The Bible Was Written in Hebrew and Greek, But We Can Generally Trust Our Good English Translations

As we seek to understand the bible correctly we must remember that it was originally penned in Hebrew and Greek (and a little bit of Aramaic). While we don't need to be able to read Hebrew and Greek to comprehend scripture, it remains important that we respect how it was first put down on parchment.

This is part nine of my ten part series Church, Bible, and Interpretation - It's Not So Simple.

The original languages are important. This is because all languages have certain quirks and idiosyncrasies about them. All are unique. Additionally, languages change over time. For example, the Greek spoken in Greece today differs significantly from the Koine Greek of the New Testament. Because of these things the church needs a significant number of believers who can read and teach biblical Hebrew and Greek to the next generation. If for no other reason this is important for apologetic purposes. It would do great damage to the body of Christ if no one could say with certainty what the Greek and Hebrew mean.

I'm generally not a fan of seminaries (even though I attended a fairly good one). However, I am glad that most evangelical seminaries in this country strongly support the teaching of Greek and Hebrew. Many require classes in both. Until the church gets to the point of teaching Hebrew and Greek one to another we need seminaries to keep doing what they are doing.

The Reformer Martin Luther said the following:

We will not long preserve the gospel without the languages. The languages are the sheath in which this sword of the Spirit is contained; they are the casket in which this jewel is enshrined; they are the vessel in which this wine is held; they are the larder in which this food is stored; and, as the gospel itself points out, they are the baskets in which are kept these loaves and fishes and fragments….

I am exceedingly glad that I speak English. The reason I say this is that the bible has been translated into English in many good forms. We have an abundance of excellent translations, for example the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, NET, HCSB, ISV, and YLT. With modern technology it's even easy to compare translations by using a site like Bible Gateway. Because of all this we English speakers can feel confident that we know what the bible truly means even if we cannot read the original languages.

This brings us to another issue: the importance of bible translation into all languages. While we English speakers have lots of choices, some Christians around the globe have only one relatively poor translation or no translation at all. I encourage you to consider giving to those who spend their lives doing translation work; Wycliffe Bible Translators is a wonderful example.

One final thought: some of the English translations do not handle leadership issues well. Because many of those doing the translating are enmeshed in the institutional church framework they tend to translate in a way that gives pastors more authority than they actually should have. In my opinion this is the biggest weakness of many English translations. Therefore, if you are dealing with church leadership/authority issues, I highly encourage you to read multiple translations and consult numerous commentaries prior to coming to any significant conclusions/decisions.

To sum up: let's always remember that the bible was written thousands of years ago in Hebrew and Greek. Despite this, we can know what the bible means.

Straight Outta Seminary

SEBTS graduation circa 2006. Roy Sams, Alan Knox, and myself looking relieved.

"The Reformers and Their Stepchildren"

When I was in seminary I was required to read The Reformers and Their Stepchildren. Although the book interested me at the time, I didn't give it a great deal of thought because I was reading so many different books. It quickly faded into the background of my mind as I tried to ingest all sorts of other required reading.

I'm now far removed from seminary. My views on the church have changed dramatically since those years. I decided it was time to read this book again. I'm glad I did.

The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, written by Leonard Verduin in 1964, takes a fascinating look at the stark differences between the Reformers (such as Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin) and those who were called by various names such as "Anabaptist." Both of these groups had broken away from the heresies of the Roman Catholic Church. Both held a high view of scripture. Where the two groups differed was in their view of the church. While the Reformers largely took a Constantinian view of church, the Anabaptists believed the church should be free. This led to a massive rift.

The Anabaptists thought that each person in an area should be free to choose what he believed. This necessarily led to a composite society. The Reformers, seeking protection from the government, looked for a melding of church and state. Therefore, everyone in a given location was considered part of the church in that location. The Anabaptists wanted no part of this view. This led to severe persecution by the Reformers (and Catholics) toward the Anabaptists.

