I started with our friend Webster, which yielded these four definitions:

1. something that in ecclesiastical law belongs to the church or to a cleric as such
2. CLERGY (with a link to the word “clergy”)
3. sensitivity or attachment to religious values
4. the quality or state of being spiritual

While I found these definitions a little lacking (especially the fourth one–I thought you weren’t supposed to use the word in the definition!), I think they do point to some general themes when it comes to spirituality. First, it is usually confined to the realms of church (or temple or mosque or other similar place) or the general exercise of religion. Second, it is somewhat of a vague term–note that in the definition they used “something,” “sensitivity,” “attachment,” “quality,” and “state.” That’s a pretty broad swipe at defining the term.

In the Christian tradition, the term has been used interchangeably with (or at least intricately connect to) piety, holiness, sanctification, spiritual disciplines, and a host of other words or concepts.

In an attempt to narrow the field of what I’m talking about, I’ll propose a definition here:

Spirituality is life lived the way God intended.

That definition is certainly open to revision, and perhaps will be further refined through study and reflection. Notice that I’m not restricting it to a particular realm, like “the disciplines related to the spiritual dimension of life,” because I believe that everything in spiritual in nature. In the West there is a prevailing notion that the sacred and the secular inhabit different spheres and don’t overlap. I think that’s a false dichotomy and a result of a compartmentalizing individualistic culture. Instead, I prefer to think of all of life as sacred–whether you’re involved in more overtly God-centered activities or not, there is no place, activity, or realm that is outside of the spiritual realm. So suggest spirituality is “life lived the way God intended,” I have in mind a holistic approach that involves all of life–not just a portion–lived the way God meant us to live. When people ask “how is your spiritual life?”, I think the question is really “how is your life?”! When I say sustainable spirituality in a frenetic age, I’m talking about an ongoing pattern of life lived according to God’s intent in the midst of suffocating surroundings. In other words, I’m exploring what sustainable life looks like.

I’ve also begun reading Hearing God’s Words: Exploring Biblical Spirituality by Peter Adam (provided courtesy of IV Press) to help shed some light on both what the Bible says about spirituality and how spirituality can be pursued through the Bible. He’s undertaken a thorough study on the topic, interacting with Scripture as well as historical writings. I’m on page 35. I’ll be posting more on insights gleaned from this book as I read through it.

Thoughts? Is my definition too simple? Too broad? Too narrow? Too ______ ?

I’m all ears.

Related posts:

1. Sustainable Spirituality and the Net
2. A New Project: Spiritual Sustainability in a Frenetic Age

We weren’t meant to live that way.

Of course, that first paragraph describes me as well. I love living here in SF, but the reality is that I often live in a primarily reactive mode–taking whatever comes my way and trying to roll with it. Sometimes, that’s how things go with kids and everything else. But sometimes, I think that’s a default response to life that is incongruent with how we were designed to exist–vibrant, proactive beings full of life and joy. That’s what Jesus says in John 10:10: “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.” One of the definitions of that word “abundantly” is “pertaining to that which is not ordinarily encountered, extraordinary, remarkable.” The root verb that underlies “abundantly” means “be more than enough, be left over, excel.” So Jesus means not only that we might exist, but also experience a sustainable and overflowing life. That’s what I want.

So I’m embarking on a journey to explore–biblically and practically–this topic: “Sustainable Spirituality in a Frenetic Age.” To do that, I’m going to look at what God has to say about it in the Bible, how that can be developed theologically, and how it can be applied practically. In this journey, I plan on diving deep into particular parts of Scripture, read a number of books, share and receive stories of real life practitioners, and blog it here as I am able. I’d also like to invite you, the person reading these words, to participate in this project with me by commenting, sharing stories, challenging my thinking, and helping me understand what this “more than enough” life looks like. Will you join me in that? Use the links on the right to either subscribe to posts via rss or via email. Leave comments. Email or talk to me personally. I’d love to hear from you to see if what I’m thinking and reflecting makes any sense whatsoever.

Off I go.

