Written by Todd Mangum Friday, 13 July 2012 00:00

On Friday (August 10) I said that that was the last I was going to say about my fiftieth birthday.  But, because I do two blogs a shot for the faculty blog page, today is an “encore” on that theme.    

When I was in high school, I heard a sermon preached by Rev. Peter Hook (who now teaches preaching and pastoral leadership at Cairn University; he’s still one of my favorite preachers).  He ended the sermon with the poem below, by Edward Guest, entitled “The Painting.”

When my hair is thin and silver, and my time of toil is through,

When the years behind are many and ahead of me a few,

I shall want to sit, I reckon, sort of dreaming in the sun,

And recall the roads I've traveled, and the many things I've done.

I hope there'll be no picture that I'll hate to look upon,

When the time to paint it better, or to wipe it out, is gone.


I hope there'll be no vision of a hasty word I've said

That left a trail of sorrow, like a whip-welt sore and red.

And I hope my old age dreaming will bring back no bitter scene

of a time when I was selfish, or a time when I was mean.

When I'm getting old and feeble, and I'm far along life's way,

I don't want to be regretting any bygone yesterday.


I am painting now a picture I will have one day to see,

I am filling in a canvas that will soon come back to me.

Though nothing great is on it, and though nothing there is fine,

I shall want to look it over when I'm old and call it mine.

So I do not dare to leave it, while the paint is warm and wet,

With a single thing upon it I will later on regret. 

It’s a poem obviously written by a younger man; for one thing those whose hair is thin or silver tend not to write about it so romantically.  It contains some of Ecclesiastes 12’s pensive reflections, but clearly without the bitter pills of life swallowed and choked on as background. 

It was still a poem that gripped me at the time.  Year later, I had a chance to talk about it with Pastor Peter when we crossed paths again in a different context.  He was kind enough to write it out by hand and give it to me to keep.  To this day, I keep it in my desk drawer, and pull it out and read it once in a while — like I did today, reflecting on my 50 years of life so far.

At this point in life, I have to unfortunately recognize scratches and flaws in my painting of times when I was selfish, times when I was mean.  I’ve lived to regret some hasty words, words I’d like to take back, but I fear have left in some cases an indelible mark.

I’m glad that the whole of my life’s painting doesn’t consist of just such — my wife, as I mentioned yesterday, has helped remind me that the painting of my life so far is turning out pretty well, by God’s grace.  But I can’t read “The Painting” today without some of its points resonating in me with remorse (not just warning).

I don’t know if, as you read that poem, it strikes you as more profound or more corny. I know that God used it and has continued to use it to have a pretty significant impact on my thinking and my life just the same.

On Friday,  I alluded to the fact that there are often profound truths in the folksy wisdom, corny clichés, and even the three-points-and-a-poem of the standard sermons that some of us have grown up on now for nigh unto fifty years.  That’s still true today. 

Todd Mangum is the Academic Dean and Professor of Theology at Biblical.  He is ordained by the Southern Baptist Convention.  Todd is the author of The Dispensational-Covenantal Rift, and of several articles seeking to bridge divides among Bible-believing Christians. He is married to Linda and they have three sons.  See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/todd-mangum.



Written by David Lamb Wednesday, 11 July 2012 00:00

“Avoid the really old and the really young.”  I was going through airport security recently, and overheard this comment from a group of people behind me in the queue.  They looked like they were in their early forties.  They were talking about which line to avoid—basically, don’t get behind old folks or families with young children because they move slowly through security.  I turned and noticed that the woman directly ahead of me was probably in her seventies.  Apparently, I had chosen poorly

Sure enough, the women in front of me started having troubles.  She hadn’t removed her laptop from her bag, things were beeping and she forgot to put her large carry-on onto the conveyor belt.  She was getting flustered.  I asked, “Can I put your bag on the belt?”  “Yes, please” was her reply.  I’d like to say I did this out of the kindness of my heart, but it was more practical than that.  I knew it would speed things up

Shockingly, the group of 40-somethings behind me kept talking about how being behind the elderly was such a nightmare.  Unless the woman if front of me was totally deaf, she would have had no problem hearing them clearly.  Their comments were rude.  I felt bad for her, but as I was slipping my shoes back on, I felt worse that I hadn’t defended the woman to those young whippersnappers.  (I can call them whippersnappers now that I’m 50.)

