There seems to be a resurgence of interest as of late in church history. No doubt this is in part to authors such as John Piper, who quotes extensively from Jonathan Edwards and John Calvin. Men such as N.T. Wright have also sparked much interest in Early Judaism as well. However, one area where students in my generation simply do not seem as interested is the early church fathers. Michael A.G. Haykin's book Rediscovering the Church Fathers: Who They Were and How They Shaped the Church seeks to educate and, hopefully, rekindle an interest in the church fathers.
Unfortunately, Haykin's book, while educational, does little to rekindle interest. The book mostly feels like a random collection of essays concerning different fathers in the church. Perhaps the biggest shortcoming of the book is that Haykin provides little commentary on why these church fathers are relevant for today. While he insists on their contemporary importance, little application is given.
Some chapters are particularly perplexing within his book, such as his chapter on Origin's exegetical practices. After spending the entire chapter pointing out the shortcomings, Haykin never comes around to explaining what we can learn. The question is simply crying out to be asked, "Why did he decide to pick Origin?" Again, Haykin spends a great deal of time discussing Ignatious of Antioch's somewhat graphic (and joyous) description of martyrdom. While he dismisses any suggestion that Ignatious was wrong in his perspective on suffering, he never builds a conclusive case as to why we should listen to Ignatious.
Haykin's book also seems to ramble. His final chapter discusses his own experience with the church fathers. While interesting, the chapter simply concludes with Haykin essentially saying, "That is how I got into the church fathers." What is left out is how they are relevant, what we can learn from them, and how to apply them to today.
All is not lost, however. Chapter 6, on Basil of Caesarea, stands out as a particularly practical and powerful chapter. His chapter on St. Patrick is also quite interesting as well. Also, Haykin should be commended for his use of quotations of the early fathers. He quotes extensively from the original sources without using so many quotes that it disrupts the flow of the book. Each chapter was also quite readable and the chapters seemed to be a good length.
Perhaps the biggest problem with Haykin's book is that it does not really offer anything new to the market of introductory studies on the church fathers. For example, Learning Theology with the Church Fathers by Christopher Hall offers both a thorough introduction to the thinking of individual fathers and provides relevant application. In my mind, at least, Hall's works are a sort of paradigm for introductory material. Rediscovering the Church Fathers simply does not measure up. With so many better books out there on the church fathers, I would suggest passing this one up.
*Thanks to Crossway publishers for providing a review copy of this book in exchange for a fair review*
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
"Practicing Affirmation" Book Review
Christians live their lives in tension: they worship God, who alone is worthy of praise, and yet minister with people, who do surprisingly commendable things. Often the tension increases: how do we affirm and praise those who are not God? Sam Crabtree's excellent book, Practicing Affirmation, seeks to answer and resolve that tension.
Though just a mere 167 pages (including appendices), Crabtree accomplishes much. In chapter one, entitled "God-Centered Affirmation of Those Who Are Not God," he outlines the essential truth that we must commend what is commendable in those who are not God because any good thing that is accomplished comes ultimately from God. Because humans are made in the image of God, there is always something to be commended.
Chapter 2, entitled "Key to Refreshing Relationships: The Simplicity," sets forth the reason one should affirm others. Crabtree gives several practical reasons why we must affirm one another. The most important, perhaps, is the need to refresh the souls of others. Here, the author gives the basic contours of his thought.
Chapter 3, entitled "Toward Greater Refreshment: The Complexity," goes much deeper, than the previous chapter and seeks to answer the how of affirmation. Here, one could say that the author seeks to outline both the theory and practice of affirmation by giving characteristics of good affirmation.
Chapter 4, entitled "Important Assumptions," strikes me as oddly placed here in the book. This chapter likely should have been placed as an introduction (since it the shortest chapter in the book) since it can be skipped. There are some good points of theology here, but the chapter does little to contribute to the book. Rather, it just breaks up the thought-flow.
Chapter 5, entitled "Mistakes I Have Made," was perhaps the most helpful chapter in the book for this reviewer. While I doubt many would question both the benefit and need of affirmation, many would likely struggle on how to do affirmation well. Here, Crabtree outlines what not to do. Despite what many people might think, affirming others is not based just on practical sense. It can be done poorly and to the detriments of others. This chapter will likely be incredibly helpful to pastors and those in leadership positions.
Chapter 6, entitled "Question and Answers," seeks to answer questions that might have come up that were not answered by the author. At this point within the book, this reviewer must confess, things started getting a bit redundant. In many ways, Crabtree labors tirelessly throughout the book to make sure the reader affirms others well. This chapter is an exercise in fine-tuning, to be sure.
Chapter 7, entitled "Sightings of Jesus," outlines what Christlike character looks like. This chapter is helpful in identifying ways that readers might see Christ in others. Many times, Crabtree introduced new aspects of Christ character that are seldom mentioned. Overall, this was a short, yet important chapter.
Chapter 8, entitled "Mixing Correction With Affirmation," felt like it was covered earlier in the book. While again, this chapter was an exercise in fine-tuning, it was really too short to be of too much use. Again, Crabtree covered his topic so well in previous chapters, that some of the later ones felt almost unncessary.
