Photo by www.phototravelpages.com

Written by Dr. Todd Mangum Friday, 08 June 2012 00:00

It happened in Texas. The Dallas-Fort Worth Coalition of Reason purchased pre-film advertising space at the Angelika Film Center in Plano, Texas, to promote a positive image of families who embrace atheism. It seems that part of what motivated this was their desire to respond to other pre-film advertisements, purchased previously by Christian groups, promoting local churches and evangelistic efforts. But when the atheistic ad appeared, local papers reported on it and the Christian people of Texas responded in force, through letters, phone calls and emails demanding that the ad be withdrawn.  The Angelika Film Center pulled the ad.     

So . . . score one for the Christians in a rare victory for the good guys finally? . . .   Hmmm.  Not so fast.    

Here is an instance in which Christian ability to embrace “civic pluralism” is raised to question.  Never mind that the American Humanist Association’s legal counsel is threatening to file a lawsuit against the theatre for its double standard. And, never mind that at least one atheistic columnist on the Patheos website has cited the case as a clear instance of outright legal discrimination (see http://www.patheos.com/Atheist/Movie-Theater-Discriminates-Roy-Speckhardt-05-23-2012.html). And also never mind Texas’s well-known reputation regarding its “You’re not from around here, are you, son? We don’t do things that way” culture. 

What is the right mindset about such things?  The right strategy? The right goal?     

There’s a side of me that relishes the idea that, in at least one carefully guarded plot of American land, churches are free to advertise but atheists are not.  Does the whole country have to embrace the northeast’s broadminded liberalism after all; I mean what kind of idyllic utopia can the northeast boast about anyway?  Can’t narrow-minded righteousness and conservatism be embraced in at least a pocket of the redneck south?  Can’t we just let them be in their old-fashioned ways? 

But another side of me — probably the better, more intelligent side — thinks that if we want the right to penetrate the larger culture with our ideas (and if we really are called by God to evangelize at all, that is what we want, right?), then we have to allow a “free market” of ideas to flow in all directions. And that means we have to regard the “Christian victory” in getting that atheist ad pulled with some pause, at least. 

Right now, according to almost all polling data available, evangelical Christians are known for the passion with which they hold their views — alright, well and good. But they are also known for being narrow-minded bigots.  Probably unfair.  But then, how do we alter this perception and change this reputation?  

I’m thinking that this instance with the atheist ad probably doesn’t help much to that end of changing our reputation, or for establishing a fresh reputation of fair-mindedness and even-handedness in civil discourse.  You?


Todd Mangum is the Academic Dean and Professor of Theology at Biblical.  He is ordained by the Southern Baptist Convention.  Todd is the author of The Dispensational-Covenantal Rift, and of several articles seeking to bridge divides among Bible-believing Christians. He is married to Linda and they have three sons.  See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/todd-mangum

 

Written by Dr. Todd Mangum Thursday, 07 June 2012 00:00

Yep, you heard that right. Famous atheist Richard Dawkins actually supports the distribution of King James Bibles in every public school in Great Britain.  (Find the full story here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18224114). 

Don’t get too excited, though; his motives are more subversive than supportive. Unlike the standard premises Christians might otherwise expect — “Even though I don’t believe it’s supernaturally inspired, it still inspires good moral ethics”; or even “it’s still classic literature” — Dawkins’ thinking is more cynical. He believes that if school kids and parents actually read the Bible, they will be turned off by its violence, misogyny, and bigotry.  

Besides recommending the book of my colleague, Dave Lamb, God Behaving Badly (http://www.amazon.com/God-Behaving-Badly-Testament-Sexist/dp/0830838260/) as a response to some of Dawkins barbed critiques, I see also a broader point here. It’s actually a point that Jesus observed a time or two, as well: “The sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light” (Luke 16:8). Dawkins audaciously believes that if atheism and biblical Christianity are put on equal footing for consideration, atheism will “win” hands down.  Now, if a “son of this age” can have such foolhardy confidence in the defense of misguided falsehood, why can’t Christians have at least as much confidence in the truth?

What if we don’t have to secure for the Christian perspective an exclusive, privileged position in our society, but merely an equal opportunity for consideration?  By setting the bar lower politically, we may actually, counter-intuitively raise the level higher of positive consideration.

