What I appreciate about TEDS…. March 26, 2009
Posted by bdennert in School, Spirituality, Theology and Ministry.add a comment
When people find out I went/go to Trinity Evangelical Divinity, they ask one of two questions: 1) (if they know the theological and Christian world), have you had a chance to study with Dr. Carson and 2) (if they do not know church culture) what the heck is a divinity school? I like both questions. However, as I have told people, what I appreciate about TEDS scholars like Dr. Carson is not the work that they produce but the way that they are. This is true of Dr. Carson, but also true of most of the faculty. This occurred to me again this week.
In the midst of our discussion of verbal aspect in Greek (I know, it is exciting) and critiques of my pronounication (which I appreciated), Dr. Carson busts into tangents–true pastoral tangents. He talks about the difference between Keller and Piper’s preaching styles tied to their approachs (noting that we need both of them), we discuss the power of Thomas’ confession of Christ in John 20:28 as well as the nature of true faith, we talk about how to use the things that we are learning to teach and preach. TEDS is committed to scholarship, but also to engaging our hearts and engaging the world. Dr. Monson has continually tried to relate knowledge of the Dead Sea Scrolls to our world today as well as understanding Jesus’ world; in Qumran Scrolls class, we went on a tangent in regards to the way that we can avoid over-specialization in scholarship as well as watering down the gospel. We discussed pastoral issues, not just the scrolls.
TEDS, thank you for keeping me grounded. I have grown to appreciate this and hope to keep it in focus as I move on in studies, remember that it is for the glory of God and for His people.
Caring for our World March 24, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Politics, Random, Spirituality.1 comment so far
Once again, I was intrigued, challenged, and caused to ponder from a podcasted sermon of Steve Constable of Stony Point Reformed Presbyterian Church. It was on “Caring for Our World” from Genesis 2. It was not an exegetical sermon but more of a theological reflection on stewardship of the world with particular application to how it affects environmentalism today. A key point that he raised was that we should not exploit the earth in favor of people, but we should also not over-marginalize people at the expense of “environmentalism” (it sounded better when he said it, particularly with his accent!). What he was getting at is that we should not pillage the earth, but we should also have a focus on people as we care for the environment. Global warming is not a bad thing (regardless of what exactly it means, that’s not the prime issue right now)…it is bad because of what it would do for people–particularly the poor. For example, the deserts of the world would expand, it would be tougher to raise crops in certain parts of the world and lead to hunger. We should care for the earth (remember how the Israelites were supposed to have the Sabbath year with no crops!) but we should have even more care for people who use the earth. We are called to subdue the earth, the earth was made for us not the other way around, but this is not exploiting it or not caring about it.
This is the same sort of logic I have been wrestling through when I drive by Whole Foods and hear discussions of “Green” Products as well as “Organic foods” that are better for us, etc. I am not intending to debate this issue as much as to wonder if the extra cost we pay to keep the world and our health better could be spent in other ways. When you add together the prices of what it takes to be trendy and healthy, could we feed more of the world, give more medicine and basic health care to the world? This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care about the results that products have on the earth (by all means, recycle…its pretty easy!) but do we think more about ourselves and “nature” and less about what it means to “love our neighbors as ourselves?”
“How’d it go?” March 21, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Justice, School, Spirituality, Thanksgiving.add a comment
Yesterday, I had the pleasure to take a six hour exam for my degree program. Yes, six hours. There were 9 of us taking a 6 hour exam (many others had a 3 hour or so exam, but ours was longer). It was over NT content, criticism, background, introductory issues (date, authorship , etc.), theology, and exegesis (explaining passages). At the end, after I printed off my 22 pages of answers, the Dean’s Admin Assistant asked me how it went. It is one of those odd questions. How do I respond? I don’t want to say that I felt like I passed lest I do not and then kick myself. But I also have learned that I can be unduly pessmistic about things and I do not want to be that way either and I say I think I didn’t do so well. It went well, as all but one question I felt like I was able to give a decent response to. However, I told her, “I got to write 6 hours on issues related to the NT. It actually is kind of cool.” I was thinking about the NT, different passages and material and what it means for 6 hours! And the only reference work I could use was a the Greek New Testament (with a word list for the second half of the exam). This is pretty cool in my mind, as I felt like it emerged me more and more into that world. While it is not always fun to take that long of an exam, it was a good experience. I don’t want to do THAT again, but I am thankful for all the studying it made me do and for how I felt walking out of it. To God be the glory!