Related posts:

1. Spiritual Sustainability and the Net (part two)

About the ZECNT

Anyone who uses Bible commentaries with any regularity knows that there are a plethora of series out there, from every imaginable viewpoint and for the whole spectrum of possible audiences (uber-Bible nerd to regular Joe/Jill). One might ask, “Why another commentary series?” Clinton Arnold answers that question in the Series Introduction: This is a series for pastors and teachers who are looking for a “commentary series based on the Greek text.” Such commentaries clearly exist (see NIGTC, WBC, Hermeneia to name a few), but the unique approach of the ZECNT that it is targeted for:

• Those with a Greek background,
• Who want precision on macro-level approaches to a section of text,
• Who want to-the-point analysis without getting sidetracked by rabbit chases,
• Like stuff like structural diagrams,
• Want something from a solid evangelical approach,
• Would like a little help with application of a section of text.

As such, they’ve divided the commentary by logical units into seven sections:

1. Literary Context
2. Main Idea
3. Translation and Graphical Layout
4. Structure
5. Exegetical Outline
6. Explanation of the Text
7. Theology in Application

The format of the text, I think, hits the sweet spot in between ultra-scholarly commentaries (see aforementioned NIGTC or WBC) and more concise or preacher-oriented commentaries (see TNTC, IVPNTC, or NAC). In addition to Osborne’s volume on Matthew, there are three other commentaries available: Craig Blomberg on James, Thomas Schreiner on Galatians, and Clinton Arnold on Ephesians.

The Commentary

After spending about a month going through portions of Osborne’s commentary on Matthew, I’ve come to really appreciate it. Osborne, from the preface, loves the church. This commentary is written with the church in mind, not simply adding another book on the Bible into the mix. He deftly walks through different passages, summarizing the various viewpoints, and then hits home main ideas when necessary. Whenever the sections shift into application, his paragraphs ooze his heart for God and the church. Here’s a summary of the aspects of the commentary I appreciated:

• Introduction to Narrative Hermeneutics. As Matthew is a Gospel, a narrative biography, you can’t approach it the same way you’d approach one of Paul’s letters. Cognizant of that, Osborne’s introduction, instead of starting with the standard categories of authorship, genre, text, etc., he starts right away with a section “How to Study and Preach the Gospel of Matthew.” There, he gives some basic strategies for understanding and studying the gospels, in a brief and practical manner.
• Interaction with the Greek text. Each of the clause-by-clause analyses interact directly with the Greek text. Osborne provides his translation, with the original Greek in parentheses, and analyzes each clause piece by piece. As an added bonus, the ZECNT series does not transliterate the text, which I think makes it much easier for those with a Greek background to read it. I always had trouble reading transliterated text (such as in the Pillar Commentary Series), so I applaud this decision. Breaking up the analysis into clauses is also a good decision, in my opinion, as the comments can stay focused and precise. Moreover, it helps readers see the original breaks in the text and not the interpretive decisions of translators. When helpful, Osborne would state relevant grammatical terms and usually explain their significance. For example, here are his comments on Matt 9:34: “The imperfect “said” after the aorist of v. 33 places this charge in the foreground of the action [footnote to Porter's Idioms book here] and stresses the ongoing spread of this false premise. The contrast between the response of the crowds and the Pharisees could hardly be more stark. The former are filled with wonder, but the Pharisees make the opposite conclusion and accuse Jesus himself with being demon possessed. Since he is the great teacher and wonder worker, it must be Satan, “the prince of demons” who has given him such great power.”
• Great font and layout! Their choice of font and layout is excellent – the serifed font for the main body of text is very readable, as is the spacing. The explanation sections also split into two columns, which I found helpful. Footnotes are tastefully positioned in a slightly smaller, though still readable font. The outlines and structural diagrams use a sans-serifed font that is likewise quite readable. See the example to the right.
• Interaction with Other Scholars. On that note, Osborne interacts with a wide variety of scholars. Wherever there are divergent positions on an issue (for example, how exactly is it that Jesus “fulfilled” the law in Matt 5:17), he clearly lists the options, footnotes which scholars chose those viewpoints, and states his position on the matter. See the same screenshot to the right for a short example.
• Structural Diagrams and Outlines. I love structural diagrams. I’ve seen no other commentary series that explicitly provides a clause-by-clause structural diagram of every logical unit of text like the ZECNT. Some commentaries do this where it is deemed helpful, but in this commentary it’s done on every single verse. Moreover, each clause is labeled according to its function in the sentence. For an example of one of the exegetical outlines (on the genealogy) in Matt 1, see here (small clip pasted here):
  
