Ketcham's Madison biography and Ellis' Founding Brothers

In my continued venture into American political history, I have been working my way through Ralph Ketcham's biography of James Madison.

I have really enjoyed it and learned a lot from it. In particular, I have enjoyed the chapter on the debates over ratification of the Constitution. Not only is it fascinating to see how this discussion played out, but I am finding it a great way to learn about our system of checks and balances and why it works so well. I am once again impressed with how narrowly success (in this case ratification) was achieved.

The book's main weakness, in my opinion, has to do with readability. While it conveys an impressive amount of information about Madison's life, it is not governed and organized by an overall interpretation of his importance, so the reader is often left overwhelmed by facts and without a sense of context and flow. One wishes Ketcham paused more frequently to reflect on the significance of the events he is narrating - at the very least, an introductory or concluding chapter, set apart from the chronology of Madison's life, would have been helpful. The task of a good history book, it seems to me, is not merely to tell the story, but to do so in a way that is interesting and accessible.

I am wondering if, in some cases, a more engaging way to write history is to focus in on key events and offer "snapshots," rather than to go by strict chronology. A book that does this well is Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, by Joseph J. Ellis, which I began yesterday. It focuses in on six different events - the Burr-Hamilton duel in 1804, the Jefferson-Adams letter correspondence after they were both retired, Washington's farewell address, and three others - and shows how these little stories interweave with the larger story of our nation's birth and infancy. Through this very engaging format, Ellis is able to cover a wide range of topics without losing unity and flow. He shows how our nation was not only legally bound by a formal system of checks and balances in our founding documents, but naturally bound by an informal system of checks and balances in the personalities and ideologies of our diverse founding fathers.

For its brevity, its diverse range of topics, and its well-written prose, I recommend this book as the best place to start in reading early American political history.

More on Hebrews 1:1-4

In my own words, 10 things we learn about Jesus Christ from Hebrews 1:1-4:

1) He is the greatest revelation of God in history.
2) He is the heir of all things - i.e., his "inheritance" is reality itself.
3) Everything was made through Him.
4) By addition of (2) + (3), He is the key agent at both the beginning and the end of time (cf. Col. 1:16).
5) He is the shining out (apaugasma) of God's glory.
6) He is the full representation of God's very essence or being.
7) He upholds the entire universe through his authoritative power. Without him, nothing would hold together (cf. Colossians 1:17: "by him all things consist.")
8) He made purification for sins.
9) He sits at God's majestic right hand in heaven. Ellingworth: "the right hand ... is a natural metaphor for power.... To sit or stand ... on an important person's right side is a sign of honor in many cultures .... To sit at God's right hand is therefore to share in his power without limitation."
10) He is exalted over the angels.

In short, He is Creator, Sustainer, Ruler, Revealer, and Redeemer. He has union with God without limitation - full Deity and full glory with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. All things are from Him at the beginning, all things are upheld by Him in the present, and all things are for Him at the end. A high Christology!

Comments on Hebrews (1:1-4)

I've finished my word-by-word study of Hebrews 1:1-4, the introduction to the book. It is a fascinating and theologically rich passage, a single Greek sentence, perhaps the densest summary of the person and work of Jesus Christ in the Bible. Christ's prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices are all featured:

prophetic: "(God) has spoken to us by His Son"
priestly: "making purification for sins"
kingly: "he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high"

I see the key word of the whole sentence as ekathisen, "he sat down." What the writer of Hebrews ends with, amidst all his other statements about Christ's person and work, is his exaltation/enthronement. One can see the prominence of Christ's exaltation by noting the chiasmus that Ellingworth detects in 1:2b-3:

heir of all things (2b) ---> enthronement/exaltation
__through whom the world was created (2c) ---> action in universe
____radiance of God's glory (3a) ---> relation to God
____exact imprint of his nature (3b) ---> relation to God
__sustains all things (3c) ---> action in universe
(made purification for sins [3d]) ---> (reason for ...)
sat down at the right hand of God (3e) ---> enthronement/exaltation

I am often skeptical of the value of noting chiastic structures, because if you look hard enough you can find a chiasmus in a phone book. Oftentimes a technical commentator, it seems to me, will find something in a text that even the author didn't know was there. Nevertheless, I think Ellingworth is right to draw attention to the enthronement of Christ, given the prominence of this motif throughout the rest of the book, and the importance of Psalm 110 in connection to it as well.

Christ's exaltation/enthronement is not some cold, distant reality for the writer of Hebrews. Throughout the book the writer of Hebrews frequently makes a theological move from Christ's enthronement to his priestly ministry. Exaltation ---> priestly saving work (atonement + intercession). One could say, therefore, that while Christ's prophetic, priestly, and kingly roles are all explicit in 1:1-4, it is his priestly office, specifically his priestly enthronement for believers, that is most significant, and that will be returned to most frequently throughout the book.

