A few people have asked me what I’m trying to get at with the whole notion of theological puberty.  It is okay for people to teach theology if they aren’t well studied?  How much study is enough?  etc., etc.  This isn’t really what I was driving at, but I guess I did imply these things.

I think for a long time I have, when in theological debate, used my own knowledge derived from formal study to beat people up instead of help them in the faith.  I appreciate it when my son starts explaining to me about how we ought to build a car that can go super fast.  I enjoy listening to his ideas about what it might look like and how it should be designed.  That doesn’t mean that I take him seriously, though.  Why should I expect to be taken seriously (from an academic standpoint) by those who have studied deep, academic theology far longer, harder, and deeper than I have, especially since I’m just beginning my education?
My own pursuit of academic theology has often led me to think more highly of myself than I ought, largely because I have been comparing myself with those around me and seeing myself as well educated.  Having taken a step back, it seems wise to compare myself against the all-knowing God, and thus see myself as quite small and, to be frank, quite foolish, uneducated, and stupid.  The theology that He has gifted me with even such a limited scope of understanding should not be used to win debates, but for the encouragement of those who hold to the Faith, and, in some cases, to defend the Faith once delivered (to refute heretics).  My own theological puberty has been rather tumultuous.  It has taken me awhile to learn that those who don’t know the truth as well as others do not, therefore, deserve to be battered by the truth.  To be sure, I don’t regret many of the times that I’ve stood against false teachings such as universalism, non-Lordship theology, open theism, etc.  But, I do regret the way that I’ve done so - acting like an expert when, in reality, I was an equal, or perhaps only slightly better educated that those I was debating with.  Furthermore, even when I have been in positions where I was far better educated than my detractors, I have not always done a good job exhorting in such a way as to bring repentance as much as I’ve used the truth to win arguments and make myself (in my own eyes, at least) look smarter and better educated than everyone else around me.

Part of what has happened in me is realizing that the very highest levels of academic theology really matter.  I can no longer reject such scholarship as a waste of time and not to be of any interest to the Church, much less “really mature Christians who are on fire and so busy trying to reach the world for Christ that we don’t have time to obey that part of the greatest commandment which says that we should love the Lord our God will ALL our minds.”  I have rejected the postmodern, falsely pietistic, unChristian, and even demonic and satanic notion that we don’t need theology, we just need Jesus.  (a brief aside: which Jesus?  oh, wait…to answer that question would be theology, and we don’t need that.  So, I guess the jesus of the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses is just as good as the orthodox Christ).  To say that we don’t need theology is a theology - its just a bad one.  So, I’m no longer intimidated by those who are far more well-read than I am, or better educated.  Instead of my Neitzschean messaih complex kicking in to discredit the others in order to maintain my own superiority, I’ve learned that the hand can never say to the foot, “I don’t need you…”

So, part of theological puberty is recognizing that you’re in it, and that there are people who are ahead, and people who are behind, and how to relate to each of those groups.

Now that I’ve thoroughly bashed myself, a few quick points:

There is nothing more annoying that listening to some adolescent punk with a know-it-all attitude.  When considering theology, this doesn’t change.  Just because I may have read a book, an article, or even a monograph or Ph.D dissertation on a subject does not make one an expert.  It’s okay to be small and listen to those who have been privileged to learn from the teachers that God has given to the church.  If you consider the internet, John MacArthur, or your pastor to be a legitimate authority on any theological subject, please don’t expect others to take you seriously.  You end up sounding like my 3 year old son talking about building super-fast cars.  If the academy doesn’t take something seriously, there is a reason for it.

Part of what makes theology done in simple faith (read before education and theological puberty) beautiful is that it doesn’t parade itself as learned, but acknowledges the limitedness of itself without decrying those more learned.  If this is you, celebrate innocence by learning and appreciating those who are better educated than you are.  Don’t reject them in order to make sure that you are seen as important, or for fear that you may lose influence, etc.

