faculty_blog_header_summer

Written by Sam Logan Tuesday, 07 August 2012 00:00

By now, we have all seen this picture hundreds of times:

I first saw the picture when a very good and respected friend posted it with approval on his Facebook page. 

I dissented (and I still do dissent) from his approval of the picture but many of his other friends celebrated  both the sentiment expressed by the picture and the approval expressed by the one who posted it. 

What should those of us who want to be faithful and missional Christians say in such a situation?

Here are some suggestions (and I would love to get both corrections and further suggestions from the readers of this blog) –

1) The implication that Christians are not as active in ministry (to the poor, to the homeless, to the sexually trafficked, to the victims of natural disasters, etc., etc.) as they are in supporting statements opposing gay marriage should be graciously but firmly rejected.  Specific examples of active (and often costly) Christian compassion may be provided . . . so long as they are not presented in a triumphalistic manner.    We must never be trumpeting our good works in order to receive the approval of men.  On the other hand, simple truth-telling really is a virtue.

2)  The tendency that we all have to make blanket statements about groups with whom we disagree (or think we disagree) must be vigorously and constantly be resisted.  Any implication that one would never see “that many” Christians at a food bank or a homeless shelter, especially when the implication is made through a global medium like Facebook, is a slander against the millions of Christians in other parts of the world who never even heard of Chick Fil A.  I have personally and physically witnessed Christians lining up in places like Soweto and Seoul to help others who were in need and I know from other direct experience that this sort of behavior is “normal” for many Christians, whether the issue is an Indonesian tsunami or a Japanese nuclear disaster or a Palestinian family’s poverty. 

3) Unfortunately, however, we evangelical Christians do not always embody this kind of “missional resistance” to making blanket stereotypical statements.  Those of us who bear the name of the One Who claimed to be (and is) “the Way, THE TRUTH, and the Life” must set the standard of accuracy in the way we talk.  Have we ever made a statement about “Muslims?”  If so, have we been careful to make such statements only if we have demonstrably clear evidence that what we are saying really is true of ALL Muslims?  “Muslims worship Allah” is an appropriate statement for evangelical Christians to make.  “Muslims are terrorists” is not an appropriate statement for evangelical Christians to make.

4)  To move to the issue which precipitated the Chick Fil A controversy, do we ever talk about “gays”?  Do we ever talk about those who support gay marriage?  If we do, are we careful to be certain that our statements embody “missional resistance” to stereotyping?

5) I have used the word “missional” in the previous two paragraphs.  Why? Because in everything we say and in everything we do, we are responsible to God to embody, to the best of our Spirit-filled ability, what Christopher Wight has called “The Mission of God” and “The Mission of God’s People.”   God’s mission and ours is not simply to try to show that others that they are wrong when we think they are, though, of course, standing for the truth is surely an integral part of that mission.  In addition to (not in place of, but in addition to) speaking the truth, the mission of God involves Incarnation and the mission of God’s people involves incarnation.  We are to BE what we SAY about grace.  When others make blanket stereotypical statements about us, they are repeating the linguistic actions of those who verbally assaulted Jesus.  When we resist responding in kind, we are repeating His words and His ultimate redemptive deed – “Father, forgive them.”

6) Of all the characters in Scripture, the one whose sin most often crops up in my own life is Jonah:  “Lord, those Ninevites are horrible sinners and I want them to get every ounce of judgment they deserve.”  “Ah, but Jonah, you love that plant which you did not create . . . should I not love and spare the city of Nineveh?”  Even if those who support gay marriage are wrong (and I believe they are), isn’t the mission of God and the mission of God’s people to do that which most clearly embodies the loving and the sparing which God accomplished in Jesus? 

I have rarely eaten at Chick Fil A and, in the future, I expect that I will eat there no more (and no less) than before.  This is not because I do not care about the issues raised by Dan Cathay’s comments.  It is because neither support for nor repudiation of those comments will, in my judgment, facilitate the accomplishment of “the mission of God” or “the mission of God’s people."

But where will YOU be eating your fast-food lunches?  And why?


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 Kyuboem Lee Friday, 03 August 2012 00:00

There is an obvious interest in the topic of the bi-vocational pastorate--quite a few readers have contributed their comments on the previous postI very much appreciate them; thank you. These responses have jogged more lines of thought that I believe could be helpful for us to explore further.

