Written by Dr. David Lamb Wednesday, 16 November 2011 00:00

Does it ever seem like there are too many translations of the Bible?  My software program BibleWorks has over 40 English translations.  Since I teach Old Testament, people ask me which translation I prefer.  I like to say, “I love them all.”

In reality I use some translations more than others, often the more literal ones (NRSV, ESV, NAS), but I’m careful to speak graciously about all translations.  Although it’s tempting, I try not to criticize translations that I don’t use. 

Unfortunately, criticism sometimes characterizes how Christian denominations view other denominations.  One of the values of the Missional movement is a desire to value Christians of other faith traditions, which is sometimes called “Generous Orthodoxy.”  In the spirit of Generous Orthodoxy, I want to mention what I love about two translations that I don’t normally use, a very old one and a brand new one. 

The King James Version (KJV) is celebrating its 400 anniversary this year (1611).  The KJV is unique among English versions since it distinguishes between 2nd person pronouns, between the singular (thou, thy) and the plural (you, your).  From our Western individualistic mindset, when we read a “you” or “your” in the text we assume it’s singular, even in letters to communities.  We read Jeremiah 29:11 as God’s plans for “me” personally (my welfare, my future, my hope), when it’s meant to be understood corporately (our welfare, our future, our hope).  When the serpent interacts with the woman in Genesis 3 all of the 2nd person pronouns he uses are plural.  In Jeremiah 29 and Genesis 3 only the KJV tells us the “you”s are plural.  For these plurals, I think translations should just say, “you all” (or even better, “youse guys”). 

The Common English Bible (CEB) just came out in 2011.  We’ll see how popular the CEB becomes, but one thing I love about it already is that is uses contractions for dialogue.  When people speak today, they use contractions, so the CEB captures normal speaking patterns.  For example, this is how Jesus sounds in the Sermon on the Mount, “Therefore, I say to you, don’t worry about your life, what you’ll eat or what you’ll drink, or about your body, what you’ll wear.  Isn’t life more than food and the body more than clothes?” (Matt. 6:25 CEB).  It’s good advice either way, but “Do not worry” is not as relaxing as “Don’t worry.” 

David Lamb is Associate Professor of Old Testament at Biblical.  He’s the husband of Shannon, father of Nathan and Noah, and the author of God Behaving Badly: Is the God of the Old Testament Angry, Sexist and Racist? He blogs regularly at http://davidtlamb.com/.  See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/david-lamb.



Written by Dr. Derek Cooper Tuesday, 15 November 2011 00:00

The British essayist Erich Heller once wrote “Be careful how you interpret the world; it is like that.”

So, how do you interpret the world?

As it says in Titus 1:15, “To the pure, everything is pure; but to the corrupt and unfaithful, nothing is pure.”

I interpret this passage to signify that interpretation is extremely important. This is not to say, of course, that we make our own independent universes based on our interpretations of reality. Far from it! At the same time, however, we do construct our interpretations of these universes, and we are forced to regularly analyze them as our interpretations collide with those of others.

In the midst of all these rival interpretations, I often wonder what makes my interpretation better (or worse) than another’s. When I see flowers blooming in the spring, for instance, I interpret this as God’s commitment to creation and life—but only because I interpret the world from a Christian perspective. When an evolutionary biologist looks at the same phenomenon, she will interpret this event differently.

The word perspective is a helpful term we use to describe the way we look at the world. Our perspective on the world is the result of myriad circumstances—many of which we cannot control and none of which are identical to those of others. Nevertheless, these circumstances incline us to view the world in one way rather than another.

Regardless of the interpretive method you adopt, I have become convinced that—as a Christian—hope is at the center of my interpretation of the world. It is the theme that puts everything else into perspective. And although this may come across as blind optimism, I prefer to think about it as guarded anticipation.

What about you? How do you think the world should be interpreted? And what are some important criteria for interpreting it in a way that recognizes its hurts yet also appreciates its joys?

