A good post on pastors leading their congregations theologically. But coming from the Gospel Coalition (with Piper’s image prominently displayed on the page), I have a question about one of their points:
9. Independent churches shouldn’t run their own seminaries.
Ummm… what is Piper doing at Bethlehem Baptist?
Just wondering. (I don’t know how I feel about the point, but I am wondering about the apparent discrepancy.)
Instead, I must write to urge you to fight for the faith delivered once and for all to God’s holy people. (Jude 1:3b, CEB)
Jude interrupts his intended letter to change direction. He is warning the readers of something so dangerous he is fairly vehement in his warnings.
The question is this: Is there anything worth fighting for in the faith today? Anything that approaches the level of what Jude is addressing in this letter?
One of the topics I have wrestled with for quite some time is the idea of pastors as theologians, or theologians as pastors.
As a pastor, I have grown over the years in my ability to think theologically. I earned my Master’s 20 years after I finished my BA. I love pastoring.
What I have become more convinced of is the Church made the mistake centuries ago of separating the pastorate and the academy. We have a very tough time recovering from that drastic mistake. We now think that someone who is “intellectual” is destined for “academics,” and someone who isn’t quite that “intellectual” and more “practical” is therefore consigned to ministry.
Many great students I have talked to in recent years really feel that they want to pursue academic careers and will only reluctantly consider pastoring. It has reached a point where pastoring is something you get pulled into kicking and screaming, if you happen to love theology.
What I long for is a return of the two abilities. Brian over at Near Emmaus is processing the issue of the academy vs. the church and it is a very thoughtful post.
He quotes John Chrysostom, a great theologian and pastor. The earliest centuries of the Church, where the major discussion of the big foundational blocks of Christian theology were formed, were forged in the churches by pastors.
We need these gifts together again. I don’t think we’ll ever get away from having pure academics, but what we truly need to get away from is pastors who think, “I don’t need no stinkin’ ‘cemetery’ education!”
Lord, help us to think again. Think… with hearts on fire.
I’ve actually made my way into the third volume of Barth’s Church Dogmatics. I think I’ve understood a total of 50 pages in the first two volumes… total. Okay… I’m lying. It’s less than that.
In II.1 he takes up the doctrine of God. Barth combines the love of God with the fear of God. The love of God actually needs to come first.
He is worthy of our love, and in a way that no one or nothing else is worthy. Loving God does not disappoint. The beauty of God is that he makes himself known to us. God offers himself to us, creating the possibility to know him.
Barth says that out of that love must now flow fear. If we love him above all things, we now realize we must fear him above all things. We need to understand that we are to fear the One who reveals the Word to us. That is an awesome thing.
…there is no belief and trust in the Word of God, no obedience of faith, and therefore no obedience in general if man is not compelled to fear God.
If we sometimes fear, and then find that sometimes we cannot fear God… then he is not really God to us.
Barth explains the three-fold rationale for fearing God, as he did with loving God.
1. God is in himself to be feared.
2. This compulsion comes from the fearful encounter with God. To encounter God is to have a sense of fear and awe at some point. He wills himself to be known.
3. God opens our eyes and ears to his fearfulness so that our fear before him is realized.
Fear is to follow love. Fear has to be explained from love.
The content of the knowledge of God as bound to the Word of God is the existence of Him whom we must fear above all things because we may love Him above all things.
I Heart Barth posted a series of interviews with Miroslov Volf on his new book, A Public Faith. The third video was the one I found really interesting.
There are liberals today who are Christian who say democracy isn’t compatible with Christian faith. Jesus was a Socialist.
Volf says Christianity is compatible with democracy and what is more, liberals need to start acting like it. They need to have a space for faith, rather than the litmus test of checking your faith at the door. It’s an interesting segment.
The text this Sunday is Matthew 25:1-13. As I work through this text, and all of Matthew 25 really, I am struck by how this passage brings together a lot of Matthew’s gospel.
In particular, I see the 5 foolish virgins in the parable of the soil. They received the word with joy, but without roots, the “joy” is stripped away quickly. They get in for the excitement, but when the Kingdom of God gets “hot” and “uncomfortable” or it’s no longer something “fun,” they fade out.
There is also the parable of the wheat and the weeds. There are those who simply aren’t prepared and in the last day, the Lord brings the separation.
The 5 wise virgins are also seen: the parable of the treasure in the field and the pearl of great price. They treasured Jesus. They knew the costs. They were prepared.
When we are treasuring Jesus we are so focused on his call that when the wait gets long or the going gets rough, we just keep going. Jesus is in full view and all we desire is him.
Being “ready” isn’t about reading the tea leaves to figure out who the antichrist is. Beady ready is about being obedient. Are we doing what the Master has asked of us? We are aware of the world around us, but we aren’t on OUR timeline… we wait for his timeline. It is about his Kingdom and his will.
Let our lamps be ready. Let our lives be treasuring Jesus today.
I ask this honestly of those Christians who are universalists in their theology: What do you do with Matthew 24 and 25? There seems to be a separation of some sort and the Lord is the One doing it.
Please follow this simple rule: Don’t answer FOR universalists. If you ARE a universalist, could you help with how you would exegete these texts?
Just asking… honestly!
Today is Reformation Day. This is the anniversary of the day Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenburg.
Lee Grady of Charisma Magazine has an interesting take on the need for a “Reformation Day” for Charismatics. Quite honestly, I didn’t know some of these issues still existed. Maybe it’s because I don’t watch TV nearly as much…
I will say he has some good points, especially here:
I am no Luther, but I’ve grown increasingly aware that the so-called “Spirit-filled” church of today struggles with many of the same things the Catholic church faced in the 1500s. We don’t have “indulgences”—we have telethons. We don’t have popes—we have super-apostles. We don’t support an untouchable priesthood—we throw our money at celebrity evangelists who own fleets of private jets.
I have long contended Charismatics and Pentecostals have our forms of indulgences. I don’t think they are just telethons, either.
I was looking for the table (or chart) Scot McKnight has in his book on the difference between the “Soterian” message we tend to preach, and the gospel of the Kingdom. Thankfully, he put it on his own blog. (HERE)
One of the things we discussed in staff concerning McKnight’s book was that there does need to be a “decision.” McKnight is not shying away from making a decision. The issue is this: Just what are you deciding on?
The book is worth your time to read and think through.
