BJU?

Study to show thyself approved, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed.

 

Does this refer to the Word of God or philosophy, liberal theology, classical studies, methodologies, etc.? Surely, they taught you to consider the context and purpose in your hermeneutics at BJU! There is a difference between knowing about the Word of God, as taught in seminaries, and knowing the Word of God.

Here is a multiple choice test question for you.

Bible 101
13. Which of the following Biblical figures had a classical, liberal education in the rabbinical schools of Judea?
A. Hosea
B. Peter
C. John the Baptist
D. All of these
E. None of these

 

[Note: Reply to double post even though it doesn't deserve two answers]

Other than a handful, such as Moses, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, Paul, Luke, et. al., most men used of God in Scripture were without what we would consider a formal, classical education. Mostly, they were commoners--farmers, shepherds, and fishermen. Even Joseph probably gained his knowledge and administrative skills OJT.

Is it a viable thought that our formal educational systems dulls and cramps thinking, creativity, initiative, and innovation? Furthermore, is it possible that education causes men to depend upon their own acquired knowledge and wisdom rather than trusting God?

{Don’t take this any further than what I have said. I am not defending ignorance or stupidity—this comes naturally without education but sometimes stupidity is formalized by the mass educational systems and ignorance is reinforced through muddle-headed (call it sophomoric) academics. BTW, I am proudly a teacher, not an educator.}

 

Quote the whole verse: 2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

(see first reply to this post)

 

Here's my two cents' worth: Part of the answer to your question depends on what you want to study. Perhaps you mentioned that along the way and I missed it. If so, please forgive me. However, I think BJU does have an ambiguous position on the King James Bible (from their own video presentation, not just from D.A. Waite, whose presentation I have heard as well). In that case, if you are studying Bible, I would consider this as a problem. I don't believe in KJV Onlyism in the sense of KJV for all the world and nothing else, but the majority of manuscripts in existence, otherwise known as the Textus Receptus, are the basis for the KJV and not for the modern revisions. I believe it is the only correct version for English-speakers, but that it is possible to have another good version in another language. Anyway, that is beginning to diverge from my main point. Bottom line: BJU has a weak position on the King James Bible and it is expensive, but some people may be called of God to go there. No school is perfect, and should someone choose to go there, I would hope that he would be aware of the problems and still be able to enjoy the benefits of a large, liberal arts school.

 

So you expect the seminaries to make preachers out of some men who are like donkeys that want to make noise and not run? You can't make a race car out of a camel. If a man is lazy coming in what makes you think he will come out not being lazy?

Rememeber where those seminarians come from. They are trained by people just like you. They are in the same kind of hurch as you. So who are you training right now that is making a difference in the lives of others because of Christ?

Sometime compare parachurch organizations like The Navigators to any church group in America. It is quite obvious who consistently does a better job of making disciples. Most parachurch organizations are on the college and university campuses sharing their faith among non-believers instead of hibernating within the walls of a church. They train people to share their faith and make disciples not be pew warmers.

Ever notice the parent who is lazy and undisciplined and then expects the local school teachers to make their kid into a motivated scholar able to get an excellent job and make lots so of money?

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

 

So you expect the seminaries to make preachers out of some men who are like donkeys that want to make noise and not run? You can't make a race car out of a camel. If a man is lazy coming in what makes you think he will come out not being lazy? </font>[/QUOTE]If you search the Gospels, you will find somewhere (I could tell you where but look it up yourself) that Christ said a pupil is like his teacher. Furthermore, you are muddling the issues of motivation, ability, effort, and teaching (disciplining). Your comments obfuscate rather than clarify or speak to the issue.

Many of our folks are faithfully serving God full-time as missionaries (my son is a missionary), pastors, evangelists, and teachers as well as laymen. Our people serve God at many different levels as to the segment of society where they witness. We witness from the jailhouse to the state house. Our laymen, so-called, teach and preach in jails and nursing homes. Kids and senior adults serve Christ alike. Our view is that all Christians, regardless of occupation, are in full-time Christian service.