Derek Cooper is assistant professor of biblical studies and historical theology as well as Director of the LEAD MDiv program at Biblical. He is co-planting a church in Doylestown called The Garden, and his most recent book is entitled Thomas Manton: A Guided Tour of the Life and Thought of a Puritan Pastor: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Manton-Thought-Puritan-History/dp/1596382139/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319153564&sr=8-1#_. See his faculty page at: http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/derek-cooper.




Written by Dr. Larry Anderson Monday, 14 November 2011 00:00

As a Pastor and professor I often find myself faced with a conundrum; the need to make a decision on how much information and detail is too much for a Sunday morning message. This leads to what I call ‘analysis paralysis,’ which is a process that can take me days to break down difficult concepts into palatable bites.

Currently, I am taking the congregation through chapter six of the book of Genesis, which has caused me more pain than I care to admit. I was plagued with questions like: Do I explain the most famous opinions concerning who the sons of God are as compared to the daughters of men; do I give the verses concerning the angelic participation discussion in Job, Matthew, and 1st and 2nd Peter; and do I give my opinion as to where I have landed on this ancient debate? Well, after careful prayer and days of study, I was reminded of the Biblical Seminary ethos of teaching, whereas we train men and women how to think and not necessarily what to think. I knew if I proclaimed where I landed on this passage most of my congregation would also adopt that proclamation as their interpretation without ever doing the study. Therefore, I was careful to give them the critical opinions as well as the supportive and refuted text concerning these positions. 

Finally, and most importantly, I was reminded of how much time is spent arguing and debating about issues within a text which can derail the true purpose of the text. Genesis chapter six was not written to provide us a theology of angels and demons. Genesis chapter six was not written to specifically deal with unequally yoked marriages. Genesis chapter six is about a wicked world that has moved so far from God, causing Him to be grieved that He created man and declaring to destroy it and man by flood. Genesis chapter six is about God’s compassion to spare the one righteous man on earth and his family because despite society’s rebellion, he chose to remain righteous and walk with God. Genesis chapter six is about having the faith to believe God’s Word and to respond accordingly. Genesis chapter six is a prequel to how God would deliver those who would trust in His Son as Lord and Savior, and protect them from His wrath by providing them a new life in Him.

Larry L. Anderson Jr., is Assistant Professor of Practical Theology and the Director of the Urban Programs at Biblical. He is also the pastor of Great Commission Church [www.greatcommissiononline.com], previously located in the suburb of Roslyn, PA, but now situated in the West Oak Lane community of Philadelphia to provide a holistic ministry to an urban setting.  See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/larry-anderson.  


Written by Dr. Samuel Logan Thursday, 10 November 2011 00:00

 A friend just wrote me to say this: 

 “From my conversations with many folks outside of Biblical, it’s clear the idea of claiming ‘missional’ as differentiating [this seminary] will be a challenge since ‘missional’ has increasingly become part of the everyday lexicon of churches and seminaries.”

 In my judgment, this friend is absolutely correct.

 When I first came to work at Biblical (2008), I wasn’t sure myself whether being (and being known as) “missional” was a good thing.  But times – and my perceptions - have changed (as I indicated in my blog post yesterday).

 I know that the Lausanne Movement does not "define" evangelicalism but there probably is no current global organization with more impact on the nature and perception of evangelicalism than Lausanne and this was dramatically enhanced by the Lausanne Congress held in Cape Town, South Africa, last October.  The long-term linkage of leaders like John Stott and Billy Graham with the Lausanne Movement and the inclusion as plenary speakers at the Cape Town event of individuals like John Piper and Tim Keller assure that the solidly conservative and evangelical ethos of Lausanne is both felt and real.  And, having been at the Cape Town event, I can say that the word "missional" was constantly being uttered at the Congress, always in a positive way. 

