I am privileged to be the 5-6 grade Sunday School teacher at Riverview. It's just me and usually 4-5 kids. It's been a lot of fun.
Our curriculum this year is "My Purpose Will Stand" put out by Children Desiring God. It's a fantastic curriculum that teaches kids about the providence of God.
Last week our lesson was focused on how evil fits into the sphere of God's providence. Does God control evil? Is he more powerful than evil people? Does he even (gulp) ordain evil things to happen? The answer to all of those questions, as we saw last week, is a resounding, "Yes!"
This week the lesson focuses on how God can allow (and even ordain) evil and still remain good. It's essentially a theodicy for 5th and 6th graders. This week we are learning that God remains good and righteous because he merely allows sinful people to do what sinful people want to do. This being understood, however, God is still powerful enough to intervene and prevent evil if and when he chooses.
Coupled with this idea is one that asserts that all the good things we have are evidences of God's mercy towards us. The lack of good things and existence of evil, then, can also be understood as God sovereignly and providentially removing his hand of mercy from us so that evil might occur. But how is this fair? Since God is loving, couldn't he be accused of wrongdoing by removing his hand of mercy from upon us and allowing bad things to happen? This week's lesson provides what I thought was an excellent example of how God remains just in removing mercy and allowing evil:
Suppose it were really cold out. I have dressed warmly for the cold with a coat, hat, mittens, and scarf. But you didn't wear a hat or scarf or even mittens. So I say to you, "Why don't you use my hat and mittens for a while?" You don't deserve to use my hat and mittens. I don't owe you the use of my warm clothes. I am offering them to you out of the goodness of my heart. So you put on my mittens and my hat. After a while, I say to you, "I'd like my hat and mittens back now." Am I bad to ask for my mittens and hat back? Am I doing wrong by taking back my warm clothes? Is it sinful for me to put my mittens and hat back on? No. I didn't owe you anything. You did not deserve my warm clothes. I was being kind by letting you use them for a while.
This is similar to how Job saw the situation with God allowing Satan to touch him. Job was undeserving of any mercy from God, yet God gave him health, wealth, and a family. Job had done none of these things - they were all given to him from God's heart of love. God had blessed Job, and kept Satan from touching Job time after time. God had extended mercy after mercy to Job. God allowed Satan to touch Job this time. This is kind of like saying, "I think I'll take my hat and mittens back for a while." Job did not have the right to demand mercy from God. God is the Most High; he has the right to do whatever he wants, and whatever he does is right. He is wise and he is loving.
Most of the time when we think about God and evil, we end up trying to justify ourselves - trying to assert that we don't deserve evil because we are such good people. In reality the opposite is true. We deserve evil but receive mercy. This should put life's trials and difficulties in a pretty different perspective. In R.C. Sproul's book The Holiness of God he says that the proper question to ask when something bad happens isn't "Why me?" Rather, we should be asking "Why not me?" Shall we receive good from God and shall we not receive evil (Job 2.10) Pretty deep stuff for 5-6 graders, but I think they're getting it, and they're coming to know and love God more. It's a lot of fun.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Suggestions for Professors
I'm rounding out the third year of my seminary education. Tonight marked the beginning of my spring quarter classes. After my class tonight (and the last three years of seminary) I was motivated to come up with a list of suggestions for seminary professors as to how they should think and act regarding graduate level teaching. If you've been through some sort of higher education, you can probably identify with some of these. These suggestions come as a result of working with professors from both Sioux Falls Seminary and Bethel Seminary the last three years.
But before I get into the suggestions (which are mostly formed from negative experiences I've had in seminary) I have to say that I've had just as many outstanding professors as I have poor ones (see here and here). Unfortunately, however, it always seems the poor ones have the most influence. So kudos to you who teach fairly and honestly. Jeers to those of you who treat your position as trivial, and don't realize the monumental impact you have on the hearts and minds of the students you teach. So without further ado, here are my suggestions to seminary professors.
