. They are focused on how the information can be applied to real life. They spend their time thinking about church, mission, and strategies. They are didactically (teaching) purposed. They are discerning as to what applies, when and where. They are more hands-on with the real world which gives them a great understanding of whether or not the truth , when tested, actually works. This is often the determining factor of the reality of our faith.

Pastoral types display the puzzle.

Viewpoint: TREES

Why they might dislike exegetes and theologians: “They are ivory tower scholars who cannot relate to the real world.”
Possible problems with pastors-type: Methodology can take priority over the truth. They spend so much time thinking about programs and contextualization, they can compromise the information in favor of acceptance.

___________________________________

These types of distinctions have a lot to do with personality and find a place in just about every discipline, not just Christian scholarship. However, I think it is helpful here to apply them only to Christian scholarship.

While most of us will see ourselves more in one than the others (I find myself in 2), we need to be careful. Of course we need to recognize the dangers and listen to the critique of the others, but more than that, we need to be continually committed to finding balance. Our gifts and calling are going to clearly drive us to one more than the others so I am not saying neglect one to brush up on the others. But I am saying that if you neglect the others, it will make you less proficient in the one. I have seen sloppy theologians. I have been a sloppy theologian. I have seen exegetes who seem to continually miss the obvious. I have seen pastoral-types compromise. All I am saying is that you need to be aware of where you stand and committed to excellence by being appreciative of all three.

As a side note, Dan Wallace is a great example of an exegete who has tremendous balance. While he is careful, he is not non-committal. And his pastoral/missional side is obvious to all who have sat under him.

Which one do you find yourself leaning toward?Similar Posts:

Why Traditional Onsite Seminary is Still (by Far) the Best Option

C Michael Patton — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:29:34 +0000

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.

It is like the debate about virtual churches vs. traditional churches. There is simply no way to argue that online fellowships provide the same intangibles and commitment as being there in person. It is the same with seminaries. It comes in the after class discussions, the group projects, the lunches with the professor, the office meetings where your professor looks at you in the eye and tells you that your paper was an irresponsible mess and you had better take things more seriously (and you crying afterword!). Its about the library as you view all the theological material that is out there on certain subjects. Its about standing in front of your peers (scared to death) giving a sermon (and then being ripped apart by both peers and your professor who truly want you to grow). Its about the encouragement you receive as you are walking down the hall from a classmate who says that your presentation was great. And a thousand other things that simply do not happen to the same degree online.

One further disclaimer:

I am all for using the internet when necessary. Please don’t hear me saying that online training is completely worthless. When there is absolutely no other option, it is most certainly a hundred times better than doing nothing. I am simply saying that we need to get back to promoting the need for and value of local seminaries. Face-to-face discipleship, discipline, dedicated professors, fellowship, and the mental seriousness that is involved in taking your family and moving away to concentrate on your studies and preparation are much more available in local seminaries. And they are much more effective at producing serious and well-prepared pastors and ministers.

RE: Local Church vs. Seminary

“Shouldn’t the local church be training its ministers, not seminaries?”

I would be inclined to say that local churches can provide a better preparation for ministers than online education, but they have their weaknesses as well. You have to remember, there is a reason why the seminary got set up the way it did—increased effectiveness in training. They certainly are not in it for the money!

Think about this: Could local hospitals provide a better place for training than medical school? Not really. Why? Because that is not their focus. They are there to practice medicine. There is a reason why a different type of venue needs to be set up for both—effectiveness in all things pertaining to the training as well as a concerted effort with a very particular purpose. The local church and hospitals serve for residencies, not the primary training venue.

It is like people who ask me after a theology class: “Why isn’t this stuff taught from the pulpit?” My answer is that it is not very likely that teaching systematic theology (along with all the reading and work that is involved) would be as effective from the pulpit. Sure, we are to teach good theology from the pulpit, but thinking that the pulpit can be used as both a place where the word of God is preached with the primary purpose of exhortation and where systematic theology (not to mention the original languages!) can be taught with the primary purpose of educating is simply naive.

At Stonebriar Community Church we knew that since we were so large there were things that we could provide that other churches could not. We had a greater pool of resources, both financial and people, to draw from to accomplish certain things. For example, because of our size, we could provide a biblical counseling ministry that was focused only on helping people who are struggling with addiction, having problems in their marriage, or suffering from depression. Smaller churches from all over would send their people to us because the pastor knew he did not have the time, training, or experience to deal with many issues. We were glad to be there. But even then, we knew that there were certain cases where we had to “outsource” to others who were even more qualified to deal with particulars. These were Christian agencies that focused on certain areas and had even more experience.

