Big news in Bible software today: Logos Bible Software has announced the release of the newest version of Logos Bible Software, Logos 4. I’ve had my hands on the Beta version for several months and, let me just say, it is amazing. With far too many upgrades, features, and resources to cover in a single post, you can visit www.logos.com/4 to see what Logos 4 can do for you. If you’re already a Logos users, be sure to check out the amazing crossgrade and upgrade options available for you. All the base packages have new books added to them and there are even some new levels that offer AMAZING resources at an incredible discount… check out Platinum!

We were fortunate enough to get a Google Wave invite yesterday. And, we have so few friends that were interested in Wave we didn’t give all our “nominations” (read invites) away yet.

If you would like to get nominated for a Google Wave account post your crazy idea for how it could be used in ministry. Then be sure to vote on the ideas you like the best by replying to that person’s comment. The winner will be nominated for a Wave account.

If you’re asking what Wave is:

I am assuming that if you were given any advice upon entering seminary, this phrase may have come out: “guard your devotional time with the Lord!” I am not writing to suggest that this is poor advice by any means. It is great advice! Yet, I am wondering whether or not our notion of “devotional time” is too narrow? Are we not constantly communing with the Lord when we open up His Word?  He is now speaking to us through His Word and through His people when rightly handling the word of truth. Are we aware of Him? Am I?

Before starting seminary, I interpreted that advice as a call to guard my quiet times by reading the Scriptures apart from my “academic study” of them. Now, less than two months into my studies, I have been on several occasions, including this morning, questioned by my professors, “Why can’t our academic study be devotional?” In raising this question, they are challenging a false distinction that locates worship of the Lord in our private, quiet, reflection on the Scriptures and not in the public academic reflection of Scripture–namely, corporately assigned reading and lecturing. When we are presented with exhortations, such as 1 Corinthians 10:31 and Colossians 3:17, showing that all of life is for the glory of God, why would we not approach our classes and assignments as opportunities to worship as well?

One of my Covenant Theology professors suggested a possible reason for this common separation between “academic” and “devotional” reading of Scripture. He noted that we often view the Scriptures as a collection of truth statements for the purpose of doctrine. And while there are certainly propositional truths in Scripture, the Bible is primarily a story. While there may be a time and place for systematic theology, we must be aware that all of these “truth statements” fall within the context of narrative. In separating doctrine from narrative, we also begin to make distinctions in our reading of Scripture.

Often our “devotional reading” becomes focused on the narrative portions of Scripture, while doctrine falls in the realm of “academic inquiry.” In the words of my professor, “We should always bring our whole self whenever we open up Scripture!” In Proper Confidence, Lesslie Newbigin writes, “The revelation of which we speak in the Christian tradition is more than the communication of information; it is the giving of an invitation” (p.65). That invitation is not relegated to our “quiet times.”

Let us bring our whole self when we come to Scripture, whether in public or private, whether at home or in the classroom, whether the reading is assigned or not! As the author of Hebrews writes, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (4:12). This sword is not placed into a sheath in the classroom. The Lord is constantly engaging our hearts, I pray that we would be more aware of this!

NIC on the Old and New Testament

My first real introduction to the New International Commentary on the Old and New Testament (NIC)  was in Dr. Kistamaker’s class on the Epistle to the Hebrews. The assigned reading for the class was, compared to my others, quite light. We were to read Hebrews, FF Bruce’s Epistle to the Hebrews from the NIC, and one other commentary. I thoroughly enjoyed Bruce’s commentary as it was very approachable, yet technical when it needed to be. Over the course of my seminary days I added a few more NIC volumes to my library, and was always happy with the addition.

The NIC Goes Digital

Bible software users have long awaited the day when the NIC would be made available digitally. A few months ago Logos Bible Software announced that they were bringing NIC to the Logos format. The production process has been completed and the set is scheduled to ship on 10/15/09 (note – If you place your order before the 15th, you can lock in the pre-pub rate, which is more than $800 off retail).

I managed to get my hands on an advance copy and wanted to take a moment to share some thoughts with you.

NIC Overview

If you’ve been around Going to Seminary for any length of time, you know that I went to Reformed Theological Seminary. The main reason I went to RTS was that I wanted to go to a seminary where, for the most part, I could simply trust my professors. Sure, there are some people who go to seminaries outside their tradition and belief structure in order to challenge themselves… I wasn’t one of those people. I’m the kind of guy who just wants to sit down and not have to worry too much about “should I believe what my professor is saying?”

The same is true for commentaries. Sure, I like to have commentaries in my library that I might not necessarily agree with, but I also like to have commentaries that I know I can generally trust. As a conservative,  protestant, evangelical, the NIC is just that kind of commentary. With authors like Fee, Bruce, Moo, Longman, Waltke, and others, the NIC sets me at ease before I even crack open a book.  Backing this up is the mass of support behind the series. Reading the recommendations on Logos’ product page reassures me that, indeed, this is a series that is right up my ally. Along with this it is good to note that 29 of the 40 commentaries from the NIC are listed on the BestCommentaries.com “best” list.

