Plain Old Bill
New Member
Hey Rhet, how are you doing?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What are the benefits of academic rigor?
- Thread starter Plain Old Bill
- Start date
If God is truly God then shouldn't every one give him their best. There is only one person who can stand before God and answer that question for each person.
Broadus, you said it well when you wrote, "I have also heard well trained preachers preach with such fervor, clarity, and conviction that the congregation was overwhelmed with joy at understanding a passage that before was difficult for them to grasp and apply."
I too have heard some great men of God who taught a congreagtion so well that they understood passages and concepts to such a higher level than most. What a pleasure to hear them teach and preach with full conviction.
Broadus, you said it well when you wrote, "I have also heard well trained preachers preach with such fervor, clarity, and conviction that the congregation was overwhelmed with joy at understanding a passage that before was difficult for them to grasp and apply."
I too have heard some great men of God who taught a congreagtion so well that they understood passages and concepts to such a higher level than most. What a pleasure to hear them teach and preach with full conviction.
gb93433,
You quoted:
Broadus, you said it well when you wrote, "I have also heard well trained preachers preach with such fervor, clarity, and conviction that the congregation was overwhelmed with joy at understanding a passage that before was difficult for them to grasp and apply."
And you said, "I too have heard some great men of God who taught a congreagtion so well that they understood passages and concepts to such a higher level than most. What a pleasure to hear them teach and preach with full conviction."
And not one of us here would doubt that God can raise up "the exception to the rule." I think all that any of us who are arguing for a rigorous academic Biblical and Theological education is the principle I learned @ MABTS.
"We have been given an axe. We must take the time to sharpen it from time to time." The axe is the call and the personal gifts of the HS that go with it. Seminary and other forms of rigorous education are the "sharpening" of the axe. We must continually come back and sharpen the axe of Historical studies, language studies, theological studies, Christian History, etc., et al.
It is true that there is that naturally gifted and studious pastor who is the diamond in the rough. But, just think what he might have/could have been if he had had the opportunity to avail himself of formal Biblical and theological education.
Most, either cannot or will not be able to learn the fine points of a Greek verb tense on their own. The person with average intelligence might take 10 years to learn how to exegete through First John. When I was made to push through it in one semester of "Baby Greek."
There will always be the "exception." But what all of us (the ones I named above and others) argue for, is that this exception to be the rule for the pastorate. For the souls of men and Christ's Kingdom we should not seek the easy way out.
We really do need men with less "practical training" and more scholarship. I have always maintained that a pastor, with or without formal education, should be a scholar and a theologian.
sdg!
rd
You quoted:
Broadus, you said it well when you wrote, "I have also heard well trained preachers preach with such fervor, clarity, and conviction that the congregation was overwhelmed with joy at understanding a passage that before was difficult for them to grasp and apply."
And you said, "I too have heard some great men of God who taught a congreagtion so well that they understood passages and concepts to such a higher level than most. What a pleasure to hear them teach and preach with full conviction."
And not one of us here would doubt that God can raise up "the exception to the rule." I think all that any of us who are arguing for a rigorous academic Biblical and Theological education is the principle I learned @ MABTS.
"We have been given an axe. We must take the time to sharpen it from time to time." The axe is the call and the personal gifts of the HS that go with it. Seminary and other forms of rigorous education are the "sharpening" of the axe. We must continually come back and sharpen the axe of Historical studies, language studies, theological studies, Christian History, etc., et al.
It is true that there is that naturally gifted and studious pastor who is the diamond in the rough. But, just think what he might have/could have been if he had had the opportunity to avail himself of formal Biblical and theological education.
Most, either cannot or will not be able to learn the fine points of a Greek verb tense on their own. The person with average intelligence might take 10 years to learn how to exegete through First John. When I was made to push through it in one semester of "Baby Greek."
There will always be the "exception." But what all of us (the ones I named above and others) argue for, is that this exception to be the rule for the pastorate. For the souls of men and Christ's Kingdom we should not seek the easy way out.
We really do need men with less "practical training" and more scholarship. I have always maintained that a pastor, with or without formal education, should be a scholar and a theologian.
sdg!
rd
IMO a minister needs to be rigorous only in his learning to the extent that is required by Paul in the Pastorals and Acts. I think this criterion rarely is met. Some of what Paul requires of the minister's teaching is that the minister teach the whole counsel of God on a particular subject and that his teaching adheres to the apostolic Tradition (paradosis)and Teaching (Didache). It is commanded that it does!
