Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem

In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, B. Demarest defines systematic theology as, "The attempt to reduce religious truth to a coherent and relevant whole for the church."[1] This definition is okay, but I think Grudem boils it down to a practical explanation when he repeats the definition of his former professor, John Frame, writing, "Systematic theology is any study that answers the question, 'What does the whole Bible teach us today?' about any given topic."[2]  And then Grudem, a seminary professor at Phoenix Seminary,  sets out to cover a wide breath of topics in his book, Systematic Theology.

There are many books on systematic theology, some even with the same title, but few are as popular today as Grudem's.  In simple writing that is easy to understand and laid out in a logical format, Grudem explores the issues of biblical doctrine.  Taking them on one-by-one, a student of the Bible can gain a good grasp of the larger doctrines and teaching of the Bible.

Systematic theology generally asks, "What does the entire Bible say about this?"  In addition to his own scholarship, Grudem offers plenty of Scripture in his attempt to answer many questions about doctrine.  In my systematic theology courses, I was not required to purchase Grudem's book, but I often found it offered insight that the other texts didn't seem to shed light upon.  It also serves as a great starting point when diving into the study of a particular doctrine, issue, or question, but if I am going to be fair, I don't think it should be the only theology book on your shelf.  (I do however, believe it will be the one most used.)   

Not too long ago, I stumbled across a podcast from Scottsdale Bible Church in Arizona, where Dr. Grudem taught doctrine to a Sunday school class.  In 118 one-hour sessions, Grudem teaches classes that follow the table of contents of his book.  Together with the book, I don't think there is a better free education on systematic theology available today.  I highly recommend it.   

To subscribe to or download Wayne Grudem's 118 audio lectures he uses to walk through his book, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, click here


1. Walter Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker reference library. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001), 1162.  

2. Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 21.

*I have no material connection to this book or the Scottsdale Bible Church Podcast.

Army Chaplain: Worship, Counseling, Visitation, and Wartime Readiness

             Just before entering the Promised Land, Moses preached to the Israelites in Arabah.  Among Moses’ many directives were instructional laws for warfare.  He said, “And when you draw near to battle, the priest shall come forward and speak to the people and shall say to them, ‘Hear, O Israel, today you are drawing near for battle against your enemies: Let not your heart faint.  Do not fear or panic or be in dread of them, for the LORD your God is he who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies, to give you victory” (Deut. 20:2-5, ESV).  Priests spoke first, then the commanders.  At Jericho, the priests blew the trumpets that led the people to shout and bring the wall down (Josh. 6).  These are but two examples of how God used priests among the Israelite warriors.  The chaplains of the modern American Army are not used in the same manner as the Israelite priests, but they still play a vital role to the force through offering worship services, counseling, visitation, and wartime readiness preparedness.  

            The mission of the Army Chaplaincy, in part, is to “Provide religious support to America’s Army across the full spectrum of operations” (U. S. Chaplaincy Corp 2009, Sec 2:1).  It is for this reason that the chaplain prepares worship services in both peace and wartime, in the garrison and on the battlefield.  On occasion, the chaplain must work outside what would be considered typical for clergy.  Rabbi Max Wall serves as a great example, having provided an Easter service in Bavaria at the conclusion of World War II (Bergen 2004, 210-211).  Indeed, in an Army rapidly growing more religiously diverse and serving in atypical missions throughout the world, the ability for a chaplain to remain flexible without violating his or her own religious tenants is paramount. 

            In recent years, counseling has moved up to a top priority of the chaplain corp.  Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey Jr. says,
After seven years of continuous combat however, our Army is out-of-balance.  The stress on Soldiers and Families has had an impact across the force.  Yet our Values remain non-negotiable.  Precisely for this reason, the Chaplain Corps’ mission of providing spiritual, moral, and ethical counseling is critically important (U. S. Chaplaincy Corp 2009, Sec 1:i).
In an effort to keep “spiritual, moral, and ethical counseling” in a position of high importance, the Army Chaplaincy Strategic Plan 2009-2014 requires the strengthening of existing support programs and the creation of more of them; in addition to recruiting higher caliber chaplains and opening more opportunities for soldier and family counseling.  Chaplains regularly find themselves counseling wounded warriors and their families, soldiers transitioning out of the Army, and career soldiers enduring multiple extended deployments.  Suicide rates are higher among soldiers than the rest of the population, and chaplains are serving on the forward front in efforts to prevent future suicides as well as other physical, mental, and spiritual hardships of the suffering soldier.

            Finally, to accomplish the first two primary areas of the Army chaplaincy—worship and counseling—the chaplain must put a greater effort into visitation.  It is the ministry of presence that allows the chaplain to serve the soldier’s needs, psychically, morally, and spiritually.   Hospital visits are just as important as meeting each solider on the battlefield as is time with the troops in garrison and training.  Presently, the chaplain must go to the soldier, no matter where his or she is, because it is becoming increasingly unlikely that the soldier will come to the chaplain.

            And through out all of the chaplain’s efforts, the reality of war must remain in the forefront of planning and training.  Not only must Army chaplains help prepare soldiers and their families for wartime, they themselves must be ready.  The Army Chaplaincy Strategic Plan 2009-2014 has come to realize that chaplains too must be ready to go anywhere in the world at a moment’s notice, at any time.  Without a doubt, in the face of a changing world, the Army chaplaincy must be changing too.



Reference List
Bergen, Doris L. The Sword of the Lord: Military Chaplain from the First to the Twenty-First Century.  Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame, 2004.


U. S. Army, Chaplain Corp. 2009.  The Army Chaplaincy Strategic Plan 2009-2014. http://www.chapnet.army.mil/ (Accessed February 28, 2009)


*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website. 


Holy Bible: Mosaic (NLT)

A couple of years ago, I was approached about contributing to a project that wanted to create something the editors were calling a "meditative Bible."  The idea, if I understood it correctly, was to produce (or find) a series of content that on it's own would be interesting, but when collected with other related material would point to a theme and offer something the reader could ponder, pray on, and contemplate throughout the week.  Each piece would be like the single stone or pottery shard of a mosaic, but when collected together, would create a picture of the Divine.  The result of this project is Holy Bible: Mosaic, published by Tyndale House and bound together with the New Living Translation (NLT) of the Holy Bible.

Holy Bible: Mosaic is really two books with one binding.  The front section is the meditative material, which I'll get to in a moment.  The remainder of the book, over 1,300 pages is the Bible.  It's the New Living Translation and free of intrusive notes (other than an occasional footnote), study material, or factoids as are found in other devotional Bibles.  There are however, markers and a page number in the side margins to indicate additional material in the front section of the book that is related to or inspired the mosaic work.  The last portion of this section of Holy Bible: Mosaic includes a basic Hebrew/Greek dictionary and an index, along with a concordance.  It's also worth noting that the pages are a different type of paper so there is no confusion as to what is the duel-authored Word of God and what is the material we assembled for the meditations.

The other section, which is bound in the front portion of the book, has a page numbering system distinct from the biblical material and is printed on a different color page-- more of a cream color, heaver paper.  It is this material that makes Mosaic different from other study or devotional Bibles.  This section is organized by weeks, with themes following the Church calendar (it is not strictly Church calendar material; the calendar simply servers as a way of selecting themes).  Each week includes a colorful selection of art, a suggested Bible reading, quotes, poems, hymns, and a contemporary essay written by a living Christian.  Within the front section, every century of Christianity from every naturally inhabited continent is represented.

The incredible thing about Mosaic is the diversity of Christ followers that can be found with its pages. Some names are more recognizable early classics like Clement I, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Ambrose, and Augustine.  And of course there are quotes from guys like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, William Tyndale, John Owen, and John Wesley.  Some of the more recent writers include E. M. Bounds, Nathaniel Hawthorne, John Charles Ryle, Karl Barth, C.S. Lewis, Martin Luther King Jr., A. W. Tozer, and even Mark Driscoll, Dan Kimball, and Donald Miller.  And then some of the contemporary contributors, with names you might not recognize, include Jay Blevens, Jordan Green, Beyth Hogue, Tom Fuller, Sarah Cunningham, Ruth Tuttle Conrad, Mark Miller, and Derek Williams.

This book is full of poetry, art, and thoughtful prose, and all of it is inspired by Scripture and the magnitude of God.   If you'd like to learn more about Holy Bible: Mosaic, please visit www.HolyBibleMosaic.com.

*Amazon purchases from this site help support the ministry of SaltyBeliever.com.  Purchase Holy Bible: Mosaic here.  

Planning Your Preaching by Stephen Nelson Rummage

Critical Book Review
Of
Planning Your Preaching by Stephen Nelson Rummage

Bibliographical Entry
 Rummage, Stephen Nelson. Planning Your Preaching: A Step-by-Step Guide for Developing a One-Year Preaching Calendar.  Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2002.

Author Information
            Stephen Nelson Rummage is the author of two books—Praying With a Purpose: a 28-Day Journey into an Empowered Prayer Life, which he co-authored with his wife, and Planning Your Preaching: a Step-by-Step Guide for Developing a One-Year Preaching Calendar, which is the subject of this review.  Rummage was ordained to the ministry in 1991 and has served as Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church in Cary, North Carolina, Hickory Baptist Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, and most recently at Bell Shoals Baptist Church in Brandon, Florida.  His undergraduate degree was granted from University of North Carolina in Greensboro and he holds a Masters of Divinity from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and a Doctorate in Philosophy in Preaching from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.  In addition, Professor Rummage has held teaching positions at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and presently at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.  He and Michelle—his wife of 18-years—have one son.[1]   

Content Summary
             Stephen Rummage has not set out to write a ‘how to develop a single sermon’ book; but instead, he shares, “how all of your preaching can fit together into one cohesive plan so that your pulpit ministry can grow in its effectiveness” (p 13).  Because Rummage believes that great sermons are not single events, but a collection of many planned events, he writes Planning your Preaching with the purpose to “help pastors put together a quarterly, six-month, or yearly schedule for what they will preach” (p 14).  He writes to a reader who is presently serving in the pastorate and planning a Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and a mid-week sermon; however, the material is easily adaptable to fit a different combination of service planning.

Sadly, it is necessary that Rummage must open his book with an argument for advanced planning on what one will preach, and even how a preacher should preach.  Preaches are, according to Rummage, to preach biblically, consistently, persuasively, and patiently (pp 18-21).  And using Scriptures, examples, illustrations, and logical arguments, Rummage lays out a convincing argument for the advance planning of sermons and sermon series.  Finally, he is able to move on to the next chapter, where any preacher who has picked up this book wants to start—determining a preaching strategy.  Covering the foundation of the planning process, subjects such as style of sermon delivery (notes vs. no notes, for example), understanding the needs and demographics of the congregation, and determining the objectives of the preaching are handled in the second chapter.  Once this is understood, Rummage instructs preachers to pack up their calendars, some reading materials, and study Bibles and go somewhere, alone, to construct a preaching plan for a year.  At this planning retreat the preacher will determine which series he will work though, with a distinction being made between thematic series and book series (p 66).  Rummage makes a strong case for expository preaching, be it verse-by-verse through an entire book, parts of a book, or even selected passages from each chapter of the book.  In any case, work must be done to determine how that will look and Chapter 4 provides the nuts-and-bolts of this kind of preparation.
Chapters 5 and 6 deal with the Ordinances and special days, respectively; and Chapter 7 addresses planning for doctrinal preaching.  Chapter 8 opens the door for pastoral preaching, that is, on a topic rather than what is customarily understood as expository (although Rummage argues that pastoral preaching can be expository preaching with the right motives (pp 169-171)); but, Rummage warns, “If a pastor plans his preaching around addressing personal problems in his congregation, he will have a tendency to preach on what people want to hear rather than what God wants to say” (177).

In what this author believes is the most fascinating chapter, Chapter 9, Rummage addresses the use of the Christian Year and the lectionary.  While this chapter is not necessary to the main theme of the book, and many preachers might be tempted to pass over it, Rummage provides some material that if used in sermon planning, can infuse interesting ideas that are not well known or understood in today’s Evangelical churches.  “During the past several decades,” argues Rummage, “a new interest in the Christian Year has developed, even among churches that had once eschewed its use” (p185).  This being the case, Rummage provides some tools to successfully using the Christian Year and a lectionary.  And Chapter 10 closes the book with how to put the preaching plan into action.   


Evaluation
             Generally being overly critical of how-to books that lay out a specific plan for doing anything in the ministry, I actually found this book extremely helpful.  Planning your Preaching, served as the guide to my first attempt to plan a year of sermons.  I am extremely happy with that plan and Rummage’s guidance deserves the bulk of the earthly credit.   The book is well written and Rummage provides enough explanation to make his points but does not overwork the obvious.  His experience pours from the pages, yet, he does not simply fall back to it; rather, he provides logical information that is not depended upon the experience of only one preacher.  If there were any change that might improve the work, it would be the removal of the first chapter.  Much of the first chapter serves to argue and support the idea of planning expository preaching; however, anyone taking Planning Your Preaching up to the counter and shelling out cash for it, does not likely need to hear these arguments.  On the other hand, as an assigned reading, the chapter does make for a nice opener for any student that may not agree with Rummage or planning a one-year preaching calendar.


              Planning Your Preaching is not only a helpful tool for preachers, novice and experienced alike, it is valuable for the soon-to-be preacher.  In fact, those just entering the pastorate would be well served to get started on the right foot.  Keeping a copy of Planning Your Preaching on a nearby shelf in the office is a great start.  Taking it with them on a planning retreat is even better!



     [1] Bell Shoals Baptist Church, “In Transition: From the Search Committee” PDF brochure attachment, http://66.132.241.194/pages/page.asp?page_id=57582 [accessed October 18, 2009].


*I have no material connection to this book.  This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website. 


Morality: The Chaplain is On Point

             As I'm getting closer to raising my right hand and re-entering the Army as a chaplain candidate, friends and family with little military background or understanding have asked what a chaplain does.  As I share my understanding of the answer with them, there is a bit of a surprise.  It seems many people feel the chaplain is just in the Army for the Sunday service and funerals.  It's much more.  I wrote a brief discussion on this for a chaplain course in seminary and felt it might be insightful.  
 
          The United States Army has every expectation that its personnel will act with high integrity and moral fortitude.  However, both of these terms are ambiguous and somewhat undefined by the military.  How then is a soldier, noncommissioned officer, or commander to know what is required of him, her, or the unit?  To assist in this area, the Army has placed some of the responsibility with the chaplain.