The Anabaptists were known by a wide variety of different names given to them by the Reformers and Catholics. Almost all of these were derogatory in nature (even the term "Anabaptist" was originally negative). Verduin entitled the various chapters in this book with these negative names; the chapters deal with different but related topics such as baptism, the Lord's Supper, and church-state relations. While the Reformers and the stepchildren held the same basic views of the gospel, it was their differences over the church that led to the problems.

This book is extremely well researched and detailed. At some points it bogs down a bit, but the large amount of information is needed because this book is a challenge to the Reformed view of both the Reformation and the Anabaptists. The author was forced, due to the resistance this book would face, to add a great amount of detail.

The interesting thing about this book is that, for most of us in the modern West, a free church is the norm. We cannot imagine anything other than a composite society. That was hardly the case 500 years ago. Back then the Anabaptists' hope for church life led to persecution, shunning, and death. They desired what we have.

This text is much more than a history book. It is living in the sense that the Anabaptists, or stepchildren, asked many of the questions about the church that we do today. The difference is that they often paid for it with their lives.

This book is worth your time.

Twelve Things to Know Before Attending Seminary

I have mixed emotions about seminaries (I've written about this a few times here, here, and here). Today's post is for those of you who are considering going to seminary. From someone who managed to graduate (by the grace of God) after four years of toil, here are twelve things, in no particular order, that you should know before taking the plunge:

1. Seminary is much harder on your family than it is on you.

You will find seminary to be a challenging time personally as you try to balance work, school, church, family, etc. However, you will also get to experience all the wonderful things of seminary. Classes and chapel will likely be very positive times. Your family, meanwhile, will probably spend most of their days in seminary housing, far from friends and family. Especially at first they will be very lonely. My advice is to take them to chapel and even the occasional class. Talk to your wife about the fascinating things you are learning. Also, when time permits, get involved in on-campus fun activities for family.

2. Be prepared to read - a lot.

I hope you like reading because you're going to be doing a lot of it. Get in the habit before you go. Just to help prepare your brain, you might want to begin by reading a good systematic theology like this one (I'm not kidding).

3. The original languages are the most important classes to take.

You can gain the vast majority of general seminary class knowledge you need simply by reading good books. However, just about the only way to learn biblical Hebrew and Greek is to take multiple classes in each of these. It will require a great deal of time and effort, but you will not regret it. My advice is to begin by taking Greek your first semester. Plan to take at least one language class every semester you are at seminary.

4. Seminary is pastor-focused.

Most seminary graduates intend to become professional pastors (by this I mean that they will work for a church that will provide them with a salary). Because of this, the atmosphere in general and the curriculum in particular are aimed at pastors-to-be. Additionally, most of the chapel speakers will be pastors who will aim their sermons at pastors-to-be. Just be prepared for this.

5. Preaching is viewed as the most important skill of the pastor.

At the seminary I attended, "preaching class" was seen by the students as the high point of the curriculum. Preaching is what takes place in every chapel. Throughout all that occurs on campus, preaching is thought of as the highest skill of the pastor. This is largely unquestioned (at least by the students).

6. You will have various types of missions opportunities.

I was privileged to attend a seminary that takes missions seriously. Because of this, there were almost constant missions trip opportunities. I was able to go on two trips while in school: one to West Virginia and the other to India. My advice is to take advantage of this if you can. Make every effort to go on at least one international missions trip. If you are married, make sure your wife gets to go, too.

7. Seminary does not take place of the church.

Due to time constraints there is a real temptation to think of seminary as a substitute for church life. This is dangerous. Seminary is largely about knowledge transfer. Church, however, is about mutual edification in Christ. Additionally, your family isn't attending seminary like you are. They probably need a church family even more than you do. Also, don't expect to find a church that is like the one you left back home. Instead, just try to find a place where you can help others grow (and where the majority of the church is non-seminarian).

