Category Archives: Doctrine/Theology

December 4, 2008 · 5:12 am

Miroslav Volf speaking on Forgiveness 12/13/08


I’ve just gotten notice that the Leadership Institute of the Episcopal Diocese of PA is sponsoring a lecture by Volf on December 13, 1-4 pm at St. Thomas Church in Ft. Washington (poster says Whitemarsh, but it’s just on Church Road not far off 309).

He’ll be giving a talk entitled: Forgiveness and Injury: Moving Forward through Life’s Adversities. He’s a theologian from Yale and will probably be talking some of his experiences of dealing with anger and intrusive memories resulting from his life in Yugoslavia. I blogged chapters of his book, “End of Memory” which you can find here. I imagine the book and lecture will have many parallels.

Cost is $20. I’m planning on attending. He’s a very thoughtful writer so hoping the presentation will be good. Info for directions and registration found here (you’ll need to scroll down to the event listing for the 13th).

1 Comment

Filed under Abuse, anger, Biblical Reflection, Christianity, Doctrine/Theology, Forgiveness, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, suffering

Tagged as ,

December 3, 2008 · 11:48 am

The God I don’t understand 3: Chapter 2


Christopher Wright tackles “The Offence of Evil” in this chapter of his book. He begins by reminding the reader that even though she may need to accept the mystery of evil she cannot accept evil itself. No, “There is something within us that reacts to evil in the way the body reacts to a “foreign body”–with rejection and protest.” He tells us the point of this chapter is to say that we are absolutely right to react the way we do and that, “the Bible not only gives us permission but even gives us the words to do so.” (p. 44)

Natural disasters, says Wright, perplex us because these lack “moral or rational explanation.” While some natural disasters may have human agency as partial cause others do not. Wright cites the disasters brought on by movements of tectonic plates. Why? How can such things happen when God is supposed to be in charge?

Are these disasters God’s judgment? A result of the curse? Wright suggests that while both have elements of biblical truth,”both seem to me dangerously misleading when pressed into service as full explanations.” (p. 45). If you take these events to be the result of the curse, then if you follow the cause back far enough, you have to level the charge at human sin. Is this fair, Wright wonders. He finds this explanation “improbable” for several reasons. First, he disagrees that Gen 3:17 is a curse on the whole planet. Rather it describes the struggle relationship humans have with earth and the hardship encountered in trying to make a living from it. He sees it as a functional curse. If you take the curse of the ground as curse of the whole planet then you have to believe that our planet behaved differently before the fall. Wright doesn’t think so.

There is no evidence that our planet has ever been geologically different from the way it is now, or that animals were ever nonpredatory, or that tectonic plates in the earth’s crust were somehow stationary before the human species emerged and sinned. (p. 47)

So, in Wright’s mind, God placed humans on a planet with geological activity that seems rather precarious at times. He muses, “I don’t pretend to understand why…I might wish that it could be otherwise. But I don’t think I can be presumptuous enough to tell the Creator, “you should have thought of some other way of making a home for us.” (p. 47)

But what about these disasters being God’s judgment on a people? While all humans are judged to have fallen short are the victims of natural disasters worse sinners than those who live where no disaster has happened?

It is one thing to say that there may be elements of God’s judgment at work in the natural order as a result of prolonged human wickedness. It is another thing altogether to say that the people whose lives are snuffed out or devastated by a natural disaster are the ones deserving that judgment directly. (p. 48)

He likens those Christians who declare these disasters to be God’s specific judgment on a people for their sin to be no different than the Muslim cleric in Britain declaring that the Tsunami in Thailand was Allah’s judgment on sex tourists–even though most of those killed were families at the beach and not those seeking sex with minors. “The sheer crass arrogance of such responses staggers the imagination.” (p. 48)

This illogic happens, Wright says, because “we so easily take some aspects of what the Bible teaches, then invert the logic, and apply it quite wrongly.” (ibid) Yes, God sometimes uses natural disasters to punish or judge. The biblical account give a few examples. But Wright tells us that when we attempt to speak for God, to speak authoritatively, we err. He gives examples from Job, John 9 and Luke 13 that counter the believe that disaster always equals specific judgment. Also, while these disasters do cause some of us to reconsider life and to repent of sin, Wright believes it is “grotesque” to suggest  that God did this just to warn us.

