Reflection: 5 lessons I’ve learned

I’m scheduled to address the youth group at my church in a month. The general topic I was given is “A lesson I have learned.” This got me thinking. Could I name concisely specific things I have learned about God in the past 10 years? I know I’ve come a long way. I started as someone with an avocational interest in theology during my late high school and early college years. That grew into a specific area of study that has taken me all over the world and back earning two degrees and briefly starting a terminal degree in the subject. But could I put my finger on the lessons i’ve learned? I think I have. Here are the 5 most important lessons I’ve learned in the past 10 years or so.

1. You can’t put God in a Box

Perhaps the most important lesson I have learned is that God constantly defies our human expectations for divinity. In other words, God doesn’t play by our rules. God is free. There are no obligations external to God to which he must conform.

When we think of how human intellectual movements spread, it is reasonable to us to posit powerful, eloquent leaders with a good pedigree and education in turn mobilizing similar people. Perhaps we think of strategic military leaders overtaking regions by force and then forcing assimilation. We may think of very charismatic orators persuading large swoths of people to see the world as they do. But in the spread of the Gospel, the good news of God’s love of his creation and his defeat of its self-defeating tendencies, i.e. sin, is/was not accomplished through these expected means. Indeed, God’s very defeat of sin itself was not undertaken in a reasonable and expected manner. You see, the 1st century understanding of the expected messiah was that a great, charismatic, military leader, would come and kick the Roman occupiers out and restore Jewish National identity. Instead, the Son took the form of a man, a carpenter, born out of wedlock (talk about taboo). The rescue operation appeared to be a failure as the leader of the movement was executed by those he was expected to kick out. And yet this was exactly how God intended it. This how God so often works, defying our expectations.  This is exactly what Paul is getting at speaking about the foolishness of preaching in 1Cor 1:18-31. The fact that God has done it this way, is a reason for us to rejoice and boast in him.

This will be my topic at youth group in a few weeks.

2. If you want to know what God is like, you look at Jesus (not philosophy).

The problem with many approaches to apologetics is that they seek to use reason alone, or reason in combination with experience to arrive at a conception of God. Usually the conception at which they arrive is something akin to Aquinas’ and Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover. This conception then is normative for what God must be like. This is precisely where the enlightenment went (when it remained favorable to religion, it did so as deism). God as the ‘unmoved mover’ created all and set it in motion and then stepped back. God’s interaction with creation was deemed at best improbable but more often an impossibility. This is not the way to approach a doctrine of God. We must recognize that we are dependent in the process of knowing God. Dependent does not mean passive any more than blind does, but it does mean that we lack the capacity to apprehend an accurate account of the divine unaided. God must make himself known. Indeed he has–in the person and work of Jesus. Any account of God that is not centered on Jesus as the revelation of God is woefully inadequate. Jn 1:18 “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” (NIV) 

Many apologists, while apt logicians, are poor intellectual historians. We cannot pretend Kant didn’t happen. The rest of the intellectual world exists in a Post-Kantian frame of mind. Our cause is not served by ignoring his Copernican revolution. May we awake from our dogmatic slumber and realize that we have no epistemological access to God except by way of God’s own bridging of the epistemological chasm! This bridging can only be intelligible in the person of Jesus Christ.

Many approaches to apologetics are preoccupied with demonstrating the logical necessity of a maximally perfect being, etc. But it does not follow that if there is a god that he must be the Christian God. A categorical error occurs in this methodology. If we can and should found our account of this god primarily on reason, at what point does reason alone demand that the historical person of Jesus has something of value to contribute to our understanding of the identity of this perfect being that Mohammed does not? Christian apologists here change their method in the midst of argumentation. They begin by saying that we must listen to reason and logic and thus proceed inductively to the existence of this god. Then the triune identity of this god is asserted and shown to comport with reason deductively. Further more, we must not pretend the cause of Christ and his kingdom is served by convincing people a perfect being exists–it is only serve by making a people  who worship, serve, and follow Jesus.

3. There is really no such thing as a ‘minor’ doctrine.

I am not here saying that our eschatologies are of equal importance as say the doctrine of the Trinity, only that in so far as Christianity is a coherent worldview, then even your minor doctrines have profound implications for life, as well as implications for your ‘major’ doctrines. What you say about the ‘last things’ implies certain beliefs about more substantial matters like salvation, the doctrine of Christ, and even your doctrine of the church. These lesser doctrines are supposed to be downstream the larger ones, and should reflect the upstream composition.

