In the last installment, we defined theology as “disciplined reflection on God’s self-revelation, for the purposes of knowing and loving God, and participating in his mission in this world.” In future installments, we will talk about the audience of theology, the tools of theology, and the relationship of theology to other disciplines such as theology and philosophy. But first, I want to take a moment to speak about the relationship of theology to the four concepts mentioned above: Scripture and its grand narrative, as well as worship, obedience, and mission.[1] First, theology arises out of the biblical narrative. The Bible is composed of sixty six books with multiple genres, and is written by numerous authors in a diversity of historical and cultural contexts. However, this diversity is part of a beautiful unity which can be seen in the Bible’s overarching story. This story begins with God’s creation and humanity’s rebellion, and then proceeds with God’s unfolding plan of redemption. The biblical narrative is the true story of the whole world. Furthermore, it is dramatic in nature, inviting us into the story so that the story will shape our lives. Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen write, “[The biblical narrative] functions as the authoritative Word of God for us when it becomes the one basic story through which we understand our own experience and thought, and the foundation upon which we base our decisions and our actions.”[2] Finally, this narrative is un-substitutable: it should not be discarded in favor of alliterated moralisms, philosophical syllogisms, devotional truisms, or any other substitute.

Second, theology arises from and issues forth in worship and obedience. On the one hand, theology arises from worship as we seek to understand, conceptualize, and articulate the God whom we cherish. Likewise, theology arises from obedience; if we want to know and love God more truly, will allow ourselves to be conformed to the image of Christ, in order that we will be able to see him and hear him more clearly. On the other hand, theology issues forth in worship and obedience. Michael Horton writes, “When the doctrine is understood in the context of its dramatic narrative, we find ourselves dumbfounded by God’s grace in Jesus Christ, surrendering to doxology (praise). Far from masters, we are mastered; instead of seizing the truth, we are seized by it, captivated by God’s gift, to which we can only say, ‘Amen!’ and ‘Praise the Lord’.”[3] Without close attention to the biblical narrative and its attendant evangelical doctrine, our worship and obedience are at best unfocused and at worst idolatrous. However, when we consciously submit to the biblical narrative and its teaching, the flame of our worship and obedience is fueled by the oxygen of Word and Spirit.

Third, theology arises from, and issues forth in mission. The early church is a prime example. On the one hand their theology arose in the midst of their God-given mission. Paul’s epistles, for example, were written as he proclaimed the gospel, planted churches, and suffered for the sake of his faith. But on the other hand, their robust and powerful theology caused their mission to flourish.[4] This mutually beneficial relationship arises from the fact that God’s Triune nature is the foundation of mission and his Triune life provides the pattern for mission.[5] God is missional, therefore theology is missional. Mission is based upon God, therefore mission is theological.[6] The biblical narrative, from which Christian theology arises, is nothing if not a missional narrative.[7] Any theology that purports to be Christian but does not arise from mission and issue forth in mission is not a truly Christian theology at all.

[2] Craig G. Bartholomew and Michael W. Goheen, The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 21.

[3] Horton, The Christian Faith, 22.

[4] See I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004), 34-37, 717-726.  Marshall argues that mission is the core of the New Testament.

[5] For further reading on the Triune God as the foundation and pattern of mission, see Keith Whitfield, “The Triune God: The God of Mission,” in Theology and Practice of Mission, ed. Bruce Riley Ashford (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2011), 17-34.

[6] This is a central thread in Christopher Wright’s grand treatment of mission as a hermeneutical key for the biblical narrative. Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove: IVP, 2006).

[7] For a brief exposition of the biblical narrative in relation to the concept of mission, see Bruce Riley Ashford, “The Story of Mission: The Grand Biblical Narrative,” in Theology and Practice of Mission, ed. Bruce Riley Ashford (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2011), 6-16.

What is theology? If we are going to reflect upon theology, we must first define it. There exist as many definitions of theology as there are theologians, and the various ways of defining it are not necessarily opposed to one another, but one way to put it is to say that it is “disciplined reflection on God’s self-revelation, for the purposes of knowing and loving God, and participating in his mission in this world.”[1] Theology is disciplined reflection on God’s self-revelation, because the God we know, love, and obey has revealed himself in times past through his mighty acts, through his prophets and apostles, and through the incarnation of his Son, and now reveals himself through his written Word (cf. Heb. 1:1-2). This written Word is the primary source upon which a theologian draws, and is the norm by which we measure any other theological source (e.g. church tradition).