Chapter 9, entitled "100 Affirmation Ideas for Those Who Feel Stuck," is a great chapter with immense practicality. As the chapter title suggests, it has 100 ideas of affirmation--each creative and useful. Many readers will likely consult this chapter again and again for ideas on how to affirm others.
In conclusion, Practicing Affirmation challenges the reader to look beyond themselves to the needs of others. However, it does more than that: it urges the reader to look beyond themselves and even beyond others to the God who endowed each of us with gifts and abilities that reflect His glory. At least for me, this was a profoundly paradigm shifting book. Anyone who finds themselves in a relationship (whether friendship, work, or romantic) needs to read this book. I am sure that this is a book pastors will be turning to for years on end--I know I will be.
*Thanks to Crossway for providing me a review copy of this book in exchange for a fair review*
Though just a mere 167 pages (including appendices), Crabtree accomplishes much. In chapter one, entitled "God-Centered Affirmation of Those Who Are Not God," he outlines the essential truth that we must commend what is commendable in those who are not God because any good thing that is accomplished comes ultimately from God. Because humans are made in the image of God, there is always something to be commended.
Chapter 2, entitled "Key to Refreshing Relationships: The Simplicity," sets forth the reason one should affirm others. Crabtree gives several practical reasons why we must affirm one another. The most important, perhaps, is the need to refresh the souls of others. Here, the author gives the basic contours of his thought.
Chapter 3, entitled "Toward Greater Refreshment: The Complexity," goes much deeper, than the previous chapter and seeks to answer the how of affirmation. Here, one could say that the author seeks to outline both the theory and practice of affirmation by giving characteristics of good affirmation.
Chapter 4, entitled "Important Assumptions," strikes me as oddly placed here in the book. This chapter likely should have been placed as an introduction (since it the shortest chapter in the book) since it can be skipped. There are some good points of theology here, but the chapter does little to contribute to the book. Rather, it just breaks up the thought-flow.
Chapter 5, entitled "Mistakes I Have Made," was perhaps the most helpful chapter in the book for this reviewer. While I doubt many would question both the benefit and need of affirmation, many would likely struggle on how to do affirmation well. Here, Crabtree outlines what not to do. Despite what many people might think, affirming others is not based just on practical sense. It can be done poorly and to the detriments of others. This chapter will likely be incredibly helpful to pastors and those in leadership positions.
Chapter 6, entitled "Question and Answers," seeks to answer questions that might have come up that were not answered by the author. At this point within the book, this reviewer must confess, things started getting a bit redundant. In many ways, Crabtree labors tirelessly throughout the book to make sure the reader affirms others well. This chapter is an exercise in fine-tuning, to be sure.
Chapter 7, entitled "Sightings of Jesus," outlines what Christlike character looks like. This chapter is helpful in identifying ways that readers might see Christ in others. Many times, Crabtree introduced new aspects of Christ character that are seldom mentioned. Overall, this was a short, yet important chapter.
Chapter 8, entitled "Mixing Correction With Affirmation," felt like it was covered earlier in the book. While again, this chapter was an exercise in fine-tuning, it was really too short to be of too much use. Again, Crabtree covered his topic so well in previous chapters, that some of the later ones felt almost unncessary.
Chapter 9, entitled "100 Affirmation Ideas for Those Who Feel Stuck," is a great chapter with immense practicality. As the chapter title suggests, it has 100 ideas of affirmation--each creative and useful. Many readers will likely consult this chapter again and again for ideas on how to affirm others.
In conclusion, Practicing Affirmation challenges the reader to look beyond themselves to the needs of others. However, it does more than that: it urges the reader to look beyond themselves and even beyond others to the God who endowed each of us with gifts and abilities that reflect His glory. At least for me, this was a profoundly paradigm shifting book. Anyone who finds themselves in a relationship (whether friendship, work, or romantic) needs to read this book. I am sure that this is a book pastors will be turning to for years on end--I know I will be.
*Thanks to Crossway for providing me a review copy of this book in exchange for a fair review*
Friday, April 8, 2011
"Thirty-One Days of Power" Devotional Review
Devotionals, to me, are somewhat hit or miss honestly. What I look for in a good devotional is exegetical precision, depth, and relevance. I look for a devotional that will give me something to meditate upon frequently throughout my day. Since I am somewhat picky, I was hesitant to read Thirty-One Days of Power by Ruth Myers with Warren Myers.
There is little to say about the book, unfortunately, as it does nothing particularly well. It is is neither abysmal nor spectacular. It does cover the topic of spiritual warfare well. It frames most of its days like a prayer, chalked full of scripture. The second half of the book discusses spiritual warfare. The book covers the topic of spiritual warfare as thoroughly as a devotional can. It exhorts the believer to live in victory (as the title suggests) and provides application throughout. One solid reminder the devotional offers is that one must focus on the beauty of Christ rather than the evil of Satan. Many would do well to heed this reminder in the current Evangelical climate.