The cash value: we often think of Christ's saving work exclusively in terms of the event of his death/resurrection leading the result of atonement. Hebrews reminds us of the additional importance of the event of his exaltation leading to the result of intercession.

Moving

I hate details. I am definitely a "big picture" guy. For this reason and others, I find moving to be very stressful. And today was the worst kind of moving day - heavy furniture, lots of loading and unloading, heavy traffic, multiple stops, etc. To make matters worse, things kept going wrong. We couldn't squeeze the couch through our back door. I didn't have the right wiring adaptor for picking up my Uhaul trailer, so I had to get it installed (and got over-charged big time). Then I got caught in heavy traffic for an hour on the interstate with my air conditioning not working.

As one thing after another kept violating my plan for an efficient and relatively painless day, I began to get frustrated. After frustration came anger, and after anger came self-condemnation ("why can't I ever do anything right?"). I went up the ladder of emotions to what is, for me, the very worst: feeling stupid and invalidated.

In the midst of this, while standing still on the interstate sweating like crazy because of no AC and no wind, I stopped and thought about C.J. Mahaney's book on humility, which I recently read, and some of the advice it had about noticing evidences of God's grace around us and cultivating gratitude in the midst of hard circumstances. By the grace of God, I was reminded that he was with me, using these circumstances to humble me, and at the same time kindly taking care of me. I thought of the guy who had installed my wiring, and where I would be if he had called in sick today. I thought of the random stranger who bought our couch via Craigslist who labored with me to get it to his truck. I thought of our friend Becky who, out of the goodness of her heart, helped Esther with packing the entire afternoon. I thought about my friend Jason who spent almost an hour on the phone with me trying to figure out the wiring in my car, despite being busy with a new job. I thought about my wife, who puts up with me when I am grumpy and works cheerfully and faithfully alongside me.

The evidence for God's grace is all around me. Instead of growing resentful for some (in the big scheme of things) minor difficulties, I could instead allow myself to be humbled and reminded of how good God has been to me. I have it so much better than I deserve. And I have so much to be grateful for.

Biographies and American History

I am really on a biography kick lately, especially about people in American history. Esther calls this "my flavor of the week." Two people I would really like to read a good biography on:

1) James Madison. Because he was such an incredibly important founding father (the primary author of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and a major contributer to the Federalist Papers), yet often neglected in favor of people like Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson. He was also a two-term Secretary of State who negotiated the Louisiana Purchase, and a two-term President who oversaw our first war after the Revolutionary War. I think it would be worthwhile to spend some time studying Madison in order to understand the Constitution better.

2) Daniel Webster. Because he was such a great orator, and it would be interesting to learn about our country during the post-Revolution pre-Civil War generation, a time I know basically nothing about. Also it would be interesting to study a Senator rather than a President.

I honestly can't find a biography on Madison that catches my eye, but this one on Webster looks very solid. If only I were not such a slow reader, I would order it. I try to discipline myself to skim more, but I usually get too engrossed and cannot do it. Some day I will get around to reading it!

Here is a famous excerpt from Daniel Webster's July 17, 1850 address to the Senate:

"I shall stand by the Union...with absolute disregard of personal consequences. What are personal consequences...in comparison with the good or evil which may befall a great country in a crisis like this?...Let the consequences be what they will.... No man can suffer too much, and no man can fall too soon, if he suffer or if he fall in defense of the liberties and constitution of his country."

David Berlinksi lists some difficulties for Darwinism

My continued research into the issue of intelligent design has led me to David Berlinksi, a New York raised secular Jew, philosophical agnostic, and outspoken critic of Darwinism. Berlinksi got a Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has taught philosophy, mathematics, and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York, the University of Washington, the University of Puget Sound, San Jose State University, the University of Santa Clara, the University of San Francisco, San Francisco State University, and the University of Paris. I mention these credentials not because in themselves they validate his points, but rather to undercut some of the common claims made by critics of intelligent design, namely, that those who oppose Darwinism are (1) not real scientists and (2) religious creationists in disguise. Since Berlinski is both academically respectable and agnostic in his own religious views, he cannot be accused of trying to sneak fundamentalist religious ideas into the classroom.

Much more imporantly, he makes some compelling points.

Intelligent Design

I have been growing more and more convicted lately about the need in our society for people to speak out against naturalistic neo-Darwinism and not be bullied into silence by the contempt with which intelligent design is often regarded. I am going to frame my thoughts here in a series of questions:

1) Should intelligent design (hereafter ID) be taught in schools?