Further, theology is done for the purpose of knowing and loving God, and participating in his mission in this world. The task of theology is cognitive, affective, and dispositional. It aims at the head, the heart, and the hands. J. L. Dagg writes, “The study of religious truth ought to be undertaken and prosecuted from a sense of duty, and with a view to the improvement of the heart. When learned, it ought not to be laid on the shelf, as an object of speculation; but it should be deposited deep in the heart, where its sanctifying power ought to be felt.”[2] Theology entails more than merely acquiring information about God; it entails affection for God and submission to God. When the theologian properly attends to the cognitive, affective, and dispositional dimensions of the task, he is able to glorify God’s name. Herman Bavinck writes, “… a theologian, a true theologian, is one who speaks out of God, through God, about God, and does this always to the glorification of His name.”[3] The task of theology, therefore, is to glorify God by knowing, loving, and serving him.

One of the things I’m really driving at here is the fact that theology should not be an ivory-tower enterprise. When it becomes disconnected from God’s church and her mission, and when it becomes an endeavor undertaken by isolated “intellectuals” who are not actively serving God and hischurch, it ceases to be a truly Christian theology. When Paul did theology, he did it in the midst of ministry and mission. And his theology furthered the ministry and mission. So there is a mutually beneficial relationship between Christian theology and Christian ministry. We will talk more about this in a later installment.

[2] J. L. Dagg, A Manual of Theology (Harrisonburg, VA: Gano, 1982), 13.

[3] Herman Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith (Grand Rapids: Michigan, 1956), 31.

In all seriousness, however, I loved Systematic Theology. There is nothing more satisfying, more unsettling, more helpful, and more practical than asking the really big questions about God, man, salvation, the church, and last things. First and foremost, we studied the text of Scripture, drawing upon the resources of the entire canon to answer each question. Along the way, however, we investigated what the church fathers and the Reformers had to say on any of these doctrines, and learned to defend and apply those same doctrines. I was forced to write my first bona fide research paper. I had never written a paper in Turabian style and had no idea how to argue a thesis. I chose to argue for the divine inspiration theory of Scripture (vs. human constructivist and human response models). After having mustered all of my bibliographic, analytic, and stylistic resources, I managed to complete my paper. I received it graded the next week. At the end of the paper, Dr. Patterson devoted several paragraphs of red ink to the shortcomings of my paper, gave me a few words of encouragement, and then ended with this sentence, which I will never forget: “Mr. Ashford, we will make a real scholar of you yet, if it kills us both in the process.” Hmmm. Even though I had just been informed that (1) I was not a real scholar, and (2) that to make me one might actually kill my professor in the process, I found myself encouraged, oddly enough, that I might one day make a decent theologian. There was light at the end of the tunnel.

Since that day, many things have changed. I lived and served in Central Asia for two years, came back to the States to work on a Ph.D. in Theology, worked in student ministry as an itinerant preacher, was hired to teach intellectual history at The College at Southeastern, transferred over to the mission department, got married to Lauren and had two little girls, became a pastor/elder at The Summit Church, and finally now split my time between the theology and missiology departments at Southeastern. Throughout all of these changes, however, one of the things that did not change was the desire to do theology—the desire to know and love God, and participate with him on his mission. There is nothing more important, more rewarding, more practical, or more exciting than “doing theology.” And, in fact, every Christian is called to be a theologian (although most will not be professional theologians or systematic theologians, per se) precisely because theology is all about knowing and loving God, and joining him in his mission.

Now, I find myself teaching theology at Southeastern, and trying to explain to first and second year students how one goes about the task of theology. I have not found this to be an easy endeavor (and I’ve got a long way to go until I can do it well) but it has been a rewarding journey and fruitful in many ways.

The present blog installment is the first in an ongoing series, “Doing Theology as a Servant of Jesus,” which will deal with the task of theology, including questions such as: What is the purpose of theology? What is the relationship of theology to worship, discipleship, and mission? Why do we have confidence that we can know anything at all about God? Should our theology be affected by such things as reason, culture, experience, and church tradition? What is the relationship between theology and philosophy? Between theology and science? Between faith and learning? Who is our primary audience when we do theology? These are deep and powerful questions and, unfortunately, our treatment of them will have to be concise and in most cases surface-level. But hopefully the series somehow will be helpful in sustaining an ongoing conversation on the most exciting endeavor in all of God’s good creation: doing theology as a servant of Jesus.

1. Tell us a bit about yourself, your family, and your ministry.

I’ve taught at Southeastern for 15 years and have directed our Ph.D. program for over a decade. My wife Marny and I have 4 children, 3 of whom are teenagers, which is at once a great joy and a serious God-given responsibility. I love teaching, writing, and, yes, administration! I also serve as Director of Acquisitions for B&H Academic and edit the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. If you want to know more, or simply keep up, please check out my new, updated website at http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/or follow me on Twitter @akostenberger.