The books of the NIC all include an introductory section that pay excellent attention to the authorship, date, purpose, structure, and theology of each book. After this, each book of the NIC will offer a verse-by-verse commentary. Now, this last point might seem like a “duh” kind of thing… but how often have you opened a commentary to a difficult verse, only to find no entry? What kind of help is that? Not with the NIC, every verse is dealt with.

If there was one critique I’d offer of the NIC, it is the decision to transliterate the Greek and Hebrew. The fact of the matter is that you either know the languages, or you don’t. Transliteration isn’t much of a help for people who don’t know the original language, because even if you can pronounce it, you still don’t know what it is. And if you do know the languages, then odds are you’re not a fan of transliteration. Also, with regards to the digital version, while Logos often can understand the transliteration and, when you double click a transliterated word it will open a lexicon, occasionally I found that Logos had trouble with the transliterated version. Thankfully I have Greek and Hebrew Bibles in my library, so when really needed to get to the original language, I was able to via the Bible text.

40 books in your backpack

One thing I noticed about my print edition of Bruce’s commentary was its size. It wasn’t the biggest book I’ve ever had, but with my laptop, ESV, Bruce, and my lunch in my bag for class, my bag was heavy to say the least. Not to mention I had no room for anything else! That’s what I love about having the NIC in Logos. Now I can carry all 23,832 pages with me all the time with no added weight.

Think about it. Just carrying two or three of these commentaries would fill a bag. Granted, how often do you need to have an entire commentary set with you? Not too often. But isn’t it nice to know it is there if you want it? No matter if you’re sitting in class or at the coffee shop, it is always nice to know that you can instantly look up a verse or reference in a high quality commentary.

Links, Languages, and Library

Links
Having the NIC in Logos is so much better than having it in print. Granted, from time to time I like the feel of a book in my hand, but when it comes to studying God’s word, there is a lot to be said about the efficiency Bible software provides.

To begin with, the NIC is linked to a number of other resources within your Logos library. In particular, the Bible. When I’m studying a passage I can have both the text and the commentary open. As I move through the scripture, the commentary tracks with me. Not only that, but every scripture reverence in the NIC is tagged and, when I hover over it with my mouse, the text will be revealed. This feature alone is worth the price of admission!

Think about it–how often do you actually take the time to look of the scripture references that an author puts into his book? I said be honest! Me, I’d say occasionally at best. But the author put them there for a reason, right? With the NIC in Logos, to see the reference, all you have to do is mouse over the verse and there it is.

Language
Along with interacting with the Scripture, the NIC also delves into the original language. As I mentioned previously, the NIC’s decision to transliterate leaves me a little wanting. While reading the transliteration is easy enough, in order to really interact with the original language that the commentary addresses, I find myself going to my original language text to be the base for my searches and study. If there was one thing I’d change about NIC, this would be it.

Library
One of the many beauties of having the NIC for Logos is that I literally have a library at my fingertips. While you can buy the NIC as a stand alone product, the great thing about Logos is that you can actually have an entire theological library with you as well. This is extremely helpful when you want to explore outside the NIC. With just a click of the mouse you can open theological dictionaries, lexicons, and hundreds of other resources to study and passage or subject addressed by the NIC.

Finally footnotes

One of the things I really like about NIC is the footnotes. The first reason I like them is because I despise end notes. I hate having to flip to the back of a book to find out this hidden knowledge that wasn’t quite right for inclusion in the text itself. Footnotes make it much easier to engage when I looking for the deeper nugget of information.  The second reason I really like the NIC footnotes gets back to something I mentioned earlier. The NIC is a very approachable commentary that gets technical when it has to. This often occurs in the footnotes.

The NIC in Logos increases my love of footnotes by providing them as I’m reading with a very simple mouseover. Simply hovering over the footnote gives me a pop-up window with the entire footnote right there. This is so wonderful as it allows me to stay right on track with my reading. No need to look down at the bottom of the page, only to have to then try and find my place back in the text after I’m finished with the footnote. Now I can mouseover, read the footnote, and keep on trucking!

Conclusion

The NIC is an amazing scholarly, protestant, evangelical, commentary series. It gives verse-by-verse commentary on almost every book of the Bible, including immensely helpful introductory information. The only thing better than the commentary series itself is being able to have the entire thing with you, on you laptop, wherever you go. The NIC for Logos is a great resource that every seminarian should consider.

NOTE: If you’ve followed my life on this blog, you know that I now work for Logos. That in no way changes the fact that the NIC in Logos is sweet and that you could totally consider buying it!