• Prose, Flow, and Footnotes. Osborne’s writing is extremely clear and concise. Unlike me, he doesn’t get stuck in long-winded sentences only to come back (or not) to the main point. Moreover, he uses footnotes liberally when such information with undermine the flow of the text, pointing people to the appropriate scholarly resources as needed.
• Theology in Application Section. I think this is a great feature of this commentary series. At the end of each logical unit, there is a section on application where Osborne gives a summary of the main point of the text just analyzed, and then some precisely worded points of application. Huge help.

While there is a lot I like about the commentary, there are some things I think could stand to be improved:

• Brevity at times. There were some times I wish Osborne wrote a little more on why he took a particular position as opposed to just stating it. I realize that Matthew is such a long book, and Osborne already wrote a thousand pages on it, but there were still times where I wished he would have delved into it a little more. In the introduction he says that he simply intends to refer people to other works to find the arguments there, but sometimes even a sentence or two would have been in order.
• Short Introduction. Although I appreciated the introductory section on narrative hermeneutics, the 20-page introduction was relatively short compared to other similar works (e.g. John Nolland’s 63 page introduction in the NIGTC series, or Craig Keener’s 73 page introduction in the Socio-Rhetorical Commentary series, both similar in size to Osborne’s volume), especially considering that seven of those pages talked about how to properly interpret Matthew. Those looking for more detailed background data should probably look elsewhere.
• The Progress Bar. I know, I know, this is a little niggling thing, but I thought the little “progress bar” at the opening of each chapter showing where you were in the Gospel was a little hokey. It’s styled to look like a web browser progress bar, which makes it look like some bizarre combination of an O’Reilly book on html and a textbook.
• Occasional Margin Issues. Sometimes the text or footnotes get alarmingly close to the edge of the page. Other times there is almost too much white space.

Final Summary

With those issues considered, I think Osborne’s commentary on Matthew in the ZECNT series is a keeper. I think his love for the Word and the church, his clarity in writing, his biblical application, and thorough scholarly approach to the Greek text are an outstanding contribution to the church. I would highly recommend it for anyone preaching, teaching, or studying the book of Matthew. While you’ll probably find this most helpful if you’ve studied at least a little Greek, the other parts–structural diagrams, literary context, and application–still make it a read. I like it enough that I put it at number one on my list of recommended commentaries on the book of Matthew. Here’s my final marks for the book (each on a five-plus scale):

Accessibility: +++
Readability: +++++
Depth: ++++
Quality: +++++
Overall: ++++

–

* I received this copy free of charge with no requirement to give a positive review.

Related posts:

1. Friday’s Flip Book (12/18/2009)

One of the most perplexing questions for theologians is how to interpret and understand various anthropomorphisms in the Scriptures.  In particular, such language occurs in various places in the Bible with regards to God and his relationship with time.  From the very first lines of the book of Genesis, it starts with the words, “In the beginning, God.”  Anyone who has taken a little bit of time reflecting on the nature of creation ex nihilo has dabbled with the question – what was there before the beginning?  Even those approaching the question of the origin of the universe from a non-theistic point of view have looked at theories like the Big Bang and wondered, “What was there before the Big Bang?”  While the Scriptures do not offer an exact propositional statement regarding God and his relationship to time, there are certainly references to it, that when taken together can be used to construct various theories on how he stands in relationship to time.

I entered this with a general bias or presupposition that time has no restrictions whatsoever on God, and that He is completely free to operate exactly how he chooses with regards to sequential time or timelessness altogether.  It seemed perfectly reasonable to stand with theologian Wayne Grudem’s definition of God and his relationship to time: “God has no beginning, end, or succession of moments in his own being, and he sees all time equally vividly, yet God sees events in time and acts in time.”[1] In other words, God is completely outside of time, or atemporal, yet is able to work in and through the mechanism of time to accomplish what He desires.  Or, as A. W. Tozer remarks, quoting C. S. Lewis, “if you could think of a sheet of paper infinitely extended in all directions, and if you took a pencil and made a line one inch long on it, that would be time.”[2] This understanding of a timeless God falls as a subset of an understanding of God as immutable.  If God were contained in any way by a temporal understanding of time, then it would logically follow that at certain points God undergoes change.  As each new event unfolds, God in a sense “acquires” a new set of knowledge that He did not previously have.