 In addition, Chris Wright, who chairs "The Cape Town 2010 Statement Working Group" and who, more than any other single person, currently embodies and defines the theology of Lausanne, had already, even before 2010, been affirming the necessity and the biblical validity of the term, missional.  See his The Mission of God:  Unlocking the Bible's Grand Narrative (2006).  And then, just before the Cape Town Congress, he published The Mission of God's People: A Biblical Theology of the Church's Mission.  Both of them outstanding books!

 Not only is the term "missional" GENERALLY more "acceptable" in "orthodox evangelical" circles, the term is increasingly being adopted by all kinds of educational institutions and organizations.  One reason for this is, again, the impact of "The Cape Town Commitment."  For those of us in theological education, the section entitled "Theological Education and Mission" is of special significance.  Here are three points made in that section:

  •  Those of us who lead churches and mission agencies need to acknowledge that theological education is intrinsically missional.
  • Theological education stands in partnership with all forms of missional engagement.
  • We urge that institutions and programmes of theological education conduct a "missional audit" of their curricula, structures, and ethos, to ensure that they truly serve the needs and opportunities facing the church in their cultures.

 All of this leads me to say that my friend, quoted above, is right. 

 But the near universal present acceptance of “missional” (both word and concept)  now presents new challenges.  BEING “missional” is not necessarily the same as CLAIMING TO BE “missional.”  This is really the sense of the third Cape Town point above.  And if most evangelical seminaries are now claiming to be “missional,” what differentiates among them?

 These are a couple of questions which those of us participating in the Biblical Seminary Faculty Blog are attempting to address.  Look back at Phil Monroe's two blogs earlier this week.  Or at Todd Mangum's two blogs at the end of last week.  These are just the beginning of our own "missional audit" of the theological program here at Biblical Seminary.

 Stay tuned for more!

Sam Logan is Special Counsel to the President and Professor of Church History at Biblical.  He is an ordained minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.  He is married to Susan and they have two sons and two grandsons. See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/samuel-logan


Written by Dr. Samuel Logan Wednesday, 09 November 2011 00:00

What does “missional” actually mean?

Since starting my work at Biblical back in 2008, I have asked that question numerous times and, now that I have been here for several years, I am being asked the same question.

My experience here at Biblical and my reading (LOVE those Christopher Wright books!) have led me to believe that one possible answer may be found in what I like to call “The Parable of the Two Librarians.”

Susan and I have had the privilege of four sabbaticals in Cambridge, England, during one of which my research subject was the causes of theological change at Christ’s College, one of the constituent colleges of Cambridge University.  In 1590, Christ’s College was one of the leading Puritan institutions in the world.  By 1680, it was one of the leading Latitudinarian institutions in the world.  What happened?  That’s what I wanted to try to discover.

In my research, I worked with two librarians – the librarian at Christ’s College and the librarian at the “UL” (the University Library).

The librarian at Christ’s College acted as though it was his mission in life to protect the books at Christ’s from people.  Every time a person touched a book, there was the chance of damage to the book.  If not damage, then at least dirt and grime from the hands touching the book.  There was never an outright refusal to hand over a requested volume (so long as the request slip was completely accurate!).  But there was a clear sense that he (and the library) would be much happier if I would just go away and let the books and other materials stay exactly as they had been for four hundred years.

The librarian at the UL acted as though it was his mission in life to get the information in the books “out.”  When he discovered my research subject, he suggested materials for me to read that I didn’t even know existed.  He communicated positive eagerness that the question I was asking be answered.  Now, he did take precautions.  Did he ever!  I was not allowed to bring any writing instrument of any kind into the reading room – he provided (for me and all the other researchers) #2 pencils and blank paper (this was YEARS before laptops and IPads).  I was never left alone with a manuscript . . . a librarian or sub-librarian was always present and always watching.  But the sense one had was that the most important thing was the result of the research and that, to me at least, made all the difference. 

 I have come to believe that “missional theology” embodies the spirit of the UL librarian.  Every kind of precaution imaginable is taken to preserve the precious and priceless original source material.  But the ultimate goal is not preservation; it is propagation.   More than anything else, we want to get the knowledge of Jesus as Savior and Lord “out,” so that He receives the honor and worship that is His due.