I am a second year student at Campbell University Divinity School. Campbell is embedded deep within the Baptist denomination. It is affiliated with the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, the Baptist World Alliance, and is also a partnering institution with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF).

Too bad I’m not Baptist.

“Why then are you going to Campbell?” you might ask. Good question. Let me share some reasons that were not a part of my decision to continue my education here and at the same time share some reasons that did influence this decision.

First, I did not come to Campbell because of its Baptist heritage, or, more accurately, their specific theology. If I had to choose a denomination (which I’m not opposed to doing—I have not had to come down in a camp yet), I would probably appreciate and feel most comfortable in the Anglican tradition. This does not mean, however, that I do not appreciate certain elements of Baptist tradition. If I could stand none, I would not be able to cope in this context (believe me!), nor be able to serve in a Baptist church.

Campbell is generally considered as fairly moderate, both theologically and I would imagine politically. I would consider myself theologically moderate. I was not attracted to a more “liberal” or more “conservative” seminary. My thoughts are that in a “liberal” context, conversation and beliefs are more often too subjective—boundaries can be lost. In a “conservative” context, conversation and beliefs are too objective—boundaries are tight and perspectives are unnecessarily limited. I have found good, productive conversation among those who, like has been mentioned in a recent article here, are okay with tension; ones who are not purely subjective or overly objective.

On a different note, I did not come to Campbell because of its name. Being only ten years old, Campbell does not have a reputation like that of, say, Duke Divinity, or Fuller Theological Seminary, or Dallas Theological Seminary. I am confidant that this is developing, however.

Having grown up in a part of the country with four distinct seasons (Fort Wayne, Indiana), the appeal of warmer year-round weather played a piece in the decision process.

Even though the weather is great, the city that Campbell is located in would probably not be known at all if the university was not located in it. This is another consideration that did not factor into my decision. Buies Creek has one stoplight; it’s the one on campus. The largest cities closest to Campbell are Fayetteville or Raleigh (although Dunn has a Wal-Mart).

One of the biggest confirmations that led to me attending Campbell Divinity was the support of my wife. By nature (or nurture, rather), my wife analyzes every decision to the smallest iota. When she expressed being on-board to move out of our recently-bought home in Fort Wayne, depart from family and friends, and leave everything familiar to her in order to relocate to North Carolina, I was sure this was the place to pursue. I had been considering other schools, of which my wife shot down; but, she liked the sound of North Carolina.

Along these same lines, when my wife and I came to visit Campbell (May 2008), one of the things we attempted to accomplish was to see about a possible job for her with the university. In the two and a half days we were in town, she received an offer for a position with Campbell’s School of Pharmacy as an Admission’s Counselor. Another significant contribution to us making this move.

Another factor that was not weighed in making this decision were the professors. I knew nothing about them. Since I have been in class and have had some of them, I have appreciated many things about what they do and who they seem to be as people of faith. Oh, and yes, I have learned some great things from them as well.

An obvious reason that did contribute in this decision was simply being accepted. At the time, I had another application in at a local school, although the school was not a seminary. I was not admitted into that program, but through the series of interviews with Campbell Divinity staff and faculty, I had received an admittance. I looked no further at that point.

As I was applying for Campbell Divinity School, two of my closest friends in Fort Wayne were doing the same. The plan was for us three (taking along our respected immediate family as well) to attend school together (which was probably one of the most significant elements of the decision making process). Unfortunately this idea never came to fruition as we had planned.

Some of these things may sound familiar to you as you considered, or are considering, picking a seminary. If I had to be honest, I probably did not do the kind of research that one may think to do before pulling the trigger on making such a move. At the same time, it would seem to be an unrealistic expectation that there is a seminary out there that would be “perfect.”

I am completely confidant and entirely at peace knowing that I am in a good place. Having a confirmation from my wife and close friends would have been enough, so all of the logistical details that God worked out was more than convincing—it was exciting. I know me being at Campbell is cool with God, and is indeed assisting in my education as student of God’s word, my development as a disciple of Jesus, and my training as a minister of the gospel of God.

I recently wrote an article about letting seminary change you doctrinally. In it, I laid out some broad ideas of Truth, doctrine, and how the seminarian needs to treat these things in order to get the most out of their seminary education. In the present article, I want to get a bit more specific about how seminaries themselves can best effect these changes, by offering a perspective on how they ought to relate to truth and doctrine. If you remember, we started with the basic conundrum that seminaries are called to facilitate change within people that are typically very resistant to it: seminarians. This is because seminarians are generally quite sure in both their calling and much of their doctrine, and are most likely going to like-minded institutions. We talked then how the seminarian can posture themselves humbly to allow healthy doctrinal changes and growth. Now let’s talk about how the seminary can best promote this change.