2. What was the impetus for writing this book? And why did you feel the need to write it?

Interpreting the Bible accurately is one of the most important responsibilities every Christian has, and is especially important for those who teach and preach God’s Word to others. Ever since I became a Christian, God has given me a burden to excel in this area and to pass on what I’ve learned to others, especially to those entrusted with the preaching ministry in our local churches. Too often, I’ve sat in the pews and have seen preachers fall short in this area. In my years of teaching biblical interpretation at the college, graduate, and doctoral levels, I’ve had a hard time finding a book that’s fully congenial to the way I teach and students best learn in my experience. Invitation to Biblical Interpretation is the product of 10 years of work in collaboration with my contributor, Dick Patterson, who is a seasoned Old Testament scholar and one of the wisest, godliest, and most erudite men I know.

3. What is the primary argument of the book?

In the book, we teach that, no matter what the type of literature you’re dealing with, you should look at the passage’s historical background, literary context, and theological message. I call this the “hermeneutical triad”—history, literature, and theology. When exploring the “literature” aspect of the triad, I recommend that students look at the canonical, genre-related, and linguistic features of the passage.

4. What, above all, do you wish for readers to know and/or do because of the book?

I would encourage them to adopt the hermeneutical triad as their basic method of study—looking at the history, literature, and theology found in a given passage. To that end, the final chapter of the book (thanks to my colleague and friend Scott Kellum) provides practical tips on how to preach from the different biblical genres and guidance on what the best biblical studies tools are and how to use them. On the Kregel website, there will also be chapter quizzes, a study chart, and a set of PowerPoints for teachers who will be using Invitation to Biblical Interpretation in the classroom.

Finally, we would like to point our readers to a sample reading of Invitation (including its endorsements) here, graciously made available by Westminster bookstore.

Unfortunately, every healthy trend sometimes includes unhealthy elements—such is to live in a fallen world. We gospel-centered types need to be reminded of our own shortcomings. In fact, there’s something profoundly gospel-centered about understanding the depths of your own sin so that you can rest anew in the good news of all that God has done through the person and work of King Jesus.

In his excellent book Gospel: Rediscovering the Power That Made Christianity Revolutionary (B&H, 2010), pastor J.D. Greear includes a helpful appendix titled “A Gospel-Centered Warning to Young Zealous Theologians.” Like me, J.D. is a thirty-something Southern Baptist who talks about the gospel all the time. He’s also the pastor of a megachurch whose membership is largely comprised of gospel-centered collegians and young professionals. J.D. also teaches adjunctively at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, a school blessed with a student body that, on the whole, very much wants to be gospel-centered. All this to say, his convicting words should be read and heeded by everyone who regularly visits the Gospel Coalition website, follows Tullian Tchividjian on Twitter, reads Jerry Bridges books, and soaks up Tim Keller sermons. You know, people like me and J.D.

J.D. and our friends at B&H Books have kindly granted me permission to make “A Gospel-Centered Warning to Young Zealous Theologians” available online. I’ve reprinted it below. I hope you find this material as helpful as I have. I also hope it encourages you to purchase a copy of Gospel and read the whole book. For those of you who are pastors or other ministry leaders, Gospel would make a great book for a church staff to read and discuss together.

“A Gospel-Centered Warning to Young Zealous Theologians”

By J.D. Greear

I’ve noticed that many of us who grasp this concept of “gospel-centeredness” can have a tendency to be more excited about the “theory” of gospel-centeredness than we are about the gospel itself. At least I’m that way. I have gotten pretty good at identifying non-gospel-centered preaching, and can pretty ably point out the shortcomings of certain ministries. The point of gospel-centeredness, however, is not the shrewd ability to critique others. The point of gospel-centeredness is to adore God and worship His grace.

Many of us who love to talk about gospel-centeredness seem to possess very little of the humility that should go along with it. You can see that in how self-promoting we are and how ungracious we are with others. It always amazes me that we can be proud because we understand the very things that should lead us to humility.

My mind has often burned hotter with the latest theological trend than it has passion for the God who gave Himself for me at the cross. Knowledge that does not lead, ultimately, to love and humility is “worthless,” Paul would say. What really counts, he says, is not knowledge by itself, but the love that our knowledge of the gospel should produce (1 Cor. 12:1–3).

One of my fears in writing this book is that it might contribute to a growing self-righteousness among younger theologians who feel like understanding gospel-centeredness makes them more special in the eyes of God (oh, the irony!) than those who can’t articulate it, and who judge everyone else by whether or not they use the same terms that they do.

Recently, I talked with a little old lady who had been my Sunday school teacher at the very traditional church in which I grew up. She said, “You know, as I lose more and more friends to heaven, I often wonder what it is really like up there and what I should be looking forward to. I know they say there are streets of gold, but that doesn’t seem to excite me very much. The one thing I really want to do is see Jesus.” This lady has never heard of John Piper and has no idea what the Gospel Coalition is, but she has been changed by the gospel. She loves Jesus, and that is the whole point of gospel-centeredness.