Insofar as we have a responsibility to seek consistency and coherence, we must recognize that minor doctrines have a major and instrumental role in faithfully communicating the whole Gospel.

4. The church is not served when we deal too simply with complex matters.

We often seek to simplify our theology in hopes that we can be big tents and not divide over small matters. However, oversimplification leads to ambiguity and suspicion of other’s motives and  it doesn’t foster healthy debate. When debate, including disagreement, is present both sides have the opportunity 1) be corrected and 2) grow in their own understanding and appreciation of the faith. Both sides of a debate are often edified by the discussion itself. To avoid the discussion is not to foster unity but to squander opportunity to grow.

5.Theology that doesn’t culminate in worship is vain, but worship that isn’t steeped in theology is empty.

The biggest lesson I try to hit home in the first few weeks of the semester is “why one should engage in theology.” Often coming into the class, their biggest objection to theology is that it stunts worship. In truth, its telos is, as Stanely Hauerwas says in the preface to his Gifford Lectures published as, With The Grain of the Universe, “…to help Christians pray faithfully.” When we are theologically informed we are given the concepts and vocabulary to vocalize our adoration, gratitude, and confession. This is where every Christian doctrine is inherently practical. You must apply your theology in your prayer life before it will ever affect any other aspect of your life.

Thoughts? Comments? What are the 5 biggest theological lessons you’ve learned?

What the Church needs now is Credibility, sweet Credibility!

I was recently watching Austin Powers agin. One scene stuck out to me this go around. Austin and Vanessa were sitting atop a double decker bus having a nice meal with live music. Austin famously announced, “Burt Bacharach, everyone!” To which Mr. Bacharach started singing his 1960’s hit, “What the world needs now, is love sweet love.” Reflecting on that lyric raised the question, “what does the church need now?”

I keep coming back to this answer– “Credibility, sweet credibility”. I don’t mean credibility in the sense that we compromise our beliefs and set cultural winds up as norms for our theologies. Rather, I mean ‘credibility’ in the sense that non-Christians get the impression that we know what we’re talking about when we speak of our convictions. You see, many non-Christians are under the impression, and rightly so in many cases, that they know our faith better than we do. If this is indeed the case, the church’s credibility is damaged. In fact, I think I think it is the case, unfortunately. If I’ve learned one thing from teaching theology to undergrads, it’s that too many have not been adequately trained by their parents and churches in the basics terms and concepts of the faith.

A couple years ago a senior at the institution at which I teach was completing his senior project. He conducted a survey of the Intro to Theology classes as well as the student body, in general, to see what students thought were the defining tenets of our faith. His findings were disturbing, to say the least. The number one answer was not, the Trinity, nor the deity and humanity of Christ, nor was it salvation by grace alone through faith alone. The students responded that the number one tenet of Christianity is…community? Yes, that’s right folks. ‘Community’ is apparently that doctrine on which the church stands or falls. In the conversations I’ve had with non-Christians, never once were any of them under the impression that “community” is one of the major tenets of our faith.

Now I know what you’re thinking. Maybe, the sample was skewed and students were unfairly led in the questioning. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case in this situation. One of the Psychology professors was serving as the student’s advisor and was double checking each part of the project prior to the student’s follow-through. Further, this student’s findings seem to be supported by the recent Ligonier Ministries survey.[1]

The Ligonier Survey was conducted by Lifeway Research and questioned 3000 Americans about their current theological beliefs and then further divided the sample into demographics including Evangelicals. The survey found that respondents with evangelical beliefs in many cases held heretical beliefs. 71% of Evangelicals agreed with the statement, “Jesus was the first and greatest creature created by God.”[2] That’s Arianism, a heresy condemned by the first ecumenical council of Nicea in AD 325! Arius couldn’t have said it any better himself. 82% of Evangelicals hold to a Pelagian view of salvation and human nature.[3] Consistent with that, 86% of Evangelicals believe salvation is initiated by humans and God merely responds with grace.[4]