Upon further research, it became evident that while the atemporal, divinely timeless view of God had stood for centuries as the general majority view of God’s relationship to time, there were particular nuances on exactly how to understand that timelessness.  Particularly helpful was a book edited by Gregory Ganssle, God and Time, which allotted the space for four theologians to outline their positions on God and His relationship to time.  Of those four positions, I will focus on the three here that discuss some version of timelessness, and reflect on how they impacted my understanding of our glorious Triune God.

Paul Helm, Professor of Theology and Philosophy at Regent College, holds the position of Divine Timeless Eternity.  This is most in line with the classical positions of Augustine, John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas, and holds to an idea of God being completely timeless irrespective of His relationship to the created order.  He has always been timeless and always will be timeless.  In approaching some of the language of the Bible that seems to suggest that God indeed operates in a temporal manner, Helm offers the following solution: “But may not such representations of God be anthropomorphic (or anthropochronic) in order to render his relations to his creation more intelligible to us?”[3] I appreciate his usage of the term anthropochronic, because it reminds us that not just in relationship to space, but with regards to all attributes of God, we are attempting to put into human understanding an infinite being.  As Helm contends, “For divine eternality is timelessness, and it cannot be expected that human analogies and models will throw much light on what more positively it is or is like.”[4] All of our attempts to systematize and understand how God operates timelessly is ultimate an improbable exercise.  As the theologian William Hasker puts it, “no experience of ours is timeless, so in that respect the analogy is not only incomplete but incompleteable.”[5]

In spite of the difficulty in understanding eternal timelessness, Helm and others still make their best attempts to shed light on how to view God and time.  At the outset, there are passages like Isaiah 46:9-10, “remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’”  From passages like this, it seems clear that God stands outside of time and is unrestricted by successive temporal events in any way.  Everything works in conjunction with His purposes, and he is able to see the end of time at the same time as seeing the beginning.  On the other hand, the notion that God acts in time in the Scriptures must be addressed.  For example, God seems to respond to Abraham’s plea for Sodom and Gomorrah and Moses’ intervention on behalf of the idolatrous Israelites.  The response of theologians like Helm and Hasker is that God has eternally willed something to pass, not being surprised by any of these circumstances, and the result is effects that appear to be temporal.  For example, our understanding of God sustaining and preserving the universe could be seen as a temporal activity.  However, an alternative way of looking at preservation is to see it as something that has been eternally willed yet being effective in a temporal manner from our limited perspective.  As Hasker suggests, “the temporal characteristics of the effects of divine actions need not characterize the actions themselves….the act of bringing about responses that occur in time to the actions of temporal beings need not itself be a temporal act.”[6] As finite beings, our understanding of God’s timelessness is inherently limited.  Helm helpfully remarks, “There is for him no past and no future.  It makes no sense to ask how long God has existed, or to divide up his life into periods of time.  He possesses the whole of his life at once: it is not lived successively.”[7] In other words, instead of talking about God in terms of segments of life, it suffices to say, “God is.”

Two other positions, variants of the divine timelessness position warrant discussion here.  The first, defended by Alan Padgett at Luther Seminary, is that of “Eternity as Relative Timelessness.”  This intriguing suggestion defines two primary modes of time.  The first, as we from a human perspective would see it,  is regular, physical time which operates in successive moments.  Physical time had a beginning which God brought about, and will have an end.  Apart from that, however, is an idea of metaphysical time, the time that God himself operates in.  While God is timeless with respect to the created, physical time that we experience, he is temporal with respect to the metaphysical time, which does not operate with the same metrics or restrictions as physical time.  In other words, God exists in “God-time.”  Padgett’s contention with a purely divine timelessness like Helm and Hasker is that “the doctrine that God determines every event ‘from eternity’ is incoherent with a libertarian understanding of human free will.”[8] Moreover, one of the primary tenets of a purely timeless theory of God, known as the stasis or tenseless theory, that every event actually exists with regards to the time it happened, is false.  Because of that, Padgett suggests, “we should reject the timeless view because we should, whenever possible, bring coherence to theology.”[9] As he continues, “All times’ being present to God, while a traditional idea, is incoherent.  Being past, being present and being future are temporal properties that God cannot partake of, if God is absolutely timeless.”[10] His solution, then, is to have two aspects of time, the physical and the metaphysical.  The space and time that we exist in is of the created type, that which God exists in is of the necessary type – it exists as a necessary result of God existing.  Within this scheme, “God is not contained within time, not even God’s own time.  Rather, God’s Being is conceptually prior (in terms of ontological dependence) to eternity, even though God’s life is not temporally prior to God’s time.”[11] Moreover, God’s time remains “infinite and immeasurable,”[12] and we cannot understand the precise manner in which it operates.  God remains the Lord of time as we know it because He created it, yet is able to operate temporally within it while being timeless in relation to it, but temporal with regards to God-time.

