Sunday Service Format

The following video pokes fun at the contemporary church format.  We might say something like, "it's funny because it's true."



The jab is not at large churches or modern style music, but at the driving force behind a church like the one in this video.  I believe there are are many churches, big and small, "contemprovant" and not, that are producing a church service rather than gathering of believers coming together in order to worship Jesus.  The seeker sensitive model seems to have given way to the rock concert/Hollywood model of church.  Both models are flawed on more than one level.  But I think as we watch this video and laugh, we need to take a hard look at the root of the problem.  Is it because people are not opening their Bibles to learn, study, and hear form God's Word?  Is it because prayer is on the back burner?  Is there a lack of response to God here?  It's easy to say yes.  Who's to blame, the produces of Sunday Morning or the attendees seeking entertainment above Christ?  However, identifying it is not what the believers of Jesus are called to do; making disciples is what Christ had in mind (Matthew 28:18-20).  So that leaves us with the question, what are we to do (if anything) about the "contemporvant" trend in America?

Coffee for Christ

This website has generally been free of advertisements, but as I'm drinking a cup of coffee this Sunday morning, I thought I would interrupt this blog for a brief commercial break.

If you're a coffee drinker and you spend between $0.70 and $0.90 per ounce for your beans, you should consider purchasing your coffee from one of the many organizations selling quality coffee to raise funds for ministry.  The price is typically the same for this coffee as it is for other specialty brands like Starbucks, and usually the flavor and quality is the same, if not better.  The major difference is that rather than the profits going into a commercial corporation's bottom line or to enhance an owner's lifestyle, they go toward ministry efforts.

Two examples include Saint's Coffee (which Tom Davis and I highly recommend) and Acts 29 Coffee (which comes highly recommend by a Danny Braga, a friend).  Saint's Coffee is raising money to care for orphans overseas, mostly in Africa.  Acts 29 Coffee is raising money for church planting in America. 

It may not seem like much of a contribution individually, but when many individuals purchase coffee, the proceeds add up, like the Proverbs ant (Proverbs 6:6, 30:24-25).  Churches that typically serve coffee before, during, and after Sunday services and other weekly gatherings, should consider one of these coffee fund-raising options as another way to support various ministry efforts outside their walls.

There can be a charge for shipping; however, some of these organizations offer free shipping for orders over a certain size.  If you have a little extra space, it might be something worth doing.


* I have no material connection to either of the organizations or products mentioned in this post.  The photos come from the websites http://www.saintscoffee.com and http://acts29coffee.com, and admittedly are being used without permission (Although I am happy to remove them and the links to their respective sites if requested to do so.) 

Here I Stand by Roland Bainton

CRITIQUE OF
Bainton, Roland Herbert. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. New York: Meridian, 1995.

INTRODUCTION
Born on November 10, 1483 in Eisleben to an ore miner and a woman of prayer[1], and dying on February 18, 1546 in the town of his birth, condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, Martin Luther may have lived the most influential 63 years of any individual of protestant church history. Roland Bainton, a Quaker and a “minister, theologian, and Titus Street Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale Divinity School,” has attempted to capture the prominent aspects and driving force behind Luther in his book Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther.[2]  Bainton writes, “. . . this study may appropriately begin with [Luther’s] first acute religious crisis in 1505. . .” and for the remainder of his book, the focal point of Bainton’s work is on Luther’s Anfechtungen, that is, the religious crises of Luther experienced throughout much of is lifetime. Bainton’s work and subject of this review has, for good reason, become an authority on the reformer, Martin Luther.

BRIEF SUMMARY
Here I Stand is thematically divided into two parts. Although subtle, the first part of the work, approximately Chapters 1-11, details Luther’s struggles—first in Luther’s inability to approach God, and second his challenge with the Church’s move away from what Luther saw as biblical teachings. This first half of the book moves through the narrative of Luther’s life much like any biography would, only with a central focus on Luther’s understanding of God. Essentially, Luther had a frightful experience causing a vow to Saint Anne that in exchange for his life he would become a monk. As a monk, he greatly struggled to understand how a finite man can approach an infinite God and still survive. He continued to work at his salvation, pushing himself to extreme measures and mental torment. Eventually Luther was elevated to the position of priest, although this did not alleviate his anguish. His struggles only intensified after a trip to Rome where he witnessed not only how the money from his fellow poverty-simple Germans was being used; but also the lack of earnestness among his fellow priests and a horrid manipulation relics and indulgences.

In 1511, Luther was granted a position as professor at Wittenberg under the direction of Dr. Johann von Staupitz.[3] It was through his teaching on the Psalms and lectures through the book of Romans that Luther came to understand that his theology was flawed—it was only through “faith alone” that he could approach God. Luther felt the Church went astray, mostly in relics and indulgences. Hoping to correct some problematic practices and teaching of the Church, he posted his Ninety-Five Thesis for debate and discussion. This, it seems, was the igniter that set ablaze a movement that would eventually be called the Reformation.

Until a time just after the Diet of Worms, Bainton narrates most of Luther’s history through the lens of Luther’s struggle. It is here that the reader sees events such as Luther’s battle with Tetzel, his debate with Eck, and his receipt of the papal bull as a spiritually challenging life conflict. Then Bainton shifts to telling the remainder of the narrative through the lens of Luther’s theology. This shift occurs slowly between Chapters 10 and 12. It is as if Bainton is demonstrating a shift in Luther’s life as well. The remainder of the book moves through Luther’s theology while explaining events such as the hearings, excommunication, the translation of the New Testament into German, the exodus of monks and nuns, the burning of martyrs, the Peasants’ War, Luther’s marriage to Katherine von Bora, and Luther’s death.

Here I Stand features a detailed time-line in the front of the book, which servers as an overarching guide to the narrative. In addition, the publication displays a number of historical drawings rendered from woodcuttings of the day. The index is well detailed and the bibliography is extensive with nearly 300 entries. The notation system—of which Harris calls “the unpardonable sin,” is somewhat cumbersome.[4] His method, while keeping the manuscript free of distracting superscript notations and footnotes, requires that one counts the lines of the page to determine the location of the specific end note.

CRITICAL INTERACTION OF THE AUTHOR’S WORK
Shortly after its publication in1950, Here I Stand drew the attention of many reviews, mostly positive of Bainton’s work. Harris, for example, was critical of the book’s notational system and Bainton’s trust of Table Talk as an accurate account of Luther’s life and history but he calls the book “superb.”[5] Roth hints that he would have preferred to see more of the social and political undercurrent that influenced Luther’s thinking but still praises the work.[6] Garrison and Campbell also offered positive reviews after the book’s release.[7]

Having read a mid-sized selection of Luther’s work and only a small selection of work about Luther (found in broader history books), this author is hesitant to be too critical of Bainton. Harris suggest that academic debate centered on the historical reliability of Luther’s own accounts might give cause to doubt Bainton’s work; however, it would seem that the exhaustive list of references lends great support and credibility to Bainton’s understanding of Luther. The tone of the narrative and the word choices add flavor to the manuscript, although at times, bring too much of the author into the book. And working through the two themes—those of Luther’s struggle and his theology—add great insight that might not have been present otherwise. The reader is drawn into the Anfechtungen with Luther, forcing one to draw personal application from it. However, by shifting to the theological lens in the recount the remaining narrative, Bainton allows the reader to find answers through Luther’s extensive biblical study and understanding.

CONCLUSION
Resting so well between a purely academic work and that of biography fit for mass consumption, Here I Stand it an outstanding choice for any reader interested in the life of Martin Luther. This book appears historically solid without getting marred down by the critical debates commonly found in academia. Bainton’s extensive work warrants his book’s reputation and explains why Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther is still found on the shelves of libraries, professors, pastors, and laypeople some 60 years after its publication.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bainton, Roland Herbert. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. New York: Meridian, 1995.
Campbell, Donald J. “Luther.” Christian Century. vol. 67 no. 40. October 4, 1950, 1168-1169.
Garrison, Winfred Ernest. Christian Century. vol. 67 no. 40. October 4, 1950, p 1169.
Harbison, E Harris. Theology Today. vol. 8 no. 4. January 1952, p 558-563.
Roth, Paul. Lutheran Quarterly. vol 3, no. 2. May 1951, p 224-225.
__________
1 Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (New York: Meridian, 1995), 16-17.
2 Bainton, ii; and, Donald J. Campbell, “Luther” Christian Century (67 no. 40 October 4, 1950, 1168-1169), 1168.
3 Bainton, 39.
4 Harbison, E Harris. Theology Today (vol. 8 no. 4, January 1952, p 558-563), 558.
5 Harbison, 558.
6 Paul H. Roth, Lutheran Quarterly (vol. 3 no. 2, May 1951, p 224-225) 224-225.
7 Campbell, 1168-1169; and Earnest Garrison, Christian Century (vol. 67 no. 40. October 4, 1950, p 1169), 1169.

* 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.

Deseret Book Stops Printing Mormon Doctrine

First printed in 1958, Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie was (and maybe still is) a staple of the LDS Church.  It is used and quoted in many of the instructional books and teaching manuals.  But now it is being taken out of print.  The publisher, Deseret Book, claims that it's not selling.  However, KUTV 2News in Utah reports that sales are not low and that something else might be behind letting the book's printing life coming to an end.

The KUTV reporter went to a number of book stores in the Salt Lake area, including Sam Weller's and Barnes & Noble, and learned that the book is still a strong seller.  They can't seem to keep it stocked and at Sam Weller's, there is a waiting list for the title.  But the sales of a few local bookstores doesn't say much for overall sales.  Maybe it is just that the book is not selling well in Deseret Book stores?  Aaron Shafovaloff, author of the blog Mormon Coffee is arguing that Amazon sales rankings show the book in a higher position than many other popular LDS books.   Sandra Tanner of Lighthouse Ministries believes removing the book from print is more likely about the various controversies behind the book.  She feels it could be about the LDS Church "trying to have a better control on how their message goes out to the world."

In the KUTV news report, Deseret Book says there is a life cycle to every book and Mormon Doctrine's life cycle is up.  Speaking to an employee in the corporate offices of Deseret Book, I was told that they take books out of print all the time, this is not an unusual practice.  But I wonder, if it is only about sales, would it be a problem for Deseret Book if another publisher started publishing the title? I'm sure there are a few publisher's that would jump at the chance. Could it be that it is not sales that are a problem but content?

Another argument is that the book is simply outdated and that many books like this one are replaced as new titles become more popular.  One could make the argument for many older Christian titles on theology and doctrine, like the Scofield Study Bible and Christian Doctrine by Berkoff--both, I might add, are still in print.  In fact, printing presses are still churning out many older, unpopular titles.  But, if ta title has so fallen out of favor that there is no longer a market to sell the title, they are often made available on-line for free to serve has a historical reference.  All thought I doubt it will happen, I hope that is the case for Mormon Doctrine, a popular (and selling) book now claimed to be not worth the effort to print.


* I have no material connection to the book mentioned in this post.

It Doesn't Matter Which God?

We hear it all the time, maybe not in the same words, but the idea presents itself in our society everyday. It sounds like this: "I don't care what god it is that you worship or what church you go to. We just need to get back in to correct principles" (Glenn Beck, 5/19/10).  The statement plays on an idea that all roads lead to the same god; but it is also saying that no matter which god one serves, there is some universal set of principles to which society should adhere.

However, there's a problem.  Talking to a Christian and a cannibal, you'll find that one holds to a principle of "love your neighbor" while the other has a principle of "eat your neighbor."  If one person props up the god/idol of money another chooses the god/idol of poverty, there will be competing principles.  Some systems of faith encourage people to worship themselves as gods. Principles will collide when selfishness is behind them.

The worshipers of Molech would sacrifice babies on a red-hot stone, picturing their idol/god eating their sacrificed babies as they screamed and died. Leviticus 18:10 clearly prohibited the Israelites, worshipers of Yahweh (the one and only true God), from worshiping Molech.  Obviously it did matter which god they worshiped.  (Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10, that behind every pagan sacrifice there is  actually a demon.)  Some people place their hope and trust in their political parties, making the party of their choice their god.  Others worship the legal courts as god.  And still others say there is no god and simply call whatever it is that they worship by a different name.  (We all worship something; it's how humanity is created.)

With so many competing gods, all of which offering some differing "principles," we must ask which principle-giver (also called a moral-law giver) should we seek in order to know which principles are correct.  This is the flaw of Glenn Beck's argument.  All gods do not offer the same principles.  All systems of faith are not the same. 

So then the person making the statement about getting back to "correct principles" must offer a source for the "correct principles" so we know which principle-giver he is suggesting is correct.  If he does not offer a source, then he is ultimately offering up himself up as the principle-giver and a god for others to worship.  (This seems as if it might be the case for Beck.)

There is indeed a correct and ultimate moral-law giver.  He is the triune God of the Christian Bible: the Father and Creator of all things, Jesus the God-man who gave himself on the cross so that those who turn to God and surrender their own ways to the way of Jesus may be redeemed, and the Holy Spirit who indwells and empowers believers.  (I realize this may be controversial or confusing but I am happy to discuss it further or answer any questions.)  There is indeed a correct principle; however, not all gods, religions, and churches agree on who the giver of the correct principle is or even the principles themselves.  It does matter in which god or gods you believe.  One is God, Creator of the universe and perfect moral-law giver, and all the others are backed by demons.   

