The WORD of God

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Hey all -

I wanted to post this is the current thread where the topic abounds ("The Trinity"), but it wasn't the original intent of the thread, so I'm starting it here.

I want to propose the attached (below) image for the WORD of God. It's quite apparent to me that the vast majority of the time that people say "the Word," they are referring to scripture (the Bible). This falls short of the WORD of God.

I used a similar Venn Diagram in the class I teach. It seemed to help the students begin to understand the interplay of the various ways we use the word "word."

The outer circle is the full message of God (=WORD of God), or simply "how God speaks to humanity." The arrows indicate that "preaching" most often is founded in scripture. The preached word would include non-canonical writings, preaching, "words" of prophecy, and basically any other commentary (including theological statements).

As with any image, this falls short. But I think it helps me.

I welcome thoughts and ideas.

[Meghan Schoonover]

How God speaks to humanity - are sacraments included in that? (Included in the church part, perhaps?).

[Jeremy D. Scott]

How God speaks to humanity - are sacraments included in that? (Included in the church part, perhaps?).

Yeah, I actually think they'd be flowing out of the scripture portion (which would still be inclusive in the Church).

[Meghan Schoonover]

Right, that would make sense, since the instruction comes from scripture. Interesting!

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Guess this proposal fell flat...I was hoping to get more input.

I redid the picture.

There are implications here that I am trying to make. We tend to live by "sola scriptura" (scripture alone) in everything we say about God and in practical living, and do so quite dogmatically. This leads us down a tough path sometimes. For example, the Bible gives no mention of a lot of current issues (stem cell research, abortion, etc.). So we interpret scripture to help us deal with issues that are not explicitly in scripture. These decisions cease being only scripture (or "the Bible") and begin to be the words of humanity (interpretation of the Bible).

While this may seem obvious to some, it has strong implications. God speaks (and hence, chooses to speak) through many other means. We often call this revelation. Frankly and honestly, God has spoken to me quite strongly through vessels other than scripture.

Further, God allows us, that is - the people of God - to make decision outside of scripture. Imagine that! (Of course, the tough part today is that the Body is so fragmented...how can a general consensual decision even be made?)

A good example of this is in the decision of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Here we see a decision that needed to be made that there was no precedence for in scripture. Further, the decision made actually reversed what scripture did say. Luke is quite clear that this decision was only made by the means of two prerequisites:
1. It was a corporate decision
2. The Holy Spirit was evident

(Acts 15:28 - "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...")

Perhaps the one of the biggest implications I'm trying to make here is that scripture isn't the SOLE authority for us today in every thing pertaining to life. It can't be and we don't actually live that way.

And there are more implications...and probably mistakes/errors with this descriptive image.

Can anyone help me?

[Meghan Schoonover]

Looks good Jeremy. I think sacraments might be hooked to the action part, too?

I think we often abuse the sola scriptura position far beyond it's original intent.

[Geoff LaLone]

Hey Jeremy,
I studied the diagram briefly, but not long enough. What I wanted to do was mention a couple things that may relate to the conversation. I think it was Fredrich Schleiermacher (spelling?) who made the point that our canonization of Scripture at Jamnia (spelling?) was almost like saying from that point forward the Holy Spirit would no longer speak. He suggested adding other great works of theology to the Canon of Scripture, or at least giving them equal weight. Anyone can see the danger in this approach, not to mention the difficulty we would face (as you pointed out) at reaching consensus because we are so divided, but who said being a Christian wasn't dangerous? I probably wouldn't preach a sermon based on C.S. Lewis' "Last Battle," but I am not willing to say that "The Chronicles of Narnia" were not inspired by the Holy Spirit to some degree. Another thing I wanted to mention was a short book I read recently that I believe was called, "Sola Scriptura." It's part of a series that could be called "Eastern Orthodoxy for Dummies." I couldn't resist when I learned it was written by a former Nazarene pastor, SNU graduate, who had converted to the "true church." It does a good job of pointing out the challenge of using only Scripture (defined in biblical positivist terms) to make theological statements/decisions. If you are interested I can get you specific title, author, publisher, etc.

[Jerry Frank]

Guess this proposal fell flat...I was hoping to get more input.

Perhaps the one of the biggest implications I'm trying to make here is that scripture isn't the SOLE authority for us today in every thing pertaining to life. It can't be and we don't actually live that way.



Jeremy,

I didn't comment the first time around because I had trouble figuring out what you were getting at. Your added description now helps to clarify.

I don't know that all concepts can be adequately diagrammed. However, I think your attempt is as good as any as a teaching tool, so long as it includes explanation and description.

I wanted to add one comment based on your quote above. I think the Protestant Church has long misinterpreted the Reformers' concept of Sola Scriptura. After all, one of the biggest proponents of this idea, Martin Luther, also wrote the Small and Large Cathecisms, as well as other numerous works in an effort to help the common person understand scripture. He preached and he debated - all, in my opinion, under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

The important thing here is that we must not add to scripture by suggesting that Luther's works are of equivalent authority. His works help us to interpret and understand but ultimately, scripture is the authority that takes precedence over all. The same can be said for your sermons and whatever revelations you may receive.

Sola Scriptura helps to protect us from heresy. It does not guarantee a direct answer for every situation in our lives.

After rereading this I'm not sure I have said anything different or important but at least I have added to the length of the thread. :)

Jerry

[Wilson L. Deaton]

...