Whether ID is right or wrong, students should be given all the facts, hear all the arguments, be free to ask any question, and be free to follow the evidence wherever it leads. This is the essence of free academic inquiry.

2) But is there really a debate?

A large chunk of the general population and many in the scientific community with strong academic credentials (Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, to name a few) question whether neo-Darwinism can explain all the facts. There is only no debate about this if you dismiss the other side as non-existent. It may be a lop-sided debate, but to claim that there is NO debate is simply factually incorrect.

3) But isn't ID just some wacky pseudo-scientific view that only morons take seriously?

The biggest problem in this debate is that anti-ID voices in the scientific community and more generally in culture rely more upon bullying, name calling, caricaturing, labeling, dismissing, and intimidating than they do on arguing. Appeals to authority are frequent and thundering; appeals to evidence are rare. If ID is really so stupid, shouldn't it be easy to prove that? Why, then, the need for ideological bullying?

4) But isn't ID not really science?

This whole controversy gets to the very heart and definition of science. ID is only not science if you define science in such a way that it can only study that which has naturalistic causes. But this is a rather restrictive definition of science which is not based on any empirical observations of the world, but on a philosophical presupposition, namely naturalism. This is not the definition of science that Newton or Kepler or Einstein worked under, nor has it been shown why intelligent causes must be out of bounds in order for something to be studied scientifically.

5) But why do so many scientists espouse evolution?

In our cultural and intellectual setting philosophical naturalism has a very strong grip on the sciences. Fighting against this pressure is very difficult, as Ben Stein's movie shows. In any case, the issue should be settled not by an appeal to numbers, but to evidence.

6) What evidence is there for ID?

The irreducible complexity of the first cell and sudden explosions in the fossil record (e.g., the cambrian explosion) would be two examples of events or data that are best explained by an intelligent cause. Darwin himself validated both of these points. He thought the cell was relatively simple: we know today that its unimaginably vast, intricate, and complex, needing all of its various parts to be functioning to have any survival value at all. He also admitted the lack of transitional life forms in the fossil record stood against his theory. He thought later discoveries would vindicate him; they have not.

7) Why is it important for Christians and others who question neo-Darwinism to speak out on this issue?

Its important because truth is important, its important because academic freedom is important, and its important because the worldview that normatively though not necessarily corresponds to neo-Darwinism is a brutal one which dehumanizes people.

8) But couldn't ID be wrong?

Of course! But if it is wrong, it should be proven so by science, not bullied into silence by the powers that be. People should be allowed to challenge the consensus - just like Darwin did.

Delight

The other day I read Tolkien's preface to the second edition of Lord of the Rings, published in 1965. In it Tolkien insists that his book has no allegorical significance (apparently a lot of readers and reviewers were speculating that the ring symbolized Nazi Germany since he wrote it during WWII), and that his only aim was to write a really good story which would delight and captivate readers. As I read I experienced such a deep sense of delight that I can only describe it by saying that not only did I feel as though I was reading a good book, but I felt as though I was reading a book that was made for me, a book which helps explain who I am. I felt a similar feeling while reading about Lincoln and the founding fathers a few weeks back - not only is this interesting, but I feel loyalty to it, I feel that it is mine. My pleasure left the realm of happiness and entered into the realm of identity.

To delight in something - to be captivated, enchanted, enthralled, amazed - I taste the goodness of God in this. If nothing else, I want to be known as a person who delights. There is so much in this world to delight in.

Comments on Hebrews (1:1-2a)

When I am doing a study, I often find it helpful to write down a succinct summary of various noteworthy conclusions I make so that I can remember them and refer to them in the future. So, as I work my way through Hebrews, I will be making notes from time to time on things that particularly stand out to me. These notes will not be exhaustive or consistent; just occasional thoughts, quotes, insights, questions, comparisons, etc.

My first reading was on 1:1-1:2a:

"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son" (ESV).

Verses 1-2 contain several parallel contrasts:

long ago ---> in these last days
to our fathers ---> to us
by the prophets ---> by his Son
at many times and in many ways ---> ?

The speech of God is the prominent thrust of this section. It is the only constant in the two contrasting phrases: "God spoke (v. 1) ... he has spoken (v. 2)." There is both continuity and discontinuity between God's Old Testament revelation and his revelation in Christ, and the profoundest and most basic point of continuity is, they are both revelation. The other phrases all highlight discontinuity. God's speech was long ago (palai), now it is in these last days; it was to our fathers, now it is to us; it was by the prophets, now it is by his Son. What, however, corresponds to "at many times and in many ways" (which Ellingworth notes is emphatic due its placement, length, and alliteration in the Greek)?

