Last Tuesday night I went out to Brentwood to attend one of the guy’s Bible studies that meets in our college ministry. It is getting near the end of the school year and they had me out so that they could pose a lot of different questions to me…to see if I could give them some sufficient answers to some difficult questions. What was really intriguing to me was that the questions they asked me, were really many of the same questions that I remember asking others when I was in college. It’s almost as if there is a path that people, or at least college guys, have to tread, and have certain questions answered, if they are to move forward. And I say college guys, because I think that I remember college girls asking different questions. That is a stereotype, but I don’t generally remember the guys and girls asking the same questions, though they both were important to one’s faith development. But, we were in non-coed Bible studies, so what do I know.

So it was no surprise that the first question posed to me was in regards to Romans 9:13-21. So you know where that question is going. Free will vs. determinism. Predestination. Etc. With some minor discussion about open theism.

Then the question meandered over to the problem of evil, or theodicy.

Then the discussion led to Biblical inerrancy and infallibility.

Then we ultimately closed with a lengthy discussion on Creation and issues relating to it. Was the earth created in 7 days? Are parts of Genesis to be taken literally, like the Creation account, the flood, etc.? What do we make of the multiple creation and flood stories in other cultures that predate and have similarities to the Biblical account?

That is the gist of the two hour conversation that I had with about eight guys last week. Needless to say that I was a little overwhelmed. Not because I hadn’t asked those same questions myself. Not because I haven’t already studied those ideas in detail. But rather, how do you answer tough questions, but allow people to come to the conclusions themselves; to mature and to grow. Meaning, how do you not just become the “Bible Answer Man” that spews out answers, but doesn’t challenge others to take on and own their faith and wrestle with the tough issues. These guys are all very smart guys, and they have taken on and owned their faith, and are clearly wrestling with these questions. And I think they were just generally interested in what I had to say, especially as I have been pastoring them, and some of them for over four years.

What do you do when you come to an antinomy in the Scriptures for example. For example, what do you do when you come to passages that seem to stress God’s sovereignty over an issue, say salvation, like Romans 9. But then you have passages, say in John’s gospel (3:16-17), where one’s belief in God seems to require an act of free will and not coercion. How do we hold these two in tension with each other?

I have a lot of questions. And I think I have a lot more questions now at 31 years old than I had prior in life. Some questions have been answered for me, and others seem to be unanswerable, or require me to live in mystery without trying to have everything figured out.

The difficulty in being a pastor in ministry comes when tension arrives between feeling the pressure to be the “answer man” and have everything figured out for the congregation, and sometimes wrestling with your own questions, and not wanting to be inauthentic by throwing out an answer to satisfy. My students know this well about me. They know when I am being inauthentic and have doubts and questions about certain things, versus when I am really passionate and have little or no doubts in some areas.

Now hear me clearly here. This is not to say that we wade out into the Christian life without any foundation, with no answers. That would be inaccurate and the scriptures give us plenty to be confident in. For example, in I Cor. 15 Paul says that if we don’t believe in the resurrection of Christ, then our faith is in vain, and we are to be pitied. Belief in resurrection is necessary to our faith. Does that mean people don’t doubt it, or don’t wrestle with it? No. But it means that resurrection is ultimately an event and doctrine that we believe and place our faith in as Christians. But that is different than saying that I clearly understand the issue of free-will and determinism perfectly. It is here that I very much like Augustine’s dictum: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” – Augustine.

There seems to be doctrines and truths that we must clearly have unity in, and there seem to be other doctrines that we have more freedom in to disagree. And so how do we as Christians and leaders discern between these two?

I was thinking about these things when I read Brent’s great post today. Brent looks at the issue of “total depravity” and “open theism” in Genesis 5:6-7. It’s a great post and I recommend you read it. I had some questions for Brent in the comments section of which he responded as well. If people were to read Brent and I’s blogs, they would know that we are probably very different theologically on many issues. I’ve known Brent since college and I can remember us disagreeing on theological issues for a long time. So how do Brent and I as Christians, come together and hold to, and agree on essential issues of doctrine, while at the same time not allowing our disagreements on certain doctrinal issues not keep us from dialoguing or working and serving together.