God speaks (and hence, chooses to speak) through many other means. We often call this revelation. Frankly and honestly, God has spoken to me quite strongly through vessels other than scripture.

Further, God allows us, that is - the people of God - to make decision outside of scripture.

A good example of this is in the decision of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Here we see a decision that needed to be made that there was no precedence for in scripture. Further, the decision made actually reversed what scripture did say. Luke is quite clear that this decision was only made by the means of two prerequisites:
1. It was a corporate decision
2. The Holy Spirit was evident

(Acts 15:28 - "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...")

Perhaps the one of the biggest implications I'm trying to make here is that scripture isn't the SOLE authority for us today in every thing pertaining to life.

And there are more implications...and probably mistakes/errors with this descriptive image.

Can anyone help me?


I'll make a couple of comments....

First, note our Manual statement:

"IV. The Holy Scriptures
4. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,
by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and
New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing
the will of God concerning us in all things necessary
to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is
not to be enjoined as an article of faith."

I believe this puts our Manual in your camp. (Or you in the Nazarene camp!) That is the Manual statement on Scripture isn't Sola Scriptura except for what is necessary for salvation and for articles of faith. We don't say that other sources can't be useful to us and guide us whether it be direct revelation or the collective conscience of the Church.

Concerning the diagram:

I would add another circle to the Venn for what you have already called "revelation." Whether it be the "witness of the Spirit," the "still small voice" or whatever else one might choose to call it, the truth is, I believe that, through the Holy Spirit, God speaks to us directly, whether it be conviction of sin, a burden for something, or a calling.

Furthermore, I think I would place my "revelation" circle mostly inside the Church circle but I would leave a little of it out (for example Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.) As it now stands one might assume from the diagram that God does not engage man outside of the Church.

Just some of my initial thoughts.

Wilson

[Randy Wise]

Hey all -

I wanted to post this is the current thread where the topic abounds ("The Trinity"), but it wasn't the original intent of the thread, so I'm starting it here.

I want to propose the attached (below) image for the WORD of God. It's quite apparent to me that the vast majority of the time that people say "the Word," they are referring to scripture (the Bible). This falls short of the WORD of God.

I used a similar Venn Diagram in the class I teach. It seemed to help the students begin to understand the interplay of the various ways we use the word "word."

The outer circle is the full message of God (=WORD of God), or simply "how God speaks to humanity." The arrows indicate that "preaching" most often is founded in scripture. The preached word would include non-canonical writings, preaching, "words" of prophecy, and basically any other commentary (including theological statements).

As with any image, this falls short. But I think it helps me.

I welcome thoughts and ideas.

I order for their to be only One God the Father and Son must be of the same Spirit. Why did Jesus state on the cross, "Father into your hands I commit my Spirit" ?

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

I order for their to be only One God the Father and Son must be of the same Spirit. Why did Jesus state on the cross, "Father into your hands I commit my Spirit" ?


In order for God to be God, we have to accept that we are not God, that He is actually beyond us in many ways and that there will always be questions to which we cannot find an answer.

Jesus did not teach theology, He showed the way. Perhaps we should be more concerned with following Him than with trying to figure out the Trinity.

If God would have thought it necessary for us to understand the Trinity, He would have explained it. Apparently, He does not.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I order for their to be only One God the Father and Son must be of the same Spirit. Why did Jesus state on the cross, "Father into your hands I commit my Spirit" ?

Randy

I don't understand what you're trying to say here in this thread...can you clarify exactly what you were responding to in my post?

[Hans Deventer]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here in this thread...can you clarify exactly what you were responding to in my post?

Jeremy, Randy has no intention of being clear or clarifying. See the (now closed) thread in the Trinity.

[Randy Wise]

In order for God to be God, we have to accept that we are not God, that He is actually beyond us in many ways and that there will always be questions to which we cannot find an answer.

Jesus did not teach theology, He showed the way. Perhaps we should be more concerned with following Him than with trying to figure out the Trinity.

If God would have thought it necessary for us to understand the Trinity, He would have explained it. Apparently, He does not.

Thats because those who answer them are shutout when you don't like their answers
Randy

[Hans Deventer]

That's because those who answer them are shutout when you don't like their answers
Randy

You did, despite a serious appeal, not answer at the questions regarding the goal you have at all. So it cannot be that I did not like the answer.

[Randy Wise]

You did, despite a serious appeal, not answer at the questions regarding the goal you have at all. So it cannot be that I did not like the answer.

I quite clearly identified myself as a Christian. You made it quite plain I am not wanted as you teacher. I didn't state I was your teacher I stated that teachers use questions to focus their students to "see" what they are trying to teach. You and the others only reply we don't understand and it's a mystery and firstborn doesn't mean firstborn and we don't know why Jesus calls the Father His God as it doesn't fit the creeds. Jesus stating that the Father was His God and the Father stating "Your God" about Jesus does identify Jesus as the firstborn of all creation that the Apostle Paul clearly wrote when stating who Jesus is. Jesus is the Son in everyway.

Randy

[Joyce Miller]

Furthermore, I think I would place my "revelation" circle mostly inside the Church circle but I would leave a little of it out (for example Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.) As it now stands one might assume from the diagram that God does not engage man outside of the Church.

Just some of my initial thoughts.

