100th Post!

Well, here it is.  My 100th post on Tiger's Got My Back.  What does one blog about at such a milestone?  I suppose I could reminisce about all of the great posts I've had, but that's a little too self-congratulatory for my liking.  So instead, I will humbly speak of my last semester at Denver Seminary.

I have learned a two things this semester.  First, I have learned how little I truly know about theology and the Bible.  Sure, I've been studying it for ten years, but my own lack of knowledge often frustrates me.  This was made even more apparent to me as I went through the orals process.  Codifying my theological beliefs into paper format was a definite wake-up call that, although I knew where I stood on many issues at a high level, showed me I need to work on nailing down the details.  One such area is Bible references.  I have a hard time remembering where a particular passage or verse is located.  I suppose the only true solution for this is the hard work of memorization.  Ugh.  I also learned that my knowledge of the history and terminology of various theological issues is a bit weak.  I really had to read up on some various terms, people, church councils, etc, that at this point in my academic career, I probably should have known.  I think a lot of this is because 1) over the course of such prolonged study, one is bound to forget quite a bit of material, and 2) my personal reading is too narrowly focused on books and subjects I enjoy, rather than those I need to read to grow.  I will be changing my reading habits accordingly come May.

I have also learned that I am at the point where I need to dig a little deeper into topics than seminary requirements dictate.  I have noticed with these last few papers that it has become increasingly hard to limit their content to the page limits assigned to them.  One might write an entire book on 2 Thess 2:1-12, whereas I have but 14 pages at my disposal.  Now, given my current work and family situations, I'm not complaining, but I just feel that I am barely scratching the surface anymore.  Perhaps there will be more advanced writing in my future...

Summing up, these past few months have been a good end to seminary.  I have a better idea now of where I am at theologically and academically, and I can see now that my MDiv is just the foundation.  I need to push myself to the next level.  I need to get (more) serious about using the gifts God has given me.  (I've all but forgotten Hebrew--how can I live with myself?)  I need to read books that will challenge me and enable me to be more well-rounded, in addition to the ones I simply enjoy.  (Just to prove how much of a nerd I really am, I'm trying to develop a reading matrix for this purpose.  If anyone has any good ideas, please let me know.)

In effect, the bar remains for me where it has always been set: I want to be the best, not for comparison's sake, but for my own.  I think this semester has reminded me of that.  Perhaps one day I will get there...

Soteri-what?

The good news is I passed my oral exam.  My panel of professors also commented several times on how well-written my paper was.  The bad news is, I have to redo the section on soteriology.  

Everyone who wants to graduate with an MDiv from the seminary must write a somewhat lengthy paper on his or her theological beliefs, ranging the spectrum from describing God's revelation to humankind to interpreting God's Revelation specifically to John.  Overall, many of the topics are relatively easy to understand, and the "orthodox" positions are obviously the correct ones.  The hardest topic for me to wrap my mind around is soteriology (theology of salvation).  The old Calvinism/Arminianism debate rears its ugly head once more.  

I grew up in the Baptist church (first American, then Southern, then General), but I now attend and am on staff at a Wesleyan church.  99% of the doctrine is the same between these denominations, but of course one of the main differences is in this area of soteriology.  My own view has been shaped in part by my denominational journey.  Growing up, I was taught that five-point Calvinism (TULIP) was the way to go.  As I grew in my knowledge of the scriptures, I concluded that this framework was not the best interpretation of key texts.  I didn't want to go clear to the opposite end of the spectrum and embrace a full-fledged Arminianism for the same reasons.  In fact, as I read the Bible (esp. the New Testament), I see that both sides have some things right and some things wrong.  I attempted to create some type of mediating position in my paper, but the type I managed to create was...less than entirely coherent and a bit contradictory, shall we say?  (Hey, it was a first try.)

In the next few weeks, I will be doing some more research on this and try to come up with a better mediating view (if I know one thing, I know that I fall in the middle somewhere).  I'll do the best I can to explain the "mechanics" if you will of the salvation process (ordo salutis, for you Latin geeks) in a satisfactory manner.  I can't help but feel, though, that this attempt to systematize God's salvific work in humankind, corporately and individually, is in effect putting God into a box.  I am not sure that God works in the same way to bring people to Himself in all cases.  I'm not sure he needs a specific process to do this, either.  In fact, if I could use one phrase to describe my views on all of this, it would be, "I'm not sure."  That doesn't mean that I may not become "sure" in the future, or that I will just write off the whole of soteriology to the category of mystery and be on my way.  Nor do I deny that one's position in this area can greatly influence one's ideas on evangelism.  It's just one area about which I have no good answers.

Here is what I do know: Followers of Christ are commanded and expected to spread the gospel.  That much alone should keep me plenty busy until I can figure out the rest of it.