I have a number of reasons for blogging. However, I have never intended this blog to be a place to air grievances, a means of exposing "heretics," or a forum to tear down brothers and sisters in the church. Sadly, this is what a lot of blogs are used for.

Last week, Bruce Waltke resigned from his position as professor of Old Testament studies at the Orlando campus of Reformed Theological Seminary. It was quite clear from the outset that his sudden resignation was linked in some way to a video he had appeared in posted by the Biologos Foundation, in which he argued for the necessity of accepting theistic evolution, although there was no official statement released giving the details of Waltke's resignation.

Not surprisingly, then, the blogosphere lit up as many took the opportunity to offer their opinions and speculations (disguised, of course, as factual statements) regarding what happened. Also of little surprise were the scathing remarks the vast majority of these bloggers had for RTS claiming that the seminary had forced Waltke to resign and criticising the school both for its limiting of academic freedom and for its adherence to a position regarding creation that science has proven to be untenable.

A lot of us around the campus spent time last week trying to figure out exactly what had happened because we were not being given many details. Having only received a very short email from the administration saying that Waltke had resigned, and nothing more, we were especially confused when the reports started coming out that RTS had forced Waltke to step down. I expressed my desire to some of the staff members at the seminary to see an official statement filling us in on the details. On the one hand, this would make us aware of what was going on, and on the other hand, could prove the wide-ranging speculations being promulgated on the internet wrong, which they later did. You can find chancellor Ric Cannada's statement here, and Uri Brito has also posted a letter Waltke himself wrote to his colleagues regarding the situation.

The best report available online right now is provided by The Aquila Report, who the other day posted this extensive and helpful statement. It was affirmed by some of the staff at RTS that this is indeed the most balanced and fair treatment of the events that have transpired in the past few weeks, and although there are some minor factual inaccuracies (the details surrounding the relationship of Enns and Waltke, I have been told, are somewhat inaccurate), it largely avoids the mud-slinging and finger-pointing that have characterised so many of the others "reports." To that end, I ask that you please read this report instead of the incorrect and speculative posts you find on most blogs, including the unhelpful piece Inside Higher Education recently posted

As with almost everything else, there is an ethic when it comes to publishing information, be it in a newspaper or magazine, or on a personal blog. Perhaps the power to click the "publish" button on the bottom of the screen overrides better judgment in some cases, but unfortunately there is no way to control who is publishing what online. One of our professors was remarking yesterday that actual investigative reporting is on the wane these days. Reporters now have their sources in various places and use the information they receive from these sources to make their reports. While these are often regulated as much as possible with the necessary checks and balances to ensure factual accuracy, this can hardly be said for the blogosphere. Using wisdom and abiding by an ethical standard becomes solely the responsibility of the blogger. More often than not, then, Lord Acton's dictum rings true: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Being a student at RTS Orlando, this hit very close to home. I was deeply saddened to hear of Waltke's resignation. Not only have we lost one of—if not the—most preeminent Old Testament scholar alive today, but we have lost a man whose love for the Lord was without measure, whose love for the church was inspiring, and whose love of the Word of God was infectious. One example I can share that demonstrates his character comes from working in the bookstore at the seminary. A number of times, Waltke has purchased some of his own books and shipped them, at great cost to himself, to pastors in countries in the developing world who had little or not access to good theological resources.

I do not believe the issue surrounding Waltke's resignation warranted such drastic action. While I do not adhere to theistic evolution myself, Waltke was clear in his affirmation of God as creator and of the historicity of Adam and Eve. As such, I do not think he falls outside the bounds of orthodoxy. It has been said a few times in the past week (though as far as I know, it remains unverified) that even one of the stalwarts of Reformed theology, B. B. Warfield, was an adherent of theistic evolution.

I never had the privilege of having Waltke as a professor, due to scheduling conflicts with my classes. But he has been an immense blessing to our community here at RTS, and to me particularly in his writing. Sad as we are to see him go, we wish him the Lord's richest blessings in whatever endeavour he undertakes next.

Loading mentions Retweet

For a number of reasons that I don't need to get into here, I am still finishing up some work from the Fall semester, but I will be done that by the middle of this month. And that's good, because tomorrow is the first official day of the Spring semester (and my final semester) here at Reformed Theological Seminary. In May, I'll be graduating with a Master of Arts in Theological Studies. Normally a two-year degree, I have spread it out over three. But it really is hard to believe that almost three years have gone already.

I'm looking forward to this semester. I will have two classes on campus, and two virtual classes. They are listed below, the first two being the ones I am taking on campus.

• Educational Ministry of the Church
• Exposition of Hebrews
• Systematic Theology IV (Ecclesiology and Sacraments)
• History of Missions

It will be a relatively light semester, which is good, because these next few months also require me to try and figure out what we will be doing come May. I've made mention of our plans a number of times on the old blog, and I have started to get in touch with some different people and make some contacts to get things rolling. To reiterate, what I am looking for is a position in a church where I could be involved with the educational and teaching ministry. Needless to say, it's both exciting and a little stressful. We could be in for some big changes in the middle of this year. But God has continually shown His faithfulness to us and we trust His leading. We can't wait to see what He has in store for us next.