As I've stated in the previous post, we will probably see a rise of bi-vocational pastors because of the economic pressures and the changes afoot in our world. Going from a full-time pastorate to a bi-vocational model can be a difficult transition, fraught with many challenges for the whole congregation. But that means it can be a wonderful time of growth, too. One commenter asked a question that is surely on many people's minds: If the pastor transitions from full-time to bi-vocational, won't the ministry suffer, simply because the pastor has less time for the ministry?

>As a response, let's consider some vital questions:

One: Is the pastor being compensated enough?

That has to be the first consideration by the congregation. According to this postmany pastors are not.

A recent study conducted byThe National Association of Church Business Administration points out that the average American pastor with a congregation of 300 people earns a salary of less than $28,000 and that one out of five pastors has to moonlight for supplemental income. The study also indicated that only 5 percent of American pastors earn more than $50,000 a year, and 14 percent earn less than $25,000.

Clearly, something needs to give. If congregations are not able to support an adequate wage for the pastors and their families, they need to support the pastors in other ways--one way is to allow them to go bi-vocational. It could be that a pastor is overly in love with money and possessions, and is being overly demanding of a higher income. They will need to be gently challenged, accordingly. However, more often than not, pastors are people who have made tremendous personal sacrifices for the sake of answering the call, and, if so, congregations will need to recognize their service and let them support their families adequately. It will involve a change for the whole congregation, as we will see, so it won’t be an easy transition. But it will be a necessary one.

Two: Can the church leadership as a whole embrace a team approach to the ministry?

If the full-time pastor transitions to a bi-vocational role, pastoral responsibilities will need to be shared. Leaders will need to be developed, and they will need to assume different roles. We are thinking more of a team of shepherds, instead of a CEO and board model.

There is a good biblical precedent for this approach. In Acts 6, when a vital ministry was in need of good leadership, the apostles installed the first group of deacons so they might oversee the distribution of food to widows. This freed the apostles up to devote themselves to the ministry of word and prayer.

Pastors, elders, and deacons need to consider how they could work better as a team of leaders. Some in the church, other than pastors, are gifted in pastoral counseling, but haven’t assumed a role that fits their gifting. Same with mercy ministry, envisioning, visitations, etc. Surely there are leaders in the church better gifted to lead a building program than the pastor? They will need to assume leadership roles, and others will need to follow their lead. This will free up the pastors to focus on the ministry of word and prayer.

Preaching is also a work that can be shared among the church leadership. In my church, there is a group of elders and deacons with whom I share the preaching work. I work with them to prepare the messages, and they grow in their abilities through experience. Training is built into this model.

That leads us to the next question.

Three: How will the church train and raise up leaders for the new paradigm?

The elders and deacons will need training for church leadership, much more than what may currently be expected of them. This doesn’t mean that they will need an M.Div. But they will need a theological education. The pastor, who usually does hold an M.Div., may now need to fulfill the role of trainer and coach. The pastor's main role would now shift to raising up other shepherds within the body of Christ. As the one who holds the most advanced degree in theological education in the congregation (usually), the pastor can lead an in-house theological training program.

There can be a lot of exciting creativity that can come into play when building such a training model. Other local pastors can be called on to share the teaching, and build a local team of trainers. Every pastor will have their own unique gifts to bring to the training process. An exciting by-product could be a shared sense of mission among these churches, directed to the local community.

This may mean, however, that the pastor gives up being the primary face of the church. The preaching and other ministry roles will need to be shared among the growing group of shepherds, and this group will collectively assume the role of being the face of the church. This can be hard to pull off if the expectation has been that the pastor is the one everyone comes to see and hear preach on a Sunday. There will need to be a shift in the church’s vision.

Another implication is a corrective to the current model of church leadership development. The typical route to the pastorate has been this: An individual experiences an inner sense of calling. The individual enrolls in a theological seminary. Upon graduation, a church that is in need of filling a pulpit calls the graduate into ministry. Such an approach has left too much to the individual’s initiative and private devices. Where is the church body in the process? A much healthier approach would be to for the church to observe the individual's character, faithfulness, and abilities, as they serve as a lay minister in the context of the church. The candidate would receive training by the pastor and through experience. By the time ordination comes around, the whole church should be able to enthusiastically affirm God’s calling on the individual. There is a much greater emphasis on the outer sense of calling. Then the church would not be looking solely at a person’s GPA; the church would have the candidate’s whole life to base its judgment.