I am going to close with a quote from a fairly controversial evangelical figure, Clark Pinnock. Which is sort of apropos, since Brent was discussing “open theism” and Pinnock is one of the leaders in the “open theism” movement. And no, I’m not an “open theist” so save the emails But I like what Pinnock has to say about the role of pilgrimage as a theologian, and I think it is pertinent to us as Christians. Because, do we really have all the answers at 18, or 22, or 30, or does our faith and theology grow and mature and sometimes change as we grow older and mature? I know that my faith has evolved a lot in the last ten years, and it has evolved even more in the last five years as I have been pastoring The Quest. We are often afraid of change, especially in our theology, but changing may often bring us closer to God and the truth, rather than our fears of moving away. Pinnock says:

The great majority of theologians change their minds quite often. We often refer to their early work and their later work, and sometimes also to the middle stages of their thought. Karl Barth, undoubtedly the greatest theologian of our century, illustrates this very well, and he was not ashamed of changing his mind. It is better to change one’s mind than to continue on a wrong path. Of course there are some who do not follow this rule: they refuse to change. Theologians like Bultmann and Van Til, for example, seem to have thought they possessed all the “right” answers from graduate school on and never saw any reason to change them afterward, though many of their readers saw reason to change. But such theologians are the abnormal ones, and it is rather hard for ordinary mortals to identify with them. The reason for this is that in theology we are dealing with great mysteries and intellectually complex problems that can be excruciatingly difficult to sort out and to understand. So almost anyone who seriously tries to resolve them will experience struggle in doing so and changes in his or her understanding. Not only are individual topics like predestination and election remarkably challenging in themselves, but also the interconnections between such themes and other topics in the total grammar of the Christian faith are tricky to establish and maintain in a balanced way.

So I do not apologize for admitting to being on a pilgrimage in theology, as if it were in itself some kind of weakness of intelligence or character. Feeling our way toward the truth is the nature of theological work even with the help of Scripture, tradition, and the community. We are fallible and historically situated creatures, and our best thinking falls short of the ideal of what our subject matter requires. A pilgrimage, therefore, far from being unusual or slightly dishonorable, is what we would expect theologians who are properly aware of their limitations to experience.
The Grace of God and the Will of Man by Clark Pinnock, pp. 15-16

On April 28th, I posted this blog entry regarding some of the articles of confession at the The Together for the Gospel Conference. As an egalatarian, and as someone who fully supports women in all forms and positions of ministry I took defense to what they had drafted up. Since that conference there has been a flury of activity on the internet regarding the gender issue, but I have had a hard time myself keeping up with all the posts and comments from various bloggers.

This has been an issue that has changed and developed for me over the years. I grew up in a non-denominational Bible church, graduated from a Southern Baptist College, completed my Master of Divinity at Fuller Theological Seminary and currently serve as the college director at Bel Air Presbyterian Church. So my position on this issue has moved over the years, primarily from one of indifference to one of great support of women in ministry. In fact, I would say that my current graduate work in Marriage and Family Therapy has even moved me much further in the direction of egalatarianism than I was after completeing my M. Div., but that is a blog for another time and place.

There are a lot of great and wonderful Christians on both sides of this issue. In fact, I would say that that has become more clear as this discussion and debate has heated up. I have been able to have some wondeful conversations with those that I both agree and disagree with. And I hope this continues.

JollyBlogger has been posting about this here, here, here and here. He and I disagree on this issue, but I hope that we can continue to dialogue, especially as we will be working together at the GodBlog Conference at Biola in August.

As well as many men posting on this issue, this is one of those topics where I received a lot of email and comments from women, as well as coming across a lot of blog postings.

Emily wasn’t thrilled about the TG4 Articles and posts on this issue. As does Revabi and Jan. And Susan whom I have enjoyed reading her blog, wonders if complementarianism leads to abuse.

There are many, many more that I could cite, but it eventually becomes very time consuming to follow the tracks all over the place.

When it comes to my understanding of women and ministry and my full-support of that position, I want to mention some people who have been very influential in my thinking. There are many of them and a lot of my own thinking is pulled from a lot of different areas, but here are four thinkers that I have greatly appreciated.

Miroslav Volf and his unbelievable book Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. This book has been life transforming and Chapter IV on “Gender Identity” is paradigm shattering.

Dr. Ray Anderson’s great book on practical theology, The Shape of Practical Theology: Empowering Ministry With Theological Praxis. Chapter Six, “The Resurrection of Jesus as Hermeneutical Criterion” makes a great theological and biblical case for women in ministry. Read pp. 90-101 under the heading “A Case for Sexual Parity in Pastoral Ministry.”

I have also recently been greatly challenged and enlightened by the work of biblical scholar Phyllis Trible and her work. Two of her books, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality as well as Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives are very challenging. Two great books, and unfortunately many I’m afraid will not read them because the word feminist is a loaded word and has negative overtones to many. Trible is a great scholar and makes some wonderful arguments, and I find her female voice a much needed addition in biblical scholarship.

The work of Paul Jewett and his books, Man as Male and Female: A Study in Sexual Relationships from a Theological Point of View and The Ordination of Women: An Essay on the Office of Christian Ministry.

