Theology
Evidence and Faith
- Details
- Written by: Paul Barnett
Evidence and Faith
My aim in this essay is to reflect on Paul as the earliest evidence for the birth of the church. His encyclical to churches in Galatia (central Türkiye) is his earliest written text and the earliest historical reference to Christianity. With less probability some argue for a date a few years later, although this doesn’t affect the force of my argument.
In this letter we have detailed accounts from his persecution of the church in c. 34 to the writing of the letter in c. 48 in Antioch in Syria. In between those dates we learn of God’s call to the persecutor to become the proclaimer of the Son of God among the Gentiles.
The former Pharisee who had attempted to destroy the church in Jerusalem became the most famous proclaimer of the Christian message, establishing churches “in an arc from Jerusalem to Illyricum.” This persecutor-becomeproclaimer is a fact of history, scarcely able to be denied.
His surviving letters are testament to his radical volte-face.
POSTMODERNISM
For many years now western culture, our culture, has been deeply influenced by “Postmodernism.” Back in the early 1980s a Professor of English Literature told me that the postmodern way of looking at life was going to change our culture. It will be about subjectivity, she said, how I feel, how I see things. The notion of objectivity, of what is there, will give way to personal feelings as the dominant source of reality. Postmodernism reinforces the self, the “me first” mindset. It runs contrary to the idea of God-given love, a way of life that is unselfish, “otherscentred.” These were our culture’s (more or less) agreed values before the rise of Postmodernism and its child, Woke.
EVIDENCE
Evidence is fundamental to life — juries and judges determine guilt or innocence based on sworn evidence; doctors base diagnosis and prescription on blood tests and scans; engineers and architects construct buildings based on surveyors’ precise measurements; the list goes on. The objective realities of daily life challenge the core assertions of Postmodernism. It is right, however, that evidence is challenged, to bring us closer to the truth. Otherwise, politics and ideology get in the way. Freedom
of speech is important.
EVIDENCE IN GALATIANS
Dates are important for evidence. The Galatians letter is informative.
33 The year of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.
34 Paul persecuted believers in Jerusalem.
Outside Damascus God “called” him to preach his Son among the Gentiles.
36/7 He returned to Jerusalem now as a believer, lodged with Cephas, “saw” James.
Assisted by dates from Luke 3:1-2, Acts 18:1, and Galatians 2:1 we calculate that Paul launched his persecutions in the year 34, that he was in Damascus-Arabia-Damascus 34-36, that he returned to Jerusalem in 36/7, and moved to Syria-Cilicia in 37.
His Letter to the Galatians is his defence against ultraconservatively Jewish Christians in Jerusalem who sought to discredit his message of “grace” to Gentiles and overturn his influence among the Galatians.
AD 34 PAUL ATTEMPTED TO DESTROY THE CHURCH Paul was a distinguished younger scholar in Jerusalem.
I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. Galatians 1:13–14
Paul’s parents brought him as a teenager from Tarsus to Jerusalem and enrolled him in the school of Rabbi Gamaliel, the greatest scholar of that generation.
Paul, the young rabbi, was distinguished in and “zealous” for “the traditions” of the great rabbis from earlier generations. He was also a “man of zeal,” a zealous persecutor of the church, which he attempted “violently” to “destroy.”
- He had participated in (possibly led?) the stoning of Stephen for blasphemy.
- He was the high priest’s “hatchet-man” in the flogging of Christians in the synagogues in Jerusalem to drive them from the city, which he did.
- Then he was sent by the high priest to round up and extradite believers from Damascus.
PAUL, CALLED BY GOD TO PROCLAIM HIS SON AMONG THE GENTILES
Paul reminds the Galatians of the astonishing fact of his “calling” from learned young scholar and violent persecutor to an apostle spreading the message about Jesus to the nations of the world:
But when he who had set me apart before I was born and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles… Galatians 1:15–16
He re-tells his story: the astonishing volte-face of the violent young man. Outside Damascus God intervened to reveal to Paul that Jesus was not a false Messiah but the Son of God, whom Paul was now to “proclaim among the Gentiles,” that is, throughout the Roman world.
AD 34-36/7 PAUL A WANDERING FUGITIVE
He adds
I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia and returned again to Damascus. Galatians 1:16–17
Note the sequence (covering 3 years):
Jerusalem
Damascus
Arabia (i.e., Nabatea, capital Petra)
Damascus
Jerusalem (where he met with those who were “apostles before [him])”
Evidently Paul began proclaiming this message and was constantly on the move to evade capture. By referring to “apostles before me” Paul understood himself also now to be an apostle, one “sent” by God, bearing the authority of God.