            Of the seven Army Values, two specifically deal with morality: Integrity and Personal Courage.  The definition of integrity, according to the Army, is, “Do what’s right, legally and morally” (GoArmy.com 2009); personal courage means to, “Face fear, danger or adversity (physical or moral)” (GoArmy.com 2009).  A third Army Value is Respect, instructing soldiers to “treat people as they should be treated” (GoArmy.com 2009).  Another example of the need for interpretation of morality includes the Noncommissioned Officer’s Creed, which states in part, “I will not compromise my integrity, nor my moral courage” (NCOCorps.net 2009).  Yet, these values and creeds don’t go into any further detail as to what is morality.  Because most people believe that morality find its roots in religion, it only make sense that the chaplain would be the person to teach the soldiers and advise command on it. 

            The chaplain is a staff officer, and as such, has “direct access to the commander” (AR 165-1, 4-5a 2004, 8).  In addition, Army Regulation dictates that, “Chaplains will advise the commander and staff on matters of religion, morals, and morale” (AR 165-1, 4-5a 2004, 8).   Therefore, it is safe to assume that the chaplain is expected to be the interpreter of situational events dealing with morality.  Commanders and soldiers alike should be able to approach the chaplain for moral advise, but in order for the individual to trust the chaplain, the chaplain must be credible, him or herself living a life of example in the areas of morality, integrity, and respect.

            In addition to being an advisor, the chaplain is also a watchdog.  Anne C. Loveland explains the chaplain’s moral and humanitarian responsibilities:
The chaplain manuals issued in 1984 and 1989 extend the chaplain’s purview to include illegal, immoral, or inhumane practices during combat.  Not only was he supposed to aid the commander in preventing such practices, but he also was specifically directed to report to him possible violations of the laws of war, as well as such practices as ‘dehumanizing treatment of friendly troops, enemy prisoners of war (EPW), or civilians; violations of codes of morality; illegal acts, desecrations of sacred places, and disrespect for human life (Bergen 2004, 242-243).
Anne Loveland’s statement clearly points out that the chaplain is not simply a provider of Sunday services or an administer of the sacraments.  The chaplain is also expected to provide advice to soldiers and commanders regarding the morality of their actions and behaviors.  And when soldiers and commanders exercise behavior that does not demonstrate the moral strength expected of them, regulation requires that the chaplain report the violations.

            War has a tendency to bring about some of the world’s worst atrocities.  When America commits these atrocities—such as the My Lai massacre or the torture and inhumane treatment at Abu Ghraib Prison—America looses credibility among the other nations of the world.  In addition, American soldiers could live the rest of their lives with the guilt of their behavior brought about from war.  For some, this proves too unbearable and they resort to drugs, alcohol, or even suicide.   And often the quality of life for the surviving victims of war crimes is greatly reduced.  The chaplain is not only responsible for the spiritual wellbeing of individual soldiers of his unit (or parish), he or she is also responsible for providing sound advice to the commander and seeing that the unit performs its mission with high moral standards.  When the chaplain fails in this particular role, little good can come from the remainder of his or her religious duties.           

Reference List
Bergen, Doris L. The Sword of the Lord: Military Chaplain from the First to the Twenty-First Century.  Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame, 2004. 
GoArmy.com. Soldier Live: Living the Army Values. http://www.goarmy.com/life/living_the_army_values.jsp (accessed February 19, 2009).
Headquarters of the Department of the Army. 2004. Army Regulation 165-1: Chaplain Activities in the United States Army (March, 25). By Order of the Secretary of the Army, Peter J. Schoomaker.
NCOCorps.net. U.S. Army NCO Creed. http://www.ncocorps.net/more/us_army_nco_creed.htm (accessed February 19, 2009).

*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.
**Photo Info: "Staff Sgt. Miguel A. Martinez-Velazquez, chaplain's assistant noncommissioned officer in charge, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, shelters 3rd BCT Brigade Chaplain Maj. Paul Jaedicke from incoming fire during the role play training for chaplain and chaplain's assistants Aug. 3rd at the Joint Readiness Training Center. The chaplains and thier assistants are training for an upcoming deployment in support of the war on terror. (U.S. Army Photo by Pfc. Kimberly Cole, 40th Public Affairs Office) This photo is registered under a Creative Commons license: http://www.flickr.com/photos/soldiersmediacenter/ / CC BY 2.0


Like a Child, Matthew 18:1-4

  [1] At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” [2] And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them [3] and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. [4] Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.  [Matthew 18:1-4, ESV]

While Jesus and his disciples were in Capernaum, some of his disciples approached Jesus and asked him who was going to be the most important person in heaven.  It's possible that they wanted to understand how people would be ranked in heaven, or maybe they wanted to hear some kind of self-conformation because they were early, devoted followers of Jesus, or maybe they were feeling insecure because Jesus had recently asked Simon Peter to go fishing for the miraculous fish with a shekel in its mouth.  Measuring their motives resides mostly in the realm of speculation, but it's not much of a stretch to see where they were going with a question like this.

The disciples might have thought that Jesus would think about it and then point at one of them, maybe Peter, maybe John, maybe the person who brought forward the question.  Instead, Jesus sees a child nearby and calls him or her over.  The disciples were probably confused.  "This child is going to be the most important person in heaven?" they might have murmured to one another, "What!?!"

And Jesus says to them, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 18:3).  He was not telling them they needed to turn around the aging process or that only little kids go to heaven.  No, Jesus wasn't talking about anything physical; he was calling them to change (or turn around) their thinking or not only would they not be the greatest in heaven, they wouldn't even get in.  This must have been a little shocking for the disciples, maybe a little humiliating.  They were probably thinking, what do you me like a little child; what traits of a child should I try to emulate?

Then Jesus told them, "Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 18:4).  Humility, a common theme of Jesus' ministry and preaching, comes forward again.  Here the disciples are desiring to be the greatest in heaven and again, Jesus calls them to humility.  

I have two boys and at times I don't see humility in my 4-year-old.  However, when I take a few minutes, it's there and it's amazing.  When we think of a humble adult, we have a picture in our mind;  but if that picture is not the same as a humble child, than the picture is not the humility Jesus calls us to.

In the video, I take a few moments to reflect on Matthew 18:1-4 through the examples of my sons.


Are you striving for the humility of a child?   



This video and others like it are available in the Resources section of this website. Please check it out regularly as more content will be added often.

Subscribe to the Salty Believer iTunes Podcasts: Video | Audio
(Non iTunes: Video | Audio)
* While there may be some overlap, the content of the Video and Audio Podcasts are not the same. 

Reading Through the Bible in a Year

Many free plans are available that help people read through the Bible in a set given period of time.  Some Bibles offer suggested reading plans in an appendix.  Most of these plans will take a reader through the entire Bible in a year.  A year is a nice duration because it works out to about 3 to 5 chapters per reading, or about 20 minutes a day.

There are a number of different ways to go through the Bible.  It could be that your program starts on the first page of Genesis and ends on the last page of Revelation (the first and last books of the Bible).  There are some that will read something from the New Testament and something from the Old.  Or it could be more detailed, maybe something from the books of history, something from the wisdom books, a bit from the books of the prophets, then the gospels, epistles, and so-on.  Or it could be like the one I'm working on this year that's chronological by event (but you could even do one that's chronological by when the book was authored).

There are many programs available on-line.  Bibleyear.com will allows you do develop your own 1-year program, taking into consideration translation and the type of read through you'd like to do.  It also has start dates on the 1st and 15th of every month, unlike some that start only on January 1st or go by day number (which gets confusing by day 11).     

There was a time when I couldn't stand the "programs" designed to help people read through the Bible in a year. My incorrect thoughts--which didn't work well in practice--went something like this:
  • Why would I want to restrict my reading to a ridged plan?  What if one day I wanted to read more than the program suggests, or less if I am short on time?
  • Doesn't a Bible read-through plan force a person to move forward even if they should stop and marinate on a single scripture for a while? 
  • Could it be okay to skim through some of the dry readings and work in more depth in the deeply engaging stuff? 
In reality, if we don't have a plan, and even some accountability, we tend to put off the reading until a year has passed and we realized we need to get back into the Word.  Or, in my case more recently, I can work on a single passage for a week.  I'll look at it in the Greek and read commentaries on it.  I'll contrast it against other scriptures and I'll pray about it.  While this can be great for study, it really doesn't allow me to hear the flow and beauty of God's word.  It also means I stay in one book of the Bible for a long, long time.  If this is you, that's great--keep doing this, but add a 1-year Bible reading plan.

The other problem I sometimes have (which isn't a bad thing) is I'll read large sections of Scripture. Sometimes 2 or 3 books in a night.  I ended up reading through the entire Old Testament twice in one semester and then I did the same for the new Testament the next semester.  If this is you, great, keep it up. However, add a 1-year read through too and commit to that each morning while you're having your Frosted Flakes and coffee.

While I don't generally suggest it for study, it might be a good idea to use dynamic translation, which tends to be a smoother reading translation.  I'm finding that the New Living Translation (NLT) is an easy read for my daily morning readings.  But this is just me; read what you're most comfortable with.  The important thing is that your reading.  If you've never read through the entire Bible, why not?

*Photo is registered under a Creative Commons License: http://www.flickr.com/photos/29968788@N00/ / CC BY 2.0

Knowing Jesus Through The Old Testament by Christopher J.H. Wright

A Critical Review of
Knowing Jesus Through The Old Testament by Christopher J.H. Wright
 
            Dr. Christopher J. H. Wright is a scholar of Old Testament ethics (Ph. D., Cambridge).  For five years, he taught at Union Biblical Seminary (1983-1988) and served as Principal of All Nations Christian College from 1993-2001.  Presently, he is the director of international ministries with the Langham Partnership International and he, as an ordained Anglican, is on staff at All Souls Church, Langham Place in London, England.  Wright has also authored dozens of books including Knowing God the Father Through the Old Testament (IVP Academic, 2007), Knowing the Holy Spirit Through the Old Testament (IVP Academic, 2006), and the subject of this review, Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament (IVP Academic, 1992) (InterVarsity Press).  Wright’s central purpose of Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament is to stress the importance of the Old Testament as a valuable key to understanding who Jesus was and how Jesus understood himself.

            According to Wright, the Old Testament offers a rewarding illumination of the Messiah.  “In short,” says Wright, “the deeper you go into understanding the Old Testament, the closer you come to the heart of Jesus” (Wright, ix).  However, Wright is not making the argument that the Old Testament points to Jesus, but rather, that the Old Testament pointed Jesus to who he was to become.  Upfront, we writes,
For these are the words he read. These are the stories he knew. These were the songs he sang. These were the depths of wisdom and revelation and prophecy that shaped his whole view of ‘life, the universe and everything’. This is where he found his insights into the mind of his Father God. Above all, this is where he found the shape of his own identity and the goal of his own mission (Wright, ix).
In order to point to specific Old Testament clues about the character, authority, mission, and purpose of the Messiah, Wright must first build the foundation upon which he will frame his argument.  This foundation consists of an overview of the Old Testament as the first act of a two-act narrative, or more specifically, “salvation history” (Wright, 30-54).  The stories are not simply children’s Bible stories; they are accounts of real events.  One such key event, according to Wright, is the covenant made with Abraham.  Genesis 12:3 is a focal point of Wright’s foundation, suggesting that all the people of the earth will be blessed through Abraham and by extension, the nation of Israel, and by further extension, Jesus (a Jew), who became the Messiah of the Jews, Gentiles, and all peoples of the earth.  From this covenant with Abraham to David, to the exile, to Jesus, Wright suggests that the genealogy of Matthew 1:1-17 is designed to remind the Jewish reader of the historical story of the entire Old Testament and the original covenants with Abraham and David.  Then, standing on Galatians 3:39, which reads, “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (ESV), Wright suggests that this Old Testament narrative is the story of all believers, not simply the story of the Israelites.  “One people, one story,” says Wright.  “The fact is, that whether we read Matthew 1:1-17 in our Christmas carol service or not, that story is our story as much as it is the story of Jesus.  For through him, we have come to be, like him, the descendants of Abraham” (Wright, 54).
            From his foundation, Wright moves to the framework of his argument—the fulfillment of promise.  First, using a horse/motorcar analogy, he suggests that as situations change, the details of God’s promise (or covenant) change; however, the original intent of the fulfillment remains the same.  Then, switching analogies, Wright constructs a model of the promise/fulfillment—promise/fresh fulfillment cycle.  In this model, each promise is partially fulfilled and then a new promise gives energy and amplification to both the original promise and the new promise for a future fulfillment, eventually leading to a total fulfillment in Jesus Christ that needs no additional promise.  “Like some science-fiction, time traveling rocket,” states Wright, “the promise is launched, returning to earth at some later point of history in a partial fulfillment, only to be relaunched with a fresh load of fuel and cargo for yet another historical destination, and so on” (Wright, 72).  A significant amount of ink is then spent reinforcing the frame, explaining the significance of the various covenants to not just the Jewish people, but the entire world, building to the final covenant of Christ that would not need a relaunch (Wright, 55-102).

            Once the foundation is firmly set and the frame is standing, Wright hangs his argument.  Leading up to Jesus’ baptism, contends Wright, Jesus was diligently reading the Old Testament and coming to understand his role as the Messiah.  Defending himself from Satan’s temptations in the wilderness, Jesus uses Old Testament scripture.  Sparing with the Phrases, he depends on this scriptural knowledge and understanding.  And most importantly, Jesus the Christ is the fulfilling second act of the story.  He is expanding upon the Old Testament law and bringing greater clarification to the narratives that came before him.  The many similarities of the characters of the Old Testament didn’t foretell of the coming Messiah, suggests Wright, instead they defined him (Wright, 103-252).

            While Wright argues that the narrative started in the Old Testament and completed in the New must be viewed in its entirety in order to grasp who Jesus was (and is), he greatly narrows the scope of the Old Testament.  Understandably, in order to articulate his point and make a case for Christ as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants, Wright must keep a narrow focus; however, because of his narrow approach to the covenants of the Old Testament, he glosses over the other elements of each individual covenant and the specific fulfillments of each for a real people of a historical time.  Wright completely ignores the Noahic Covenant, likely because this promise from God has no need for a future fulfillment in Christ.  And by focusing only on the portion of the Abrahamic Covenant that promises that the nation born of Abraham’s line will become a blessing to all people, Wright pays little attention to the promise of land and the fact that this covenant first promises that the line will become a great nation before it will be a blessing to all people.  Wright gives little attention to the Mosaic Covenant other than that it is a refueling and relaunching pad on the course for the bigger promise.  “Launched from Mount Sinai,” says Wright of the covenant renewal, “the people of promise head for its next stage of fulfillment – the gift of land” (Wright, 73).  The series of “next stages” provides a troubling idea that these promises were merely all one promise, with the details changing as the situation changed.  At the Davidic Covenant launching pad, Wright zeros in on 2 Samuel 7:16, which says, “And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me.  Your throne shall be established forever” (ESV).  But this focus pushes aside the portion of the covenant that promises blessings for obedience and punishment for disobedience.  The foundation built by Wright provides strong support of the final completion of portions of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants; yet, the same foundation, which glosses over some of the specific details and fulfillments of the Old Testament covenants weakens his argument that the Old Testament is a book of real people and events that Christians should be reading and understanding.  Indeed, his strong ties that draw today’s believers to the Old Testament narrative, also serve to diminish the importance of the Old Testament Israelite people.  While, this reviewer is somewhat critical of Wright’s foundation, I do believe Wright paints a nice picture of the ultimate fulfillment of portions of the covenants.  In addition, Wright’s approach being neither from a fully dispensational theology or fully covenant theology does provide a fresh perspective from which to view the progression of the promises.

