Knowledge of Theology

Of course a major part of getting a masters degree in theology will be to study and
learn about theology. As many people would assume, I came out of my time at seminary with a much deeper understanding of the Bible and Theology.

Knowledge of History

What you might not realize is that seminary also requires a number of church history classes. Understanding the history of the church is a very important part of being a pastor. As Anthony Bradley recently noted over in World Magazine, the protestant church is in large part detached from its history, and that is causing alot of problems. We have to relearn that the Christian faith is an old faith, and there are countless events which have shaped our faith at the beginning of this century. Faith that is detached from its history is going to suffer.

Examples of Older Pastors

A prerequisite to become a professor at my seminary (RPTS) was that you had to have previously served as a pastor in a local church. This meant that for three years I was surrounded by some really good examples of older and wiser pastors. Of course there were things that I disagreed with, and of course not every professor was equally gifted at being a pastor, but it was a great time of learning by example.

A Safe Place to Ask Hard Questions

One of the things I appreciated more than anything else was that in seminary I never felt liked there were topics that we couldn’t talk about, or questions that we couldn’t ask. I came out of seminary with a much deeper and nuanced understanding of my faith. This has allowed me to help other people with questions they have about their faith. I’ve realized you can’t help people who are wrestling with their faith if you have never wrestled with your own.

Tools to Learn

There is no way that I could learn everything necessary to be a pastor in my three short years of seminary. But I did learn how to learn. In those three years I became equipped at using the tools necessary to be a pastor. I know how to study and apply God’s word in a variety of situations and I’ve learned where to go when new questions arise.

God should be a cosmic nanny–running behind us to pick up our messes, so that we are never inconvenienced by them.

In the Christian faith, God invites us to participate rather than simply watch from the comfort of a cozy chair. God deeply cares for the poor (Jeremiah 22:3), He is Call the Prince of Peace(Isaiah 9:6), he even makes special rules for how we should treat the forests(Deuteronomy 20:20)–but rather than snapping his fingers and making the problem go away he says to us “come help me with this.”

For all our calls to action and our high respect for social justice, would we prefer to watch things get repaired, than actually help in the clean-up efforts?

Read the 9 Things Tim Challies Learned About God from “Planet Earth”

After listening to the sermon and reading the blog post found here, I decided to send the church a message, via their Mission and Vision blog. I’ve posted the whole message below. If you’ve listen to or read the post on voxpop and agree or disagree I’d love to hear some feedback on what I said.

I know this comment is worth as much as one of those 90′s camel bucks, but I was disappointed in lasts week sermon. I felt that you didn’t give most regulative principle guys much credit.

In Christ your Bro,
Sam DeSocio
Pastoral Intern
City Reformed Church

Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America
by Darrell L. Guder

It is significant to remember that the first section of is preceded by the Paul’s encouragement to live at peace with all men, Roman 12:18. This seems to be tied to our interaction with the governing authorities.
It is this focus on our lives with other non Christians which is the motivation for Paul’s examination about dealing with the civil authorities.
On Verse 4.
This is a passage which some might take as an ordination of the civil magistrate. I think that this would be a mistake. Ordination after all comes from the church, unless in one verse Paul is bringing some NT understanding of Deutoronomy to bear. Additionally, challenges arising with the national covenanters if they say that a government is illegitimate if it does not claim Christ, for its authority. Paul in this text is saying that no matter what the civil government position on Christ, Christ has placed them in their position and we are to obey the law. I would suggest that this is simply a fleshing out of the principle applied in 12:18 Calvin says that the magistrate is to rule with the intention of the public good. Again I think it is less helpful to divide 13:1-7 from its context in the book of Romans. Paul speaks to persecution in 12, and in both 12 and 13 the main focus seems to be love, not Paul’s ideal government, but the churches actual response to the government that they are living under, just as Revelation was written for the early church not 20th century dispensational movement, so Romans is written primarily for the church living in the capital city of the known world, and not the 16th kirk.

For he is God’s minister for good, etc. Magistrates may hence learn what their vocation is, for they are not to rule for their own interest, but for the public good -John Calvin

On the subject of the Federal Vision Dr. Hart recently had a post that would seem to suggest the Frame’s understanding of biblicism is some how tied to the Federal Vision movement.

Here is my reply to Dr Harts comments on the issue:

Dr. Hart you said ““Scripture” properly means the interpretation of Scripture; that is, the contents of Scripture as reached by human investigation and exegesis.”

You did cite WCF 31.2, but what about WCF 31.4 “All synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice; but
to be used as a help in both.” Isn’t this the definitive complement to 1.10?

Hart’s Original post can be found here: Frame’s Creative Children

“My Dear Wormwood,
In your last letter to me you expressed how excited you have been by all the public attention many enemy pastors have been getting recently. I would have to wholeheartedly agree. Yet, I must remind you that out of all the things which our commander most fears, it is the unity of the enemy forces. Fortunately for us, in the last 60 years we have seen much of that unity fall to the way side. Instead they have picked up what some of the enemy calls ‘secondary issues’. Wormwood, our tools might have changed in the past years, the pen has been replaced by the pixel, but do not forget your mission to divide, discourage and destroy as much of the enemy forces that you possibly can.

You affectionate uncle,
Scewtape.”

The other day while I was reading a post on the Emergent and Evangelical debate I saw a link to a youtube video that consisted of two Men that both profess Christ. One was John Mcarthur, and the other was Doug Pagitt. Both men went onto a national news network, that has no connection to the church, I would see this as similar to Paul’s interview at the Areopagus. To their credit these men both tried to communicate the essence of Christianity, as best as they understood.

But here is what bothered me: we are told not to take out brother into a earthly court to settle matters of disagreement, and what do i see but two pastors having a debate on CNN.

Paul says in 1Cor 6:4-6:
“So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?”

Right or wrong on the issues that divide them, both were wrong in going before the court of public opinion for an answer that should be settled in house.

I got to thinking about this and realized that I havent heard of a church seeking to minister to the “60-70 year olds who always loved church” market.
It seems like a few things need to noted. One a church should be seeking to engage its community, if you live in an town where only 20% of the population is 20-30 then I wonder if you are not being faithful to the call to engage your surrounding. Two, of course most people know the stat that says that most people become Christians when they are in their teens and twenties, but when we go after this group only, are we sending a message that says that we are willing to sacrifice today for tomorrow, that we think some how the Holy Spirit has a window of opportunity.

On the opposite side though in my mind it seems kind of like a given that a church is going to put effort into reaching those outside the kingdom. One might make a valid case that if a church is not trying to reach the world with the message of Christ, they have not received that message themselves.