The findings further show that Evangelicals are much more comfortable answering confidently and consistent with historic orthodoxy with regards to our doctrine of Scripture than we are about our God.[5] It’s just a shame that we aren’t saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in the Bible alone, for the glory of the Bible alone. Evangelicals need to give our doctrine of Scripture a rest for a bit because the rest of our faith is suffering. We can’t see the forest for the trees. We’re content to have an orthodox doctrine of Scripture, all the while we blissfully ignore what it is that the Scriptures are concerned to set forth–Christ! Many Christians approach their faith like Cousin Eddie in the movie Vegas Vacation did with the $1.49 buffet– so many conflicting flavors of mashed and creamed food. When it comes to our doctrine of Scripture, we repeat after Eddie, “go ahead and give me a bit of the ‘yella’; and don’t get cheap on me,” while simultaneously sneezing on the broccoli and carrots of our doctrines of God and Christ. This hurts our credibility immensely.

I think there are at least two problems the church faces with regard to her credibility:

  1. Inarticulation

It is a problem that we cannot recognize one of the oldest heresies in our own confessions. I think this is rooted in the fact that many Christians have bought into the lie of Modernity that faith and knowledge exist in an antithetical relationship. If Christianity is a faith, and it clearly is based on its own vigorous use of the world throughout the past two millennia, then it needs to be approached in a manner different than ‘knowledge’. Therefore we end up approaching medicine, law, various business endeavors with great levels of care and precision, indeed, critical thought, but those qualities are unbecoming of faith, it is assumed.

  1. Visible disunity

Those outside of the church can see the thousands of Baptist churches that exist in our cities. They see just as many Presbyterian and Methodist and Lutheran churches. In short, they see the reality of our different traditions. This may disturb them, or confuse them. But this denominationalism isn’t the real problem, it is the fact that within our denominations/traditions we are unacquainted with each other. “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples if you have love for one another.”[6] We have to admit that it is very difficult to have love for people we don’t even know exist. How many times in this last year has your church partnered with another church of your same denomination, or even in your area, to serve your community together? How many times in the last year have you gathered with other churches in your denomination to worship together? It is difficult to present a united Christian front to the world if we can’t even reasonably say that we have a united Presbyterian front, or even more specifically, a united PCA or EPC, etc. front.

What is the antidote to these two problems?

  1. Theological Instruction-

The first thing the church needs to help its credibility is an informed laity. There is no reason in this day an age for lay Christians not to have an undergraduate level knowledge of their own theology. Lack of interest does not excuse us from the responsibility to avoid false statements and false beliefs about God. How many of us would stand by everything we’ve ever thought, or ever said about God? None, probably. Theological instruction is how we go about learning to take care in our thoughts and words about God. In other words, Theology is nothing more than an attempt to obey the 3rd commandment and not take God’s name in vain.

  1. Ecumenical endeavors-

The second thing that will aid our credibility, concerted efforts to branch out beyond our church’s walls to engage with other Christians in worship and service. A few years ago, my church’s youth group did something amazing. On a normal Wednesday night, we met at another church and listened to another youth pastor teach, and sang with another worship band, and played games with kids we didn’t know. This past September, our church partnered with two other area churches to have a worship service in the park as part of our community’s annual fall festival. A number of years ago many churches in our community banded together and canceled the worship service on a Sunday and together did service projects throughout the city. These are all examples of simple things that if done regularly and publically, reinforce the Church’s credibility. The problem is that they certainly are not regular occurrences.

 


[1] Lifeway Research, State of American Theology Study, 2016. https://thestateoftheology.com/assets/downloads/2016-state-of-america-white-paper.pdf

[2] Ibid., 9.

[3] Ibid., 12.

[4] Ibid., 15. (Emphasis mine)

[5] 95% of Evangelicals agree that the Bible alone is the written Word of God. 95% agree that the Bible is 100% accurate in all that it teaches. Etc., Ibid.

[6] John 13:35, NRSV.

Should Christians arm themselves? Christian Realism in a nutshell 

I haven’t written in a while. Looking forward to (hopefully) prioritizing it more in the next season of life, but anywho here it goes…

My dad recently approached me with this question. Finally, a question I am confident in answering with a definitive… “maybe?” (Cause I never do that! HA!)

The issue is certainly a complex one with Christians on both sides. On one side you have Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. seemingly sacramentizing self-defense. On the other stands none other than mr.- intense, John Piper suggesting that self-defense is incompatible with laying down our lives. Which is right?

Would I be out of line if I said “both” and “neither”? This wonderfully fuzzy answer is due to the fact that I think both sides are oversimplifying. To be honest, my sentiments lie closer to that of Piper, but even then I think he is oversimplifying the problem.