Moving into my 50’s has caused me to reflect more on growing old.  One of the things I fear is being in the place of that woman in front of me in line—flustered and confused by some new security protocols and having the youngsters behind me in line laughing at me. 

As a society, we cater to the young and don’t do well valuing the old.  So, I wonder, how do we do as a church in welcoming and treating the elderly with respect? 

I was visiting a church recently and was surprised to see among the people leading worship on the stage, an 8 year-old girl.  She even sang a solo.  Later in the service, a 10 year-old boy prayed alongside the head pastor during the pastoral prayer.  They were honoring and affirming children as a part of the service.  I loved it.  While the worship team was highly diverse in terms of ethnicity and gender, in terms of age diversity there was the girl, but no one over 55, despite the fact that congregation included plenty of folks in their 60’s, 70’s and older. 

Why not?  While it’s cute to include children, we don’t think it’s as cute to include the elderly.  I realize that some churches do better at valuing the elderly than others, but I suspect that the church I visited is typical in this regard.  We don’t want to get stuck behind them in line.

Anyone in ministry knows that youth are the future of the church.  You need to focus on them.  If youth are the future, then I guess that makes the elderly the past.  We don’t perceive them as strategic.  We may not avoid the really young, but we avoid the really old. 

The church might not know how to value old folks, but God does.  He didn’t avoid them.  He frequently included them in his mission.  We’re not exactly sure how old he was when God told him to build an ark, but the text tells us Noah was 600 when the flood finally came (Gen. 7:6).  God called him to go to the land he would show him when Abram was 75 (Gen. 12:1-4).  Isaac wasn’t born until Abraham was 100 and Sarah 90 (Gen. 17:17).  God called him to lead his people out of Egypt when Moses was 80 (Exo. 7:7).  Shortly after Jesus’ birth, God revealed to two elderly folks, Simeon and Anna how Christ would be a light to the nations and a redeemer for Israel (Luke 2:25-38). 

God, help us welcome and include, honor and value the “really old” like you do. 

How does your church or ministry include the elderly in mission? 

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 Phil Monroe Monday, 02 July 2012 00:00

Can your body make you sin? If so, are you still responsible?

In my last post , I answered “Yes…and yes.” And then I gave a short and partial defense. Today I want to give a vignette for us to chew on as we consider the matter of culpability for involuntary sins. And then…I want to consider a better question.

A Vignette:

Your 2 year old missed his daily nap, is hungry, and tired as a result of an event you attended. He has a meltdown. He kicks, screams, cries, refuses his mother’s comfort all because he wants some object he cannot have. You, being the good parent you are, recognize the child’s distress, whisper in his ear to comfort him, say “no” firmly to his kicks, find something for him to eat and finally a place to take a nap.

Has the child sinned? He surely demanded something, acted aggressively, even disobeyed by grabbing the object after his mother said to stop.

Yes, he sinned.

But was it fully voluntary? No. We consider the circumstances (including the fact that we may have knowingly put the child into a situation like this because WE wanted to enjoy this event). We understand that his over-tired body is not helping matters. We forgive, we overlook, we understand, we help. We do so because we know his choices are not fully within his control.

Now, we may have another reaction altogether when we see our little boy (fully rested and fed) look us in the eye and try to bite his baby brother after we just told him to stop. We know he has better voluntary control here and is in a power struggle. And we respond with appropriate discipline.

But what about another vignette?

We could easily have considered a vignette of a brain-injured man or a panic-disordered woman. We respond to individuals based not only on whether something is sinful but also on how much voluntary control we think they have considering the circumstances in play (environment, biology, understanding, etc.).

So, our bodies can cause us to sin in that we have little capacity to choose otherwise. In the classic sense, we are guilty whether it is voluntary or not. And yet we, and God himself, varies responses to such sins based on a variety of factors (e.g., gentle exhortation for one to sin no more, curses to another). We do not ascribe innocence to those less culpable but do try to find merciful resources to help them beyond their limited capacities.