There are many little old ladies serving in church nurseries who may not understand how to articulate the theories of gospel-centeredness or have the ingenuity to dazzle our minds with psychological insights, cultural observations, and Christocentric interpretations of obscure Old Testament passages. Their hearts, however, burn with love for Jesus and overflow with gratefulness for His grace.

Their humble, gospel-rich love for God is worth more than all the books you or I can write on this subject.

So don’t be quick to judge them. Be humbled by them. Mastering the theory of gospel-centeredness is not the point. Loving the God of the gospel is.

See J.D. Greear, Gospel: Rediscovering the Power That Made Christianity Revolutionary (Nashville, TN: B&H Books, 2010), pp. 253–55.

Is the Cooperative Program Worthy of Sacrifice?

by Nathan Finn and Micah Fries

We are concerned. As we look across our beloved Southern Baptist Convention, we see a problem that is significant, and is growing. Sadly, statistics inform us that this is an issue across the entire spectrum of  SBC life, regardless of location or age and type of congregation. This issue is no respecter of persons. Our shared commitment to the Cooperative Program (CP) is on a precipitous decline. We believe this is a great tragedy that bodes ill for our Convention’s future.

Lest you think we’re simply writing to stump for the CP, please understand that we believe there are vital modifications which need to be made to the CP. Micah has started to address some of those concerns here and here. However, despite our views concerning needed reforms, we absolutely remain convinced of the viability, even more so , the continued centrality of the CP as a means of partnering together for mission. Which brings us to what concerns us.

This summer, at the SBC Annual Meeting in Phoenix, Executive Committee President Frank Page issued a challenge to Southern Baptists. After noting that CP giving has steadily decreased over the previous generation, Dr. Page urged every Southern Baptist pastor and local church to consider increasing their CP giving by one percent. He argued that this seemingly small increase would lead to a significant influx of money that could be used for kingdom purposes.

An article in the December 2011 issue of SBC Life elaborates a bit on the effects a one percent increase in CP giving would have on our denominational ministries. Assuming tithes and offerings to local churches remain close to 2010 numbers, about $89 million more dollars would be given through the CP. According to present CP distribution, that would equal about $55 million more for state conventions and $34 million more for SBC agencies. The International Mission Board would receive an extra $17 million, while the North American Mission Board would see an increase of almost $8 million. Our seminaries would receive about $7.5 million more, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission would see an increase of $500,000, and the Executive Committee would gain an extra $1 million.

These dollar increases would have a dramatic effect on our Convention’s ministries. According to SBC Life, “This [increase] would allow the IMB immediately to appoint 375 new missionaries, NAMB to expand church planting support, and the seminaries and ERLC to address numerous maintenance, capital, and moral advocacy needs.” While the article didn’t directly address state conventions (SBC Life is published by the Executive Committee), a one percent increase would have a similar effect on state ministries. We appreciate the heart of Dr. Page’s call for a one percent increase to CP giving and we hope that thousands of churches will consider how they might give more generously to the CP.

Having said that, we want to highlight a theme that is often neglected in current discussions about the Cooperative Program: shared sacrifice. We are increasingly concerned with Southern Baptist pastors and churches who are diminishing their commitment to doing mission together primarily through the CP. We believe a recovery of a sense of shared sacrifice among our churches could lead to an increased commitment to CP giving that, Lord willing, would eventually amount to much more than one percent.

For many years, it was common to hear Southern Baptist leaders talk about the need for churches to sacrificially give to the Cooperative Program. While this language hasn’t totally disappeared, it’s not nearly as common as it used to be. We believe that it is a priority which Southern Baptists need to recover. In fact, we believe that a major reason—perhaps the major reason—CP giving is down is because most churches give to the Cooperative Program conveniently rather than sacrificially. They give to the CP, but only insofar as that support doesn’t drastically affect their budget or their giving to other ministry priorities.

We want to issue our own Cooperative Program challenge. We want to urge churches to consider giving sacrificially to the CP, to be willing to stretch themselves for the sake of gospel advance. Giving sacrificially can easily be neglected when we use phrases that diminish the reality that the CP is an ingenious means of financially partnering for the sake of mission. When we use phrases like “denominational machine” or “bureaucracy” in reference to the CP, it becomes far too easy to dismiss the CP. When we treat the Cooperative Program as a mere program, we neglect the fact that the CP is, in fact, a tremendous method through which we channel funding to take the gospel to the nations.

We recognize that the sacrifice we’re calling for will look different in each congregation. Some churches will forego renovations or building programs, or at least consider spending less money on such projects. We think this would be an appropriately countercultural move in an affluent society. Others will consider training more volunteers to serve in the place of paid staff. We think churches should be doing this anyway (see Ephesians 4:11–12). Still others will consider cutting some of the money they budget for their own ministries. We think most churches have at least one or two projects or programs that, when placed under a microscope, aren’t vital to that church’s wellbeing or gospel advance. Understand that these are just ideas—the sacrifice will be contextual to each congregation.