One could do worse in the area of devotionals than this. However, there are so many other excellent ones out there (such as John MacArthur's and D.A. Carson's devotionals) that Thirty-One Days of Power feels like a poor substitute.
*This book was sent to me as a review copy for Multnomah Publishing in exchange for a review*
There is little to say about the book, unfortunately, as it does nothing particularly well. It is is neither abysmal nor spectacular. It does cover the topic of spiritual warfare well. It frames most of its days like a prayer, chalked full of scripture. The second half of the book discusses spiritual warfare. The book covers the topic of spiritual warfare as thoroughly as a devotional can. It exhorts the believer to live in victory (as the title suggests) and provides application throughout. One solid reminder the devotional offers is that one must focus on the beauty of Christ rather than the evil of Satan. Many would do well to heed this reminder in the current Evangelical climate.
One could do worse in the area of devotionals than this. However, there are so many other excellent ones out there (such as John MacArthur's and D.A. Carson's devotionals) that Thirty-One Days of Power feels like a poor substitute.
*This book was sent to me as a review copy for Multnomah Publishing in exchange for a review*
"If God, Why Evil" Book Review
Fresh from Norman Geisler, If God, Why Evil?: A New Way to Think About the Problem is Geisler's attempt at answering why evil exists if there is a God who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good. The book is a short read, clocking in at a mere 173 pages, which is surprising given the topic. However, I believe the length of the book is actually one of its strong points, as the Geisler packs quite a bit into each chapter without overwhelming the reader.
Much of the material in the book is rehashed from Geisler's Systematic Theology (such as his chapter arguing for the existence of hell). The "new way" to think about the problem seems to be in Geisler's argument that we are living (potentially) in the best possible world if we are truly free creature. While this argument might sound shallow to some, it really does help the reader appreciate the fact that God allows the evil he does for a specific purpose. Perhaps it is not the strongest apologetic argument out there, but it was both theologically and emotionally satisfying to me. Those who hold to a Molinist view of God's sovereignty will find much help here in Geisler's discussion of the best possible world.
Of interest to some readers will be the fact that Geisler spends one appendix discussing the theological shortcomings of The Shack. His critique feels somewhat dated considering the fact that The Shack is nearly four years old. Also, most of what Geisler critiques has been present on the internet for years. That said, some pastors might find the appendix a concise, useful critique of The Shack, that is beneficial for curious members of their churches.
In the end, Geisler's book is a short, interesting read on the problem of evil. Geisler, the philosopher, seems most at home. However, this reviewer cannot help but wonder if one really needs yet another book on the problem of evil. Geisler's "best possible world" approach is useful. Yet, it does not seem like this book advances the discussion any further. For those put off by Randy Alcorn's massive book If God is Good, Geisler's book is a solid replacement. However, for those who are looking for a truly substantial (and nearly exhaustive) treatment of the topic, pick up Alcorn's book instead.
*Thanks to Bethany House Publishers for providing a free review copy of this book for publicity purposes*
Much of the material in the book is rehashed from Geisler's Systematic Theology (such as his chapter arguing for the existence of hell). The "new way" to think about the problem seems to be in Geisler's argument that we are living (potentially) in the best possible world if we are truly free creature. While this argument might sound shallow to some, it really does help the reader appreciate the fact that God allows the evil he does for a specific purpose. Perhaps it is not the strongest apologetic argument out there, but it was both theologically and emotionally satisfying to me. Those who hold to a Molinist view of God's sovereignty will find much help here in Geisler's discussion of the best possible world.
Of interest to some readers will be the fact that Geisler spends one appendix discussing the theological shortcomings of The Shack. His critique feels somewhat dated considering the fact that The Shack is nearly four years old. Also, most of what Geisler critiques has been present on the internet for years. That said, some pastors might find the appendix a concise, useful critique of The Shack, that is beneficial for curious members of their churches.
In the end, Geisler's book is a short, interesting read on the problem of evil. Geisler, the philosopher, seems most at home. However, this reviewer cannot help but wonder if one really needs yet another book on the problem of evil. Geisler's "best possible world" approach is useful. Yet, it does not seem like this book advances the discussion any further. For those put off by Randy Alcorn's massive book If God is Good, Geisler's book is a solid replacement. However, for those who are looking for a truly substantial (and nearly exhaustive) treatment of the topic, pick up Alcorn's book instead.
*Thanks to Bethany House Publishers for providing a free review copy of this book for publicity purposes*
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Good Leadership Advice
Some good words on leadership at one of our pastors' associational meetings two weeks ago.
"Leadership is about love."
Yup. That about sums it up.
"Leadership is about love."
Yup. That about sums it up.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
More Random Thoughts on PhD Work in Divinity
I constantly wrestle with myself concerning earning a PhD or not. There are days I just feel it in my bones: I have to do deeper research! I just love to do the research! Then there are days where I read scholarly articles and I am simply turned off: I really want to spend my days researching minutia? I'd rather die!
Tonight, as I was doing further research into earning a PhD (how many times have I gone through the same articles?), I stumbled across a discussion board where a guy mentioned someone should seriously start considering doing PhD work when earning his M.Div. No doubt.
