Just Call Me Jerome!

Well, I've 'cracked the LXX' in the month of May and will continue to do so throughout the month of June in preparation for my Septuagint seminar that meets first week of July. So, needless to say, I haven't been blogging for awhile and won't be for a bit longer (at least for this month). I'm up to my neck in translation work and readings. Languages! Whew... They take me a long time. I'm getting better at them, but still have so far to go. If you read this pray for me that I stay disciplined because translations are not very fun for me. I'm enjoying my assigned reading much better. I like concepts, big visual concepts and my reading provides me with that but the nuts and bolts of Hebrew and Greek... mmm... not so stimulating. Push ups and sit ups I tell you. It's good but fairly monotonous. I'm looking forward to being done with this phase of this class. But, all in all - extremely valuable stuff!

Well, time to get back to my cave and spend time with my scrolls. See ya in July!

Excited to Crack the LXX

My nose has been buried in end-of-semester projects for my Genesis class and now I'm all done. It was a good class, but I'm a little conflicted about exegesis courses. I loathe them and I love them. I loathe them because language courses boil down to be just 'push-ups and sit-ups'. They're flat out work... nothing particularly stimulating about them. I have to make myself pick up the work and do it. Then I love them cause I love the results of push-ups and sit-ups. I love knowing that I have taken another step in grasping the language the Bible was written in. Very valuable stuff even if it requires a couple quarts of blood per semester!

So I'm finally done with Spring semester and now we crank up another semester come May 7th. And guess what?! I'm taking another language course! Good grief, what am I doing? But I'm actually really excited about this. I'm taking a course on the Septuagint, otherwise known as the LXX. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures. It is also known as the LXX because that's the Roman numeral for 70; and it is said that a team of 70 translators came from Palestine to Alexandria to produce this monumental translation. It transpired roughly 250 years before the time of Christ. This is significant because a translation from one language to another will always reveal interpretive decisions. So the LXX shows us how the Jewish mindset was working before the Christian era and apparently it was very messianic. Later on, after the destruction of Jerusalem and in an effort to distance themselves from Christianity subsequent Jews began to change their interpretation of these messianic portions of Scripture to read more nationally or generically. But the Septuagint stands frozen in time and provides us with an insightful view of messianic expectation not long before the time of Jesus.

The Septuagint is also significant because the world into which Christ and the Church were born was a thoroughly Greek milieu. More and likely, the LXX was the Bible Jesus and his disciples read from. It was the Bible of the early church. And when the New Testament was finally inscribed it was written in Greek. So, in the New Testament, when the apostles quoted the Old Testament they would have done it quite naturally from its Greek counterpart, the Septuagint. Much of the terminology and theology of the NT comes to us directly from the LXX. Therefore it is a important link between the two covenants to study and understand. Not to mention the inception of the Apocrypha which emerged within the Septuagint and was retained within complete copies of Greek and Latin Bibles until the time of the Reformation.

Hohohoho, I'm excited to get into this stuff. Pray for me, as my professor says this may be one of the most demanding courses in seminary. But, by the end of the semester I should be nice and ripped from all these push-ups and sit-ups. So, here we go... eye of the tiger!

3 Schools of Preaching

Growing up I was really only aware of one kind of preaching and that was pentecostal preaching. This was how I thought preaching ought to be done. It was my only model. My childhood pastor's name was Brother J.D. Hurt and for the most part he was spontaneous and at times electrifying. Then I would listen to the likes of Kenneth Hagin, T.L. Osborn, Kathryn Kuhlman, and copious amounts of Kenneth Copeland. I went to Casey Treat's church for a stint. I enjoyed the preaching of men like Dutch Sheets and Carlton Pearson. And I salivated over the bombastic fare of T.D. Jakes. Each of these had their own distinct personality, yet all seemed to possess the pentecostal aura. These were the men and women who shaped and cast my imagination of preaching.