*Graphic is in the public domain. 

Social Media and the Church

Written May 12, 2010.

I have some friends that are not on Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media site.  Most of them are Christians and a couple of them are pastors.  I know of some churches that do not podcast sermons.  Many keep static websites, usually outdated looking, like a calendar of events with the last entry dated sometime in June of 2009.  "Why does this matter?" you might challenge.

Answer: Because Jesus told his disciples (and his disciples of today by extension), "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20). 

Now, I realize that you can't baptize someone over the Internet (within the bounds of orthodoxy or reality; although there's probably some whack-o website that does virtual baptisms).  I'd also like to be the first to say that the Internet is no substitute for face-to-face interaction and community.  The Internet, like many other things, holds the ability (when abused) to destroy marriages, families, and even lives.  However, like the printing press, telegraph, telephone, radio, and television, it is a communication tool.  More significantly, as church planters are flocking to the urban areas and missionaries are headed to the third world, there are still millions and millions of people that can be touched in some way via social networking and the Internet.  In some instances, the Internet might be a person's only porthole to any Christ followers. Either way, outside of face to face interaction, the Internet is where people communicate. Please allow me to use this video to demonstrate my point.  (Realize that this information is outdated in just the time it takes to watch the presentation.)    



What does this mean for the Church?

It means there is a communication potential in social media.  It means if the Church doesn't communicate in this medium, it will loose the ability to converse with a generation that has always lived in a world with the internet, laptop, and cell phone.  It is not as if the Internet is the only way to communicate with people, but to neglect social media is to miss a huge opportunity.

However, this does not mean that the church simply takes the old, tired paper tracks and makes them into old, tired websites.  It means the Church needs to ENGAGE people in social media forums, in comments, and with blogs.  This does not mean be the crazy nut-job that simply screams at everyone.  It means converse and share who you are, living with Christ in you.  It means that the Church need not be afraid of opportunities because they might be complicated.  (And if you are not a Christian but are curious, don't be afraid to use social media to interact with Christians.  It's a good place to start finding answers.  You are always welcome to contact me or ask questions.)  

Are you engaging people through this opportunity or are you missing opportunities?

___________
We can discuss this further; connect with me through some common social media sites.


Subscribe to the Salty Believer Podcast!
(Non iTunes click here.)

Subscribe to the RSS Feed or sign up to receive this blog via email with the options in the sidebar  to the right. 

Sea of Reeds?

Sometimes it's actually harder to remove the miraculous from the Bible than to believe that God intervened in history.

I suppose there must have recently been another documentary about Moses and the exodus on TV again because a co-worker raised the swamp argument.  Because of a technical issue with the Hebrew words that are translated into English, some argue that the Red Sea in the Book of Exodus might actually be the Sea of Reeds.  The argument then suggests that the Israelites crossed a dried up portion of a swamp rather than over dry ground through the middle of the Red Sea.  Some even suggest that the mud was at just such a state that a person walking could move across it but the Egyptian chariots and horses would sink.

For the sake of the argument, let's say that Moses and some estimated 30,000 Israelites did cross a reed swamp instead of the Red Sea. 

If this reed theory is true, why did the waters have to be divided so they could walk on dry ground? Was there still a miracle of divided waters? If so does it make a difference if the miracle was in a swamp or a sea?
"Lift up your staff, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it, that the people of Israel may go through the sea on dry ground" (Exodus 15:16, ESV).
How big was this swamp? Big enough to warrant the imagery of a wall of water on both sides? Clearly this doesn't make sense if there was no miracle and the 30,000 people walked across that mud that could hold them but not Egyptian horses. 
"And the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left" (Exodus 15:22, ESV). 
If this was a swamp with reeds growing up through it, how is it that when the waters came back not one Egyptian soldier was able to survive?  Not one was able to wade or swim out of the swamp.  If the first few soldiers of this huge and mighty army were sinking in, why did the entire rest of the army follow? Instead of sinking mud, it seems that they were out in the middle and the waters returned.  
"So Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to its normal course when the morning appeared. And as the Egyptians fled into it, the Lord threw the Egyptians into the midst of the sea. The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen; of all the host of Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea, not one of them remained" (Exodus 15:27-28, ESV).
The Israelites wrote a song about the event.  One of the lines seems a little odd for a swamp because it suggest that there is some depth to this body of water.
 “Pharaoh's chariots and his host he cast into the sea,
and his chosen officers were sunk in the Red Sea.
The floods covered them;
they went down into the depths like a stone" (Exodus 16:4-5, ESV).  
 Regardless if you believe or not that God parted a body of water to protect the fleeing Israelites, and even if you feel the Exodus account is fiction, what looks like the most obvious meaning: a swamp of reeds or the Red Sea?  What is the author suggesting it was?

We can split hairs all day long, but if we try to take the miracles out of the Bible we'll have to neglect reading the larger narrative in order for it to make sense.   In reality, sometimes it is easier to believe the author (which in the case of the Bible, is man and God).  Sometimes it's actually easier to accept the miracle than to try to accept the long way around God's involvement with mankind. 

*The photo is in the public domain.

Liberty, Why Glenn Beck?

May 15, 2010
First, please allow me to congratulate all the Liberty University graduates this year (especially those in the seminary).   I pray that in this challenging economy you all find gainful, rewarding employment or are able to continue in an advanced degree program (or both).

Now, about the commencement speakers.  Joining Dr. Paige Patterson, the President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, is Glenn Beck.  Upfront, I should say I don't feel Beck is a good choice. What is Liberty thinking?

According to the News and Events release on Liberty's website, both men were chosen for their, "positive impacts on society in all walks of life."  And Beck, "one of the few courageous voices in the national media standing up for the principles upon which this nation was founded," was selected, it seems, because of his media  popularity. "Beck's radio show, 'The Glenn Beck Program,' is currently the third-highest rated radio program in the U.S.; his new television show, 'Glenn Beck,' is one of the most successful shows on FOX News." 

There have been many objections to Beck speaking at Liberty.  The first is because he is LDS (Mormon).  Of all the objections, this one is by far the least compelling.  Yes, there are some serious differences in theology between the LDS and Liberty University, and there is the possibility that an LDS speaker at an Evangelical school could be used by the LDS  to further their mainstreaming efforts; however, to this issue, the news release from Liberty stated,
“The baccalaureate ceremony always includes a gospel message brought by someone who is in complete theological alignment with the university,” Falwell said. “Commencement, however, has always featured leaders from all walks of life and all faiths who share the university’s social values and traditional family values. Commencement speakers have included representatives from the following faiths: Roman Catholicism, Judaism, mainline Protestant denominations such as the Episcopal Church, and even some speakers with no religious affiliation at all.” (Emphasis added.)
Asking a person of a different faith system to speak should not be too problematic for an Evangelical student body that should be fairly grounded in their beliefs.  Ben Stein (Jewish) delivered a commencement address in 2009.  Karl Rove, who has also addressed the student body at graduation is, as best as I can tell, an agnostic Episcopalian.

Another objection is the message Liberty broadcasts by hosting a politically motivated speaker, and a conservative one at that.  I understand this objection, but I don't think it should come as a shock that a conservative Republican who is highly engaged in the political realm is asked to speak at Liberty.  As I previously mentioned, Karl Rove has delivered a commencement speech, as well as John McCain.

Still another objection is that Beck is not an academic.  I don't believe he holds any degree, but I may be mistaken.  Karl Rove dropped out of the University of Utah.  I'd also like to remind you that a number of other innovators, movers, and shakers who do not hold degrees are often invited to speak at schools all across the country.  "But he's just an entertainer" some might say.  Again, many entertainers speak an commencement ceremonies all across the country.  Chuck Norris and Ben Stein--both selected to offer commencement speeches at Liberty--are entertainers.  And some students of the media and broadcast fields might see Glenn Beck as a success story in their field, just as theater, film, creative writing, and music majors might see many other entertainers.  In addition, having a popular speaker might serve to draw in a larger audience, creating a boisterous feel at the ceremony.  (Although I realize Glenn Beck is the type of person that could very well keep people away, including myself, but this may not be a factor in Lynchburg, VA.) 

And yet another objection is Glenn Beck's polarizing personality.  There is no question that Beck creates an unhealthy, unhelpful us-vs-them atmosphere.  He's emotionally charged and divisive, recently encouraging people to flee churches engaging in any issues of social justice. He's disrespectful to those in political office with which he disagrees.  He does what he does and says what he says to drive up ratings on his television and radio shows.  It's how he earns his paycheck, no different than Howard Stern.  To this, I can offer no defense.  I do not see that Glenn Beck has made a positive impact on society in any walk of life. This is the reason I feel Glenn Beck is a poor choice as the politically conservative entertaining draw for the graduation ceremony.  Beck's icky reputation is now entangled with the already challenged reputation of Liberty University.

I don't know if Liberty extended invitations to others who turned them down; it's possible that Beck was an alternative choice. It seems that there are so many other options.  For example, if the school was looking for a Republican Mormon, I know Mitt Romney is on tour promoting his book right now. He was a businessman, a governor, and did run for president.  That's a fairly respectable resume for a commencement speaker if the objection is not his faith.  And I'm sure there's a small number of politically conservative actors that might have been willing to speak.  A politically popular conservative (but less divisive) person could have been found.  And given some of the connections of the seminary, a popular Christian author, such as Dr. Norm Geisler might have been on option, although he is probably not political enough.  This is where I have concern.  I'm not so sure this is the best list of credentials: politically conservative and popular.    

If the responsibility fell to me to invite the commencement speakers, I'd like to believe that I would keep politics and popularity out of the decision as much as is possible.  I would look for a positive example of  someone who has excelled in his or her chosen field, can deliver an encouraging, thought-provoking speech, and can foster an attitude of honor fitting of  a university graduation.  Attendance draw and press coverage really are irrelevant.  Isn't graduation about the students?  If not, shouldn't it be?

Congratulations Liberty University graduates of 2010!  
     

[Follow up, 5/17/2010.  Rather than speaking on politics, Beck spoke mostly about faith through a lens of poor theology.]

[Glenn Becks' commencement speech at Liberty University, 5/15/2010.  I admit, this is the most I've ever forced myself to watch of Glenn Beck.]

*Photo of Glenn Beck, taken by Gage Skidmore; used by permission.

Choosing a Seminary

Assuming you've reached the point were you know seminary is the right direction for you (I might even go so far as to say you're called to something that requires a seminary education), it's now time to select a seminary.  For some, this is an easy choice because of denominational ties, location, or something else; for others this decision is not so easy.  In what follows, I'd like to offer a discussion on some of the many factors that go into finding the right seminary for you.

I should probably get my biased background out of the way first.  At the time of this post, I am 9 classes away from graduation with an M.Div from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.  I am not a member of a Baptist denomination and I'm going through the Distance Learning Program (DLP).  I'll get into more details as we move through some of the various aspects of the decision making process, and I'll discuss some of my experiences; but in no way should these influence your decision.  In fact, I encourage you to carefully weigh out the choice before you, seek guidance in prayer, and attend the seminary that's the best fit for you.

There are many seminaries. They are not all the same nor are they all equal, but they each serve a specific purpose, uniquely fulfilling a role.  Finding the one that will best move you in the direction you need to go is an important step in your educational process.

Theology and doctrinal beliefs.  Obviously, you should attend a seminary that shares the doctrinal views to which you hold.  Some seminaries hold extensive doctrinal positions and require complete agreement by all faculty and students. Other schools only provide loose boundaries and students need only agree with "a majority" of the doctrinal statement.  Some schools only identify requirements regarding specific major doctrines, leaving the minors up to the students--e.g., charismatic gifts or the means of baptism.  When I was applying for seminary at Liberty, I was required a to sign a statement stating that I agree with the school's doctrinal statement of faith.  With a couple of points, I was still on the fence and with one I wasn't sure if I could fully agree.  Contacting the seminary, I was able to discuss my positions and write a memo explaining why I could not firmly agree with the nuances of the doctrines which I was still wrestling with.  I was admitted. In addition, they granted me wide room on the matter and I have since wrestled with issues and firmed up my doctrinal positions.  

Seminary will likely shape your theology as well as your philosophy of ministry, so if you attend a school that is in disagreement with your denominational beliefs, you should ask yourself if you are prepared to leave your denomination based on your convictions. You should also be aware of the theological and doctrinal requirements placed upon the faculty.  Some schools require specific beliefs of their professors and other seminaries leave that wide open. These requirements allow for some diversity, but you should have some idea of the extent.  Personally, I would find it extremely difficult to study under professors that hold to a position of open theism, for example, or teach that the Bible is not inspired or trustworthy and contains serious flaws.

Denominational ties. I discussed the important matters of denominational ties above; however, some denominations require that in order for you to receive ordination or even employment with a church of that denomination, you attend specific schools.  This might be worth considering.  For many, this is not an issue.