Truthfully, this is a strategy I adopt only by concession. Would that every American desire for Christian values to be upheld as the law of the land. But as long as that is not the case, and until such time as we no longer have to say each one to his neighbor, “Know the Lord” (Jer. 31:34), it is probably counterproductive to try to mandate uniquely Christian values upon Americans against their will.

I know: the consequences of allowing “diversity of values” to be implemented in the law could be devastating. But probably no more devastating than provoking a backlash against Christian values.

I confess to a sense of unease even as I write this, because this is a means of engagement of the culture that uncomfortably yields power willingly in the effort to achieve, instead, persuasion.  It’s a risky posture. But is it smarter?  And also more godly, more Christlike overall? What do you think? 


Todd Mangum is the Academic Dean and Professor of Theology at Biblical.  He is ordained by the Southern Baptist Convention.  Todd is the author of The Dispensational-Covenantal Rift, and of several articles seeking to bridge divides among Bible-believing Christians. He is married to Linda and they have three sons.  See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/todd-mangum

   

Written by Dr. Kyuboem Lee Wednesday, 30 May 2012 00:00

"This was truly amazing to me,” said a student during the recently-concluded “Justice & Mercy” class. He was referring to a section in one of the readings, Timothy Keller’s Ministries of Mercy:

Under Rev. Thomas Chalmers... [the Church of Scotland’s parochial system of deacons assigned to parishes to take care of the poor within them] was restored in the church of St. John’s, Glasgow, during the early 1800s. His parish included 11,513 residents, of which 2,633 were members of his church. Four thousand of the residents were completely unchurched. The entire area was divided into “quarters,” each with a deacon over it. Each deacon’s job was to keep the Session (the elders) informed about the economic conditions in his quarter. He was to help the unemployed get work and help uneducated children get schooling. When a family was found in need, he was to seek out resources within the neighborhood. If there were no other options, the family was admitted to the poor roll. The statistics from one year show 97 families on the relief rolls of the church, from an approximate total of 3500 families in the parish. (Ministries of Mercy: The Call of the Jericho Road, 2nd edition. Phillipsburg, P&R: 1997, 88).

This was in the 1800s!” he exclaimed.

If we were to rely solely on what we see around us now as “the way it’s always been,” then we would be missing out on the rich treasury of ministry that the office of deacons has been for the Church throughout its history. Growing up in the church, I certainly didn’t know what the deacons did. Only later, through the study of Scripture and urban mission issues, did I discover what was lost to the past.

Acts 6 teaches us that the first deacons were ordained to administer the mercy ministry of the Church. Stephen, one of these first deacons, was no mean spiritual leader among the apostles and disciples--in other words, the office of deacons was not a secondary office in the ministry of the church. Calvin’s Geneva was a city whose poor and hurting were served by a well-organized team of deacons. (See The Constructive Revolutionary: John Calvin and His Socio-Economic Impact, by W. Fred Graham.) The example of the deacons in Chalmers’ church in Glasgow is recounted above. We can tell countless other stories from the annals of Church History. These paint a portrait of a Church vigorously engaging the hurting and broken world through robust and concrete acts of compassion.

So what happened?

In his endnotes, Keller offers one explanation--the churches in “The New World” faced a separation of Church and State and a plurality of denominations that didn’t make it easy to organize a systematic and comprehensive diaconal ministry in its cities--a state of affairs quite different from that back in Scotland, where the Church of Scotland was the Church. Nevertheless, the Presbyterian Church, for example, had always intended that the Church become, once again, “the friend of the workingman” (92).

The church, it seems, never quite got there, and forgot all about it. Instead, the Christian community in USA got embroiled in debates--ministries of word vs. ministries of deeds, Liberalism vs. Fundamentalism, political progressivism vs. political conservatism, and any number of combinations thereof. It seems that we’ve managed to lay asunder what the Lord has brought together. As a result, the office of the deacon has been devastated and left anemic.

As the new generation of Evangelicals--with a new sense of social justice as a vital component of Christian discipleship--rises to the fore, the church in USA is again in danger of debating diaconal ministry to death instead of leading the way and forging a healthy, holistic gospel witness of word and deed as the way of life for the Church (as opposed to outsourcing diaconal ministries to non-profit organizations--needed, yes, but not to be at the forefront of a comprehensive gospel witness as the Church is to be). Not welcomed by “biblically faithful” churches, they may turn to (indeed, already are turning to) other entities (some Christian, some not) to carry out what they see as a mandate from the Lord.