As younger leaders in our 30s, we want to take a minute to speak frankly to our generational contemporaries. To be candid, some of you have reaped the benefits of the Cooperative Program but you refuse to give generously, let alone sacrificially, to the CP. Like us, many of you have received a college and/or seminary education that was substantially subsidized by the CP. Some of you have served as short-term foreign missionaries with IMB or received NAMB funds to plant a church. You have gladly accepted these moneys, but now you refuse to invest in the very system that has provided you with so much. When we see this attitude, we are grieved. This appears to be, in a best case scenario, the result of ignorance; in the worst case scenario, it could be outright hypocrisy.  In recent conversations with state convention staff and others, we’ve been shocked at the number of churches led by younger pastors who give little or nothing to the work of Southern Baptists through the CP.

We want to urge younger Southern Baptist pastors and church planters to lead their churches to give sacrificially to the Cooperative Program. We want to plead with you to educate your congregations as to how the CP works. We want to implore you to become Great Commission champions in part by becoming Cooperative Program advocates. We want to encourage you to join all Southern Baptists in those ministries we all have deemed important. We want you to take ownership of the shared mission strategy that, by God’s grace, helped enable so many of you to get to where you are today.

We know that many of you have concerns about the stewardship of some CP funds. We know you are concerned the CP is too impersonal. We know you fear the bureaucratic inflation that tempts almost all large organizations, including the SBC. We know you want more money going to evangelism and church planting and less going to salaries and overhead. Hear us say that we share your concerns. But we also believe that those who give are those who earn the right to offer friendly suggestions about ways to improve the Cooperative Program. And while there is room for improvement, we remain convinced the CP is a wise strategy for cooperating together for the sake of the gospel.

The fact is, the Cooperative Program is a significant part of who we are as Southern Baptists. The CP isn’t our only distinctive, or even our most important distinctive, but it is most certainly a defining distinctive of the Southern Baptist Convention and has been so for nearly a century. In light of this, if we may be so bold, we want to call upon our fellow Southern Baptists, and especially younger Southern Baptists, to not be afraid of linking arms with all Southern Baptists as we partner together in this manner of doing mission. This is the Southern Baptist way, and while it may not be a perfect way, we’re convinced it remains the best way. Southern Baptists are committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ, the full inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, the primacy of the local Baptist church, and the importance of cooperation for the sake of the gospel. This is who we are. Let’s recommit to partnering together, especially through the Cooperative Program, to advance Christ’s gospel across North America and to the uttermost parts of the earth.

“In recent days, missiologists and missionaries have become aware of ‘Insider Movements,’ which represent a new phenomenon and a new strategy in Muslim evangelism.[2] Insider Movements (IM) are movements within the Muslim world in which Muslim background believers choose to remain within Islam as a means of reaching Muslims. Some of them acknowledge Christ as their Savior only privately. IM proponents argue that this type of contextualization allows the convert to overcome significant barriers in order to incarnate like Jesus and Paul. Further, they argue that Christ does not require a convert to change his cultural identity or religion, and that the convert is free to reinterpret passages of the Qur’an so that he doesn’t have to renounce it as a whole. In addition, many IM proponents seem to see Islam as similar to OT Judaism and therefore not inherently opposed to the gospel.

We believe that IM strategy is fundamentally flawed for various reasons, but for now we will seek to show why theological method matters in adjudicating this issue. As we see it, the fundamental methodological flaw in many IM advocate’s strategy is their starting point—the existential reality of a Muslim background believer. IM proponents appear to begin with the lived existential tensions of being a convert in a Muslim context. In such environments, there are many barriers, including the strong aversion to “changing religions,” which is tantamount in those cultures to changing ones ethnic, national, and familial identity. Further these environments are also persecution-heavy, a convert faces the very real possibility of losing his job and family and perhaps even his life. Proceeding from such a difficult starting point, some IM proponents find a way to those converts.  In order to do so, some IM proponents hold to an overly privatized and reductionist view of salvation in which a person gives mental assent to Christ as Savior, but does not fully embrace or implement the doctrines of repentance and Lordship. Second, some IM proponents do not recognize the importance of the redeemed community for the working out of one’s salvation (although others, such as Kevin Higgins, strongly emphasize the role of believing communities meeting together separate from the mosque for the purpose of Christian community and discipleship). Third many IM advocates misunderstand Islam, which exists as a religion custom-built to subvert and overthrow Trinitarian Christianity. Its Aryan Jesus and its doctrines of tawhid and shirk make clear that the worst possible sin for a Muslim is to believe in the Christian doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation. In sum, these three doctrinal missteps occurred in part because of a flawed theological starting point—the existential reality of Muslim converts.