Focus: academic vs. pastoral.  There are schools that generally produce more academically minded theologians and there are schools that tend to graduate more pastorate minded individuals.  By this I mean some graduates of specific schools typically land in fields where they continue to publish weighty academic material or go on to teach in the academic setting.  These students tend more often to be the authors of commentaries and study bibles. Some become professors.  Other schools produce more graduates that become pastors, chaplains, worship leaders, and missionaries, maybe publishing little or nothing.  And if they do publish, they tend to write for the laymen rather than the academic.  Academic schools often place a greater focus on the biblical languages, theology, and history while the other schools place their focus on things like missions or church planting or counseling.  Most seminaries have a full range of classes, it's just that often schools place more focus in one area over another. This is not to say that there is not cross over, it's simply that the pastors that come from the schools more academically driven, tend to be more academic pastors, and the opposite might be true of the pastoral schools producing professors.  This might be something to think about, especially if you plan to go on to earn a Ph.D or have hopes of teaching at a Bible college or seminary.  If you find academia rather dry and dull, you may want to consider a pastoral-minded seminary, although you still won't escape academic writing and reading, theology and history.  

Reputation.  Seminaries tend to earn some kind of reputation (although there are some schools that nobody has ever heard of).  This reputation could heavily play into your future, especially if you have a desire to go further in your education or if you need to be able to lean on that reputation.  In academia, reputation is extremely important, which is why you see some schools listed after contributor's names in commentaries and study Bibles more than others.  Some schools gain a reputation as "liberal" schools while others are seen as "conservative." It seems the presidents of the Evangelical Theological Society tend to come from specific types of schools, whereas the pastors of mega-churches and church planting networks generally come from others.  If you are called to be a missionary, which schools are producing the best missionaries?  If you're a preacher, which schools produce the kind of preacher you are called to be? Who is generating the leading theologians?

Looking at seminaries, I was concerned about the public reputation of both the school founded by Dr. Jerry Falwell (Liberty University) as well as the man, who was well-known for his cable-news sound bites.  I knew I would find myself under that cloud, but I wasn't sure to what extent.  It comes up from time to time, and on occasion people will make an incorrect assumption about me based on the seminary I attended.  Even as I write this, the president of my seminary is mixed up in something that could be problematic and hurt the reputation of the seminary.  How the president and the school handle it could help or hurt the seminary's reputation in the short and long run.  And at times, the actions of the students and alumni can positively or negatively impact the school's reputation for years.  But I have to remind myself that for most people, the reputation of their seminary is fairly irrelevant shortly after graduation. 

Delivery method. It seems these days, delivery method is rapidly becoming a primary talking point.  Brick-and-mortar or on-line or a combination of both?  Some seminaries now offer a limited selection of Master's degrees entirely on-line.  If you can't move AND if reputation is not a necessity, on-line may be a valid option for you.  This is not to say you should attend a school that only provides education on-line, rather, you might consider a traditional seminary that also delivers its educational instruction on-line.  I selected this option because I work full-time and have a wife and two children.  There is no seminary in my area and a moving was not a good choice given my circumstances.  Liberty's Distance Learning Program (DLP) offers both on-line courses and intensives, that is, courses where the reading is done in advance and then the student goes to the campus to sit in day-long lectures for a straight week. Prior to applying, I researched this program to determine how well it would work.  What is the content delivery system like? Are there lectures and how do I watch or hear them?  How will I test and turn in assignments?  Will there be feedback on my work? Will I interact with other students? Who will teach my courses?  (Please feel free to contact me if you have specific questions about this program.  I'm happy to chat with you.) 

Taking courses on-line, however, is not an exact substitute for attending classes on-campus.  The brick-and-mortar setting has much to offer, and it's still a necessity if you are looking for an academic future.  Each delivery method has its advantages and disadvantages.  You should carefully consider your needs and options before simply jumping into an on-line program or ruling it out.

Location.  Should you desire to attend classes on campus, you aught to consider location.  Are you willing to move if there is not a seminary in your hometown?  Will you have access to library materials?  Will you need to get a job while in seminary, and if so, is the school located in a strong job market?  What is the cost of housing? If you are married or have children, will this move be problematic or positive for your family? Although rather obvious, location is something to consider.

Cost. I'm not sure if I even need to discuss cost.  It was a rather large deciding factor for me, as it probably is for you.  There is a wide range of tuition rates among the seminaries, and it is not always the case that you get what you pay for. 

Accreditation. Accreditation boards exists to ensure that the quality of the education meets a minimum standard.  Schools that meet these standards are considered "accredited."  Various state, regional, and federal departments of education approve and recognize accrediting bodies (or don't). Generally, if a students wishes to transfer credits to another school or pursue a degree beyond the masters he or she earned in seminary, it is important that he or she earned a degree from an accredited seminary.  In addition, many ministry positions such as a military chaplain, missionary, or teacher often require a degree from an accredited school.  There are regional accrediting bodies and national accreditation institutions, as well as discipline-specific accreditation bodies.  The Association of Theological Schools (ATS) is one example, as is the Association for Biblical Higher Education (ABHE). The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) is an example of a regional accreditation body.  It is highly recommended that you attend an accredited seminary. 

You have many things to consider before settling on a seminary, but the time and effort will be well worth it.  Finding the right fit could mean the difference between a successful seminary experience and not.  Best of luck with your selection.  Again, please feel free to contact me if you have questions about Liberty, one-line studies, or anything else. God bless.

If you have specific questions about Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, please check out "LBTS, Post Dr. Jerry Falwell."


*Photo of Dr. Eugene H. Peterson taken by Wikimedia Commons user Clappstar, at University Presbyterian Church in Seattle, Washington sponsored by the Seattle Pacific University Image Journal.

The Boring Jonathan Edwards

Some preachers have to wonder, in those moments of exhaustion after delivering a sermon, if the listeners’ response was due to the Word of God or to the entertainment value of the sermon, or maybe the compelling nature of the delivery.  Jonathan Edwards did not likely ever have to ask this question.  I could say that Edwards’ sermons probably did not flirt with anything entertaining, but it may be better for you to hear them for yourself.  Take a few moments to visit SermonAudio.com.

SermonAudio.com features Edwards’ sermons read by talented readers.  “Sinners in the hands of an angry God,” probably Edwards’ most famous sermon, is available in a number of renditions, recorded by multiple readers with a variety different approaches.  All of them follow the exact same manuscript, which would be better situated in the pages of a theology book.  One reader works extremely hard to add flare to this sermon but is still unsuccessful.  But it's not his fault.  

Justo Gonzalez says, “[Edwards'] sermons were not exceptionally emotive” (1985, 228).  However, these same dry, academic sermons were eliciting a physical, emotional response in the hearers. And there were lots of hearers responding.  The response was so great in fact, that when we think of the Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards is usually the first name to come to mind.  Revival was happening mostly because of Edwards’ unentertaining sermons. 

This is an outstanding example of the power and work of the Holy Spirit.  As a person listens, his or her heart is not stirred by powerful oration, smoke, and lights, but by the very hand of God.  Today’s preachers can learn a great deal from Edwards.  He was true to God’s Word and he did his best to teach it.  Listening to, or reading Edwards’ sermons will show that he deviated little from Scripture, always keeping the text in close proximity, allowing it to guide the direction of the sermon.  It is apparent that a great deal of study and attention to each word choice went into the sermon preparation; although it was not the work that was moving the hearer.  Edwards should give hope to the monotone, boring preacher.  And Edwards should serve as a reminder that with the Holy Spirit, the flattest sermon will have life, but without the Holy Spirit, the most exciting sermon will fall flat. 


Reference
González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: The Reformation to the Present Day, Vol 2. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985. 


* The picture of Edwards is in the public domain.

James, Son of Zebedee

The fourth chapter of Matthew records the calling of two brothers--James and John.  They were fishermen, working with their father when Jesus came into their lives.  Together with Peter, these three men were Jesus trusted inner circle.  And tradition tells us that eventually, James, like all the other Apostles other than his brother was killed at the hands of persecutors of the Christian faith.  

There is some dispute about the year, but only a few years after Jesus ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father and intercede for us, James was turned over the authorities.  Acts 12:1-3 indicates that James' execution order was made by King Agrippa.  He was killed by the sword.

John Foxe tells us that something unusual seems to have happened at James' execution.  If Foxe is correct, something was stirring in the heart of the man that turned over James.  Foxe, claiming to quote Clement, writes,
When this James was brought to the tribunal seat, he that brought him and was the cause of his trouble, seeing him to be condemned and that he should suffer death, was in such sort moved within heart and conscience that, as he went to the execution, he confessed himself also, of his own accord, to be a Christian.  And so they were led forth together, where in the way he desired of James to forgive him what he had done.  After James had a little paused with himself upon the matter, turning to him he said, 'Peace be to thee brother'; and kissed him.  And both were beheaded together" (Foxe 2005, 13).
This is a remarkable event.  The very man--who remains completely nameless in this account--brought James before the authorities.  It is possible that the man was previously a Christian and had taken some issue with James; but more than likely, he was not previously a Christian.  But upon seeing James' conviction, the accuser became a believer in Christ and then openly confessed that he was a Christian.  Following his confession, he asks for James' forgiveness.  At that moment, this man's confession was also the very thing to condemn him to death!

John not only forgave the man, but he called him brother and they entered heaven together.

This story should serve as a valuable illustration of the importance of loving those that hate us.  It should also remind us take a solid, strong stand in our faith, because this very action is one way we can share the gospel without words.  It's how we live the witness of Christ. 

Foxe, John. Foxe's Christian Martyrs. Uhrichsville, Ohio: Barbour Pub, 2005. 

Left Out of Children's Bibles: Ehud

Have you ever noticed that the story of Ehud, God's left-handed assassin, never seems to get told in children's Bibles?  As a father, I understand why some feel this story might be better for adults; but as a father of an adventurous boy, a boy who likes to sword fight and wrestle and pretend he's the superhero, I think maybe the children's Bibles have passed over a great tale.  And sadly, because it's not in the picture Bibles, most adults don't know who Ehud is.  (Maybe it's time for a Veggie Tale story about Ehud?  Except that might not be good either.  Here's more on that topic!)

Judges 3:12-30 tells Ehud's story.  For your enjoyment and biblical education, I've included the entire passage from the ESV here:

And the people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD strengthened Eglon the king of Moab against Israel, because they had done what was evil in the sight of the LORD.  He gathered to himself the Ammonites and the Amalekites, and went and defeated Israel. And they took possession of the city of palms.  And the people of Israel served Eglon the king of Moab eighteen years.

Then the people of Israel cried out to the LORD, and the LORD raised up for them a deliverer, Ehud, the son of Gera, the Benjaminite, a left-handed man. The people of Israel sent tribute by him to Eglon the king of Moab.  And Ehud made for himself a sword with two edges, a cubit in length, and he bound it on his right thigh under his clothes.

And he presented the tribute to Eglon king of Moab. Now Eglon was a very fat man.  And when Ehud had finished presenting the tribute, he sent away the people who carried the tribute.  But he himself turned back at the idols near Gilgal and said, “I have a secret message for you, O king.” And he commanded, “Silence.” And all his attendants went out from his presence.  And Ehud came to him as he was sitting alone in his cool roof chamber. And Ehud said, “I have a message from God for you.” And he arose from his seat.  And Ehud reached with his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly.  And the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not pull the sword out of his belly; and the dung came out.  Then Ehud went out into the porch and closed the doors of the roof chamber behind him and locked them.

When he had gone, the servants came, and when they saw that the doors of the roof chamber were locked, they thought, “Surely he is relieving himself in the closet of the cool chamber.”  And they waited till they were embarrassed. But when he still did not open the doors of the roof chamber, they took the key and opened them, and there lay their lord dead on the floor.

Ehud escaped while they delayed, and he passed beyond the idols and escaped to Seirah.  When he arrived, he sounded the trumpet in the hill country of Ephraim. Then the people of Israel went down with him from the hill country, and he was their leader.  And he said to them, “Follow after me, for the LORD has given your enemies the Moabites into your hand.” So they went down after him and seized the fords of the Jordan against the Moabites and did not allow anyone to pass over.  And they killed at that time about 10,000 of the Moabites, all strong, able-bodied men; not a man escaped.  So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. And the land had rest for eighty years. (Judges 3:12-30, ESV)

Christianity Today, Dr. Ergun Caner, and Liberty

May 4, 2010
In light of yesterday's Christianity Today article, "Bloggers Target Seminary President," I thought I would share some of my thoughts. (If you are unaware of the events, articles, YouTube videos, or blogs surrounding Dr. Ergun Caner at the moment, it may be helpful that you read the Christianity Today article prior to reading my ramblings. [Update, 5/5/10. The Associated Baptist Press has release an article titled, "Liberty U. backs seminary president amid charges of misrepresentation." It is also worth a look.])  

I am not a Southern Baptist, nor am I presently (or was I ever) a Muslim.  And although it doesn't mean much, I am a student of the Distance Learning Program at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary where Dr. Ergun Caner is President.  In addition, my apologetics course used a textbook by Dr. Caner as well as his lectures and discussions on various topics specifically recorded for the course.  But none of this makes me qualified to discuss the controversy of Dr. Caner's past with any authority.  These are just my thoughts.

It seems some accusations were brought against Caner, first by a Muslim or a Muslim group.  They claimed that Caner's background might have been puffed up, exaggerated, or even fabricated.  While I have no idea if these individuals contacted (or attempted to contact) Caner directly, it is clear that there were blogs and YouTube videos making claims against him.  Then some Christian bloggers joined the Muslims, leveling their own claims.  I am unaware if any of these Christians approached Caner before making claims publicly on the Internet.