Wright believes that there isn’t any one answer or explanation for the cause of natural disasters.

Science can tell us their natural causes, and they are awesome enough. This is the achievement, but also the limit, of scientific explanation of “what really happened”. But neither science nor faith can give a deeper or meaningful reason or a purpose for a disaster. Thus we are left with the agony of baffled grief and protest.

When we run out of explanations or reject the ones we try, what are we to do? We lament and protest. We shout that it simply isn’t fair. We cry out to God in anger. We tell him we cannot understand and demand to know why he did not prevent it. Is it wrong to do this? Is it something that real believers shouldn’t do, just like “real men don’t cry”? Is it sinful to be angry with God?” (p. 50)

Wright finds in his bible that the answer is NO. For the rest of the chapter he explores Job, Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Psalms and finds that “those who loved and trusted him most” (and not God’s enemies) were frequently angry, questioning, lamenting, and protesting God’s seeming inaction. Wright tells us that there are more lament psalms than there are praise psalms and yet he finds the church unable to lament in corporate worship. Why? Why do we turn to other explanations (judgment, curse, God’s sovereignty, Rom 8:28, etc.) instead of engaging in public and corporate worship characterized by lament and despair?

We are to “file our protests before God….within a framework of faith that has hope and a future built into it. For the present state of creation is not its final state, according to the Bible.” (p. 54) But for praise to have “integrity”, we must be able to pour out our “true feelings before God”.

Wright ends with some choice quotes from Nicholas Wolterstorff and this,

But if that were all [that we accept the mystery of evil that we cannot understand and that we lament and protest it to God], life would be bleak and depressing in the extreme, and faith would be nothing but gritting our teeth in the face of the unexplained and unrelieved suffering. Thankfully the Bible has a lot more to say to lift our hearts with hope and certainty. That is where we are headed in chapter 3.

3 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, book reviews, Christianity, Doctrine/Theology, Evangelicals

Tagged as , , ,

December 1, 2008 · 10:44 am

The God I don’t Understand 2: Chapter 1


Chapter one of Chris Wright’s The God I don’t Understand (Zondervan, 2008) is the first chapter of his section entitled: “What about evil and suffering?” He reminds us that everyone struggles with the existence of evil in the world but that it is a particular struggle for the Christian  given our view of a good and sovereign God.

We Christians believe that there is one living God, the creator of the whole universe, who is personal, good, loving, omnipotent, and sovereign over all that happens. (p. 27)

He asks,

What help does the Bible give us in holding these jarring contradictions together in our minds in such a way that, even if it does not give us an answer we can fully understand, it does give us hope that we can fully trust? Or to put it another way: Whereas we often ask, “Why?” people in the Bible more often ask “How long?” (ibid)

So chapter one explores the mystery of evil. The Bible, he says, “compells us to accept the mystery of evil” (p. 29) in terms of its origin since the Bible does not explain its ultimate origin.

Despite the mystery, Wright tells us the origin of the “vast quantity” of evil can be known–the result of human sin and wickedness. So he distinguishes moral from natural evil. Moral evil is both intentional and unintentional acts (or failure to act) that cause human suffering. Of these Wright says,

Somehow, we manage to live with such facts, simply because they are so common and universal that we have “normalized” them, even if we regret or resent them and even if we grudgingly admit that humanity itself is largely to blame. (p. 31)

But, when we think of natural causes of suffering, “the cry goes up, “How can God allow such a thing? How can God allow such suffering?…Our gut reaction is to accuse God of callousness or carelessness and to demand that he do something to stop such things.” (ibid)

He muses that God might respond to such an accusation (especially those who don’t believe in God) with,

Well, excuse me, but if we’re talking here about who allows what, let point out that thousands of children are dying every minute in your world of preventable diseases that you have the means (but obviously not the will) to stop. How can you allow that?