Moving away from the professionalization of ministry to the priesthood of all believers in this way can be a very healthy process of maturation for the whole church. Every believer will be called on to do the work of ministry and to exercise faith for the life of the church. There will be a greater participation and a more robust discipleship.

As you have more thoughts, please share. The give-and-take is good for developing these ideas.



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 John Oliff Wednesday, 01 August 2012 00:00

Introduction: One of the purposes of the implied authors of the Gospels is to present Jesus Messiah as completing the mission YHWH began in the Former Testament. Having said that, it should not be assumed all the Evangelist’s tell their stories the same way, even while having a unified subject, Jesus Messiah.

A little theory never hurt anyone:The Gospels were written to preserve the memory of Jesus in the early church and for future generations. Because the Gospels are stories a word (a short word!) is needed about approaching them. The fact that the Gospels are stories is not new; since the emergence of Narrative Criticism in the 1970s (the child of The New Criticism of the 1950s), scholars have read the Gospels as stories – whole stories! Reading the individual stories is not easy, for we intuitively want to “fill in the gaps” with what we know from the other three witnesses to “complete” the story; the problem I see in this is that the other witnesses do not “complete” the story, they tell an altogether different story. When we allow information from the other Evangelists “fill in the gaps” we take away from the implied authors agenda, thus ending up with another, more dynamic, story. As readers of the biblical text we do not do justice to the Evangelist’s by performing such acts – let the story reign! Thus, one of my passions is to assist students to be hearers of the individual narratives, to let the story, its plot, characters, tension, reign supreme over my reading, thus, doing what it is designed to do.

Mission: The mission Yahweh as found in the Older Testament comes to its telos in the Incarnation where Yahweh not only continues his mission to Israel, but also extends it to the Gentiles – one people, one covenant, joined to Yahweh through the mission of victorious warrior Messiah, Jesus. This is the mission of Biblical Theological Seminary. We tell the story, reminding students that Jesus’ victorious mission is the mission of the body of Christ while we await the return of its King, Jesus (cf., Philippians 3:20-21, et al).

The following is an example of Jesus’ mission told through the eyes of the author of Mark:

The Gospels all have interesting starting points. Matthew begins with a genealogy tracing Jesus’ lineage back to Abraham; after Luke’s introduction in 1:1-4, the writer introduces the reader to John the Baptist and Jesus with poems reminiscent of Hannah’s Song and Old Testament oracles; John’s prologue sets the stage for the ensuing narrative by placing the Word at the beginning with God; Mark begins his interpretation of the Christ event by citing Scripture(s). It is the last of these that will occupy several essays.

“[The] consummation of the in-breaking of Jesus Messiah [Son of God], as it has been written in Isaiah the Prophet, “Behold I am sending my Messenger before your face who will prepare your way, a Voice of one crying in the wilderness[ish places] make ready the way of Yahweh, make his paths straight. (Translation mine)

The beginning of Mark is unique among the gospels. It begins with a conflated citation which forces the reader back to the books (I am hesitant to use the term book as it is an anachronism, but for our purposes we will retain it. Most scholars now understand the importance oration played in the years before the New Testament; Richard Horsley suggest less than 3% of the Roman Empire were literate [Hearing the Whole Story]) of Exodus, Isaiah, and Malachi. Markan scholars are divided as to whether or not Mark has the individual books in mind, or, whether he was summarizing the motifs from the various books in question. For the last 13 years I have reflected on this text and have concluded the following; I pass them on to you to encourage you to reflect, question, and as an aid in your journey through Mark’s wilderness.

(1) Mark’ story is primarily concerned with presenting the arrival of Yahweh’s (Warrior) Messenger in the midst of Israel’s present exile – Mark does this by showing and not telling (the power in narrative is the way the individual story tellers weave their pericopes together to show the meaning of their story – they are not primarily concerned with didactic formula – “hey, this means such-and-such,” but they are master shower”); (2) Mark is picking up on themes which resonate within the current socio-political-biblio-consciousnesses of his audience; thus, the implied author of the Gospel of Mark writes assuming his audience understanding of the literary past; (3) Mark’s conflated citation opens the door for Mark presenting Jesus as the fulfillment of the long awaited agent of the New Exodus, the Dominion of Yahweh; again, the implied author does this by retelling the Jesus story as an example of Yahweh’s “incarnational-kingdom-arrival-story;” (4) the conflated citation is best understood as an ancient epigraph; thus, everything in Mark’s story is to be filtered through it, as though it were translucently hovering over each section; (5) as the translation shows, Mark’s wilderness[ish] gloss is to be understood metaphorically – it is the wilderness of Isaiah, not Exodus, that the implied narrator has in view.