Thankfully, all of it is covered by the cross.

A better question!

If nothing we do is truly without sin in this life, do we gain much in trying to assess guilt/innocence and ultimate responsibility for behavior? Maybe we ought to consider a better question: What does the Lord offer as a way of escape from sinful and flawed behaviors…and will we use them (or offer them to others)? Consider the following merciful escapes:

Biological mercies. In God’s providence, he provides some with biological aids for body/soul struggles. Certain medications may help decrease addictive behavior, depression, or anxiety. These body/soul weaknesses are rarely cured by such compounds, but cure is not the only possibility of help. Sadly, I find many afraid to seek biological aids for what they determine to be primarily will problems. They worry that these aids will decrease their spiritual sensitivities. But if increasing positive mood enables a depressed man to say no to addictive behavior, should we criticize that way of escape?

Community mercies. I know a forty-year old brain injured man who is an emotional shell of his former self. While he looks fully recovered, he no longer has much self-awareness. He promises many things but lacks the ability to follow through. His church community includes other men who are patient with him and yet remind him frequently that he can best love his wife by doing simple chores each day. Rather than rebuke him over and over, they gently point him to better behaviors.

The point I am trying to make here is that much of our work as Christians should be that of compassionate rescue rather than impersonal assessment (AKA judgment). Yes, the wounds of a friend are sometimes necessary. Confrontation can be the best way to love someone. But we too often stop with our assessment of culpability and miss the fact that God is gracious in providing us a way of escape from our behavioral struggles.   

Phil Monroe is Professor of Counseling & Psychology and Director of the MA in Counseling program at Biblical Seminary. He maintains a private practice with Diane Langberg & Associates. You can follow his personal and professional musings at www.wisecounsel.wordpress.comor read more about it at http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/phillip-monroe.


Written by Phil Monroe Friday, 29 June 2012 00:00

Can your body make you sin? If so, are you still responsible?

Yes, and yes. However, in answering these questions, we might be missing a better question than that of responsibility, but I’ll get to that later…

I suppose you might like some defense of my position. I will do so both in this post and in the one to follow. Obviously, I’m going to tackle this from a Christian perspective that cares about sin and wants to think carefully about ontology (what it means to be human).

Some background beliefs

1. In the Christian life sin matters. Sin is whatever we do or are that violates God’s definition of holiness. In this life, sin is inescapable. Sin is that which fallen creatures do all the time. Thankfully, God provides a way of escape from the logical consequences of sin via the cross. Despite (no, because of the power of) this gift from God, Christians still care about eradicating sin even though it is not possible. It stands to reason, then, that we should observe the sources of sin in our life in order to stop them.

2. The classic Christian view of human nature is that we are made of two substances: body and soul. We are not just our physical bodies but something intangible was imputed to us when God breathed life into Adam. Our soul allows us to worship God. The bible refers to our soul in various ways: will, heart, desires, etc. The soul is the driver of the will and therefore responsible for the moral direction of our actions. Early theologically oriented scientists (think Descartes) assumed the existence of the soul but looked to explain how the intangible soul connected to the tangible body. Now with the advances in neuroscience we have better explanatory power in describing the action of thoughts, feelings, and knowing. However, the will remains a mystery. While we can explain neural networks and what the brain does when desiring something, we cannot yet explain WHY we want or desire certain things.

Some philosophers and theologians have attempted to deal with classic dualism by suggesting that we are only one substance. I am not capable of succinctly defending this position so I point you to Nancey Murphy and a review of her book here. She does a masterful job defending non-reducible physicalism.

Key questions and a partial answer

Whether two substances or one, the question we raise in this post is whether our bodies, against our will, can cause us to sin. And maybe more importantly, is there anything gained or lost if it is true that our bodies (apart from will) can cause us to sin? Are we culpable for such sins? 

Let me take these two questions in succession:

Question One:

Is it possible that my body (against or apart from my will) might cause me to sin?

Partial Answer:

1. We do nothing apart from our cells. We mediate all worship, desire, etc. through our cells. When we do good or evil, body and will are always involved.