            There is little biblical evidence that disputes Wright’s claim that the Old Testament scriptures and songs not only shaped Jesus character, but also helped him understand who he was.  In fact, the Luke 2 story of Jesus as a boy in the temple lends more support to his argument, specifically verse 52: “And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man” (ESV).  If Jesus is increasing in knowledge, it only makes sense that some, if not all of this knowledge would be in the scriptures.  Wright spend considerable time expanding on Jesus’ use of scripture—in thwarting off Satan’s tempting efforts, in explaining who he is, in teaching, and in expanding and simplifying the law.  However, Wright’s argument allows for the challenge that Jesus may have merely studied the scriptures and fit the pieces together in order that he may become the Messiah and fulfill the prophecy.  (Although this challenge would struggle to stand against the various miracles, healings, signs, and resurrection of Christ.)  In addition, this challenge could assert that the writers of the New Testament crafted Jesus’ life to fulfill the Old Testament covenants.  Although clearly not his intention to suggest the authors inappropriately drew connections, Wright himself suggests that the New Testament authors contrasted what they witnessed to what they knew before recording the Gospels.  Wright states,
So, when the writers of the New Testament witnessed God’s climactic discharge of that commitment to humanity in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, they checked what they had experienced with what they already knew through their Hebrew scriptures. They looked at all the events surrounding Jesus, and they understood them, illuminated them, explained and finally recorded them, all in the light of the whole sweep of Old Testament promise (Wright, 102).
In addition to paving an avenue for critical attack, Wright’s efforts to demonstrate that Jesus was a real man, specifically a Jewish rabbi, in a real time, flirts dangerously close to stripping the deity from Jesus and leaving him an ordinary man.  For example, Wright states,
...it was the Old Testament which helped Jesus to understand Jesus.  Who did he think he was?  What did he think he was to do?  The answers came from his Bible, the Hebrew scriptures in which he found a rich tapestry of figures, historical persons, prophetic pictures and symbols of worship.  And in this tapestry, where others saw only a fragmented collection of various figures and hopes, Jesus saw his own face.  His Hebrew Bible provided the shape of his own identity (Wright, 108).
And only a page later, Wright says, “Here we have an adult man, at one level indistinguishable among the crowds of those who flocked to John for baptism and in any case otherwise unknown except as a carpenter’s son from Nazareth, who takes upon himself a staggering identity with awesome personal consequences” (Wright, 109, emphasis added).  From other passages, it would seem that Wright does indeed believe Jesus is the Son of God, yet some of his wording, intentional or unintentional, suggests Christ was more ordinary man than God. 

However, Wright’s effort to show the importance of the Old Testament provides an outstanding demonstration of Jesus’ knowledge and use of scripture.  Academic discussion may center on whether or not the Old Testament scriptures shaped Jesus’ self-awareness; but in the practical arena of ministry, it is clear that Jesus knew and used the scriptures.  Jesus himself points to Deuteronomy 8:3, which states, “And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD(ESV, emphasis added).  Pastors and teachers should be in agreement with Wright regarding Jesus’ example, and therefore teach that Christians should learn from Christ’s example and feast on the Word of God. 

            Of the few reviews of Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament this reviewer found (none of which are academic, but rather commercial in nature), most, if not all were in complete agreement with Wright; although a couple including one by Brian Tubbs (2007) focus on Wright’s meandering through his argument, “taking longer than necessary to make some of [his] points” (suite101.com).  This reviewer agrees.  Additionally, most articles regarding Jesus and Old Testament scripture argue something similar to the typology that Wright argues against (Wright, 114-116).  If they are not arguing a typology, they remain focused on the same prophecies that Wright argues Jesus used to shape who he was.  Michael Rydelnik’s “What Does the Hebrew Bible Say About the Coming Messiah?” serves as a good representation of all of these kinds of articles with one exception—like Wright, Rydelnik points to the Hebrew bible in its entirety rather than simply as specific scriptures treated as stand-alone narratives (Rydelnik 2007, 1351-1352).  


             In conclusion, this reviewer found Wright’s purpose—“the deeper you go into understanding the Old Testament, the closer you come to the heart of Jesus” (Wright, ix)—compelling.  His intent is encouraging.  However, the foundation and framework of his argument are built on a narrow focus, which leads to a challenging premise of the progression of Old Testament covenants from the Lord.  In addition, Wright’s detailed work demonstrating Jesus’ use and knowledge of the scriptures is outstanding; however, I struggle to fully agree with Wright because his argument all but suggests that the Old Testament didn’t foretell the coming of the Messiah, but instead shaped the very character of Jesus as the Messiah.  
           
Reference List
InterVarsity Press. “Christopher J. H. Wright.” http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/author.pl/author_id=343 (accessed February 21, 2009).


Rydelnik, Michael. 2007. “What Does the Hebrew Bible Say About the Coming Messiah?” In The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith Ed. Ted Cabal, 1351-1352. Nashville, Tennessee: Holman Bible Publishers.


Tubbs, Brian. Suite101.com “Jesus and the Old Testament A Review of Christopher J.H. Wright's Book on Jesus in the OT” 2007. http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/jesus_and_the_old_testament (accessed February 20, 2009).

Wright, Christopher J. H. 1992. Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.  



*I have no material connection to this book.  This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website. 


Update: SLC Project, Mid-February

By Bryan Catherman, February 20, 2010

For those interested, I through I would offer another church plant update.  Maybe "church plant" is not the right word at this point; it's the goal and hope but the moment, this is more of an effort we're calling the SLC Project.

Kyle and Joy Costello have moved into their home in downtown Salt Lake.  It's a nice home in a great location.  They've wasted no time getting to know the people and the area.  Lisa and I had the privilege of enjoying dinner with them last week.  (Tip: Joy makes amazing vegan cookies!)   Kyle's posted video update on the SLC Project website; I've included it with this post.  It's about 6 minutes in length and work the time.  Check it out. (If you're interested in what's happening with the SLC Project, I highly recommend you check out the website.) 


Keven, Karen, and Braden Rogers have also landed in Salt Lake City.  My plan was to help them unload their truck after work, but I was thrilled to hear that an army of SLC men from a local Bible study group got the job done in about two hours.  Way to represent, boys!  They've only been here a few days and slowly but surely they too are getting settled in.

Jonathan Cole is on the road as I type this post.  He'll be staying at my place for a little while as he applies for work and looks for an apartment.  We're all praying for him and his upcoming job interview later next week.

Some of the guys are meeting each Thursday morning to discuss our weekly Bible reading, pray, and chat.  We're meeting at a small coffee shop near the Gallivan Plaza TRAX stop (because it's convenient for me to head straight to work from there), but we may have to seek out a place with a bigger seating area.  This past Thursday I met another gentleman from the Las Vegas area praying and contemplating a move to SLC to join the Project.  We haven't been meeting long, but I am already finding that this time is one of the highlights of my week.

I am looking forward to witnessing how God will use this group for His glory in SLC.  If you'd like to know more, chat with Kyle over coffee, or whatever, check out the SLC Project website for more info or feel free to contact me.

God in the Wasteland by David Wells

CRITIQUE OF
Wells, David F. God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams. Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995.

INTRODUCTION
In his follow up to No Place for Truth,[1] David F. Wells offers his assessment of the state of the Church ravished by modern thinking and then provides a potential solution to bring the evangelical church back to its appropriate role in society, especially as the culture shifts from modernity to post-modernity.  Theology, according to Wells, has unknowingly slipped away from the culture of the Church,[2] and elements of modern culture, specifically the processes of capitalism, technology, urbanization, and telecommunications have taken its place[3].  Wells argues that understanding the relationship between modern culture and the Church is not an issue, it is the issue.[4]  “. . . modernity is to contemporary Christians,” writes Wells, “what the medieval synthesis was to the sixteenth-century Reformers: is it the issue.”[5]  In what follows, this critique of God in the Wasteland will provide a brief summary of the book, an interaction with the author’s work, and concluding thoughts.

BRIEF SUMMARY
            Wells introduces the theme of his book with a personal story.  While driving near his home, a truck pulls out in front of him.  On the rear bumper of the truck were two bumper stickers.  From the distance, all Wells can see was that the one sticker reads “McGuire,” a political figure in the area, and the other reads “Jesus.”[6]  It is in this mixing of the two bumper sticker agendas that Wells draws an analogy of the mixing of today’s Church with today’s culture.[7]  But this mixture did not come about through angry and excited revolution, but through the subtle changes in modern culture.  “Unlike all of its predecessors,” says Wells, “this accidental revolution is not being driven either by a self-conscious ideology or by self-conscious revolutionaries.  Our guerrillas are, in fact, very ordinary people, most of whom would be aghast if they could see themselves for what they are: provocateurs and agents of revolutionary change.”[8]  Capitalism, technology, urbanization, and telecommunications are the four modern realities that Wells identifies as the vehicles of the quiet revolution[9].  Through these areas of modernity, the purpose of life has shifted to production output, ethics are defined as what works, self and community identity are morphing into a single world urban identity, and communication of ideas through the world have turned participants into merely witnesses.[10]  As these advances begin to fail and the world shifts from modernity to postmodernity, the boundaries become extremely blurred[11].

            Through the transition of the changing world, Wells demonstrates how it was that the Evangelical Church rose into prominence, but it was not without a cost.  Wells unfavorably sees the blending of theology and culture in the church, writing, “If a convergence has in fact taken place between modernity and evangelicalism, it is not because modernity has become more theological but because evangelicalism has become more modern.”[12]  Evangelicals, argues Wells, have become more politically orientated, wanting to transform culture because, in fact, they have become a part of culture.  As the cultural agenda increases, it seems that biblical usage and knowledge decreases.  “The fact is,” laments Wells, “that while the nature of the of the Bible was being debated, the Bible itself was quietly falling into disuse in the church.”[13]  Through most of the middle section of his book, Wells articulates that the church has moved away from its firm stand on theology and now leans on the ways of the world.  To drive his point home, he compares the world’s commercial model with the model of the present Church. “Malls are monuments to consumption—but so are mega-churches,”[14] writes Wells.  There is little distinction between the economies of the world and those of church.  Wells points to the work of Finke and Stark[15], writing that “four factors are essential to both economies: (1) organization (or church polity); (2) sales representatives (or clergy); (3) product (or religious doctrine and life); and (4) marketing techniques (or evangelism and church growth.)” [16]

            In an effort to gage the future, Wells conducted a survey of seven theological seminaries to compare to a similar survey taken in 1982.[17]  This survey makes up the bulk of his conclusion and prescription to cure the ills of the future.  Wells writes, “. . . I believe the vision of the evangelical church is now clouded, its internal life greatly weakened, its future very uncertain and I want something better for it.”[18]  The thing that is “better” will come from the future leaders of the church.  The future church, contends Wells, must develop an “antithesis between Christ and culture and find ways to sustain that antithesis.”[19]  A lot rests in the hands of these leaders, these “ . . . people of large vision, people of courage, people who have learned again what it means to live by the Word of God . . .,”[20] but it is in them that the Church will once again find is appropriate place “in the world” without being “of the world.”

CRITICAL INTERACTION OF THE AUTHOR’S WORK
     Wells’ observation of the present cultural atmosphere and the position of the Church, immediately seems concerning. The world, thanks to capitalism, technology, urbanization, and telecommunication methods, is in a state of difficult flux and the Church has been swept in with it. Wells purpose and goal for the book is to ring the alarm and then help his readers adopt his vision for the Church. What is his vision for the Church? Wells writes,
I want it to embody a vibrant spirituality. I want the church to be an alternative to post-modern culture, not a mere echo of it. I want a church that is bold to be different and unafraid to be faithful, a church that is interested in something better than using slick marketing techniques to swell the numbers of warm bodies occupying sanctuaries, a church that reflects an integral and undiminished confidence in the power of God’s Word, a church that can find in the midst of our present cultural breakdown the opportunity to be God’s people in a world that has abandoned God.[21]
This is a fantastic vision, but it comes with little instruction. Most churches do not think they are “using slick marketing techniques” even if they are.  And rightly asked but not very well defined by Wells: What is authentic evangelism to share the Word of God?  Is it wrong to desire to see people filling the sanctuary?  Indeed, the alarm is ringing, but with instructions as simple get back to the Word of God, stand once again on theology, and be in the world but not of the world, Wells is ambiguous with his vision.

            Robert K. Johnston’s review—found in the Oxford Journal—addresses both Well’s solution to separate the Church from culture and his call to a strict theological orientation.  First, Johnston reminds his readers that Wells’ counterculture Christianity echoes both Barth and Neiburh.[22]  He then suggests that Wells presentation is an overemphasis in countercultural, saying, “When the church is true to its nature, thinks Wells, its cultural irrelevance becomes a virtue.”[23]  Johnston takes further issue with how sharply Wells draws the line between results-orientation and theological orientation.[24]  Indeed, should this be an all or nothing proposition as Wells implies? Johnston agues that Wells’ approach is less nuanced than Scripture,[25] that it is not wrong to see some blending of culture and theology.  However, one gets a sense that Wells understands that his position comes across rather sharply, but that he indeed needs to cut a sharp line to make his point.  Even he at one point admits his exaggeration showing that his eye catching chapter title, “The Coming Generation” is not really that far reaching, but that he is looking at the church leaders of the coming generation.[26]

            An additional weakness of the work is how Wells approaches the culture, specifically the four categories of capitalism, technology, urbanization, and telecommunications.  These, he identifies are the vehicles in which the world has moved forward and away from God.  However, what is the alternative to them?  Could it be that although they come with ill effects that they can also be used for God’s glory?  Capitalism, for example, is only one type of economic system and if there is another that does not bring about the downfall of culture, Wells fails to mention it.  One must ask, what is Wells idea of how an economy might function if all the people in an area were believers (as he sees they should be) and rejected the culture to the extent Wells implies.  In addition, Wells implies that urban living, thanks to modernization, is bad and has stripped the culture of its individual identity.[27]  However, there is also the possibility that urbanization has the potential to bring communities together.  He does not do much to prove that large urban areas are free of a communal identity.  Technology and telecommunication have advanced God’s Word and allowed Christians to travel all over the word.  Furthermore, he is critical of how much marketing our culture is exposed to every day, yet his books likely have some system of marketing behind them.  Thus, his efforts are still contributing to the machine.