Jesus outlined what should be done when a brother sins against us.  In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus says,
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. [16] But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. [17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."
This passage raises some interesting questions.  First, should a seminary be treated as the church?  How about the readership and purchasing base of Caner's books?  The YouTube community and blogosphere?  Second, when an individual is a public figure, such as Ergun Caner, who has he sinned against?  Is it against the public who have read his books which may contain incorrect information about his past?  Maybe; probably.  Close friends and brothers in his local church where he worships?  If nothing else, they could at least offer him some oversight and maybe insight.  But more significantly, there very well could be a sin against the school Dr. Caner is expected to represent.  His actions could hurt the reputation of the seminary and its students.

So then it seems that an individual at the school, likely in a position of authority, holds a responsibility to address Caner on these maters.  Based on the CT article, it looks as if this task fell to Elmer Towns.  The article also indicates that this matter was brought before others.  It reads, "The Liberty board has held an inquiry and directors are satisfied that Caner has done nothing theologically inappropriate."  Towns adds, "It's not an ethical issue, it's not a moral issue," but doesn't clarify what kind of issue it is, if any. He then says in the article, "We give faculty a certain amount of theological leverage. The arguments of the bloggers would not stand up in court."  I personally find this statement concerning given that the secular standard of the court system is used rather than anything biblical.  (Using a secular system as the final authority is not what I have been taught at the seminary under Dr. Caner's direction.)

"Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us."  [Titus 2:7-8, ESV]

However, being that Dr. Caner is a public figure and acts as the face of the seminary, I would find it rather valuable if the committee (or Caner) provided the information that proved that Caner was not in any kind of ethical or moral wrongdoing.  If they felt Caner had done nothing wrong, I trust that it was based on more than the poor quality of the charges against him.  I understand that the Bible dictates that charges of wrongdoing be brought by two or more witnesses, but I am not sure how that measures up regarding a public figure in the world of mass book publication and the Internet.  Whatever the case, this information would certainly put my mind at ease.  It would also help demonstrate Dr. Caner's credibility as an apologists, educator, and representative of the Christian community. 

On the other hand, if the Liberty board is not adhering to high biblical standards, instead condoning a fellow believer and colleague, they are hurting a brother in Christ, the reputation of the school, and themselves.  I would find it rather problematic if my fellow students were expected to maintain a high standard of honesty and credibility as we write papers and engage in study while the President was not an example of this same standard of moral fortitude.

I'd like to conclude with one final thought.  In January, I was sitting in a coffee shop with a pastor when the apologetic work of Dr. Caner came up in conversation.  It might have been something from one of his books or maybe from a recorded discussion.  At that moment, it seemed as if a rolling cloud of thunderous anger moved over the pastor sitting across from me in the booth.  "That man is a liar!" he shouted.  I asked him how in the world he could know, and this pastor friend said he had seen a YouTube video.  I would like to caution against this type of behavior.  I don't believe my pastor friend had ever spoken with Ergun Caner, nor had he done any further research on the matter (as far as I could tell).

The best thing here is to evaluate the evidence provided by those making accusations (and I'll admit it is compelling), and we must also evaluate the evidence (or statements) provided by (or in support of) Dr. Caner.  But first we need to see the evidence of all sides.  We should also remember that the inability to provide evidence serves as evidence as well.  Only then should we make statements with such certainty.  If it turns out that these other Christians have incorrectly slandered Ergun Caner, than they should be rebuked and restored in love.  However, if they are right and Dr. Caner has lied to the extent that they claim, it is my hope that Caner takes up a repentant heart and those around him support him back to restoration.

Dr. Caner and the leadership of Liberty remain in my prayers.  I also pray that this article acts as a reminder in my own life.  If there is anything that I might have exaggerated or misrepresented in areas of my life, I pray it is made know so that I may repent and faithfully represent Christ's gospel as honestly as I am able.  If given the opportunity I would appreciate any additional conversation on this, especially with Dr. Caner.

[UPDATE, 5/10/2010: Liberty University has formed a committee to investigate Dr. Caner's statements.  Dr. Caner has stated that he welcomes this process.]

*The above photo is taken from http://www.erguncaner.com/media/ and uses by implied permission.

Brothers Hitchens

Among the vocal, atheist-evangelists of the present day is a man named Christopher Hitchens.  Hitchens feels that the woes of society are caused by religion, and Christianity is potentially the worst proponent of all evil in the world.  He authored a book, among many books, titled God is Not Great.  He travels and speaks publicly but he spends most of his time authoring articles.  He is something of a hero among atheists, likely due to his level-headed debate and reasoning skills. 

A number of Christians have debated Christopher Hitchens publicly--Douglas Wilson even went to far as to jointly publish a point-counterpoint book with him called Is Christianity GOOD for the World? Then the two men went on to film a series of debates that appear in the film, "Collision."  An informal running debate between Hitchens and Ravi Zacharias is slowly playing out in print and interviews and maybe these two will eventually square off face to face.   

What's most interesting however, is that his brother, Peter Hitchens, has written a book in reaction to Christopher's work.  It's titled The Rage Against God.  Peter grew up in the same environment as his brother, Christopher.  And Peter too was an outspoken atheist.  However, at some point Peter reversed his position and now professes a faith in Christ.

I can't help but wonder what it might be like when these two brothers get together for a cup of tea.  Might it be time for a film simply called "Hitchens"?  Let them both speak, argue, and debate from the same background, the same blood.  They probably know each other like most brothers do, which may tear down some walls that otherwise are indestructible, or not.  They probably have sibling history.  Sibling rivalry.  An unspeakable connection.  And more than anything, these two brothers have a vested interest, maybe, in a longer term relationship than any other debating opponents.  Or not; it's difficult to tell.  Either way, this is a face off that has me interested.

Here's a clip from Peter Hitchens about his story and his new book:

Peter Hitchens Author Interview--The Rage Against God from Gorilla Poet Productions on Vimeo.
 Peter Hitchens, author of The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith

*I have no financial connection to any of the books or film mentioned in this blog. 

Chaplains on Mission

Here's a short AP video about three aspects of the Army chaplain's duties: Nurture the living, minister to the dying, and honor the dead. 


I'm in the process of applying for the Army Chaplain Candidate program.  (This ordeal has hit some bumps; in fact, it has been a bumpy road from the start, so your prayers are greatly appreciated.)

On occasion, I find myself sitting across from a pastor that has no idea what a military chaplain does. I enjoy trying to explain what I know (although admittedly my knowledge is limited to my observations while I served in the Army, my reading, and my classes).  This video paints a nice picture of some of the aspects of the chaplain's combat-zone mission.  What it does not show is the chaplain's effort to visit and minister to soldiers in outlying areas (Forward Operation Bases, FOBs) or the garrison mission, that is, the mission on a post or fort.  This video also neglects the chaplain's mission in military hospitals and the military prison duties.   

In addition, here's a good interview with CH (LT) Anthony T. Carr by Timothy Dalrymple, titled "Finding God at Gitmo."  Chaplain Carr is a chaplain is serving US sailors detailed with guarding detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  Although Carr says "no matter the location, my role as a chaplain would be the same: to provide spiritual support to the sailors around me," he has a unique opportunity to minister sailors facing problems unlike what their counterparts on ships might see.

Tongues: Viewed Through the Lens of Acts 2:1-21

TONGUES:
AN ANALYSIS VIEWED THROUGH THE LENS OF ACTS 2:1-21

INTRODUCTION

It was a day of great significance for the Church, for in the most practical sense, it was its inception. The Holy Spirit had come just as our resurrected Lord had promised. “But you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit,” said Jesus, “not many days from now.”[1] Pentecost. Luke’s narrative—recorded in the second chapter of Acts—has become the subject of many sermons, poems, paintings, and songs, but also church splits, uneasy parishioners, and theological overemphasis. The events of that day and others like it are at the root of a complicated and divisive practice in today’s Church referred to as “glossolalia,” “speaking in/with tongues,” or simply just “tongues.” Some churches have taken to understand this as a second baptismal experience, a necessary and required sign of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, a special “prayer language,” or some combination of the three. Debate circles around the nature of this language gift. Is it an earthly, know language, a language of angles, or something else? Is speaking in tongues a normative Christian experience? This post will certainly not end the debate, nor will it specifically address any events or experiences of tongues in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Instead, this paper will look at tongues as part of the coming of the Holy Spirit through the lens of Acts 2:1-13. (If you would like to read a more general theological look at the gift of tongues, please see "Tongues: A Spiritual Gift for Today?")

Through careful examination of Acts 2:1-13, one will see that at least some tongues uttered on Pentecost were not a prayer language, but rather, a witness of the mighty works of God uttered in a known language, or heard in the known language of the hearer. First, one must ask, “What happened on that day?” This post will attempt to answer this question through careful exegeses. Second, and effort to uncover the passage’s meaning will be offered, followed by Peter’s explanation given to the people seeking the meaning of that day. Then, once the lens has been established, this post will look through it to examine the other two tongues experiences in Acts and Paul’s teaching on the spiritual gift of tongues in First Corinthians 12-14. Before the conclusion of this post, a brief discussion about the other evidences of the power of the Holy Spirit’s coming will be offered.

PENTECOST: WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? (ACTS 2:1-13)

Jesus had died on the cross, sending his followers into a tailspin until he appeared to them after his resurrection. Then Jesus spent forty days with his disciples, “speaking about the kingdom of God.”[2] And when he was finished, he ascended to heaven, but not before instructing the disciples to remain in Jerusalem to wait for the “promise of the Father.”[3] While they waited, the apostles and many others, about 120 in all, committed themselves to prayer in the upper room where they were staying.[4] They also filled the apostolic void left by Judas.[5] This brings the reader to the opening of Acts 2.

When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place.”[6] As Chapter 2 opens, Luke, the author of the book of Acts, transitions to the day of Pentecost. Bruce indicates that Pentecost, or “the day of the first fruits” occurred seven weeks or fifty days after Passover.[7] “Pentecost,” writes Bock, “was one of the three Jewish pilgrimage feasts to Jerusalem during the year, which explains why people from so many nationalities are present in verses 9-11.”[8] “They were all” most probably refers to the entire 120 and not just the Apostles that take center stage as the narrative advances.[9] And while there is reason to think the place they were all gathered is the upper room mentioned in Acts 1, the text does not clearly identify the location as such.[10] Stott even points out that Luke “is evidently not concerned to enlarge on this.”[11] Theories in scholarly circles suggest that this place is simply identified as a house, and according to Brock, “Luke always refers to the temple (twenty-two times) as [to hieron.”[12] The place, wherever it might have been, was likely a public place given that a crowd could hear the sound and quickly gather, as indicated in verse 5.

And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting.”[13] Williams is quick to point out two significant aspects of verse 2: first, the sound came from heaven; and second the sound was “like” a mighty rushing wind. Given these two points, Williams concludes that this event was nothing but supernatural.[14] It is possible that it was this sound, and not the outburst of people speaking in tongues that served as the “sound” that attracted the attention of the multitudes in verse 5, however the text is not specific on this point. Taking liberty with the text, Calvin says of this moment, “The violence of the wind did serve to make them afraid; for we are never rightly prepared to receive the grace of God, unless the confidence (and boldness) of the flesh be tamed.”[15] And the fact that they were sitting leads Bruce to rule out that they were in the temple, lending more credibility that this event happened in a private residence as previously discussed.[16]

And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them.”[17] The scholars are divided on the “tongues of fire.” Some look to symbolism, while others look to what the physical appearance might have been. Significantly, most positions agree that the tongues were distributed and rested on all the believers present, not just the Apostles. Just as with the wind, Williams points to the “as of” to show that these tongues of fire were not actual fiery tongues, but like tongues of fire, and clearly supernatural.[18] Additionally, Kistemaker demonstrates that the fire fulfills John the Baptist’s prophecy recorded in Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:16, and, “fire is often a symbol of God’s presence in respect to holiness, judgment, and grace.”[19]

And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished saying, ‘Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear each of us in his own native languages?”[20] This passage introduces the reader to “tongues,” and it very well could be that the Pentecostal dominations take the term “Spirit-filled” from this passage, although similar usages of “filled with the Spirit” appear through both the Old and the New Testaments. Writing about “filled,” Marshal states, “Luke uses the word fill to describe the experience. This word is used when people are given an initial endowment of the Spirit to fit them for God’s service (Acts 9:17; Luke 1:15) and also when they are inspired to make important utterances (Acts 4:8, 31; 13:9). . . .”[21]