 But what exactly is a “missional” seminary?  And is Biblical the only missional seminary?  Tune in tomorrow.

Sam Logan is Special Counsel to the President and Professor of Church History at Biblical.  He is an ordained minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.  He is married to Susan and they have two sons and two grandsons. See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/samuel-logan


Written by Dr. Phil Monroe Tuesday, 08 November 2011 00:00

Counseling has too long been viewed as a peripheral agenda of the church in the US. Even worse, it is often viewed through a Western/professional lens, disregarding the resources and work of developing world. Enter the Capetown Declaration emerging out of the Third International Lausanne Congress held just over a year ago in South Africa. I urge you to read the statement and to adopt it as a concise description (okay, not quite concise but close to it!) of the mission of counsel and care around the world.

A portion of the introduction reads,

“We live in a world of unprecedented suffering and brokenness. These human conditions include different types and levels of social and psychological suffering which are often minimized, neglected or, because they are beyond what local people can cope with at a given time, left unattended or addressed from out-of-context perspectives. We believe these omissions are both unjust and costly to individuals and communities. Virtually all of the major public health problems in the world have a psychosocial component. There is no complete health without physical, communal and psychological health. 

… It is imperative that we respond to these needs in ways consistent with our Christian commitments and with culturally sensitive, holistic, systemic, and collaborative approaches. 

Our hope is that this declaration will point us toward the creation of a new paradigm for the mutual learning, empowering and training of mental health professionals, laypersons, and pastors worldwide along the following four dimensions.”

Four Dimensions of Global Counsel and Care

The Declaration looks at four dimensions of counsel as mission: Christian, holistic and systemic, indigenous, and collaborative.  Consider the following pithy phrases:

“We believe it a matter of biblical justice that resources and initiatives which meet basic human needs and promote psychological wellness should be encouraged, nurtured and distributed more equitably throughout the world.”

 “Pathology, spirituality, treatment and healing must be understood in both individual and collective perspectives.”

“We believe that it is important to honor as a valuable part of the process of healing, the indigenous rituals, practices, and stories of a culture that are consistent with local indigenous, biblical Christian theologies. Thus, the global community should: (a) develop a perspective of relating and learning from local communities, (b) be encouraged to develop culturally appropriate and biblically congruent psychological perspectives, theories, models and resources, (c) be empowered to develop training centers, and (d) be invited to participate in the worldwide sharing of their knowledge and experiences.”

And finally, We are committed to worldwide mutual empowerment and collaborative learning among all those involved in helping people including mental health practitioners, educators, community workers, lay persons, and pastors.”

You can see here that counseling as mission of the global church is NOT a one-way street from West to developing nations but a collaborative learning and helping enterprise for the purpose of serving all of God’s people.

Read the whole statement and consider offering your support by signing on through the website.

 Phil Monroe is Professor of Counseling & Psychology and Director of the Masters of Arts in Counseling Program at Biblical. He maintains a private practice at Diane Langberg & Associates. He blogs regularly at www.wisecounsel.wordpress.com.  See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/phillip-monroe.    


Written by Dr. Phil Monroe Monday, 07 November 2011 00:00

I have a question for you. Does your church publish a list of the sick in the bulletin? Most churches do. It provides an easy way to remember who is suffering with what and to pray specifically for their healing. Now, I have a second question for those of you who answered the first question with a, “yes.” Does your church publish of list of those suffering from mental illness?

No? Why not?

The truth is we treat those with mental illnesses differently than those who have “physical” illnesses. We see those who struggle with depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as being complicit in their struggles in a way that we do not see other so-called physical diseases (cancers, diabetes-related, heart disease, etc.).