Wilson

I've been musing over Romans 1:20, and would welcome the thoughts of others as to what you think Paul meant when he said that "God's....divine nature have been clearly seen being understood from what has been made..."
What does God reveal about his Nature in the natural world?

[Hans Deventer]

Mr. Wise, I wish you well.

[David Cash]

I think maybe the ultimate meaning of sola scriptura is that Scripture is the final authority. We judge the teachings of man and the church by Scripture. We also weigh contemporary prophecy by Scripture. Those controversial practices that we divide over that aren't addressed directly in Scripture, we hopefully still approach by seeing how Scripture relates to similar questions.

It is a pity to miss God's voice when He does speak outside of Scripture. But it is downright scary to see some of the voices that claim to be from God. So we wind up with this doctrine of sola scriptura. It is a way of keeping a level of objectivity in a world that doesn't even always want to get things straight. It probably has never meant to most Protestants that they can't hear God's voice elsewhere, but it does tell us that we know God has spoken here and He won't contradict what He's already said. (Although we can learn that we totally misunderstood something He's already said!)

Anyway, I'm thankful for the Scriptures. They challenge me some times but they also keep me on the right track--at least when I pay adequate attention to them.

David Cash

[Jeremy D. Scott]

First, note our Manual statement:

"IV. The Holy Scriptures
4. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,
by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and
New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing
the will of God concerning us in all things necessary
to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is
not to be enjoined as an article of faith."

I believe this puts our Manual in your camp. (Or you in the Nazarene camp!) That is the Manual statement on Scripture isn't Sola Scriptura except for what is necessary for salvation and for articles of faith. We don't say that other sources can't be useful to us and guide us whether it be direct revelation or the collective conscience of the Church.
Like with so much of the rest of the Manual, that's quite often not the way that Nazarenes speak about scripture. I am comfortable with the statement in the Manual (although I think adding the buzzword "inerrant" is somewhat unnecessary). And just what do we mean "revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation." What's the point in that? Do we mean to say that this book, is all that we need to read to experience salvation, devoid of a faith community (the Church) and the Holy Spirit? Of course we don't mean that. That's part of the point of the way I drew up the diagram. I propose that scripture is best read, interpreted, and understood within the framework of the Christian community. I'm all for less personal Bible reading and more community Bible study and interpretation.

The statement that the Bible (a word-based tool) contains all that's necessary to understand salvation is a very modern statement. If I drop an illiterate human being in a room with a Bible, I don't expect that much is going to happen.


Concerning the diagram:

I would add another circle to the Venn for what you have already called "revelation." Whether it be the "witness of the Spirit," the "still small voice" or whatever else one might choose to call it, the truth is, I believe that, through the Holy Spirit, God speaks to us directly, whether it be conviction of sin, a burden for something, or a calling.

Furthermore, I think I would place my "revelation" circle mostly inside the Church circle but I would leave a little of it out (for example Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.) As it now stands one might assume from the diagram that God does not engage man outside of the Church.

Remember that the whole diagram is meant to show the WORD of God to humanity. Everything in the diagram is the engagement of God. Though not in the diagram, I mean to say that
WORD of God = revelation of God = the ways in which God reveals Godself
And I intentionally put a whole circle designating "Creation" because I believe that's the oldest revelation of God, coming before scripture, before the Church, and even before Israel.

And the reason there's no "Holy Spirit Circle" is that I believe that if God is speaking, the Holy Spirit is at work - which is why I conclude (but perhaps should begin) with the statement on the bottom.

Just some of my initial thoughts.
Thanks! You've told me what's not inherently implied by the picture. (Which is why a verbal discussion is necessary when this is presented.)

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I think maybe the ultimate meaning of sola scriptura is that Scripture is the final authority. We judge the teachings of man and the church by Scripture. We also weigh contemporary prophecy by Scripture. Those controversial practices that we divide over that aren't addressed directly in Scripture, we hopefully still approach by seeing how Scripture relates to similar questions.
You stated that scripture is the final authority, but then said "we judge...by scripture." That's my point. Scripture is static without the voice of the Church led by the Holy Spirit. And then 9 times out of 10, "we" using scripture to judge takes interpretation which is an entity outside of scripture and a thing that, ultimately, is up to the wayward minds of human beings (thank God for the Holy Spirit :basic05 ).

It is a pity to miss God's voice when He does speak outside of Scripture. But it is downright scary to see some of the voices that claim to be from God. So we wind up with this doctrine of sola scriptura. It is a way of keeping a level of objectivity in a world that doesn't even always want to get things straight. It probably has never meant to most Protestants that they can't hear God's voice elsewhere, but it does tell us that we know God has spoken here and He won't contradict what He's already said. (Although we can learn that we totally misunderstood something He's already said!)
Yes, good stuff. It is very scary to think that scripture is only authoritative on the basis of how we use it.

Anyway, I'm thankful for the Scriptures. They challenge me some times but they also keep me on the right track--at least when I pay adequate attention to them.
Me too - I'm thankful. And I too am afraid of myself - that's why I need the collective Christian community to help me understand.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

The statement that the Bible (a word-based tool) contains all that's necessary to understand salvation is a very modern statement. If I drop an illiterate human being in a room with a Bible, I don't expect that much is going to happen.