But PhD work is quite a bit different here in the U.S. than it is overseas. Overseas you are required to write a dissertation; that's it. Here in the U.S. you obviously have to do further coursework. Of course, many people opt to do their PhD work overseas for that exact reason.
Which leads me to this question: after earning an M.Div, is someone really prepared to tackle a PhD without further coursework? Another question: how cutting edge can research be by someone who only has an M.Div?
No doubt I went to school with some brilliant guys who are now doing M.Div work and who will no doubt go on for PhD work. That is great. But then I read books by guys like G.K. Beale and their knowledge is vast--literally overwhelmingly so. Often times, these guys will cite their PhD students who contributed significantly to an area of research. If you gave me the next five years of my life, I could not break ground in the areas that some of their PhD students do.
Which leads me to a few interesting possibilities on my part: 1) I am not really motivated enough to make any real lasting contribution to the field of theology. 2) I am not smart enough to make any lasting contribution to the field of theology and 3) my M.A program is so inept that I am immensely undereducated compared to these guys.
Truth be told, I think it is a combination of the three factors listed above. I am not really motivated to make any real contribution. I mean, I get excited by ideas and philosophy and theology and how they merge together. I like reading...alot. But when it comes time to write and comes time to really hammer out and be nuanced in discussions concerning theology on that level...nah. I'll pass and watch "That 70's Show." Pathetic? Yeah. But some days I just feel like I have better stuff to do.
Second, I don't really think I am smart enough to contribute to the field of theology that way. I mean, I'm not stupid. I read and show an active interest in theology. I can put together (mostly) coherent thoughts. I have had professors urge me to pursue further research. But over the years, I have met truly brilliant people. I went to college with four in particular. Perfect to near perfect G.P.A's. One in particular is thriving at a major seminary and reads more than I could ever dream of reading. I look at him and then I look at me and I think, "Now THAT guy can do a PhD!"
Third, my M.A. program is from Liberty online. It is good. I love doing it. I am learning and really enjoying working on my own schedule. It fits perfectly for me as I am a full-time youth pastor. It has obvious deficiencies though. I have, over the course of several months, collected syllabi from other seminaries (RTS, Covenant, Fuller) and their reading and course work is MUCH more extensive than my own. What is nice is that at least two of the above seminaries offer free courses (not for credit) so I can make up deficiencies (which doesn't help a lick getting into a PhD program). On a practical level, I praise God that seminaries are offering their material for free so that the kingdom of God can be advanced. However, all of this is to say that Liberty is not the best choice if you are planning on doing advanced coursework (something I already knew before going into Liberty).
I have wrestled with these options so many times it has annoyed everyone around me. One day I am pro-PhD while the next day I am so apathetic and almost hostile to the idea. I think the real issues can be boiled down to the following:
1) I want the degree but don't want to do the papers necessary to earn the degree.
2) I don't want to waste my life in school.
3) I think I would hate my life for the time I was enrolled in PhD work.
4) The investment/benefit ratio of earning a PhD drops every year. Long story short: unless you have the right degree from the right school having studied under the right professor, you probably won't be teaching. The field is absolutely flooded with PhD students. Which leads me to the question: why the heck do it? If I knew there existed a shortage of professors, then yeah I might do it. But my buddy Jacob informed me that guys studying at Wheaton were coming out and were unable to get jobs. If those dudes can't get jobs, I, Daniel Pandolph, with my Liberty M.A.R (and whatever other degrees I would need to get into a moderately decent PhD program) have no shot. That isn't pessimism. That is realism.
5) I question the value of trying to break new ground in my field of expertise. This thought, actually, came to me via Norman Geisler's awesome article "Beware of Philosophy". Near the end of the article he states that theology students need to fight the temptation of being original (though PhDs basically force the student to be--something that Geisler finds ironic).
6) The amount of work necessary to break any sort of ground is exhausting to think about. Not only so but the fact is that whatever ground I would break would likely be overturned by someone smarter. This is starting to sound like Ecclesiastes but I think that there is something to be said here. Realistically, the sharpest guys with the best resources are the ones who break the most ground in theology. However, I love A.W. Tozer who was not original but was absolutely brilliant. No education. Smart as a whip. Influenced my life more than any scholar ever has or ever will.
7) The thought of engaging in further language study makes me sick to my stomach. I paid my dues in Greek--five semesters. I tackled one semester of Hebrew before I thought to myself "Eh. I'll wait till seminary to get my Hebrew." Well...my seminary doesn't offer Hebrew online. But truth be told, I question the overall value of learning it anyway. No doubt I am a sharper exegete for learning Greek. But the level it predominately impacts is my preaching. I cannot hold a candle to Bible translators and linguists. The fact is, the amount of work needed to be TRULY proficient in Greek and Hebrew is beyond what most PhD guys achieve. The reason for this is that they cite (like I do in my papers) Wallace, Bauer and others. My point? We are all drawing from the same sources. Why? Well, I can't speak for them but as for me, I still struggle with looking at Greek and saying "Oh. That is an attributive genitive." Also, for my final semester in Greek I parsed and translated all of Revelation. Do you know how it read? Basically like the ESV. I say all of this to simply state, the language requirements are sickening to think about.