The local church cannot expect to do all things and do it well. The local church needs to know where to send people, not attempt to be a “be-all” place that arrogantly thinks it can handle everything. Wisdom is involved here. The same goes with seminaries. Sometimes local churches can provide very good education for their people. Sometimes they might have The Theology Program or The Bethlehem Institute. But most of the time even these will lack what local seminaries can provide.

Even Paul, in the early church seems to have set-up different venues for different types of training. Sure, he did not call it a seminary in Ephesus, but the principles about which I speak were present.

In the end, seminaries provide a particular venue where certain types of education can be done with greater effectiveness with professors who are devoted and gifted differently. The local church should stand behind, support, and facilitate the seminaries. This is not a competition folks.

RE: Foreign Christians without the opportunity of a seminary

“What about all those people who do not have access to a seminary overseas?”

This is a good question, but we must put it in perspective. Many people often don’t have the opportunity to learn from the full complement of the Scripture either. Some places only have the Gospel of John translated. Since they are deprived of these important books, does this mean that we should not talk about their need for Romans, Revelation, or the Old Testament? Of course not. The church should come to the aid of those who don’t have a full canon, translating all the Scripture into their language. We should also come to the aid of those who don’t have opportunities to educate through seminary type of training. However, one thing is certain, in the case with the canon and seminary training we don’t bow to the lease common denominator. It is not about being politically correct saying to the next person, “Well, you have a good heart and are working really hard with what you do have. We don’t want to act like we are better than you so we will just say that we are even.” Again, it is not a competition. It is about being faithful to the Great Commission, making disciples of every nation. Discipleship, training, and education can be better and it can be worse. Let us strive for the better, understanding that many will still not have these opportunities.Similar Posts:

“Good Question. I Will Find the Answer and Get Back to You” . . . And Other Stupid Statements

C Michael Patton — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:10:41 +0000

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.

Not only this, but you have also belittled the person by demeaning the question. How did you demean the question? By not engaging it, but simply saying “I will get the answer and come back.” Quick fix, eh? How do you know you will get the answer? Is it really that easy? Is it as simple as “getting the answer and coming back.” You are saying to this person, “I know that this is the main reason why you reject God. You may think you are a smart chap, but you are not that smart since I can simply go get the answer and come back in no time!”

I am not saying that we have to have an answer for everything. But this is the point: Most pop apologetics today are concerned with good Evangelical cliché answers. It is not about engaging the issue. It is not about wrestling with problems. It is about “getting the answer and coming back.” Sometimes there will be good answers. Other times there will be many legitimate options. Still, other times there will be no answers, just an understanding of the difficulty.

This is why Christian discipleship of the mind is so important. We need to show others that we are not disqualified due to intellectual shallowness. We need to have wrestled with the issue ourselves. We need to show them that we understand the problems not simply because we have read a question/answer book on the subject, but because we have been in the same place and asked the same questions. We have engaged and wrestled with the question personally. Therefore our answer comes from the depth of who we are, even if the answer is “I don’t know.”

Another example: Think about this. You are witnessing to someone and telling them about Scripture as God’s word. They begin to inquire about the contents of Scripture saying, “So many people have different books in their Bibles. How do you know that the books you use are the right ones?” You say, “Good question, I will get back to you on that.” Say what? You have not even wrestled with a foundational question such as this? How real can your faith actually be? That is what is going through their mind.

Or, how about this: They ask you how you know historically that Jesus rose from the grave and it is not just a Christian myth. You respond, “Good question. I am going to find out and get back to you on this.” You are going to find out how you know Jesus rose from the grave? You are going to find out how you know Jesus rose from the grave?? You are going to find out how you know Jesus rose from the grave???? You, a Christian, are going to go (future tense) to find out why you believe the central element to the Christian faith is true? And you expect this person to follow you?

This comes in all areas of theology. As a Calvinist (one who believes in unconditional predestination) I am often asked many questions about why God did not choose everyone. I don’t have an answer for this. It disturbs me too. But this is not from lack of studying or reflection. I know all the options. I have spend many a night dealing with this with the Lord. Hoever, I don’t have a good answer. But I do have an informed answer: “I don’t know.” Sometimes an informed I don’t know is better than an unreflective text book answer. Why? Because it legitimizes the question (and the one asking) and legitimizes your faith. You have shown that you are a real person, not a theological bot. Theological bots are simply concerned with the “right” answer to everything, not the struggle and the depth that accompanies true belief.

We are not theological bots. God wants us to love him with all our understanding. But our discipleship process must engage issues truly. We need to avoid surface level shallow defenses of our faith. They do more harm than good. And, remember, on some issues, informed agnosticism is the best and most effective position to have.Similar Posts:

Transparency

C Michael Patton — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:48:42 +0000

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.”