            While Wells does draw a shape line, the strengths of his book come in the area of how effectively he has rang the alarm.  His observations of modernism and especially his argument that post-modernism is “really just modernity stripped of the false hopes that were once supported by the straw pillars of Enlightenment ideology. . .” are an important contribution to the collection of books either ringing in post-modernity or warning that the sky is falling.  He is straightforward and arguing that at least concerning post-modernity, it does not yet have to be an all or nothing observation.  In addition, most Christians are seeking to find ways to blend into the post-modern world while Wells rightly argues that the appropriate position for the Church is to be something other than “the world.”  Few Christians take this theological stand, only to later disappear completely into the crowd.

            Future leaders of the church would be well served to read God in the Wasteland, which likely explains why many seminaries have it on required reading lists.  His observations of the modernity and post-modernity are fresh although his book is over ten years old.  Given that Wells often points back to his previous work, No Place for Truth, students might find it helpful to read his previous work first. 

CONCLUSION
            In conclusion, Wells’ work is informative.  This reviewer agrees with many of Wells’ observations of culture and modernity; however, more room should have been allowed for other explanations for the recent changes in society.  In addition, God in the Wasteland needs more specifics as to the solution.  Wells has called the Church to be in the world but not of the world, he has identified where the Church has gone wrong, but he offers little detail to help the Church, or even the future church leaders for that matter, move the Church back toward his vision.   
           
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Johnston, Robert K. 1995. "God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams". Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 63, no. 4: 872.

Wells, David F. God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading DreamsGrand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995.



[1] David F. Wells, No Place for Truth, or, Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1993).
[2] David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995), 7, 26.
[3] Ibid, 7.
[4] Ibid, 28.
[5] Ibid, 29.
[6] Ibid, 3-4.
[7] Ibid, 5.
[8] Ibid, 7.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid, 7-9.
[11] Ibid, 48.
[12] Ibid, 26.
[13] Ibid, 150.
[14] Ibid, 61.
[15] Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, The Churching of America, 1776-1990: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1992), 17.
[16] David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995), 63.
[17] Ibid, ix-x.
[18] Ibid, 214.
[19] Ibid, 223.
[20] Ibid, 215.
[21] Ibid, 214.
[22] Robert K Johnston, 1995, "God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams", Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 63, no. 4: 872-875, 874.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid, 875.
[26] David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995), 186.
[27] Ibid, 8-9

*I have no material connection to this book.  This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.  

How Did We Get the New Testament Canon?

     When we pick up our Bible each morning and pull at the ribbon marking where we previously left off, we give little thought to how the 66 books collected in that binding came about.  But there was a time when those books were not bound together and understanding what books told the story of God was not taken for granted.  There is history behind how the 37 books of the Old Testament came to general acceptance as the canon, but for the sake of this post, this discussion will focus only on the development of the New Testament canon.

     Gonzalez explains that in the early Church it was typical that readings from a Gospel were shared in the meetings.  However, “Since there was no approved list,” writes Gonzalez, “different Gospels were read in different churches, and the same was true of other books.”[1]  But once a Gnostic named Marcion developed a list of accepted books that excluded the heavier Jewish writings, others in the Church had to respond.  Different lists were generated.  But it was not one list from one person that identified the canon, but instead the consolidation of many lists, debated, accepted, rejected, and revised over time.  Much of the canon simply came about by what was more commonly accepted and supported.  For example, Grudem writes, “Because the apostles, but virtue of their apostolic office, had authority to write words of Scripture, the authentic written teachings of the apostles were accepted by the early church as part of the canon of Scripture.”[2]  Of course, this is just one idea of but one guideline for a canon list; and these lists, if they were to argue against the heresies of people like Marcion, also had to be supported by sound reasoning, understanding of authorship, the contribution of the book, and so-on. 

      There may have been other elements outside of hard, justifiable evidence for which books made the list and which did not. John 10:27 records Jesus saying, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they will follow me” (ESV).  Is it possible that as the disciples of the early Church read specific books, they heard the “God breathed” word of Jesus?  Did they simply recognize that the book was something more than the others, something special?  Another similar element is regula fidei, that is, the Rule of Faith.  Oserhaven defines this as, “the official church teaching that is in agreement with Scripture and is a summary of it.”[3]  Because a clear list of Scripture had not yet been identified within the church, it is possible that the Scripture that lined up with the traditions and teachings of the church—specifically the verbally transmitted gospel and other verbal guidance of the apostles—became the canon.  Those books that did not agree were thrown out.  If this is true, the understanding of the unwritten church doctrines might have played a larger part of the eventual settling on the agreed New Testament canon.   


     [1] Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), 62.
     [2] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 62.
     [3] Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Baker reference library (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001), 1043.

*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.  
** Photo is licensed under a creative commons License: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ninahiironniemi/ / CC BY-NC 2.0

Pluralism: Less Polemic Within the Military

Certain debated concepts often get packed into a single word that is armed, thorny, and filled much like a Trojan horse ready to let open the gates to outside attack. In Christian conversation, the word pluralism has been modified to be just such a fully loaded word, and unpacking it sometimes takes a skilled explosive technician. However, when pluralism is used to describe how multiple religious systems operate in the same the military community, the word retracts its claws and speaks of mutual respect and opportunity.

In its most basic form, pluralism is, “a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization” (Merriam, “pluralism”).  Those Christians using the term as a debate weapon have added their interpretation of some Biblical concepts about living among and adapting to the practices of non-Christian societies and beliefs[1] and blended in “syncretism.”  Syncretism is, “the combination of different forms of belief or practice” (Merriam, “syncretism”). While it is not my purpose to argue in favor or against the present use of the definition of pluralism, I do argue that the military’s use of the word is strictly in its most basic definition.

While the Army is vague on its exact definition of pluralism, it does provide some conceptual guidance. A requirement of entry to the Army Chaplain Corps is a signed Memorandum for Record (MFR) that reads in part,
While remaining faithful to my denominational beliefs and practices, I understand that, as a chaplain [or chaplain candidate], I must be sensitive to religious pluralism and will provide for the free exercise of religion by military personnel, their families, and other authorized personnel served by the Army.  I further understand that, while the Army places a high value on the rights of its members to observe the tenets of their respective religions, accommodation is based on military need and cannot be guaranteed at all times and in all places.
I also recognize the importance of a diverse Army Chaplaincy representing all faiths, genders, and ethnic backgrounds.  I fully support the diversity of the Corps that enables the branch to minister to the plurality of America’s Soldier (Blackwell, 2008).
In addition to the MFR for entry, Army Regulation 165-1, 3-3a states, “The Army recognizes that religion is constitutionally protected and does not favor one form of religious expression over another.  Accordingly, all religious denominations are viewed as distinctive faith groups and all soldiers are entitled to chaplain services and support” (U.S. Department of the Army 2004, 5).  And the chaplain is required under 4-4b of the same regulation to, “...minister to the personnel of the unit and facilitate the ‘free-exercise’ rights of all personnel, regardless of religious affiliation of either the chaplain or the unit member” (2004, 6).

Soldiers, according to Army regulation are “entitled to chaplain services and support” and chaplains are to “facilitate” the right to worship but are not required to deviate from their denominational beliefs or practices.  What this regulation does not say is that chaplains are to accept or adopt the belief of the soldier. Therefore, pluralism allows each soldier the right to worship (or not worship) in his or her own distinct manner with the support of a chaplain, all inside the single community of the military.  In no way is syncretism required. Instead, a mutual respect and understanding is expected.

Chaplain Joseph F. O’Donnell, C.S.C. best describes the spirit of pluralism while explaining the first of three qualities important to every chaplain.  He writes, “As a chaplain, I must realize that no matter how firm I feel about my own approach to God, I cannot have the last word for anyone else” (Bergen 2004, 222).

Reference List
Bergen, Doris L. The Sword of the Lord: Military Chaplain from the First to the Twenty-First
     Century.  Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame, 2004.
Blackwell, Steve CH (CPT). 2008 Sample MFR sent to author electronically. October 31.
Headquarters of the Department of the Army. 2004. Army Regulation 165-1: Chaplain Activities
     in the United States Army (March, 25). By Order of the Secretary of the Army, Peter J.
     Schoomaker.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. s.v. “pluralism,” http://www.merriam-
     webster.com/dictionary/pluralism (accessed February 15, 2009.)
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. s.v. “syncretism,” http://www.merriam-
     webster.com/dictionary/syncretism (accessed February 15, 2009.)

[1] Concepts from passages of Judges, 1 Peter, and Colossians for example.

*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.
** Photo is registered under a Creative Commons License: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tim_ellis/ / CC BY-NC 2.0

The Unexpected Journey by Thom S. Rainer

Critical Book Review
Of
The Unexpected Journey by Thom S. Rainer

Bibliographical Entry
Rainer, Thom S. The Unexpected Journey: Conversations with People Who Turned from Other Beliefs to Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005.

Author Information
            Thom S. Rainer is a busy author, writing titles including Simple Church: Returning to God’s Process for Making Disciples, Breakout Churches: Discover How to Make the Leap, The Unchurched Next Door: Understanding Faith Stages and Keys to Sharing Your Faith, and Giant Awakenings: Making the Most of 9 Surprising Trends That Can Benefit Your Church.  The bulk of Rainer’s work is centered on two intertwined areas: the Church and evangelism.  His most recent work serving as a tool in church tool shed is Essential Church?: Reclaiming a Generation of Dropouts. 

             A PhD from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Rainer has served in a pastoral capacity for nearly a dozen churches.  He founded, and became Dean of the Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism, and Church Growth at his alma matter.  In addition, he serves as the president of Church Central and is the CEO of LifeWay Christian Resources in Nashville, Tennessee.  For years, Rainer Group Church Consulting occupied much of Rainer’s time—and provided much of the experiences that appear in his many books— although recently he as reduced his responsibilities in this area, referring most of his business to The Lawless Group.  Rainer continues to travel around the world to speak and teach at conferences and seminars.  As evident in The Unexpected Journey, he is married with three grown children.

Content Summary
            The Unexpected Journey is Rainer’s attempt to capture the stories, or more correctly, the testimonies of thirteen people who previously were in other systems of faith (or none at all) and have since found and accepted Christ Jesus.  Rainer and his wife, Nellie Jo traveled across the country over the period of nearly a year, recording equipment in tow, to question and meet with their interviewees.  Occasionally, others tagged along and one interviewee flew to meet the Rainers.  Each interview lasted less than a full day and was often conduced in the interviewee’s home, a church, an office building, or in a restaurant.  If in a restaurant, Rainer includes an appearance of the server, and often the beverage selections.  

            Opening in Sandy, a suburb of Salt Lake City, Rainer meets with two former Mormons.  The married couple were “high-level” Mormons, meaning that he was a sixth-generation leader over a large geographic area and she was a translator working in the LDS church headquarters. Through looking into documents of their own system of faith, Rauni began to have doubts (pp19-20).  Eventually, she shared these documents and her concerns with her husband and together they left the Mormon church.  As their story continues, they explain how they connected with a local Christian community and found salvation in Jesus.  In what becomes a reoccurring question with a reoccurring answer, Rainer asks the couple how Christians can better evangelize to Mormons.  He concludes each chapter with his interviewee’s answers.

           For the next interview, and subsequently, the next chapter Rainer and his wife travel to Chicago to meet with a former Orthodox Jew.  The format of the story is similar to the one in the previous chapter—Steve Barack shares his history in another system of faith and then how it was that he came to Christianity.  Each story is given its own chapter and each story has the same format.  And they all end with the same variation of the basic question, “I asked Steve how he would counsel a Christian who desired to witness to a Jew today” (p 42).  The next chapter delves into the life of a Hindu who suffered polio at the age of three (p 48) and was ostracized by his father for having bad Karma in a former life (p 50).  Today Dr. Ravi is a professor and serves as the vice president of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (pp 47-48).

            As the familiar stories continue, Rainer chats with a Ms. Jones, a woman who went from the absence of a faith in a higher power of any kind—she was an atheist—to accepting Jesus as her Lord.  Similar to the interview with an agnostic, this chapter tells a story not unlike the rest and Rainer seizes upon this in way he presents Ms. Jones’ story.  Next comes a pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses who were expected to allow their child to die in adherents to their faith.  Than comes the story of an agnostic with a difficult and wild life.  Chapter Seven tells the story of a Wicca witch who gave up her form of paganism for Christianity.  Following the story of the witch is a narrative of a high-energy former Buddhist.  In chapter Nine, Dr. Karan Townsend shares her experience of searching through Unitarianism until she found Christ. In another restaurant, a world-traveler shares her experience as a New Ager who eventually found Jesus.  Mumin Muhammad shares his journey as a Black Muslim, not to be confused with traditional Islam, although he transitioned into traditional Islam before becoming a Christian.  The final story is that of Jeff, a Satanist whose dabbing in the occult nearly led him to suicide before he gave his life over to Jesus.

            At the conclusion of the book, Rainer identifies some things he learned from each interview that generally could be learned from all of the interviews collectively.  Lesson 1 is that Christians need to know the Bible.  Rainer writers, “Most of the interviewees told us that they were amazed at the biblical ignorance they witnessed when they were not Christians.  Several times we heard them say that they knew more about the Bible than Christians did” (p 199).  The second lesson is that witnessing Christians need to know what the other person believes.  Lesson 3 is to listen and Lesson 4 is to pray.  “Invite them to church” is lesson five.  “I have done research in the past,” says Rainer, “that shows that the vast majority of non-Christians will come to church if we invite them” (p 201).  Lesson 6 is about understanding their home lives. Getting them to look closely at their own documents (if their system of faith has documents) is Lesson 7.  This is especially true of the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses.  Lesson 8 is to get the non-believer to look at the Bible objectively and Lesson 9 tells us that churches must be ready for a pluralistic world.  “The church also must be ready to disciple persons who have become Christians out of other belief systems,” writes Rainer (p 202).  Lesson 10 says that Christians cannot be intimidated by other belief systems.  “Share Your Faith Regularly” is Lesson 11 (p 202).  “Live like a Christian” and “Be Willing to Invest Time with Non-Christians” are Lessons 12 and 13, respectively.  And the final lesson is that Christians must love people with the unconditional love of Christ.