A third suggestion that includes a version of timelessness is that of “Timelessness and Omnitemporality” as proposed by William Lane Craig at Talbot School of Theology.  Craig offers a particularly interesting solution to the conception of God as timeless and yet operating within time.  In his scheme, God was completely timeless before the creation of the universe, but ever since that particular event, God became temporal and actually operates in a sequenced manner.  Craig does not buy into a tenseless theory of time, and hence concludes, ”Given a dynamic theory of time, it follows from God’s creative activity in the temporal world and his complete knowledge of it that God is temporal.  God quite literally exists now.  Since God never begins to exist nor ever ceases to exist, it follows that God is omnitemporal.  He exists at every time that ever exists.” [13] Craig suggests that an entirely timeless God would be unable to have any real knowledge of tensed facts, because He would be unable to operate within that realm.  So in keeping with the trajectory of the world, once God created time, He changed into a temporal being, while still being completely omniscient and omnipotent as long as it is now, and operating temporally with temporal beings.  That, to Craig, does not take away from the ultimate power and knowledge of God while making his character compatible with creation.

When I looked at these second two positions by Padgett and Craig, I was initially drawn in by both suggestions.  Padgett’s idea of a second, immeasurable metaphysical time appealed to my mind the most, as it seemed to offer a reasonable solution to an understanding of how God could somehow operate temporally within creation while himself remaining timeless.  It seemed to be a way of simultaneously answering yes to the questions of whether God is atemporal or temporal.  Craig’s suggestion, while certainly innovative, did not seem to work as cleanly to me.  First, God had to undergo some element of change in order to become temporal, and therefore his immutability is threatened within such a scheme.  Furthermore, I wonder if this view is compatible with any form of timelessness at all, because the creation happened at a certain point in time, and God existed “before” that moment, and therefore in a way was temporal prior to the creation as well.  God would have had some sort of measurable interval of time antecedent to his transformation into a temporal being.  In that sense, it seems to me that Padgett’s view of a separate metric for God-time or Helm’s view of the classic divine timelessness are the most compelling.  On this point I am inclined to agree with Helm because it does not introduce a second layer of complexity to the mechanism in which God-time works.  There is also a similar problem with God existing prior to the created order on some other immeasurable metaphysical time scale.  If God-time is immeasurable, yet there is some interval before which God existed in his own time scale, then in some way that time-scale is temporal.  It seems to me to be easier to say that God is, and there is no contingent time scale, physical or metaphysical, that He is dependent on, and he eternally wills things into place.  Obviously, the matter is far more complicated than the few sentences that I have written to condense these ideas, but it seems most in line with my understanding of the Scriptures and God’s sovereignty for Him to be divinely timeless without any restrictions.

Thinking about even a single moment in time, say January 1, 2008, there were billions of people being affected by billions more events and interactions, not to mention the other living creatures of the earth along with the activity in the entire universe.  And God understood and was able to see every one of them.  He knew what I was eating for breakfast that day and what sensation I had when food entered my mouth at the same time as understanding a mother caring for her child halfway across the world.  He saw it simultaneously, with equal vibrancy, along with billions upon billions of other events.  One minute later, the event that occurred did not surprise God one bit, for He saw that with the same omnipotent ability as the prior moment, because he exists outside of time.  Or, more accurate, because He exists.  In my mind, this view of divine timelessness best preserves the concept of the sovereignty of God and his ultimate goodness – He is not adapting to surprising changes in any temporal manner, but as Lord of all He guides and understands every event in time while standing outside of it.  From our perspective, we are only able to see things one moment at a time – we can have some recollection of the past, no real vision of the future, and a limited and dulled understanding of even the present moment.  Yet for God, I believe there are no such restrictions.  He can see all events equally vividly, yet understands the sequential order of them.  He can view the entire landscape of history without being perplexed by anything.