If the large majority of sin is from human wickedness then Wright says we have to admit that none of us escapes the judgment. We both do evil and are complicit in evil. We benefit from the evil done elsewhere (think cheap clothing made in Asia). However, Wright doesn’t want us to wallow in guilt:

I say that not to turn all our enjoyment of life into guilty depression. Rather, as we enjoy the good gifts of God’s creation, we must at the same time accept the Bible’s diagnosis of how radical, pervasive, and deeply ingrained sin has become in all human life and relationships. (p. 35)

At this point in the chapter he steps back to ask where evil comes from even though he already stated we have no answer. “Evil seems to explode into the Bible narrative , unannounced, already formed, without explanation or rationale.” (p. 35) What can we say about evil from the Biblical record. Wright says, (a) It was not God, (b) it was not another human being, but (c) it was something from within creation. “Whatever the serpent in the narrative is, then, or whatever it represents, it is out of place, an intruder, unwelcome, incoherent, contrary to the story so far.” (p. 36) We have warrant from elsewhere in Scripture to see Satan as a fallen angel. Wright then asks about Satan. He reminds us that Satan isn’t God, isn’t omnipotent nor omniscient nor omnipresent. Wright suggests that we, “should take Satan seriously, but we should not dignify him with greater reality and power than is proper for a creature.” (p. 36)

Wright goes on to explore the differences between the devil and humans and gives us this pithy little statement, “The Bible calls us not so much to believe in the devil as to believe against the devil.” (p. 38.)

In summary, Wright reminds us that we cannot understand the presence of evil. This, he says, is a good thing.

“…we finite human beings cannot, indeed must not, “make sense” of evil. For the final truth is that evil does not make sense. “Sense” is part of our rationality that in itself is part of God’s good creation and God’s image in us. So evil can have no sense, since sense itself is a good thing.” (p. 42)

Instead Wright tells us that we are to grieve, weep, lament, protests, scream in pain and anger and cry out, “How long …” And he ends the chapter with the bible’s answer, “That’s OK. Go right ahead. And here are some words you may like to use when you feel that way.” (p. 43) What Wright doesn’t say is that our Savior uses these same words to communicate to the father.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical Reflection, book reviews, Christian Apologetics, Christianity, Doctrine/Theology, sin, suffering

Tagged as , ,

November 26, 2008 · 6:16 am

Interview with Derek Cooper


Yesterday I posted a quick blurb about Derek’s “So You’re Thinking About Going to Seminary” (Brazos, 2008). Derek kindly agreed to answer a few questions that I had. FYI, Derek has his PhD from Lutheran Seminary and is Visiting Professor at our very own Biblical Seminary.

Phil: Derek, it sounds like the impetus for this book came from your own varied experiences at several seminaries. Now that you are a teacher, what key recommendations do you have for incoming students to help them succeed in their academic work?

Derek:I recommend that incoming students think about managing their time. Many seminarians these days work part- or full-time, have spouses and/or children, are involved in church, and have other similar responsibilities. It’s important that they establish good study habits early in their studies that balances all of their work and family commitments.

Phil: Amen to that. Most could benefit from a study skills or reading skills class! Well, what is the most common mistake prospective seminary students make in the application process? 

Derek: I think students tend toward one of two extremes: either applying to too many schools (I’d recommend applying to no more than five, but preferably fewer) or underestimating how detailed and time-consuming the application process can be.

Phil:You know what one of my favorite mistakes is? Having an email address like, Gsusismyhomeboy@…. It tells a lot more than you know! On to my next question: If you were starting over, what would you do differently in your seminary education?

Derek: I would have chosen more carefully which seminary best suited me (in terms of theology, career prospects, contacts, location, and academic specialty). Phil: Good point. Now, I also notice that a number of students fail to think about life post graduation as they are overwhelmed with current classes. Or, if they do start to think about career, its in the final semester. What would you do to encourage students to start earlier?  

Derek: I believe students should begin thinking about career prospects during their first semester of school. I encourage students to isolate classes of special interest, speak with professors and staff members, network with students, talk with real-life pastors, academics, and ministry leaders, and attend local conferences of interest to learn about their compatibility with certain careers.

Phil: Me too. I tell my counseling students that they need to find people in the workforce doing things they want to do, introduce themselves and take them to lunch to ask they how they got to this point in their life and for advice. Who doesn’t like free lunch and being asked for sage advice. Plus, you can get an internship or a mentor out of it many times.