Evaluation
            Thom S. Rainer set out to encourage Christians to share their faith with those of other belief systems as well as those with no belief system at all; which means, he wants Christians to share their faith with all non-Christians.  From simply reading The Unexpected Journey, it is difficult to determine if he has succeeded in his purpose; however, one can see how hearing the same themes repeatedly may have a convincing effect upon the reader. Most of the book’s main premise and points are found in the concluding chapter.  Each simple lesson is what Rainer wants the reader to see in the preceding chapters, but for the most part, these brief lessons are somewhat obvious and can be found in nearly every other recent book on the topic of evangelism.  At first glance, Rainer’s approach seems unique, but after seeing the depth the stories do not go into, one gets the idea that these stories should have been part of a larger “how to” book on evangelical methods.          

The conversational tone of the book and the unnecessary details about how Thom and Nellie Jo Rainer got to each interview, where they ate, and how often the server brought them tea or coffee, serve to help the reader “tag along” in the interview; but at the same time, these additions are something of a distraction from the main point, that is, sharing the stories of the interviewees.  Rainer injects too much of himself into the book.  The most egregious examples are found in the opening of each chapter.  Rainer starts with how he and his wife get to the city where the interview will take place. For example, the first page of Chapter One lets the reader know that Rainer had just returned from Uganda, “three days earlier,” they had no problems making their connecting flight in Atlanta, their hotel was in downtown Salt Lake, the sky was blue and the sun was out when they drove the 15 minutes to the suburb of Sandy, and each time the navigation system interrupted the conversation Rainer wondered why they always have female voices (pp 15-16).  In the next chapter, the reader learns that Rainer lost his driver’s license and cannot fly, so he and his wife drive to their next destination (p 33).  Chapter Four opens with Rainer getting lost, but he eventually he finds his way (p 63).  Another unnecessary distraction is all the description Rainer provides regarding the service they received in the restaurants where they interviewed.  To avoid these distractions, Rainer might have used a slightly different format that would not have required him to include all of these transitions and unnecessary details; that is if he were not including them intentionally to help the reader feel present.

Factoids of the various religions the interviewees left are sprinkled throughout the book.  Often these factoids break up the narrative.  They are however, brief and informative.  While Rainer clearly states that, “this book is not an exhaustive treatment of other belief systems” (p 12), the book could have handled more of factoids, potentially at the end of each chapter rather than throughout the narratives.  Additional information might have increased the reader’s understanding of the former religious of the interviewees.  Instead, the only understanding comes from one who was unhappy with that faith structure and found Christianity.  The door is wide open for critics to suggest that none of these testimonies show an accurate portrait of the religious they are talking about because they left those faith systems disgruntled.  Additional factually written information and statistics might have closed this door a little.

             I found this book slightly entertaining but only slightly informative.  The teaching is nothing unique to evangelism and the encouragement The Unexpected Journey is seeking to provide readers is not unlike the stories found in nearly every other book on topic of sharing your faith.  This book would be valuable to those who have had little to no experience with the cultures and religion of non-believers and have not read any other books on evangelism.  

*I have no material connection to this book.  This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.  

Adoption

February 9, 2010

Going before a judge today to finalize the adoption of my son has me thinking a great deal about adoption.  This is second time I've faced a judge and expressed my love for a child that's not the biological product of Lisa and I. Both of my children are adopted and words can't express the depth of my love for them.

It's strange how our society treats adoption.  "Will you," asked the attorney before the watchful eyes of the judge, "love and care for this child in every way the same as you would if he were your natural, biological son?"  The flawed assumption of the question is that shared DNA somehow equals a level of love that adoptive families should strive to attain.  Before my youngest was born, people would ask me the big "what if" questions.  "What if the mom did drugs?" "What if the baby has a hereditary disease?" "What if. . ."  Really, these questions are founded in the incorrect assumption that a non-adopted baby is born perfect, free of "problems" or "complications."  And my favorite question (although I admit I myself have wrongly worried about this question) is: "What if the birth mother wants her baby back?"  Flawed question!  Do parents ever have to deal with losing their biologically born children to things like divorce or kidnapping or death?  And taken away from who?  Do we own our children?  Are only adopted children on loan, or are all children? I like to think that God has put children--adopted or not--in our care only for a time.  Psalm 127:3 says "children are a heritage from the Lord" but Genesis 2:24 says that "man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife," that is, the child, a gift of God, will grow up and become a family of his own.  It's only for a time; sometimes only a very short time.

The Israelite law of the biblical Old Testament made no legal provision for adoption.  There were provisions for orphans; and in situations of infertility, there was polygamy and the use of slave concubines. However, examples of adoption are found in the Bible.  While Abram was still childless, he had it in mind that Eliezer of Damascus would be is heir. (Genesis 15:1-4)  In that time, the heir was to be the first born son and would receive all that the father had.  But in the case of Abram, a non-biologically born person was chosen (although God had another plan for Abram).  And of course there's Moses.  At a time when the male Israelite slave babies were killed at birth by the Egyptians, a mother desired to save her baby.  This Levite woman placed her baby boy in a basket and floated him down the Nile river, sending the baby's big sister to watch from the bank to see what might happen.  Pharaoh's daughter found the baby and took him in as her own. (Exodus 2:1-10) And even Esther was raised by her uncle Mordecai, who, the book of Esther tells us, "had taken her as his own daughter." (Esther 2:7, 15)


Jesus was adopted by Joseph (and Mary, depending on your theology).  Jesus, the Son of God, was conceived in Mary's womb apart from any sexual encounter or inheritance of any sin nature; instead by way of the Holy Spirit coming upon her (Luke 1:35).  Like most ordinary men would, when Joseph learned Mary was pregnant he had in mind to divorce her, that is, until an angel appeared to him and explained the situation.  (Matthew 1:19-20)  But we can read in Luke 2:33 that Joseph was called Jesus' father.  However, only a few verses later (48), Mary asks the boy Jesus, "Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress" and Jesus seems to correct her statement. Clearly there's an interesting earthly verses spiritual adoption dynamic here because Jesus points out that he is in his father's house, meaning in the house of God, claiming that he was the Son of God.  And yet, when Jesus, now a grown man, came back to his home town and proclaimed he was the Messiah, the community asked, "Is not this Joseph's son?" (Luke 4:22)  So while we can't know if Joseph loved Jesus like the biologically born children he and Mary had together, we do see that he took on the earthly role of father.  It seems Joseph adopted Jesus as his own son, loving him in the same way a father today would love his adopted son.           

Often when we think about adoption, we overlook the birth mother.  Think about Moses' mother.  She could have tried to hide the baby, and if she succeeded she would have been able to remain close to her son.  What did she have to lose? If she gave the baby up, he would die; if she tried to hide the baby but failed, he would die.  But she chose a better option for the baby.  And in another situation, recorded in 1 Kings 3:16-28, two prostitutes come before King Solomon.  One had rolled over on her baby, killing it, so she kidnapped the child of the other woman and claimed it as her own.  When both women made claim to the baby, Solomon suggested cutting the baby in half so each woman could have equal portions of the child.  But when the mother of the child heard this, she pleaded with Solomon to let the other woman have the baby.  She pleaded to let the other woman "adopt" the child.  On the other hand, the second woman was content to see the baby cut.  And it was in this great love for her child--so great that she would give the baby up so the baby would live--that Solomon saw the rightful mother.  When a birth mother gives up her child, she should be honored for making a selfless sacrifice, as well has having love for her child and concern for the baby's future.  Lisa and I are extremely thankful for both of our boy's birth mothers.  What a great thing they did for us and for their babies!

But there is something else that should shape our thinking about adoption.  In Galatians, Paul writes, "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.  And because you are sons, God as sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba!" Father!" So  you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God" (Galatians 4:4-7).  We are God's creation, but through faith in Christ Jesus, God's Son, we become children of God through adoption, able to see God not as some far away being, but as our "Daddy!" And for those who believe, trust, and submit to King Jesus, the Son of God, we become heirs of the Kingdom and receive eternal life.

An Analysis of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormonism)

Introduction
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—whose members are commonly called Mormons—is one of, if not the fastest growing religion in the world.[1]  In 2007, the LDS church claimed nearly 13 million members.[2]  Mormons are gaining a mainstream foothold in common culture, having active members in all levels of politics, entertainment, authorship, and academia.  Therefore, this post will attempt to examine the LDS religion; first offering a brief overview of the religion and its early history, then an analysis, followed by one approach for Christians to share their beliefs with Mormons.  This author resides in Salt Lake City, Utah—the headquarters of the LDS church—so in addition to the sources provided here, some insight will come from personal observation.

A Brief Overview of the Mormon Religion
A Religion is Born: Its Early History.  Generally, the accounts of the early beginnings of the Mormon church start in 1820 with a fourteen-year-old boy struggling to decide which Christian denomination to join, mainly of the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists.[3]  After reading James 1:5, Smith heads into a grove of trees and prays about these religions.[4]  Both God the Father and Jesus both appear together and in bodily form.  As James Walker explains,
Smith later reported that Christ warned him to join none of the churches because they were all wrong, their creeds were an abomination in God’s sight, and those who profess these religions are all corrupt. Smith said that he later discovered that there had been a “total apostasy” shortly after the death of the original apostles in the first century. Thus, there had been no true Christianity on the earth for 1,700 years. No church had the true authority to act for God or perform essential, sacred ordinances. Rather than joining any of these apostate churches, Joseph Smith believed that he must restore true Christianity to the earth.[5]
However, Fawn Brodie argues that court records and newspaper accounts suggest that Smith was already gravitating to the “revival hysteria and channeled into a life of mysticism and exhortation.”[6]  She further reminds her readers of the vast amounts of biographical data on Smith and the early birth of the LDS Church, “for Joseph Smith dared to found a new religion in the age of printing.”[7]
 
            On September 21, 1823, after years of “suffering severe persecution” for his vision, Smith received another vision from an angel named Moroni.  Moroni showed Smith where to dig up the golden plates that contained the stories of two nations of people in the Americas and Jesus’ appearing to them.[8]  Smith translated these plates into what is known as The Book of Mormon.  Smith’s revelations as the Prophet for the church were written down, as were the revelations of subsequent Prophet-heads of the church, into a document called the Doctrine and Covenants, with the most recent addition on September 30, 1978.[9]  The Pearl of Great Price and the King James Version of the Bible make up their cannon.  (Concerning the Bible, the eighth Article of faith states that the Bible is acceptable “as far as it is translated correctly.”[10])  The cannon remains open for the addition of further revelation.  The LDS Church is headed by a Prophet, a council of apostles (two advisers and the Prophet make up the “First Presidency,” and 12 elder men for the “Quorum of the Twelve”), and the “Quorum of the Seventy” (all elder men).  This group of leaders oversee local leaders of various jurisdictions down to the local level called the ward.  The ward is lead by a Bishop.  Mormons believe this is the exact structure originally installed by Jesus when he was on the earth.
           
            Basic Doctrines and Tenants.[11]  While many volumes are available on Mormon Doctrine—produced by both Mormons and non-Mormons—this post will not even scratch the surface.  In the simplest of overviews, Mormons do not hold to a Trinitarian view of God, but instead believe that God was once a man, just as we are today, who worked to become a god and then had many spirit children with “Heavenly Mother.”  Jesus and Lucifer (who later became Satan) were among these spirit children.  Both Jesus and Lucifer suggested a plan of salvation to the Father, who selected Jesus’ plan.  Lucifer rebelled and was cast out of heaven along with 1/3 of the other spirit children who supported his rebellion.  Incidentally, the spirit children are synonymous with angels and demons. 

            There are three levels of heaven, with the third level containing an additional three levels.  The best of these levels allows those accepted to become gods and repeat the entire process on another world of their creation.  However, in order to enter any heavenly level, a spirit child must first come to earth to obtain a physical body and work through various ordinances, including entering one of more than 120 Mormon temples to perform baptisms for the dead, be sealed to a spouse and family for all time and eternity, and receive the right to wear special undergarments.  In order to enter the temple, Mormons must be “worthy, which includes among other practices, abstaining from coffee, tea, tobacco, and sex prior to marriage.  Mormons must also give a “full tithe” or 10% of their total gross income.”[12]  The temple is closed to all but fully practicing, “temple worthy” members.  Mormons hold that salvation comes through grace, only “after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23).  They practice sacrementalism and subsequently, sacerdotalism.  In addition, the LDS church has many other minor doctrines, including the more infamous that deal with matters of polygamy and the priesthood (which will be addressed in the next section of this post).  

Analysis of the Mormon Religion
            A Shaky Foundation: Inconsistency of Doctrine.  To an outside observer, it would seem that an open cannon has allowed for convenient changes to doctrines and practices.  For example, Brodie chronicles many incidents of Smith’s behavior with other women prior to his 1831 ‘revelation’ authorizing the practice of polygamy, recorded in Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1843.[13]  It might also appear that this revelation helped solved the problem of remarriage after the death of a wife to which a man was already married and sealed.  Ironically, Parley Pratt, a close friend to Smith, just so happened to be dealing with this problem.  Through revelation, polygamy was allowed and practiced in the Mormon church.  However, in 1890, facing political pressure, the inability for Utah to obtain statehood, and even the possibility of criminal charges, the Prophet Wilford Woodruff received a timely revelation’ that the practice was to stop.[14]  In a similar situation, facing political pressure, Spencer Kimball received a revelation allowing Blacks to receive the priesthood, thus, giving them the ability to enter the temple to perform temple ordinances to potentially become gods, something they were prohibited from obtaining prior to September 30, 1978[15].  Before 1978, it was thought that colored skin was the mark of unrepentant sin.  In hindsight, one outside the LDS Church might suggest this ‘revelation’ would not have come had it not been for the Civil Rights Acts.