To do so, let’s turn to a primary epistemological text for the Christian: 1 Corinthians 1:18-31. We’ll focus on verses 21-24:

“For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

The truth of an infinite God conceived by finite creatures seems to exist in various spectrums, and we exist somewhere in the tension of those different extremes or ideas. We live and speak in dialectics where for every point of doctrine in one denomination there seems to exist a counterpoint in another. According to Alvin Plantinga, Truth is not the Lockean notion of our relation to an objective body of facts, rather it is the point at which two seemingly opposing or paradoxical ideas exist in tension and harmony (such as Jesus= God + Man).

This means there are two possible errors we can fall into when thinking about these things: the error of “over-objectification” which makes this spectrum too narrow, and the error of “over-subjectification” which makes this spectrum too broad. That’s what this text is about. The Jews demanded signs – subjective experience. These were the people that related to truth merely as it “resonated” with them, irregardless of the objective facts revealed. Today, these would be the “liberal” seminaries of the world – those that are more concerned with cultural accommodation and “experiencing” truth than proclaiming it. But, the Greeks demanded wisdom – nice, neat objective systems of knowledge and dogma with all the loose ends tied. These are typically the “fundamentalist” schools – those that leave little to no room for theological “development” because their basic presupposition is that they have established precisely where they are on all secondary issues.

But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the liberals and folly to fundamentalists. The Cross frustrates over-subjectification because of it’s very real, objective, historical nature. The Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ are very real events in history; and objective events happen in objective time and space to accomplish objective goals in that time and space. God really did come and really did die, and this really does place objective demands and requirements on people in both conduct and belief. It is not that he accomplishes these things objectively just so we can relate to it in whatever fashion we please.

But, the Cross also frustrates over-objectification, though, as well. This is because though it was an event that took place objectively, it is ultimately received, related to, and responded to subjectively. The objective goals of the Cross are worked out in a subjective manner. This means that many of the truths and implications of the Gospel come to us as individuals and as a catholic Church as we relate to this God with our subjective selves. This is how Calvin can write in his Institutes of the Christian Religion that we cannot learn theology apart from holiness and obedience. There is a false distinction between Orthopraxy and Orthodoxy. J.I. Packer once said that the first requirement of the Gospel is repentance, so those that are comfortable in their sins are (and should be treated as) doctrinal heretics – no matter what they intellectually believe. This is how the Church, the Bride of Christ, is able to grow and develop (and yes even change!) in it’s theology (and articulations) over time as it is progressively and corporately sanctified and washed with the water of the Word by her Bridegroom Jesus (Ephesians 5:25-27). As she learns to live and relate to Him by faith.

Faith. Ah, the theological f-word. The intended endpoint of all theology. That “O the depths” moment (Romans 11:33-36) that should be the final word in all discussions concerning Him. As I have said in nearly every post I’ve written for this site: God has so designed everything such that it must be lived by faith. It’s too easy to over-subjectify and use yourself as the litmus test for truth. It’s also too easy to over-objectify and over-define your dogma and ideas on things such as inerrancy and hermeneutics, and then nuance them so narrowly that you no longer need to trust Him. I had a pastor that once said “if it can’t be abused, it’s probably not grace.” I believe the same goes for truth: “if it can’t be abused, it’s probably not Truth.” “Slippery slopes” or “people taking it too far” are no reason to think something is incorrect (have you really thought about the Christian doctrine of “grace” recently?).

A seminary should facilitate such thinking and exposure to these tensions involved. Each of us will be more inclined towards one side of a given spectrum than the other. This is why seminaries should fill their halls with professors with different backgrounds, interests, and yes, even diversity in some theological points. Biblical and Systematic Theology departments should always be in tension with another, because they each tend towards opposing sides of the spectrums. An institution should avoid favoring one of those departments above another. Seminaries should assign readings that challenge thought and give assignments that require a student to come up with, articulate, and defend their own opinion – not just learn the “proper” view that the institution may think they hold. Courses should engage with thinkers across the spectrum of ideas – not giving equal weight to all their beliefs, but mere exposure to what they thought and why. A clearly articulated emphasis on Church History lets people see how faithful people have looked at the Bible in the past and have come to very different conclusions (it may also help us be better believers today).

Seminaries should know and embrace all of this: value it, love it, teach it, and instill it in their students. As philosopher and theologian Peter Rollins (with whom I am suffering a mild obsession) writes in his amazing book “The Fidelity of Betrayal” concerning the various tensions that exist within Scripture and the positions these create:

“[W]hat if we are not bound to choose between these two positions? What if we can affirm these conflicts at one and the same moment that we affirm the idea of this text being deeply branded by the white-hot presence of God? Indeed, what if the conflict we encounter in [these tensions] is precisely what we would expect to find in a text claiming divine status rather than something that witnesses against it?”