Thus, Mark’s Jesus is the long awaited Agent of Yahweh missioned to initiate and fulfill the dominion of Yahweh. Rhetorically, Mark invites his reader to enter into his story through the epigraph, to follow his clues and cues, and watch the story of what it looks like when Yahweh again breaks into humanity – the blind see, the deaf hear, and the poor have the gospel preached to them (cf., Isa. 35 echoed in Mark 7). This, and only this, is the dominion of Yahweh foretold by the story of the Hebrew Scriptures. Let the reader understand!

Further reading:

Janice C. Anderson & Stephen D. Moore. Mark and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies, 2nd edition. (Fortress, 2008).

Seymour Chatman. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. (Cornell University Press, 1978).

Ira B. Driggers. Following God Through Mark: Theological Tension in the Second Gospel. (WJK, 2007).

Mark A. Powell. What is Narrative Criticism?: A New Approach to the Bible. (SPCK, 1990, 1993).

Wolfgang Iser. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. (Johns Hopkins, 1978)


John Oliff is Adjunct professor at Biblical Seminary where he teaches NT Greek (I-III) and various other NT courses; John has 13 years teaching experience on both undergraduate and graduate levels; He is currently completing his Ph.D (ABD) on the Gospel of Mark (Remythologizing Mark: The Yahweh as A Warrior Motif with emphasis on the ANE Combat myth Motif in the Gospel of Mark) under William S. Campbell.  John is also an Adjunct faculty member at Eastern University where he teaches Old and New Testament. His passion is reading text within their socio-political-rhetorical-religio-context. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; visit his website @ johnoliff.com (merestudent.com).
 

   

Written by Charles Zimmerman Friday, 27 July 2012 00:00

Where have they gone & where are they now? 

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

This post updates us with Tom Taylor – TVT. 

Tom was the first Biblical faculty member that I met when I visited a church history class while contemplating attending seminary.  I was surprised to discover that laughing was permitted in a seminary classroom and I thought, if this school can make church history fun, it’s the place for me. 

Who can forget Tom starting a morning class by explaining how he had driven all night from a speaking engagement so he wouldn’t miss our smiling faces and sleepy eyes.  And if Tom ever had to miss a class, he left a video complete with harmonica introduction. 

After coming on the faculty, Tom made faculty meetings bearable with his snide comments spoken as he raised his eyes over his reading glasses from his needlepoint. 

1. What years did you teach at Biblical?

When Dr. MacRae and others left Faith Seminary in 1971 lo launch Biblical, I was one of the “others.”  It fell to me – I was assigned by Dr. MacRae to teach some Old Testament courses and church history.  

 2.  Tell a favorite memory from your Biblical days

It was a great delight to me to publish the “weakly,” that mighty paper that enabled me to publicly poke fun at fellow faculty and otherwise be the means of disseminating announcements to the student body.  

3.  What have you been doing since then? 

Since the end of my formal teaching days, I continue to preach in a lot of churches and speak at conferences, with some counseling thrown in for good measure.  I have also had a book published: Old Testament Toolbox

 4.  What has been happening with your family? 

Ruth is taking good care of me.  She continues with conducting ladies’ Bible studies, and giving lots of advice to our children (they really need it!).  Grandchildren and great-grandchildren have arrived in such abundance we lost track of the count. 

Contact information:

  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

135 Middle Road, Dublin, PA  18917


Thus far in this blog series, we have heard from “Doc” Newman, Gary Cohen, Bob Vannoy, George Clark, Bill Harding, and John Grauley.  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 an encouraging note and while you’re at it, attach a memory of your own 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 alsohttp://biblical.edu/index.php/charles-zimmerman

   

Written by Pam Smith Wednesday, 25 July 2012 00:00

Would you expect to see the president of a seminary to be living missionally by kneeling in the dirt not to pray, but to pull weeds? You would if it is Biblical Seminary’s president.  

