DBTS Senior Doctrinal Seminar

Following the lead of one of my colleagues, I thought some might find it interesting to know about one of the classes I have opportunity to lead here at Detroit Baptist Seminary, viz., the Senior Doctrinal Seminar. This class is a new one developed just last year after a faculty curriculum evaluation meeting. During that meeting, it was determined that a key adjustment would be made to the graduation requirement in order to improve the effectiveness of the seminary curriculum. Previously, each graduating senior was obliged to prepare a whole doctrinal statement and appear for 90 minutes before a committee of the faculty, who peppered the candidate with questions in a manner much like a church-organized ordination council. We as a faculty found this exercise a helpful one: identifying new wrinkles, tensions, and points of confusion in theology; revealing deficiencies in our instruction; discovering the most promising graduates, etc. It also compelled students to craft out personal belief statements in preparation for ordination and, ideally, some kind of pastoral ministry. The drawback of this defense was that it offered no chance for students and faculty to dialogue at length about specific, individual, unanswered questions and points of confusion.

In the interest of addressing this deficiency, we created the Senior Doctrinal Seminar. The structure is simple. By Tuesday of every week, each candidate for graduation prepares a one-page statement on a major head of theology (bibliology, pneumatology, soteriology, and the like), and distributes his statement to the rest of the class. Then each Friday the graduating class (or a section thereof depending on class size) meets for two hours to discuss the statements. I usually lead out, asking a question about, say, some imprecisely worded sentence, an unusual proof text, a minority view, etc. Then the discussion begins. We ask one another to explain “stock” definitions and phrases borrowed from historical creeds. We offer each other refinements of key points of doctrine. We add precision in expressing the non-negotiables of theology. We strive for clarity, accuracy, and grace when characterizing orthodox views alternative to our own. We defend our views biblically, discovering, at times, where we are making straw defenses.

Above all, each student adjusts his statement as necessary: deleting, adding, or replacing proof texts; refining vocabulary and syntax for added precision; adding whole sections; curtailing defenses of “pet” doctrines that really aren’t all that important; even changing positions after gaining greater understanding.

While every once in a while there is a deer-in-the-headlights moment during the seminar, the class is, in the main, a surprisingly relaxed and enjoyable exercise with lively dialogue, candid clarifications, cordial disagreement (oh for more of this in the blogosphere!), humble corrections, and above all, a chance to be immediately immersed in our chief end: knowing, glorifying, and enjoying God forever.

A Note of Apology

In the last day two friends have asked me privately to reconsider my reference to a “Gospel Carnival” in describing (I'm searching for a non-offensive label here) the Gospel Togetherness Movement within conservative evangelicalism.

I do sincerely apologize for any despite that this reference has brought to the Christian Gospel or upon my Lord Christ. I do not desire to trivialize or diminish either Christ or his crosswork. To the degree that I have done this or even have been perceived to have done this I am both dismayed and sorry.

I continue to have concerns about fingering the Gospel as an exclusive hub for Christian celebration and fellowship, and believe that there is Christian truth that is being neglected due to this trend. I was refreshed to rediscover some of those themes as I reflected on the Old Testament. And while I said as much, I did so in a visceral way that added unnecessary offense. I regret this.

Sine Qua Non and the Doxological Center

Charles Ryrie has now been in the proverbial doghouse for almost 50 years since fingering a doxological center as one of the three sine qua non of dispensationalism. The response has been nothing short of vicious in some quarters, because, after all, Reformed theology is all about doxology (first question of the Catechism anyone?). But while It is likely that Ryrie’s abbreviated explanation of this point has lent to some of the vitriol, at the end of the day, I think he’s on to something: the unifying center of all God’s activity is not redemption. The Bible is more than heilsgeschichte. There’s more to God’s decree than saving his elect via the Christian Gospel. It’s bigger than that. It’s about God ruling his whole universe and extracting glory from all its parts.

While in theory Reformed theologians would agree with this assessment, in practice this does not always seem to follow. Which is part of the reason, I think, why there were such strong objections to my post of last week, where I suggested in passing that Christ and the Gospel are not themes of the OT. It was not enough for some readers that I identified in the OT a redemptive thread and a prophetic motif that takes Messianic shape (OK, maybe that adds up to a theme—fine, I won’t quibble any more over semantics if it prevents heart attacks). For some, though, calling these “a” theme is not enough—I must instead call these “the” theme of the Old Testament. Sorry—can’t go there, heart attack or no.

Why not? Because I see the Gospel as only a piece of God’s decree, not the whole. God extracts glory from his universe via the Gospel, to be sure. But he also extracts glory and satisfaction from his universe apart from the Gospel—from the heavens (Ps 19:1), the angels (Job 38:7; Ps 148:2), the pre-fall universe (Gen 1:31), and even the damned (Rom 9:22). All this leaves me uncomfortable with saying that it’s all about the Gospel.

Certainly the Gospel of God’s special grace in Christ is a big deal. You can’t enter the Kingdom of Christ without it. But there is also in God’s universal kingdom a common or civic aspect, detailed in the dominion mandate, formalized under Noah, and realized in part in the Jewish theocracy, that operates independently of and even prior to the theme of Gospel. And much of the Old Testament revolves around the theme of covenant faithfulness within whatever dispensational arrangement in which one found himself.