Rejection March 16, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Ministry, Spirituality, Theology and Ministry.add a comment
Maybe I am more in tune with the idea of rejection and how it is a necessary part of life from circumstances, or maybe I am just doing more study of the New Testament lately, but I was thinking about Acts 13 and Acts 17 and the way that Paul is rejected by both audiences. In Acts 13, Paul reasons from Jewish Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. In Acts 17, Paul moves from the religiosity of Athens to talk about the unknown God–the God of Jesus Christ. In both of these, the groups reject him, but for very different reasons. In Acts 13, the rejection comes when Paul begins to turn to the Gentiles, an idea that was very controversial among the Jews of his time (probably a very new idea!). Meanwhile, in Athens he is rejected for talking about the resurrection of the dead, but that is a very silly idea according to their minds. Both the insiders and the outsiders reject the gospel because it does not mesh with the ideas that they already have and think are so cherished.
Maybe I am moving too soon to application, but it is a reminder for us in ministry that we will be rejected by those inside and outside the church. Our ideas should be somewhat controversial and pushing both sectors. For the non-Christian, the gospel does not fit their worldview. Whether it is tied to the appalling idea that they are a sinner or that God has a will and a plan in the world, the gospel threatens our world order. On the other side, the gospel also threatens the church in that it calls us out of our comfort zones, calls us to consider ways to be more inclusive and more missional minded–to have the heart of God as opposed to our hearts.
We need to learn to be rejected and to use rejection to further the gospel message. Many of us are prone to try to avoid rejection and to avoid failure. However, rejection and failure “should be an option” when one is faithful and content in their mission from God. Ultimately, then, failure is not really failure!
500 Years…and Alive and Kickin’ March 12, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Blogroll, Random.add a comment
This is the 500th anniversary of the birth of John Calvin and to prove that his ideas are alive and well…and actually in a stage of rebirth and revival, here are links in regards to the Time Magazine naming the “New Calvinism” as one of the most powerful ideas right now (thanks to Bryan on http://twog.wordpress.com/ for posting this).
Time Article: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884782_1884760,00.html
Driscoll’s thoughts part 1: http://theresurgence.com/new_calvinism
Driscoll’s thoughts part 2: http://theresurgence.com/time_magazine_new_reformed
It makes me excited to see the movement of these great theological ideas. And it also makes me grateful to be connected to a continuing confessional group that can be a state in the “new Calvinist” nation.
Keeping Perspective-Ephesians 1 March 12, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Spirituality.add a comment
This morning, I decided to take a look at Ephesians 1 (where we are going next with our Bible study). And I know what to expect when I turn to about any passage of Scripture. This is definitely true of Ephesians 1, it is a reason why I am a Reformed boy 
But it really hit me this morning as I thought through the implications of these trues for my life today.
-The thing to remember about the plan of God is that it is for the praise of His glory. It is about him, not about me. So often I think that His plan should work for what I want to have happen…but that is not how it necessarily works. It is not for my comfort, but for His praise, which is my ultimately comfort.
-The idea that God has a plan before the foundation of the world is reassuring. While I do not necessarily know what I am doing tomorrow and my plans will not work out per se, God’s will. Therefore, I can be confident in Him and can run to Him in these moments.
-God has given us every spiritual blessing. He has given us what we need and all that we could ever want–heck, it is spiritual so it is even better than we would have originally thought! I have all I need
-These all happen in Christ! Wow, in Christ! We cannot move away from the cross, move away from His life, because He has given us all that we could ever need or ask for.
