Is there a distinction made between “unable” to pursue residential education or a candidate who has received residential education versus “unwilling” to do so? If so, how is this determined?
]]>Many. Many. More.
]]>This response by the seminary seems to take an entirely different view of the program. While I’m greatly pleased to learn of the confidence the faculty places in the rigor of SMP instruction, this confidence begs the question why graduates from this program are limited (ostensibly) to specific ministries?
This response sadly does not address the fundamental question of whether we have two levels of pastor or only one. If there is only one level of pastor why are their limitations placed on “specific ministry” pastors? If there are two levels of pastor, should the proliferation of lesser trained pastors in roles formerly occupied by more trained pastors concern us? Moreover, if there are two levels of pastors, then do we not now have a hierarchical structure (albeit a very sloppy one)?
]]>1) Divine Writing: The Bible, down to the details of its words, consists of and is identical with God’s very own words written inerrantly in human language.
This could only have been written by someone who knows only one language. Even rudimentary acquaintance with another language would tell him how the statement is impossible. Does he propose that Jesus’s words came to us from Aramaic (or maybe sometimes Hebrew) through Greek without having to make approximate word choices? What was “over the waters”? A wind? A spirit? And then into English (see(5))? And what about the variety of literary styles, where, for example, Paul’s writings are in a distinct style different from Peter’s or Moses’s. Finally, those making this claim show ignorance of literary possibilities, such as apocalypse. Anyway, why should the author of all language confine himself to a single genre, explication?
2) Total Representation: The Bible represents the totality of God’s communication to and will for humanity, both in containing all that God has to say to humans and in being the exclusive mode of God’s true communication.
Does that mean that all the theology and inspirational material written since the canon was settled are without value? (5) and (8) bear on this too. I imagine that much that has been written since the canon was established might be included now if it were a new subject. I especially like Sanctorum Communio as a candidate. You might have some favorites too.
3) Complete Coverage: The divine will about all of the issues relevant to Christian belief and life are contained in the Bible.
Perhaps by implication. But if it is, I must draw out the implications, and so I must interpret (see (5)). What do I do about my sassy children? Bring them to the gate to be stoned? Or did Jesus in the case of the woman taken in adultery abrogate that command. If He did, I can find out only by reaching a conclusion myself—it doesn’t say so explicitly.
4) Democratic Perspicuity: Any reasonably intelligent person can read the Bible in his or her own language and correctly understand the plain meaning of the text.
Then what does this mean, “The sons of the gods saw that the daughters of men were fair and took for themselves such women as they chose.”? If there’s a plain meaning, or any meaning for that matter, I can’t see it.
5) Commonsense Hermeneutics: The best way to understand biblical texts is by reading them in their explicit, plain, most obvious, literal sense, as the author intended them at face value, which may or may not involve taking into account their literary, cultural, and historical contexts.
That’s a good start, but Jesus himself uses parables which he explains as allegory when the disciples ask. Is Job history, biography, or fiction? It doesn’t matter because that’s not what the book is about. And this, “The Lord said to my lord, ‘come and sit by my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.’” I imagine David as court musician singing this as praise of Saul, but Jesus uses it to refer to himself as messiah, and his hearers apparently understood it that way, but it’s a second-level interpretation.
6) Solo [sic] Scriptura: The significance of any given biblical text can be understood without reliance on creeds, confessions, historical church traditions, or other forms of larger theological hermeneutical frameworks, such that theological formulations can be built up directly out of the Bible from scratch.
If you can do that, you’re more perceptive than I am. I need contact with other Christians of all times to keep me on course. I don’t want to make the mistake of thinking today’s pet idea (or, worse, my pet idea) is universal. Lewis warned about that, and he knew all the original languages and was acquainted with literature from all of history.
7) Internal Harmony: All related passages of the Bible on any given subject fit together almost like puzzle pieces into single, unified, internally consistent bodies of instruction about right and wrong beliefs and behaviors.
Then why do Acts and the epistles differ on whether Paul’s companions heard the voice or saw the light, but not both? Is “He who is not against us for us.” or is “He who is not for us against us.”? They can’t both be right about those who are neutral. If you say they were both right, but at different times, you have taken away universality ((1) and (8)).