Piper is right to emphasize Jesus’ “turn the other cheek” statement, but would be wrong to assume that sin has been avoided if one does turn the other cheek. There are still a number of ways in which that ugly devil can rear its ugly head even in self-sacrifice. Self-sacrifice could be done in the spirit of fame/attention-seeking. Self-sacrifice, like suicide, could be a manner of escaping some difficult life circumstances. The theoretical list goes on. Sin, either in pride or what Niebuhr called sensuality, simply is too big and widespread a problem to be quarantined to one option in a moral dilemma. If it could, Jesus would have just had to give us better practical advice rather than spend his time telling about and promising a new way of life in a new Kingdom, a promise guaranteed in his own blood.

Now on to Falwell. Falwell oversimplifies and confuses categories. First, comes the confusion of categories. Falwell too closely relates, indeed he nearly identifies American Nationalism (2nd amendment enthusiasm in this case) with Christian duty. When he confuses these categories the boundaries surrounding the morally real binary of right and wrong become skewed. Right is no longer defined in terms of a transcendent moral principle but in terms of particular cultural-historical context- an American one. The oversimplification comes in terms of self-location. A line in the sand is seen to be absolute with Falwell and Christian gun-ownership on one side and weak pacifism on the other.

The reality is that the distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, etc. is no mere line in the sand but a towering wall in the desert (to further build on contemporary political discourse) with both “weak”-pacifism and gun-ownership on the same side. Indeed,  the entirety of life is on this side under the judgment of God. On the other side of the wall is a Kingdom that is unlike anything we have experienced in this life between Gen.3 and Rev.19. In that Kingdom its King rules with justice and mercy, not quid pro quo and vengeance. That Kingdom is breaking into the present progressively diluting our sin till one day it will be no more!

This is Christian realism in a nutshell- the belief that some things in life are both sinful and completely necessary. Government itself is a prime example of this. As one of my former professors and colleagues used to say, “Government is both a consequence (I would add a manifestation)  and a remedy for sin.”

The Christian life is not about “not-sinning.” It is about joyfully anticipating the redemption of ourselves and creation when Christ comes back and finishes the salvation begun in his life, accomplished in his death, and guaranteed in his resurrection. It is the recognition of Jesus as the one and only hope and antidote to the very real problem of our own (growing) guilt.

Coming Soon!

I’m excited to announce that in the coming months, this blog will be migrating to a self-hosted site, http://www.blogosensarkos.com

I’ve been steadily working for a while building up a cache of drafts, and incomplete thoughts to launch, in what seems to me to be, a much more exciting format.

The new site will allow me to pursue more creative (pipe) dreams like multimedia production.

~keep an eye out~

Theologizing Out Loud: Who gets the final Word?

The PCA General Assembly voted to form a study committee regarding the place of women in the church. Conservatives have decried this as an attempt to overturn the foundation of the PCA, effectively declaring, “been there, done that, case closed.” As the ordination of women was one factor in leading to the split between what would become the PCA and PC(USA) in the early 1970’s. 

But I must ask the question, is treating perennial theological questions as off limits really the attitude that seeks to give defference to Scripture? Or, does continual asking allow Scripture to speak afresh to each successive generation to the questions it inevitably encounters?

I am inclined to agree with the latter if for no other reason than the current controversy in Reformed Complimentarian circles regarding the supposed Eternal Submission of the Son (ESS). (I hope to write on this topic  soon) The issue regarding the place of Women in the Church has lead to big questions regarding the nature of God. We all certainly agree that question regarding the nature of God supersedes those regarding gender, however, when answers to questions of gender evoke problematic descriptions of God, our account of gender must be reexamined in light of the Biblical witness that testifies to both.

Lesser theological questions always have grand implications for foundational theology when doctrines are constructed backwards. 

To truly defer to Scripture we ought to hold lesser doctrines looser if for no other reason than an apprehension about unintentionally implying things about God we’d later see as problematic when addressing new theological questions. 

To treat theological questions as settled (even foundational ones but especially lesser ones) lends itself not to a respect for tradition but a crass traditionalism that subverts the authority of Scripture as the supreme authority for every generation. In principle questions as foundational as the Trinity or Hypostatic Union are always open not because they are uncertain but because scripture and not councils is the final authority for faith and life. 