Loading mentions Retweet

Just a couple weeks remain before I begin my final year of study at Reformed Theological Seminary. It’s hard to believe it’s gone by so quickly. Among other things, this means I have had to start giving some serious thought to what will happen in May of 2010 after I graduate.

Initially, my plans were to immediately transition into a doctoral program in historical theology, looking at ecclesiological developments in the Reformation or post-Reformation period. However, over these last few months as I have been doing some reading and research to try and figure out more specifically what I would like to study within that broad field, I have found myself overwhelmed by the amount of material out there. This, along with a number of other factors, has led me to realize that at this point I am rather unprepared to go on to this level of study. I need some more time to do some focused reading and research in preparation, and so am postponing going this route for a few years.

What does that mean for now, then? I will be looking for work in the interim. More specifically, I’m looking to do some sort of vocational ministry work for the next few years. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, before I decided to go the academic route, I had planned on going into pastoral ministry. In the past while, however, based on the advice of others and plenty of thought on my part, I have come to think that perhaps I should spend some time doing ministry in a church context before I make a definitive decision not to pursue that long-term. Additionally, many students of theology will tell you that the best teachers they had were pastors at one point.

Second, I have been involved in the educational ministry at our local church and have thoroughly enjoyed serving in that role. So much so, in fact, that if I could find a position with a title like “Pastor of Educational Ministries,” I would probably jump at the chance. Except for the fact that I am not from a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church, this position sounds like it would be absolutely ideal for me. I might tweak one or two things, but I could see myself fitting very comfortably into a role like that.

And so that’s where we stand right now. While Robin and I like the idea of having things planned out and everything set in place, we are a bit adventurous at the same time and seem to thrive when things are uncertain. Although we don’t have any idea right now where we’ll be headed next year, we are confident that God will again show us the path He would have us go down, and we’re excited to see where it will lead. We are not committed to any city or country, and want to make ourselves available to wherever He would use us. To that end, we are open to going almost anywhere.

That being said, I’ve begun to keep my eyes and ears open for any possibilities and opportunities that are out there, although I am really venturing into uncharted territory here. Nonetheless, it will be exciting to see what unfolds this year. Over the next few months I’ll begin compiling a resume/CV, which I will post here along with some more information about me. Also (and perhaps this is more for those of you who know me), if you happen to hear of anything you think might interest me, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Loading mentions Retweet

We here at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando were privileged to have Dr. Herman Selderhuis, professor of church history at the Theologische Universiteit Apeldoorn, deliver the Kistemaker Lectures about a month ago on the topic of John Calvin. This year, 2009, marks the 500th anniversary of Calvin's birth and there are a large number of events and conferences going on to celebrate that. Dr. Selderhuis gave four lectures under the heading, "The Discovery of John Calvin." The lectures are available for download here (note: you'll need to have iTunes installed), and I encourage you to listen to them. There is a lot of valuable and interesting material there.

As I listened to them, I noted some of the more interesting things I heard, which I reproduce here (along with the approximate location where you can find it in the lecture).

1. Calvin did not want his theology to be known as Calvinism. As time went on, Calvin was aware of his increasing influence in the world of the Reformation, and was worried that people would begin to idolize him or his theology. As it were, Calvinism was actually a term given to Calvin's theology by Reformation-era Lutherans, and it was applied in a derogatory manner. So, Selderhuis suggests, call yourself Reformed instead.
   (Lecture 1, ±27:00-28:00)
2. It is often the case that people just equate Calvin with the Institutes. But in order to get an accurate portrayal of his whole system of thought and theology, we need to read all of his works together.
   (Lecture 2, ±3:00-4:00)
3. Calvin believed that the preaching of the Word should be accompanied by the showing and signing of the Word in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper each week. When you think you are being very Calvinistic by celebrating the Lord's Supper four or five times a year, you are actually being very loyal to the anti-Calvin leaders of the time in Geneva who opposed Calvin's desire to partake of the Supper each week.
   (Lecture 2, ±19:00-20:00)
4. We primarily use the Institutes as a theological work, but Calvin did not write it as a theological treatise, per se. It was meant, first and foremost, as a pastoral work that would lead people to a deeper understanding of the Christian life. For Calvin, doctrine and piety went hand in hand.
   (Lecture 2, ±46:00-47:00)
5. The Institutes, both originally and as we have them today, are published in large volumes, which one would likely not read in its entirety. In the mid-1500s, a Frenchman published a summary of the Institutes, a summary which gave heavy attention to the issues of the day, such as predestination. That is why Calvinism today has this caricature of being fatalistic or deterministic. If you read the Institutes in their entirety, however, you notice that the largest section of the whole work is devoted to prayer. The Frenchman who published the summary, however, thought that was not an issue. The point is, then, don't read just the summaries, but go ad fontes—back to the sources.
   (Lecture 2, ±50:00-52:00)
6. Martin Luther thought Calvin's short treatise on the Lord's Supper to be very helpful. This should not be all that surprising to us, because the understanding of the Lord's Supper in many Reformed churches actually tends toward a Zwinglian understanding instead of a Calvinistic one. Calvin combined the strengths of both Zwingli's and Luther's understanding of the Supper, and saw his view as quite in agreement with Luther.
   (Lecture 3, ±11:00, 17:00-18:00)
7. Finally, Calvin was convinced that if Luther had lived longer, he would not have sided with the Lutherans. The followers of Luther became quite militant after his death, and deviated considerably from Luther's theology.
   (Lecture 3, ±32:00-33:00)