Any thoughts?

[2] A.W. Tozer, The Attributes of God, (Camp Hill: Christian Publications, 1997), 5.

[3] Paul Helm, Eternal God, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 2.

[4] Paul Helm, “Divine Timeless Eternity,” in God and Time, ed. Gregory Ganssle (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 37-8.

[5] William Hasker, God, Time, and Knowledge (Ithaca: Cornell Press, 1989), 150.

[6] Ibid., 158.

[7] Helm, Eternal God, 23-4.

[8] Alan Padgett, “Eternity as Relative Timelessness,” in God and Time, ed. Gregory Ganssle (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 94.

[9] Ibid., 95.

[10] Ibid., 98.

[11] Ibid., 107.

[12] Ibid.

[13] William Lane Craig, “Timelessness and Omnitemporality,” in God and Time, ed. Gregory Ganssle (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 153.

Related posts:

1. Jesus’ Parables and God’s Intended Design
2. Time to start blogging again…
3. Playoff time!

- Craig Blomberg, Neither Poverty Nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions, 238-9

Related posts:

1. The Old Testament and Material Possessions
2. Jesus’ Parables and God’s Intended Design

The battle against compartmentalization has been a significant part of my spiritual journey the last two years. Out here in the West, our primary disposition is one of individualism and dichotomized living. What I mean by that is we think about “me” first (ironic because of my web address), and then about slotting things into their place, comfortable separated from one another. That’s why sometimes it’s a little disconcerting to have all our spheres of friends intersect at one event. Because we adapt to different contexts (and rapidly), when those worlds collide it brings about a bewildered sense of out-of-place-ness. Or, another way to look at it is to think of all the different “hats” we wear – our work hat, our family hat, our church hat, our online hat, our offline hat, our sports hat, our whatever-you-name it, we’ve got it.

Trouble is, we do that with God too.

I call it “box theology.” We try to put God into a convenient box, systematize Him where we can, keep Him out of spheres where it’s not conducive to the choices we want to make, and forget Him entirely a large percentage of the time. But God doesn’t work that way, does He? If we believe that He’s truly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, then we can’t live a “box theology” life. We can’t have convenient compartments where we choose to let God in to certain parts of our lives, but not all of them. No, it’s not compatible with the way of Jesus. Instead, our lives are to be submitted – every single part – to the lordship of Christ, understanding that God is omni-everything – present in every circumstance from daily chores to intense decisions. All of life is supposed to converge in God, and our continuing story is to walk in such a way that seeks convergence, bringing about true life and pursuing real, authentic spirituality that is honest to God and who He’s made us to be: men and women created in God’s image to love Him, love one another, and help others do the same. Life that is incongruent with that ends up feeling a little empty, dare I say boxy – because God has been boxed out.

When it comes to a compartmentalized life, the prevailing question is “What can I control?” When it comes to the cross-shaped life, the question turns into a statement of truth: “God is in control.” In 1 Cor 1:22-24, Paul demonstrates how the power of God superseded the things that would impress both Jews and Greeks – power and wisdom. That was their version of putting God in a box – a fancy miracle worker or a wise guru. Thing is: Even though the Gospel looks like complete foolishness in comparison by worldly standards, but it trumps both.

God could never fit in a box. Hence, a follower of Jesus shouldn’t live a boxy life. I want my life to be completely consistent with who God made me to be, no compartments, no masks, just me, created in God’s image. I think my life would look much simpler and feel much richer. What would an anti-compartmentalized life look like for you?