The word, glossa, most commonly means either ‘tongue’ or ‘language,’ although Strong suggests that it “sometimes refers to the supernatural gift of tongues.”[22] Perschbacher expands on this meaning, adding that in reference to Acts 2:11, 1 Corinthians 13:1, and elsewhere, glossa might be thought of as, “a language not proper to a speaker, a gift or faculty of such language.”[23] On the other hand, Samarin, a linguist, defines glossa as “a single continuous act of glossolalia,” compounding the simple definition previously provided.[24] Under this definition, what then is glossolalia? It is worth noting that a cursory search of the Greek New Testament for the Greek word glossolalia—the combination of the Greek words glossa and (lalia), meaning “speech” or “way of speaking”—turns up no usage.[25] Glossolalia, as defined by Samarin, is first, “a vocal act believed by the speaker to be a language showing rudimentary language-like structure but no consistent word-meaning correspondences recognizable by either the speaker or hearers; (in Christianity) speech attributed to the Holy Spirit in languages unknown to the speaker and incomprehensible without divinely inspired interpretation”; and second, “(loosely) unintelligible speech, gibberish.”[26] This definition fails to see that the hearers in Acts 2 heard this glossolalia “in his own language,” suggesting that at least some of the hearers in Acts 2 understood what was being uttered.[27] While glossa is the word often used in association of the Spirit gift of tongues in the Bible, it is the word glossolalia that is the activity thought of when understanding ‘speaking in tongues’ in the charismatic and Pentecostal churches today. Against the idea of glossolalia, Grudem, seeking to define the common understanding (even if it may not be his own understanding) of ‘speaking in tongues,’ states, “Speaking in tongues is prayer or praise in syllables not understood by the speaker.”[28] Grudem’s definition however, does not leave room for the possibilities of other activities that could have been spoken in tongues seen in Acts and Corinthians, such as actual communication of prophecy to foreign listeners. It should also be noted that the use of the Greek word, dialektoo in verse 6 and the Greek word glossa used elsewhere in Acts 2 should draw no distinction; they are interchangeable in this usage.[29] Stott concludes, “that the miracle of Pentecost, although it may have included the substance of what the one hundred and twenty spoke (the wonders of God), was primarily the medium of their speech (foreign languages they had never learned).”[30] And Bock argues, “God is using for each group the most familiar linguistic means possible to make sure the message reaches to the audience in a form they can appreciate. Thus the miracle underscores the divine initiative in making possible the mission God has commissioned.”[31]

Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God. And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, ‘What does this mean?’ But others mocking said ‘They are filled with new wine.’”[32] The list of nations provided by Luke gives the reader an idea of the native languages represented within the crowd, but Parsons suggests that this list is something more. According to Parsons, this list represents the various cultures and vast streams of tradition represented by within the Jewish people. And it is possible that the mission of the 70 (recorded in Luke 10) very well could have reached some, if not all, of these people groups; although this idea seems to have little to do with the narrative.[33] Brock’s idea that most of the people had come for the feast, lends support to Lea and Black's theory that visitors present on this day were responsible for founding the church in Rome, rather than missionaries sent out by Christ.[34]

Because some in the crowd thought the disciples were drunk, a few scholars suggest that not every disciple was speaking in a known language. However, Marshall points out, “. . . some people were ready to explain the speaking in tongues as a result of drunkenness; this would be a very natural explanation to offer if one heard people making unintelligible noises, as some of the sounds must have seemed to those of the hearers who did not recognize the particular language being used.”[35] Stott, in drawing differences between the events in Acts and Corinthians, suggests that the Holy Spirit was working in the hearers of the tongues, too.[36] This suggests that the tongues being spoken could have all be the same even, but the miraculous act of God was in the ear, not the mouth. Some also suggest that this moment signifies the reversal of the “curse of Babel.”[37] In trying to reconcile the tongues experiences in Acts and First Corinthians, scholars will often suggest that the “speaking in tongues” event in Acts 2 is somehow different than the “speaking in tongues” events elsewhere in the Bible. Lüdemann even goes so far as to suggest that tongues—as it is understood in First Corinthians—is the correct understanding of tongues and Luke simply misunderstood the Acts event.[38] Because the lens of this paper is Acts 2:1-13, little will be spend on this issue here; however, a brief discussion is offered in a later section.

ACTS 2:1-15: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

As the people of Jerusalem heard the sound like rushing wind and witnessed the Galilean disciples telling of the mighty works of God in their own tongues, they asked, “What does this mean?”[39] And as one can work to discover what happened on that day, the significance is found in finding its meaning. Tenney simply says, “This tremendous manifestation of divine power marked the beginning of the church,” but while this is correct, this certainly cannot be the only meaning of the events of Acts 2.[40] And what of tongues? White reminds his readers that the event of Pentecost and every similar event following a conversion is a fulfillment of the prophecy of both John the baptizer (Matthew 3:11-12, Luke 3:7-17) and Jesus Christ (Acts 1:5).[41] But is the meaning only about the fulfillment of prophecy? No. German explains that Jesus promised that a Comforter and Counselor would come after he was gone. That Counselor is, “the Spirit of truth, the Holy Spirit ([John] 14:26; 15:26; 16:5). The Holy Spirit will dwell in the believers (John 7:38, cf. 14:17), and will guide the disciples into all truth (16:13), teaching them ‘all things’ and bringing them ‘to remembrance of all that [Jesus] said’ to them (14:26). The Holy Spirit will testify about Jesus, as the disciples must also testify (John 15:26-27).”[42] This event, according to German, was the transition moment, when the Holy Spirit no longer influenced people (as he did in the Old Testament) but actually indwelled within the believer.[43] Erickson calls this, and the entire book of Acts, a “transition period,” ushered in with the events of Pentecost.[44] Duffield and Van Cleave interpret Acts 2 as something of an equipping for special service. They note that Jesus himself received the Holy Spirit before the start of his public ministry and Jesus’ expected even greater works from his disciples. The Holy Spirit was the necessary power needed for these ministries.[45] However, all of these theologians place little focus on the tongues, but instead on the coming of the Holy Spirit. Could this be because the meaning has little to do with the tongues

ACTS 2:14-21: PETER’S EXPLANATION

Despite what the various theologians might say about the meaning of Pentecost, Peter was the first believer to offer commentary.[46] He stood with the eleven and answered the peoples’ question, “What does this mean?” Peter recited Joel 2:28-32. “In the last days,” the Spirit would be poured out “on all flesh.”[47] This day, as Peter understood it, was the moment the Spirit was poured out and the first day of the “last days.” Peter lists some signs and wonders as he recites the passage from Joel. (It is worth noting that speaking in tongues is not specifically mentioned among these signs.) The “last days,” full of signs and wonders, will play out before the “great and magnificent day” when the Lord comes.[48] Joel may have been pointing to the first coming of Christ or the second, but surely, Peter is pointing to the second. “What does this mean?” Peter explains that this magnificent moment during Pentecost was the ringing in of the last days. A new era had begun; a corner had been turned. And to launch into his evangelistic message, Peter ends his recitation of Joel saying, “And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”[49]

What Peter does not discuss is the meaning of tongues. His explanation and sermon does not answer for us if tongues were (or are) a prayer language or a necessary sign of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In fact, he does not say a word about the disciples speaking in tongues other than that they were not drunk because it was only the third hour of the day.[50] Why? Because the question, “What does this mean?” was not a question about the tongues. Because tongues were not the focal point of the coming of the Holy Spirit. Because most of the audience heard the disciples sharing the mighty works of God in their own native language. Because the tongues were a sign for the audience, significant enough that the people listened to Peter’s message. And because Peter was not focused on the signs, but on the gospel.

OTHER NEW TESTAMENT TONGUES EVENTS

With an understanding of what happened at Pentecost and its meaning, a cursory look at the other tongues events and teaching in the Bible—juxtaposing them against Acts 2—might provide insight on the topic of tongues on the day of Pentecost. This section is not meant to exegete each passage, or understand them for their stand-alone meaning, but to examine if the tongues as understood in Acts 2 works in agreement with the other tongues events.

ACTS 10:1-11:18. Luke records that Peter was in Joppa when he saw a vision. In this vision, God commanded Peter to “kill and eat” but the animals were unclean under the law.[51] Peter argues with God, but in the end submits. Just as this vision concludes, three men sent by Cornelius from Caesarea ask Peter to come back with them. Peter goes to Caesarea and meets with Cornelius, a devout and religious man who happens to be a Gentile. Peter begins sharing the gospel with Cornelius, and “While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.”[52] The Spirit had come to the Gentiles in Cornelius’ house. And they began “speaking in tongues and extolling God.”[53] When Peter reported to the other disciples in Jerusalem, he said, “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning.”[54]

If we look at this event through the lens of Acts 2:1-13, one should notice that there was no recorded rushing wind or tongues of fire. Although Peter says, “just as on us in the beginning,” he could be suggesting that the entire event was exactly the same; however, more likely, Peter is talking about the central event of the coming of the Holy Spirit.[55] The most obvious similarity is the presence of tongues. Here, there is no issue in assuming these tongues are like those of Acts 2, that is, that they are a known, earthly language and the words heard were praising God. Someone understood the language because Peter knew they were praising God. Stott calls this event in Caesarea the “Gentile Pentecost.”[56] Another alternative option for both this passage and Acts 2 is that the languages were unknown to all but that the give of interpretation was given to Peter or someone else in the group.

ACTS 19:1-7. Paul runs across twelve disciples who, it seems, either heard about Jesus before the coming of the Holy Spirit or heard about Jesus from someone who was not aware of the events at Pentecost. They were baptized into “John’s baptism,” that is, the baptism of repentance.[57] In fact, it is not even clear how much these men even knew of Jesus or the gospel. So Paul explains the complete gospel and they were re-baptized in the name of Jesus. Paul then lays his hands on them and the “Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.”[58] The use of the Greek word, “and” kai between “speaking in tongues” and “prophesying” in the Greek manuscripts leaves the door open to the possibilities that the prophesying might have been through their speaking in a tongue or in their native and ungifted language. However, juxtaposing this event with the other two in Acts, there is no reason to think that the tongues they spoke were not a known language, just is in Acts 2. Or it could be again, that the event included the gift of interpretation in conjunction with the coming of the Holy Spirit, but this is not explicitly mentioned. It is also interesting to see that in this event, there was a laying on of hands, unlike in the other events. If these men were not yet actually believers of Christ prior to meeting Paul, it could be seen that their conversion and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit were simultaneous or very close in time.

1 CORINTHIANS 12-14: PAUL’S TEACHING ON TONGUES. Reconciling the gift of tongues between the various passages in the book of Acts is nearly seamless; but reconciling Acts and First Corinthians is not as easy. Many pages on this topic are bound in the bindings of volumes of commentaries and theology books. Most conclude that the tongues in Corinth were different in some way than those spoken in Acts. Bruce for example, writes, “The glossolalia cultivated in the church of Corinth, to judge from Paul’s references to it (1 Cor. 14:2-23), had a different character: whereas the effect of the pentecostal glossolalia in Jerusalem was better understanding on the part of the hearers, the Corinthian glossolalia was unintelligible (except to the speaker) without an interpreter.”[59] Indeed, this may very well be the case, but viewing these differently is not the approach taken by this particular post. Instead, this post seeks to look at the tongues spoken in Corinth through the lens of those spoken in Acts 2:1-13 in an effort to understand those in Acts 2. Therefore, the conclusion that seems to reconcile Acts with First Corinthians is found not in the speaker of the tongue or in the tongues themselves, but in the hearer. Acts 2:8-11 demonstrates a wide variety of hears, each with their distinct native language, present to hear prophesy and praises of God in the other tongues. However, if a speaker was given the gift of tongues but the hearer does not understand that particular language, an interpreter would be necessary. While only speculation, it seems that the congregation in the Corinthian church, although likely diverse in languages, was unaware of the languages of the tongues being used; meaning such a sign and gift of tongues was of little value without an interpreter or one who naturally understood the language. Unintelligible babble would require instruction and restriction of its use to maintain proper order in the church services. First Corinthians 12-14 offers just such an instruction.

OTHER EVIDENCES OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN ACTS 2

Often, the gift of tongues overshadows the other activities of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. The most encouraging sign of the power of the Holy Spirit is seen in the radical change in the disciples. Duffield and Van Cleave write, “The disciples were transformed into different men after the Holy Spirit came upon them at Pentecost. In John 20:19 they are seen huddled together behind closed doors ‘for fear of the Jews.’ That very same group of men could not be kept behind closed doors after the Day of Pentecost (Acts 5:17-20), and they became as bold as lions before the Jewish authorities in the power of the Holy Spirit.”[60] The other evidence of the working of the Holy Spirit is found in verse 41 of the second chapter of Acts, which reads, “So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.”[61] Peter had concluded preaching his first sermon and 3,000 people gave their lives to Christ that single day, but this should only be credited to the work of the Holy Spirit. In addition, verse 43 indicates that the Apostles did many “signs and wonders,” and the last verse says, “And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.”[62]

CONCLUSION

As this post has attempted to demonstrate, careful examination of Acts 2:1-13, shows that at least some tongues uttered on Pentecost were not a prayer language, but rather, a witness of the mighty works of God uttered in a known language. It is most probable that all of the languages spoken through the gift of tongues were a known, earthly language, which would only seem like babble to one not recognizing the language. It is also possible that none of the spoken tongues were known but the hearers were gifted with the ability to hear in their native languages. In addition, this view is a workable explanation of all of the tongues in the New Testament, even if it is not popular. That being said, many other believers have come to different conclusions. Certainly, a careful exegesis of First Corinthians 12-14 to be used as a lens to evaluate the tongues experiences in Acts might prove helpful in seeing tongues in that light. (It is the hope of his author to someday do this work and post it here.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bock, Darrell L. Acts. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids,

Mich: Baker Academic, 2007.

Bruce, F. F. The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. Grand

Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 1990.

Calvin, John. Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 18. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2009.

Duffield, Guy P., and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave. Foundations of Pentecostal Theology. Los

Angles, Calif: Foursquare Media, 2008.

Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker reference library. Grand Rapids,

Mich: Baker Academic, 2001.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1998.

Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids:

Mich, Zondervan, 1994.

Kistemaker, Simon. Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles. New Testament commentary. Grand

Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1990.

Lea, Thomas D., and David Alan Black. The New Testament: Its Background and Message.

Nashville, Tenn: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003.