1. Don't ridicule someone (or a group of people) who doesn't hold your position. You probably don't realize it, but any student who finds themselves holding the position contrary to the one you espouse feels silently ridiculed by their association to those whom you find to be ignorant and uneducated. You can certainly think what you want, but to teach in such a way that undercuts the opposing viewpoint without providing a reasoned argument for your position is intellectually dishonest, arrogant, and logically fallacious. Point out strengths and weaknesses of the positions of those with whom you disagree, as well as your own position and let the student decide. And do so in a way that is respectful and edifying.
2. Don't act as though obvious things are significant revelations that only you have discovered. Most of the time, you do this in order to undercut those who disagree with you and to further your own agenda and ideas. It's not intellectually honest.
3. Don't cite yourself in your lectures. It sounds incredibly arrogant (because it is, most of the time) when you talk about how you've "explained all this in detail in my book." No one cares. Yeah, you're smart; yeah, you've written a book. Get over it. The rest of us have. Also, don't try to validate your position by citing yourself. It's fallacious.
4. Don't use your position as a professor simply to further your academic career. Teach because you want to teach. Don't teach so you can write a paper and get a promotion. Students pay good, hard-earned money to receive an education from you. Hold yourself accountable and do your job without always looking for the next step. This makes you a bad teacher, because you're more invested in your own interests than those of your students.
5. Do use class time wisely, and use all of it. When you break down the numbers, students pay an astronomical amount for each minute of class time. So make sure to use the available class time well. Don't let your classes out early. Don't slough off class time by assigning "small group time." I have a suspicion that you sometimes don't make the most of class time because you don't have enough material to fill the whole time. If this is the case, redesign the class, charge less, and hold yourself accountable. Again, students pay a lot for this time, so use it wisely.
6. Do value the level of your students' learning more than you value the idea of yourself holding a position within the academy. I have found that there are a lot of professors who love the idea of themselves as being a professor. Like number 4 above, this makes you a bad teacher, and for the same reasons.
7. Do realize that a lot of the students under your care will take everything you say as gospel truth. True, you are not responsible for students who do not discern the truth for themselves, but you are responsible for their intellectual growth at least to some extent. In their eyes, you are a very educated person who knows what he or she is talking about (and for the most part, you do). But many of the students in seminary are young and impressionable, and are more than willing to sacrifice what they've believed for the newest and trendiest academic opinion. Be careful.
8. Do realize that as trendy as your current position might be, someday it will be dated and out of fashion. Someday you will be the one that young seminary professors are taking shots and, and it will be your views and ideas that will be ridiculed and treated as uniformed and anti-intellectual. Be humble, because someday you're going to be the guy whose views everyone looks at and asks, "What was he thinking?"
But before I get into the suggestions (which are mostly formed from negative experiences I've had in seminary) I have to say that I've had just as many outstanding professors as I have poor ones (see here and here). Unfortunately, however, it always seems the poor ones have the most influence. So kudos to you who teach fairly and honestly. Jeers to those of you who treat your position as trivial, and don't realize the monumental impact you have on the hearts and minds of the students you teach. So without further ado, here are my suggestions to seminary professors.
1. Don't ridicule someone (or a group of people) who doesn't hold your position. You probably don't realize it, but any student who finds themselves holding the position contrary to the one you espouse feels silently ridiculed by their association to those whom you find to be ignorant and uneducated. You can certainly think what you want, but to teach in such a way that undercuts the opposing viewpoint without providing a reasoned argument for your position is intellectually dishonest, arrogant, and logically fallacious. Point out strengths and weaknesses of the positions of those with whom you disagree, as well as your own position and let the student decide. And do so in a way that is respectful and edifying.
2. Don't act as though obvious things are significant revelations that only you have discovered. Most of the time, you do this in order to undercut those who disagree with you and to further your own agenda and ideas. It's not intellectually honest.