-The Spirit is a seal. He will not let go. He has a down payment that will not be effected by the economic crisis. In fact, He is laughing at my worries today!!!
Thank God for what He has done and for the Word that tells us what He has done!
Hanging with the Apostle Paul March 9, 2009
Posted by bdennert in School, Spirituality, Theology and Ministry.add a comment
Today I spent much of my day hanging with the apostle Paul. I was reading on background issues (the debates about whether Paul wrote what we think he wrote), and one thing I am more firmly convinced of is that Paul wrote these books. All the arguments to the contrary just seem to be weak and not confusing. In addition, I will readily admit that I believe that we should take them at face value unless proven otherwise. Something else is that his teachings are not always easy! However, I see again and again the need to recognize that salvation is by faith alone, on account of the grace of God in Christ. However, salvation is not just about going to heaven–again and again I looked at passages that talk about how it is live out in the real world. None of Paul’s theology is abstracted but applied to real-life church situations. While a book like Ephesians or Romans might be more generalized, his teachings emerge over and over again. And there is consistency, even the more “apocalyptic” 1 and 2 Thesslonians reflect some of the already/not yet tension. While Colossians does not expound justification by faith as much, it is implicit to the argument. While we must not think that they are as individualistic as we often consider, they are not simply corporate documents that The pastoral epistles seem to reflect the heart and soul of Paul as we see in his other writings.
I also appreciated examining the difficult passage of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 back in his canonical context and to think through how it flows in Paul’s argument. The emphasis on church order and having organized and God glorifying public worship are things that we must heed. The teachings of these works match the household codes of Colossians and Ephesians. The emphasis on the character of Timothy and Titus matches his pastoral heart and the way that he defends himself in works like 1 Thessalonians, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. Character is key–but so is doctrine, which matches how he fights against false teaching in Colossians and elsewhere.
Tomorrow–hanging with the other apostles! The day after that, hanging with Jesus in the gospels!
A Farmer’s Legacy March 7, 2009
Posted by bdennert in School, Spirituality.add a comment
I have spent a decent amount of time this week looking at the life and work of William R. Farmer. While it might seem that his name attracted me to his work, that is not the case Farmer’s 1964 book The Synoptic Problem re-opened the question about the order and relationship of the gospels. He argued that Matthew came first, then Luke, and the Mark as a summary of the other two. For those familiar with the usual theory, in many ways this puts the “accepted” view on its head (Usually Mark is seen as first, then Luke and Matthew using Mark and a source known as Q). In some ways, Farmer returned to the classic position, noting that the consensus on Mark and Q was actually never really establishd on good grounds. While I am not sure if I would accept his position, his work has made me question my position on the Synoptic Problem. What I appreciate about him is that he was not convinced, he was skeptical of nineteenth century German scholarship (while not an evangelical, an evangelical can appreciate that), and he was not afraid to argue for a minority position. In some ways, I hope I am willing to be someone like Farmer.
In addition to his work and courage in this area, though, Farmer also seemed to a scholar who really interacted with the works of other scholars, even across ecumenical lines (though he left the United Methodist Church at the end of his life for the Catholic Church, which might scare some away from this sort of dialogue). He seemed committed to living out his faith, which scholars need to remember. I also found a couple of his works interesting–he sought to find the implications of the idea of Markan priority and the existence of Q for the church. He thought that this view caused the pastor to look to a non-canonical gospel as the earliest account (and most reliable) as well as causing there to be a different gospel between the pulpit and the pew. After engaging in a class on the Synoptic problem, he might be on to something. He also argued that fascination with Q might lead to a de-emphasis on the death of Christ (which was seen in the 20th century) and other “forms of Christianity” (he seemed to predict Bart Ehrman in some ways). This sort of pastoral touch by a scholar seems rare–but needed and appreciated.
I am glad I picked Farmer to do a paper on, though it was not totally a random pick, it profited me much more than I would have anticipated.