Perhaps the Manual should say, "... inerrantly revealing, to those who can and will read, the will of God..." :basic05

"Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life." (Ironically, I quote the Bible here as my authority...) Unfortunately, sometimes modern Christians act as if, "The Bible is the Way, the Truth, and the Life." As valuable as the Bible is, it is after all just "a word-based tool," to use your words. It seems far more important that we BE witnesses...

One implication of our over-emphasizing the Bible is the priority we give to the weekly sermon. Tim Conder (in The Chuch in Transition which I've reviewed on the book forum) tells this story, "I ... casually mentioned that I'd spent more than 30 hours preparing the previous week's sermon. Doug Pagitt raised a challenging eyebrow... My justification was that preaching to a congregation of Ph.D.'s and graduate students demands arduous preparation. Pagitt shot back, 'Wouldn't the world be better off if you spent two hours working on the sermon and the rest of the week feeding the hungry in your community?'"

I personally find it interesting that it is nowhere recorded in Scripture that Jesus, Paul, Peter, or anyone else, specifically prepared a sermon. One would think if the weekly sermon was as important as the church has made it that at some point in Acts it might have said, "And Paul arose before daylight and began preparing his next message...."

As I reflect on this thread I can see a cause/effect relationship here. Namely, if we "over-value" the Bible, it will cause us to "over-value" our expositions of the Bible.

Preaching Re-Imagined, any day now... It deals with the question, "What is the role of preaching in the postmodern church?" Within a few weeks, I'll post my review.]

Wilson

[Wilson L. Deaton]

I propose that scripture is best read, interpreted, and understood within the framework of the Christian community. I'm all for less personal Bible reading and more community Bible study and interpretation.

Let's get concrete here...

Suppose I agreed. As a pastor what would I do to implement?

Should we read more during existing services? Do we add another Bible study or two to our weekly schedule? Do we form more 2 and 3 person cells for daily Bible study/sharing?

Furthermore, are you saying, "less personal," simply to make room for, "more community," or are you implying a danger in the individualism of the personal reading?

Wilson

[Marsha Lynn]

[SIZE="3"][FONT="Garamond"]I propose that scripture is best read, interpreted, and understood within the framework of the Christian community. I'm all for less personal Bible reading and more community Bible study and interpretation.

In theory, I support your proposition, Jeremy. However, in practice, I am amazed by how often the living-and-active Word of God becomes as dry as sawdust when brought into a group setting. It has little to do with who's presenting it. I've met very few people in a lifetime who can lead a Bible study without sucking the life out the studied text. Generally, after an in-depth, multi-week, corporate study of a particular book of the Bible, I'll go back and re-read the whole thing simply to allow the Holy Spirit to breathe life back into it for me, to take it back from flat and lifeless to multi-dimensional and bursting with vitality.

I'm not sure what dynamics are at work in such settings. I'm sure most of the problems point back to my own weakness as a learner. But, at least for me, giving up personal Bible reading would mean to give up my most essential source of spiritual nurture. The Word of God comes to me most effectively through Scripture and private prayer, then through thoughtful written discussions of Scripture, and least effectively through oral presentation. (The difference between the last two might have to do with availability. The written word [small 'w'] has been much more effectively preserved and made available across time and place than the spoken word.)

Just some thoughts.

Marsha

[Roland Hearn]

In theory, I support your proposition, Jeremy. However, in practice, I am amazed by how often the living-and-active Word of God becomes as dry as sawdust when brought into a group setting. It has little to do with who's presenting it. I've met very few people in a lifetime who can lead a Bible study without sucking the life out the studied text. Generally, after an in-depth, multi-week, corporate study of a particular book of the Bible, I'll go back and re-read the whole thing simply to allow the Holy Spirit to breathe life back into it for me, to take it back from flat and lifeless to multi-dimensional and bursting with vitality.

I'm not sure what dynamics are at work in such settings. I'm sure most of the problems point back to my own weakness as a learner. But, at least for me, giving up personal Bible reading would mean to give up my most essential source of spiritual nurture. The Word of God comes to me most effectively through Scripture and private prayer, then through thoughtful written discussions of Scripture, and least effectively through oral presentation. (The difference between the last two might have to do with availability. The written word [small 'w'] has been much more effectively preserved and made available across time and place than the spoken word.)

Just some thoughts.

Marsha

Marsha I am sure you are right, in fact I have been in many of those same studies. However, my most recent reflection on a Bible study only group is the men's Bible study at NewStart. About six months after starting one of the new converts came to me and said he would like to have a Bible study time because he didn't know anything about the Bible. We started a Saturday morning study and determined we would find the paradigm of genuine transformational love in ever single passage we studied. We worked though one book after another and in six years with hardly a Saturday missed I don't think we ever had anything that was even close to a dry tedious study. One of our commitments was to never allow a passage to be two dimensional, we had to have real breathing people in real living circumstances writing the text and interacting with what was written in the first circumstance. It was the commitment to find love and allowing it to be real at every turn that I think made it a buoyant, couldn't miss it Bible study. I think that is our problem to often we want to find "the spiritual lesson" and miss the reality.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

... and least effectively through oral presentation.

Are you referring to an "authoritative teacher" model, be it the pastor in a sermon or a Bible Study leader who lectures? If so, I don't think that qualifies for the community model Jeremy is advocating. Simply hearing it from me in a community setting doesn't make a community study....

I think the emerging church will help us move away from killing the spirit of the Word by over analzying ad infinitum, and ad nauseum. I can't imagine God wanting us to spend time in a Bible study discussing the implications of a Greek tense or a participial phrase.... God did not design discipleship for the academic-types only.