We argue that if IM proponents began with the entire canon of Scripture as their starting point, and took into account  what can be learned from church history, they would arrive at a different conclusion while still caring deeply for, and being sensitive to, the existential burdens and challenges facing converts in a Muslim context. In taking into account the entire biblical teaching, we respond to the first misstep by offering the biblical teaching concerning Christ’s Lordship (Col. 1:13-23) and the necessity of human repentance (2 Pet 3:9; Lk 14:25-33). Indeed, believers in any global religious context must turn their backs on false saviors; they must repudiate tribal gods and witch doctors; they must reject their belief that the Qur’an is God’s revelation and that Muhammad is his prophet; they must cease to worship in spirit temples and ancestral shrines; they must turn their back on the worship of sex, money, power, and other metaphorical idols. This is a fundamental tenet of Christianity. We respond to the second misstep by offering a robust ecclesiology in which we are not only saved from our sins, but are saved for discipleship in the context of the believing community, a community that clearly distinguishes itself from other communities of worship. Indeed, God’s church is a sign of the kingdom and an instrument of the kingdom in a way that individual converts never can be (especially if those converts are still identifying themselves as Muslims and attending mosque services). The body of Christ, working together, bears robust and powerful witness to Christ. We respond to the third misstep by offering the biblical teaching on idolatry (Rom 1:14-32), in which Islam must be viewed as idolatrous and antithetical to Trinitarian Christianity and to the doctrines of grace.

One should note that the persecuted believers of the New Testament faced a similar situation in which they worshiped in the midst of rival religions. In particular, they found themselves in direct opposition to the cult of Caesar. Instead of blending in with the cult, they found appropriate ways to make clear their allegiance to Christ. They baptized, gathered together for worship, and refused to recognize Caesar as a god. Theirs was a faith which was forged the midst of strong Christian churches which clearly distinguished themselves from rival religious communities, such as the cult of Caesar. Although the (commendable) aim of IM proponents is to help new converts maintain familial and communal connections, IM unintentionally undermines the role of the church in nurturing faith, building community, and bearing witness to the kingdom, and it undermines the robust nature of the doctrine of salvation, which includes Lordship, repentance, and discipleship.

In summary, a healthy theological method recognizes the entire biblical canon and brings its full teaching to bear on any situation; further it allows the canon to be provide the framework and parameters in which we craft our ministry strategies, methods, and literature, rather than allowing a lived existential scenario to provide the framework and parameters.”

[2] For two insider descriptions of IM, see Kevin Higgins, “The Key to Insider Movements: The ‘Devoted’s’ of Acts,” IJFM 21 (Winter 2004): 155, and Rebecca Lewis, “Promoting Movements to Christ within Natural Communities,” IJFM 24 (Summer 2007): 75. IM advocates note that some IM believers have indeed been killed for their bold witness.

There is quite a bit of talk these days about the future of the Southern Baptist Convention (or whatever it is we’ll be called by the time we get there). Much of it is negative. Some are worried about the number of SBC congregations that evidence declining membership and baptism statistics. Others are worried about the ongoing viability of the Cooperative Program. Some are uncomfortable with certain individuals in either real or perceived positions of denominational leadership and/or influence. Others are worried that a particular theological or cultural agenda will overwhelm and ultimately destroy the SBC. Some are nervous about younger leaders, while others are dissatisfied with more seasoned leaders. And some just pronounce a pox on all the houses within Southern Baptist suburbia.

I admit that I struggle with negativity from time to time. To be totally candid, it’s hard to study Southern Baptists for a living and not get discouraged on occasion. But I study American Christianity in general enough to know that every denomination has its peculiar strengths and weaknesses. Our denominational neuroses are particularly irksome because, well, they’re ours, but the grass isn’t that much greener in other groups—it’s just a different breed of grass. So rather than despairing over the cranky and delusional among us, I prefer to focus on the good. And there is a lot of good.

Back to graduation. One reason I refuse to despair about the SBC is because, as a seminary professor, I have a unique vantage point on the future of the Convention. Simply put, I’m personally acquainted with hundreds of (mostly) younger Southern Baptist pastors, missionaries, and other younger leaders. Their zeal is contagious. Their orthodoxy is robust. Their burden for evangelism and missions is inspiring. Their commitment to the local church is deep-rooted. They are a constant encouragement to me.

Some are worried because they perceive that these younger ministers lack commitment to the SBC. I confess that I’ve met a few for whom this is the case. But by far most of the seminarians and recent graduates I know are strongly committed to the SBC. They believe what we believe. They appreciate our approach to cooperative ministry and missions. They want to be Southern Baptists. Even those students who are “on the edge” are frequently those who were raised Southern Baptist and deeply love the SBC—so much so that the cranky and delusional voices gnaw at them and push them away. They are tempted to give in to the despair.