3. Don't cite yourself in your lectures. It sounds incredibly arrogant (because it is, most of the time) when you talk about how you've "explained all this in detail in my book." No one cares. Yeah, you're smart; yeah, you've written a book. Get over it. The rest of us have. Also, don't try to validate your position by citing yourself. It's fallacious.
4. Don't use your position as a professor simply to further your academic career. Teach because you want to teach. Don't teach so you can write a paper and get a promotion. Students pay good, hard-earned money to receive an education from you. Hold yourself accountable and do your job without always looking for the next step. This makes you a bad teacher, because you're more invested in your own interests than those of your students.
5. Do use class time wisely, and use all of it. When you break down the numbers, students pay an astronomical amount for each minute of class time. So make sure to use the available class time well. Don't let your classes out early. Don't slough off class time by assigning "small group time." I have a suspicion that you sometimes don't make the most of class time because you don't have enough material to fill the whole time. If this is the case, redesign the class, charge less, and hold yourself accountable. Again, students pay a lot for this time, so use it wisely.
6. Do value the level of your students' learning more than you value the idea of yourself holding a position within the academy. I have found that there are a lot of professors who love the idea of themselves as being a professor. Like number 4 above, this makes you a bad teacher, and for the same reasons.
7. Do realize that a lot of the students under your care will take everything you say as gospel truth. True, you are not responsible for students who do not discern the truth for themselves, but you are responsible for their intellectual growth at least to some extent. In their eyes, you are a very educated person who knows what he or she is talking about (and for the most part, you do). But many of the students in seminary are young and impressionable, and are more than willing to sacrifice what they've believed for the newest and trendiest academic opinion. Be careful.
8. Do realize that as trendy as your current position might be, someday it will be dated and out of fashion. Someday you will be the one that young seminary professors are taking shots and, and it will be your views and ideas that will be ridiculed and treated as uniformed and anti-intellectual. Be humble, because someday you're going to be the guy whose views everyone looks at and asks, "What was he thinking?"
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Thoughts On My First Wedding
This post's title needs a bit of explaining. I've only been married once, and I plan to keep it that way. The first wedding that I'm referring to is one that I officiated. Ken Marz and Sarah Heckathorn tied the knot today and I was privileged to be the one to be a part of it. Truth be told, I only did the vows, ring ceremony, and pronouncement (the easy stuff). Another minister did the message. I just basically had to find some vows to use and a traditional ring ceremony. No problem. The biggest concern I had was just not messing it up during the ceremony. All in all, it was a pretty cool experience, and I'm glad to have been a part of it. Thanks to Ken and Sarah for having me be a part of their wedding.
After the wedding I stopped at a local gas station to get some stuff I needed for my Sunday School class. The clerk noticed that I was dressed up, and actually asked if I was going to a wedding. I told him that I already had been. He asked if I was then on my way to the reception (it was about 5:30 PM). I told him that was already over too. He was in disbelief. He couldn't believe that the reception was already over at such an early time. But I guess that's what happens when you have a pretty "tame" ceremony. One without booze or dancing (not that there's anything wrong with those things; I just think it was a neat testament to the convictions of the couple - so kudos to Ken and Sarah for that).
My systematic theology prof at Sioux Falls told a neat story about a minister he knew who began each wedding ceremony he conducted by having the bride and groom sign the marriage certificate, hand it to him, and then he threw it on the floor and said, "Now that we've rendered unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, we will render unto God that which is God's." He did this to underscore the fact that a marriage is first and foremost a covenantal relationship that finds its meaning in the eyes of God, and not in the eyes of the state. His point was, yes, the state says you are married, but what does God say? The spiritual significance of marriage is much more important than the legal significance.
That little story stuck with me, and I've thought about it quite a bit. I really like it. I told Ken and Sarah that I was going to make a similar distinction when I did their vows. I wasn't as dramatic as to throw the marriage certificate on the floor, but I did make sure to mention that the important business was about to take place (making a covenant with and before God), and that the unimportant business (signing the marriage certificate) was just that - unimportant. I don't think the significance can be overstated.