            But the open cannon is not the only mechanism allowing for shifting doctrine.  A Prophet might teach a doctrine that a subsequent Prophet can reverse or allow to fall out of practice.  The “Adam-God Doctrine” is one such example.  Walker states, “Young [the Prophet at the time] preached from the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City that the first man, Adam, ‘is our father and god the only god with whom we have to do’ (Journal of Discourses, vol. I, p. 50).”[16]  Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner also provide a number of photographed journal entries, articles, and printed statements by Young that demonstrate many other instances when Young taught this doctrine.[17]  However, “this doctrine was quickly repudiated by the LDS church after Young’s death.”[18]

And in addition to subsequent Prophets changing doctrine, the Book of Mormon has been changed 3,913 times as documented by Tanner and Tanner.[19]  This should cause one to ask, If Joseph was given the tools to correctly translate the golden plates (the autograph), why the need for the changes?  Could it be that English words have already shifted in their meaning?  Maybe.  However, this cannot account for many of the documented changes.  For example, early printings of 2 Nephi 30:6 indicate that if a dark skinned person were to repent, he would be turned “white and delightsome,” but later printings state “pure and delightsome.”[20]

            The Name Game: Christians who Reject Christian Doctrine?  This author has noticed in recent years, a tremendous effort by members of the LDS church to identify themselves as “Christians.”  Stephen Robinson provides Mormons with a ready-made argument to the question, “Are Mormons Christian?” on the LDS website; “Why would anyone say otherwise” writes Robinson.[21]  And there seems to be a strong desire to connect with Evangelical Christians in the voting booth.  Even the LDS Church logo was changed before the 2002 Winter Olympics, making the name of Jesus Christ much larger.  When challenged, Mormons will resort to saying, “What’s the name of our church?  See if it’s in our name, then we are Christian.”  First, the name might be the same but it is not the same Jesus.  To this, Walker writes,
Evangelicals should be aware, however, that the LDS have a “different gospel” and a different Jesus than theirs (2 Corinthians 11:3-4). In 1998, the Mormon prophet Gordon B. Hinckley confessed that he believed in a different Jesus than the “traditional Christ” worshiped by those outside of the LDS Church.[22]
Second, one should ask, Why do Mormons want to be included under the Christian umbrella when their doctrine states that there was a great apostasy and no true Christianity in the world, that no churches were right when Smith was seeking one?  Or could it be that the Mormons simply want to redefine the term, “Christianity” and then claim it exclusively as their own?

How Should Christians Share Their Beliefs With Mormons?
            In his book, I Love Mormons, Dr. Rowe, a former professor at Salt Lake Theological Seminary writes, “My prayer, my dream, is that you, the reader, would come to understand Latter-day Saints and their culture and wed this understanding to a profound love and respect for them that they will sense as you relate to them.  This is how bridges for the biblical gospel will be built into their world, their lives, and even their worldwide church.”[23]  The key idea, as it might be in all apologetics and evangelism, is to build a bridge.  Historically, Mormons have suffered persecution and they tend to be somewhat sensitive about any criticism of their faith.  Therefore, going on the offensive, or even pointing out flaws in their religion might cause them to raise their guard.  (Admittedly, this post will likely produce this result.)  But in every case this author is aware of, people who left Mormonism did so after a season of questioning their own religion.  Being a safe source for answers is possibly the best way to build the bridge Dr. Rowe mentions.

            However, if one desires to approach an active Mormon in an effort to present the gospel, there are some basic tips of which to be mindful.  First, do not dance around the idea that there are some serious differences between Mormon and Christian doctrine.  These differences are real; address them honestly and respectfully.  Second, Mormons are strong supporters of a “personal testimony” so present the gospel from your personal perspective, using a positive approach rather than trying to "chip away" at their beliefs.  Present a positive example of God’s love and grace.  Of course, use Scripture, but remember that the Mormon can always fall back on his or her belief that the Bible is not correctly translated.  Often, a “correct” translation of a passage cannot be provided because this is simply a defense against biblical truth.  Understand that Mormonism is an all-encompassing lifestyle, so a person, if he or she were to convert to Christianity, is not just leaving a religion, but an entire culture.  Try to avoid bashing on that culture.  If you do feel the need to point the Mormon to specific Mormon material, use material he or she might be (or should be familiar with as a typical Mormon) instead of some obscure quote from fifty or one-hundred years ago.  (I admit that I have resorted to a long forgotten doctrine when discussing shifting doctrine; however, it was by choice that I did not use a present doctrine as an example.)  Often, the best source for LDS material is the Doctrine and Covenants; but again, only if you feel you absolutely must.  This will do far more to start the season of questioning than quoting an unknown sermon by say, Brigham Young. (It is easy to fall back on historical quotes, even has this post has done, but this is not often the most effective way to discuss the differences in Mormonism and Christianity when chatting with a member of the LDS faith.)  Try to ask many questions but do not demand an answer on the spot; allow the questions to work in the person’s mind so the Holy Spirit might drive the answers deep into the Mormon’s heart.  And above all, pray continually for the Mormon.  Pray.      

Bibliography
Brodie, Fawn McKay. No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker reference library. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001.
Hindson, Edward E., and Ergun Mehmet Caner. The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics. Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 2008.
Rowe, David L. I Love Mormons: A New Way to Share Christ with Latter-Day Saints. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2005.
Smith, Joseph. The Pearl of Great Price. Extracts from the History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet. History of the Church, Vol. 1, Chapters 1-5. Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter –day Saints, 1981.
Tanner, Jerald and Sandra Tanner. Mormonsim: Shadow or Reality?. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987.


     [1] Walter Elwell. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker reference library, Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001), 792.
     [2] Edward E. Hindson and Ergun Mehmet Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 2008), 360.
     [3] Joseph Smith, The Peal of Great Price, Extracts from the History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, History of the Church, Vol. 1, Chapters 1-5 (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter –day Saints, 1981), 47, 1:5.
     [4] Smith, 48, 1:11-15.
     [5] Hindson, 358.
     [6] Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet (New York: Vintage Books, 1995), 16.
     [7] Brodie, vii.
     [8] Smith, 51-55, 1:27-55.
     [9] Doctrine and Covenants (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter –day Saints, 1981) 294, Declaration 2.
     [10] Smith, 60, The Articles of Faith 8.
     [11] This entire section comes from both personal observation and Hindson, 360-361.
     [12] Hindson, 360-361.
     [13] Brodie, 297-308, 334-347.  The Doctrine and Covenants introduction to Section 132 seems to suggest that Brodie may be correct, including, “Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831” 266.
     [14] Declaration 1 of the Doctrine and Covenants, added on October 6, 1890, records Woodruff’s statements on this matter.
     [15] Declaration 2 of the Doctrine and Covenants.
     [16] Hindson, 359.
     [17] Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner, Mormonsim: Shadow or Reality? 5th ed. (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987), 174-178D
     [18] Hindson, 359.
     [19] Tanner, 89.
     [20] Hindson, 360.
     [21] Stephen E. Robinson, “Are Mormons Christians?” LDS.org, http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e0710e2cbc3fb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 [Accessed December 6, 2009].
     [22] Hindson, 362.
     [23] David L. Rowe, I Love Mormons: A New Way to Share Christ with Latter-Day Saints (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2005), 9. 


*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.  I have no material connection to the books recommended in this post. 
** Photo of Statue is registered under a Creative Commons License:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ilmungo/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. Photo of  Street Preacher is registered under a Creative Commons License:http://www.flickr.com/photos/dianaschnuth/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The Word of God, Hebrews 4:12

A deist is one who believes that God created the world and set it in motion, but does not interact with his creation; or if there is interaction, it is extremely rare, and only in the miraculous. The analogy of the clockmaker is often used; that is, that God is like a clockmaker that created a clock, wound it up, and then set it on a shelf never to touch it again. But the Bible does not teach that God has walked away from his creation, uninterested.  In fact, there are hundreds of stories, thousands of scriptures, that demonstrate the opposite. And while we could look at many, many scriptures, today we'll examine Hebrews 4:12.
 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.  (Hebrews 4:12, ESV)
Here, we see that the Word of God is alive and doing something in this world, in us.  In this verse, the Word is dividing "soul and spirit" and "discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." The NIV translation says "it judges the the thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12, NIV). But what is the Word of God that is alive and active?

The "Word of God" has several different meanings throughout the Bible.  The word "word" is translated from the Greek word (the language the New Testament was originally written in) logos.  The word itself has many possible meanings, which is why the phrase can carry multiple meanings.  The Word of God could mean the speech of God or maybe God's decrees (Genesis 1:3, for example).  It could be the actual words spoken to a person or people, like when God spoke to Moses (Exodus 20:1-3) or when God spoke to the crowd at Jesus' baptism (Matthew 3:17).  There are many Old Testament instances of God speaking through a human prophet; Deuteronomy 18:18-20 explains how God spoke through these men.  And of course the Word of God can mean the written scriptures, that is, the Bible.  (Please see Joshua 24:26 or 1 Corinthians 14:37.) And there are rare Scriptures that indicate that the Word of God is also Jesus Christ.
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) He was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3, ESV)
Here we clearly see that the Word was with God but was also God.  The reference to "the beginning" is a reference to Genesis 1:1 when God was creating the world. This is not simply spoken words or the Scriptures.  And we see that all of creation was made through the Word.  But what or who is this Word.  John 1:14 gives us the answer:
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14, ESV)
Clearly this Word is not like the aloof clockmaker; this God entered flesh and walked among the creation.

Getting back to Hebrews 4:12, it is most likely that the Word of God is the Scriptures (although it is beautiful to see the deeper connection between the Scriptures and the Christ).  Often the Holy Spirit uses what is written to convict us, to show us where we have blemishes in our intentions and attitudes.  And through this conviction we find we can turn to Jesus Christ, who has made a way for us to escape the punishment of sin and dwell with God eternally.  If, however, God is like the clockmaker, why do our thoughts and attitudes need investigation?  Why even leave man with the living and active Word of God at all? No, this God is not like the clockmaker.  This God is living and active in the lives of his creation.  

Scripture: Divine and Human?

INTRODUCTION
When one examines the authorship of the Bible, two possibilities naturally surface.  The first is that the Bible is a collection of books authored by men, not unlike any other written work.  The second option is that God himself authored the Bible.  To the first option, that of human authorship only, Roger Olson asks, “ . . . if God is not in some special and even supernatural way the ultimate author of Scripture, why believe it is unique or even special?”[1]  To the second option, a divine authorship only, Ronald Mayers expresses that those that hold to this view of the Bible “forget that it did come via man in history and did not fall from heaven en bloc.”[2]  The idea that the answer can be only one or the other, according to Olsen, “is a false one that has led to unnecessary and unfortunate polarities of belief about Scripture.”[3]  Mayers, rightly states that, “Scripture is at one and the same time both the Word of God and the word of man.”[4]  Therefore, accepting that Scripture is both divine and human in its authorship, one might ask how to draw correct meaning from a text that is derived from both the Perfect Creator and the imperfect creation.  Through an examination of the various ideas of inspiration and an evaluation of a the common methods of interpretation, this study will attempt, at a minimum, to bring more clarity to a difficult and hazy paradox, if not to identify the more appropriate approach to dealing with the authorship of the Bible.  

THEORIES OF INSPIRATION AND INTERPRETATION
            Among the Christian community, the belief of dual authorship is not only commonly accepted, it serves as one of the many guardrails of orthodoxy.[5]  Olson reminds his readers that, “Scripture was not dropped out of heaven as depicted on the cover of one book about the Bible that calls it That Manuscripts from Heaven.  Humans played a role in writing Scripture, selecting and closing the canon, and interpreting the Bible.”[6]  But to the role and ability of the human contribution, John Calvin says, “Let those dogs deny that the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles, or, if not, let them refuse credit to the history, still the very circumstances proclaim that the Holy Spirit must have been the teacher of those who, formerly contemptible among the people, all of a sudden began to discourse so magnificently of heavenly mysteries.”[7]  However, while there is great agreement of the dual authorship of the Bible, there is disagreement regarding the nature of this dual authorship.  Questions about the specificity of inspiration are reflected in the various approaches to understanding the text.  What does inspired mean?  To answer this question, that is, to get at the important aspects of the dual authorship, one must survey the more common approaches to the inspiration of the Bible.  And what exactly in the Bible is inspired?  If this question is suggesting that some parts of the biblical text are solely God’s and other parts are solely man’s, than there is no dual nature, but rather portions of text by one author and portions by another.  Saying there could be parts completely free of man’s involvement is again introducing an idea of a text—written only by God—that fell from heaven.  However, could it be possible for some parts of the Bible to be inspired, being dual authored, while other parts and merely the work of man?  Let us begin to examine these questions by looking at five views of inspiration.

Intuition Theory
           In following Millard Erickson’s categorization[8], this study will begin with the liberal Theory of Intuition.  Erickson states that the Intuition Theory views divine inspiration as “ . . . the functioning of a high gift, perhaps almost like an artistic ability but nonetheless a natural endowment, a permanent possession.”[9]  Here, there is essentially no difference between the writers of Scripture and other religious thinkers and philosophers such as Plato and Buddha.[10]  The Hebrew culture could be said to have a “gift for the religious” just as some cultures are gifted in mathematics or the sciences.[11]  This view gives little if any credit to the divine, other than for the natural endowment of religious genius.  “The Bible then,” as Erickson explains, “is great religious literature reflecting the Hebrew people’s spiritual experiences.”[12]

Illumination Theory.
            The Illumination Theory maintains that the Holy Spirit was influencing the authors of Scripture in that they were gifted with a “heightening of their normal powers.”[13]  In combining this theory with the Intuition Theory however, Olson contends that, “the biblical writers were religious geniuses who cooperated with the divine Spirit (or self-expressive activity of God) so completely that their writings achieve an inspiring quality and effect seldom if ever noticed elsewhere.”[14]  Olson’s explanation suggests that the divine exists in the cooperation; whereas, Erickson says, “The Spirit’s effect is to heighten or elevate the author’s consciousness.  It is not unlike the effect of stimulants students sometimes take to heighten their awareness or amplify the mental process.”[15]  However, Olson’s approach agrees with Erickson’s final assessment that, “The result of this type of inspiration is increased ability to discover truth,”[16] whether the illumination is through corporation, stimulation, or both.

Dynamic Theory.
            The Dynamic Theory argues that God gave the writers of Scripture the ideas and then they selected the best words to describe them.  Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave explain that “ . . . God gave the thoughts to the men chosen, and left them to record these thoughts in their own ‘dynamic inspiration.’”[17]  Duffield and Van Cleave call this theory the ‘Inspired Concept Theory,’ which may serve to better explain it.  Concepts then, are inspired while the word choices are not.  John Calvin seems to have held to this view.[18]  This process is the combination of both the divine and the human in a way that differs from the Intuition and Illumination Theories in that God is divinely authoring the text in at least some capacity.  For this reason, the Dynamic Theory is generally categorized as a conservative view.[19]

Verbal Theory.
            Also known as the ‘Plenary Inspiration Theory,’ this view holds that even the words are inspired by God, pointing to 2 Timothy 3:16.[20]  God, in effect, directed the writer to each word of the text.[21]  Potentially the most popular view among Evangelicals, Erickson explains that, “ . . . God being omniscient, it is not gratuitous to assume that his thoughts are precise, more so than ours.  Consequently, within the vocabulary of the writer, one word will most aptly communicate the thought God is conveying (although that word in itself may be inadequate).  By creating the thought and stimulating the understanding of the Scripture writer, the Spirit will lead him in effect to use one particular word rather than any other.”[22]  While this may look like dictation, I. S. Rennie argues that, “Dictation is not involved; there is no violation of the personality of the writer.  God had sovereignty and conclusively been preparing the writers for the instrumental task so that they willingly and naturally recorded God’s revelation in the way he required."[23]

Dictation Theory.
            Few hold to the conservative view of Dictation Theory, also know as ‘mechanical inspiration’ or ‘verbal dictation.’[24]  In fact, Olson suggests that this view is “unorthodox” and relegates the role of human authors to merely that of “secretaries of the Holy Spirit.”[25]  Explaining Dictation Theory, Duffield and Van Cleave write, “This theory states that every word, even the punctuation, is dictated by God, much as a business executive would dictate a letter to his secretary.”[26]  Erickson expands on this explanation further stating that proponents believe “Different authors did not write in distinctive styles.”[27]  However, Wayne Grudem points out that, “A few scattered instances of dictation are explicitly mentioned in Scripture.”[28]  Jesus instructs John to write to the various churches in Revelation[29] (2:1, 2:8, and 2:12, for example).  Grudem also suggests Isaiah 38:4-6 as another example.  Moses’ dictation of the Ten Commandments could potentially serve as a third example.