Regarding education, we view it as something more than mere intellectual knowledge. It involves the volition as well as the intellect. Education without applied ethics and shoe leather morality is devilish and perverted. It is the essence of humanism—both classical and secular. (BTW, the lines you have followed and the arguments you have espoused are the presuppositions of classical humanism which is mistakenly taught in seminaries as a Biblical worldview.) Knowledge alone is not enough since there is no brute factuality. Furthermore, Biblical education ought tof increase faith and piety, not lessen it. I try to challenge my students to get beyond the standard pabulum dished out in most Christian institutions. Personally, I like the rabbinical thought that an idea is not your own until you have applied it in your life.

This is a mixed bag! So, what’s your point? I cannot unequivocally agree.

This is foreign to me. What are you saying? Do we not try to help the parent and child?

[/QB][/QUOTE]The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. [/QB][/QUOTE]

This is glib and cute but I question its veracity. In western NC, the apple orchards are on mountainsides and roll downhill when they fall. Does this mean that children will go downhill in life? Furthermore, the statement is fatalistic and deterministic. I am more positive. I believe a person can change and better himself by the grace of God. I know children who have done much better than their parents. Life is a choice. I don’t buy the old genetic-environmental determinism regardless of which side you argue. It seems that everyone is looking to excuse behavior. Again, behavior is a choice, an individual choice. There are influential factors but it is a choice nonetheless.

In sum, speak for yourself and your experiences. You know nothing of my church, school or me. Therefore you cannot judge. You are making an erroneous a priori assumption that is wrong. My church and school do not fit your experiences. There are different situations other than your own cozy surroundings. You are just ignorant of them.

 

paidagogos:

Good to hear that you are making disciples. You are by far the exception. Sounds like you have done a great job with your children. We need more people like you. I thank God for men and women who are making disciples.

My point is that the job is not done until Mt. 28:19, 20 is actively being applied in the life of every believer. If you have pastored a church you what I am talking about.

There are many who have been sold a bill of goods by their teachers that God does it all. They forget what Jesus taught in Mt. 28:19,20; Mt. 4:19 and what Paul taught in Acts 20 when he spoke to the elders from Ephesus. The Holy Spirit made them the overseers. That is their responsibility, not God’s. If we did that with our children when they were young, the state would remove them from our home. But yet so often babes in Christ are “protected” and never shown how to grow and disciple others.

I have watched pastors who were taught what is right and how to do it, but once they leave the seminary and get into a church they go back to what they saw before coming to seminary. Is that the fault of the seminary? I have watched the professors I knew who were discipling others who were frustrated because of those at the leadership level were nothing more than politicians and calling church attendance and Bible study, discipleship.

Never once have I ever seen one person who was already discipling others before going to seminary ever stop making disciples after they got their degree. So where does the fault lie? Personally if I were running a seminary (a theological graduate school), I would not accept a student until that person had shown that he had discipled at least one person. Why accept someone who has not learned the elementary basics. Discipleship is a lifelong process of learning but making disciples starts at the kindergarten level. I have seen young children begin to help another youngster grow. In one church I pastored one of the children of a couple I was discipling wanted to be taught how to lead a Bible study and help his friends grow. So at the age of 11 he began.

I do not see anytime when the Bible teaches that making disciples is the sole responsibility of the seminary. If it were then making disciples would be reserved for theological schools.

Making disciples is for the average Christian just like raising children is for the average person.

Just like you, I am trying to do what I can, but when we have people in church who want an oooey, gooey, make me feel good church then keeping people out of that kind of church is best. Jesus never had his disciples in church. I have seen a number of pastors who were asked to leave because the pastor gave them the stuff. One of those from the past was Jonathan Edwards. They had the same problem then we have now. Paul had the same problem in the NT as we do now. So what’s new.

We must make disciples!

 

The flipside is that some churches, mission boards, etc. require a seminary degree. This pre-empts some good disciple-makers from support by this kind of constipated thinking. For example, I know a faithful, godly missionary who could not get accepted by a missionary board because he only had a Bible institute diploma. He was a married man with children who worked in a textile mill while attending the Bible institute. He didn’t let his rejection by the establishment stop him. He went from church to church without the formal backing of a board and garnered enough support to reach the field. Today, he has faithfully served probably over forty years in Brazil with many good solid works established and many souls brought into the Kingdom of God. His work was so fruitful in one fairly large Brazilian city that the mayor presented him with the key to city.