All in all, it was a good experience, and I'm looking forward to repeating it many times in the future.
After the wedding I stopped at a local gas station to get some stuff I needed for my Sunday School class. The clerk noticed that I was dressed up, and actually asked if I was going to a wedding. I told him that I already had been. He asked if I was then on my way to the reception (it was about 5:30 PM). I told him that was already over too. He was in disbelief. He couldn't believe that the reception was already over at such an early time. But I guess that's what happens when you have a pretty "tame" ceremony. One without booze or dancing (not that there's anything wrong with those things; I just think it was a neat testament to the convictions of the couple - so kudos to Ken and Sarah for that).
My systematic theology prof at Sioux Falls told a neat story about a minister he knew who began each wedding ceremony he conducted by having the bride and groom sign the marriage certificate, hand it to him, and then he threw it on the floor and said, "Now that we've rendered unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, we will render unto God that which is God's." He did this to underscore the fact that a marriage is first and foremost a covenantal relationship that finds its meaning in the eyes of God, and not in the eyes of the state. His point was, yes, the state says you are married, but what does God say? The spiritual significance of marriage is much more important than the legal significance.
That little story stuck with me, and I've thought about it quite a bit. I really like it. I told Ken and Sarah that I was going to make a similar distinction when I did their vows. I wasn't as dramatic as to throw the marriage certificate on the floor, but I did make sure to mention that the important business was about to take place (making a covenant with and before God), and that the unimportant business (signing the marriage certificate) was just that - unimportant. I don't think the significance can be overstated.
All in all, it was a good experience, and I'm looking forward to repeating it many times in the future.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Teaching My Kids To Hate
Don't be too concerned with the title of this post. It's not really what it sounds like. Well, maybe it is.
As kids usually do, my oldest has picked up on my own use of the word "hate." Like, "Oh, I hate when that happens," or "I hate when the toast lands butter side down!" or something like that. I use the word to express disgust or disappointment at every day things. It's a common part of my vernacular, and I usually don't think twice about it when I say the word. That is, until my 3 year old started saying that he hated everything. "I hate this show!" or "I hate this toy." When he started saying that, I wasn't too much of a fan of the word "hate."
We started to tell him that it was not OK to say "hate," which meant I had to watch my own use of the word as well. I could't hold him to a standard that I wasn't willing to hold myself to. The reason we gave him for not using the word was that to hate something was to really dislike it very much, almost as if to wish something didn't exist. It's just a strong word that we didn't want our kids using on a regular basis.
But then I got to thinking about it: there are some things that are worthy of hatred; some things that it is right to hate. For instance, murder, or abortion, or injustice. So rather than tell my kids not to hate anything, I've switched to telling my oldest that we must love the things God loves and hate the things God hates. But before we better be really sure that God hates something before we go around hating it too.
Yesterday while Ferg and I were driving home from Grandma D's house, he said to me out of the blue, "Grandma doesn't say 'hate.' Then we got to talking about how we should love the things God loves and hate the things God hates. Kind of deep for a three year old, but I think he started to get it. At first, he didn't seem to understand how God could hate anything, but I explained to him that God hates sin, and he hates it when we treat each other badly. This was still pretty tough for him to grasp, so I think it's going to be a process.
I think this is a good exercise, though. I hope it gets my kids to start thinking theologically about the world and how they think: Is this something that God hates? How do I know? Is this something that I should hate?
If all this sounds weird, it might be a bit - at least within our culture of tolerance. Nobody likes to think about hatred, or ever wants to be known as someone who hates. But I, for one, would proudly state that I hate abortion. Hatred of one thing implies love for its opposite. I hate abortion because I love children. I hate injustice because I love fairness. I hate sin because I love righteousness (by God's grace). So we all hate something. Even people who claim to love tolerance must then hate intolerance (as ironic as that is). The key is hating the right things - the things that God hates. This is what I'm trying to teach Ferg. It'll probably be a long and delicate process.