If I could give it a name, I'd call it... The Pentecostal School of Preaching

Then in 1998 I became aware of a distinctly different realm of preaching. I loved the worship music disc called Passion '98. It had songs like "Better is One Day" and "We Fall Down." I probably burned that disc to my psyche, ten times over. I absolutely loved, well... the driving passion behind it. Then, I started hearing about the Passion Worship Conferences and would listen to some of their speakers. I quickly discerned they were cut from a different cloth. I listened to guys like Louie Giglio and John Piper for the first time and really appreciated what they were doing. They seemed to choose one main text for their sermons, instead of resorting to many small ones throughout. Then since coming to seminary I've been more fully acquainted with others in their camp. Men like Tim Keller, Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Bryan Chapell are the main proponents and avow a high regard for a Calvinistic world view. All have their own personalities but all share many common distinctives.

This I would call... The Reformed School of Preaching

And then if that weren't enough, just this year, I stumbled upon yet another major camp of preachers! I guess you can call them the Mainliners. I discovered these guys through the writings of Will Willimon. This guy loves preaching and has some excellent things to say about it. So to get a flavor for how he preached I did some snooping around on Youtube, Amazon, and looked up some of the citations from Willimon's books to discover the major voices in these pulpits. I listened to preachers like Henry Craddock, Walter Brueggemann, Thomas G. Long, and Barbara Brown Taylor and read their views and I asked myself, "does the learning never end?" As I viewed their preaching I was struck with a different sense. Their sermons weren't long; I'd actually call them homilies. They were heavily story driven, thought provoking, and certainly had their own vernacular.

And I'd call this... The Mainline School of Preaching (Possibly even the Narrative School).

And the following have been some of my general observations of these somewhat distinct schools. I find the distinctions fascinating and even instructive. And again, these are just generalizations. Many preachers represented in each 'school' can be the exception and have their own style.

Common Approach:
Pentecostal: Spirit-led
Reformed: Expository
Mainline: Narrative

Valued Feature:
Pentecostal: Anointed
Reformed: Well-prepared
Mainline: Applicable

Prevailing Theme:
Pentecostal: The Presence of God
Reformed: The Glory of God
Mainline: The Justice of God

Driving Motivation:
Pentecostal: Revival
Reformed: Reformation
Mainline:  Liberal - Morality / Neo-Orthodox - Imagination

Social Constituency:
Pentecostal: Mid to Lower Class
Reformed: Middle Class
Mainline: Mid to Upper Class

Ethnic Constituency:
Pentecostal: Interracial
Reformed: Strongly Caucasian
Mainline: Predominately Caucasian

Desired Outcome:
Pentecostal: Altar Call Ministry
Reformed: Teaching
Mainline: Sacrament

Typical Length:
Pentecostal: 30-40 minutes (up to 60 if things are really cranking).
Reformed: 50-60 minutes
Mainline: 20 minutes

Features I personally appreciate and deem worth emulating from each school:

Pentecostal: Obviously, I'm of a Pentecostal persuasion, so I resonate most with the core theology. Love the power and urgency of Pentecostal Preaching. Love the willingness to flow with the Spirit.

Reformed: Love the erudition of Reformed pulpits. They love theology and history. And I LOVE expository preaching!

Mainline: These are typically highly literate people. I love their regard for words and their use of stories. Jesus came a tellin' stories and they do it better than any school around.

I'll add more as I think of them... and please share any that I've left off.

Learning the Biblical Languages

I've been off line for awhile as I've tried to finish up some end of the semester projects. I'm currently taking an exegesis course on the book of Genesis. And let me tell ya, Hebrew exegesis is a painstaking process. I will probably never drill this deep on a regular basis, but, hey, at least I'm leaning how to do it well! 

I've decided that learning biblical languages is like eating vegetables. Veggies never call out your name. When I open the fridge and have that choice between a frosted cupcake and a bag of carrots, I'm never reaching for the carrots, unless that is, I make a conscious effort to do so. Eating carrots and learning biblical languages are not very exciting, but man, are they good for you! I guess the excitement comes when you see the results. Actually getting the hang of it is reward in itself. And I never thought learning Hebrew would give me such a sense of the culture, and help me make connections I wouldn't have otherwise made. I'm finding it helps me read the translations better as well. But, to be able to read the Bible in it's native tongue is really quite a treat and adds something to the experience that you just don't get otherwise. It's kinda like having an Italian dish in America. It can be awesome. The Bible can be that in any translation. But then imagine having an Italian dish in Rome, with all of it's accoutrements. Mmm mmm mm. It's just a richer experience. More costly for sure, not necessary I suppose, but richer nonetheless. And even if I can't stay in Rome all the time, it can at least enliven my sense of Italian food here in America.