Lastly, not many of us should aspire to be teachers, for we know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness (James 3:1).  I truly fear the judgment seat for many of the things that I have taught.  God, who is rich in mercy, will forgive us all, who will repent and seek such forgiveness.  For me, much of that repentance has involved a change of attitude over the things I’ve taught, how I view myself (my “position,” if you will, especially in relation to those around me), and how I relate to those both more learned and less learned than I perceive myself to be.

A Little Exercise for Young Theologians - Helmut Thielicke

I wish someone had given this book to me about 3 or 4 years ago.  Weighing in at a whopping 41 pages, anyone can read it in one sitting.  Or, since each section is only 2 or 3 pages,  it makes for good reading when you only have 5 minutes.

A few great points to take from this:

1.) Theology should be doxological.  When it ceases to be done in the 2nd Person (prayerfully - to the LORD), and shifts to the 3rd person (about God), theology ceases to be what it should, and it ceases to fulfill its teleological purpose.

2.) There is such a thing as theological puberty.  In the same way that singing is beautiful both before and after puberty, theology is beautiful when done in simple faith, or when done by mature thinkers.  When people know just enough to sound like they know what they are talking about (that’s me), it’s best that they study more to know God more deeply before postulating answers to the great mysteries of the Faith.

The Best Game Ever
HT: BHT

I’ve been busy doing other things, and having a hard time thinking of things to write about.  Actually, I’ve got some ideas, but I’m trying to learn how to be more succinct in my posting.  I’m going to try to post some thoughts on reading the Bible in a distinctly Christian way, and also on why I’ve decided to do doctoral work in theological method.

And, if anyone cares, I’ll be updating the reading reviews from the works I’ve read over the last year.  I have no idea how long that will take, but hopefully the next few weeks will allow me some time to get things going back here.

I put in my two weeks notice last Wednesday; our house is on the market; we are having an open house tomorrow.  We are coming down to do some house hunting next week.  We are excited to move back closer to friends and family, but we will miss those friends we’ve made here in Oklahoma.

More to come…

I’m not generally a fan of Life Church, but these questions from the senior pastor of this “denomination” are worth taking time to read and consider.

10 questions every leader should ask 

Pia Desideria - Philip Jacob Spener

One of the things I like best about Dr. Caldwell is how much he encourages his students in Church History classes to immerse themselves in the primary texts of history.  Instead of relying on others opinions about the historical developments (theologically and ecclesiastically), he sets forth a reading list in his classes which include original literature.

Pia Desideria is not a book that I would have picked up on my own.  In fact, prior to this class, I had never so much as heard of Spener.  So, for those of you who are out there like me, here’s a brief description of him and his work.

Spener was one of the early voices of what became known as pietism.  He wrote concerning abuses in the clergy concerning sin (especially drunkenness) and sought to correct imbalances among ministers.  Many were more concerned with theological education than they were with holy living.  Unlike some of the later pietists who downplayed the importance of education, Spener believed very strongly in the formal theological education of ministers, but also sought to remind them that their calling was to more than books.

However, like many of the heroes of the faith, Spener was not without his errors.  As I’ve pointed out in other places, sacramental theology went too far among this heroic Lutheran reformer.  Spener sought not to reform the theology (as did his hero Martin Luther), but rather the practices of the church.  In advocating small groups and other ways that churches could promoted Christian maturity among their people, he did not abandon his strong conviction regarding baptismal regeneration (of infants).  This, along with a high view of the Lord’s Supper, he inherited from Luther.  Everything which follows is in no way modified, but rather is directly from Pia Desideria, in which Spener says,

“Nor do I know how to praise Baptism and its power highly enough.  I believe that it is the real ‘washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit’ (Tit. 3:5), or as Luther says in the Catechism, ‘it effects forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and grants’ (not merely promises) ‘eternal salvation.’”

Spener goes on to make equally strong statements concerning the Eucharist.