You need to know that I’m on a personal mission to do my part to prevent that from happening. We can’t afford to lose the next generation. And make no mistake about it—these aren’t denominational apostates who “went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us.” No, these are folks who want to remain part of us, but (understandably) bristle at some of the frankly outrageous things that some Southern Baptists say and do—occasionally even those who are, or have been denominational leaders. I try my best to convince students and others that the SBC is bigger than any single personality and better than the conspiracy theorists and frankly mean-spirited among us. Many on the ledge come to agree with me, and I’m thankful for every one.

Graduation is a biannual reminder that God is always at work setting apart a rising generation of pastors and other leaders. Among the people called Southern Baptist, he’s doing some exciting things, no matter what you might have heard from a misinformed denominational servant, a malcontent pastor, or a malevolent blogger. God isn’t finished with us yet, and I remain convinced that the course correction that began in the latter third of the twentieth century will continue to bear good fruit long into the future.

I’m thankful for our graduates and for their peers in our sister institutions. I’m thankful that almost all of them are convictional and committed Southern Baptists. I remain hopeful that most of the few who are convictional, but not committed will change their mind as they see the many good things that God is doing in and through Southern Baptists. And I remain very hopeful that our best days lie ahead, should God continue to desire to work through our Convention of local Baptist churches for his glory.

(This post was cross-published at Christian Thought & Tradition)

Great is Thy Faithfulness? thus aims at rigorous interpretation and application of Lamentations. As such, the main contents of the book fall in two main parts. Part 1 address issues in hermeneutics and in reading the text in its canonical context. Heath Thomas discusses the subject of reading Lamentations as “Holy Scripture” (ch. 1) and Paul R. House explores the theology of Lamentations (ch. 2). Part 2 discusses the application of Lamentations: coeditor Robin Parry addresses the use of Lamentations in Christian worship (ch. 3), and Ian Stackhouse provides pastoral thoughts on the work of Lamentations in shaping our church cultures (ch. 4). In between, Great is Thy Faithfulness? features essays on the Jewish, Messianic Jewish, Christian, and Artistic and Contemporary reception of Lamentations. Jacob Neusner (Bard College), Paul Joyce (Oxford University), David Hogg (Beeson Divinity School, Samford University), Richard Harvey (All Nations College) and many others contribute to these helpful sections.

1. Dr. Thomas, tell us a bit about yourself, your family, and your ministry.

First, thank you very much for this kind invitation. It is a delight to share a little bit of my story and I always enjoy talking about my family! My wife, Jill, grew up in Texas and that is where we met. I was working on my master’s degree in theology and she was working on her nursing degree. We met through a mutual friend, dated, and then married. Our children (Harrison, Isabelle, Simon & Sophia) are so much fun. We are always tired – four is a lot of work – but it is a very happy and satisfied kind of tired. I spent some time with my grandparents in the mountains of east Tennessee (where they live) a few weeks ago, and asked them how they managed to raise SIX children and still made out alive. My grandfather laughed and said that he couldn’t really remember…but he and my grandmother are still here…so that gives Jill and me hope!! My parents are from that region of the world as well, but now live in Texas. I grew up in a wonderful home. My father was a pastor for forty or so years and now mentors pastors and works as President of C3 Global, a network that provides community, training to pastors and leaders, and facilitates mission efforts, most recently in Haiti.

My academic training took me to Oklahoma, Texas, and then the United Kingdom. I had the privilege of working in the UK with fantastic scholars from the Universities of Gloucestershire and Oxford. My wife and I found that experience to be incredibly rewarding, as the Lord challenged and changed us. We lived and worked in a context far removed from the confines and familiarity of the USA. We saw a different world, serving two churches while there, one a city church and the other a village church. Both, however, were gifts of God. I had served in two churches prior to moving to the UK, one in Oklahoma and the other in Texas, and it was absolutely incredible to see the same God at work in his world—from the Midwest of the US to the Midlands of the UK. Christ calls all people and all nations to himself.

When the Lord moved us to Southeastern Seminary, needless to say it was a big change. We had never lived in this context, and there were so many new things to learn. I had to re-acclimate myself to a context so filled with Christians and churches. But ironically, this was a real challenge. When I lived and taught in the UK, there was not a kind of “cultural Christianity” that marks so much of the US, especially the southern-fried-religion so talked about in the South. I found this kind of “cultural Christianity” in North Carolina. And I also found that some Christians were blissfully unaware of the challenges of the Christian faith — how it really does present a different worldview than the culture in which we live. It has been a joy to see the authentic Christianity on display in the lives of the students in the Seminary, in my neighborhood, and in my home church. I am passionate about seeing the life of the church align with the radical message of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is something very true when we say that Christ’s message confronts and invades the culture. It will not easily “mesh” with the culture of America without some serious distortion or compromise of the gospel.