Some Thoughts on Spiritual Disciplines

This is my last installment of thoughts from Hansen's book on The Art of Pastoring. On pages 104-7, he addresses what we typically call the spiritual disciplines. In this section, he specifically handles prayer and our approach to it. I find it helpful because I think it's very easy to fall into prayer as duty and Bible reading as obligation. We call them the 'disciplines' and to some extent they are. But if it only amounts to discipline, then I think the focus can quickly skew into the ugly beast of human performance. And that beast can either suck the life right out of it and/or puff us up with a sense that we are spiritually on top of our game. When the 'disciplines' get too rigid, I think it quickly turns into performance. A religious performance. And when we perform well, we feel great. But, when we don't, we get entangled with a spirit of condemnation. So instead of turning to Scripture because of desire or need, we turn to it out of relief-seeking compulsion. We need to release pent up guilt. This is a heavy cloak and it inhibits the joy of a free meeting with the Lord. Obviously discipline has to be apart of it, but only a part. I have searched for better ways of expressing and viewing what we, as Christians, do on a regular basis without placing too high a premium on the performance aspect. So I appreciate Hansen's thoughts in this regard.

If we let go of our assumption that we know when to pray, and let God's presence draw prayer out of us, prayer becomes free and even friendly. The friend does not demand that we speak; the friend creates space so that we may speak. 

I don't plan the prayer. God's listening draws it out, the Spirit directs it.

Ah! I like this cause Hansen paints a picture of a God who is in the drivers seat. He is my sanctifier, not me, not my efforts, not my discipline or impressive showing. The Lord gets the credit because He does the bulk of the work. He is the spontaneous initiator. He draws me, confers dignity and freedom up me, and creates space. This type of gentle and patient care makes responding a delight, not an obligation or performance.

This is not to say that discipline and planning never play a part in our relationship with God, but the quality of our relationship should never be taken for our good showing. Often times I think He upsets slots and lists just to get things away from being so regimented. Relationships must move beyond that. He has to have the freedom to interrupt our busy schedules. And I believe He confers an amazing freedom to us. And it's that freedom that maintains the fresh-air thrill of meeting with God. 

.

This reminds me of a devotional I read some time ago by Oswald Chambers. I still find it very releasing and encouraging to my life today.

When we first begin to form a habit, we are fully aware of it. There are times when we are aware of becoming virtuous and godly, but this awareness should only be a stage we quickly pass through as we grow spiritually. If we stop at this stage, we will develop a sense of spiritual pride. The right thing to do with godly habits is to immerse them in the life of the Lord until they become such a spontaneous expression of our lives that we are no longer aware of them.

Your god may be your little Christian habit— the habit of prayer or Bible reading at certain times of your day. Watch how your Father will upset your schedule if you begin to worship your habit instead of what the habit symbolizes. We say, “I can’t do that right now; this is my time alone with God.” No, this is your time alone with your habit.

Love means that there are no visible habits— that your habits are so immersed in the Lord that you practice them without realizing it. If you are consciously aware of your own holiness, you place limitations on yourself from doing certain things— things God is not restricting you from at all. This means there is a missing quality that needs to be added to your life. The only supernatural life is the life the Lord Jesus lived, and He was at home with God anywhere.

How Calvinism can lead to Universalism

First of all, what is Universalism? Basically, it's the belief that all sinful humanity will be accepted and forgiven by God in the end and go to heaven. Universalism is the denial of hell for mankind, a denial of a conscious eternal torment. All people, either in this life or the next, in this system of belief will eventually be reconciled to God.