Both “physical” and psychological struggles are body problems and both may or may not be the result of the sufferer’s behaviors. You see, at the same time both forms of struggles are body, spirit, and community problems. Unfortunately, many with mental illness (or their loved ones!) feel outright rejected from the community of care provided for more acceptable body and spirit problems. This should not be the case. Read through the hundreds of comments posted to this blog post and yet another one. Feel their pain and rejection and blame from those who should love and care the most.

So, how do we, the church, provide mercy ministry to the mentally ill? Let me outline just a couple of initial steps

  1. Develop a prayer team for those with mental illness. Choose men and women willing to pray for the complex issues (for guiding patients, family, doctors, etc., for hope, for perseverance, for God to heal, for worshipful hearts in the midst of pain). Train the prayer team to pray. They don’t need to counsel or give hours and hours of time on the phone or in person.
  2. Talk about mental illness from the front. Churches who talk about things like schizophrenia, anxiety and depression as if they are not shameful but part of the scourge of living in a fallen world will give those suffering with these problems some hope that God cares about their struggles too. We need to reclaim the work of the Puritans such as Richard Sibbes who wrote volumes on the problems of despair and gave pastoral counsel as to how to comfort, encourage, and preach to the afflicted.
  3. Train the Diaconate. Deacons and deaconesses have a lot of power given that they have resources (money, services, etc.) that the mentally ill and their families need. Training the diaconate to ask good questions, to major on the majors, to support effective treatment. Sometimes the life of a mentally ill person is chaotic. They get lost in the clutter in their minds. But, the diaconate can help individuals keep to the basics (sleeping/eating schedules, doctor’s visits, and other key matters).
  4. Build connections with professionals. The church can’t be everything to everybody. We shouldn’t expect pastors to know the ins and outs of medications (hey, most internal medicine docs struggle with these as well), know where to find the best services. But, when church staff take the time to build a list of good providers (private and public), these can be most helpful. Getting a professional to consult with a case is a great idea.
  5. Care for the family. The most neglected persons are the spouses, parents, and children of the mentally ill. Make it a point to call on them and help them navigate the repeated painful task of discerning how to love well those with mental illness. Sometimes, it may mean tough love and other times not. But whatever kind of love, it will tear out the heart of the family member.

Phil Monroe is Professor of Counseling & Psychology and Director of the Masters of Arts in Counseling Program at Biblical. He maintains a private practice at Diane Langberg & Associates. He blogs regularly at www.wisecounsel.wordpress.com.  See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/philip-monroe


Page 23 of 23

Blog Mission

The purpose of this blog will be to expand the influence of our faculty, maintain contact with our graduates, and invite other friends to think with us about important biblical and theological ideas.

Biblical's Faculty

Biblical’s Faculty:

We are committed to ongoing engagement with culture and the world for the sake of our witness to the Gospel, and to continual learning from Christians in other cultural settings.

Latest Blog Entries

Written on 22 August 2014 - by Philip Monroe
Written on 01 August 2014 - by Susan Disston
Written on 18 July 2014 - by Charles Zimmerman
Written on 11 July 2014 - by Bryan Maier
Written on 09 July 2014 - by R. Todd Mangum
Written on 04 July 2014 - by R. Todd Mangum
Written on 02 July 2014 - by David Lamb
Written on 23 June 2014 - by Philip Monroe
Written on 20 June 2014 - by Philip Monroe
Written on 18 June 2014 - by Derek Cooper

Previous Blog Entries

Follow Biblical

Follow us on the following sites and receive notifications on upcoming events and blog entries:

Follow Biblical on facebookFollow Biblical on Twitterg+_64_black

Contact Admissions

800.235.4021 x146

215.368.5000 x146

215.368.4913 (fax)



Stay Connected with Biblical

Follow us on the following sites:

Follow Biblical on facebookFollow Biblical on TwitterFollow Biblical on YouTubeg+_64_black
Or simply call us at...
800.235.4021 x146 or 215.368.5000 x146

Support Biblical by Giving

800.235.4021 x162

215.368.5000 x162

215.368.7002 (fax)




Site Login