8. You can grow closer to or farther from Christ.

As in any other time of life, your relationship with Jesus can deepen or grow weaker while at seminary. Taking classes about Jesus is not the same as walking in step with him.

9. Minor differences can easily get blown way out of proportion.

Both in class and out you will have many opportunities to engage in theological discussions with other students. Sometimes the finer points of theology start to seem too important. These can become dividing points when they never should be. Be careful to keep what's most important just that - most important. That is the gospel.

10. Pressure to adhere to the church institution is ever-present.

Institutional practices are ever-present because they are rarely questioned. If you do question them, be prepared to be given strange looks. Those types of questions are not generally welcomed. Interestingly, I found that professors were usually much more willing to question the institution than students were. Feel free to ask hard questions, but just be ready to be in the minority when you do.

11. Do not expect to be taught biblical ecclesiology.

This goes along with number ten. Because seminaries are part of the larger church institution, they cannot teach biblical ecclesiology. While in seminary I wondered why I wasn't required to take a specific class on the church. Now I know why. It couldn't be taught. Too many difficult and uncomfortable questions would arise.

12. Remind yourself over and over that you are not an expert.

After you take a few classes in Greek, church history, ethics, etc., you may be tempted to think of yourself as part of the biblical elite. This is Satan speaking through pride. Watch out (no joking here). We are all part of an equal priesthood of all believers. Those who graduate from seminary are no better in any way than other believers. I'm certainly no expert. Tell yourself repeatedly that you are just another believer. Nothing more and nothing less.


Finally, if you are considering attending seminary please be certain that it is one that embraces the gospel of Jesus Christ. Many seminaries no longer do. Also, find one that has missions as a central focus. Let me recommend a few American seminaries:

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Asbury Theological Seminary
Dallas Theological Seminary
Fuller Theological Seminary
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
Master's Seminary
Reformed Theological Seminary
Talbot School of Theology
Trinity Evangelical Divinty School
Westminster Theological Seminary

Additionally, more than a few excellent seminaries exist overseas. I cannot recommend any due to lack of knowledge on my part. However, I highly encourage you to research it. I've been told than an international seminary experience is like no other.

Expository Discussion

I have many fond memories of my time in seminary. One outstanding aspect of life at Southeastern was the constant challenge by both professors and friends to understand the meaning of the biblical text. We students were exhorted again and again to remember that the key is what the original author intended. This stands in stark contrast to the postmodern thought which permeates some churches today (the ideas that texts have no absolute meaning and that the reader brings meaning to the text).

At the seminary level, the first goal is to correctly understand the biblical text. The second is to preach that text in an expository manner. This simply means to explain the meaning of the text to those listening.

While I'm a big proponent of accurate exposition, I've rejected the traditional definition of preaching. Much more beneficial for the church is what we could refer to as expository discussion. This refers to a free-flowing conversation among a group of people seeking to accurately understand what God has said in the scriptures.

Expository discussion takes the best of expository preaching while rejecting the worst. It seeks to know what the original authors of the bible meant while doing so in a give-and-take setting.

Expository discussion is based in the idea that the church is a fully functioning priesthood of all believers. All Christians have the ability to read and understand what God has said. Some may be more experienced at this process, but all can and should participate.

Since all have the ability to read (or at least listen to) scripture and discuss it, the group dynamic is often a fascinating one. In a room with, for example, twelve people, the group can benefit greatly by what the Holy Spirit has to add through all twelve people. While the biblical text means one thing, the group has a way of seeing and describing that one thing is different ways. This helps all involved better comprehend both what God means and how they should respond to this.

A key in expository discussion is that all involved have the authority, under the direction of the Spirit, to say what they think the text means. Of course, there can occasionally be error which needs to be addressed. However, this is not the norm. Believers should be encouraged to add to the discussion. I've experienced many "A-ha!" types of moments listening to brothers and sisters simply describing what they believe a specific verse means. No one in the group has to wait for some outside expert to walk in and tell them what it really means.