AD 36/7 PAUL IN JERUSALEM
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas [i.e., Peter] and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) Galatians 1:18–20
Chronology is critical regarding evidence. When he says, “after three years I went up to Jerusalem” we are now in the year 36/7 (counting part years as full years, as the Jews did).
So, in the year 36/7 (only 3 to 4 years after Jesus) we learn:
Cephas (Peter) was the head of the church in Jerusalem
James the Lord’s brother was there, now a believer, 2nd leader after Cephas
And that there were “other apostles”
Notice what was in place in the year 36/7, back-to-back with Jesus, 33:
The church of God (an institution) 1:11
Cephas the leader 1:18
James, brother of the Lord, 2nd in charge 1:19
Apostles (a group) 1:19
These are definable entities that were there in 36/7, but most likely going back to Jesus. The historical figure of Jesus was followed immediately by the birth of the church. Not years after, but immediately (50 days) after.
PAUL WITH CEPHAS AND JAMES IN JERUSALEM
Notice that Paul “stayed with” with Cephas in Jerusalem for 15 days. Paul had opportunity to learn extensively about Jesus: his disciples, his teachings, miracles, death, resurrection.
Notice, too, that in Jerusalem he “saw” James, brother of the Lord? From James, younger brother of Jesus, Paul had opportunity to know about the boyhood and early manhood of Jesus.
Thus, from James and Cephas Paul had opportunity the learn about Jesus in continuity, from boyhood, to adulthood, to his baptism, to his call of the twelve, to his miracles, teachings, his trials, the Last Supper, his crucifixion, and his resurrection.
Rudolph Bultmann, possibly the most famous New Testament scholar in the first half of last century, said that Paul only knew about Jesus as a mythical, heavenly ahistorical figure. Paul’s connections with James, brother of the Lord, and Cephas, leading disciple of the Lord tell a different story. Like many, Bultmann was controlled by his existential philosophy, not history-based evidence. It has taken decades to dislodge Bultmann’s influence, thanks mainly to his fellow-German, Martin Hengel.
We see how much “raw” history emerges from Paul’s defence to his critics? Furthermore, he must be careful since his critics will be quick to fault him.
It is likely that while in Jerusalem Paul “received” the Last Supper “tradition” that he was to “deliver” later to the churches he established.
THE CHURCHES IN JUDEA
There is more:
In 36/7, before Paul left Jerusalem for Tarsus in Syria and Cilicia he observes: Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” Galatians 1:21–26
By the year 36/7 there were now churches in the wider province of Judea. This diaspora of believers was the result of Paul’s earlier persecutions in Jerusalem. Not only were there disciples in the capital Jerusalem, but they were also scattered outside the capital. These churches had been formed by Christians in Jerusalem who had fled from Paul.
Note their words,
“He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.”
In other words, in that year 34 the church’s “faith” was there as an entity to be destroyed. Paul had attempted to destroy both the church of God and its faith, its doctrine.
It so happens that Paul quotes some words that sound like a faith statement, one that Paul may have learned from Cephas, James, and other apostles in Jerusalem. This is not certain but is at least probable.
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons, and because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” Galatians 4:4–6
In these few words Paul makes a “faith” statement:
- That is Trinitarian: The “Abba Father,” his Son, and the Spirit of his Son
- That is fulfilment-focused: “when the fullness of time had come”
- That is “incarnational”: God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law
- That is redemptive: to redeem those who were under the law
- That is adoptive: that we might receive adoption as sons
- That is Holy Spirit-centric: God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
It is likely that Paul’s words resembled the “faith” of the church in Jerusalem that he had attempted to destroy.
From whom did he learn it? Most likely from Cephas.
EVIDENCE FROM GALATIANS
What we have here in Galatians, this earliest of letters, is evidence.
- Of an institution, the church of God, that Paul had attempted to destroy
- Of that church’s faith, likely trinitarian, that Paul had attempted to destroy
- Of believers also in Damascus to be arrested, as inferred
- Of its leaders Cephas with whom he stayed, and James, brother of the Lord
- Of the church’s office bearers, the apostles
- Of churches scattered from Jerusalem in Judea
This is evidence that isn’t set out to be evidence for us, but for Paul’s congregants in Galatia, but which, notwithstanding, proves to be evidence for us. It is not a “gospel,” a narrative to tell the Jesus story. That is another historical-literary genre.