Lüdemann, Gerd. The Acts of the Apostles: What Really Happened in the Earliest Days of the

Church. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2005.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Book of Acts: An Introduction and Commentary. The Tyndale New

Testament commentaries, 5. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2002.

Parsons, Mikeal Carl. Acts. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2008.

Samarin, William J. Tongues of Men and Angels: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism.

New York: Macmillan, 1972.

Stott, John R. W. The Message of Acts: The Spirit, the Church & the World. The Bible speaks

today. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Strong, James, John R. Kohlenberger, and James A. Swanson. The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive

Concordance of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001.

Williams, David John. Acts. New International biblical commentary, 5. Peabody, Mass:

Hendrickson Publishers, 1990.



[1] Acts 1:4b, ESV.

[2] Acts 1:3b, ESV.

[3] Acts 1:4, ESV.

[4] Acts 1:12-13.

[5] Acts 1:15-26.

[6] Acts 2:1, ESV.

[7] F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 1990), 113.

[8] Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2007), 95.

[9] Howard I. Marshall, The Book of Acts: An Introduction and Commentary, The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, 5 (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2002), 68.

[10] Brock, 94.

[11] John R. Stott, The Message of Acts: The Spirit, the Church & the World, The Bible speaks today (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 61.

[12] Brock, 94. This quote contains the Greek word, but for the sake of readers without the font, it has been removed from the statement.

[13] Acts 2:2, ESV.

[14] David J. Williams, Acts, New International biblical commentary, 5 (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990), 40.
[15] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 18 (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2009), 74.

[16] Bruce, 114.

[17] Acts 2:3, ESV.

[18] Williams, 40.

[19] Simon Kistemaker, Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, New Testament commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1990), 76.

[20] Acts 2:4-8, ESV.

[21] Marshall, 69.

[22] James Strong, John R. Kohlenberger, and James A. Swanson, The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001), 1599.

[23] Wesley J. Perschbacher, and George V. Wigram, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1990), 81.

[24] William J. Samarin, Tongues of Men and Angles: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism (New York: Macmillan, 1972), xvii.

[25] James Strong, John R. Kohlenberger, and James A. Swanson, The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001), 1623.

[26] William J. Samarin, Tongues of Men and Angles: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism (New York: Macmillan, 1972), xvii. Italics added for emphasis.

[27] Acts 2:6.
[28] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Mich, Zondervan, 1994), 1070.

[29] Bruce, 116.

[30] Stott, 66-67.

[31] Bock, 102.

[32] Acts 2:9-13.

[33] Mikeal C. Parsons, Acts (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2008), 39-40.

[34] Brock, 95. Lea, Thomas D., and David Alan Black, The New Testament: Its Background and Message ) Nashville, Tenn: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 390-391.

[35] Marshal, 71.

[36] Stott, 65-66.

[37] For example, see Bruce, 119.

[38] Gerd Lüdemann, The Acts of the Apostles: What Really Happened in the Earliest Days of the Church (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2005), 48-49.
[39] Acts 2:12b, ESV.

[40] Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Baker reference library (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001), 899.

[41] Elwell, 137.

[42] Elwell, 569.

[43] Elwell, 569.

[44] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1998), 894-895.

[45] Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angles, Calif: Foursquare Media, 2008), 312-313. Incidentally, Duffield and Van Cleave also argue that this need for a “special power” is still relevant and necessary for ministry today.

[46] Technically speaking, the hearers of the tongues (including those accusing the disciples of drinking new wine) were the first to offer commentary.

[47] Joel 2:28, Acts 2:17, ESV.

[48] Joel 2:31, Acts 2:20, ESV.

[49] Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21, ESV.

[50] Acts 2:15.

[51] Acts 10:13b, ESV.

[52] Acts 10:44, ESV.

[53] Acts 10:46, ESV.

[54] Acts 10:15, ESV.

[55] Acts 10:15b, ESV.

[56] Stott, 196.

[57] Acts 19:3, ESV.

[58] Acts 19:6, ESV.

[59] Bruce, 115.

[60] Duffield, 313.

[61] Acts 2:41, ESV.

[62] Acts 2:47b, ESV.

*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.

**The Photo is in the public domain.

The Tool in His Hand

"Strength is not found in the tool, but in God's hand holding that tool." -- Dr. Carl Diemer

In a lecture I recently listened to, Dr. Diemer taught about John Wesley.  Specifically, he discussed a significant moment in Wesley's life.  After a series of challenging events, Wesley, an Anglican, attended a Moravian church service.  On that particular day, the group was reading and studying Martin Luther's preface to his commentary on the book of Romans.  Something in this reading deeply struck Wesley, to the extent that it forever changed his life.  Some argue this was the moment of his conversion, but later in Wesley's life he himself wasn't so sure.  Either way, this reading jolted something significant deep within John Wesley.

Upon hearing Wesley's story, then student Diemer went to the library to read this moving preface.  Romans was the book that changed Luther's life; he was lecturing on it when he was convicted by the statement, “The righteous shall live by faith” in Romans 1:17.  The theology in the pages of Romans was so powerful that Luther was willing to die for his belief in the teaching found in Romans.  So Diemer thought this preface would be amazing, powerful.

But after finding the book and reading the preface, he came to this conclusion: "That was the most boring thing I had ever read!"

But here's the thing.  As Dr. Deimer went on to explain, the strength is not found in the tool.  The preface, the commentary, and even Luther himself,  are just God's tools.  Like an ax they can be sharp and like a mallet they can be strong, but without God's hand they have no movement, no strength, no power. 


* Photo by flicker user f1wbDClik, and is registered under a creative commons license.

Why I'm Over the "Emerging/Emergent" Movement

There was a time, only a few years ago, that I gravitated toward a movement of people seeking to change the way the Christian Church approaches the post-modern generation.  It's often called emerging or Emergent, or more generally, the emerging church.  But I'm over it now.  Don't get me wrong, I still believe the Church needs to continue to seek ways to better reach and minister to the post-modern community; just as the Church must continue to be more effective in reaching and ministering to senior-citizen communities, ghettos, gated communities, prisons, hospitals, college and university communities, military units, the homeless, singles and families, those in the South and those in the North, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, rich and poor, the blue collar and white collar and no collar, atheists and those of other religions, those within the Christian community, and every other culture of every nation around the world.

The emerging church movement identified some problems (correctly or not might still be up for debate).  The movement was mostly a reaction to what they argued was an unacceptable status quo.  It had promise, but this movement, as of yet, has failed to deliver; and without a course correction, probably never will.  The emerging/Emergent church movement has simply become another flavor in the 31-flavor ice cream store of Jesus-following Christian churches.   

In America, and elsewhere, a shift is moving society toward a different way of thinking.  This shift is most often called post-modernity or postmodernism.  There's debate over when it started (somewhere between the sinking of the Titanic or maybe the end of World War II to the fall of the Berlin Wall or the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger or maybe 9/11, as most arguments go). Is the shift complete or still on the move?  That's tough to say.  Shelves are filled with books trying to describe what it is, especially in regard to religion and faith, but for the purpose of this post, I'll oversimplify it. 

Postmodernism is basically a rejection of objective, absolute truth.  Everything is relative.  What's true for one person might only be true for that person.  Perception is reality, so is perspective.  Postmodernism is more relationally driven, drawing much more from the nuances and ascetics.  Tolerance is valued over all else.  It is far reaching into design, art, music, literature, philosophy, and even into the inner-workings of day-to-day life.  And in many areas, it's a reaction to the long years of modernity.  The Church has responded to this shift in a myriad of ways.  Some ignore it, some deny it, some fight it, some are just waiting, some cautiously wade into it, and some have wholeheartedly embraced it. The emerging church movement has rightly decided to embraced it, facing it head on, or maybe running along side (it depends on your perspective). It's at the core of the movement.

In trying to "do church" in a postmodern environment, the emerging church has brought about some fantastic issues for the entire Church to grapple with, grow through, and understand.  The first is the elevating of the importance of cultural understanding.  There are many, many benefits to growing a stronger awareness of cultural, but this comes with two risks: 1. allowing the surrounding culture to become one's identity over and above one's membership in Christ's family, and 2. the risk of allowing the surrounding culture to infiltrate and overly influence one's theology. However, being acutely aware of the nuances of culture is vital to effective evangelism and ministry.  This might be the greatest strength of the the emerging church movement.

Another strength, although it comes out of reaction to modernism, is a stronger awareness that the gospel is timeless and should not be married to modern systems of thought, especially given that the entire Bible was written in the pre-modern era.

A third strength coming out of the emerging church is a greater appreciation of the beauty discovered through the narrative focal approach to Scripture.  God is an artist.  We, as part of his creation, are his art.  There's an idea that the big picture of the biblical narrative speaks to our hearts and therefore should never be neglected. Emerging church pastors have also redirected people back to some ignored aesthetic traditions that can help people enter a mindset of worship toward God--candles, stained glass, art, song, and the church calendar, for example.

Relationships are where our faith plays out in reality, where we grow and develop, where we serve one another.  The emerging church puts relationships at the heart of nearly everything it does.  This is church; we are Christ's body; not buildings nor programs--people, us.  Relationships in and out of the Church are essential.   

But the emerging church comes with baggage.

The emerging church, in many ways, grew out of a reaction to the American Church of the 1960's, 70's, 80's and 90's.  In the latter decades especially, many in the church have mistakenly married the church to the politics of the Republican party.  In some cases, the GOP is the bridegroom.  This is wrong.  The emerging church's reaction was to sever that relationship.  Divorce.  But today it seems that for among many in the emerging church movement the swing has gone too far.  The newly divorced church (which should be the bridegroom of Christ and not be on the dating scene) now seems to be picking up the party of the Democrats and social, liberal politics as a rebound mate.  The emerging church has traded one wife beater for another, and this is baggage.

A matching piece of luggage found among the emerging movement is the idea of finding identity from culture rather than Christ.  Many American church-goers of decades past treated the Church like a country club membership program.  It was the social club, the thing to do rather than the people to be.  On the other side, many in emerging church communities want to make church the cool coffee shop where friends hang out and nothing more.  It's the farmer's market, the social club of another flavor. Both sides are wrong here.  Church is not just another social club for the members; it's where we seek to meet Jesus face to face and worship him and to invite others to join us.  Although the emerging church made a valiant effort to be different, they've still not freed themselves from this baggage and in some ways are taking on more, just in a different color, a different flavor. 

A criticism of the status quo is that the local church looks like a suburb of Southern Baptist soccer moms.  This is fine if the community is all soccer moms of the Southern Baptist persuasion, but usually this is not the case.  The emerging church rightly cried out for more diversity in the Church.  But while diversity is praised, it's often not as present in practice.  The human default position is to self-segregate by anything and everything we can to draw lines between one another.  However, a reaction to one flavor of church was rectified by simply creating another flavor.  There's the flavor of soccer moms and the flavor of artsy types and the flavor of college rebels, and the flavor of the conservatives, and the flavor of those that want to go to church but don't desire to publicly identify themselves as worshipers of Christ.  Now the ice cream store is more diverse, to the credit of the emerging church, but we can still pick and choose the flavors we like and the flavors we avoid.  Baggage.  (I think few churches have figured out how to stop lugging around this heavy bag. And I must admit, I still stand in the ice cream store and decide which flavors I like more and which I like least, and I find myself thinking that there's no need for the flavors I don't like.  It's a sad part of being human.)

What started as an honest look at how Christians communicate seems to have turned into something twisted.  For example, we shouldn't use the term "Christian" or call ourselves "Christian" because Christians have hurt people in the past and it might conger up negative images for some.  Therefore, we should identify ourselves as "Christ-followers."  Don't call God "Father" because some people have had bad earthly fathers and will think of God in that way.  Don't be "evangelistic," be "missional."  Don't say "talk," say "dialog."  We don't "preach" or "teach," we have a "conversation."  It's not "church," it's "community."  Don't say "ministry" such as men's or women's ministry, say who knows what.  But it's not as if the definitions are changing in actual practice, just the words.  These changes may be necessary and are somewhat reasonable only if we take them on a case-by-case basis with individuals, but they are not helpful as blanket generalities for all of the Church.  In many cases the changes distort existing useful definitions simply by mixing up the understood names.  And at the end of the day, the new words will soon be tainted too, so even newer words will have to be selected or invented.  Eventually we'll run out of words and have to face the facts.  The alternative is to regain credibility back to the original words.  If the term "Christian" causes people to think negatively, work to change the negative impression rather than redefining the word.  People are smart and won't be tricked with a name game or a bait-and-switch.  This is baggage.         

The emerging church reacted strongly to the idol worship of many Christians--capitalism, the American dream, materialism, nationalism, and legalism, contemporary Christian commercialism, mass-popularity, just to name a few.  There was also a reaction to the laziness of the Church, that is, failing to reach out to those less fortunate at home and abroad.  This is a good reaction.  However, it seems many in the emerging church have simply traded these idols for others--literature, art, culture, angst, beer, coffee, or just being different for the sake of being different.  For example, social justice, while a very good thing, has become the god they serve (for some).  Community too has been elevated above Christ.  Here, old baggage as been traded for new baggage, old idols for new. 