Seminaries should boldly and clearly stand in the tension between humanity and divinity, Systematic and Biblical theology, Scripture and confession, history and artistry, scholarship and tradition, theology and worship, academics and ministry, already and not yet, modernity and post-modernity, reformed and reforming, proclaiming and pastoring, grace and works, and security and discomfort. Seminaries lose their way, minimize worship, and remove the need for faith when they decide the tension is too difficult to hold – when they decide to break it in the interest of comfort, money, or even what they consider good principles and pastoral concern. They should stretch their arms out wide and seize both ends of these tensions and hold them as Christ held those nails as he bore the weight and scorn of a world that sought to rest their faith on themselves, their confessions, and everything else but Him.

I’ve been looking forward to this interview for quite a while now. Below is my interview with Ed Stetzer:

Well, I feel it is only appropriate to start with Twitter. You are obviously a fan (Follow him here). Whenever you’re teaching a seminary class, does it bother you that on one of those laptops in the room, someone is likely tweeting or on Facebook?

What? Why would you start with Twitter? It’s not like my friends have debated whether or not I need a Twittervention!

Seriously, I very much enjoy how social media can create instant conversations with such a variety of people. Knowing that what you say can be broadcast around the globe instantaneously has a certain effect on my prayer life and preparation methods. God allows me to speak in many arenas and write for multiple sources, and I’m honored to know that something I say is helpful enough to bear repeating.

So, it would seem a bit hypocritical if I objected to others being on Twitter or Facebook while I am talking.

In all seriousness, what role do you see technology playing in the pastorate and what role do you think the seminary has to play in preparing pastors for ministry in a Twitter and Facebook world?

It was Marshall McLuhan who coined the phrase, “The medium is the message.” We must acknowledge that how a message is communicated affects the message itself. Social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook are nothing more than tools, like the printing press, radio, television, and the mobile phone. They can help in small bursts or can become a bane to relationship building. Their usefulness is determined by the manner they are used.

Seminaries would do well to focus their students’ attention to how the Scriptures define relationships and hold them in high regard. In striving for a biblical ideal of Christian community, we will then show proper discernment as to where the fun and usefulness of social media starts and ends.

Now, you have two masters and two doctorates, so you’ve spent more than your fair share of time in a classroom. Along with that you’ve planted and pastored multiple churches. Looking back, what role or impact did your formal education play in your pastoral endeavors?

Obviously, I am a big fan of formal education. I spend significant time subjecting, I mean teaching others in higher education settings. Today, I have the privilege of doing so at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Chicago and Southeastern Seminary in Wake Forest, NC.  In both cases, I serve as a visiting professor.

For me, going to seminary was a necessity. I was a terrible student in high school (barely graduated and ended with a 1.7 GPA) and I didn’t have a basic biblical foundation because I wasn’t raised in a Christian home. But once I discovered what could be learned in college and seminary – well, you’ve already noted I have more degrees than really seem necessary.

My seminary training helped me understand the nature of the church and God’s mission. That’s where I was taught to learn and to think critically about issues that deserve our attention.

Something I’ve noticed is this slight shift away from the traditional seminary model. We’re starting to see more programs like The Bethlehem Institute and Acts 29’s recently launched RE:Train, where you’re teaching. What do you think about this seemingly non-traditional approach to pastoral training? Is the traditional seminary model an old paradigm that needs to change or are these new programs a supplement to what the traditional seminary offers?

Glad you brought your softball questions with you today!

I find it encouraging to see local churches taking up the responsibility to train people who feel called to ministry leadership. The work of preparing the next generation of leadership is always with the church first. But, as we know, through much of modern Christian history this work has been accomplished by collections of churches – denominations or networks.  I believe it is a healthy sign that churches are stepping up to train new leaders and yet still are advocating other formalized training, as The Bethlehem Institute and RE:Train do.

Should seminaries change? Yes, and I think history shows that they have repeatedly changed. Strong schools carefully look at the challenges of their day and adjust both educational theory and methodology to accomplish their task of educating students in eternal truth. To use your phrase, the “traditional seminary model” does need to change to stay strong and prepare students for today’s work. Otherwise, they will use outdated models and prepare students for work that no longer exists. I believe traditional seminaries and the new church-based training programs can coexist in a way that benefits each.

You spend a lot of time with church planters. Has LifeWay done any research on formal education and church planters? It seems to me, and this could just be the circles I run in, that a lot of church planters will plant their churches and then, several years down the road, begin to work on their degrees. Is that just my perception, or are there any stats that would support me?

We have not done any formal research about that particular question. But my general observation is that seminaries are talking more about church planting, so more church planters are heading to seminary. In general, the training that seems critical for church planters comes in the form of “boot camps” or “basic training” about planting a church, and then ongoing mentoring through the first few years of planting.

Following up on that question, and really all the previous questions, how important do you think seminary training is for pastors and church planters?