But it is not about you. It is about God. We already know you have issues. Your issues have issue. You are a sinner just like us. We are not going to reject you for exposing what we already really know. In fact, you will gain our respect and have our ear more so than if you were not transparent. We don’t really trust people who don’t show some cracks here and there.

It might sterilize my message. “I will turn into a hypocrite. If I let people know about this problem, then I won’t be able to preach, teach, or encourage its opposite with conviction.”

This evidences a very misguided philosophy of preaching. When you preach, you are first preaching God’s word, not yours. Of course you are struggling with these issues. Of course this passage is speaking to you. If you are not willing to apply the message to your own life and let it convict you, then you are a hypocrite. But you are not one if you struggle with sin.

I don’t struggle with sin that much. “I don’t really think that I am that bad. In fact, I am a pretty good chap. I have never committed adultery. I have never murdered. I don’t curse. I even eat right for goodness sake. Therefore, I have every right to preach and teach others to avoid sin.”

You are in denial. You have yet to come to realize how sinful you really are. You have not grasped how deep sin really is. Normally, this comes from the more legalistic type who have a veneer of righteousness, following by the letter of the law. This type of person needs to be broken. Until you can say “Have mercy on me, the sinner,” I don’t think you are qualified to preach the word of God.

Transparency makes light of sin. “Wearing your failure on your sleeve only encourages people to follow in the same failure. ‘Well, so-and-so struggles with this sin; therefore, it must not be that bad.’ That is the reaction you will get. Sin is too serious to be flippant about. Give people this excuse and how will we be able to curb their sin?”

You know what? Sometimes this can be the case. The problem is that people with this attitude are the ones who don’t like Paul’s transparency. In fact, for this very reason, many want to say that Paul, in Romans 7, is speaking of his former state of sin, before he was a follower of Christ. In my opinion, that torches the passage and Paul’s argument. Paul is being transparent. He is telling us that he often does the very thing he hates. The solutions is in chapter 8, but that is not what this post is about. Your job is not to manipulate the truth, putting on a veneer of righteousness, in order to keep people from sinning. That is the job of the Holy Spirit.

Transparency need not make light of sin either. So long as you are revealing your struggle with the sin, not a complacency toward it, you will encourage people to enter into the same struggle.

Where transparency goes sour:

Fake transparency. I have seen fake transparency. It is not pretty. Its not pretty at all. In these situations, all people want to do is identify with others. Therefore, they not only use themselves as the bad illustration all the time, but they overdress it. They act like they are mad at God so that their audience feels better. They pretend to struggle with something that they really don’t struggle with. They act ignorant about a subject that they are very familiar with. They attempt to identify with issues that they really don’t identify with. It comes across as sloppy and weak. This is not what transparency is all about.

Overdone transparency. Sometimes, people get a taste of the reward of transparency, and then go overboard. There is a balance here. Wisdom, discernment, and tact are all very important. There are certain things you reveal in private and certain things you reveal in public. Don’t throw-up all over people just for the sake of identity. Pray about what to reveal. Despite the spirit of this post, some things are better left unsaid in many contexts.

Crass transparency. Refine what you say. Be delicate. Be somewhat timid in the way you reveal yourself. Be sensitive to the audience. There is a local preacher near me that does not follow this principle at all. He talks about sex, covering details that are better left unsaid. This is not transparency, but a tactless attempt to be current with the insensitivity of the world concerning certain things.

Don’t forget that we do need heroes. We need those people out there who have triumphed. We need illustrations of success just as much as failure. I don’t advocate always hiding your strengths. Sometimes I have seen people who seek so much to identify with others, that they shroud their strengths. Being transparent does not mean that you have to look like a dope in everything. People will look up to you for both your strengths and your weaknesses. People will see your strengths eventually. You don’t have to put them on display, but you don’t need to shroud them in shame either.

Be real. That is all I am saying. Transparency is something that God has already displayed in the Scriptures. He did not hide human failure. There is no reason for us to either. Be transparent, but do so with great wisdom. Take the cue from Brett Favre and let us not take ourselves too serioiusly here. Be real.Similar Posts:

"I Was Going to Preach this, but the Holy Spirit Led Me to This" . . . And other Stupid Statements

C Michael Patton — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:55:47 +0000

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.

Blame the Holy Spirit. The idea that God changes the sermon or lesson can be an attempt to discount your involvement and responsibility in what is being presented. Maybe you did not prepare and you are seeking someone to blame? Maybe you want to say something that you don’t think will gain people’s favor? Maybe you are just trying to blame the Holy Spirit?