I can't say it wasn't valuable, but in terms of cost-effectiveness (of time, energy, and tuition), I can't believe I had to take Greek and I can't believe I took Hebrew as an elective. If I knew then what I know now...

Wilson

[Marsha Lynn]

Are you referring to an "authoritative teacher" model, be it the pastor in a sermon or a Bible Study leader who lectures? If so, I don't think that qualifies for the community model Jeremy is advocating. Simply hearing it from me in a community setting doesn't make a community study....

I think the emerging church will help us move away from killing the spirit of the Word by over analzying ad infinitum, and ad nauseum. I can't imagine God wanting us to spend time in a Bible study discussing the implications of a Greek tense or a participial phrase.... God did not design discipleship for the academic-types only.

I'm thinking of virtually every "Bible study" in which I have ever participated, including the ones I've led.

Example:

JAMES 3:1 Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. 2 We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.



When I read that passage, I zero in on such words as "presume," "strictly," "stumble," "never at fault," "perfect".

I ask myself:
Is teaching a presumption on my part? Is teaching always a presumption? Are some called to be teachers and therefore do they teach without presumption? Am I among the few and called or among the many who should not presume to teach? Is teaching optional or do we all end up in the role of teachers as we go through life?

What does it mean to be judged more strictly, particularly in the "in" or "out" view of judgment? Will teachers have a greater risk of being "out"? Is this verse opening up a view of greater or lesser rewards or punishment, of rank in the kingdom? Is it referring to a judgment in the form of earthly consequences? Whatever the meaning, is the wondrous privilege of teaching worth the price of submitting to more strict judgment? If I quit teaching could I live to a lower standard? Would I want to live to a lower standard?

We all stumble? As in, we all fail God? We all have faults? Does that mean that we all at times need to fall on our knees and weep over deeds done and words said and allow God to lift us up and set us back on the road going the right direction? How does that fit in with the "we can live without sin" message I hear so frequently?

Is it worse for a teacher to make verbal slips than others? Is it possible to never be at fault in what I say or is the "we all stumble" line a permanent part of the human condition? Is controlling my tongue the first step toward total self-discipline? Is this where I should focus my energy? How does controlling the tongue relate to controlling the body? How much progress can I make in this area through self-discipline as opposed to giving up and asking God to fine-tune my speech?

These are the questions that flit through my mind as I read these two verses. If they stick with me into my prayer time, I will ask them of God and consider my future as a teacher, the cost of being judged more strictly as a teacher, the progress I've made and need to make in controlling my tongue. I apply the passage very personally and set it into the ongoing relationship I have with God and others. It's an opportunity to review my role as a teacher in the church and community. It holds up a golden standard of being perfect in what one says. I'm challenged as I consider the possibility of pursuing that standard. It tugs at me to set higher goals and pay the price needed to reach them.

I dug out a new Bible study book I have on James - the Lectio Divina Bible study series. Here are the discussion questions they pair with these verses:

Read [various passages culled from the NT]. What are the different types of teachers we find in these passages? What place did teachers have in early Christian faith? What was the greatest privilege of early Christian teachers?

What are some of the positive and negative influences teachers can have on their students? Why do you think James says teachers will be judged more strictly? What are the criteria by which teachers will be judged?

What is the greatest privilege of contemporary Christian teachers? Who were some of your teachers? What do you remember about them (your best and worst experiences)?

Quote: "He who multiplies words multiplies sin." What might be the message of this ancient Jewish saying?

In verse 2 ... what might James be saying about the relationship between perfection as a virtue and one's speech?

These questions are as good as any I've seen in a formal Bible study, but there is little overlap between them and the questions I ask myself when I read that passage in a setting of private study and prayer. Some of them ask for the group to come up with an answer that cannot be supported by the passage. What basis are we to use for our answers? Do we vote? Do we pull out the old Urim and Thummim to determine God's answers? Do we pray together over the questions and seek corporate divine guidance to the correct answers? Do any of us care enough about the answers to these questions to take such a serious approach to them?

I guess it boils down to being asked the wrong questions and having the group come up with speculative answers that don't strike me as being particularly insightful.

Is that terribly vain to put into words? The thing is, I wouldn't do any better than anyone else at leading a discussion over this passage. I can't discern the questions that others might need to investigate. Productive Bible study seems to me to be a very private affair. I suppose that what I need is to see an example of how it can be done productively in a group setting such as Roland described. But even then, watching and admiring a skilled teacher and becoming a skilled teacher are two very different things.

Marsha

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Thanks very much for this response.

I've got some digesting to do. I'll be getting back to you.

Wilson

[Dennis M. Scott]

I can't say it wasn't valuable, but in terms of cost-effectiveness (of time, energy, and tuition), I can't believe I had to take Greek and I can't believe I took Hebrew as an elective. If I knew then what I know now...

Wilson

In some circles those are fighting words, you know. Didn't those studies broaden your understanding and give you a wider foundation upon which to minister? Did they give you insights into the nature and character of God that enables you to offer that same God to those around you? I don't mean to ask if you explain to your congregants verb tenses, etc., but take a couple moments to redeem your time spent back then, please. Please?

[Wilson L. Deaton]

... but take a couple moments to redeem your time spent back then, please. Please?