But the biblical witness and Church History provides us with a different picture. The cause of the kingdom would be well served if we learn from these neglected treasures, and endeavor to reinstate the office of the deacon to its rightful place in the mission and life of the Church. Then we would be in a better place to carry out the wishes of Jesus who said to his disciples, “...let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16)

Dr. Kyuboem Lee serves as a lecturer of Urban Mission at Biblical Seminary. He is the founding pastor of Germantown Hope Community Church in Philadelphia, and the General Editor for the Journal of Urban Mission (http://jofum.com).

   

Written by Susan Disston Monday, 28 May 2012 00:00

Psalm 107:33-43

I love water imagery.  Like many hymns and spiritual songs written today, this psalm links water with God’s redemptive work. God’s love flows like a powerful river flows forth and runs downhill, over and around obstructions, carving its own path.  God as redeemer is like that river. The imagery in this psalm helps us understand the nature of God’s love: abundant, ceaseless, unilateral, and eternal.

God’s love is there to be received, enjoyed, imbibed, and found as all in-compassing. As believers (the “upright” of v. 40), we stand mid-stream, so to speak, observing and partaking in God’s renewal of the land, the harvest, and the people dwelling in the bounty of his love. God redeemed his people so that they could receive God’s love and to be conduits of it to others. This is the essential nature of God’s love and the beauty of his character.

All the preceding is a wonderful reminder of the truths I believe and of imagery that I have pondered and found strengthening. But the beauty of God’s true character is easily misshapen by imagery provided by our culture. As one theologian (Volf) wrote, “Yet the most powerful and seductive images of God are not the ones we craft in the privacy of our hearts. They are the ones that seep into our minds as we watch TV, read books, go shopping at the mall, or socialize with our neighbors. Slowly and imperceptibly, the one true God begins acquiring the features of the gods of this world.” [Free of Charge, 22] Even if we choose not to partake of TV, read books, or visit the mall, many other daily types of activities provide “refashioned” gods that fit our desires and reshape the beauty of God’s true character.

This psalm challenges me with my need for refreshment: for longs drink at the living God’s flowing river and for time of meditations on God’s beauty in the midst of this culture I’m [we’re] living in. Ministry and service can become stale and routine when we stay away from the flowing water. Volf warned: “Even when we look in the right places with a ready heart, we still might miss the one true God.”

The psalm ends with its own warning and an invitation to delight in God’s love: “Whoever is wise, let him heed these things and consider the great love of the Lord.” Indeed, let us rejoice in our great God and his love.

Susan Disston is the assistant dean of curriculum and assessment and a resident adjunct faculty member. http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/adjunct-faculty-theology

   

Written by Dr. Charles Zimmerman Saturday, 26 May 2012 00:00

Where have they gone & where are they now?

I have been contacting founding faculty members to see what they are up these days and then posting that information to keep all of you updated on their whereabouts and activities.     

This post updates us on John Grauley.  John was a master of the overhead projector and the mimeograph machine even though the transparencies were often out of order and the mimeographed pages were still wet as he handed them out.  But John’s love for people and great sense of humor made class enjoyable and practical. 

What years did you teach at Biblical?

I taught at Biblical from the founding in 1971 until 1982; it’s hard to believe that it has been almost 30 years since I taught there. 

I still treasure good memories from those years of seeing God's provision for the school, and the blessing of good fellowship with faculty and students. 

What have you been doing since then?

For 8 years I was the director of the Middle Georgia Pastoral Counseling Center in Macon, Georgia, and in 1986 was asked to be the interim pastor of the church sponsoring the Center, First Presbyterian Church.  That taste of the pastorate made it difficult to return to full time counseling.  Marjorie, my dear wife of 52+ years, and I began to pray about what the Lord would have us do in the years ahead.  Not long after we received a telephone call from a pulpit committee in Butler, PA, asking if we would consider being a candidate.  Since that time I have pastored three churches:  Westminster PCA in Butler, PA, Westminster PCA in Gainesville, GA and Grace PCA in Blairsville, GA.

I retired 2 years ago from fulltime ministry.  I should explain that this is a second retirement, the first was in 2001.  In 2003 I was the interim pastor of Westminster PCA in Elgin, IL, for a year before becoming the pastor of Grace PCA.  Over the last few years I spent a month teaching in Romania, two weeks in Kenya and 5 weeks in Singapore.  Lord willing, Marjorie and I will return to Singapore in June for another ministry visit.