2. What was the impetus for writing this book? And why did you feel the need to write it?

This book is the fruit of about six years of labor. It began when I was still living and working in England. I had a friend who was living up the road in Worcester, and he was writing a commentary on the book of Lamentations. We spoke fairly regularly and discovered separately and then together that this book…which of course is part of Holy Scripture…was virtually omitted from the life of our local churches. And when we began to reflect more deeply upon this, we discovered that it was not just our churches that had avoided or abandoned this portion of God’s Word, it was widespread in Evangelical churches. Well, this is, to say the least, a problem. If we embrace the Scriptures, in their totality, as God’s Word for the life of the church, then why have we played favorites? Why do we tend to lean on, say, Paul’s letters, the prophets, or the gospels to the neglect of other portions of Scripture? In this way, we discovered that the time was ripe to think deeply about hearing Lamentations as Sacred Scripture once again. When we read and preach this book, how do we do so? What do we need to hear from this book to hear the whispers of God’s Spirit in the ears of the church – rebuking her, directing her, or comforting her? We simply attempted to provide a way to access Lamentations so as to hear God’s address. We found that this is not an easy task.

The reason why such a book is important is because it takes seriously the role that the Scriptures —all the Scriptures – have in the life of the church. And it helps us think about how we understand the work and ministry of Christ in light of the testimony of the Old Testament. Personally, I found that this job could not be done by one person alone. So my coeditor and I began to think about how Lamentations has been heard through the centuries. We wanted to see what the church had to say about this book throughout the ages: in the patristic period, in the medieval period, in the Reformation, and in today’s church. We also wanted to see how others have read this book, including Jewish reception, its reception in the arts, worship, and music. We also wanted to make note of more recent trends as well. In so doing, we could zero in on the distinctive contributions of this book in history, and how it might make a distinctive contribution in today’s church.

3. What is the primary argument (thesis) of the book?

The primary argument is quite simple: Lamentations is a neglected book in the Scripture, but one that needs to be heard by the church for her life and ministry. The volume aims to demonstrate that by taking Lamentations as Holy Scripture and learning what it means within its own horizons, as a theological text, and in the life of the church. So, we have an introductory chapter discussing what it means to call Lamentations “Holy Scripture” followed by a chapter observing Lamentations within its Old Testament Horizons. The next major chapters include a theological interpretation of Lamentations and a pastoral reading of Lamentations from a Baptist pastor from Guilford, England. Interspersed between these major chapters are a series of “soundings” of Lamentations reception in history, including Lamentations’ reception in the Septuagint, in the Targum, in Rashi, in Jewish worship, in the patristic period, in the medieval period, in the Reformation, and in today’s church. There are other things addressed as well. The book concludes with new translations of the Targum Lamentations, the Septuagint of Lamentations. So there it is a kind of one-stop shop for what you need to know about this powerful little book.

4. What, above all, do you wish for readers to know and/or do because of the book?

Read the Bible…all of it!! Including the bits that are difficult to deal with like Lamentations. If we believe the Bible to be God’s Word, and a good word, that needs to be heard in the Church, then we must submit ourselves to all of its teaching. Lamentations has deep, vast, resources that will help and equip us for every good work in Christ Jesus. Second, I would say that it is very helpful to hear how others have received and read this book. Third, hopefully this book provides some helps on how Lamentations can be read and received in such a way to equip the Church in its service to Christ.

Reply:

I think the answer to these 2 questions is the same: our fraternal and family orientation.  We gain great strength by being a family or convention of Southern Baptist churches united by a passion for international missions, North American church planting and theological integrity.  Those are the three things that I mentioned in the “Axioms of a Great Commission Resurgence” message which I believe can unite Southern Baptists for the future.  Therein lies great strength.  However, some people wish to bring other issues to the table that go beyond these three.  I think that is problematic.  When that happens, I am convinced we harm ourselves rather than help ourselves.  To say it another way, one weakness of the SBC is that there is a desire on the part of some that we all look alike, act alike, and talk alike.  Some have even suggested that we have our own Southern Baptist liturgy, style of worship and particular way of doing church.  The fact is we have never been like that, and we will continue to be less so in the days ahead.  Any hegemony of style vanished long ago and it is not coming back.  We must resist a carbon copy mindset that is myopic and would keep us from seeing things more clearly in light of all that the Bible teaches.  Where God’s Word draws the lines we should draw the lines.

In that context, I do think that our greatest strength as we move forward into the 21^st century is our uncompromising commitment to an infallible and inerrant Bible and the doctrines that naturally derive from such teaching.  This can provide a way forward in spite of the methodological diversity, an increasing diversity I would add, that characterizes much of Baptist life.  Such diversity is both acceptable and even desired as long as it operates under the Lordship of Christ and within the parameters established by the Word of God.  Therein I believe lies our strength, and therein lies where we need to stand as we move forward in making disciples of all the nations.