8) The above point reminds me of another language related issue: learning two research languages. German and French? French and Latin? Latin and German? Syriac and German? Coptic and Sandscrit? Pick your poison! What about Aramaic (an essential now that Second-Temple literature is exploding)? Um. No. How about ordering pizza and watching a movie with Hayley instead? Sounds perfect.
9) Cost and time. Simply put, I don't have the money to do it. When would I work on my paper? I will have a wife to support! And I love my job as a youth minister--although it takes up a huge amount of time. I have a buddy who is a youth pastor and is working on his PhD from Southern. Kudos to him. I don't know how he does it. I don't have the time.
10) Relationships or paper? For any PhD guys out there who read this and think I am being a jerk to you guys, I am sorry. I mean nothing offensive by this statement--but I feel daily the burning need to minister to people who are in deep pain. I feel daily the need to stay in ministry although it is often painful and laborious. I feel daily the need to guard the sheep against false teaching that comes down the tubes. I reject the stupid antithesis that pastors cannot be as sharp as professors. I, for one, want to be a smart, educated pastor who knows theology, philosophy, and the Bible backwards, forwards and upside-down.
However, I am unconvinced that I could earn a PhD and still minister effectively to a church. I feel like I would be betraying my call if I were to work on a paper rather than love whatever church I am in to the fullest extent of my abilities. I realize some might criticize me and say that academics is a form of love and we each have different callings. I won't argue with that. I just know for me personally it feels a bit like I would be wasting my time.
11) Of course there is that side of me that asks, "Are you giving up on your dream, you little pansy?" I don't like being called a pansy so I frequently lash back at this side of me saying, "NO!" Then I realize how unstable I feel and realize PhD work is probably not a good option for those suffering from mild insanity. ;-)
So I say all of this to lead me to this simple point: I still have no clue what to do. Like I said, there are days PhD work seems so awesome. Other days, it makes me wanna die. Today, I have swung between those to poles about three times.
In the end, I believe God is sovereign and has set me exactly where I need to be. I don't doubt that the choices I have made, despite some peoples' disapproval, has brought me to the place God intended. For that I rejoice. And I know that regardless of where I end up, it will be far better than I ever dreamed.
Tonight, as I was doing further research into earning a PhD (how many times have I gone through the same articles?), I stumbled across a discussion board where a guy mentioned someone should seriously start considering doing PhD work when earning his M.Div. No doubt.
But PhD work is quite a bit different here in the U.S. than it is overseas. Overseas you are required to write a dissertation; that's it. Here in the U.S. you obviously have to do further coursework. Of course, many people opt to do their PhD work overseas for that exact reason.
Which leads me to this question: after earning an M.Div, is someone really prepared to tackle a PhD without further coursework? Another question: how cutting edge can research be by someone who only has an M.Div?
No doubt I went to school with some brilliant guys who are now doing M.Div work and who will no doubt go on for PhD work. That is great. But then I read books by guys like G.K. Beale and their knowledge is vast--literally overwhelmingly so. Often times, these guys will cite their PhD students who contributed significantly to an area of research. If you gave me the next five years of my life, I could not break ground in the areas that some of their PhD students do.
Which leads me to a few interesting possibilities on my part: 1) I am not really motivated enough to make any real lasting contribution to the field of theology. 2) I am not smart enough to make any lasting contribution to the field of theology and 3) my M.A program is so inept that I am immensely undereducated compared to these guys.
Truth be told, I think it is a combination of the three factors listed above. I am not really motivated to make any real contribution. I mean, I get excited by ideas and philosophy and theology and how they merge together. I like reading...alot. But when it comes time to write and comes time to really hammer out and be nuanced in discussions concerning theology on that level...nah. I'll pass and watch "That 70's Show." Pathetic? Yeah. But some days I just feel like I have better stuff to do.
Second, I don't really think I am smart enough to contribute to the field of theology that way. I mean, I'm not stupid. I read and show an active interest in theology. I can put together (mostly) coherent thoughts. I have had professors urge me to pursue further research. But over the years, I have met truly brilliant people. I went to college with four in particular. Perfect to near perfect G.P.A's. One in particular is thriving at a major seminary and reads more than I could ever dream of reading. I look at him and then I look at me and I think, "Now THAT guy can do a PhD!"
Third, my M.A. program is from Liberty online. It is good. I love doing it. I am learning and really enjoying working on my own schedule. It fits perfectly for me as I am a full-time youth pastor. It has obvious deficiencies though. I have, over the course of several months, collected syllabi from other seminaries (RTS, Covenant, Fuller) and their reading and course work is MUCH more extensive than my own. What is nice is that at least two of the above seminaries offer free courses (not for credit) so I can make up deficiencies (which doesn't help a lick getting into a PhD program). On a practical level, I praise God that seminaries are offering their material for free so that the kingdom of God can be advanced. However, all of this is to say that Liberty is not the best choice if you are planning on doing advanced coursework (something I already knew before going into Liberty).