Why would I bother pointing these things out?  Just because I continue to be discouraged by fundamentalists who believe that everyone who fails to affirm every jot and tittle of their understanding of theology is damned.  In the circles that I run in, holding to baptismal regeneration (which I disagree with) makes the gospel that they preach unbiblical - even unChristian.  To call someone a heretic over these issues is to deny that Philip Jacob Spener (or Luther and many others) was a Christian.  I don’t think this is a position that is prudent to defend.

While we may disagree with many concerning the candidacy and efficacy of baptism, let us be charitable towards those with whom we see differently.

Paul: In Fresh Perspective - N.T. Wright

Last semester, I took a class on New Testament theology.  It was during this class that I learned that I’m more interested in theological method than I am in most of what people think of as theology.  There are a few categories that I still care deeply about (especially the doctrine of God and Christology), but if it isn’t a matter of orthodoxy, I probably won’t be spending the majority of my extra-curricular reading time there.

But that is exactly what is strange about this book.  I spend a lot of the extra time that I have wading through a book that deals with lots of issues that are not of principal importance to the academic work that I am focusing on.  Since biblical theology isn’t exactly my forte, I’ll be brief in this review.  Actually, I won’t review the book at all, other than to say that people will benefit from reading N.T. Wright.  I want to focus my comments on how others interact with Wright.

I am tired of hearing people who have never read N.T. Wright denounce Wright and his ideas.  It’s not that I agree with him.  To be clear, there is much with which I disagree with him.  However, I’ve learned that the issues are far more complicated that people make them out to be.  Just because you know someone who disagrees with one quote from one book written by N.T. Wright does not qualify you to speak to the issues Wright engages in his treatises.  It seems that evangelicals have created a subculture in which it is cool to hate what our heroes hate, even though we don’t know what we hate.  So, if you have things to say about N.T. Wright, or the new perspective on Paul, make sure that you take the time to read about these things before you speak strongly about such topics.  It isn’t helpful to have to correct someone in conversation when they mistakenly misrepresent someone and their ideas.  And, it’s getting really annoying to learn that they haven’t even read the scholars whose academic work they so fiercely loathe.

Folks, if we want to be taken seriously, we need to know what we’re talking about.  Failure to take the time to educate ourselves ought to include our holding our tongues on issues which we haven’t studied.  Let’s not continue the image of uneducated, lazy, arrogant, brash evangelicals who don’t know what they’re talking about.

Paradigm Wars: The Southern Baptist International Mission Board Faces the Third Millennium - Keith E. Eitel

Dr. Eitel is the professor of my missiology class. This particular book covers aspects of the history of the International Mission Board (IMB - formerly known as the Foreign Mission Board) of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). While I am not particularly interested in all of the historical data Eitel covers in this book, he did raise some issues that are interesting to me, and relevant to faithfully completing the Great Commission. That spoken, there are a few things with which, based on my limited understanding, I disagree with Dr. Eitel. But, before I dive into these, I want to couch my thoughts by stating that I am not an expert on missiology, nor am I incredibly well read on missions history among American Baptists. Nonetheless, I have read enough to know that there are a couple points with which I take issue with Dr. Eitel’s remarks, feeling that he has not sufficiently made the case for some of his conclusions regarding arguments he makes from history, nor has he adequately defended these views.

(more…)

Missiology: An Introduction to the Foundations, History, and Strategies of World Missions - John Mark Terry, Ebbie Smith, and Justice Anderson, editors

I read this anthology for a class. To be honest, I didn’t enjoy the book. Most of the information was a review for me. However, missiology is something that I find fascinating, and vital, not only to fulfilling the Great Commission, but to the Christian life in general.

While there was some new information in this volume, on the whole, I found it boring. I don’t think that I was bored because I knew most of the material. I think I was bored because the material was presented in a dry, boring way. I definitely recommend the Perspectives reader for a survey of missiology over this volume.