8) Universal Applicability: What the biblical authors taught God’s people at any point in history remains universally valid for all Christians at every other time, unless explicitly revoked by subsequent scriptural teaching.
Possibly. God has given me curiosity about general cases. He instructs me only about my own. It’s one of the advantages of not being a professional guide of Christians.
9) Inductive Method: All matters of Christian belief and practice can be learned by sitting down with the Bible and piecing together through careful study the clear “biblical” truths that it teaches.
Let’s sew together our own scriptures. That’s what this seems to invite.
10) Handbook Model: The Bible teaches doctrine and morals with every affirmation that it makes, so that together those affirmations comprise something like a handbook or textbook for Christian belief and living, a compendium of divine and therefore inerrant teachings on a full array of subjects—including science, economics, health, politics, and romance.
No it doesn’t. Some is plain instruction, some history, some biography, some allegory, some poetry, some myth (You must understand what I mean by myth. I’m confident you do.), and more. During the period of the judges, “every man did what was right in his own eyes.” Is that good politics? One message is that men must be governed, but not enslaved. But then, that’s an interpretation, which literalists won’t allow.
]]>I would agree with the task force as a need for Biblical languages. I would suggest the Seminary faculties reconsider how to include the languages in the SMP.
]]>In the same treatise he also noted that, really arguing for the languages, “there is a vast difference therefore between a simple preacher of the faith and a person who expounds Scripture, or, as St. Paul puts it (I Cor. 12:28-30; 14:26-32), a prophet. A simple preacher (it is true) has so many clear passages and texts available through translations that he can know and teach Christ, lead a holy life, and preach to others.” Luther goes to make the distinction between preaching on the basis of a translation and the ability to do original exegesis. We dare not lose the latter, but we can proclaim the Gospel, properly divide Law and Gospel, and teach the faith without personal knowledge of the languages – and their regular use, which, sad to say, is too often the case even with those who have invested in learning the languages. Luther speaks almost directly to your concern that “this logic makes no sense” when he notes that “hence, languages are absolutely and altogether necessary in the Christian church, as are the prophets or interpreters, although it is not necessary that every Christian or every preacher be such as prophet.” (Both sets of quotes are from “to the Councilmen of Germany,” LW 45 [re Christian in Society!] p 360 and p 363.) We do not say “that there is no need to equip pastors to be able to do this work,” as you suggest. We do argue that it is not necessary that every pastor be so equipped, especially if one is well aware of such limitations and works under supervision.
SMP is aware of such limitations. It is not a full M Div. It is designed that way. It functions in a specific niche, with restrictions on the responsibilities entrusted to such pastors. One of those limitations is the lack of biblical languages. This distinguishes an SMPastor from a general pastor, and it has been a part of our LCMS history of having two tracks of pastoral formation (though heretofore without the formal distinction now made with SMP as a distinct rostering category, under greater supervision). We teach SMP candidates how to use Scripture carefully by means of a translation, fully aware of such limitations. This awareness, seasoned with humility and a desire to learn more, is, in my opinion, often better than a little bit of knowledge of Greek that can be a dangerous thing. A minimal Greek requirement may also lead to potential confusion between the intentional limitations of an SMPastor and the presumed knowledge and skill set of a general pastor.
You argue well for both languages, and in so doing reflect positively a major emphasis of your alma mater. But the change recommended by the task force is to require only Greek, for the sake of “clear and precise proclamation,” presumably of only NT texts. But to the task force, one might well ask, “what of the other 75% of God’s Scriptures, so foundational for understanding its fulfillment in Christ, but written in Hebrew?”
]]>I feel for my brothers who are being unnecessarily left at the whims of the translation committees who do make mistakes and occasionally show their theological biases. I do not see this as moving forward but rather backwards; leading towards a day when we are sending out pastors who are as illiterate as the priests of Luther’s day. One of the great things about our synod was the insistence that all of our pastors have a basic understanding of the Biblical languages. And now we are losing it one program at a time.
I am all for exploring new ways of training pastors but not at the expense of their ability to handle the scriptures. We owe it to these men and the people they serve to equip them as fully as possible. When we strip their ability to read the scriptures we cheat them and the people they serve.
In short, if we believe that knowledge of the Biblical languages is necessary for good Exegesis then it is necessary for ALL pastors to be trained in the languages for is no exegesis at the heart of forming their proclamation?
]]>