I hope you are part of a small group of some type that functions in this way. It could be a home group, a Sunday School class, or simply friends getting together over coffee here and there. Regardless, expository discussion is deeply enriching. It never fails to challenge me. Almost every time I take part in it I see something new I'd never thought of before. This is not always comfortable, but it is beneficial.

Every Sunday our church family gets together. We are currently studying through both Genesis and Proverbs. Each week we discuss a chapter from both books. It never (literally) fails that someone says something that makes me think deeply about what I think I already know. I'm looking forward to this coming Sunday already. I hope you are as well.

Alan Knox and Me at Seminary Graduation 2006

I was looking through some old photos the other day when I came across these two. In the first, I'm hanging with my good friends Alan Knox (the famous blogger) and Roy Sams. This is taken just a little while after the ceremony.

In the second picture I'm receiving my diploma from President Akin of SEBTS.

As I think back on that time I continue to have such mixed emotions. I suppose that will never go away.

I made great friends, learned a lot about scripture, and got to travel to the other side of the world while in seminary. However, seminaries are not necessary for the church (only for the institution). The existence of seminaries actually perpetuates the clergy-laity divide.

In the end, I'm really glad for the friends I made while at SEBTS. I just wish seminaries didn't have the institutional side effects that they automatically do.

My Ten Favorite Blogs 2.0 (7 and 8)

The countdown continues:


8. Dave Black Online

Keeping with the seminary theme from yesterday, Dave Black's blog comes in at number eight. Dr. Black is a New Testament and Greek professor at SEBTS. I had the privilege of taking a class from him that focused on the gospel of Mark in Greek. Dr. Black is an interesting individual with a varied background. He was born in Hawaii, did his doctoral studies in Switzerland, and now lives on and runs an operational farm in rural southern Virginia. He is a prolific writer.

Dave's blog is as varied as his background. He writes on all sorts of things ranging from farming and gardening to surfing and the church. His greatest passion, however, is world missions. He and his wife visit Ethiopia a few times each year to both minister to Christians and witness to the lost. It is clear that the Great Commission is a driving force in Dr. Black's life.

Dr. Black just announced on his blog that he's going to soon be taking a break from blogging. I both understand and admire it. However, in my own self-interest I hope his blog break doesn't last too long.


7. Beyond Evangelical

Like Dave Black, Frank Viola has had a significant impact upon my life. The difference is that while I spent time with Dr. Black, I've never met Frank. Despite this, his influence has affected me deeply. This has come in the form of his writings. In glancing at my bookshelf, I realize that I've read seven of his books. Three in particular have challenged my thinking about what the church is and how it should function (Pagan Christianity?, Reimagining Church, and From Eternity to Here).

On his blog, Frank writes a good deal about both organic church life and personal spiritual growth. The specific topics are somewhat varied. Frank's writings are challenging because he asks hard questions and seeks biblical answers. If you are willing to think outside the evangelical box, then this is an excellent blog for you.

My Ten Favorite Blogs 2.0 (9 and 10)

And so it begins. The following are numbers 10 and 9 from my blog Top Ten List.


10. John Armstrong

John's blog is a fascinating and challenging one to me (you'll see that theme running throughout this entire list). This blog focuses explicitly and primarily on ecumenism within the church. John's desire is to see growing unity in the body of Christ.

I appreciate that John refers to himself as a "missional-ecumenist." He literally is on mission to foster increased dialog and resultant unity of the church.

I have mixed emotions about this blog. For the most part I loudly applaud John's work toward oneness of the body. However, I also think the author has a tendency to downplay significant theological differences between groups of Christians (for example Protestants and Catholics). That may be a bit unfair of me. It may be that because of John's emphasis on unity, it only appears that he minimizes what are real roadblocks to unity (such as different understandings of the gospel itself).

Much of the theological blogosphere focuses on differences within the church. My blog is certainly not immune to that. It is refreshing to read a blog where the main theme is unity. We would all benefit from more blogs like John's.