PCA, ask the question of the role of  women in the church, and continue asking and answering it out of love for Scripture because certain iterations of their role are being seen by many to be inconsistent with our Gospel confession of the identity of God. Seek to be ever more faithful in our conceptual formulations.

Slaintè Mhath!

50 Questions: Question 1 “Does Christianity make sense”

Does Christianity make sense?

The simple answer obviously, as a Christian, I think it does make sense. Not only does it makes sense on its own, but it makes sense of everything else as well.I’ll explain what I mean in due course.

Let’s parse out the question a bit more. When one asks if Christianity makes sense they are asking about the internal coherence of the faith as well as whether the faith comports to human experience. 

First, is Christianity internally coherent? There is nothing internally contradictory within it such as the belief in square circles or five sided triangles, etc. The closest appearances of contradictions are paradoxes and dialects. On the surface paradoxes appear to be contradictory.  That is, that the two concepts appearto have either-or quality. Either the shape is five-sided or it is a triangle. But a paradox differs slighty in that the concepts have a both/and quality. The consepts dont neegate each other but they dont sit well with each other without tension. For example, G.K. Chesterton, known as the Prince of Paradox, once said, “Courage is a love of life taking the form of readiness to die.” Life and death are commonly seen as opposites but in this formulation they dont negate each other but rather compliment each other.

A dialectic developes this progression further. If a contradiction poses an either/or relationship between two concepts, and a paradoxe poses a both/and, a dialtectic poses a both/and, niether/nor relationship. Here is where it gets trippy. A great example of a dialectic comes from Karl Barth. Barth stated that Jesus Christ was both God’s Yes and No to humanity. By this he meant that Jesus brought both God’ssalvation and God’s judgement. It differs from a paradox in that the very judgemnt brought engenders salvation, and the salvation brought engenders judgment. (I hope to write more on this in the future.) In a dialectic one concept necessitates its opposite and vice versa.

To summarize: Does Christianity make sense? Yes, dialectics and paradoxes exist while contradictions do not.

Now to the second sense in which someone may ask whether it makes sense. Does Christianity comport with human experience? Here the answer is not as as cut and dried. Christianity could be defined as reflection upon all of life in light of the reality of God’s revelation in Christ. So yes it certainly makes sense as any worldview does, it’s not an attempt to escape the reality of human experience but rather assumes meaning in human experience and seeks to discern that meaning in light of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

But do things like miracles really comport with human experience? I think they do, but less so. Certainly not everyone has had experiences they were willing to chalk up to miracles, hence the “less so.” I will kick the question of miracles down the road a bit as one of the 50 questions specificaly deals with it. But I will say, we need to be careful of making too much of miracles in the Christian worldview. Miracles by definition are not the norm. They are rare and extraordinary events that occur for revelatory purposes and not ends in and of themselves.

To summarize this section: Does Christianity comport with human experience? Yes and no. Yes it does in the sense that it is reflection upon all of life in light of the Christ event. It is a worldview like Islam, Naturalism etc. used to make sense of the world around us. No it does not comport with human experience in the sense that things such as miracles, while playing a significant role in the Christian worldview, are by no means the norm of human experience.

What do you think? 

50 Questions for Every Christian

I came across Guy P. Harrison’s 50 Questions for Every Christian at Barnes & Noble and breifly browsed the table of contents. There are some really good honest questions that tend not to be dealt with adequately by the believing public. I figured I’d use the 50 questions to structure a series of posts to make an articulate case for the Christian faith. I hope to be able to provide some sort of articulate answer to Christians who may be asking themselves these questions, or skeptics who haven’t ever really received adequate answers to these questions or similar ones. At the very least I hope to spurn further thought. So, without further ado, here are the 50 questions he poses that I will answer in the coming weeks:

  1. Does Christianity make sense?
  2. What is a god?
  3. Is it rude to ask?
  4. Does Jesus answer prayers?
  5. Who is a Christian?
  6. Does Christianity make societies better?
  7. What is atheism?
  8. What are Miracles?
  9. Does the complexity of life reveal an intelligent designer?
  10. Have you read the Bible?
  11. Why do some Christians do bad things in the signt of Jesus?
  12. How can we be sure about the resurrection?
  13. How do we know that heaven is real?
  14. Why is God so violent?
  15. What do prophecies prove?
  16. How important are the Ten Commandments?
  17. Do you know the real Ten Commandments?
  18. Is Christianity good for women?
  19. Is it smarter to believe or not believe?
  20. Is the born-again experience in Christianity unique?
  21. Is faith a good thing?
  22. Should children be Christians?
  23. Does Jesus heal the sick?
  24. How do we know that the man Jesus existed?
  25. What about all the other gods?
  26. Are Christians happier?
  27. Is the USA a Christian nation?
  28. How can we be sure that Jesus performed miracles?
  29. What do evil atheist dictators prove?
  30. Is the universe fine-tuned for us?
  31. Could we design a better world?
  32. What has archaeology proved?
  33. Why isn’t everyone a Christian?
  34. What is the problem with evolution?
  35. Is it better to be safe than sorry?
  36. Why did God sacrifice his son?
  37. Did God drown the world?
  38. Why do birth location and family matter so much?
  39. Why do Christianity and science so often come into conflict?
  40. Why do people go to hell?
  41. Can atheists be trusted?
  42. Why hasn’t the Bible convinced more people?
  43. Are angels real?
  44. Is Christmas under attack?
  45. Will the End Times ever end?
  46. Does Christianity make individuals better?
  47. Why does a good god allow so much suffering in the world?
  48. Would you take Jesus’ place on the cross?
  49. Should Christians try to be good skeptics?
  50. Will Christianity endure?

In Defense of Obama (on this one); Or, Mistaking Symptoms for the Disease

U.S. President Obama speaks about Iraq and also the shooting in Ferguson, Missouri on Martha's Vineyard (a year or so late)

Upon returning to the US, we were inundated with the myriad cable-news networks that we didn’t have on Scottish Freeview TV. The other evening we were watching Fox News, only to see show after show, pundit after pundit lambasting the Commander-in-Chief for what neither the guests nor hosts could definitively discern to be either legitimately his ‘strategy’ or a colossal albeit spectacular blunder. “Do we want to Manage Isis or Destroy them?” The implication, of course, being that the two options are mutually exclusive and that to do the one is to not do the other. It is certainly true that the concepts have differing connotations, and it’s those connotations that the Fox News Pundits were feeding off. To manage  a particular situation is in some sense to tolerate and patiently accept the imperfection of the status quo and carry on unaffected. To destroy the antagonists implies finality and resolution to the current dissonance of human experience. With this rhetoric the solution is clear; you’d be an idiot to settle for Duck Taping the front end onto your car rather than getting a proper mechanic to rebuild it! Continue reading “In Defense of Obama (on this one); Or, Mistaking Symptoms for the Disease”

the paradox of justice: A (not so theological) thought on criminal justice

Friday night my car window was shattered and my briefcase stolen. The theif(s) got away will all my books for the coming semester and others I was using for supplemental research! This was the occasion for me thinking about criminal justice and vigilantism when this paradox emerged.

Nothing is more just than personal retribution…

Nothing is more prone to injustice than personal retribution…

In theory, a victim punishing a perpetrator is the ideal picture of criminal justice. In practice, rarely do victims possess the self-control to not exceed the crime perpetrated on them.

Is not a police officer in the final moral analysis just a third party acting aggressively toward an aggressor on behalf of the victim? Morally, the only reason to not eliminate the middleman is the proclivity of victims to be overly harsh in their own exaction of justice… Should the self-controlled rule as judges, juries, and executioners, in their own case? Or are we ready to completely give up on the idea of objectivity? I only say that because that seems to be the implication made by the objection, “no, they shouldn’t because self-controlled as they may be, their judgement is inherently flawed because they are not objective.”

I for one am not ready to completely give up on the idea of objectivity… I do think the self-controlled should act as judges, juries and executioners in their own cases– I just know that’s not me!

A taste of things to come

IMG_2001-0.PNG

It has been some time since my last post. I’ve been working on my M.Th. dissertation, thus no time/energy to think through other theological questions. Fortunately, I am in the final stages. Due in a little over a week then I will be able to explore some (hopefully) interesting topics. Here’s a look at a few I’m hoping tackle:

A summary of my dissertation: What is man that he should rule: Theological Anthropology and the Question of the State in John Locke, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Robert W. Jenson

Theological Method

Theology of Education

Various Book reviews

and others as I think of them (or you suggest them)

Until then! Valete!
EMJ