Final question Derek: What is one thing you wish Seminaries did differently to enhance the education of students?

Derek: I believe that seminaries need to do a better job of providing and connecting students to real-life practitioners so that they are better equipped and adequately exposed to what types of vocations they are most suited for.

Phil: Derek, thanks for stopping by and for your work in our counseling program. Happy Thanksgiving.

1 Comment

Filed under book reviews, Doctrine/Theology

Tagged as , , ,

November 25, 2008 · 5:34 am

How to pick a seminary?


Of course the right answer is: “Biblical Seminary is the ONLY seminary where you’ll get the best masters in counseling education.”

But in case you’d like a little more depth and breadth in answer the question about whether seminary is right for you, Derek Cooper has a new book: So You’re Thinking About Going to Seminary (2008, Brazos). Derek came by this wisdom by attending several seminaries and so if you want a good feel for what seminary is like and how you can decide if it is for you, you ought to buy the book.

In it he orients readers to what seminary is and isn’t, the kind that is attached to universities and the free-standing kind. That would probably have helped my wife back when she showed up for summer Greek, about a year after becoming a Christian. When she first heard about seminary, she assumed it was a place only for priests.

Cooper also helps the reader to consider the value and benefits of non-denominational versus denominational seminaries, the kinds of degrees available as well as potential jobs with each degree. Even better, he helps the newbie think through the kinds of courses likely to be taken in  some of these degree courses. What I like is that he gives numerous school examples so that by the end of the book, the reader has truly been exposed to the best of theological education in the United States and Canada.

The middle section of the book helps the seminarian find ways to finance, survive, even flourish during grad studies. Yes, you don’t have to lose your faith or your marriage if you go to seminary. But don’t assume your studies alone will promote spiritual growth.

He has one chapter that covers matters of ordination and licensure. If you are considering becoming a licensed counselor AND you are thinking (rightly) that seminary is a great place to do that, be sure to read his admonition to check with your licensing body (State or Province) to see what THEY require and do not assume that the school automatically covers every required course.

My only negative is that he didn’t say on every page that BIBLICAL SEMINARY (www.biblical.edu) is by far the BEST school in the world. But then, if he did, that would make us look bad since he would be lying. But, if you do want to hear Derek in the flesh, join our counseling program and take his “Counseling and the Biblical Text” course since he adjuncts for us.

I’ve asked Derek a few questions and so tomorrow, I’ll post his answers. Really, this is a good book if you are considering a ministry career and wonder if Seminary is necessary and what it is all about. And if you are the “cut to the chase” kind of reader, he has really good summaries and charts to help you make your decision.

1 Comment

Filed under Biblical Seminary, book reviews, counseling, Doctrine/Theology, writing

Tagged as , , ,

November 21, 2008 · 5:06 am

The God I don’t understand 1: Introduction


I’ll be blogging through Christopher Wright’s book by the above title (subtitle: Reflections on tought questions of faith) published by Zondervan, 2008. John Stott writes the forward. Unlike his “Mission of God” book, this is personal, and just over 200 pages. I am finding it a treasure to read. He tackles the problem of suffering and evil and the mystery/unanswered questions we have with great faith and trust–and does so looking at Ecclesiastes. He avoids easy answers but you also sense his basic trust and worship of God on every page.

In 4 sections he considers the problem of evil and suffering, the problem of the Canaanites (violence in the OT), the mystery of the Cross, and the mystery surrounding the end of the world. To whet your appetite, here’s some of his thoughts in the preface and introduction.

Right off on the first page he reiterates his joy of knowing and trusting God. “But knowing and trusting God does not necessarily add up to understanding.” He goes on to talk about the common experience of thinking that some suffering “just isn’t fair.” And he admits that his lack of suffering sometimes seems unfair too. “There seems to be no rhyme or reason to explain such unevenness of experience, when all of us are believers. None of us is any better as a saint. None of us is any worse as a sinner. Yet God has permitted great suffering for some and spared it for others” (p. 15).

Again, he clarifies his position: “It seems to me that the older I get the less I think I really understand GOd. Which is not to say that I don’t love and trust him.”