I would suggest that this is not always easy to do. It is not easy because today's minister is separated from the Apostolic Teaching by language and societal norms and two thousand years of dogmatic development which can make everything very fuzzy. It also is not easy because the temptation is to preach whatever knowing that congreants will not stand up during the sermon to challenge points.
Often congreants judge homiletical quality by the measure of how clear the message is, not by how carefully the message is developed. But IMO there are more important measures of the minister's fulfilling the Pauline injunctions re pastoral teaching than merely whether or not all of his points are easily grasped. One measure might be that the minister has empowered his congreants to on their own evaluate conflicting belief systems which Paul commands that they do (eg, 1Cor 11:2;Rom 16:17;2Jo 9; 2 Thess 2:15) . But how often is it the case that Christians after 20 years of hearing sermons can do this. Why not judge that pastor's teaching by that measure? I do not see it as the minister's role to lead his congreants down happy and simple homilitical paths where no Biblical difficulties ever are seen.
So, let's say that the minister is seeking to teach Philippians 2:6,7. That is a noble text and understanding Jesus Christ rightly pivots on the Church's grasp of it.He first must understand the text himself before he can teach it..not so? Then after he thinks he knows the meaning, he must make sure that his understanding coheres with other Scriptures and doctrines.
Well, let's talk about rigor in understanding Philippians 2:6,7. Here are some questions. Which of these should NOT be answered in the minister's study IF the minister expects to get the meaning of the text so that he can develop his sermon points? Understand I am not saying the minister preaches ALL that he knows. I am saying that the minister must make sure that he understands the meaning of the text before he can write a sermon about it!
1) What does form of God mean?[ and how much should 'morphe' be researched given that there is no agreement on its meaning?]
2) What is the significance of Paul using the present tense of the verb to indicate Christ having that form?
3. Is Burke right that "equality" refers to authority? why/why not?
4. Is Wallace right that Christ did not have that equality because the word translated "grasped" means not possessing? Or, is Hoover correct that the usage is idiomatic with some verbs as 'egesato'?
5. What is the significance of the emphatic pronoun in "He emptied" ?
6. What does emptied mean? loss of attributes or essence? why/why not?
7. Is 'emptied' defined by 'He took'? why/why not? If so, what exactly is it that He took?
8. What do form of a servant and appearance of a man mean ? Does that mean Christ is true and complete man? How so if He still is God? Does God metamorphize into humanity?
9. If the form of God and/or equality with God are ascribed to Christ does that mean that He has the divine will and mind?
10. Then, does it follow that if Christ has also the form of Man that He has additionally a human mind and will?
I would suggest that dealing with these questions in his study are required of the minister if he is to keep Paul's command to teach the apostolic Paradosis and Didache and to teach the whole counsel of God on a subject.
The alternative, of course, is to avoid such difficult texts and instead preach simple sermons that all can easily understand. Why should the minister ever suppose that God is not exuberantly happy with his sermonizing if the minister's congreants are? Isn't that what Paul told Titus and Timothy, "Preach that part of the Word that is easily understood"?
I would suggest that there is a significant correlation between the rigor the minister experiences in seminary and the rigor he uses in his sermon preparation! If congreants do not expect quality in Pastoral teaching, why should seminaries care at all about rigor in education?
[ October 06, 2005, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]
I would suggest that this is not always easy to do. It is not easy because today's minister is separated from the Apostolic Teaching by language and societal norms and two thousand years of dogmatic development which can make everything very fuzzy. It also is not easy because the temptation is to preach whatever knowing that congreants will not stand up during the sermon to challenge points.
Often congreants judge homiletical quality by the measure of how clear the message is, not by how carefully the message is developed. But IMO there are more important measures of the minister's fulfilling the Pauline injunctions re pastoral teaching than merely whether or not all of his points are easily grasped. One measure might be that the minister has empowered his congreants to on their own evaluate conflicting belief systems which Paul commands that they do (eg, 1Cor 11:2;Rom 16:17;2Jo 9; 2 Thess 2:15) . But how often is it the case that Christians after 20 years of hearing sermons can do this. Why not judge that pastor's teaching by that measure? I do not see it as the minister's role to lead his congreants down happy and simple homilitical paths where no Biblical difficulties ever are seen.