Contrariwise, many seminary graduates are not making it on the mission field today. IMHO, they are not able to bridge the cultural gap between a high-living, educated American way of life and the basic lifestyle of third world countries. Many are returning home without completing even one term. Although there are some opportunities for a witness to upper socio-economic levels (I know one missionary, who is a Ph.D. nuclear chemist, with a ministry to the educated class and leaders in Ghana.), most mission work in third world countries is to impoverished, uneducated folks. We need common people who can relate to these masses. Seminary grads, although not all, tend to be stuck in their little cultural rut. Seminary is not the only way to go! We need a Christian witness at all levels of society. As Jay Adams has convincingly advocated that one doesn’t need a degree in psychology or counseling to effectively counsel Biblically, one doesn’t need an accredited M.Div. to pastor, evangelize, or minister successfully.

 

paidagogos

I agree with you 100%. No amount of education will replace laziness and lack of love for God. There is no excuse for a person not growing in God's grace and knowledge.

What I wonder about is what often happens to godly pastors. So often we talk about pastors who have stayed a long time at a church. But what about those who preach the stuff and the people run them off. I know a man that happened to because the deacons didn't like all the new Christians coming from the Mormon church. The church went from about 70 to almost 600 in six years. That happens to a lot of radical leaders. It happened to Jesus. It happened to Jonathan Edwards. It happened to Dawson Trotman the founder of the Navigators by the way of letters being circulated. I have met many who have had this happen.

I might add that I have seen new believers begin to disciple others while others who have been Christians a long time have never even tried. I think that tells a lot about what a heart and zeal for God does.

 

You don't say where you are in your education, but if you are just starting out, why not consider Fruitland in Hendersonville? You can get an Associates degree there and it has a fine reputation in Southern Baptist circles.

 

Much of it is musically similar to much in the P&W and CCM movement. My implication is not one meant to demean that of Soundforth and the Wilds per se, but to demonstrate no musical distinction between that and the music many churches would dismiss out of hand.

The differences could be classified as more related to that of separation and principles of association, as well as perhaps the performance style of the particular artists. But musically the difference is minimal.

 

Besides in strict definition, it is Christian themed music written in a contemporary setting.

I mean if anyone who wants to call themselves IFB can be, than...

 

But you haven't demonstrated anything. All you have done is made an assertion.

Those are important differences. You are also probably referring to the more substantial forms of CCM, too. Otherwise, we could add lyrical content, among other things.

I have listened to several CCM samples that folks here on the BB have promoted (e.g., Dove award winners, etc). I have not heard anything that remotely resembles the product coming out of Soundforth or the Wilds.

Andy

 

Very true. It is merely an observation on my part, and given my experience in both genres.

I would agree that they are important differences. And I would not discount them when selecting music for worship. My point was from a stricly music on paper standpoint. When you say you have listened to samples of both and found them dissimilar, I understand why you are confused about my assertion, because they sound different, because of the performance style. Not because the techniques used in writing the melodies, harmonies, etc are different, but because of the performance style of the musicians. That is where most of the differentiation takes place. I don't include lyrical differentiation because you have to be as picky in the hymnal as you do in CCM. IT is always a consideration song by song. (For the sake of this argument I am eliminating purely rock styled CCM, and some of the copycat pop stuff that gets the most radio play.)

Let me give you a simple example of why the performance style of the musician makes a big difference. When I was young. My mother took my brothers and I to some kind of event, I don't remember what it was, something at the local library for kids. We had grown up in church and knew the song "This little light of mine" very well. The woman who was leading the event put on a soundtrack tape, and got us to stand up and sing the song, but we had never heard an interpretation of that song quite like that and didn't know what to think. It was wild, fast and the singer sounded like she was singing down at the club rather than being in church. The music on the page was the same, the melody was familiar, the chords were the same, but I would still say that the way the song was performed was way outside what I would think would be appropriate for a worship service.