I did not mention anything from the fourth lecture, but if you are of Dutch ancestry, you will find that one particularly humorous, as Selderhuis pokes a bit of fun at some of the perspectives of Dutch Reformed folk, especially on their understanding of the Sabbath.

All in all, it was a great blessing to have Selderhuis here. His perspectives on Calvin were enlightening and refreshing. Download the lectures, and enjoy what he has to say. He also has a new biography of Calvin that has just been released, which you can purchase here.

Loading mentions Retweet

Theologians have always struggled to come up with a definition of theology. Deriving the definition from its etymological root has led some to define it merely as the study of God--a definition, of course, that has nothing inherently wrong about it, but does lead to some degree of ambiguity. One of the more important questions that arises from this is, how do we approach this study of God?

Throughout his years of study, John Frame, professor of systematic theology here at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, has come to define theology as "the application of God's Word by persons to all areas of life." In his book, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, he says that in general theology refers to "study of, knowledge of, speaking of, teaching of, [and] learning about God" (77). However, that broad definition has led to different historical understandings of theology, from the radically subjective theology of Friedrich Schleiermacher to the overly objective idea of theology found in Charles Hodge.

While Frame would be much more comfortable aligning himself with a figure like Hodge, he does argue that Hodge goes too far. Hodge's thoroughly objective approach to theology led to him aligning theology with the other natural sciences. Hodge stated in his Systematic Theology that theology "is the exhibition of the facts of scripture in their proper order and relation, with the principles or general truths involved in the facts themselves, and which pervade and harmonize the whole" (Hodge, vol. I, 19). Theology in Hodge's understanding was to be the gathering of the facts of Scripture and to demonstrate the truth by arranging them in a proper order. He was making deliberate efforts to distance himself from the likes of Schleiermacher, and Frame is gracious toward him for doing so. But in the end, Hodge actually deprives the Word of God of some of its uniqueness and power and makes theology far too intellectual.

"The job of the theologian," says Frame, "cannot be to give the first or most definitive description of Scripture in human language. Why? Because Scripture has already done that" (78). If the Word of God is the speech of God, then no human language is sufficient to offer the definitive interpretation of that speech. The Bible is sufficient to do that for itself. Frame argues that we need to

recognize that Scripture is language, that it has its own rational order, that it gives a perfect, normative, rational description and analysis of the facts of the redemption. It is not the job of theology to supply such a normative description and analysis; that account has been given to theology by revelation. Theology, then, must be a secondary description, a reinterpretation and reproclamation of Scripture, both of its propositional and nonpropositional content. Why do we need such a reinterpretation? To meet human needs. The job of theology is to help people understand the Bible better, not to give some sort of abstractly perfect account of the truth as such, regardless of whether anyone understands it or not. Rather, the job of theology is to teach people the truth of God (79).

One of the reasons, then, that we need to be careful of how much stress we place on the task of theology is because we are human. Scripture can and must be used confidently by us, but we must also maintain a posture of humility and recognize that "our theologies are not even the best formulation of truth-for-people for all times and places; Scripture is that. Our theologies are merely attempts to help people, generally and in specific times and places, to use Scripture better" (80).

And herein lies Frame's conception of application: doing theology means teaching in the biblical sense. He notes that the idea of teaching in the New Testament is "coupled with an adjective like hugiainos (healthy), or kalos (good or beautiful), or with some other indication that the teaching is conducive to spiritual health...it is not a narrowly intellectualist or academic discipline" (81). This means that, in contrast to a lot of today's preaching, we do not need separate the idea of the meaning and application of a text, but instead recognize that

every request for 'meaning' is a request for an application because whenever we ask for the 'meaning' of a passage we are expressing a lack in ourselves, an ignorance, an inability to use the passage. Asking for 'meaning' is asking for an application of Scripture to a need; we are asking Scripture to remedy that lack, that ignorance, that inability. Similarly, every request for an 'application' is a request for meaning; the one who asks doesn't understand the passage well enough to use it for himself (83).

If we devote ourselves to the work of theology, we are not setting out to discover the truth, but we are serving the people of God with the truth that has already been revealed. That is why, Frame concludes, "it is best to say that the basis of theology is the Word of God. There is no other discipline or body of knowledge that mediates between the Word and the theologian" (88). Any conception of theology that is either too subjective or too objective ultimately undermines the authority of Scripture. Our theology is to help to renew, transform, and mold the hearts of those who seek to live their life in Christ and to bring them to a fuller understanding of and love for his Word. Nothing more, nothing less.

Loading mentions Retweet