Obviously, I believe formal training in a seminary setting is helpful for a number of reasons. Perhaps first and foremost, our culture in America no longer has the “home field advantage” of everyone holding to a Christian worldview. For church leaders who want to take their congregations on the journey of reaching and changing people, formal training in seminary can prepare their minds through theological courses and their hearts through the study of church history.

I realize some people are suspicious of seminary because they feel it institutionalizes the work of ministry. I would say to them, “You’re right. Sometimes it does do that.” Seminary can make us into ministry professionals who are more concerned with the organization of congregational life than the people of the church. But I would push back against that attitude and say that most graduates will tell you the education they received has helped to shape a proper theology, ecclesiology, and missiology.

Seminary also offers something personal that we tend to lose as pastors and planters: camaraderie. As a planter, I was constantly around people and, at the same time, I was utterly alone. The time spent in seminary gives you the opportunity to learn how to seek out strong friendships and remain accountable in them. It is a side benefit to the education but a helpful one nonetheless.

That being said, I think that seminaries alone cannot provide all the pastors and church planters needed to reach North America and the world for the gospel.

We need to give people permission to pastor and plant churches even if they have not been to seminary.  And, I believe, seminaries need to find ways to help equip those already on the field serving in mission and ministry.

My final question is one that I think you are particularly equipped to answer. From what I can tell you are married and have 3 daughters. Along with that you are a columnist for Outreach Magazine and Catalyst Monthly, as well as serve on the advisory council of Sermon Central and Christianity Today’s Building Church Leaders, and are a Contributing Editor at Christianity Today. You are a Visiting Professor of Research and Missiology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, a Visiting Research Professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and are on the faculty of RE:Train.  You serve on the Church Services Team at the International Mission Board and you speak at like a bazillion conference each year. Along with that, you just finished serving as interim teaching pastor at a 10,000 member church in Hendersonville and then there is that other thing… oh yeah, President of LifeWay Research and LifeWay’s Missiologist in Residence. (Did I miss anything?) So, my question is this: Many seminarians face the challenge of busy schedules. With classes, jobs, church responsibilities, and often young families, what advice do you have for them to find balance? How do you do it?

Apparently I don’t do it! I feel convicted just hearing your question!

Seriously, my travels and responsibilities do pull me in a number of directions, so my wife and I are very intentional about our personal time. When I’m home, I’m home with my family and we go fishing, play in the back yard, and eat Saturday breakfasts at Cracker Barrel. As long as I travel for a living, my wife and girls go as often as possible. Trust me, nothing keeps me more humble than taking one of my daughters on a trip where I’m the “honored-guest / hired speaker” and spending half the morning helping with hair and wardrobe for her.

Besides, balance is a myth. Every day, we all have to decide what is most important and then try hard to make it happen. For me, God comes first.  My family second.  Then, it’s writing, research, and encouraging pastors and church leaders. For a planter, it’s winning hearts and building a church. For others, it’s counseling and teaching. Whatever your calling, distractions abound, so we must allow the Gospel to guide our steps to the core of life’s work: God’s fame spread to the nations, beginning in our households.

Plus, I’ve learned something else: Ministry and life will be there tomorrow; my daughters will not. They will be grown and gone before I can turn around. So it’s an easy choice to make.

Ed, thank you SO very much for your time. I know you have a limited amount of it. I believe this interview will be an encouragement and help to many people who are in or are considering seminary as part of their journey. Many thanks!

“I knew perfectly well at that time, as I had for years and years, that the Lord absolutely transcends any understanding I have of Him, which makes loyalty to Him a different thing from loyalty to whatever customs and doctrines and memories I happen to associate with Him.”

– Minister John Ames in Marilynne Robinson’s “Gilead”

The second year of my seminary experience begins next week. This may surprise some of you who may recall the last article I wrote for this site, “Realizing Seminary’s Not For You“, in which I laid out the reasons I wasn’t returning to Westminster Theological Seminary this year. First, I did mention that I would still be taking counseling courses there; and second, the theological direction of the seminary was a major force pushing me away, but the seminary has not yet arrived at that place. The last of the old guard of Westminster are still teaching their classes, so I will be sitting in on these classes that have changed the lives of many over the years, as I seek to absorb as much of the rich but fading history of that great institution, hoping for my affections to further be stirred for this great God and how He has revealed Himself.

This means I’m taking stock of my theological self in light of this past year. As I have, I’ve realized that I have changed a lot in my theological thinking in that brief amount of time (perhaps even more than my change from Southern Baptist Arminian to Charismatic Presbyterian in college) and several seminary classes/teachers/books have been key to these changes that have led to a greater worship, rest, and joy in God. And many of my fellow theological classmates have had a similar experience. But how does the seminarian change like this? I’ve realized that both the seminary and seminarian are bound by two, seemingly contradictory, truths. First, the seminary environment exists fundamentally to change the seminarian. But secondly, these people it exists to change are many times the most sure in what they believe and what they are called to preach. Seminaries are called to facilitate change within those people that can be some of the most resistant to it. How do we, then, as “apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers”-in-training, find the balance between still needing to “attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God” and not being “tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wave of doctrine”? (Eph. 4:11-15) How do we attain while not being tossed?