PAUL HAD TO BE METICULOUS
Evidence emerges incidentally from Galatians, even accidentally. Therefore, it is almost certain factually. Paul is appealing to details that would not be open to question. All evidence is to be tested. Opposing lawyers test evidence before a judge and jury. Scientists publish papers critical of other evidence. Evidence testing is dynamic. Paul’s evidence had to be meticulous. He was painfully aware of having dedicated, informed opponents. His statements about the church of God in Jerusalem, Cephas as leader, James as 2nd leader, the fact of other apostles and, very importantly, his references to “after three years,” and later “after fourteen years.” His opponents must not be able to fault any detail, otherwise he would have been discredited.
So, those opponents are “out of screen” poised ready to point out any error. Although unseen they were “a testing” of the accuracy and integrity of his evidence. It is Paul’s carefully crafted defence of his own apostolic ministry. He dare not make a mistake or exaggerate or his opponents will discredit him.
So, this is evidence designed for another purpose: Paul’s own defence back then. For us it is “raw” evidence that has the effect of assuring us of the factual basis of the church in Jerusalem, and its Faith.
FINALLY
We need to be aware of the objective in this era of unbelieving Postmodernism. It doesn’t matter what various modern-day sceptics say, the evidence for Christian origins is there, evidence that is credible for a reasonable person to accept as the conscientious basis for Christian faith.
Bishop Paul Barnett is the former Bishop of North Sydney and has lectured at Moore College for many decades. He is the author of many books and is married to Anita.
The Vitality of Good Theological Education
- Details
- Written by: Dorothy Lee
A strong and solid theological education for clergy is vital for the life of the church.
There are those, I know, who would disagree, arguing that skills in preaching, leading liturgy, administering the sacraments and engaging in pastoral care is all that’s required, without adding all that “irrelevant academic stuff.” These skills can be gained in all kinds of ways, surely, that don’t require the cost and sacrifice of three plus years of academic study.
There is more than one response to this argument. In the first place, the training of minds — the academic side — is not an optional extra. Jesus calls us to love God with our whole being, including our minds (Mk 12:29). Our minds need to be trained, focussed, shaped. Anti-intellectualism is dangerous and leads to people who don’t think issues through but who are led by emotions, emotions they don’t necessarily understand. Theological education is not attempting to turn students into formal academics. Instead, it’s opening up worlds that will engage, shape and broaden the mind — and also, therefore, the heart.
Secondly, the purpose of theological education is not primarily to teach skills. Its aim is the formation, and even transformation, of those who believe they have a vocation to holy orders, and other ministries. This formation has a number of crucial elements. It means being formed into a kind of leadership that is profoundly theological and spiritual which begins with the study of the Scriptures. Understanding the Bible is not simply a question of my response to individual passages and how they connect to my life. It’s far bigger than that.
The study of Scripture involves learning at least one biblical language — in most cases, this will be Greek but Hebrew is also encouraged — so that the sacred text can be read in the original languages, with awareness that every translation has its own bias. It means studying the social and religious contexts out of which the texts arise and which enable us to discern meaning for our very different contexts. It involves exploring the different genres of literature that the Bible contains (on a wide spectrum) and the literary ways in which the story or the discourse or the poetry is told, to tell the Bible story in our own diverse environments. It includes developing an awareness of the diversity of Scripture within its overarching unity, enabling it to speak to many different settings and situations today.
Equally important is knowing the development of theology in the historical life and experience of the church. Understanding the ecumenical creeds, for example, enables us to grasp the centrality of affirming God as holy Trinity — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — and also Christ as both divine and human. Learning the history of these debates in those crucial early centuries, when the church was so often under persecution, is critical for our grasp of the theology. Learning about the Reformations of the sixteenth century helps us to grasp the centrality of grace within the life.
One of the things church history teaches us is how different contexts, cultures and genders bring their own insights to bear on studying Scripture. Our Western context has often ignored the Eastern church which is every bit as old and revered as ours. We’ve also tended to assume whiteness as the norm, when in fact Christians across Africa and Asia vastly outnumber us. We’ve assumed maleness to be another norm, setting aside the insights that women bring to theology and spirituality. Theological education expands our horizons beyond the narrow bounds of Western white male structures and symbolism.