He’s not just a president…he’s a member of Living Hope Church, a church that studied stewardship and came up with the idea of gardening as a way to bless the community. 

They’ve planted sunflowers, herbs, onions, tomatoes, peppers, beans, broccoli, beets, lettuce, kale, radishes and potatoes.  Church members and others in the community pay $25 a year and tend the garden a few hours a week to receive a share of its bounty. Everyone involved can take something from it and there’s plenty to take.

In fact, surplus from the harvest is donated to the church’s food pantry, which serves about 20 to 30 families.

Living Hope is hoping to attract interest in the garden among the larger community, something they’ve already begun to do. A local family decided to get their hands dirty this summer in the garden as a way to teach their daughters what it takes to put food on the table.  They’ve enjoyed themselves so much that the 12-year-old daughter started her own small garden — stocked with peppers and tomatoes — in their backyard.  The family expressed that not only is it a ‘cool’ thing to do, but they’ve also made some new friends.

Two of those friends: the seminary president pictured above and the pastor of the church who are enjoying building a relationship with this new family.

So, that’s how it can be for missional living.   It can even include broccoli.

Pam Smith is the Vice President for Student Advancement at Biblical Seminary and also instructs in our counseling program in the areas of career and coaching. Email Pam at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

   

Written by Dan LaValla Tuesday, 24 July 2012 00:00

One of the things that I enjoy most about fundraising is that I have many opportunities to talk to people from different walks of life. Their stories give me a perspective that I would otherwise not have. I am often blessed by what they share. Recently, a common theme that I have heard is the increasing amounts of stress and fatigue they are experiencing. Many feel that it is a cumulative effect that has been building over the past few years. In my opinion, much of this is a result of the Great Recession that began in the middle of 2007. In my previous post, Giving ($) Cheerfully in This Economy?, I touched on the financial stresses many U.S. households are experiencing as a result of the decline in household income since 2007.

While it is obviously much less stressful and less tiring to be fully employed as compared to being unemployed or underemployed, looking at other phenomena occurring in the marketplace, it becomes very obvious why fully employed people are becoming increasingly tired. Typical statistics show that the U.S. economy lost close to 9 million jobs since the great recession and there are millions of more part-time and underemployed workers who cannot find full-time employment. While unemployment and underemployment have increased, various statistical reports show that worker productivity in the U.S. since the Great Recession has increased 6.5% to 7%. Further, due to electronic communications (e.g., email, smart phones, tablets, etc.), job obligations are pressuring workers to deal with work related activities on weeknights after leaving the office, weekends, and during vacations.

“Fatigue Creep” Defined

In structural engineering, fatigue and creep are causes for failure of a material at a stress value significantly below the allowable threshold. Fatigue of a material occurs when a material fails after being subjected to multiple loading and unloading cycles even though none of the instances of the applied stress crosses its allowable stress value. Creep involves the weakening and eventual failure of a material while it is being subjected to constant stress over an extended time period. While people are not inanimate materials, they do need to be conscious of the phenomena of fatigue and creep in their own lives in relation to their own physical, cognitive, emotional, and spiritual thresholds for good health.

Sleep Well and Get Enough

It is common knowledge that getting enough sleep is important for physical, mental, and emotional health. While the average adult requires 7.5 to 9 hours of sleep each night (children and teens need 10 to 11), today’s average is 6 to 7. Adequate sleep is important for restoring our energy and muscle strength, improved decision-making, memory, cognitive processing, and creativity; it promotes healthy emotions and the ability to cope with stress, weight stability, strengthened immunity to illness and diseases, and many more. Prolonged lack of sleep results in opposite symptoms: irritability, fatigue, lethargy, an inability to cope with stress, decreased cognitive performances, weight-gain, and decreased immunity that leads to colds, diabetes, heart disease and other health problems.

Rest from Work

The need for rest from work is documented throughout Scripture and is modeled by God in the creation account (Gen 2:4). In the Ten Commandments, the fourth commandment tells us to abstain from any work on the Sabbath (Ex 20:8-11). Exodus 23:12 explains that the Sabbath is to provide a means of refreshment from work for the entire household, including its animals. In Mark 2:27, Jesus emphasizes man’s need for rest when He stated, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” On the Sabbath, believers are called to come together to worship God and meditate on Scripture. In this process, we are nourishing our relationships with God, our extended family, and neighbors. In addition, take time to be still and meditate on God, share your burdens with Him (Ps. 46:10 and Mt 11:28-30).