2. Sin is not merely an act, but a disposition. All of me is tainted and not functioning as it was originally intended, including my physical body (and don’t I feel the effects of being over 45!). The dualist position is more in danger of treating sin as only what we consciously choose.

3. I don’t have to know that I broke the law (biblical or federal) to be guilty of violating the law. I didn’t know I was speeding but I still got a ticket. In the OT, lack of intention or knowledge violating the law did not protect against impurity or guilt (e.g., Lev. 4:22; 5:3).

4. If the body is broken and under sin’s curse it stands to reason that our bodies function in ways that are out of accord with our will. If they can move without our control (e.g., Parkinsonian tremors, Tourette-based tics) can they not also move in such a way that violates God’s design for us. We have some scientific evidence of this. Stimulate a certain part of the brain, and you will experience rageful feelings. Stimulate another part and you may have sexual thoughts. Consider a person with Tourettes Syndrome. There is some evidence of temporary volitional control (a surgeon is able to stop a tic during an operation) but other evidence suggests that these same tics (including cursing) burst out of the person despite conscious effort to eliminate.

Saying yes to this question violates our Western sensibilities.

Question Two:

 If we accept that our bodies can act against or without the will, what do we gain or lose? I think the primary concern by many would be that somehow we will either be held culpable for sins we didn’t want to commit or claim innocence for sins we willfully committed. And this gets under our skin here in the West.

We want only to be held accountable for things we did do and not held accountable for things we either didn’t do or didn’t have any control over.

Partial Answer:

It strikes us as evil to be held accountable for that which we didn’t know was wrong. I once got a ticket for making a u-turn on a Chicago city street at 11 pm when no one (but the cop!) was around. There were no signs. I wasn’t familiar with Chicago rules, was lost in an unsavory neighborhood. And yet I still got the ticket. It didn’t seem right. But I did violate the law.

Our American judicial system isn’t the only system that holds us accountable for involuntary acts. Romans teaches us that because of Adam’s sin, all are sinners. I bear the culpability for his sin (and I make plenty of my own as well). I bear the impact of his choices in my entire being. Not only am I culpable, but I may need to confess my forefather’s sins. We see several OT prophets confessing the sins of the community—as if they were their own.

So, in short, I think we can answer yes to the question about whether our bodies can make us sin. They can because we (body and soul) are tainted by the Fall. It doesn’t make us more or less out of sorts with God whether our sin is chosen or involuntary. Happily, God doesn’t forgive only willful sin, he forgives sin period. And he makes it possible to not sin by imputing his righteousness to us.

Is there a better question?

Still thinking about culpability? If so, check back tomorrow for a little vignette to chew on along with a better question than just responsibility for behaviors.

Phil Monroe is Professor of Counseling & Psychology and Director of the MA in Counseling program at Biblical Seminary. He maintains a private practice with Diane Langberg & Associates. You can follow his personal and professional musings at www.wisecounsel.wordpress.comor read more about it at http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/phillip-monroe.



Written by Todd Mangum Wednesday, 27 June 2012 00:00

We take an extended, larger family vacation every other year and this year is the “off year.”  So, our vacation this year consists of a number of romantic week-ends and family outings sprinkled throughout the summer. The first of these was supposed to be a “four-day weekend” with just Linda and me, but it got interrupted by a funeral — the spouse of a friend of my wife’s from work died after a long battle with diabetes. 

As you might guess, we felt both obliged to attend the funeral, and glad that we could attend — and gypped out of our planned time together.  We literally laughed and cried about all the above. 

Enough time has passed now that I can reflect more objectively on it all.  “Vacationing at a funeral” is not something we would plan, but, come to think of it, it did have many of the markings of what one does plan when one plots out a vacation schedule.  Think about it: 1) time together, check; 2) break from the normal routine, check; 3) time and place for deeper, substantive conversation, check; 4) fun time to laugh (and cry) with old friends and some new ones, check; and finally, 5) chance to recalibrate and re-gauge one’s deeper life commitments, walk with God, relationship with one another, and re-consider, “Are we living the well-lived life we desire and feel called of God to live?,” check. 