And David Hansen in his book, The Art of Pastoring, shares his intriguing journey into and out of the belief of Universalism (while pastoring a church, no less!). This section (pp. 84-89) is a great read, chock full of insights. However, I'll let him share some of his conclusions, some of his main take aways. I think they are certainly worthy of some reflection.

• "Universalism relieved some of my theological tensions, but it made my ministry frivolous, pointless."
• "...There's something about eliminating the God of judgment that makes us into judges. When I gave up on a God of vindication, I became my own self-appointed vigilante."
• "All I could say was 'We should.' I lost the ability to say "You must." Since in the end it didn't really make much difference how people lived, it didn't make much difference what I preached, or if I even preached at all.
• "Jesus, the greatest teacher of love in human history, time after time boldly and blatantly used escape from hell as a motivation for moral living... The resurrection of Jesus is, among other things, God's specific vindication of Jesus' earthly life and teachings... We cannot repudiate Hell without altogether repudiating Christ."
• "It had been my belief in predestination that made me initially question the existence of hell in order to relieve the unbearable tension of double-predestination."

 I will admit that the proposition of hell being eventually emptied is an attractive idea. But, I just don't see it in scripture. Do I want to? Yes. Do I? Not unless I use a fancy pair of scissors. It's there and it's hard to avoid. However, I do believe that in the end we will be much more astonished by God's mercy and grace, than we are of His judgement.

I find it interesting, however, that it was the doctrine of predestination that started Hansen down this path in the first place. A belief that God determines people's eternal destiny. If God determines who will be among the elect, then that means He also must determine who's not. And He does this from before the foundation of the world, before He created them. So there are people created for mercy and some who are not? Follow this logic long enough and you can see how it created some major tension for Hansen (and does for many others). A major case of cognitive dissonance, in my opinion. And in an effort to relieve this, Hansen opted for Universalism. Because Calvinism and Universalism are compatible only in the sense that both systems purport a God who alone determines people's fate. Man has no say regarding his destiny in these systems. And if you want to believe in a good and loving God, then how could you opt for Calvinism, a system that extends no mercy to some people? I'm not trying to create a caricature, but I'm assuming this is what Hansen (a Calvinist pastor) wrestled with. He eventually resolved it and remained a Calvinist, but the best of what I could determine from his book is that he did it by appealing to mystery.

There are many roads  to Universalism, most of which would be considered liberal. But, I find it fascinating that Calvinism, for all of its defense of Orthodoxy, could also contain a portal way into this system of belief.

The Grammar of Pastoral Prayer

I'm finishing up blogging through my thoughts on David Hansen's book The Art of Pastoring.  And in the section called A Grammar of Pastoral Prayer, Hansen likens the pastor's prayer to that of a parent. He says, "Parents don't have to pray fair." Wow. Isn't that the truth! He says, "Don't qualify every request with 'Thy will be done.'" Because Hansen says that parenting is "unashamed advocacy" and that pastoring is too. When our children are sick, for instance, we're like, "Heal them, Lord!" We skip right over the "Lord, if it's Your will" part, and go right for the imperatives because our child needs an advocate. That's not arrogant prayer, that's just love. That's our right as a parent and it comes quite naturally. Our prayers begin with the imperative and stays there until the heart is emptied. That's our job because that's our child. And not to speak in patronizing terms of any member of a church (they're not a child), but they too need an unflinching advocate! Surely who wouldn't? Somebody who will go to bat on their behalf without reservation or apology. God is not put off by such prayer, for these are the types of pastors He raises up. Men and women who have enough nurture to stand in the gap and advocate in times of trouble. Abraham did it. Moses did it. Paul, Jesus, you name it. This is the grammar of pastoral prayer. I love it.

Hansen continues,

They must advocate urgently and vehemently and allow God to deal with their prayers as he will... they hurl God's promises at him in their prayers. This intercession is deeper than the prayers we pray for ourselves. Parents pray for their children with a love that is simple and unqualified. Pastoral prayer is persistent, argumentative, importunate. Pastors pray insistently and never give up."

(p. 111). Kindle Edition.