My seminary experience has taught me that the ultimate truth on any given doctrine of Scripture is sort of like the bulls-eye on a target, and often times that particular precise bulls-eye has not been revealed to us in Scripture. We’ve often been told where the perimeter of the target is, so we know when we’ve gone too far off, and maybe we get glimpses here and there of the red and white stripes leading towards the middle, but on far more things than we are often comfortable with, He just doesn’t tell us everything. This means that all of us (hopefully) will be aiming with all our sincerity and faithfulness towards the center, but I think most all of us will miss it. We will all arrive somewhere in the periphery, some closer to the center than others.

But here’s the thing I’m beginning to realize: we actually have very limited vision and insight into how close each of us are to that center. I’m realizing that there’s not much doctrinally I can look at someone and say “I know my theology’s imperfect, but at least it’s less imperfect than yours.” I grew up scoffing and laughing at many things that people in the past and other denominations have believed; never being able to conceive how anyone could possibly look at the same Bible I was looking at and come to those conclusions. But then, sitting in Church History classes and taking a class where I got to hang out with a bunch of Catholic seminarians, I realized something that changed my life: there are genuine lenses entirely different from mine through which to view the Bible that are just as legitimate, just as faithful, just as sincere, and yet come to completely different conclusions as mine. I could no longer hold the arrogance of my Reformed theological “system” as “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

This isn’t relativism applied to theology – or at least, relativism in the bad sense. Secular philosophical relativism applied to theology changes your views on the Bible by elevating culture, preference, or experience above the Bible. This is Biblical theological relativism (a.k.a. “humility”) which says that an infinite God has communicated Himself finitely which means this revelation is adequate but not comprehensive. This allows room for doctrinal changes as a response to the working of the Holy Spirit on one’s conscience to seek new ways to be most faithful to the text as it has been illuminated to the individual (or congregation) at that particular time in their life. And this is good. My biggest take-away from my first year was that God has so designed and constructed all of reality and all of the Christian faith such that it must be lived by faith. If things were so black and white we wouldn’t need to trust Him. And this is for our good. Being needy and trusting in Him in light of all that we can never be mathematically sure of is the posture by which He draws near. So we rejoice in this plurality of thought and theology, not for diversity’s sake, but for the sake of the faith it forces us to have.

And our Father knows this. And I believe He delights in it. He has designed us to be interpretive creatures, knowing full well that different people and groups, armed with the exact same Scriptures, passion, and fidelity, will land in different places all over that target. He doesn’t require us to hit the bulls-eye, just to trust Him, love Him, and let the arrow fly. This is also the basis of a burgeoning renewal in evangelical scholarship of missional hermeneutics, which understands that one of the key things that will (and should!) determine where you land on that target is your context. I fully believe that there are secondary doctrinal perspectives that will be more missionally effective in a given context than others. And as you, your context, and your conscience age, mature, and go through seminary, I pray that you are able to let it challenge your corner of the target. Know the target boundaries (I’m not promoting heresy, for heaven’s sake!), but within those boundaries, feel free to wander. (A great example of recasting theology in light of community and mission is in a recent article written by fellow GtS Contributor Stephen Hess on the webzine I run.)

In conclusion, as Tim Chester and Steve Timmis in their paradigm-shifting work Total Church say:

“From time to time [we] ask people how they have changed their views over the past few years. It is telling when people cannot think of an answer. Unless someone long ago came in to a complete and perfect understanding of the Bible, it suggests that people are no longer living under God’s word so that it challenges their thinking and practice . . . Theology must be in the service of the church and its mission. Authentic theology must be shaped by what we might call a missionary hermeneutic. Theology divorced from its context is essentially barren, self-referential, and indulgent . . . Mission is the opportunity to rethink which elements of what we believe do belong to the gospel and which in fact belong to our culture.”

The original Reformers understood this well. Their rallying cry was “Ecclesia Reformata, Semper Reformanda!”, meaning “The Church Reformed is always reforming!” They had no conception of their ideas becoming canonized into a static systematic “Reformed” Theology. That was what they had been reforming against! We should all be constantly reevaluating our place on that target, the sincerity of our hearts, and how God has refreshingly been leading us; trusting that where we were was not an accident nor wrong, nor where we are going. Holding this conception of tension within doctrine and Truth will help us have unity in the midst of diversity (like God Himself), and let us be challenged doctrinally and brought to places of increased peace in our individual (and local church) consciences and worship to our amazing God.