9. Between the Times

BTT is the official blog of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (where I attended). A first glance, the idea of a seminary blog might seem stuffy and boring. Some undoubtedly are. BTT is different.

The reason I like BTT is that it focuses a great deal on application. The main thrust at Southeastern is the Great Commission. Therefore, the authors at BTT (various professors) write a great deal about living out the Christian life in the world and carrying the gospel to the ends of it.

I also enjoy the fact that while BTT gets involved in SBC issues, it tends to take a balanced, level-headed approach. Unlike some other seminaries, jumping into in-house Southern Baptist fights is not a focus at BTT.

As with any other blog, I don't agree with all that is written at BTT (in fact, I only agree with this blogger all the time). However, for being a blog that is based in the institution, BTT dares to push the edges of the envelope at times. The authors do not give the sense of being locked in theological towers. Rather, they are clearly living in the real world.

If you have any desire to read a seminary blog, this is a good one.

Would I Attend Seminary All Over Again?

I attended Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary from 2002-2006. By the grace of God, I graduated with an M.Div.

I've asked myself lately: If I could go back in time, would I attend seminary all over again?

At some level this is a pointless question; what is done is done.  However, as I think about what I now believe about the church in general, I begin to wonder about seminaries.

As I think about my time at SEBTS, I can recall both the good and the not so good.

GOOD
We made wonderful friends
We were confronted with the need for worldwide missions
We went on a mission trip to India
I learned a lot more of the bible
I spent time with excellent professors
I was exposed to/learned some of the original languages

NOT SO GOOD
It is extremely difficult on the family
I did not see my family much for four years
We had to move away from family and church family
Once I graduated, I became "an expert"

Excellent Post on Hermeneutics

Dr. Daniel Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (my alma mater), has written an excellent and helpful two-part blog post dealing with biblical hermeneutics. Let's face it: this is a critical issue for all of us. If we cannot interpret the bible correctly, we are destined to run into serious trouble in our lives.

Below I've quoted four short paragraphs from the post that stand out to me as excellent points. I conclude with a fifth quote that, I believe, illustrates the struggles we all have in determining how to correctly interpret narrative and/or descriptive passages. Click here and here to read the post in full.

1.  "It is important to understand this principle: the individual words of biblical texts have meaning within sentences, paragraphs, and books. A word’s meaning is determined by its relationship to other words within the context of sentences and paragraphs."

What Would Happen if Seminaries Began Teaching Biblical Ecclesiology?

I loved my four years at SEBTS. I learned a great deal and was deeply impacted by professors, fellow students, and other friends. Although the time at seminary was stressful, I have no regrets about those four years.

As I think back on the classes I took, there is one aspect that was lacking: an in-depth study of what the bible has to tell us about church life. The church was more assumed than examined. We touched on it in almost every course, but we never studied it in detail. Even in Systematic Theology we only spent a few weeks on the church.

The question I've been pondering lately is this: What would happen if seminaries began teaching biblical ecclesiolgy?

By biblical ecclesiology, I'm referring to what the bible teaches us about what the church is and how it should function in the world. I'm talking about detailed study of every aspect of church life.

I'm not naive enough to think that everyone would come to the same conclusions about what the scriptures say about the church. For example, two well-intentioned Christians could read the bible and come to differing conclusions about baptism, the Lord's Supper, fellowship, leadership, community, missions, giving, polity, gatherings, worship, edification, etc.

Despite these differences, it could only be healthy for everyone in seminary (and all Christians for that matter) to take a long, hard look at what the bible tells us. So, keeping all this in mind, what would happen is seminaries began teaching biblical ecclesiology? I can think of then things:

1. It would generate healthy discussion.

One problem with evangelical seminaries is that everyone agrees on almost all the important stuff. Therefore, conversations often focus on minor details that don't really matter. Concerning church, a big area of discussion is music style. Can't we do better than that by talking about issues of substance? A study of biblical ecclesiology would spur this on both in and out of the classroom.

2. It would teach that asking tough questions and challenging tradition are acceptable.

If we ignore important issues then we will simply do what we have always done. It is far too easy, especially in denominational seminaries, to go with the flow of thought and not ask why we believe what we believe about critical issues. Tradition carries the day when we simply assume truth. A biblical study of the church would force certain uncomfortable questions to be asked and answered. It would also put some aspects of tradition in danger.

3. It would lead to better biblical interpretation.

An in-depth analysis of the church would teach how to study the bible in general. Tough questions would be asked such as, "Is this merely descriptive or is it also prescriptive?" Another key question is, "Is this passage unique to that culture or should we be doing that as well?" These sorts of issues get at the heart of biblical interpretation. This, in turn, would increase the interpretation skills of those involved in the discussions.

4. It would lead to an increased emphasis on community, edification, participation, and unity.

A study of scripture shows the importance of community participation in church life. We also see edification as the primary reason for gatherings. Unity is stressed in all things. Despite this, these aspects of church life are not generally stressed at the seminary level. A study of biblical ecclesiology would force these issues to the forefront.

5. It would lead to a decreased emphasis on the pastor and preaching.

Much time is spent in seminary focusing on two things: the pastor and his preaching. A study of scripture shows us that no one man is the focus of anything (other than Christ). Therefore, at least some of the emphasis on the pastor could be dropped from the curriculum.

As we study scripture we also see that the preaching of sermons did not take place in the early church. Therefore, this could be de-emphasized. In its place, the public proclamation of the word in the marketplace could be stressed.

6. Because of numbers 4 and 5, it would lead to significant changes in the seminary curriculum.

Some classes would remain basically the same (such as the original languages and church history). However, many others would have to change if the seminary was going to take biblical ecclesiology seriously. Such classes would include Expository Preaching, Pastoral Ministry, Pastoral Care and Counseling, Systematic Theology, Administration and Education, Evangelism, and Missions.

7. It would cause denominational difficulty.

Seminaries that are owned by denominations are in a bit of a tough spot. If they teach biblical ecclesiology, they will necessarily challenge at least some of the structures, traditions, and functioning of that denomination. I can't see that going over very well. Will any leadership within the seminaries have the backbone to challenge the powers-that-be? I don't know. Most likely the non-denominational seminaries will have more freedom in this area.

8. It would lead to an increase in church planting.

Many who study scripture to see what it says about the church come to the conclusion that the traditional model of the church cannot function as the bible describes (count me in this group). Therefore, instead of trying to battle for change within the existing structure, they plant new churches after the biblical model. I'm all in favor of this. With our country becoming increasingly secular, most lost people have no desire to visit any sort of church building. However, they are much more likely to respond positively to friendship and an invitation to a home. Church planting also costs very little, making it much more effective for reaching the lost here and overseas.

9. It would lead to an increased zeal for sacrificial missions.

The bible shows us a church that sacrificed to get the gospel to the lost. Will we do the same? This is a challenge for all of us - including me. If we are to take the biblical model seriously, we will do whatever it takes to get the gospel to all parts of the globe. One encouraging thing is that new church plants require so little money that these churches should be able to give much more toward international missions.

10. It might lead to a decrease in seminary enrollment.

I don't know about this one. On the one hand, some people might look in the scriptures, see no seminaries, and conclude that they shouldn't attend. On the other hand, others might be attracted to a seminary that actually dares to ask hard questions and encourage biblical answers about church life. So few seminaries do this that if one did it might see an influx in certain types of students.

In the end it can only be a healthy thing for seminaries to teach biblical ecclesiology. Right now I know of none that do so. Of course they may in specific classes related to church planting, but I'm referring to teaching it as part of the general curriculum.

As I have said, those taking classes (in biblical ecclesiology) would undoubtedly come to differing conclusions about these issues. That's fine and probably healthy. At least the issues would be raised, thought through, discussed, and debated. People would know why they believe what they believe about the church.

Let's pray that God will bring about these changes in our seminaries.

Random Thoughts for 10/13/10

These are some short, somewhat random (at least in order) thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head.

-Christians should be the nicest people in the world. That may not seem too deep theologically speaking, but it is true. I wonder why this so often is not the case.

-Job Fairs are good for making you humble. I attended one yesterday here in Savannah. I saw many people, including me, all hoping to land what amounted to jobs that weren't that attractive. I'm glad God is sovereign because if I have to rely on my own skills and abilities to get a job, I could be unemployed for quite a while. That could be part of God's plan, but if it is I know He will provide.

-I'm a sports fan. That's one of the reasons we got rid of our T.V. - so I wouldn't watch so much. Last night, via the internet, I saw something very thoughtful happen after the Texas Rangers defeated the Tampa Bay Rays to advance to the ALCS. Since one of their players struggles with alcoholism, the team decided to use Ginger Ale for their celebration instead of champagne. I realize that the whole thing of spraying one another with liquid is pointless, but it was nice to see a team alter what it normally does for the good of a teammate.

-This past Saturday we experienced a very small example of the Lord giving and the Lord taking away. We received an e-mail from a friend offering a Guinea Pig for free. We decided to accept the offer. This was a blessing to our daughter Mary who really wanted a pet she could play with. We had a Russian Dwarf Hamster, but it couldn't do much more than run in its wheel. It was not cuddly. Well, just before the Guinea Pig arrived at our house, we realized that the Dwarf Hamster wasn't moving. Simply put: it died. We buried it, and a little while later the Guinea Pig arrived. I think of it as an upgrade. We do see, however, that the Lord both gives and takes according to His perfect timing.

-If you suggest on Facebook - as I recently did - that Christian women should not wear bikinis and Christian men should not enjoy women wearing bikinis, watch out! While some people will heartily agree with what you have written, others will beat you up with "Christian liberty" and "Judge not lest ye be judged." Modesty has certainly become a thing of the past in most sectors of our society, including much of the church.

-In thinking through the issue of creation and Genesis chapters 1-2, it bothers me that the creationism issue has been framed by many as a "culture war" issue. I think it is actually bigger than that. I believe it is an issue of biblical interpretation itself. If we say that Genesis chapters 1-2 should not be taken literally (and I realize there is a little wiggle room in what this means), then where do we stop with this method of interpretation? A fair reading of the text suggests that God's actions are explained literally to us. If we reject this, what else do we reject? How far do we go in this? I believe it is impossible to reject a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 and then turn around and accept a literal interpretation of other key truths of the bible like the resurrection of Jesus. And if there is no resurrection, there is no salvation. We must be consistent in how we interpret scripture.

-Regarding simple church/house church life, one of the primary reasons I hear people reject the concept is that these same people "have seen it and it doesn't work." I've read and heard many variations on this same thing. Basically it boils down to the fact that these people have in their own experience seen house churches that have not worked (usually blown apart or fallen into false teaching). Therefore, they conclude, house churches cannot work in our culture and should not be trusted or attempted. This reasoning is problematic for one main reason: it doesn't involve the bible at all. The biblical model shows house churches. Do they have problems? Of course they do - they're made up of people. However, this remains the model. Therefore we should at least accept the idea of house churches existing. We must let scripture inform and lead our decision making instead of our own experiences.

-Yesterday I had a wonderful two-hour conversation with a friend of mine. He is heavily involved in institutional church ministry, but he is also open to simple church ideas. We don't agree on everything, but it was refreshing because he is willing to ask hard questions about the Christian life, including the church, and also try to find the answers. We are in agreement that the American church is in a desperate crisis of discipleship. We had a good time talking about ways to combat this problem. We certainly don't have all the answers.

-If you attend a Southern Baptist seminary, you will in general receive an excellent education. The best part will be your original language classes and your theology classes. The most disappointing classes will be those that mention the church but don't really deal with what the bible says about it. Regardless, if you plan to attend, go here.

-We are in a dangerous spot if we automatically avoid books that have been given a certain label by others. One of these labels is "emergent." For example, I've been told to avoid certain books "because they are emergent literature." The problem is that the word emergent has come to mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. My point is simply this: let's let the book stand on its own merits and not be afraid to read it just because of a subjective label someone else has given it.

-I just received this book in the mail. I'm looking forward to taking a while to read it (over 500 pages).

-Read this excellent post about how to write about those with whom you disagree.

A Change in Emphasis

When I began blogging in early 2007, we had just returned from South Asia. Our son Bobby was in the midst of chemotherapy treatments, and blogging seemed like a good way to talk about issues such as missions and suffering. These two topics were my two primary areas of interest for quite a while.

Over time, my emphasis gradually changed to where I was writing quite a bit about the sovereignty of God as it relates to not only salvation but also to all areas of life. I dealt quite a bit with Calvinism, Reformed Theology, The Doctrines of Grace, and the 5 solas. In part because I was raised in a Wesleyan-Arminian background, I now deeply cherish the truths of God's absolute sovereignty. These topics remain an interest for me, but they are no longer the primary focus of my blogging.

As is probably clear to all seven-or-so of you who regularly read this blog, I've changed my emphasis to a discussion of the church. While the above topics all relate in one way or another to the church, there is also much more to church life than those specific areas. In particular, I'm now frequently asking questions about why the church gathers, what we should do as we gather, what attitudes we should display when we gather, and what the purpose is of the gathering. Questions of this nature can seem annoying at times because they may cause us to squirm a bit, but in the end this is healthy.

What's the reason for the change in emphasis?

I suppose it stems from a combination of three things: A) attending a seminary where difficult questions related to the church are not generally asked or invited, B) being trained in international church planting and then living in South Asia for four months, and C) serving as pastor of a traditional SBC church for the past 2.5 years.

I enjoyed my time in seminary, but I remain a bit disappointed to this day in the assumptions the seminary makes about church life. The most cherished evangelical traditions (such as the big building, the salaried pastor, the worship service, the sermon, etc.) were almost never questioned.

After seminary, our family temporarily moved to Richmond, VA to attend missions training. We were instructed in international church planting methods. As we did this, we simply looked through the scriptures to see how churches were started and how they functioned. It was very refreshing. Tradition was discarded and scripture was allowed to speak.

This caused Alice and me to begin asking questions about why such a disconnect exists between churches here in the USA and churches being planted overseas. They almost looked like two totally different organisms.

After we returned from South Asia and survived chemotherapy, we believe God called me to serve as pastor of Chevis Oaks Baptist Church. I'm very grateful for the past 2.5 years. I have learned a great deal from my friends there, and I hope I have been a positive influence upon them. I have been a close-up witness to the good, the bad, the beautiful, the ugly, the exciting, and the hum-drum of church life. Overall, it has been a good experience.

These three factors (seminary, international missions, and traditional church life) have caused me to ask many questions and strive for biblical answers as they relate to the bride of Christ: His church.

I now desperately want to be a part of church life as is described in the bible. I'm not suggesting a return to first century culture, but I strongly believe that the scriptures have given us all we need for church life. This is what I desire to live out on a daily basis.

Alice and I are excited to be planting a church in our home within the next couple of months. We are not exactly sure what this will look like. We have had many people express interest in being a part of it. In fact, if everyone visits who says they would like to, we will immediately be at capacity (our house is average size - not big).

We desire to gather according to the biblical model: in homes, enjoying the Lord's Supper as a full meal, holding participatory meetings, with everyone of all ages being together. I want to be part of a thriving, growing, edifying church family that strives to be the church according to what the bible tells us.

What's the purpose in all this? The simple answer: God's glorification through mutual edification.