Be manipulative. The third commandment, in principle, has nothing to do with swearing, but everything to do with protecting God’s reputation. When we claim that God miraculously changed the lesson or sermon, we may be manipulating the audience. In other words, it may be another way of saying, “This sermon is really from God.” In doing this, you are using his reputation by way of putting a “hands-off” authentication on your teaching. After all, if God changed your mind at the last minute, whatever criticism that someone might have must concede its fury; otherwise, the critics might find themselves at enmity with God himself. That type of approach is manipulative. The best we can do is prayfully hope that God has guided our lives, thoughts, and studies to qualify us to represent him when the time comes.

Arise from a gnostic bent. I think that people assume that this is a norm in the pulpit because we have the tendency to separate the mundane from the sacred. We often believe that if it is from the Lord, it will have a halo around it. Halos don’t seem to appear in studies that are filled with struggle, doubt, and, often, timidity in our conclusions. We seek the halos to rise above the mundane to sanctify us in a different way. However, we must live thoroughly converted lives, recognizing that the wall between the sacred and the “secular” is not really present, and it never was. It is no more spiritual to study than to preach.

But . . . What about . . .

I can hear it coming. What about Jude in the New Testament? I am just following in his footsteps.

“Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” (Jud. 1:3)

Doesn’t Jude here demonstrate that he was going to write about something but the Holy Spirit led him somewhere else? Yes, but this cannot be applied to what I am speaking about. Jude is not saying that he was just about to write on the subject of salvation, but the Lord miraculously changed his lesson. He is saying that he purposed to write about salvation, but he was convicted of a greater priority instead. To put this in our current situation, it would be like me saying that I have been intending to preach on marriage, but I feel it is more important at this time for me to start a series on dealing with false doctrine due to its current influence in our culture. The reason for the change is not some last minute anointing of the Holy Spirit, but because of the expediency of the subject for the current situation. It says nothing about preparation and study. It is assumed that Jude is prepared to speak to the issue of his conviction precicely because of the presence of his conviction.

In the end, we need to be careful. From conception, preparation, to presentation, we can only hope that God is guiding it all. Can God change our sermon or lesson while we are in the pulpit? Of course. The question that you have to ask yourself is whether or not this is a model that we should expect. Your message can be further shaped, nuanced, and impassioned while you are teaching, but this is not really God changing your sermon. Preach what you prepare for and prepare for what you preach.Similar Posts:

Why I Teach (and Blog) the Way I Do

C Michael Patton — Tue, 05 May 2009 06:07:59 +0000

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.

4. I do not dumb things down. I believe in people too much. It is one of the main things I learned from being with Chuck Swindoll. People can learn. People need to learn. Don’t disrespect them by treating them as if they cannot understand things themselves. Don’t trade the image of God for a pop-analysis on culture. This does not mean that I shuffle out concepts and terminology like a deck of cards. But I don’t substitute baby-talk. I will only use words and concepts when necessary. When is it necessary? Again, when the issue being discussed has historic or contemporary significance. The Theology Program is neither dumbed down seminary nor glorified Sunday School. It is challenging and people need to understand that. But I have done it long enough to see that it does not matter what your IQ is or what age you are: theology – the study of our God – has a built-in glory and divine intrigue that can win the most fearful student. I take it one step at a time.

5. I do not seek to make all things understandable. Theology often clarifies, but it also sometimes obscures. What I mean by this is that it is not my goal to make the ineffable (that which is beyond words) effible. We do a disservice to the church when we act as if we have an answer for everything – when we give the impression that with enough study, all things can be understood. Sometimes the best thing we can do is lead people to an informed “I don’t know.” When we explore the nature of God, his transcendence, the incarnation, election and human freedom, and the like, I want my students to leave there with a bit of confusion. Only then will they join with the history of the church in understanding God’s transcendence. Our God has revealed many things to us, but many things remain a secret mystery. We need to ensure the continuation of such.

Howard Hendricks tells us, “All true learning only occurs after you are thoroughly confused.” It is very important that we realize that tearing down (confusing) in order to build it back up is not easy. I tell everyone upon taking a course with me that the most difficult thing about doing theology is not the big terms, papers, or theologians that you have to study, it is thinking in such a way that you are truly ready to let go of all you believe so that your belief can have true beliefs. This takes thick skin, patience, Advil, and a presupposed trust in the value of this methodology.

I am not in the business of wasting anyone’s time, even my own. I could teach differently, but it would be unfaithful to my calling. Though I am far from perfect and certainly don’t always live up to these ideals, whether it be on this blog, on Theology Unplugged, online, at a church, or in my classroom at the Credo House, I will continue to do my best to teach in such a way.Similar Posts:

A Theology of Big Words (2)

C Michael Patton — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:48:52 +0000

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.Similar Posts: