Faster Unto Thee

Vanhoozer's 10 Theses

The difference between an evangelical approach to systematic theology and a liberal one is striking. Read articles by liberal systematic theologians and you will often find sophisticated philosophical arguments and reflections on the implications of their ideas, but little grounding in actual exegesis nor an effort to stay within the theological boundaries set by the Bible. Kevin Vanhoozer, who recently left Trinity Evangelical Divinity School for Wheaton College Graduate School, has recently presented a paper that reveals the heart of an evangelical systematic theologian who wishes to stay firmly within the bounds of Scripture and orthodoxy.

The following is verbatim from NT scholar Michael Bird's blog:

I am fortunate enough to have a copy of Kevin Vanhoozer's paper on "Systematic Theology: The State of the Evangelical (Dis)union" delivered at Gordon-Conwell. It includes these 10 theses on theological interpretation:

1. The nature and function of the Bible are insufficiently grasped unless and until we see the Bible as an element in the economy of triune discourse.

2. An appreciation of the theological nature of the Bible entails a rejection of a methodological atheism that treats the texts as having a “natural history” only.

3. The message of the Bible is “finally” about the loving power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16), the definitive or final gospel Word of God that comes to brightest light in the word’s final form.

4. Because God acts in space-time (of Israel, Jesus Christ, and the church), theological interpretation requires thick descriptions that plumb the height and depth of history, not only its length.

5. Theological interpreters view the historical events recounted in Scripture as ingredients in a unified story ordered by an economy of triune providence.

6. The Old Testament testifies to the same drama of redemption as the New, hence the church rightly reads both Testaments together, two parts of a single authoritative script.

7. The Spirit who speaks with magisterial authority in the Scripture speaks with ministerial authority in church tradition.

8. In an era marked by the conflict of interpretations, there is good reason provisionally to acknowledge the superiority of catholic interpretation.

9. The end of biblical interpretation is not simply communication - the sharing of information - but communion, a sharing in the light, life, and love of God.

10. The church is that community where good habits of theological interpretation are best formed and where the fruit of these habits are best exhibited.

I really liked this quote from Vanhoozer towards the end of the paper:

"Seminary faculties need the courage to be evangelically Protestant for the sake of forming theological interpreters of Scripture able to preach and minister the word. The preacher is a “man on a wire,” whose sermons must walk the tightrope between Scripture and the contemporary situation. I believe that we should preparing our best students for this gospel ministry. The pastor-theologian, I submit, should be evangelicalism’s default public intellectual, with preaching the preferred public mode of theological interpretation of Scripture."

Language Study and Seminary

I came across this very interesting blog called Ancient Hebrew Poetry today and spent some time reading several posts. John Hobbins is a biblical languages scholar with a specialty in Hebrew poetry, as the blog title indicates. Here is a quote from one interesting post on language study in American seminaries. Read the whole post here.

The situation is the following: seminaries and theological schools in North America, more often than not, do not require students to learn the languages of the Bible and of the core literature of the tradition they are charged to uphold. In those that do – e.g., evangelical seminaries that require Greek and Hebrew, conservative Lutheran seminaries that require Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and German, Catholic seminaries that require Latin - students nowadays come to the seminaries with little or no background in said languages. The result is inevitable. Overwhelmed by many other claims on time and mind, students end up with a merely cursory and superficial preparation in the literature that is supposed to be compass, mirror, and anchor of the ministry they will carry out.

Many students finish seminary with a semblance of familiarity with critical methods, and a few memorable anecdotes to tell about their OT profs, who, by all accounts, are cooler than their NT colleagues, but with no thorough knowledge of, or  “chapter by chapter” and “verse by verse” familiarity with, the contents of biblical literature. 

Seminaries that have kept language requirements in place, a laudable policy, are nevertheless failing to raise up priests and pastors with a love of biblical learning in the original languages. The vast majority of students, upon graduation and ordination, place their Nestle-Aland and BHS on a bookshelf of their study, where they collect dust forever and ever, amen.

Which way forward?

I particularly like his line that the literature of the Bible is "supposed to be compass, mirror, and anchor of the ministry they will carry out." What person with a high view of inspiration would argue with that? Read further into the post where he compares seminary education in Europe with American seminary education and you will be amazed at what we typically do not get here.

Update on "The Reality of Doctorates and Teaching"

Last year I wrote a short post on the realities of pursuing a doctorate and teaching. I've just added a link to that post to a blog I discovered yesterday by Duke Th.D. student Andy Rowell. There Rowell explains the differences between Duke's Th.D. and Ph.D. programs and sheds light on many issues connected to earning a doctorate. For those of you interested in doctoral studies in one of the theological disciplines, go check out his blog.

Reflections on WTS in Anderson, IN

When I heard that the Wesleyan Theological Society was having its annual meeting within a reasonable drive from where I live I just had to go. This was not only my first time at WTS's annual meeting, but my first time attending any annual meeting by a theological society, and it was very interesting. Here are a few random thoughts about my experience.

I expected the meeting to be physically and mentally demanding, and indeed it was. Listening to lecture after lecture, no matter how good and worthy of attention, demands decent health and serious mental effort. The mental fatigue comes not primarily from the length and number of the lectures, but from the fact that so much of the material was new to me, which required me to work very hard to understand the basics of what each presenter was talking about. It is a lot like competing in athletic events you have not trained for. You can come physically fit and eager, but being untrained in the specific skills of the event leaves one with too much catching up to do. During the game is not the time to learn the fundamentals. Keeping this in mind, I kept my mouth shut and just listened to the scholars do their thing. And I learned a great deal.

Socially, the event was a blessing. To be able to chat with scholars, to put faces and personalities with author's names, to see former teachers and old school friends was a joy. Being with a large group of people who love theology after an academic fashion like you do is thrilling to me since I am not part of an academic community.

Intellectually, the meeting was challenging. I am not referring to the level of scholarship present, though that was significant, nor to the mental fatigue caused by the long hours, but it was challenging to core convictions of mine. One theologian called the penal substitution theory of the atonement a "cancer." Others reveal a fairly low view of biblical inspiration in approach to theology. I fully expected to encounter such thinking since the WTS is not limited to theologically conservative people, but it is still a challenge to have cherished beliefs bashed.

And then there is Karl Barth. Barth, Barth, Barth. Everywhere I turn Karl Barth was being talked about. You'd think the man was more important than Jesus. Yes, his influence on theological thought is tremendous and his writings legion, but must he come up at every turn? Many scholars apparently think so.

I. Howard Marshall's plenary presentation was wonderful and a breath of fresh air to the conference.  Marshall spoke on New Testament Christology, and read a paper that demonstrated skillful procedure in working though biblical materials to build Christology. At the same time it modeled academic integrity and logical thought it also feed the soul. Throughout the first day I looked for a time to speak with Professor Marshall, but couldn't find one. But then on Saturday I had my chance as he was sitting behind me listening to the same paper presentation. After the presentation ended I slipped over and asked if I could pester him a minute and he consented. I told him how helpful his Aspects of the Atonement had been to me in helping me think through and accept the penal substitution theory of the atonement. He commented that the penal theory was necessary if God's justice was to be upheld. We chatted a bit more then he signed my copy of Aspects of the Atonement upon request. By the way, Marshall is at work on a theological commentary on Romans that I hope will see publication soon.

Book tables - I had heard that at such meetings that publishers had book tables with deeply discounted books for sale. I was right. IVP, Baker, CrossWay, and more had great tables and great prices (except for Beacon who only offered 10% off!). Interestingly, in terms of unsold inventory, Crossway was the least diminished. I suspect that is because Crossway has the most Reformed and conservative books of the publishers present, and the WTS folks are neither. I left with two books from IVP and lust for more.

Vocationally, the event helped me think through my own dreams of working on a doctorate in theology. I realized that I cannot both pastor a church and pursue the level of education needed to be on the same level as the scholars I met. I also realized that while I love the academic world, at heart I am a practitioner, not an academician. What I love to do is to make theology accessible to churchgoers, thus my Classic Catechism. This means, then, that maybe the best route for me is a D.Th. in practical theology through one of the South African schools.

Wise Words for Degree Junkies

Thoughts from The Imitation of Christ, chapter 2, by Thomas A' Kempis.   His words are in bold italics:

Everyone naturally desires knowledge, but of what use is knowledge itself without the fear of God?  We must not confuse the acquiring of knowledge with holiness, nor let the natural desire for knowledge overtake a desire to grow in holiness, but seek knowledge as an aid to it.

Restrain an inordinate desire for knowledge, in which is found much anxiety and deception.  Learned men always wish to appear so, and the desire recognition for their wisdom.  The desire to be addressed as "Doctor" or the use of a degree to impose upon people or to feed a weak self image must be destroyed.  Seek a degree to be useful in God's kingdom, if such is the will of God for you, but do not seek it for status.

The more complete and excellent your knowledge, the more severe will be God's judgment on you, unless your life be the more holy.  Do not neglect your sanctification while gaining academic knowledge.  Always study as a disciple of Christ, to become more like him, not merely for intellectual curiosity or for academic recognition.

If you desire to know or learn anything to your advantage, then take delight in being unknown and unregarded.  Do not use your schooling in a manipulative way to advance yourself.  Learn, serve, produce, but be content to work in an obscure corner of God's kingdom.  Do not flash your credentials for profit, but let the Lord direct employers, etc. to you.  And if you remain unknown, be content with being faithful in your obscure corner.

The Reality of Doctorates and Teaching

Many seminary students and graduates get the "doctorate bug."  Their educational experience is such that they fall in love with learning and new ideas, and at times dream of what it would be like to be a professor.  Little do they know the real amount of work that Ph.D./Th.D. studies demand, nor what the day-to-day academic life of a full-time professor is actually like. 

Pastors, at times, get bitten by the doctorate bug as well.  Some want to escape the rigors of pastoral life by trading for an academic one and so pursue Ph.D. work, while others merely want to be addressed as "Doctor," so they enter a D.Min. program which has far fewer demands than an academic doctorate.  And then there are some pastors who honestly want to continue their education for more effective pastoral ministry and so they pursue doctoral studies.

Professor Keith Drury of Indiana Wesleyan University has done us a great service in describing what the day-to-day life of a professor is actually like here.  Read this, and any romanticizing of the professorial life will die a quick death. If teaching still appeals to you after reading this, than maybe you are truly called to teach.

Professor John Stackhouse of Regent College has written a nice piece about what it takes to choose, get into, and survive a Ph.D. program in theology, religion, etc.  What you will gain from reading this is that you must seriously count the cost before entering a quality doctoral program.  That is, if you can get into one at all.

Update 3-13-09: Duke D.Th. student Andy Rowell provides great help on getting into a doctoral program, the differences between a Th.D. and Ph.D. at Duke and much, much more at his blog.

Lost in Translation

I regularly encounter something disturbing in the college classes I teach and in the church at large.  What I encounter is a terrible misunderstanding of Bible translations and how to properly evaluate and use them.

The problem in part is due to the fact that there are so many English translations of the Bible.  We are blessed to have scholars and publishers in the English-speaking world that seriously study the original languages of the Bible and stive to produce quality translations.  The resulting variety of translations leaves readers without the problem of being stuck with a poor translation and no other options. 

But the plethora of translations has a negative effect as well, which can be seen in how Bible translations are marketed.  Some are touted as being great for children or new believers, some are promoted for devotional reading, some for precise study, others for not sounding "traditional," which, apparently, is a bad thing.  This all leads many folks to the idea that all translations are equally valid, trustworthy and dependable, and that ultimately the customer knows best, regardless of whether or not the customer knows anything at all about the principles of translation and the issues involved in it.  So the question for most church folks becomes not, "what translation will give me an accurate understanding of the Bible," but rather, "which one do you like the best?"  The first question has to do with accuracy the second with preference in style.  Embedded within the last question is often a desire to avoid the hard work required of Bible reading by choosing a translation that is "easy" to read.  This is desired because if studying the Bible requires serious mental effort than it is no fun and therefore a waste of time.  In other words, the thought is, "I'll listen as long as it is easy to.  Difficult things that require mental discipline are just not worth my time, even if it is God speaking."  Yet in other words, "God's Word better come to me on my terms or I'll ignore it."  Such thinking is spiritual suicide and the height of arrogance.

My students play out the implications of thinking all translations are equally valid in their papers all the time.  They may consult the Bible for some point, and keep sifting through translations until they find one that conveys the meaning they want it to convey with no question as to whether the translation is misleading.  Like little Derridas and Foucaults, the meaning is in the reader, not the text, unless one finds a text that says what you want it to say.  "I like how this one says it...," writes one student.  But what if "this one" is not true to the original language? 

Into this mess comes the English Standard Version, the latest attempt to create a new "standard" Bible translations for English readers.  The publication and promotion of the ESV has taken head-on the notion that all translations are equally valid and in particular that the dynamic equivalancy theory of translation is a good thing. The ESV is an essentially literal translation of the Bible, meaning is strives for word-for-word accuracy to the original Hebrew and Greek.   This translation philosophy opposes the dynamic equivalency theory, which translates "thought-for-thought" instead of word-for-word.  The New International Version and The New Living Translation are both examples of dynamic equivalency. [Leland Ryken argues for an essentially literal tranlslation of the Bible in his booklet listed in my ESV box on this blog]

What must pastors and educators do?  First, we must challenge the notion that every translation is of equal value and is trustworthy.  Second, pastors especially must learn about and consider the implications for the differing translation theories commonly used and steer congregants away for the worst examples of Bible translation.  Third, we must review our understanding of biblical inspiration and consider what translation theory best meshes with it. 

God must be heard.  Let's do our best to help people hear him.