What has been happening with your family? 

We have 9 grandchildren, the oldest, Aaron Matthews, is 21 and the youngest, James Grauley is 7.  We are thankful that our children and grandchildren are following the Lord.  What a wonderful blessing that is!  In short, the Lord has been very good to us and we enjoy growing older together with Him.

Contact information:  johngrauley@windstream.net

Thus far, we have heard from “Doc” Newman, Gary Cohen, Bob Vannoy, George Clark and Bill Harding.  If you missed those blog entries, scroll back and take a look.  I asked each to provide contact information, so feel free to drop them a note of encouragement and while you’re at it, attach a comment to the appropriate blog entry. 


Charles Zimmerman is the Thomas V. Taylor Professor of Practical Theology.  He also serves as Teaching Pastor at Calvary Church in Souderton.  He is married to Kim and they have two daughters, Ashley and Megan.  See also http://biblical.edu/index.php/charles-zimmerman

 

   

Written by Sam Logan Friday, 25 May 2012 00:00

This is the third of three blogs on the difficult but important subject of gay marriage.  The first two blogs appeared on the two previous days.

In my first blog on gay marriage, I tried to outline a few of the items which I believe are NONvariables for evangelical Christian discussions of the issue.

In my second blog, I sought to identify a few of the areas in which I think there ARE variables which could affect how we respond to the overall issue.

I ended my second blog with this question:

3.  In what ways have civil governments already sought to regulate marriage (between consenting adults)?

And I started my answer to this question by mentioning the many different ways this regulation already occurs.  But there is one area of current civil regulation of marriage among consenting adults in the United States which seems especially relevant to the issue of gay marriage.  I thus pick up the outline from yesterday:

b.  Unity within the diversity.  There is at least one area in which all fifty states agree with respect to prohibiting marriage among consenting adults – the area of bigamy/polygamy.  And in most states, bigamy/polygamy is a felony.   Of course, this raises a fascinating question since one of our likely Presidential candidates has recently voiced support for gay marriage while the other comes from a religious tradition which, for many years, supported polygamy.  How do you suppose each candidate would respond to that which is linked to his opponent in “the marriage wars”?  Along these lines, The Sunday Times (London, England) quotes one of those candidates as having said in 2005, “I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman . . . and a woman . . . and a woman”  (April 15, 2012; Section 4, p. 2).

In fairness, how can the supporters of one (gay marriage) not support the other (polygamy where the participants are consenting adults)?  Increasing the confusion are the laws of places like the United Kingdom and Australia which do not permit polygamous marriages in those countries but which do recognize such marriages if they have been performed in countries where they are allowed.  And all kinds of folks are now raising these questions, including some famous (or infamous) polygamists –  http://www.eonline.com/news/marc_malkin/sister_wives_stars_support_gay_marriage/315316

 c.  Of course, the case could be made that gay marriage should be allowed but that polygamy should not.  I am not sure HOW that case would be made and I have not yet seen anyone try to make it, but I suppose it could be done.  In fact, what got me thinking along these lines was a recent PBS special on the subject of “Mormons in America.”  Much was made in that documentary of the process by which the U.S. came to determine that marriage between consenting MULTIPLE adults was not to be permitted by the civil government.  And no one seems, at that time (which was between 1852 and 1890), to have thought that such regulation would violate the civil right of potential polygamists.  What exactly has changed?  And why do those who protest about the perceived violation of the civil rights of gay couples who want to marry not protest equally vigorously about the violation of the rights of consenting adults who wish to take multiple partners in marriage?

 And so, finally, what is my conclusion after considering both NONvariables and variables?  Two things:

 1.  We should make adaptations in the linkages between marriage and civil benefits which I listed yesterday.  There seems to me to be no good reason to insist that these kinds of linkages be maintained.  

2.  We should maintain the present level of civil regulations of marriage (though it would surely help to try to get more unity among our various civil jurisdictions).  On what basis do I believe this?  That is an eminently fair question and one which everyone who seeks to prohibit legal recognition of gay marriage must be prepared to answer.  My position is that civil sanction of gay marriage amounts to an official approval of what I believe (under my NONvariables) is sin.  For similar reasons, I support very careful and thorough civil restriction of abortion (though that is yet another hugely difficult subject).  Of course, not all that the government permits is sinful.  But in light of the fact that the government does restrict marriage already and in light of the fact that it does use that power to restrict something like polygamy, its failure to prohibit gay marriage would, in my judgment, constitute a kind of official approval of gay marriage. 