Set Boundaries and Leave Margins in Your Life

It is important to set boundaries between your personal and work lives. Make it a priority to be disciplined enough not bring work home after you leave the office and do not check emails at night and on weekends. If your job requires 24/7 availability, then only deal with crises and emergencies after you leave the office or place of employment. Finally, set margins in your life so that not every minute of your day is scheduled with obligations or recreational activities. Your mind, body, and spirit need opportunities and time to naturally unwind.


Dan LaValla is Director of Library Services and Development Associate for Institutional Advancement at Biblical. He is Chair of the Endowment Committee for the American Theological Library Association and is very active in his church and community, coaching youth baseball and football and has served on several community boards. See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/daniel-lavalla. 

 

 

 

   

Written by Bryan Maier Monday, 23 July 2012 00:00

This article is inspired by a recent sermon I heard on the last half of James 1.

I grew up under the influence of what strikes me now as a somewhat simplistic view of the Bible. Week after week my pastor or Sunday school teacher would open the Bible, read it, and then ask, “How can we put into practice this week what we have just read?” For example, if we heard a sermon on greed, we were challenged to root out whatever greed we might find in our own lives. Same with jealousy, covetousness, idolatry or whatever other areas the Scripture might shine its light. We came to Scripture to find out what we were supposed to do, how we were supposed to think and how we were supposed to live. Just like a mirror, the purpose of looking at Scripture was one of self-evaluation.  

Then I went to seminary.

Slowly my approach to Scripture became less of a posture of obedience and more a posture of discovery. I wanted to know what the Bible said from a more objective viewpoint. In light of post-modernism and other factors, I realized that not everyone agrees about what the Bible even says. I went on to learn that scholar X believes the text says one thing and Scholar Y believes Scholar X has wobbly interpretive skills. Then scholar Z comes along in a patronizing voice and  charts the famous moderate or “middle path”. Somewhere along the line, my interaction with Scripture became less one of submission and more one of discovery. “What does this text mean?” had somehow trumped “How can I make changes to bring myself in line with this text?” 

Scripture was becoming a Mandala.  

Mandalas have their roots in Buddhism and are circular works of art that celebrate a unity within diversity. There are many images scattered within the circle but there is a central core from which all the various other images in the circle relate somehow – almost like a kaleidoscope. However, it is the posture toward a Mandela that I wish to emphasize. The wide range of meanings ebb and flow in the mind of the student until one central core begins to emerge and the student sees what the Mandala reveals.  But the student does not see the same thing every time and there is therefore never one established meaning. In summary, one looks at a Mandela to try to learn or discover something, not to obey.

Listening to the sermon on James 1, I was found myself nostalgic for the days when Bible interpretation was simple. Have I become so educated that I can no longer use the Bible as a mirror? Now I understand the value of study and paying close attention to what the text means (or may mean). I have some pretty strong views on doctrine and biblical interpretation. Scripture itself challenges us to “rightly divide the word of truth”. Even during the early church there were disputes about what constituted “the gospel” (see Galatians). So it is important to constantly be asking what a text means. But can I still approach scripture with a submissive attitude, asking the Bible to interpret me as I interpret it? A mirror after all, is a tool of evaluation. We use it to assess how we look with the purpose of doing something in response. Doing something in response to what one reads in Scripture is a central part of what I believe it means to be missional. May those of us engaged in seminary education never lose sight of our posture of humble submission as we approach God’s Word.  After all, isn’t obedience God’s love language? “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15).

 

Bryan Maier is an Associate Professor of Counseling & Psychology in the Counseling program at Biblical Seminary. He maintains a private practice with Diane Langberg & Associates

   

Page 16 of 24

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 22 October 2014 - by Dr. Dave Dunbar
Written on 20 October 2014 - by Philip Monroe
Written on 17 October 2014 - by Bryan Maier
Written on 13 October 2014 - by R. Todd Mangum
Written on 10 October 2014 - by R. Todd Mangum
Written on 08 October 2014 - by Stephanie Lowery
Written on 06 October 2014 - by R. Todd Mangum
Written on 03 October 2014 - by Stephanie Lowery
Written on 01 October 2014 - by Dan Williams
Written on 29 September 2014 - by R. Todd Mangum

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