But still, “why Lord?” and “How long Lord?” are frequently part of his conversations with God.

He goes on to say that those who claim to have answers to the deep problems of life on earth are fooling themselves, “living in some kind of delusion.”

he finishes the introduction by exploring 5 different kinds of “not understanding.”
1. Things I don’t understand that leave me angry or grieved. He says here that the “very essence of evil is the negation of all goodness–and ‘sense’ is a good thing. In the end, evil does not and cannot ‘make sense’.”
2. Things I don’t understand about God that leave me morally disturbed. Such as the violent way God gives Israel their land.
3. Things I don’t understand about God that leave me puzzled. (ex: how Christians have so abused parts of the Bible and why God allows it.)
4. Things that I don’t understand about God but that flood me with gratitude (ex: the cross)
5. Things I don’t understand about God but they fill me with hope (ex: heaven)

Finally, he ends with reminding us that our questions have good company. Abraham, Sarah, Hagar (he mentions that Hagar was the first to give God a name in the OT), Moses, Naomi, David, Elijah, Job, Habakkuk, etc. all question God with WHY, HOW LONG, and WHEN.Even Jesus asks WHY on the cross.

Here are some last choice quotes:

“…faith seeks understanding, and faith builds on understanding where it is granted, but faith does not finally depend on understanding. (p. 22)

And he says something I say in my suffering lectures, that Psalm 73 brings our lack of understanding into faithful worship. It is in the context of worship that the Psalmist, who had been struggling with understanding God’s goodness when seeing life around him, has his perspective changed. His perspective, “does not change the realities of the present.” …the author does not go back and erase all that he has written in the first half [of the Psalm]. He lets us hear both his struggling lack of understanding and his restored, worshiping faith.” (p. 23)

4 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, book reviews, Doctrine/Theology

Tagged as ,

November 19, 2008 · 3:04 pm

Scripture and Counseling at ETS, Providence, RI


Just finished my paper presentation at the Counseling, Psychology, and Pastoral Care section meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society–meeting in frigid Providence, RI. Had the pleasure of hearing David Powlison talk about the various errors of evangelical biblical counselors and professional counselors shortchange scripture (e.g., treat it atomistically or ignore its richness altogether). He gave several case studies trying to put words to what many counselors intuitively know about the best uses of Scripture in counseling. I followed him and talked about two major problems: treating the text as a compilation of timeless truthes and missing the varied ways God is writing us into his story and the problem of either treating Scripture as a tool or a diagnostic manual–which both lead to some dangers.

I then presented one case study of what I call a narratival approach, using Scripture to meet and validate the present experience of the counselee and so make room for two things (that meeting God and seeing self may or may not change our current mental state AND that we can begin to see how God is writing a different story that we tend to imagine in our fallen states).

John Franke then gave a good talk on how a plural way of looking at Revelation supports an inerrantist model of Scripture but avoids the ONE way of articulating doctrines. He said that this way of thinking would impact counselors by: Continuing to anchor christian care in the normative foundation of Scripture, that we would resist absolutizing THE christian counseling model but find unity amongst diversity, that counseling then must be driven by wisdom and the Spirit, that counseling must be engaged in a constructive and critical dialog with secular psychology. He wants us to avoid seeing our diversity of christian counseling models as bad but facets of God’s guidance.

Well, intellectually stimulating to say the least. Now, I’m done and off to be a spectator. I’ve run into several old friends and am making some new ones as I write.

4 Comments

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, Doctrine/Theology

Tagged as , , ,

October 30, 2008 · 5:01 am

Dividing the church over politics


In the last 2 weeks I’ve heard several stories of individuals getting into heated discussions with other christian friends about whether to vote for Obama or McCain. Each of these stories are told by someone considering Obama as their vote. Each one describes their friend as nearly or actually questioning their sanity or faith if they would vote for Obama. I have yet to hear someone saying that a vote for McCain has cost them a relationship in their church.

Seems to me there are a couple of key reasons some Christians get up in arms over Obama.

1. He is clearly pro-abortion rights. He has as much as said he will have a litmus test for Supreme Court Justice nominees. Thus, a vote for Obama is a vote for the continuation of abortion and probably a roll-back on restrictions that have been one in the last decade.