Ecclesiastes says,  It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, because that is the end of every man, and the living takes itto heart. Sorrow is better than laughter, for when a face is sad a heart may be happy. The mind of the wise is in the house of mourning, while the mind of fools is in the house of pleasure.” (Ecclesiastes 7:2-4)

I have contemplated these lines before this “vacation experience.” But I don’t know that I really believed them, or lived the truth of these words before now; that is, before attending a funeral as part of our summer vacation.

I have also heard of some people (including my grandparents, as I recall from childhood) taking a Sunday afternoon picnic to the cemetery, spending the afternoon reading, contemplating, and talking about the inscriptions on the gravestones.  It’s a bit morbid, I know — but think Ecclesiastes.  Is there wisdom to be found in such a practice?

So, what do you think — good idea?  Should we plan to incorporate mourning and funerals into our vacation periods more regularly? . . .  

Todd Mangum is the Academic Dean and Professor of Theology at Biblical.  He is ordained by the Southern Baptist Convention.  Todd is the author of The Dispensational-Covenantal Rift, and of several articles seeking to bridge divides among Bible-believing Christians. He is married to Linda and they have three sons.  See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/todd-mangum.


Written by Todd Mangum Monday, 25 June 2012 00:00

At the end of the spring semester when final projects, final exams, and end-of-year budgeting all come due, I sometimes fall behind in keeping up with the news.  So I just found out last week that artist Thomas Kinkade died Easter weekend — from an apparent overdose of valium (drunk down with alcohol). He was 54. 

Surprised?  Yeah — so was I.  Thomas Kinkade, who sometimes claimed to be “America’s most-collected living artist,” was the guy who painted the idyllic nature scenes, which sometimes appear as desktop computer screen wall paper, with luminescent glows permeating serenely throughout the picture.  One of every twenty American homes is said to have a Thomas Kinkade painting, so Wikipedia says.     

I’ve always thought his art to be populist and designed to be commonly appealing — yeah, art critics are always going to sniff at such lowbrow stuff, but so what?  I still sometimes enjoy a good Southern Gospel quartet or even a country music station, even though all my music teachers in college scoffed at such and claimed a classically trained musician would eventually, inevitably “outgrow” it; I never did. . . .   

But I didn’t think his artwork was any more controversial than that.  Turns out that there is a stream of Christian art critics who find Kinkade art not just trite, but dangerous. Dangerous?!  Yes, you read that right.  

Here’s a line from the Kinkade obituary written by Daniel Seidell: “Thomas Kinkade . . . produced paintings that are far more terrifying than Munch’s [painting of The Scream, 1893] or Holbein’s [painting of The Body of the Dead Christ in the Tomb, 1522], giving us a world deprived not only of Easter Sunday, but Holy Saturday, Good Friday, and Christ himself.” (Click here for the whole column.)

The objection to Kinkade’s pleasant paradisiacal visions put on canvas is that they offer a world 1) falsely depicted as unfallen; and 2) without need of redemption. In short, like pornography’s offer of the pleasures of sex without the encumbrances of love and relationship, Kinkade’s art is accused of offering a world free of distortion and unpleasantness without the inconvenience of needing to go through Christ, or Christ’s cross, to get it. 

The fear is that this idyllic vision will play and does play all too well and quickly to the already narcissistic and hedonistic sensibilities of affluent American consumers. All the more sinister is Kinkade’s art thought to be given the tortured life, alleged unscrupulous business practices, and then in a final, ironic coup de gras, the unsavory way into the afterlife taken by Thomas Kinkade, the man. 

I have to say that my first reaction when I read this line of criticism was that it was going too deep and being too critical with something that never claimed or aspired to be anything other than superficially pleasing. “Saccharine sweet” is not a compliment, but the occasional Diet Coke will not kill you either.

But the more I think about it — and the more I think about even my own response, my own soul’s visceral reactions to Thomas Kinkade’s paintings — the more I think there may be a valid point of concern here.  How about you?  What do you think?  