On a somewhat more practical level, theological education gives insight into spirituality, sociology, psychology, missiology and pastoral care. Students need to learn how society functions and how the human mind and emotions work. Theological education unveils the rich veins of Christian spirituality down through the ages. It teaches how mission works — how it has sometimes failed in the past by being associated with colonialism, and how it needs to become contextualised and focussed not only on individual conversion but also on social transformation and care for our endangered environment. It teaches the elements of pastoral care and the theology which should undergird it.
Yes, there are indeed skills to be learned in the process of theological education. But these skills are the outward manifestation of a profound sense of theology, an awareness of where the evangelical centre of our faith lies. That centre is a broad place that incorporates not just the individual but also the community and indeed the whole creation.
In one sense, such learning is a life-long process and not just for the formal years of theological education. Our clergy and ministers need to be aware of the need to continue their own education beyond graduation and ordination. They need to be learners all their lives. The word ‘disciple’ means a student and we never move beyond that role as followers of Jesus Christ. We need always to be open to learn, to discover new ways of understanding the faith, new insights from the Scriptures, new abilities to comprehend the world we live in. The model of Mary of Bethany sitting at the feet of Jesus to learn from him, above all other duties, is a wonderful picture of where the centre lies in discipleship and ministry (Lk 10:38-42).
It's true that life is much more complex now and the old model of ordinands living together for three or four years while they study and pray is no longer viable. The church can’t afford it and ordinands are often married with children and don’t have the same freedoms. We need to think in new and imaginative ways about how that formation can happen, without forsaking academic and theological rigour, and without abandoning the focus on learning together in community.
However we do it, in what shape or form for the future, theological education will remain essential for the vigour and well-being of the church in its God-given tasks of worship and mission.
Dorothy Lee is Stewart Research Professor of New Testament at Trinity College Theological School (Melbourne) with a particular interest in the narrative and structure of the Gospels—especially the Gospel of John—and women’s ministry in the New Testament.
Theological Education: Facing the Unknown
- Details
- Written by: Sydney Tooth
One day in class a student asked me a question. While that’s standard in any class, this time I wrestled internally with how to reply. I didn’t know the answer, but should I admit that? I’m the lecturer after all. I should know these things. And I’m a woman in an overwhelmingly male profession with overwhelmingly male students. If I admit I don’t know, would that undercut my credibility? Would that justify those who think I shouldn’t be doing this? Should I try and just make something up, see if anyone calls my bluff? After a deep breath, quelling the internal monologue, I simply replied, “I’m sorry. I don’t know, but I’ll see what I can find and come back to you.” I didn’t think much of this exchange (other than fighting my own imposter syndrome) until later a student approached me to thank me for being so honest. This student then shared that thought they shouldn’t ever say “I don’t know” as someone training for ministry as they had never seen someone in church leadership do so. They said seeing someone in my position admit a lack of knowledge was surprising and freeing for them. That experience shocked and saddened me at the time, but I’ve now seen this play out repeatedly among my students. Another time, a student told me they were afraid to test out new ideas or initiatives because there was “the way” things “should” be done and because they weren’t given any permission to try and fail; it had to be a success if they were going to try anything new.
These two interactions highlight what I think are some fundamental problems that theological educators should be pushing back against. One problem I see in the current landscape is a desire to look impressive or to come across as competent and effective in ministry. This plays out in multiple ways, such as popular Christian figures claiming academic credentials they do not actually have or a desire to recruit and influence “the best and brightest.” At the same time, in many of these circles there has been an alarmingly consistent unwillingness to admit when a mistake has been made or to clearly name harm that has been done. We also see this occur where leaders neglect the perspective of those under their care, assuming that they have the “correct understanding” of things. I think those of us involved in Christian ministry and education are often afraid to admit our limitations and weaknesses. One of the most helpful books I’ve read lately is Kelly Kapic’s You’re Only Human. Kapic focuses on the very human quality of finitude and how our nature as limited beings is not a curse or something to be overcome but is instead a gift from God, the only one who is infinite and unlimited. Living out our finitude requires humility—an understanding that we cannot possibly do it all, for we were not designed to do so. It also requires patience and discipline to regard our limits as blessings rather than hindrances and to not be afraid of revealing those limitations to others.
There are challenges here for theological educators and for church leaders alike. Too often theological education can serve to puff up rather than humble. We’ve all encountered the fresh student who overfills their sermon with quotes from Calvin or appeals to “the original language” while communicating little of real pastoral value. One possible antidote to this problem could be encouraging a culture of theological educators who regularly admit their own shortcomings and limitations, thus forming the same practices in their students. I would love to see a greater emphasis across the theological education sector of training students to try new things, with wisdom, and to not be ashamed of failure. I would also love to see more church leaders give themselves and those under their care permission to show weakness.
To enact this vision, we need to ask: What’s the goal of theological education? Perhaps the obvious answer is to be equipped for ministry. There is something utilitarian in this answer, though, as if the only benefit of education is to walk away with a set of strategies and specialist knowledge that can be directly applied. At times, however, theological education does not look particularly useful.
“How will this help me practically in my ministry?” is a fair enough question, but it reveals that we have failed in communicating the real goal of education. Ask most theological educators what they want for their students and I guarantee you’ll hear something along the lines of wanting students to be personally transformed through their time at theological college. Truly valuable theological education grows students’ characters even more than their knowledge. While there are of course skills and information that are important for one’s ministry training, what is most important is letting that knowledge form one’s habits, thoughts, responses, and interactions.
Theological education can be particularly suited to exposing limitations as students grapple with deep and complex theology, battle with the new grammar of ancient languages, and are stretched by pressured deadlines and demanding assessments. The formative impact of intentionally helping students to seriously consider and value their finitude would be significant. It would force one to grow in patience, recognising that learning is a lifelong process and that it’s impossible to have all the answers or to always do the right thing. It would encourage leaders to actively seek out other perspectives and to listen well to those under their care. And, hopefully, it would open the door to a greater willingness to acknowledge our mistakes. The simple sentence, “I was wrong” can make a significant difference in the culture of a church or institution. A setting where mistakes are accepted, real apologies are quickly and sincerely offered, and clear repentance and change is at work is a place that models the power of the gospel.
For myself, I hope among everything important and helpful my students learn they learn how to say, “I don’t know.” I hope they are bold enough to acknowledge, even value, their limits and to model that for their congregants. I hope they are endlessly curious about God and about people, wanting to grow in knowledge in order to love better. I hope when they get something wrong they are clear and honest in their apologies and take active steps to right the wrong. I hope they can bear cheerfully with others’ limits and not expect more of people than is reasonable. Like what is said of Abraham in Hebrews 11:8, I hope they might be courageous enough to obey and go, even when they don’t know exactly where they’re going or how things will turn out.
Sydney Tooth (PhD, University of Edinburgh) is Lecturer in New Testament and Greek at Oak Hill College in London, UK. Her research interests lie in the Pauline Epistles, especially Thessalonians, and Christian eschatology. She is a co-host on the Two Cities Podcast.
The Symphony of Theological Education
- Details
- Written by: DR Madison Pierce
Surely there is a sense in which nothing stands outside the concept of “theological education.” As a child, I learned the gift of love and security reflected in the actions of my parents. This taught me about God. As I grew and learned about the natural world—the rocks and seas and animals—I learned about the intricacies of creation. This taught me about God too. And I could, of course, go on forever.
The idea that we learn about God through a near limitless number of avenues is a beautiful reflection of the expansiveness of God and his reach. Nothing is beyond his grasp, and thus every moment is a moment with him
and a part of our theological education. And yet I am a professional theological educator, and I do not believe that nature walks alone equip us sufficiently for ministry.
So what is the difference? Why in a created world that reveals God should someone pursue formal theological education? And why in an era where information is so readily available? What value is added by spending countless hours sitting in a classroom, studying, reading, and writing?
These are the questions of so many today. Seminary and other forms of theological education are supposedly the ways of the past. The future is learning through being in the world and through curating one’s own educational experience online.
So, again, what makes formal theological education different? Three things come to mind.
Theological education provides access to mentors.
When a student walks into a classroom, they have an experience designed by someone with expertise. The readings and lectures—when planned thoughtfully—flow together like a perfectly crafted playlist. The architect of this experience, the professor, raises problems and solutions that shift the tone and weight of the conversation like the move between ballad and bop.
But the professor is present for the experience of this oscillation. They gently guide the student through experiences of dissonance with what they previously held to be true, and when the student has that moment of connection with the material that represents growth and understanding, the professor can affirm the progress. Other students watch and participate in this process by asking their own questions and bearing witness
Nevertheless, some professors do not curate these kinds of experiences, and they do not deserve to be called “mentor.” They understand their primary role to be one of content delivery, and a student would learn just as much from that professor if they found their content in a video on the internet. Mentoring takes time and demands love in the classroom and beyond.
Theological education provides access to peers.
Although I myself am a professor (and hopefully a mentor), I firmly believe that the most important people in my students’ education are their peers. In the illustration I provided above, I shared a relatively vertical picture of education—a professor teaches a student—and although I named the presence of others, I gave the impression that they were bystanders.
But the best “lectures” that I have ever delivered were not me at a lectern and students voicing their assent to my brilliant ideas; they hardly qualify as lectures at all. On those days the students internalised the material. They engaged together—each from their own perspectives— and they participated in a dialogue. On those days, I simply facilitated a conversation, offering clarifications and raising questions when necessary. At the risk of belabouring my musical metaphors, on those days, I sang the melody, and my students joined me in rich harmonies. Their voices add fullness and diversity.
Even so, some educational environments do not always celebrate and facilitate the diversity of their students. They value assimilation—catechesis is both cultural and doctrinal. These environments do not welcome students to share who they are within the classroom and thus allow meaningful peer to peer learning. In those environments, peers reinforce the professor’s position because it is the only one that is valid.
Theological education provides access to formational experiences.
No matter how rich one’s classroom experience may be, theological education demands other opportunities for learning and spiritual formation. Many of these experiences draw upon the presence of good mentors and peers, but they centre spiritual growth rather than intellectual growth.
For the new information that students receive to sink deep within their bones, they must see it in action. In chapel, they hear preaching that reflects the goodness of God in a particular text in Scripture. This brings together their homiletics, biblical studies, and systematic theology lectures, and more importantly, it nourishes their souls. In their dining hall, they eat with students from other backgrounds; they break bread and pray for one another. They model charity, and they build relationships that will hold them together during in-class disagreements. Similarly, in the hallways, students hear professors laughing with colleagues and other students, and they see them with their children and spouses. In some environments, faculty, staff, and students are neighbours. Together they serve in local government and provide for the marginalised. Through this, they attest to God’s redemptive work in the world. These experiences also bear witness to the gifts God has bestowed to those in our midst. Hearing a peer singing or preaching or praying allows us to give thanks for how they have been equipped by God. Likewise, standing alongside those gifted in hospitality and exhortation presses us to develop those gifts in ourselves. But some theological programs have little to offer students outside the classroom. Students grow in knowledge and understanding of a certain kind, but their education is not embodied. The ties between the classroom and the church remain invisible.
When these benefits—good encounters with mentors and peers as well as other shared experiences—are not present, the difference between formal and informal theological education is diminished because they press us beyond our natural associations. In other words, they give us access to new things.
The breadth of this may vary depending on where our theological education takes place, but even in small denominational training schools, you should expect to encounter those whom you would not meet otherwise— people with knowledge of other theological traditions, regions, cultural backgrounds, and life experiences. But the limitations in certain styles and venues of theological education require students to choose their environments carefully. Practical considerations, such as degree length and cost, cannot—and should not—be eliminated. But formal theological education is a once-ina- lifetime opportunity that will lay the foundation for decades of ministry. In some cases, waiting a year or two (or five) might provide additional financial stability or an opportunity to relocate for residential education. These investments truly are not possible for everyone, but they should be considered by all desiring to pursue ministry.
At its best, formal theological education provides additional categories and language for our informal theological education. Our mentors and friends help us to put language to what we have observed in the world. And we worship together.
Madison N. Pierce (PhD, Durham University) is Associate Professor of New Testament at Western Theological Seminary (Holland, MI, USA). She also is New Testament Editor at Reviews of Biblical and Early Christian Studies and a co-host of The Two Cities podcast. Her research interests are the Epistle to the Hebrews and early Christian interpretation.
Adopted by God the Father
- Details
- Written by: CLARE DEEVES
Theology from the Couch, a recent online event from Western Australia, featured a talk from Clare Deeves on the blessing of being adopted as God’s child in Christ. She was kind enough to let Essentials rework it into an article.
In the Lord’s Prayer Jesus teaches his disciples to pray, ‘Our Father in heaven’, and in Ephesians 1 we read that in love God the Father ‘predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.’ There is a stunning change of place involved in this adoption. Think of what we were before God adopted us (whether we knew it or not): deserving of wrath, far away, without God and without hope in the world, slaves to sin. And it is God’s pleasure and will to adopt us! Now we may—and should!—call God our Father, and take our place with him, as his.