The last challenge I will address (in this post, anyway) is the desire for the emerging church to keep everything in the abstract.  It's as if the avoidance to define anything keeps it relevant.  It might appeal to the postmodern generation, but only because without any definition there is no right or wrong or even sort-of-right and sort-of-wrong and therefore, no reason to act on anything.  If the Bible is timeless, it should not be subjected to such thinking.  The Bible is loaded with nuance and abstraction  but then it also brings the reader into clearly defined truth and focused reality.  The Bible often teaches that it's this or it's that and nothing in between.  The Bible also teaches that there's lots of 'in between,' but we can't have shades of gray if we don't first define the white and black, and even the gray.  So I find it somewhat unhealthy to all-together avoid settling on definitions or concrete meaning, determined only to remain in the abstract.  The Bible doesn't teach this way, nor should the Church.  This too is rapidly growing baggage.

I realize that I'm painting with a broad brush and this really isn't fair.  There are many good churches and solid pastors leading people and teaching the gospel in postmodern communities.  There are many wonderful strengths found in this movement. These pastors and churches are not the intended target of my criticism.  Instead, I am looking at those that feel the emerging/Emergent way to do church should be the only way to do church.  I'm tired of picking up books on the topic to find chapter after chapter identifying the problem with the status quo without providing any answers.  It's draining to watch people worship the movement rather than the God behind it.  How many more emerging/Emergent people will I meet that profess a faith in this movement, claiming to be an expert on how to do church, how to be community, how to reach out for God, how to be spiritual, how to journey, but than don't seem at all comfortable with Jesus, his teachings, and his bride--the Church?  

So what's the answer?

I guess there wasn't much of a question proposed, but I'll say this: There are many ways to do church and many ways reach and serve communities. No two situations are alike.  The idea that one way is far superior to another in every situation is a goofy notion.  And if we strive (as many books attempt to do) to offer a model for the whole world, or even all of America, we'll likely be left with a "one size fits nobody" situation.  The status quo has baggage, lots and lots of baggage, but that is because they've been in the trenches for a long time.  Some of this baggage should be dropped, but it's important to remember that the previous generations carried the torch this far and it did manage to arrive here even with the baggage, in the present.  Future generations should be thankful for the shoulders they stand upon, and we should remember that in a few years the emerging church will be the status quo that young, excited people are ready to reform through revolution.   

The Church is Christ's Church. Jesus said "I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18).  So while we all look for ways to design church or ministry or worship (and I am guilty of this, too), it's important to remember that we must submit to the guidance of God the Holy Spirit and let Jesus build the Church.  Just because a church in the Pacific Northwest doesn't look like the one in the Western Desert or the one by the Great Lakes or the one in Mexico or Egypt, doesn't mean that it's not being built as Christ wants.  That's the beauty of Christ's bride. 


*Photo of labyrinth taken by Wiki-Commons user Daderot, and is registered under a creative commons license.Photo of candles taken by flickr user, a.drian, and is registered under a creative commons license.

Will Work for a Toilet?

Early each Thursday morning I have coffee with a small group of guys.  Presently, our meeting spot is a spiffy little coffee joint located inside a locally owned bookstore.  I typically order a large cup of the medium blend, and they usually fill the cup so full that not only can I not put in any cream, the act of carrying the cup to the table makes coffee spill over the side onto the saucer.  But it's a good cup of coffee and the place makes a nice meeting spot for us.

Not too long ago, I had a hefty glass of orange juice before heading out to meet the guys.  Then when I got there, I ordered my usual.  The conversation was good so when my brain received the warning from my bladder, I figured I still had a few minutes.  You know, I hit the snooze button.  When the alarm went off again I excused myself from the group and headed to the bathroom toward the back of the bookstore.

It was locked.

"No bro," said the barista-beatnik from behind espresso machine, "we don't have a key for the bookstore toilets; do you really think they'd let us have one."  The alarm went off again. 

Out the door I went.

Hitting Main Street, I figured there would be a good number of restrooms for my use.  The first one had a sign reading "For building residents only."  Ignoring the sign, I grabbed for the doorknob.  Locked; no light on under the door.  The next place had a key code on the door and the doorman wouldn't give me the numbers to unlock the room.  Another place had one of these key code entry systems too; maybe made by the same manufacture and maybe with the same code.

The alarm went off again and by this time I was three large blocks away from the coffee shop where I started.  Dancing the pee-pee dance into a business building I noticed an older man working a small coffee cart.  Behind him and slightly to the left was a men's restroom and yet there was another key coded door.  In my business shirt, tie, and slacks, I begged him to let me use the restroom.  I might have been holding my crotch like a three-year-old.  I don't remember.  Not understanding my urgency, he explained that the codes were to keep transient people from using the bathrooms.  "If you don't give me the code the to bathroom," I pleaded with the man, "I'm going to be forced to urinate in your planter box."  He gave me the code and I shouted a thank you as I ran into the bathroom.  (I considered buying a cup of coffee from him in appreciation, but my still pulsating bladder argued me out of it.)

But this is more than a story about a dude and the verge of wetting his khakis.  This is a story of understanding needs.

Living in America, with a job and a house and cable TV, it becomes easy to forget that people have needs, real needs.  For many, the idea of need is having to replace your iPhone headphones before getting on the evening train.  Just the thought of not being able to listen to music, being forced to sit in silence or strike up a conversation with the stranger in the next seat is enough of a need to motivate you to get over to the Apple store on your lunch break.  You need to replace your headphones, right?  I am just as guilty, if not a little more.  But there's something about the fear of peeing your pants, standing outside a locked, empty bathroom that brings the idea of need into crisp focus.

Now, imagine not having eaten for a day or two and sitting right outside Starbucks.  You see people casually reading a paper, nibbling on a seven-dollar pastry, sipping a twelve-dollar cup of chocolate soy foam.  They get up to leave and toss the remaining half of the pastry in the trash; $3.50, right in the garbage.  Imagine you haven't bathed in nine days.  Imagine it was 37 degrees last night and you slept on a metal bus bench with only two windbreakers and a bath towel to serve as blankets and a pillow.  You have no warm water, no internet, no car.  You don't have a cell phone in your pocket and you will not be having that dinner party this Friday night.  Do you think you might have needs?

The Bible talks about caring for the less fortunate.  (Here's an example.)  But this post is not about getting you to run down and serve at the Rescue Mission or buy a lunch for Elmer, the guy living on the bus bench outside your office.  No.  These are good things, but as you're reading this on your phone or at work, it is my hope that you think about what you really need and what you covet.  I'm working through this daily and it is not easy.  While living in America is a great blessing, it can be a black curse to correct thinking.

In a letter Paul wrote to the Philippians, likely from imprisonment, Paul says,
I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity. Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me (Philippians 4:10-13, ESV). 
It is my hope and prayer for you and for me, that we might learn, as Paul did, to be content in the highs and lows, plenty and hunger, and in abundance and need.  But please realize that I am not arguing that we should do nothing to meet our actual needs; because if that were true, I would've saved myself the time and trouble and just peed my pants.  Instead, I am encouraging you to think about the difference between need and good old-fashioned American want. . . . There is a difference, really.


* "Toilet" Photo is registered under a creative commons license:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lonelycamera/ / CC BY 2.0; "Will Work for Food photo is registered under a creative commons license: http://www.flickr.com/photos/twicepix/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

Origins of the New Testament Canon in the West


INTRODUCTION
Followers of Jesus Christ stand under the authority of new covenant Scripture, that is, the 27 collected books commonly called the New Testament.  Together with the Old Testament, this canon is to be the sole measure of absolute truth and authority for protestant Christians.  Separated from the Third Council of Carthage by over 1,600 years, some Christians today unknowingly seem to think that the biblical canon came straight from God in its final and complete form; however, Ronald Mayers expressed 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.”[1]  Roger Olson, like Mayers stated, “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.”[2]  D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo on the other hand, argued, “It was not so much that the church selected the canon as the that the canon selected itself.”[3]  Understanding how the New Testament canon came to its present form is important if modern Christians are to rightly trust the authoritative books that make up the Bible most commonly published today.[4] 
Reviewing the development of the entire canon and understanding the duel nature of the human and divine authorship that gives the Bible the authority it holds over all other writings is an ambitious task, too much so for the scope of this post.  To focus on the development of the New Testament canon in the Western Church, some related topics will be avoided or given only light treatment, such as the development of the canon in the Eastern Church, the Apocrypha, and the pseudonymous and pseudepigraphal documents.  In addition, to avoid getting bogged down in another controversy, it should be assumed (even if only temporarily) that Carson and Moo were correct in arguing that the Old Testament canon was generally accepted and closed prior to the events that lead to the formation of the New Testament canon.[5]  In what follows, this  post will examine the meaning of ‘canon,’ briefly discuss the nature of divine authority and its relation to other documents, review canon criteria, and then survey the historical developments from the early known lists to the councils that eventually solidified the canon as it is accepted today.    

WHAT IS MEANT BY ‘CANON’?
            When referring to ‘the canon,’ Wayne Grudem’s simple definition is usually enough for today’s church or Bible study setting.  Grudem defined canon as, “a list of all the books that belong in the Bible.”[6]  Following this definition, the New Testament canon then, is simply understood as all the books that belong in the New Testament of the Bible.  Grudem’s definition, although good for specific settings, does not capture the background, nuances, and significance of the word itself.  In tracking the history of the word canon in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English, Bruce Metzger explained that this word is “used in a kaleidoscopic variety of senses.”[7]  According to Metzger, in the earliest Hebrew use, it meant ‘a straight reed’ or ‘rod.’[8]  The Greek usages follow suit.  “[F]rom this comes numerous derivative uses of the term,” wrote Metzger, “in many of which the ides of straightness is manifest.”[9]  Other early uses of the word canon indicate that it meant ‘plumb line’ and ‘level.’  Both in Greek and Latin, ‘canon’ also took on metaphorical uses, such as ‘criterion’ and ‘standard.’[10]  As Metzger explained, “Aristotle described the good person as ‘a canon and measure’ of the truth.”[11]  And in later years, canon, the word, was used for ‘role model,’ ‘a collection of classical works,’ a standard of perfection in sculpture and music, and even as “the schedule or ordinance fixing the amount of grain or other tribute to be paid by a province.”[12]
            Of the uses of the word canon by Christians, its most common uses fall within the scope of ‘rule’ or ‘norm.’  The word itself is rarely used in the New Testament, and even then only by the Apostle Paul.  Most of his uses are typically translated into the word ‘rule’; however, in 2 Corinthians 10:13, Paul seems to use the word in regard to an area, maybe identified by boundaries.  As the New Testament canon started to form into a fixed set of authoritative books from which to be read publicly, Metzger demonstrated that the word took on meanings more in line with “a list, index, or table—terms that carry the suggestion of something fixed and established, by which one can orient oneself.”[13]  Neil Lightfoot provided a good explanation of how Christians use the word today, writing of the word canon, “. . . and when so applied to the Bible denotes the list of books which are received as Holy Scripture.  Thus if one speaks of the ‘canonical’ writings, one is speaking of those books which are regarded as having divine authority and which comprise our Bible.”[14] 

AN AUTHORITY NOT FOUND ELSEWHERE
            If Lightfoot’s definition of ‘canon’ (mentioned above) is correct, an understanding of authority is necessary, specifically the authority referred to as ‘divine’ or ‘biblical’ authority.  “There is a difference between the canonicity of a book and the authority of that book,” wrote Lightfoot, “A book’s canonicity depends on its authority.”[15]  While Lightfoot’s statement, in part, addresses the criteria of inclusion into the canon (which will be discussed in the next section), it also implies a limited understanding of the authority of the documents.  What is this authority?  Are all books, on any subject, written by any person, in any time, equal; should the information they contain be given the same treatment, the same response?  The answer is another controversy that will be given only light treatment here.  In the simplest understanding, most Christians believe that God has reviled himself and his will to humanity.  People eventually recorded these events and experiences in written form.  Part of this belief also includes and idea that God guided and inspired these writings, himself becoming the duel and significant author of the text.  In one of these documents, Paul, writing to Timothy, stated, “All Scripture is breathed out by God . . .”[16] By exercising control over the documents that record his revelation and will to humanity, God gave these documents a greater position over others.  These God-breathed books, backed by God’s authority, are often identified as ‘scripture.’  Millard Erickson says about the authority of the scripture of the Bible, “By the authority of the Bible we mean that the Bible, as the expression of God’s will to us, possesses the right to supremely define what we are to believe and how we are to conduct ourselves.”[17]  The next question is how to identify which documents are authoritative scripture and which are not, which is the topic of the next section.  But before examining various canon criterion, it is important to recognize the difference between the scripture and the canon.  Geoffrey Hahneman said, “Whereas the concept of canon presupposes the existence of scriptures, the concept of scripture does not necessarily entail the notion of canon.  It is entirely possible to possess scriptures without having a canon, and this was in fact the situation in the first few centuries of the Church.”[18]

MAKING THE CUT: CANON CRITERIA
            The first followers of Christ had none of the New Testament scriptures because these books and letters had not yet been written.  As each book or letter was authored, it was typically copied and distributed, but the circulated was a slow process.  Thomas Lea and David Black explained, “When the New Testament books did begin to circulate, many other writings, such as additional gospels, acts of Christian leaders, additional epistles, and apocalypses appeared.  Some groups accepted these additional writings; others rejected them.  Some of the writings now in the New Testament required a long time to gain acceptance throughout the church.”[19] 
Reading publicly from the various gospels and epistles along with the Old Testament canon became a common practice in Christian gatherings.[20]  The challenge, however, was understanding which writings were Scripture backed by the authority of God and which writings were not.  As individual church leaders worked to determine from which books should be publicly read and treated as God’s Word, the canon was starting to take form, although not at all unified it its early beginnings.  Carson and Moo wrote, “The church’s role is not to establish what books constitute Scripture.  Rather, the scriptural books make their own way by widespread usage and authority, and the church’s role is to recognize that only certain books command the church’s allegiance and obedience, and not the others—and this has the effect of constituting a canon, a closed list of authoritative Scripture.”[21]  To recognize and identify the authoritative Scripture from the collection of writing making its way through the early churches, criteria generally acted as the judge.  If the work passed evaluation, it was included with the library of Scripture that governed and guided the people of the church.  A book excluded from this library was not necessarily a bad book; it was simply not duel-authored by both man and God. 
            Each person or local church evaluating books and letters had a specific but individual set of criteria, giving weight to specific matters as was best seen fit; however, there are some general similarities among most the criterion.  Following Harry Gamble’s categorization, the first criterion is Apostolicity.[22]  This criterion is a reference to the author being one of the Apostles or being connected to one in some way.  However, this individual criterion alone might not have been enough; as Lea and Black indicated, “Christians did not use the criteria for canonicity in a mechanical fashion.  Sometimes one criterion was more important than another.”[23]  To make it into the canon, a work often had to soundly meet more than one criterion or fit well within a wide breath of criteria.  The other common categories of measurement were Catholicity, Orthodoxy (also known as regula fidei, or the rule of faith), and the one criterion that was applied later called Established Usage.[24]  In addition to these guidelines for establishing canonicity, John 10:27 should also be considered.
            Apostolicity suggests that a work written by an Apostle should be included in the canon; and this statement works if considering the work of John, Mathew, or Paul.  Metzger’s research added strength to this argument when he wrote, “When the writer of the Muratorian Fragment declares against the admission of the Shepherd of Hermas into the canon, he does so on the ground that it is too recent, and that it cannot find a place ‘among the prophets, whose number is complete, or among the apostles.’”[25]  But what about other works not written by Apostles that did find a place in the canon?  In the case of Luke and Mark, for example, a connection to an Apostle is present.  However, although only speculation, it seems reasonable that there were other writers connected to Apostles whose work was not included.  Polycarp, for example trained under the Apostle John, but his work is not among the canon.  Gamble said The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Barnabas, and the Gospel of Peter all claimed apostolic authorship but remained rejected.  And, according to Gamble, James, Jude (which could easily make a connection to at least one of the Apostles), and even 2 Peter were only accepted with hesitation.  Apostolicity, while a strong criterion, is not enough on its own to have warranted inclusion into the canon.
            Catholicity is the idea that the “document had to be relevant to the church as a whole and even so intended by its author.”[26]  However, even after providing the previous definition, Gamble concedes that this factor would have caused concerns for the canonicity for some of Paul’s writings.  This criterion however, might have held much less weight compared to Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy is the idea that the writing was consistent with the existing doctrine or belief of the community of Christians.  To modern Christians who turn to the canonized Scripture in order to determine and evaluate doctrine and belief, this criterion might appear circular in nature.  However, it is important to remember that the early Church was much closer to the events in question and was thoroughly dedicated to carrying on the faith and teaching of Jesus and the first generation of Christians.  As letters and books were beginning to circulate, witnesses who could validate the written work and author were, in fact, still alive.[27]  Unlike Orthodoxy and Catholicity, Established Usage came into consideration in the later years of the canonization process.  This criterion examined not the document itself, but how the document was used in the employment of worship and teaching across the many local churches.[28]  Given that enough time had passed, one could ask if the document were obscure or new, or rejected or accepted by a large number of believers from many different church communities. 
            One additional consideration comes from the book of John.  In recording the teaching of Jesus, verse 27 of chapter 10 reads, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”  In light of this passage, Grudem said,
It should not surprise us that the early church should have been able to recognize Hebrews and other writings, not written by apostles, as God’s very words . . . . It should not be thought impossible or unlikely, therefore, that the early church would be able to use a combination of factors, including apostolic endorsement, consistency with the rest of Scripture, and the perception of a writing as ‘God-breathed’ on the part of an overwhelming majority of believers, to decide that a writing was in fact God’s words (through a human author) and therefore worthy of inclusion in the canon.  Nor should it be thought unlikely that the church would be able to use this process over a period of time—as writings were circulated to various parts of the early church—and finally to come to a completely correct decision, without excluding any writings that were in fact ‘God-breathed’ and without including any that were not.[29]

It should be remembered that if indeed the works in question are authoritative and duel-authored by God, then the teaching within these writings is to be trusted and believed.  The New Testament canon includes teaching that the Holy Spirit dwells within the believer and serves to help and direct the church that Jesus will, and is building.  As the standard of truth, the New Testament canon has the ability to speak of its own identity and authority, regardless how circular this may seem to non-believers.

HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPING CANON IN THE WEST
            With an understanding of the general canon criteria, this post will now examine the result of applying general criteria to the various documents as the early church began to form what is now the commonly accepted canon of the New Testament.  Initially, the early canon was not straightforward.  People were forming lists of what should be included.  Many of these lists did not agree.  But over time, as more lists were developed and discussed, the canon of Scripture grew wider acceptance, eventually being confirmed by councils. 
It could be argued that the earliest Church Fathers were, unknowingly developing a canon of scripture simply by which books they quoted and treated as authoritative.  But ultimately, this reasoning does not provide a closed list of Scripture.  Another unintentional factor contributing to the canon was the codex.  Prior to the codex, books were written on scrolls with a maximum length of about 35 feet.[30] The longest scrolls could only contain Luke and Acts at best.  But the invention of the codex—a bound stack of pages—many more books could be assembled together.[31]  Where before the canon of scrolls would be cumbersome, the entire collection of documents considers Scripture could be bound in one book.  The bound leaf-books would start to reasonably indicate which documents belonged together and which should be excluded.  Carson and Moo argued that there is “early and widespread attestation of our twenty-seven New Testament documents being bound together in various configurations.”[32]  But still, these were not canonical lists of the Scripture as the canon is thought of today.
            Credited with being the creator of the first official canon list, Murcion, a man who was formally excommunicated in A.D. 144, developed a list of what he believed was authoritative Scripture.  His list was contained in a book he titled Antithese, which is lost to history.  All that is known of Antithese has been taken from works that wrote against it.  Form what can be determined, Murcion’s list contained stripped down versions of Luke and ten epistles of Paul, nothing more.  He rejected the Old Testament and removed all references to the Jewish God from the books he did include in his canon.[33]  As Metzger wrote, “It was in opposition to Marcion’s criticism that the Church first became fully conscious of its inheritance of apostolic writings.”[34]  Throughout the Church, lists began surfacing, mostly to combat the heretical ideas of Murcion and others.  The canon was developing.
            Three early lists worth noting are the Muratorian Fragment, a comprehensive list written by the Church historian names Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Easter Letter by Athanasius.  The Muratorian Fragment is a second century, 85-line middle section of a document, written in Latin, and named after the man who discovered it sometime before 1740.  From this document, there is evidence that a fixed canon boundary was in place, but there were still books that had yet been fully accepted throughout all of the Church.[35]  And the Fragment not only contained a instruction for which books were Scripture and should be read publicly, it hinted at some of the debate surrounding the developing canon.  Hahneman stated, “[I]n the Fragment it is acknowledged that some do not want the Revelation of Peter read in the churches (ll. 71-3) and that the Shepherd ought to be read privately, put not publicly (ll. 73-80).”[36]   The accepted books listed in the Muratorian canon are Luke and John (with Mathew and Mark assumed by the language describing Luke as the 3rd Gospel and John as the 4th), Acts, 13 of Paul’s works, a letter to the Laodiceans, a letter to the Alexandrians which might be Hebrews but this is disputed, Jude, and two letters from John plus his book of Revelation.  Peter’s Apocalypse is included, but as indicated above, there is mention that this book should not be read publicly and might be considers not a part of the canon.[37] 
In like manner, Eusebius (A.D. 260-340) places books in the categories of ‘definite Scripture without dispute (which he called “homolegumena”), books that are not fully agreed upon, and books that are in no way authoritative documents.  In Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius listed the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s Epistles (of which he includes Hebrews), 1 Peter, 1John, and Revelation as soundly part of the canon.  In the disputed but recognized list, Eusebius mentions James, Jude, two more of Peter’s Epistles and two more Epistles from John.[38]  However, it was Athanasius’ Easter Letter for the Alexandrian church written in 367 that included only the same 27 books found in the New Testament today.[39] 
            Over time, the books of the present New Testament canon had gained widespread acceptance, while others were clearly rejected.  In 363, the Council of Laodicia, in an effort against heresy, recognized the entire present canon with the exception of the book of Revelation.[40]  By the Third Council of Carthage in 397, little dispute existed to challenge the council’s reorganization of 27 books of Scripture, the duel-authored word of God.[41]  From this point forward, the canon has been generally accepted as it exists today.  And while the scope of this post is the development of the canon in the Western Church, it should serve as an additional conformation that the Eastern Church came to recognize the same 27-book New Testament canon.[42]    

CONCLUSION
            From what has been demonstrated here, Christians should feel confident knowing the New Testament canon is indeed the word of God, encompassing only the books that God intended to be viewed as new covenant Scripture.  The canon was not a creation of man but a process of time, discussion, and the work of the Holy Spirit to bring about (through man) a collective recognition and identification of Scripture by the early church, for the sake of all who came after them.  Carson and Moo were right in stating “It was not so much that the church selected the canon as the that the canon selected itself,” but it should also be added that the books that became the canon are the books of God’s word, authoritative, which all Christians should humbly submit to as the ultimate source of truth.[43]  
This post merely scratches the surface of a rich history full of lists and arguments regarding which books should have been included in the canon and which should have be left out.  There were many documents falsely attributed to apostolic authorship that were quickly rejected.  Some books were almost immediately accepted as the word of God.  There was a small collection of letters and books that were slow to gain acceptance but eventually found inclusion in the canon.  The criterion was disputed, some given more weight than others.  Arguments arose on the nature of divine authorship and by extension, authority.  Debate ensued.  And amazingly, the Eastern Church Fathers drew the same conclusions.  It is the hope of this author that additional interest will drive further studies in any of these facets of the New Testament canon development.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bettenson, Henry, and Chris Maunder. Documents of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford
     University Press, 1999.

Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids,
     Michigan: Zondervan, 2005.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Book III,
     http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxv.html [accessed March 8, 2010].

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1998.

Gamble, Harry Y. The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning. Guides to biblical
     scholarship. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.

González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. Vol I. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984.

Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids,
     Michigan: Zondervan, 1994.

Hahneman, Geoffrey Mark. The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon.
     Oxford theological monographs. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Lightfoot, Neil R. How We Got the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2003.

Mayers, Ronald B. “Both/and: the uncomfortable apologetic.” Journal of the Evangelical
     Theological Society 23, number 3 (September 1980): 231-241.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance.
     New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Olson, Roger E. The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity.
     Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2002.


     [1] Ronald B. Mayers, “Both/and: the uncomfortable apologetic,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 no 3 (September 1980), 232.
     [2] Roger E. Olson, The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 90.
     [3] D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005), 735.
     [4] Most commonly published” refers to the protestant Holy Bible made up of 66 books, 39 of the Old Testament and 27 of the New Testament.  This Bible does not include the Apocrypha as the Roman Catholic Church understands the canon. 
     [5] Carson & Moo, 727-732. 
     [6] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994), 54.
     [7] Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance) New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 289. 
     [8] Metzger, 289.
     [9] Ibid.
     [10] Ibid.
     [11] Ibid. 
     [12] Ibid, 290. 
     [13] Ibid. 
     [14] Neil Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2003), 152. 
     [15] Ibid, 153.
     [16] 2 Tim 3:16.  All biblical references, unless otherwise indicated, will be taken from the New English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible. 
     [17] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1998), 267. 
     [18] Geofree Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford theological monographs. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 73. 
     [19] Thomas D. Lea and David Alan Black, The New Testament: Its Background and Message (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 69-70.
     [20] Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity, Vol 1 (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), 62.
     [21] Carson, 741.
     [22] Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning, Guides to biblical scholarship (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 67-71.
     [23] Lea, 72, 
     [24] Gamble, 68-70.
     [25] Metzger, 253. 
     [26] Gamble, 69. 
     [27] For example, see 1 Cor 15:3-8. 
     [28] Gamble, 70-71. 
     [29] Grudem, 63-64. 
     [30] Metzger, 109. 
     [31] Ibid. 
     [32] Carson, 734.
     [33] Metzger, 90-99. 
     [34] Ibid, 99. 
     [35] Hehneman, 89. 
     [36] Ibid. 
     [37] Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 31-32
     [38] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Christian Classic Ethereal Library, III-xxv, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxv.html [accessed March 8, 2010]. 
     [39] Carson, 734-735.
     [40] Ibid, 735. 
     [41] Ibid.
     [42] Ibid. 
     [43] Carson, 735.


 *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.   The formatting and sentence structure was in accordance with a class specific crib sheet.
** Photo of 3 Bibles is registered under a creative commons license: http://www.flickr.com/photos/geowombats/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.  All other photos are in the public domain.