Todd Mangum is the Academic Dean and Professor of Theology at Biblical.  He is ordained by the Southern Baptist Convention.  Todd is the author of The Dispensational-Covenantal Rift, and of several articles seeking to bridge divides among Bible-believing Christians. He is married to Linda and they have three sons.  See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/todd-mangum.


Written by Dr. Derek Cooper Friday, 22 June 2012 00:00

On a recent trip to the Holy Land and the Middle East, I worshiped alongside thousands of Christians from all areas of the world and from all ecclesial backgrounds. I shared sacred space with Ethiopians, Filipinos, Germans, Palestinians, and Australians. I participated in worship services within the different strands of Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism. In fact, in several ancient churches like the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, I worshiped the Lord Jesus within an ear- and eyeshot of simultaneous services in multiple languages and from multiple theological traditions. 

As I reflect on these experiences in light of a class I am currently teaching entitled World Christian History, I cannot help but be reminded of the universal nature of Christianity. It seems customary – especially as an American evangelical of European descent – to assume that my version of Christianity is the way to practice our great faith. But I would be wrong. Christianity is not just my religion – nor is it just yours. It’s the world’s religion. 

The late Anglican bishop and missionary Lesslie Newbigin once remarked that “the idea that one can or could at any time separate out by some process of distillation a pure gospel unadulterated by any cultural accretions is an illusion. It is, in fact, an abandonment of the gospel” (Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture 1986: 4). To assume or believe that my version of Christianity is timeless or “pure” is – to take a term from Newbigin’s book – “foolishness” indeed. Christianity – or, for that matter, the gospel – is not a sterilized liquid that is dropped carefully out of a test tube into an uncontaminated culture. It is a fleshly faith – in the good and biblical sense of the term – that is contextualized and incarnated. Sometimes it is practiced reverently, other times it is not; but always it is practiced by limited human beings whose culture neither necessarily consummates nor contaminates the veracity or the vibrancy of the gospel.

Long before there were test tubes or evangelicals or Americans, there was a universal and worldwide Christianity that was practiced widely, divergently, and – all things the same – faithfully.

Sebastian and Kirsteen Kim, the authors of Christianity as a World Religion, delineate some important characteristics of world Christianity, which reveal a religion that is much larger and more inclusive than many of us suppose:

***  Topographically, Christianity is spread across the globe and is not just the religion of one region.

***  Theologically, Christianity claims to be universally applicable and locally inclusive.

***  Geographically, Christianity has always been widespread and practiced locally in different communities across the world.

***  Socio-politically, the worldwide presence of Christianity today is not primarily the result of attempts by powerful churches to replicate themselves worldwide but the result of indigenous responses and grassroots movements.

***  Historically, Christianity does not have one single strand of development, one center, or a linear history but is diffuse, locally divergent, and adaptable to different contexts.

As we consider the reasons why Christianity is a world religion rather than a parochial one, we do well to likewise consider the reasons why Christianity is not just your religion. Christianity survived and – in many ways – thrived in a diversity of cultures, countries, and contexts long before we were here; and it is likely that it will continue to do so long after we are gone.  This does not mean that your version of Christianity is unfaithful – let along “wrong” – but it does imply that another person’s version of Christianity can be just as faithful despite the fact that it is practiced very differently from yours.

Derek Cooper is assistant professor of biblical studies and historical theology at Biblical, where he directs the LEAD MDiv program and co-directs the DMin program. 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-Publishing/dp/1596382139/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1. See his faculty page at: http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/derek-cooper.



Page 21 of 28

BTS 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.

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

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 17 September 2015 - by Manuel Ortiz and Susan Baker
Written on 01 September 2015 - by R. Todd Mangum
Written on 25 August 2015 - by R. Todd Mangum
Written on 20 August 2015 - by Dr. Jonathan Henry
Written on 11 August 2015 - by Jeffrey Monk
Written on 30 July 2015 - by Manny Ortiz and Susan Baker
Written on 28 July 2015 - by Charles Zimmerman
Written on 23 July 2015 - by Susan Disston
Written on 21 July 2015 - by Bryan Maier
Written on 14 July 2015 - by Charles Zimmerman

Previous Blog Entries

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 x130

215.368.5000 x130

215.368.2301 (fax)