By all means... I can't say it wasn't valuable! Overall, I wouldn't trade my higher education for anything!!!! I almost went straight to pastoring from ONU then decided on NTS. I am eternally thankful that I ended up doing it that way.

I just meant to say that the curriculum should be adjusted/improved. I would like to see less emphasis on some things and more emphasis on others. For example, less time on over-analyzing the Bible and more time on community building and discipling...

Wilson

[Hans Deventer]

I just meant to say that the curriculum should be adjusted/improved. I would like to see less emphasis on some things and more emphasis on others. For example, less time on over-analyzing the Bible and more time on community building and discipling...

Exactly! I sometimes wonder what we think the church's biggest problem is. Theological analysis? Then by all means, let's work to turn every Christian into a Doctor of Divinity.

Or might it be that it has to do with following Jesus? Now that would indeed implicate a whole different emphasis.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

By all means... I can't say it wasn't valuable! Overall, I wouldn't trade my higher education for anything!!!! I almost went straight to pastoring from ONU then decided on NTS. I am eternally thankful that I ended up doing it that way.

I just meant to say that the curriculum should be adjusted/improved. I would like to see less emphasis on some things and more emphasis on others. For example, less time on over-analyzing the Bible and more time on community building and discipling...

Wilson

Exactly! I sometimes wonder what we think the church's biggest problem is. Theological analysis? Then by all means, let's work to turn every Christian into a Doctor of Divinity.

Or might it be that it has to do with following Jesus? Now that would indeed implicate a whole different emphasis.

Hold on a second, Wilson's talking about a curriculum that's changed quite a bit since he's been there. Neither biblical language is a requirement at NTS right now, and the M.Div program is currently undergoing significant change.

I wish I had more time to respond to several of the posts that are here right now, but I just don't. I'll hopefully get to them Thursday or Friday, but before the seminary got any more dented (which unrighteously happens too often), I wanted to respond.

Further, I actually think that our students (of which I am one, and honestly, believe that all pastors are...the CEU system is ridiculously abused...can we stop exegeting Hybels, Toler, and Warren and dig deeper into scripture, the Church, and God?) need more biblical training. My next degree (which is well over a year away from even beginning now) will be in biblical studies, focused around the languages. Part of the American individualism that has neutered scripture from it's corporate identity is the fact that English is primarily a "singular subject" language.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Hold on a second, Wilson's talking about a curriculum that's changed quite a bit since he's been there....

Hey, wait a minute, it has only been... Never mind!

Seriously, though this is a good point. The world has changed dramatically in the "few years" that have passed since I was there. It isn't fair for me to complain that the 1980s seminary curriculum wasn't custom tailored to my needs as a pastor in 2007. NTS did, afterall, equip me with the skills necessary to adapt, etc.

(And as I alluded to much earlier, I took Hebrew as an elective. That was my fault.)

I have the highest regard for the seminary (and our colleges).

Wilson

[Hans Deventer]

Further, I actually think that our students need more biblical training. My next degree (which is well over a year away from even beginning now) will be in biblical studies, focused around the languages. Part of the American individualism that has neutered scripture from it's corporate identity is the fact that English is primarily a "singular subject" language.

So we do need to get everyone to achieve a degree in biblical studies? That is the way to solve our individualism? With all due respect, I have a real hard time believing that.

[Dennis M. Scott]

The world has changed dramatically in the "few years" that have passed since I was there. It isn't fair for me to complain that the 1980s seminary curriculum wasn't custom tailored to my needs as a pastor in 2007. NTS did, afterall, equip me with the skills necessary to adapt, etc.

I have the highest regard for the seminary (and our colleges).

Wilson

Among the dichotomies experienced while attending NTS was that I worked an automotive plant where everything was laid out and programmed to produce on the moving assembly line. There were people there who had spent twenty years attaching tail lights to the next chunk of metal coming down the tow chain. When they ran out of tail lights, they had no desire to tackle the problem of how to get more. They didn't respond to different challenges or opportunities. That wasn't their job.

Seminary, on the other hand, wasn't a trade school. The objective wasn't how to "make" or "do" a sermon, i.e., "attach a tail light as people come through the door." A previous generation had learned that to wear a white shirt, dark suit, thin tie, and speak with a very low voice might have been just another layer of undergraduate paint. That might have been the path to becoming a GS, but that was pretty much a dead end anyway.

NTS, following an appropriate undergraduate treck, helped me learn to think and I hope respond to different scenarios. Having done a brief stint previously in Greek, academia and I concluded for me not to spend a lot of time there. Fellow student and Hebrew instructor Roger Hahn kinda chuckled at the idea of me doing his class, so that didn't happen either.
I like to think that NTS helped prepare me to prepare. Real life isn't a tow chain on an assembly line. Many of the people we work with work in that kind of environment - but it is only one of an infinite number of situations.

In the first week of assignment following seminary, I remember finding myself between a fighting husband and wife, who were yelling foul accusations at each other, and literally throwing dishes and cans of food back and forth. Their story read like a cross between a soap opera and a pornographic novel. They had come to me to "fix it". I remember leaving their home that day in tears, desperately trying to recall which class in seminary had prepared me for that. Retrospecitvely, I now know that in fact, seminary had - but it wasn't from a textbook. Miraculously, that then-new-to-the-church couple is still married (to each other) - and three of their children attended a Nazarene college.