I have wrestled with these options so many times it has annoyed everyone around me. One day I am pro-PhD while the next day I am so apathetic and almost hostile to the idea. I think the real issues can be boiled down to the following:
1) I want the degree but don't want to do the papers necessary to earn the degree.
2) I don't want to waste my life in school.
3) I think I would hate my life for the time I was enrolled in PhD work.
4) The investment/benefit ratio of earning a PhD drops every year. Long story short: unless you have the right degree from the right school having studied under the right professor, you probably won't be teaching. The field is absolutely flooded with PhD students. Which leads me to the question: why the heck do it? If I knew there existed a shortage of professors, then yeah I might do it. But my buddy Jacob informed me that guys studying at Wheaton were coming out and were unable to get jobs. If those dudes can't get jobs, I, Daniel Pandolph, with my Liberty M.A.R (and whatever other degrees I would need to get into a moderately decent PhD program) have no shot. That isn't pessimism. That is realism.
5) I question the value of trying to break new ground in my field of expertise. This thought, actually, came to me via Norman Geisler's awesome article "Beware of Philosophy". Near the end of the article he states that theology students need to fight the temptation of being original (though PhDs basically force the student to be--something that Geisler finds ironic).
6) The amount of work necessary to break any sort of ground is exhausting to think about. Not only so but the fact is that whatever ground I would break would likely be overturned by someone smarter. This is starting to sound like Ecclesiastes but I think that there is something to be said here. Realistically, the sharpest guys with the best resources are the ones who break the most ground in theology. However, I love A.W. Tozer who was not original but was absolutely brilliant. No education. Smart as a whip. Influenced my life more than any scholar ever has or ever will.
7) The thought of engaging in further language study makes me sick to my stomach. I paid my dues in Greek--five semesters. I tackled one semester of Hebrew before I thought to myself "Eh. I'll wait till seminary to get my Hebrew." Well...my seminary doesn't offer Hebrew online. But truth be told, I question the overall value of learning it anyway. No doubt I am a sharper exegete for learning Greek. But the level it predominately impacts is my preaching. I cannot hold a candle to Bible translators and linguists. The fact is, the amount of work needed to be TRULY proficient in Greek and Hebrew is beyond what most PhD guys achieve. The reason for this is that they cite (like I do in my papers) Wallace, Bauer and others. My point? We are all drawing from the same sources. Why? Well, I can't speak for them but as for me, I still struggle with looking at Greek and saying "Oh. That is an attributive genitive." Also, for my final semester in Greek I parsed and translated all of Revelation. Do you know how it read? Basically like the ESV. I say all of this to simply state, the language requirements are sickening to think about.
8) The above point reminds me of another language related issue: learning two research languages. German and French? French and Latin? Latin and German? Syriac and German? Coptic and Sandscrit? Pick your poison! What about Aramaic (an essential now that Second-Temple literature is exploding)? Um. No. How about ordering pizza and watching a movie with Hayley instead? Sounds perfect.
9) Cost and time. Simply put, I don't have the money to do it. When would I work on my paper? I will have a wife to support! And I love my job as a youth minister--although it takes up a huge amount of time. I have a buddy who is a youth pastor and is working on his PhD from Southern. Kudos to him. I don't know how he does it. I don't have the time.
10) Relationships or paper? For any PhD guys out there who read this and think I am being a jerk to you guys, I am sorry. I mean nothing offensive by this statement--but I feel daily the burning need to minister to people who are in deep pain. I feel daily the need to stay in ministry although it is often painful and laborious. I feel daily the need to guard the sheep against false teaching that comes down the tubes. I reject the stupid antithesis that pastors cannot be as sharp as professors. I, for one, want to be a smart, educated pastor who knows theology, philosophy, and the Bible backwards, forwards and upside-down.
However, I am unconvinced that I could earn a PhD and still minister effectively to a church. I feel like I would be betraying my call if I were to work on a paper rather than love whatever church I am in to the fullest extent of my abilities. I realize some might criticize me and say that academics is a form of love and we each have different callings. I won't argue with that. I just know for me personally it feels a bit like I would be wasting my time.
11) Of course there is that side of me that asks, "Are you giving up on your dream, you little pansy?" I don't like being called a pansy so I frequently lash back at this side of me saying, "NO!" Then I realize how unstable I feel and realize PhD work is probably not a good option for those suffering from mild insanity. ;-)
So I say all of this to lead me to this simple point: I still have no clue what to do. Like I said, there are days PhD work seems so awesome. Other days, it makes me wanna die. Today, I have swung between those to poles about three times.
In the end, I believe God is sovereign and has set me exactly where I need to be. I don't doubt that the choices I have made, despite some peoples' disapproval, has brought me to the place God intended. For that I rejoice. And I know that regardless of where I end up, it will be far better than I ever dreamed.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
The Role of the Pastor: Wrestling with the Text
I heard recently about a pastor who was printing his sermons from off the internet and preaching them as his own. If you ask me, this is nothing short of plagiarism. I would fire the pastor instantly because it shows a low amount of character.