But, as always, I know that I need (and I really am seeking) further guidance on the matter.

So give it to me -  (further guidance, that is!).


Sam Logan is Special Counsel to the President and Professor of Church History at Biblical.  He is an ordained minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and he is President Emeritus at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.  In addition to his work at Biblical, he serves as International Director of the World Reformed Fellowship ( http://www.wrfnet.org).  He is married to Susan and they have two sons and two grandsons. See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/samuel-logan  

 

   

Written by Sam Logan Thursday, 24 May 2012 00:00

NOTE - This is the second of three blogs on this difficult but important subject.  The first appeared yesterday and the third (and final) will appear tomorrow.

I ended yesterday’s blog with these statements –

The following, however, really do seem to me to be variables from culture to culture and even from subculture to subculture and these are among the areas where I need (and am asking for) help –

See tomorrow’s blog for this list –

Yesterday’s tomorrow is now today, so here are some items that may be variables in the discussion of gay marriage.  [Please do note the use of the term “may be.” I am simply suggesting that both those who favor and those who oppose gay marriage might want to take account of these matter.]

1) On what kinds of issues is it appropriate for a civil government  to seek to regulate the actions of responsible, “consenting” adults?  Of course, this is a HUGE field which has produced innumerable outstanding treatises.  See, for example, this interesting discussion of St. Augustine and limited government -  http://www.nhinet.org/raeder16-2.pdf.  My comments in this blog are designed simply as possible discussion-starters.  With that in mind,   I will mention a few areas regarding government involvement where there may be legitimate differences of opinion and I conclude with the one with which I began this blog and I ask any readers of this blog to comment on which (if any) of these you think should NOT be regulated by the civil government:

a.  The use of certain drugs.  The entire prescription system in most countries is based on the notion that even mature and responsible adults cannot be allowed to determine what drugs are best for them – whether those drugs be recreational or prescription.  Interestingly, the rules for these matters differ from country to country and sometimes from state to state within a given country but I know of no country where there is no regulation of any kind. 

b.  The right to bear arms.  Again, differences are HUGE from country to country and even from state to state.   But whether countries are lenient or restrictive with respect to firearms, most countries do regulate what adults may and may not do with firearms.  

c.  The need to have automobile insurance in order to be allowed to drive.  Not so much difference among nations here, although there are different ages at which one may even be considered for a driver’s license.  Does this mean that 15-year-olds in one area really are more coordinated and responsible than they are in another area? Probably not, but it is clear that civil governments all over the world have assumed the authority to regulate which adults can drive.

d. The need to have (or to purchase) health insurance.  This is a really hot topic in the United States right now but some other “Western” countries see it as a “no brainer.”  So who is it who has “the brains”?  Those societies which require more or those societies which require less?  And what does a civil government have the authority to require in this (or any other) regard? 

e.  Many others, the inclusion of which would make this blog far too long.

f.  Marriage.  This is the one I am supposed to be discussing so I will give it two separate categories.

2)   What has civil government often linked with marriage (especially in the U.S.) and is it necessary for such linkage to be maintained? 

a.  The tax benefits of marriage.  I can think of no place in Scripture where it is explicitly commanded that married couples get tax breaks which unmarried couples do not get.  Could evangelical Christians who agree on the NON-variables above also agree that granting to ANY unmarried couples the same tax breaks that married heterosexual couples receive would NOT violate explicit Scriptural teaching?  Granted that some would say that the tax benefits provided to heterosexual married couples are a way of “affirming” traditional marriage.  However, given that there are so many evangelical heterosexual married couples in other parts of the world that do not benefit from such breaks, it is necessary that we maintain this linkage?

b.  The other financial benefits of marriage.  I can think of no place in Scripture where it is explicitly commanded that each partner in a heterosexual marriage must have the kinds of financial “ownership of assets” rights that are commonly granted to partners in such a marriage.   Could evangelical Christians who agree on the NON-variables above also agree that granting to ANY unmarried couples the same overall financial benefits that married heterosexual couples receive would NOT violate explicit Scriptural teaching?  Granted that some would say that the other financial benefits provided to heterosexual married couples are a way of “affirming” traditional marriage.  However, given that there are so many evangelical heterosexual married couples in other parts of the world that do not benefit from such benefits, it is necessary that we maintain this linkage?