NTS is different today than it was then. How appropriate - so is the world pastors face. NTS, NBC, and Nazarene colleges and universities are doing well. "It" doesn't always work, because we know where they get the raw material with which they have to work. Even Naznet threads leave me amazed at the real life quality of ministerial grads. Granted, there are some who are too smart to participate here, but whatever. There's plenty of fertile ground elsewhere, and likely the Lord wants some of us there, too.

Let's learn to live and learn in community contextually spreading the Word. Along the way there is the Call to studying languages - somebody's got to do it. It might as well be some of our best.

[Marsha Lynn]

I wish I had more time to respond to several of the posts that are here right now, but I just don't. I'll hopefully get to them Thursday or Friday...

I for one will look forward to your further posts on this topic. I value your viewpoint.

Part of the American individualism that has neutered scripture from it's corporate identity is the fact that English is primarily a "singular subject" language.

It bothers me when I end up taking the individualistic side of these discussions. I hear your generation crying, "Community, community!" and I want to be part of that cry. I never want to be part of the "old school" trying to hold back the tide. I want to say, "Amen! Preach it, Brother Jeremy!" And I even echo it to a certain extent. I know enough "Lone Ranger" Christians that I don't ever want to be one. They end up in "foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law". As I typically phrase it, they "get weird". I don't want to strike out on my own and "get weird". So I remain part of the community of believers and allow the "weird" stuff I discover in the Bible and my private times of prayer to be at least tempered and sometimes even muted by that community. And I encourage others to be likewise committed to being part of the community.

Still, if you take away my Bible and prayer journal and store them at the church and tell me that everything I need to learn can be learned in corporate settings, I will never be able to go beyond where the group goes. I can't be a leader, a visionary, or a prophet because I can see nothing except what others see before me. I hear a patronizing tone in this suggestion that has echoed through two milleniums: "Don't bother trying to figure these things out for yourself. We who have been trained in spiritual matters will lead you where you need to go. We will go up on the mountain and bring down to you the Word of the Lord. If you have any questions, we will address them in a corporate setting where our leadership is strong and individual thinking is minimized."

If this were the biblical model, it might be a little easier to accept, but it's not. I don't think Jesus was addressing only clergy when he instructed his followers to go into an inner room and close the door to pray. If we view prayer as conversation with God, taking the written Word that He has given us into the room with us greatly enhances the chance that we will be able to discern his responses. And I don't think we go astray when we follow Jesus' example of spending much time praying in solitary places.

I've seen the weirdness of "Lone Ranger" Christians. I've also encountered the shallow and often distorted thinking of those who depend on others to tell them what the Bible says. While calling us to forsake individualism, I urge you not to take away our times alone with God and the printed Scripture. Although those times have indeed sometimes pulled me away from the groupthink of one community, I have been astonished more than once to discover that they pulled me squarely into the middle of the groupthink of other communities, even communities that included people with training in Greek and Hebrew! The Word of God truly is "living and active" in any language and I am deeply grateful to those who gave their lives to bring it within reach of people like me. What we need, in my opinion, is balance between individual study and shaping by the community and the teaching of Bible professionals.

OK, I'll be quiet now and wait for you to have time to respond. I'm sorry if I misunderstood and pulled this thread off course unnecessarily. Perhaps when I read: "I'm all for less personal Bible reading and more community Bible study and interpretation" I heard the echo of other voices and perceived a message you weren't sending. It has been known to happen before.

Marsha

[Roland Hearn]

I for one will look forward .....
Marsha that is a really good post. Well said. Thanks.

[Brad Mercer]

It bothers me when I end up taking the individualistic side of these discussions. I hear your generation crying, "Community, community!" and I want to be part of that cry.

Still, if you take away my Bible and prayer journal and store them at the church and tell me that everything I need to learn can be learned in corporate settings, I will never be able to go beyond where the group goes. I can't be a leader, a visionary, or a prophet because I can see nothing except what others see before me.

Marsha

Good post, Marsha, as always. I think one of the hardest errors to avoid in life is our tendency to be reactionary. It's so easy for every generation to live in mere reaction against the excesses and errors of the previous generation. I'm convinced I haven't avoided that error, but equally convinced that it is an error we should earnestly strive to avoid. The problem with reaction is that there are a thousand ways to "get it wrong". I will inevitably back blindly into a brand new, equally destructive error while clearly and correctly diagnosing the error of someone else.

I think I have to work on not focusing on the error, but sometimes it seems like the only alternative is to try to operate in a vacuum, starting from scratch to decide who I am, who I am to become, and how I'm to get there; to decide who we are, who we are to become, and how we're to get there.

I don't want to spend my whole life swinging backwards toward some extreme on a pendulum while congratulating myself for getting away from the opposite extreme of the pendulum at which I see others. I think I want to be able to start by learning the greatest commandment and the second one like it, upon which hang all the law and the prophets, and then proceed to get to know the three people named in those commands: God, my neighbor and myself, well enough to live out those commands effectively.

And I do think that means taking time alone in the "closet", the desert, the garden, as a part of the effort to get to know God and myself better, and then spending the bulk of my time in community, getting to know God, myself and my neighbor better, and learning to love all three more deeply and honestly.

The older I get, the less sure I am that I even know the right questions, much less the right answers. But I also like to think that the older I get, the more I become convinced of the height and depth and breadth and power of the love of God.

I'm rambling again, but there's something in there, somewhere.