Related posts:

1. Notions of Wisdom: Consumerism versus the Cross
2. Sustainable Spirituality and the Net
3. Spiritual Sustainability and the Net (part two)

It got me thinking about major shifts like Gutenberg to Google in areas that I’m passionate about – photography and biblical studies.  When I got more seriously into photography about eight years ago, pro digital was in its infancy.  I started with 35mm film, shooting negatives, moving on to slide film, even stepping into the arena of medium format with a sweet 6×6 rangefinder.  I distinctly remember while taking photos for some gigs the anxiety associated with the very fact that I really had no guarantee that what I thought I was capturing on film was actually going to be there.  Instead, I had to wait a whole day or so to see the results come back.  Digital photography changed all of that.  Now, seemingly everyone has a digital camera.  Instant feedback is the norm.  Blogs with tutorials abounded.  Photo blogs, photo sharing sites, home print shops, all of that has become the norm.  Expert information now accessible to the masses.

Let’s shift the discussion to the arena of biblical studies.  Among my favorite classes in seminary have been Hebrew and Greek.  Something about it just connects with how my brain is wired – I love seeing patterns, dissecting paragraphs and sentences, diving deep into the study of a Bible passage, and asking lots of questions.  It’s actually quite invigorating for me.  Along the way, a huge help for me in this area has been a piece of technology, software to be precise, called Logos Bible Software.  Whereas in the days before, one had to painstakingly parse verbs or count by hand the number of occurrences of a text, or look up manually in a real book a reference, Logos does all of this for you.  You can hover your mouse over a word in Greek, double-click, pull up a commentary, link all the books together so they scroll simultaneously, do intensive searches on all sorts of topics with all sorts of parameters – all without even leaving your chair.  Some would look at this as the end of an era, much like the end of analog film.  Much of this resulted from an instant gratification, a “microwave” generation expectation, so to speak.  Expert information now accessible to the masses.

In so many ways, this shift is good.  It opens up things that were once only available to a select few to a much larger audience.  Technologies like Wikipedia have made a significant contribution to the dissemination of information.   Yet Sweet brought up a very interesting point toward the end of his talk – “These are the first generations of kids that do not need authority figures to access information.”  It’s all there.  But then he went on to say, “But where the generation needs us more than ever (you used to have kids to work the fields, not to work the remotes), they need help in process – what do I do with all this information? How do I turn it from information to knowledge to wisdom?”  And there you have it.  Information does not equal wisdom.  And that’s where I think training of various sorts comes in.  (Which, by the way, won’t be the same type for everyone, since God wired us all differently.)  The information alone will only get us to a point.  It has to be processed and put into practice.  Applied wisdom, ahh, obedience, information activated – now you’re on to something.  I think that’s one of the primary areas where the church is meant to come alongside each other in community and cultivate that kind of a relationship with Jesus.  And ultimately, it’s not what you know, but who you know.  Christianity is about a relationship with the living God.

Digital photography is great.  So is Logos.  But here’s where I think the dots between mentors and training and tools can connect.  We can’t focus on just the tools alone, but how to use the tools.  I’ve been in seminary for more than four years now, and I’ve been hugely blessed by the experience.  Having something like Logos to my toolbox has been a huge boon for me – I’m able to take ideas that I’ve got in my head – either from class or preparing a Bible study or a sermon – and process those ideas through some real data available at my fingertips.  And I’m constantly reminded not to seek just the information, but real wisdom – applied knowledge.  Moreover, I’m reminded that gifts like teaching and knowledge are meant to bless others, not to be kept inside one individual.  When that starts happening, when one member of the body blesses another, who in turn blesses another (2 Tim. 2:2), then you start to see movements happen.  Even though I look at this era that we live in with some trepidation and uncertainty, I rest assured in the God who stands above all of history and has the whole trajectory in view.

Those of you who know me know that I can get really excited about certain things.  Logos is one of them.  And for those of you who are in seminary at the moment, they’re making a $1,000 scholarship available, and whoever gets it also gets a really nice copy of Logos.  Tuition can be expensive, and anything can help.  Check it out here: seminary scholarship.  All you’ve got to do is watch a video and fill out some forms.  For those of you who aren’t looking for a scholarship at the moment, you can still check it out at http://www.logos.com.  And for all of these things – be it seminary, a computer, a piece of software – they’re tools – among many different types – that are out there that can help us in our journey of following Jesus.

Oh, and Sweet’s answer to the question above is this – Jesus was all about pointing people toward what it means to be truly human, that is, the way we were meant to be.

No related posts.