This argument has merit and I can see Christians having strong opinions and questions about the conscience of other Christians who are planning to vote for him. On the other hand, justice issues take many sizes and shapes. While you may disagree with the democratic plan for dealing with the poor, they are the ones more likely to talk about care. Justice and care for the widow and orphan (the poor) is considered to be one of the key facets of the Christian faith (Matt. 23:23). Should abortion trump all other justice issues. Do those who vote for McCain squirm over capitalistic idolatry and the false assumption that individuals will do enough to care for the poor? Do Republicans walk the walk about voluntary sacrifice (and so actually really give sacrificially to the poor) when they accuse Democrats of trying to force it via taxation?

2. Obama is a socialist and is for big government control and mandate into all aspects of life. Our faith rights will be restricted under his power.

Again, it is an interesting debate about the role of government. I think we should be discussing the size and influence of government. Do all Americans have a right to health-care?  Should the government pick up the tab? Why? These are good questions. But, should a debate here lead to the questioning of one person’s faith? I don’t see that. Scripture doesn’t support a capitalistic or socialistic government, a small government or large one. We are commanded to submit to our leaders. We are commanded to care for the poor.

Let’s not divide the church and question each other’s faith when we have political differences. The issues are important and there will be real consequences when either candidate gets elected. Let’s debate those and not the faith commitments of our brothers and sisters.

12 Comments

Filed under Christianity, church and culture, conflicts, Doctrine/Theology, Gospel, News and politics, Relationships

Tagged as , ,

October 13, 2008 · 3:26 pm

Pastoral epistles as letter???


In talking to pastors, I’ve been taking the angle that we should look again to the pastoral epistles to see how a senior mentor talks to a junior pastor. What is important? What are the dangers? What kind of encouragement is given to these folk who labor in difficult venues?

I am afraid we have used these letters to create doctrinal positions (e.g., who should lead the church, the nature of Scripture, etc.) but have forgotten the pastoral flavor of these little books.

Take a look at 1 Timothy. Here’s my brief summation of Paul’s letter to Timothy:

1. Remember. (ch. 1) Keep at your work in loving prideful and misguided people (who probably all think they should be the leader). Remember our humble origins and calling (v. 12). The goal here? Don’t shipwreck your faith.

2. Act (ch. 2-3) Your first act? Pray for everyone and pray for peace. Your second act? Live a holy life in keeping with the position. Out of this instruct your congregation to…

3. Be Wary (ch. 4-6) Deception is happening to other teachers. It can happen to you. So, live in truth and focus on godliness. There are 2 deceptions (financial gain (and fame) and knowledge). Some see both as a path to godliness but they are not. There is an antidote: Contentment! Seek only the glory of God and not your own.

____

You might ask yourself (and your pastor) these two questions.

1. If Paul were writing to you, what would he put in your letter for you to remember, act, and be wary of?

2. Who knows you and your situation well enough to write this kind of letter to you? If no one exists, why not? And what should you do about it?

Okay, that was more than 2 questions…go ask your pastor!

4 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, Christianity, Doctrine/Theology, pastoral renewal, pastors and pastoring, self-deception

Tagged as , , , ,

September 29, 2008 · 10:41 am

Check out this Biblical event!


Want to meet a number of key missional leaders all in one place for a reasonable price? Wondered what missional was all about? Come to Biblical Seminary on October 10th (THIS FRIDAY) to hear Scot McKnight(Jesuscreed.org), Tim Keel, Darrell Guder, and the ever stimulating, even controversial Brian McLaren (along with some local greats as well) do plenary talks and break-outs on a number of related topics. It costs $75 for the day or $40 for the evening. The size will not be too large so you can expect to have actual conversations with some of the leaders. The event is capped by installing our very own theologian, Dr. John Frankeas the Lester and Kay Clemens Chair of Missional Theology.

Check out this link for more info: https://webmail.biblical.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.biblical.edu/pages/connect/franke%2520installation.htm

1 Comment

Filed under Biblical Seminary, Christianity, Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, Doctrine/Theology, missional, Missional Church

Tagged as , , , , ,