Music is music is music. The math is the same. I would not discount the style used in performance, or the association of the song, or the Biblical validity of the lyrics (although much modern P&W is as scriptural or more so than much modern traditionally styled music being written or arranged today, theres garbage there too) I am merely saying there is no clear musical distinction in the music on the paper in many cases. I have heard CCM songs interpreted in such a way that someone would have to read the name of the author to know it was technically in the genre called CCM. There is a large percentage of music coming out of more traditional publishers that will not be sung 10 years from now because its not quality music. Just as much of the CCM written now will be gone. Just think. Our better hymnals might have 20 songs by Fanny Crosby, she wrote hundreds.

Too many times people choose their music without a level playing field. All your music should be judged on its scritptural validity, not by who wrote it or when. I have a real problem with saying "Nothing by a CCM artist" and "Anything by Soundforth" in the same musical philosophy. It sure is easy to administer, but its hard to defend scripturally.

 

I think I pretty much agree with what you just said. It is one of the reasons I dislike the Hooked on Classics type CD's.

Sure you can perform anything in a CCM-style, and I would oppose that type of performance regardless of the source of the music. Some people have been so trained by the CCM/pop sound that they can't sing anything "straight" -- it's all breathy and sometimes downright sensual.

I wonder if that is really true. If you pick up a book of piano arrangements, I think it would be pretty easy to distinguish between those produced by CCM artists and those produced by more traditional artists, although I'm sure there may be exceptions.

The fact remains that, for the most part, CD's from the Wilds or Soundforth are going to sound a lot different than CD's produces by CCM artists. The exceptions will occur when the CCM artists perform their music with more traditional stylings. I think that is in agreement with your last post.

I agree with this, too. It is one reason why I am not a big fan of the Majesty Hymnal.

Andy

 

Window Wax,

NGC not only has an excellent undergrad program, but beginning in the fall of 2005, they will for the first time offer Graduate degrees in Ministry. Dr. Jimmy Epting has done a tremendous job over the last 10 years of resurrecting this SBC affiliated college. Many would say it is a modern day miracle- light years ahead of where it was and where it was thought it could go.

There have been some rumblings concerning the professors having a Calvinistic bent in the religion Dept. Dr. Epting asked those in question to sign a statement refuting this rumor- I believe they all signed it.

I preached in chapel at NGC last Fall. I preached the Gospel straight and narrow. I explicitly affirmed the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Word of God. I challenged the lost to receive Christ, and I challenged the born again to live holy, separated, consecrated lives. I gave an old fashioned invitation to receive Christ, and one student did just that. Many others made other decisions.

I say all of that to say this: I don't believe you will go wrong with NGC. I am sure it has negatives just like any other academic institution in the world. But for all intents and purposes, you will receive a solid undergrad. degree in a christian environment. NGC is also a satelite campus of Southern Seminary.

 

Paidagogos:

You have made an excellent point. How greatly we need to depend on the Lord, His Word and the Holy Spirit! Today there is great emphasis on education, which is good, so long as we do not rely on it. I love school and learning! It is great! However, I still must rest in the power of Christ and not this vile flesh to accomplish His work. "Without me, ye can do nothing!"

 

They are getting closer together. and both sides are moving. CCM is moving toward a more mature position where it has its own sound, at least for many artists, rather than being the old "If you like megadeath, try ..." And the Traditionally styled arrangements are getting more and more brave in their use of complex chord progression and dissonance. I first noticed this among some of the young people who sang in church, and the selections they came home with from BJ, mostly soundforth publications, were indistinguishable from CCM, except that most of the time, they were singing them straight, rather than in the nightclub style that you described in your post. These were songs written mostly by BJU staff and faculty members, or students.

The Majesty Hymnal is OK, I just think its going to be rather frustrating to have to buy a new one in 10 years

I think you understand what I was getting at, I definately agree that the sound of the CD's is vastly different. And I sing pretty straight, so I guess my main point would be that I could choose songs by Chris Rice, or several other artists that would be considered in the CCM genre, and sing them in church, and without seeing the music on the page, there would be no difference musically.

 

Of course in 10 years, when you walk into church, if you want the music and words in front of you, instead of on the screen, it will get beamed to your personal communication device via bluetooth or a offspring of it, or projected on your retina.

But that is beside the point.