I’m not saying that one can be SAVED by covenant faithfulness (the error of the New Perspective, and perhaps also a few key early dispensationalists [Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1115 n. 2]). Salvation is secured only by trust in the redemptive promises of God that find their fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ, who bore the sins of and extended his own righteousness to all in every age who will believe. Please don’t hear me say anything else.

What I AM saying is that there is more to God’s plan than merely saving people. And so I’m comfortable (with this explanation) agreeing with Ryrie that the underlying purpose of God in the world is not the Gospel, but God’s Glory.

A Country Drive in the Old Testament

OK, so I'm preparing two new classes for seminary this semester: Old Testament Historical Books and Old Testament Theology. I'm still blissfilly doing theology and history (my first two loves), but restricting my focus to the Old Testament. And so while I still find myself still thinking about contemporary theological concerns, I'm running them through the grid of the Old Testament. And I've got this growing sense that something is awry. The buzz today is THE GOSPEL. We have gospel coalitions, we get together for the gospel, the catchwords of the day are "gospel-centered," "Cross-centered," "Christ-centered," and so on. And I get all that: the gospel IS a big deal. No argument here.

But since I've spent almost all my study time in the OT during the last two months, it's almost as though I've left the Gospel Carnival behind. Kind of like going for a drive in the country, but better. It's been very refreshing, but the funny thing is that, despite the fact that I have been spending considerably more time than normal in my Bible for the past two months, I've read virtually nothing about Christ, the Cross, or the Gospel.

Now some of you are probably shaking your heads right now and saying, "This guy doesn't know how to read his Bible--it's ALL about Christ if you know how to successfully navigate between the lines!" And I'm not blind to the redemptive thread that winds through the Bible. But the thing is, when I stop reading between the lines and just start reading the lines, Christ and the Gospel do not emerge as major OT themes. In fact, they're not themes at all.

And so I'm musing here. If robust faith and rigid separatism could flourish in the OT without reference to the themes of Christ and the Gospel, is it really possible to jettison everything else today and base fellowship strictly or even primarily upon fidelity to the Gospel? I wonder...

Upcoming Events at DBTS

There are a couple of public events coming up at Detroit Baptist Seminary next month for any readers that might have interest in them.

The first is our annual Rice Lecture Series, a series that the seminary introduced six years ago as a means to supplementing the standard seminary education with discourses of academic interest, each by an expert in his given field. The 2011 series theme will be “Millions of Years and the Compromise of the Theologians,” and the lecturer will be Terry Mortenson, distinguished researcher and lecturer with Answers in Genesis. Last year I spent a week with Dr. Mortenson on an creation/flood study trip through the Grand Canyon and can attest personally both to his passion and to his erudition on this topic.

The lecture series will convene from 8:30 a.m. to Noon on Wednesday, March 2, 2011, and will be followed by a complementary luncheon and time for interaction. Our target audience is seminarians, college students, pastors, and other church leaders. There is no cost to attend the lectures or the luncheon. However, advance registration is requested. Please contact the Seminary by email at info@dbts.edu, or by phone at 313.381.0111, ext. 402. Additional information about the Rice Lectures and media resources from previous lecture series can be found on the seminary website.

There will also be a follow-up session during the normal seminary chapel slot on Thursday, March 3rd (10:30-11:20 a.m.), on the theme “Ape-men and the Compromise of the Theologians.”

The second seminary event is our Seminary Days, designed to introduce prospective students to the "normal" seminary experience. Those attending will attend regular classes, share meals with faculty and students, and see firsthand the ministries of Inter-City Baptist Church. The 2011 seminary days will meet on March 10-11 and March 17-18, with an option to extend your visit through the weekend to view some of our outreach efforts and also to worship with our church family for the Sunday services. The seminary will cover all expenses for this event, including transportation (with the exception of a $50 deposit for those wishing to fly). Additional information about Seminary Days can be found at the seminary website.

Christ in All the Scriptures?

A little over a year ago I posted a critical muse about Christocentricism that, despite the minimal interaction, has proven the most heavily trafficked of all the entries I've ever posted. Apparently, it struck either a chord or a nerve. A year later and on the heels of an outstanding post on this topic by Rod Decker, while poking about in Luke 24, I stumbled again upon one of the key proof texts of the Christocentrists and decided to give it a closer look. What I found was interesting. Note the following two translations of verse 27:

• esv: Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, [Jesus] interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
• niv: Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, [Jesus] explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

The esv rendering suggests that there are “things concerning Christ” in every Scripture. This interpretation is grammatically possible. The niv rendering, however, is also grammatically possible (and, incidentally, if one follows a major textual variant in this verse, grammatically necessary—see NA27). I also find the niv reading more theologically satisfying. In short, the niv reading acknowledges that there are many things about Christ in the OT Scriptures, but falls short of insinuating that Christ permeates the whole of the Old Testament.

It certainly will not do to deny that there are prophetic references to Christ in the OT (see, e.g., Luke 24:45; John 5:39; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.). But it is equally unwarranted to conclude from Luke 24:27 that every OT text speaks to/about Christ or even that the primary focus of the OT is Christ. As important as Christ is to the Christian message, it is too ambitious to say that the Bible is all about Christ. The Bible is instead all about God. To narrow this to a single member of the Godhead not only smacks of a sort of Unitarianism, but also leads inevitably to the transformation of exegesis into so much agenda-driven speculation under the guise of typology or old-fashioned allegory.

MAS