Brad

[Cathy Boulos]

Marsha:
In response to your post. I agree with you that it so very importand for private time of pray and reading God' Word:fav18 I hope this is true that the majority of students got the calling from having their private time with the Lords Word, or the calling was afirmed reading His Word. You are right the bible was addressing everyone not just clergy:basic01
I am graduate of NTS and NBC, I have been taught by the best of the best as far as I am concerned.
I am a chaplain and experience at NTS and the training for chaplaincy went hand in hand for me.
Sorry if I got of track

[Hans Deventer]

The older I get, the less sure I am that I even know the right questions, much less the right answers. But I also like to think that the older I get, the more I become convinced of the height and depth and breadth and power of the love of God.

Yes. Last night, at the Bible Study group I lead together with a friend (but it was my turn last night) the question came up about God knowing the future, because we read Isaiah 5 together, the Song of the Vineyard, dealing with what God had done for Israel and what He could have expected from the investment.
So we dug into all those Scriptures (including this one) that would logically indicate that He does not. You have to try to answer a question to the best of your knowledge and ability. But I no longer delight in questions like these. Though, to my surprise, there was no opposition, I'm getting more and more convinced that the answers to those questions are generally more divisive than that they are helpful. Like you, I just want to know God more, and live accordingly.

[Randy Wise]

I'm thinking of virtually every "Bible study" in which I have ever participated, including the ones I've led.

Example:

JAMES 3:1 Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. 2 We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.



When I read that passage, I zero in on such words as "presume," "strictly," "stumble," "never at fault," "perfect".

I ask myself:
Is teaching a presumption on my part? Is teaching always a presumption? Are some called to be teachers and therefore do they teach without presumption? Am I among the few and called or among the many who should not presume to teach? Is teaching optional or do we all end up in the role of teachers as we go through life?

What does it mean to be judged more strictly, particularly in the "in" or "out" view of judgment? Will teachers have a greater risk of being "out"? Is this verse opening up a view of greater or lesser rewards or punishment, of rank in the kingdom? Is it referring to a judgment in the form of earthly consequences? Whatever the meaning, is the wondrous privilege of teaching worth the price of submitting to more strict judgment? If I quit teaching could I live to a lower standard? Would I want to live to a lower standard?

We all stumble? As in, we all fail God? We all have faults? Does that mean that we all at times need to fall on our knees and weep over deeds done and words said and allow God to lift us up and set us back on the road going the right direction? How does that fit in with the "we can live without sin" message I hear so frequently?

Is it worse for a teacher to make verbal slips than others? Is it possible to never be at fault in what I say or is the "we all stumble" line a permanent part of the human condition? Is controlling my tongue the first step toward total self-discipline? Is this where I should focus my energy? How does controlling the tongue relate to controlling the body? How much progress can I make in this area through self-discipline as opposed to giving up and asking God to fine-tune my speech?

These are the questions that flit through my mind as I read these two verses. If they stick with me into my prayer time, I will ask them of God and consider my future as a teacher, the cost of being judged more strictly as a teacher, the progress I've made and need to make in controlling my tongue. I apply the passage very personally and set it into the ongoing relationship I have with God and others. It's an opportunity to review my role as a teacher in the church and community. It holds up a golden standard of being perfect in what one says. I'm challenged as I consider the possibility of pursuing that standard. It tugs at me to set higher goals and pay the price needed to reach them.

I dug out a new Bible study book I have on James - the Lectio Divina Bible study series. Here are the discussion questions they pair with these verses:

Read [various passages culled from the NT]. What are the different types of teachers we find in these passages? What place did teachers have in early Christian faith? What was the greatest privilege of early Christian teachers?

What are some of the positive and negative influences teachers can have on their students? Why do you think James says teachers will be judged more strictly? What are the criteria by which teachers will be judged?

What is the greatest privilege of contemporary Christian teachers? Who were some of your teachers? What do you remember about them (your best and worst experiences)?

Quote: "He who multiplies words multiplies sin." What might be the message of this ancient Jewish saying?

In verse 2 ... what might James be saying about the relationship between perfection as a virtue and one's speech?

These questions are as good as any I've seen in a formal Bible study, but there is little overlap between them and the questions I ask myself when I read that passage in a setting of private study and prayer. Some of them ask for the group to come up with an answer that cannot be supported by the passage. What basis are we to use for our answers? Do we vote? Do we pull out the old Urim and Thummim to determine God's answers? Do we pray together over the questions and seek corporate divine guidance to the correct answers? Do any of us care enough about the answers to these questions to take such a serious approach to them?

I guess it boils down to being asked the wrong questions and having the group come up with speculative answers that don't strike me as being particularly insightful.

Is that terribly vain to put into words? The thing is, I wouldn't do any better than anyone else at leading a discussion over this passage. I can't discern the questions that others might need to investigate. Productive Bible study seems to me to be a very private affair. I suppose that what I need is to see an example of how it can be done productively in a group setting such as Roland described. But even then, watching and admiring a skilled teacher and becoming a skilled teacher are two very different things.

Marsha

Hi Marcia, be careful with the questions <g> I was looking over your post about teachers being judged more strictly and came to the conclusion that we were assuming that the judgment spoken by James was from the Lord. I don't see how the Lord can judge us differently so then I thought maybe James was stating that we as the body of Christ hold those who are leaders in the church to a higher standard.

Randy