So, let's say that the minister is seeking to teach Philippians 2:6,7. That is a noble text and understanding Jesus Christ rightly pivots on the Church's grasp of it.He first must understand the text himself before he can teach it..not so? Then after he thinks he knows the meaning, he must make sure that his understanding coheres with other Scriptures and doctrines.
Well, let's talk about rigor in understanding Philippians 2:6,7. Here are some questions. Which of these should NOT be answered in the minister's study IF the minister expects to get the meaning of the text so that he can develop his sermon points? Understand I am not saying the minister preaches ALL that he knows. I am saying that the minister must make sure that he understands the meaning of the text before he can write a sermon about it!
1) What does form of God mean?[ and how much should 'morphe' be researched given that there is no agreement on its meaning?]
2) What is the significance of Paul using the present tense of the verb to indicate Christ having that form?
3. Is Burke right that "equality" refers to authority? why/why not?
4. Is Wallace right that Christ did not have that equality because the word translated "grasped" means not possessing? Or, is Hoover correct that the usage is idiomatic with some verbs as 'egesato'?
5. What is the significance of the emphatic pronoun in "He emptied" ?
6. What does emptied mean? loss of attributes or essence? why/why not?
7. Is 'emptied' defined by 'He took'? why/why not? If so, what exactly is it that He took?
8. What do form of a servant and appearance of a man mean ? Does that mean Christ is true and complete man? How so if He still is God? Does God metamorphize into humanity?
9. If the form of God and/or equality with God are ascribed to Christ does that mean that He has the divine will and mind?
10. Then, does it follow that if Christ has also the form of Man that He has additionally a human mind and will?
I would suggest that dealing with these questions in his study are required of the minister if he is to keep Paul's command to teach the apostolic Paradosis and Didache and to teach the whole counsel of God on a subject.
The alternative, of course, is to avoid such difficult texts and instead preach simple sermons that all can easily understand. Why should the minister ever suppose that God is not exuberantly happy with his sermonizing if the minister's congreants are? Isn't that what Paul told Titus and Timothy, "Preach that part of the Word that is easily understood"?
I would suggest that there is a significant correlation between the rigor the minister experiences in seminary and the rigor he uses in his sermon preparation! If congreants do not expect quality in Pastoral teaching, why should seminaries care at all about rigor in education?
[ October 06, 2005, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]
paidagogos
Active Member
You are confusing education and degrees. Many folks are degreed but they are not educated. Such people are usually proud of their titles and supposed intellecutal prowess. True education has to do with character, learning, knowledge, wisdom and understanding. I hold to the old-fashioned view that good education has a moral component as well as cognitive. Furthermore, it is not lacking in application and practical matters (praxis). Proper education is virtuous; it is good, desirable and worthwhile.
paid,
I would not argue with that thought. Rather than me being confused between education and degrees, I think I was speaking more to an attitude....which you also just addressed. My only call is to caution not to be so caught up in education for the SAKE of education that you forget who you are attempting to lead in the churches you will be pastoring.
I would not argue with that thought. Rather than me being confused between education and degrees, I think I was speaking more to an attitude....which you also just addressed. My only call is to caution not to be so caught up in education for the SAKE of education that you forget who you are attempting to lead in the churches you will be pastoring.
Broadus sez:
paidagogos sez:
Unfortunately for many, as the learning becomes greater, so does the ego, rendering the education less & less useful for the Kingdom's work!
Agreed; as long as they don't fit this catagory: "educated beyond his intelligence"!
paidagogos sez:
For this type person, there is no such thing as "TOO MUCH" education.
Unfortunately for many, as the learning becomes greater, so does the ego, rendering the education less & less useful for the Kingdom's work!
Brother Ian
Active Member
Where does shepherding come in? Isn't this a primary aspect to the office? I know a better translation is pastor/teacher, but it seems as though many are focusing on the learning of the pastor and not necessarily the ability of the pastor to transfer that learning to the congregation.
paidagogos
Active Member
Then you are talking about personal and spiritual qualities that, IMHO, belong in the moral and character aspect of education. Additionally, communication is enhanced by knowledge and understanding. Many difficulties in communication come from a lack of understanding on the part of the communicator.
Beautiful!!!!
Fits several posts here that spout ----- er-r-r----- um-m-m ---- facts(?)!
Plain Old Bill
New Member
I think this thread has done particularly well. It has revealed the two things I hoped it would with a little prodding.It has given a good sense of what academic rigor is and how it can be usefully applied.