These scholars and writers have been very influential in my life and I know in the life of many others. I am thankful for them.

Yesterday, Tony Jones posted at the Emergent–US site yesterday the issue regarding whether or not Emergent needs a doctrinal statement.

The post was written by professor and scholar F. LeRon Shults. At the last Emergent Conference in San Diego I was unable to attend the workshops with Shults, but he was a huge draw as he is a brilliant thinker and writer. Shults has a long post, but here is an excerpt:

Such a move would be inappropriate. Various communities throughout church history have often developed new creeds and confessions in order to express the Gospel in their cultural context, but the early modern use of linguistic formulations as “statements” that allegedly capture the truth about God with certainty for all cultures and contexts is deeply problematic for at least two reasons. First, such an approach presupposes a (Platonic or Cartesian) representationalist view of language, which has been undermined in late modernity by a variety of disciplines across the social and physical sciences (e.g., sociolinguistics and paleo-biology). Why would Emergent want to force the new wine of the Spirit’s powerful transformation of communities into old modernist wineskins? Second, and more importantly from a theological perspective, this fixation with propositions can easily lead to the attempt to use the finite tool of language on an absolute Presence that transcends and embraces all finite reality. Languages are culturally constructed symbol systems that enable humans to communicate by designating one finite reality in distinction from another. The truly infinite God of Christian faith is beyond all our linguistic grasping, as all the great theologians from Irenaeus to Calvin have insisted, and so the struggle to capture God in our finite propositional structures is nothing short of linguistic idolatry.

You can follow this discussion over at Scot McKnight’s blog with his posting, Emergent and Doctrinal Statements. And you can follow the discussion over at Think Tank.

I’m sure this discussion will be heavily posted and discussed. I know that my friend Brent Thomas finds Emergent confusing, especially in regards to the issue of defining terms and language.

Personally, I have enjoyed attending two of the Emerging Conferences over the last few years. I have enjoyed interacting with “emerging church” communities, thinkers, pastors, writers, etc. Though many people find Emergent confusing and want more defined rules and structure, I personally find my engagement in the emergent community as a breath of fresh air. It is one of the few opportunities that I have had and that I know others have had to truly engage in important discussion without automatically being excluded from discussion because of where one may reside denomintionally, theologically, politically, etc. I have never viewed Emergent as a denominational movement, but rather a collection of people who gather together to openly discuss various theological issues, without having to necessarily nail down statements, visions, purposes, confessions, articles, etc. Not everyone likes that, but many embrace it. I don’t think it is neither good nor bad if Emergent doesn’t come up with a doctrinal statement, because that never seemed to be the intent of their gatherings. Whatever happens I am going to continue to enjoy my interaction and relationships with many in those communities.

The Ivy Jungle college ministry network sends me regular information regarding their conferences, job openings, trends, etc. Below are some recent trends in college ministry around the country. This is just an annotated list of what they sent me, but I thought you might be interested in what is going on with college students, especially if you work with them.

Below are seven trends or items of news that they have found to be prevalent:

U2 Eucharist: A new communion service found its way into Episcopal churches across the nation. In the service, songs from the rock band U2 are interspersed with the familiar elements of the liturgy. The format, based on a play list created by Rev. Pagie Blair, a parish priest in Maine has spread by word of mouth and clergy email lists and has injected life and numbers into a number of congregations. U2 front man, Bono, who has been outspoken about his faith and justice issues, has not commented on the use of the band’s songs in the worship service. (AP April 14, 2006)

Soulforce Tour Hits Christian Colleges: A homosexual activist group has embarked on a bus tour to bring their message to 19 colleges that have policies against homosexuality; many of them part of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities. While some schools have barred the group from their campuses, others such as Azusa Pacific and Wheaton College have created open forums for student interaction when the group arrives at their campuses. The schools say they remain committed to the historic biblical stance against homosexuality, but will make the most of the uninvited group’s arrival for student discussion on the challenging topic. (Chicago Tribune March 29, 2006 p.
Spring Break and Anorexia: As spring breaks draw near, many female students begin dieting in preparation for trips to the sun and beach, often banding together for support and accountability. For some, this dieting leads to something far more dangerous – anorexia and bulimia. What were once ad hoc groups of friends and sorority sisters have become more organized thanks to the internet. A number of websites and message boards fill up with information on diets, support groups and controversial “pro-ana” material as winter turns toward spring. Some provide contests for who can starve the most – with points for days subsisting on less than 500 calories, points for diet pills consumed and even points for posting pictures of skinny celebrities for “thinspiration.” Many experts fear that girls use spring break as an excuse to dabble in risky eating habits. (New York Times April 2, 2006 p.6)