Scripture.
            Looking at the various ideas of inspiration, one can see that a text with atleast some nature of divine and human dual authorship is different than that of other philosophical writing.  This type of writing, as Steven Smith articulates, is generally referred to as ‘Scripture.’[30]  Second Timothy 3:16a reads, “All Scripture is breathed out by God . . .” (ESV).  While this passage is specifically referring to the Old Testament, it sheds light on the inspiration of Scripture.  “The impression here” writes Erickson, “is that they are divinely produced, just as God breathed the breath of life into the human (Gen. 2:7).”[31]  The Greek word that the ESV translates to “breathed out by God” is theopneustos, which James Strong defines as, “God-breathed, inspired by God, referring to a communication from deity: given by inspiration of God.”[32]  Additionally, this is the only occurrence of theopneustos in the New Testament.  James D. G. Dunn suggests that the use of this word clearly indicates the writer’s understanding of the process of inspiration.[33]  “To be noted” writes Dunn, “is the fact that it is the scripture that is ‘God-breathed,’ and not merely the prophet who is ‘inspired,’ unless by that is meant inspired to speak particular words (cf. 2 Pet 1:20).”[34]  Where Dunn fails to go with his commentary, Calvin boldly marches, writing, “This is a principle which distinguishes our religion from all others, that we know that God hath spoken to us, and are fully convinced that the prophets did not speak at their own suggestions, that that, being organs of the Holy Spirit, they only uttered what they had been commissioned from heaven to declare.”[35]  Later in the same discourse, Calvin declares, “This is the first clause, that we owe to God; because it has proceeded from him alone, and has nothing belonging to man mixed with it.”[36] 

         If one can accept what Scripture authenticates about itself, than the next part of this question is to identify which portions of the canonized Bible are Scripture, or words written with and by a dual nature, and which parts are only man.  (Understandably, accepting Scripture in this manner may be a challenge for the non-believer if Gottfried Wachler is correct, saying, “Nor will an unbeliever be moved to acknowledge Scripture’s divine authority on the basis of what Scripture says of itself, that is, by means of a doctrine of its inspiration and divine character.  He will not accept statements from Scripture as proof, since he first wants proof that Scripture is the truth.”[37])  While space does not permit an explanation of why the books of the biblical canon are considered Scripture, Grudem[38] provides a succinct summary of the canonization of both the Old and New Testaments and D.A. Carson & Douglas J. Moo[39] offer a detailed explanation of the New Testament canonization.  Both are worth investigation.  Assuming that every book in the Bible is Scripture and therefore both God and man’s words, all one can do is attempt to separate the words of man from those of God within each individual book; however, Wachler argues that, “There is an indissoluble interweaving of both.  It is impossible to sort out man’s words and God’s words or to label Scripture as being man’s word that may not and then become God’s word.”[40]  To the idea that only some parts of the Bible are dual authored, Duffield and Van Cleave warn, “The dangerous part of this view is that it places into the hands of finite, feeble, and fallible man the power to determine what and where God is speaking.  Thus, man is given power over infinite truth rather than taking a place under it.”[41]

EVALUATION
            After a review of various views on inspiration, and assuming that all of the Bible is inspired in at least some way, an evaluation of that inspiration is needed.  This evaluation would be simple if the Bible were clear on the nature of inspiration but Walcher reminds his readers that, “Nowhere in Scripture is there a description of the ‘how’ of the process of inspiration.”[42]  However, certain biblical passages lend greater support to some views over others depending on the context.  Examples include the introduction of Luke[43], the personal and human qualities of the confession of Psalm 51, the previously mentioned verses instructing John to “write” in Revelation, Paul’s opinion alluded to in 1 Corinthians 7:12ff, Peter’s understanding of prophecy[44], Jesus authoritative use of “It is written . . . ,” and the many Old Testament uses of “Thus says the Lord . . . .”
  
            The liberal views of inspiration—intuition and illumination—present a challenge for the believer because although there is no indication of the ‘how,’ unlike the other three views that attempt to rest on Scriptural clues, the liberal views seem void of any scriptural support.  “The liberal approach in Scripture,” writes Olson, “is heretical because it ultimately denies or completely undermines Scripture’s unique authority.  The problem is not that liberal thinkers wish to do justice to the human quality of Scripture but that their model of Scripture’s inspiration cannot do justice to the Bible’s divine quality.  In their hands the Bible becomes a historical novel or a powerful work of fiction that shapes manners and morals by creating a world to inhabit.”[45]  Both of the liberal views present a problem for D. Edmond Hiebert if inspiration is something of a natural ability or “stimulant” of the Holy Spirit.  In reference to 2 Peter 1:19-21, Hiebert writes, “ . . . no prophecy arose out of the prophet’s own solution to the scenes he confronted or his own interpretations of the visions presented in his mind.”[46]  Heibert would then also take issue with the dynamic view.

            Despite Heibert’s concerns, Paul’s statements that believers have been “taught by the Holy Spirit”[47] and have “the mind of Christ”[48] seem to support the Dynamic Theory of inspiration.  And given that Paul does not say, “Thus says the Lord,” there is reason to think he was inspired by something other than a dictation or plenary verbal inspiration.[49]  It was not that Paul’s message was not divine argues Vern Sheridan Poythress, but “Rather, it is (largely) because he has so thoroughly absorbed the message into his own person.”[50]  Polythress argues that in the New Testament at least, the fact that Paul is filled with the Holy Spirit means we are not dealing with “bare” human nature.[51]  “We are already dealing with the divine, namely the Holy Spirit,” writes Polythress.[52]  But even in Paul’s writing, a biblical clue is present that suggests something other than dynamic inspiration.  In 1 Corinthians 7:10, Paul clearly says that something he is saying is from the Lord and not himself and then in verse 12 he argues something that is “I, not the Lord” (ESV).  In this case, it would seem that being “so thoroughly absorbed in the message” is not exactly what was going on here, at least with this part of the message.

In an attempt to understand the dynamic nature of inspiration, H. H. Rowely, who leans substantially toward the human authorship of Scripture writes,
If light falls on the eye though colored glass, it is modified by the medium through which it passes. None of the light comes from the glass itself. It comes from the source beyond the glass; yet it is all modified by the glass. So revelation that comes through the human personality is modified, and sometimes marred, by the medium through which it comes—colored by the false ideas and presuppositions of him through whom it is given. Yet all the revelation is from God. It therefore follows that not every inspired writers is on the same level, and our concern must be to know what God was saying through him to his contemporaries and to us.[53]
Rowely further argues, “We but dishonor God when we hold him responsible for every statement in the Bible.”[54]  At stake through this line of thinking is the divine authority of Scripture as well is its infallibility.  In an effort to avoid this potential slippery slope, many Evangelicals have turned to the Verbal or Plenary Theory.  But this theory is certainly not free of problems.  Olson states that theologians that subscribe to the Dynamic Theory “simply cannot see how plenary verbal inspiration differs from dictation.”[55]  To combat this thinking, Erickson stresses that proponents of the plenary view must take great care to avoid slipping into a dictation model and often have to structure their articulation in the form of a defense.[56]  This is seen in A. N. S. Lane’s attack on the Dynamic Theory and support of the plenary view.  Lane writes, “It must not be supposed that God merely put ideas into the minds of the biblical authors and then left them to put them into words as best they could.  But claiming that words themselves are inspired it is not implied that human writers are not also their authors.”[57]  Olson also argues that, “The dynamic model has the advantage of accounting for the very different styles of the authors as well as for the many idioms, cultural forms and trivial asides one finds in Scripture.  It is difficult to see how plenary verbal inspiration accounts for Paul’s poor grammar, including unfinished sentences!”[58]

            Why would those subscribing to the plenary verbal inspiration view diligently try to avoid being accused holding a strict diction view?  Duffield and Van Cleave suggest it is because of its great weakness, that is, “that it eliminates any possibility of a personal style in the writings of the divinely chosen author—a phenomenon which is clearly observable.”[59]  Dictation seems to remove the humanity from the Scriptures.  Duffield and Van Cleave further write, “Fundamentalists are often accused of subscribing to this method of inspiration, but only a small percentage of them actually do.”[60]  But what about passages in Scripture that seem to suggest dictation, such as in Revelation or Isaiah?  To this question, Erickson says, “This is particularly true in prophetic writing and apocalyptic material, but the process described above was not the usual and normative pattern, nor is prophetic and apocalyptic material more inspired than the rest of the Bible.”[61]

CONCLUSION
            In light of the various approaches to inspiration, one might be tempted to ask which approach best explains inspiration required for the dual authorship of Scripture.  Certainly, the Christian can easily rule out the two liberal views: intuition and illumination.  But given the strengths, weakness, and biblical clues that both support and reject the dynamic, verbal, and dictation ideas of inspiration, how is one to settle on any single approach?  The answer is that they should not.  Inspiration it would seem, is something of a combination of all three views.  This is not to say however, that the Bible is not inspired; quite the opposite is true.  Nor is it to say that one passage is more inspired than any other when the idea of “God-breathed” does not clearly identify the ‘how’ and no passages in the text lead to that conclusion.

Although Olson implies that the writers of Scripture should be seen merely as secretaries of the Holy Spirit,[62] the role of a secretary is an appropriate way to view a proper approach to biblical inspiration.  In explaining the plenary view, Erickson offers an example a personal secretary he employed for many years.  Although Erickson is speaking specifically to the plenary view, his example works well in explaining my multifaceted idea of inspiration.  When the secretary first started, Erickson dictated letters to her.  As she began to better understand Erickson’s mind, he could tell her the “general tenor” of his thinking and she could draft an appropriate letter.  “By the end of the third year,” writes Erickson, “I could have simply handed her a letter I had received and told her to reply, since we had discussed so many issues connected with the church that she actually knew my thinking on most of them.”[63]  Is it unreasonable to think that if Erickson needed to write a letter on a completely unfamiliar matter, he could still return to dictation, even with the secretary of three or more years?  Or maybe he could tell her the basic ideas of the letter?  All three of these methods use a secretary to transmit the message of the executive, and they clearly parallel the three conservative views of Scriptural inspiration and dual authorship.  This multiple method approach is how biblical inspiration should be viewed.  At times, inspiration is dynamic, other times it follows the verbal plenary approach, and on occasion, it is dictated; but no matter the method, it is all inspired.

The dual authorship of the Bible is a complex matter.  In order to develop a solid understanding, one must examine ideas of inspiration, authority, infallibility, the canonization of Bible, and the Scripture itself.  As this is a topic with a long history in the community of the Church, a review of the many theologians’ work on this subject will also prove beneficial.  In this limited space and scope, an examination has been offered, but it is certainly not exhaustive.  It is this author’s hope that the reader will conduct further research on this matter.            

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries, vol. 21.  Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, translated by William Pringle. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2009.
Calvin, John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.
Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005.
Duffield, Guy P., and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave. Foundations of Pentecostal Theology. Los Angles, California: Foursquare Media, 2008. 
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2001. 
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1998. 
Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994.
Hiebert, D. Edmond. “The Prophetic Foundation for the Christian Life: An Exposition of 2 Peter 1:19-21,” Bibliotheca Sarca 141, number 562 (1984): 158-168.
Lane, A. N. S. “B.B. Warfield and the Humanity of Scripture.” Vox Evangelica 16 (1968): 77-94.
Mayers, Ronald B. “Both/and: the uncomfortable apologetic.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23, number 3 (September 1980): 231-241.
Olson, Roger E. The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
Poythress, Vern Sheridan. “Divine Meaning of Scripture.” Westminster Theological Journal 48 (1986): 241-279.
Rowley, Harold Henry. “Authority and Scripture I.” Christian Century 78, number 9 (March 1, 1961): 263-265.
Smith, Stephen G. “What is Scripture? Pursuing Smith’s Question.” Anglican Theological Review, volume 90, issue 4 (2008): 753-775.
Strong, James, John R. Kohlenberger, and James A. Swanson. The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001.
The New Interpreter's Bible, v.11. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon, 2000.
Wachler, Gottfried.  “The Authority of Holy Scripture.” Concordia Journal no. 5 (1984): 171-180.


     [1] Roger E. Olson, The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 97.
     [2] Ronald B. Mayers, “Both/and: the uncomfortable apologetic,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 no 3 (September 1980), 232.
     [3] Olsen, 90.
     [4] Mayers, 232.
     [5] Olson, 99.
     [6] Ibid., 90.
     [7] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 41-42.
     [8] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1998), 231-233.
     [9] Ibid., 231. 
     [10] Ibid., 232.
     [11] Ibid., 231-232.
     [12] Ibid., 232.
     [13] Ibid.
     [14] Olson, 96.
     [15] Erickson, 232.
     [16] Ibid.
     [17] Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angles, California: Foursquare Media, 2008), 25.
     [18] Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 26-29.
     [19] Duffiled, 25.
     [20] Ibid.
     [21] Ibid.
     [22] Erickson, 240.
      [23] Walter Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2001), 1242.
     [24] Duffield, 25.
     [25] Olson, 98.
     [26] Duffield, 25.
     [27] Erickson, 232.
     [28] Wayne A. Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids,
     Michigan: Zondervan, 1994), 80.
     [29] See Rev. 2:1, 2:8, and 2:12, for examples.
     [30] Stephen G. Smith, “What is Scripture? Pursuing Smith’s Question,” Anglican Theological Review vol. 90, issue 4 (2008), 753-775.
     [31] Erickson, 227.
     [32] James Strong, John R. Kohlenberger, and James A. Swanson, The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001), 1615.
     [33] The New Interpreter's Bible, v.11 (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon, 2000), 851.
      [34] Ibid.
        [35] John Calvin. Calvin's Commentaries, vol. 21.  Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2009), 248-249.
     [36] Ibid.
       [37] Gottfried Wachler, “The Authority of Holy Scripture” Concordia Journal no. 5 (1984), 171.
     [38] Grudem, 54-69.
     [39] D.A. Carson, and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005), 726-742.
     [40] Wachler, 178.
     [41] Duffield, 23-24.
     [42] Ibid.
     [43] Luke 1:1-4.
     [44] 2 Pet. 1:16-21.
     [45] Olson, 96. 
     [46] D. Edmond Hiebert, “The Prophetic Foundation for the Christian Life: An Exposition of 2 Peter 1:19-21,” Bibliotheca Sarca 141, no 562 (1984), 165.
     [47] 1 Cor. 2:13.
     [48] 1 Cor. 2:16.
     [49] Vern Sheridan Poythress, “Divine Meaning of Scripture,” Westminster Theological Journal 48 (1986), 252.
     [50] Ibid.
     [51] Ibid.
     [52] Ibid.
     [53] Harold Henry Rowley, “Authority and Scripture I,” Christian Century 78, no 9 (March 1, 1961), 263.
     [54] Ibid.
     [55] Olson, 104.
     [56]Erickson, 232.
     [57] A. N. S. Lane, “B.B. Warfield and the Humanity of Scripture,” Vox Evangelica 16 (1968), 80. 
     [58] Olson, 104.
     [59] Duffield, 25.
     [60] Ibid.
     [61] Erickson, 244.
     [62] Olson, 98.
     [63] Erickson, 243. 