However, even if one CAN justify the use of printing off a sermon from online and using it as your own, I would still fire the pastor. Why? Because he is failing his church. He is not soaking up the text in order to preach it. Rather, he is stating what someone else has said.
Simply put, the pastor's role is to wrestle with the text.
This is not an easy task or even (at times) a fun one. I give one such example of how frustrating and difficult it actually can be. As our test case let's look at Ephesians 1:17.
Different translations render Eph. 1:17 variously. So the NET Bible states:
"I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you spiritual wisdom and revelation in your growing knowledge of him."
The ESV (my translation of choice) renders it, "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him."
The NIV renders it, "I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better."
The issue in question is that last line "may give you...". Is it a reference to the Holy Spirit? Is it a reference to the human spirit? Is it a reference to God's granting us spiritual wisdom and revelation?
Commentaries are divided down the issue. Gordon Fee sees this as a clear indication of the Holy Spirit. Life Application Bible Commentary agrees. NET Bible argues that it makes what was stated earlier concerning the giving of the Holy Spirit (vs. 13-14) as redundant and argue that the Greek is more consistent grammatically and theologically if rendered "spiritual". Commentator Francis Foulkes agrees and states, "So probably here we should take it as NEB 'the spiritual powers of wisdom and vision', and understand these as posssible only as the gift of the Spirit who makes wise (see on verse 8), and who alone reveals the truth." (p. 60)
The Greek itself provides no real answers to be perfectly honest. pneuma could be understood as an adjective or a proper noun. The following genitives after pneuma (sofias and apokalupseos) could be attributive.
My point? The answer COULD be any one of those things. Some pastors might say, "It doesn't matter" and move on. However, Paul clearly thought IT DID matter and so we should try hard to discern his thinking as much as possible.
Since the passage itself does not really give any solid answers, we must attempt to look at the thought flow of the entire passage. I would briefly note that verses 13 and 14 militate against it being rendered as "the Holy Spirit" since God has already given us the Holy Spirit. However, that does not negate the fact that the Holy Spirit is present here. More on that later, though.
It is also unlikely that this is referred to the human spirit. While it is true that pneuma can refer to the human spirit (Eph. 4:23; Rom. 1:9; 2 Cor. 7:13), in each case the person already possesses his human spirit. Paul, to be consistent with his theology, would have to render the passage, "God may give to your spirit wisdom and understanding." But he doesn't say that and it would violate Paul's other theology elsewhere. This is why what the ESV renders is grammatically possible but theologically inconsistent.
The problem also with the ESV here is that their translation almost entirely removes the Holy Spirit. Paul is not vague in his theology concerning God in Ephesians 1. He is quite overpoweringly clear to be honest. "A" spirit doesn't cut the cake here. Especially not with such a theocentric/christocentric theology which he is building.
It seems, to me, the most consistent translation should be "spiritual wisdom and revelation" because it takes the best of all three translations. The Holy Spirit is clearly behind the wisdom and revelation (see v. 8). It is spiritual in nature and is applied to our spirit. We do not have to sacrifice anything with this translation! Not only so, but we are given the multifaceted dimension and interplay of God's work with the Holy Spirit. It is consistent with Isaiah 11:2 (which is likely where Paul is drawing from) so we also have the OT cheering for us.
So the question now is this: why does it matter? Pastors are busy! Why waste your time over such a small exegetical issue.
First, I might note that any time we spend studying God's Word is not wasted. While I agree that we can miss the forest for the trees (and many commentators do this), we ourselves are trained to think logically, consistently and biblically when we think through exegetical issues like this.
Second, we must be careful never to fall into a pragmatic view of teaching and preaching. "Give me something I can use this sunday! If not, it is a waste of time!" Tragically, that sort of mindset wins out and leads to shallow preaching. You see, with this mindset the pastor grows lazy. Also, I believe the hard work of exegesis is meant to uproot our existing worldview and is meant to replace it with a profoundly biblical one--one where every nook and cranny of our thinking is filled with God. This might seem like a small exegetical detail but the devil is in the details.
Third, is it really irrelevant? We have established: 1) that the Holy Spirit is part of the ongoing process of providing wisdom and revelation to our spirit, 2) that the Father works through the agency of the Holy Spirit to give us wisdom and revelation (which agrees with John's theology of the Spirit) 3) We are shown that the Trinity is part of the entire process of wisdom and revelation 4) We have safe guarded ourselves from false conceptions of the Holy Spirit and 5) we have elevated spiritual wisdom and revelation to its proper due in this modernistic world that emphasizes the purely scientific.
Fourth, the pastor has great material to pray now! Not only so but he has a tremendous amount of doxological material, with which he can celebrate God! This is perhaps one of the most essential points of all! The pastor must study God's Word so that He thinks rightly about God (see A.W. Tozer, Knowledge of the Holy, chapter 1) and can praise and glorify God! Is that not the entire thrust of Ephesians 1? It is to God's glory!
Exegetical work is important! Let us never grow tired of doing exegesis, no matter how busy our schedules might be! Our very life of worship and praise and the life of worship and praise in the church, depends on it!