As kids usually do, my oldest has picked up on my own use of the word "hate." Like, "Oh, I hate when that happens," or "I hate when the toast lands butter side down!" or something like that. I use the word to express disgust or disappointment at every day things. It's a common part of my vernacular, and I usually don't think twice about it when I say the word. That is, until my 3 year old started saying that he hated everything. "I hate this show!" or "I hate this toy." When he started saying that, I wasn't too much of a fan of the word "hate."
We started to tell him that it was not OK to say "hate," which meant I had to watch my own use of the word as well. I could't hold him to a standard that I wasn't willing to hold myself to. The reason we gave him for not using the word was that to hate something was to really dislike it very much, almost as if to wish something didn't exist. It's just a strong word that we didn't want our kids using on a regular basis.
But then I got to thinking about it: there are some things that are worthy of hatred; some things that it is right to hate. For instance, murder, or abortion, or injustice. So rather than tell my kids not to hate anything, I've switched to telling my oldest that we must love the things God loves and hate the things God hates. But before we better be really sure that God hates something before we go around hating it too.
Yesterday while Ferg and I were driving home from Grandma D's house, he said to me out of the blue, "Grandma doesn't say 'hate.' Then we got to talking about how we should love the things God loves and hate the things God hates. Kind of deep for a three year old, but I think he started to get it. At first, he didn't seem to understand how God could hate anything, but I explained to him that God hates sin, and he hates it when we treat each other badly. This was still pretty tough for him to grasp, so I think it's going to be a process.
I think this is a good exercise, though. I hope it gets my kids to start thinking theologically about the world and how they think: Is this something that God hates? How do I know? Is this something that I should hate?
If all this sounds weird, it might be a bit - at least within our culture of tolerance. Nobody likes to think about hatred, or ever wants to be known as someone who hates. But I, for one, would proudly state that I hate abortion. Hatred of one thing implies love for its opposite. I hate abortion because I love children. I hate injustice because I love fairness. I hate sin because I love righteousness (by God's grace). So we all hate something. Even people who claim to love tolerance must then hate intolerance (as ironic as that is). The key is hating the right things - the things that God hates. This is what I'm trying to teach Ferg. It'll probably be a long and delicate process.
An Animal-Gender-Inclusive Bible
You can file this under the category, "If You Don't Laugh, You'll Cry." Turns out the PETA folks have noticed the new gender inclusive rendering of the NIV Bible, and have encouraged the translators to refer to animals in the Bible as either "he" or "she" instead of "it." No, this is not a joke.
What is a joke (even though this is totally true) is that this suggestion is actually spurring some conversation amongst some folks. Get serious people.
What I find to be a bit confusing is why PETA people would even bring up this issue in the first place. Certainly the Bible does not see animals in the same light as the PETA folks. Animal sacrifice, anyone? How do the PETA people justify that in their reading of scripture. It seems to me that anyone who subscribes to PETA's philosophy would deplore the way animals are treated in the Bible. Then why bother with the personal pronouns?
Phil Johnson tweeted that he predicts that Zondervan would have an animal gender inclusive Bible published within the next five years. Considering all the crazy Bibles that have been published recently, I can't say I would be surprised if he's proven right (unfortunately).
What is a joke (even though this is totally true) is that this suggestion is actually spurring some conversation amongst some folks. Get serious people.
What I find to be a bit confusing is why PETA people would even bring up this issue in the first place. Certainly the Bible does not see animals in the same light as the PETA folks. Animal sacrifice, anyone? How do the PETA people justify that in their reading of scripture. It seems to me that anyone who subscribes to PETA's philosophy would deplore the way animals are treated in the Bible. Then why bother with the personal pronouns?
Phil Johnson tweeted that he predicts that Zondervan would have an animal gender inclusive Bible published within the next five years. Considering all the crazy Bibles that have been published recently, I can't say I would be surprised if he's proven right (unfortunately).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)