*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website. 

Exegesis: The Importance of Doing it Well

          Just before the election on California’s Proposition 8, a man’s use of Scripture in an emotionally charged conversation caught my attention.  Biblical passages were memorized and cited, lending believability and authority to the man’s argument.  Yet, while others were awestruck, I found myself questioning his exegesis, that is, his process of interpreting a passage of Scripture.  Although this man also argued for the inerrancy of God’s Word that day, he has became, in my opinion, an example of the “ignorant and unstable” person twisting scripture (2 Peter 3:16) as he failed to overcome the subjective factors influencing his thinking.  Even worse is the likely damage he did to the biblical understanding of the unbelievers he was arguing with.

            The acquaintance, let’s call him Bill, was using passages from 2 Samuel chapters 18 and 20, as well as 1 Samuel to suggest that God takes no issue whatsoever with homosexuality because God approved of David, who Bill argued, “was clearly a homosexual.”  Bill zeroed in on Jonathan’s “love” for David and David’s “love” for Jonathan.  Ratcheting up his argument, he quoted the last half of 2 Samuel 1:26, “your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women” [ESV]. Despite how one might feel about homosexuality, gay marriage, or California’s Proposition 8, we should not allow these feelings to mask the poor exegesis of the Second Samuel passages he used.  We should also realize that his interpretation was relying strictly on the English word that represented the original Hebrew word.  And he read modern concepts and meaning (loaded with ideas from present culture) into a text that was speaking to an audience with a different understanding of these concepts and word meanings.

            Bill is an openly gay man who attends a church body that holds to a confession similar to Bill’s argument.  Bill’s pastor is also openly gay, as are most of the men and women of Bill’s local church congregation.  While it is not my point to identify the specific incorrectness of Bill’s exegesis of these passages (or his confession), it is easy to see that Bill’s statements rest comfortably in the subjective factors of his own background, political ideology, and congregational culture.

            After Bill finished and the non-believers moved on, I asked Bill how he reconciled this belief with other scriptures found throughout the Bible.  His response—focusing mainly around an argument that the Old Testament was written before Pentecost, without the Holy Spirit’s assistance, and that Paul’s statements were simply Paul’s own opinions—left me thoroughly confused about how Bill could still argue for the inerrancy of Scripture.  Clearly, Bill’s exegetical methodology was not good and probably detrimental to his own faith.  Even more troubling was how damaging his interpretation of specific scripture might have been to the non-believer’s understanding of the books of Samuel, the Gospel of Christ, or how Christians approach the Bible.          

It is easy to use Bill’s methods as an example of poor exegesis given how far outside of generally accepted orthodoxy his arguments are; however, I have a log in my own eye.  In the same manor as Bill, quoting scripture and trying to sound smart, I have argued for or against doctrines or interpretations with other well-intentioned, knowledgeable Christians.  Even within the Church, many interpretations come to different conclusions, often from the same scripture.  Whether the issue is election, essentials of salvation, Spiritual gifts, end-times, or any of the other various debatable doctrines, it is the difference in how we do exegesis that brings about so many opposing positions.   

            Despite how much thoughtful effort is put into the various opposing interpretations, to the new believer, someone who has been walking with Christ for 30 years, and especially the non-believer, just the fact that our exegesis leads to different ideas can be troubling.  At times, an individual’s exegesis concludes with misguided or incorrect beliefs that often have a tendency to distract the believer from the more important issues of the biblical message.  Failing to overcome subjective factors, that is, doing exegesis through our own lenses rather than a Spirit-led illumination of God’s Word is often the cause that leads to many conversations like Bill’s.  It is important we take our exegetical methodology (or hermeneutics) seriously.  This is something that takes practice, a dedication to the study of the Word of God, and a community that will help shepherd us as go.  

* Photo is registered under a Creative Commons License: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatmanad/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

A Church Planter's Advice to Church Planters

February 1, 2010.

I had the privilege of sharing a duplex wall with Danny Braga and his family in Twin Falls, Idaho before he headed to Seattle to plant (re-plant) what has become Taproot Church.  For many months, we met to discuss theology and church planting, watch the Office, or consume inappropriate amounts of fiery hot wings.  Inevitably, his family moved to Seattle as mine journeyed to Salt Lake City.

In many ways, Danny is my go-to guy.  His experience is informative and his biblical insight is invaluable. In those times when seminary-snobbery starts to creep in (as it so easily does when we start stacking letters behind our names and comparing schools), I'm reminded of Danny's sound self-study, his theological knowledge set, and his insatiable appetite for greater understanding.  Sure, there are things Danny could learn from seminary, but at the same time, there are many, many things my fellow students and I need to learn from brothers like Braga.

As I've previously mentioned elsewhere on this website, Lisa and I are considering joining this church planting team coming to Salt Lake City, Utah.  Obviously, I've been regularly praying, thinking, and meditating about church planting in this city.  So I was pleased when Danny agreed to share some of his insights from his church planting experience.

Danny Braga is Lead Elder and Teaching Pastor at Taproot Church.  He launched his replanting efforts in the south-side of Seattle in the Summer of 2007 and he's active with Acts 29, a church planting network.  He's passionate about church planting, desires that his guitar becomes an extension of his thoughts, and wants a full sleeve tattoo but has yet to put needle to skin.  Here's Danny's advice to fellow church planters:
 

Danny, when you planted (re-planted) what worked?  What didn't?
I'd say that the most important thing for a plant team is that they deeply depend upon what the Holy Spirit is leading them to do in their specific context.  We are a people of pragmatism. I've seen guys fall into the trap of looking at what other ministries are doing and what seems to be "working" and then adopting that wholesale as their own plan. There's nothing wrong with getting ideas and learning from others; but for a planting team, there must be the deep conviction that 1. God has called and assembled a specific group of people for a specific work in a specific place, 2. That specific work must be God's work and not "what works," and 3. definitions of success (or "it's working"), must be determined by faithfulness to what God calls this specific group of people to do and their obedience to that vision and mission.

In my context, I spent nearly 10 years planning and preparing to do a church plant from scratch (you were part of the last year) but then the specific work for which I was called just a month before moving to Seattle was a "replant."  In other words, God turned my "what will work" paradigm on its head and put me into His work.  I guarantee this is what He's gonna do with you guys and "what will work" is your team being flat on their faces continually in submission to Him and seeking His will above all else.

There's lots than can be said to this question, but let me just say this: don't be afraid to experiment with other ideas after you've spent extended seasons of prayer and fasting and been confirmed that the Lord is leading you in a particular direction.  Jesus will tweak what He's doing in other contexts to fit yours, but it'll be yours and not something plopped down out of an entirely different situation.
If you could go back and do it again, what would you change? 
I'm 2 1/2 years into my gig and I've learned much more than could be written or expressed in the time we have.  Here's the things I'd have changed in the first 2 years.  First, I would have embraced a deeper humility and a softer servant's heart.  I came in with my church planter cape blowing in the wind and got the s**t kicked out of me by the enemy, the people, and somewhat the Holy Spirit.  I, like the majority of planters, knew how to do it and the Lord really had to take me down a few notches. Second, doing it over again, I'd set my time-lines completely down at His feet and then not let them drive my decision making process.  Fast food and high-speed Internet and the anomalies of a select few fast growing churches have warped and deformed the average church planter's time-lines.  I made decisions thinking that after year one we'd be at 500 when we really were only gonna be at 75.  This is an ongoing process in my life, but things sure would have been more restful if I'd submitted to His time-line early on. And third, I'd slow down and enjoy the process.  It's only been in the last six months that I've slowed down enough to go out and enjoy the gorgeous city of Seattle.  I love to just sit down on the beach and watch the clouds float by.  I should have done this more in the beginning.
What suggestions would you give to new church-planters?  
First, Jesus said He will build His church.  Get it out of your thick head that you're building anything and that this thing is yours.  It's His church, it's His work; so be a good slave and do what you're told.  Rejoice in the amazing grace that He even lets you get anywhere near His Bride. 
Second, love your wife.  Love her, every moment, like it's the last moment you'll have with her. Pour into her, nourish her, strengthen her.  Repent daily of your neglect, selfishness, and down right cruelty in not honoring her as the weaker vessel.  Cherish her as the most gracious and prized gift that you've ever been given, because she is.  Pull your head out of your church planting butt and realize what's important, the Lord, your wife, and your family.  The church must be somewhere after that list. 
Number three, get real accountability and coaching that you respect and will call you out. Church planters are bull-headed, arrogant, and sometimes extremely stupid.  It's vitally important that there is another bull-headed, arrogant, sometimes stupid guy whose been through a couple years of the ringer who will speak into that for safety, growth, and overall health. 
And finally, just love Jesus.  Your His kid so be His kid and enjoy Jesus.  I know it sounds simple, but just love Jesus every day.  Develop a heart that yearns for His return and presence more than anything else and you'll be good, your wife will be loved, your kids will be well taken care of, and He'll plant a healthy church through you.
Danny, what books should a church planter include in his library?  
There are many, but here's a short but essential list:

On theology, Grudem's Sytematic Theology and JI Packer's Knowing God 
Preaching, Bryan Chappel's Christ Centered Preaching.
To the heart, Keller's Prodigal God and Counterfeit Gods, Piper's Desiring God, and AW Tozer's The Pursuit of God and Knowledge of the Holy. Also, The Contemplative Pastor by Eugene Peterson.

For leadership, Spurgeon's Lectures to My Students, Sander's Spiritual Leadership, Piper's Brothers We Are Not Professionals, and Leadership Secrets of Billy Graham by Harold Myra.

On prayer I'd say anything by E.M. Bounds, and DA Carson's A Call to Spiritual Reformation.

Church, Total Church by Steve Timmis and Driscoll's Vintage Church. 
For training, look into Trellis and the Vine by Collin Marshall and Tony Payne.

And biographies: anything on the great men of God throughout history. (I just finished Ian Murray's work on Edwards and it was awesome.)

If you're in the Seattle area, join Danny on Sunday mornings at Taproot Church and if you're not in the area you can still catch the podcast of the sermon here.  Or you can follow Danny Braga on Twitter here. Danny Braga is a church planter with the Acts 29 Network.  

*Neither Danny Braga, Taproot Church, or I have any material connection to the books recommended in this post.

Geneva Convention Today: The Chaplain as a POW?

            In the unlikely event that two nation-states were to go to war with one another and abide by the provisions set forth in the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949 (III), there is a possibility that one or more chaplains would be captured.  However, this possibility is remote considering the rapid changes in modern warfare; and more significantly, the likelihood that an enemy nation would abide by the rules agreed upon in 1949.  As odd as it may sound, World War II might have been the last “civilized” war. 
            Reading the Geneva Convention articles regarding Prisoners of War (POW) rules and operations paints images of “The Bridge Over the River Kwai.”  We see captors abiding by the rules and chaplains moving about, ministering to soldiers and providing religious services.  History however, shows us something different.  The Korean and Vietnam wars were simply treated as “conflicts” or “actions,” and neither nation abided by the Geneva Convention.  During the 1991 conflict in Iraq, the US didn’t experience any POW situations, although it is not a stretch to think Iraq would not have honored the Articles of the Geneva Convention.  In early 2001, a C-130 Hercules aircraft went down in China and the Chinese government held the American crew captive.  As no deceleration of war were pronounced, the Geneva Convention remained unnecessary.  In the present conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is unlikely that any American soldier would be afforded anything resembling the Geneva Convention protections, just as the United States has also declared the Articles irrelevant to the War on Terror.
            Yet, despite the lack of respect for the Geneva Convention rules, it is valuable for a chaplain to understand that the participating nations believed chaplains were to be afforded specific rights that insured the protection of religious activities, even in a prisoner of war camp.  Chapters IV and V specifically deal with the role of the chaplain.  Article 33 dictates that the chaplain is not technically a prisoner of war and may not be forced to do detail labor.  More specifically, they are to continue in their duties as religious leaders.  Article 34 guarantees the prisoners the right to worship and attend services.  Article 35 gives the chaplain the right to move about the camp, or even between camps, in the exercise of ministry.  Article 36 gives fellow soldiers the ability to minister to one another in the absence of an official chaplain.  And Article 37 gives the prisoners the ability to actually appoint a person as their chaplain in the event that a chaplain is not available.  Religion and faith were important, even in war, in 1949, and just because nations do not honor these articles today does not reduce the importance of a chaplain captured with his or her fellow soldiers.
            Chaplains should continue to be aware of the Articles pertaining to their rights and duties as a POW chaplain.  Even if a chaplain is treated like any other POW, he should remember that he is first, a chaplain.  If detail labor is assigned, the chaplain should still try to find ways to minister and care for his fellow POWs.  Even if soldiers are not afforded the right to worship, the chaplain should remain strong, standing up for the soldier’s right to worship and gather for services.  If the chaplain is not allowed to move around freely, he should still attempt to visit with soldiers in anyway he can, even if it means meeting with the men as they do detail labor or conversing through the use of the Tap Code as did the men and women in the POW camps during the Vietnam War.  And in the terrible event that the chaplain is executed, he should be mindful of the martyred apostles and remain faithful.
            While the face of warfare may have moved beyond the Geneva Convention, the duties of the chaplain remain much the same, whether protected by agreed upon and ratified “rules” of war or not.  The chaplain should diligently keep the spirit of the Geneva Convention even if his captors choose otherwise.


*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.