c.  The “care” benefits of marriage.  I can think of no place in Scripture where it is explicitly commanded that only heterosexual married couples can make “end of life” decisions for one another.  Could evangelical Christians who agree on the NON-variables above also agree that granting to ANY unmarried couples the same “end of life” authority that married heterosexual couples receive would NOT violate explicit Scriptural teaching? Granted that some would say that the care benefits provided to heterosexual married couples are a way of “affirming” traditional marriage.  However, given that there are so many evangelical heterosexual married couples in other parts of the world that do not experience such benefits, it is necessary that we maintain this linkage?

d.  Why did the original evangelical Christian settlers of North America distance the church completely from any involvement in marriage?  [OK, that doesn’t fit here but I wanted to get it in somewhere!]  Even if the reason was in order to distance themselves from the Roman Catholic church, where marriage was regarded as a sacrament, no one would claim that those women and men who founded “Plimoth Plantation” in  Massachusetts were theological liberals.  Maybe they had it right, after all.  But exactly what would THAT mean for the subject of gay marriage?  Good question!  What’s YOUR answer?  And the “wicket” gets even “sticker” when we realize that the regulations of most local marriage bureaus stipulate that it is THE STATE which decides which CHURCH officials may conduct recognizable marriage services.  Talk about a mixed up mess!!

3.  In what ways have civil governments already sought to regulate marriage (between consenting adults)?

a.  General marriage license laws.  These can be overwhelming and confusing.  I live in Pennsylvania and, if I want to know how my intended marriage may be regulated, I am first confronted by this statement:  “Requirements may vary as each marriage license bureau in Pennsylvania could have their own requirements” [emphasis added].  Immediately after this statement is a list of the SIXTY-SEVEN (67!) different marriage bureaus in Pennsylvania.  Obviously, civil regulation of the marriage of consenting adults is not a new thing and reading the differing requirements in these different jurisdictions in an exercise in bewilderment and befuddlement.  But clearly (at least to me!),  civil regulation of marriage between consenting adults is not a new thing.

Not only so, but at least one specific  restriction which civil governments in the U.S. place on marriage between consenting adults has, in my judgment, direct relevance to the question of gay marriage.

But you will need to return tomorrow for that item and for the conclusion to this blog on gay marriage.


Sam Logan is Special Counsel to the President and Professor of Church History at Biblical. He is an ordained minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and he is President Emeritus at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. In addition to his work at Biblical, he serves as International Director of the World Reformed Fellowship ( http://www.wrfnet.org). He is married to Susan and they have two sons and two grandsons. See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/samuel-logan   

 

 

   

Page 15 of 22

Blog Mission

The purpose of this blog will be to expand the influence of our faculty, maintain contact with our graduates, and invite other friends to think with us about important biblical and theological ideas.

Biblical's Faculty

Biblical’s Faculty:

We are committed to ongoing engagement with culture and the world for the sake of our witness to the Gospel, and to continual learning from Christians in other cultural settings.

Latest Blog Entries

Written on 18 April 2014 - by Philip Monroe
Written on 16 April 2014 - by Philip Monroe
Written on 14 April 2014 - by Drew Hart
Written on 10 April 2014 - by R. Todd Mangum
Written on 09 April 2014 - by R. Todd Mangum
Written on 08 April 2014 - by R. Todd Mangum
Written on 07 April 2014 - by R. Todd Mangum
Written on 04 April 2014 - by Charles Zimmerman
Written on 02 April 2014 - by Stephanie Lowery
Written on 28 March 2014 - by Dave Dunbar

Previous Blog Entries

Follow Biblical

Follow us on the following sites and receive notifications on upcoming events and blog entries:

Follow Biblical on facebookFollow Biblical on Twitterg+_64_black

Contact Admissions

800.235.4021 x146

215.368.5000 x146

215.368.4913 (fax)

 

admissions@biblical.edu

Stay Connected with Biblical

Follow us on the following sites:

Follow Biblical on facebookFollow Biblical on TwitterFollow Biblical on YouTubeg+_64_black
Or simply call us at...
800.235.4021 x146 or 215.368.5000 x146

Support Biblical by Giving

800.235.4021 x162

215.368.5000 x162

215.368.7002 (fax)

 

development@biblical.edu

Home

Site Login