I hope these philosophical ramblings have served you all well and are encouraging. Now that you’ve read all this, I encourage you to reread the quote up top. It’s a great summary of all I’ve tried to say. May you all have fruitful, Christ-worshiping semesters.

As seminary students, we realize a mantra that matters much in church life is “IN ESSENTIALS UNITY, IN NON-ESSENTIALS LIBERTY, IN ALL THINGS CHARITY.” We believe this and know this to be true. This is why we have had conferences like Together for the Gospel and can have debates regarding Baptism and church polity. We can agree to disagree on many doctrines within our local congregation and that is a good thing. My concern is not so much with the body as it is with the staff and leadership found therein. This applies to most of our readers at Going to Seminary since most of us will be involved in a leadership role in the local church.

Unity

According to Merriam-Webster online, unity is defined as “A condition of harmony.” The staff must strive to be unified as they seek to lead the church. There is room for doctrinal disagreement, but there cannot be room for disagreement regarding the vision for the church or for that matter what the role of each staff member is. If there is, there is “trouble a-brewin’” as one of my good friends likes to say.

Satan can use the disunity to sneak into the church and disrupt everything. From off-hand, inconsequential remarks to outright sabotage, Satan will use the disagreements to his advantage. May this never be!

One way this can be avoided is to be humble enough to be honest with one another. Humility and honesty should be hallmarks of a church staff. Unfortunately, this is not often the case. If you have a problem with your pastor, you need to be able to take that problem to him and discuss it without it blowing up into a huge altercation. If you are the pastor, you need to make yourself open and available to critique. This must be done in more than word. You need to show yourself humble and react appropriately to the critique listening to what is said and not be so quick to defend yourself.

Uniformity

Uniformity is defined as “the quality or state of being uniform.” Uniform means, “having always the same form, manner, or degree” or “consistent in conduct or opinion.”

The problem really turns ugly when the senior pastor–a.k.a. chief undershepherd–oh wait, that’s Christ!–recognizes a disunity and basically commands for what he calls “unity” but in all actuality is “uniformity.” Most are not as blatant about uniformity as this, but it seems to be very easy to think your call for uniformity is actually a call to unity.

As “pastors-in-training,” we must be aware that we, too, will fall into this trap at some point. As leaders of a particular ministry (music, youth, children) it is much easier to demand that everyone fall in line with your vision and think everyone is unified. Be sure you know the difference between unity and uniformity. Be sure you are humble enough to be corrected and challenged. Be sure you are always critically looking at what you are doing in the church and for Whom you are doing it.

Being a pastor is not like other careers (I agree with John Piper, Brothers, we are not Professionals!). We must be humble. We must be critical of our motives; after all, the heart is deceitful above all things, who can understand it? Humility cannot be taught. More often than not, it is learned. I pray that we all as seminarians learn this lesson before we move into a leadership role in a local church and become an open doorway by which Satan enters the church.

Sitting in my first Covenant Theology class of seminary, Dr. Williams, in addition to speaking about the course, provided one of the most important “nuggets” of wisdom that I will ever receive during my theological training. He briefly, yet powerfully, spoke about an “ethic of reading.” He explained that many of us in Reformed circles, especially my generation, are suspicious readers. He called us to cultivate an attitude of sympathetic reading. Now, being a sympathetic reader does not mean that we avoid critical reading or necessarily agree with what each author claims. Being a sympathetic reader means not being dismissive or mean-spirited in how we approach texts. This “ethic of reading” was not about reading strategies, but rather character formation. Also, it was a matter of respect. If the professors have assigned a particular article or text it is worth reading, even when we disagree. Dr. Williams lamented the countless number of times he read book reviews from students that totally ripped apart texts, saying it was not worth their time. At no point, did these individuals consider, “I wonder why my professor assigned this, what did he want me to get out of it?”

Dr. Williams spoke about how he declined opportunities to write for two journals that wanted him to essentially “bash” dispensational eschatology and over-realized eschatology (He had done tremendous work on eschatology, hence those particular topics). Dr. Williams refused because he did not want to write polemics. In class, he urged us, “Be champions of construction, not champions of polemics.” Rather than vehemently attacking what we are against, we ought to passionately speak about what we stand for. He gave an incredible example of being a champion of construction—the Apostles Creed. When I heard him call the Creed “polemical,” I was surprised. Dr. Williams explained that it was a polemic against the Gnostics, Marcionites, Ebionites, and other heretical sects in the early Church. Yet, it was written constructively. At no point are any of those groups listed in the Apostles Creed, but one can be absolutely certain that in affirming its commitments no one need to question where they landed.

I am praying that the Lord would protect me from the pride that lurks within me that would have me interact with texts, produced by actual individuals endowed with the imago Dei, in a mean-spirited or dismissive way–without any grace! Lord, give us all humility!