However, even if one CAN justify the use of printing off a sermon from online and using it as your own, I would still fire the pastor. Why? Because he is failing his church. He is not soaking up the text in order to preach it. Rather, he is stating what someone else has said.
Simply put, the pastor's role is to wrestle with the text.
This is not an easy task or even (at times) a fun one. I give one such example of how frustrating and difficult it actually can be. As our test case let's look at Ephesians 1:17.
Different translations render Eph. 1:17 variously. So the NET Bible states:
"I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you spiritual wisdom and revelation in your growing knowledge of him."
The ESV (my translation of choice) renders it, "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him."
The NIV renders it, "I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better."
The issue in question is that last line "may give you...". Is it a reference to the Holy Spirit? Is it a reference to the human spirit? Is it a reference to God's granting us spiritual wisdom and revelation?
Commentaries are divided down the issue. Gordon Fee sees this as a clear indication of the Holy Spirit. Life Application Bible Commentary agrees. NET Bible argues that it makes what was stated earlier concerning the giving of the Holy Spirit (vs. 13-14) as redundant and argue that the Greek is more consistent grammatically and theologically if rendered "spiritual". Commentator Francis Foulkes agrees and states, "So probably here we should take it as NEB 'the spiritual powers of wisdom and vision', and understand these as posssible only as the gift of the Spirit who makes wise (see on verse 8), and who alone reveals the truth." (p. 60)
The Greek itself provides no real answers to be perfectly honest. pneuma could be understood as an adjective or a proper noun. The following genitives after pneuma (sofias and apokalupseos) could be attributive.
My point? The answer COULD be any one of those things. Some pastors might say, "It doesn't matter" and move on. However, Paul clearly thought IT DID matter and so we should try hard to discern his thinking as much as possible.
Since the passage itself does not really give any solid answers, we must attempt to look at the thought flow of the entire passage. I would briefly note that verses 13 and 14 militate against it being rendered as "the Holy Spirit" since God has already given us the Holy Spirit. However, that does not negate the fact that the Holy Spirit is present here. More on that later, though.
It is also unlikely that this is referred to the human spirit. While it is true that pneuma can refer to the human spirit (Eph. 4:23; Rom. 1:9; 2 Cor. 7:13), in each case the person already possesses his human spirit. Paul, to be consistent with his theology, would have to render the passage, "God may give to your spirit wisdom and understanding." But he doesn't say that and it would violate Paul's other theology elsewhere. This is why what the ESV renders is grammatically possible but theologically inconsistent.
The problem also with the ESV here is that their translation almost entirely removes the Holy Spirit. Paul is not vague in his theology concerning God in Ephesians 1. He is quite overpoweringly clear to be honest. "A" spirit doesn't cut the cake here. Especially not with such a theocentric/christocentric theology which he is building.
It seems, to me, the most consistent translation should be "spiritual wisdom and revelation" because it takes the best of all three translations. The Holy Spirit is clearly behind the wisdom and revelation (see v. 8). It is spiritual in nature and is applied to our spirit. We do not have to sacrifice anything with this translation! Not only so, but we are given the multifaceted dimension and interplay of God's work with the Holy Spirit. It is consistent with Isaiah 11:2 (which is likely where Paul is drawing from) so we also have the OT cheering for us.
So the question now is this: why does it matter? Pastors are busy! Why waste your time over such a small exegetical issue.
First, I might note that any time we spend studying God's Word is not wasted. While I agree that we can miss the forest for the trees (and many commentators do this), we ourselves are trained to think logically, consistently and biblically when we think through exegetical issues like this.
Second, we must be careful never to fall into a pragmatic view of teaching and preaching. "Give me something I can use this sunday! If not, it is a waste of time!" Tragically, that sort of mindset wins out and leads to shallow preaching. You see, with this mindset the pastor grows lazy. Also, I believe the hard work of exegesis is meant to uproot our existing worldview and is meant to replace it with a profoundly biblical one--one where every nook and cranny of our thinking is filled with God. This might seem like a small exegetical detail but the devil is in the details.
Third, is it really irrelevant? We have established: 1) that the Holy Spirit is part of the ongoing process of providing wisdom and revelation to our spirit, 2) that the Father works through the agency of the Holy Spirit to give us wisdom and revelation (which agrees with John's theology of the Spirit) 3) We are shown that the Trinity is part of the entire process of wisdom and revelation 4) We have safe guarded ourselves from false conceptions of the Holy Spirit and 5) we have elevated spiritual wisdom and revelation to its proper due in this modernistic world that emphasizes the purely scientific.
Fourth, the pastor has great material to pray now! Not only so but he has a tremendous amount of doxological material, with which he can celebrate God! This is perhaps one of the most essential points of all! The pastor must study God's Word so that He thinks rightly about God (see A.W. Tozer, Knowledge of the Holy, chapter 1) and can praise and glorify God! Is that not the entire thrust of Ephesians 1? It is to God's glory!
Exegetical work is important! Let us never grow tired of doing exegesis, no matter how busy our schedules might be! Our very life of worship and praise and the life of worship and praise in the church, depends on it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)