Lane comments: "only one expression descriptive of the old revelation is not taken up and developed in setting forth the distinctive character of the new revelation. It is the adverbial phrase 'at various times and in many ways.' The omission of this phrase implies that when God spoke his word through the Son he spoke with finality" (31, italics his).

There is thus one more contrast which is implicit in 1:1-1:2a, in addition to the contrasts mentioned above which are explicit. It is this: diversity ---> unity. Or perhaps better: diversity ---> climactic singularity.

My conclusion: the writer of Hebrews begins his letter with a comparison of God's former speech (v. 1) and his Son-speech (v. 2) which highlights the finality and importance of this latter revelation. This contrast anticipates and undergirds his further argumentation throughout the letter for the superiority of the revelation of Jesus Christ to everything which proceeded him in redemptive history.

Piper, Keller, and tasting the honey

I like this part of the interview because it demonstrates how some of the distinctive emphases of John Piper and Tim Keller, two pastors whose writings and talks have meant a lot to me, but have always seemed very different from one another, actually complement each another in some important ways.

Samuel Rutherford quote

For graduation my parents got me a copy of Samuel Rutherford's The Loveliness of Christ, which is a compilation of extracts from his letters. Rutherford was a 17th century Scottish pastor after whom I am named (my middle is name is Rutherford).

I have been reading from it each morning and greatly enjoying it. Every page demonstrates such a deep affection for and acquaintance with Christ. Its very nourishing. Here is a good sample quote:

"I am sure that the saints at their best are but strangers to the weight and worth of the incomparable sweetness of Christ. He is so new, so fresh in excellency, every day of new, to these that search more and more in him, as if heaven could furnish as many new Christs (if I may speak so) as there are days betwixt him and us, and yet he is one and the same" (p. 45).

Lord of the Rings

I have never read the Lord of the Rings trilogy, so I have been planning on doing so this summer. I am going to start them this week along with my Hebrews study. I am really excited!

I am going to keep track of differences between the books and the movies and then list them all in a blog post when I finish.

Strategy for Hebrews

Ellingworth's long commentary (just read intro, looks great), Lane's shorter commentary, ESV study bible notes, Greek text, two verses per day, journaling my observations, and (of course) coffee.

Tensions in Job

I have been thinking about the book of Job over the past few weeks, since we discussed it in my Psalms and Wisdom Literature class. One of the things I like about Job is the tensions the book confronts us with, especially in the way each of the major characters (or group of characters) is presented. I don't think the tensions are un-resolvable, but I do think they highlight some of the book's subtlety and profundity.

(1) The first character in which I see tension is Job himself. Is Job right or wrong? In what ways is he right, and in what ways is he wrong? On the one hand, Job is presented throughout the book as an utterly blameless and righteous man. He is introduced in this way (1:1); the Lord describes him in this way to Satan (1:9); he is presented in this way in his response to his suffering (1:20-22, 2:10); and the Lord again establishes this verdict at the end of the book (42:7). Its obvious that, at the most basic level, Job is an innocent and righteous man.

On the other hand, why does the Lord's reply to Job appear more of a rebuke than a vindication? Why does God claim that Job's words "(darken) counsel by words without knowledge" (38:2)? Why does the narrator report in 32:1 that Job is "righteous in his own eyes?" And finally, why is Job's ultimate response to despise himself and repent in dust and ashes (42:6)? To me, this exposes a tension and prompts the question: if Job is truly righteous, why is he rebuked, what is he repenting of?

(2) Secondly, I see tension in the presentation of Job's friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. Job's friends often get a tough rap, but there must be some kind of truth and authority in the words, for I Corinthians 3:19 quotes Job 5:13 approvingly, and the same with Job 5:17 in Hebrews 12:5. Moreover, it is obvious that they have a genuine care about Job and do some things well, like weeping with him (2:12) and being silent with him (2:13).

On the other hand, their continual appeal for Job to simply repent of whatever evil he has done is an obvious misdiagnosis, in light of the prologue (chapters 1-2). In the end, Job's friends anger God with their words and require Job's intercession (42:7-9). So how can the New Testament can quote Job's friends approvingly, when they misrepresent the truth and anger God? There is tension here.

(3) The third character in whom I see tension is Elihu (chapters 32-37). Elihu adds some complexity to the book. In my opinion, he cannot be neatly lumped in with Job's other friends, for three reasons: (1) indignation at the words of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar is part of the motivation for his speech (32:12); (2) the content of his speech differs significantly from that of his friends; and (3) he is not included in the Lord's rebuke or Job's intercession for these friends in 42:7-9. On the other hand, (1) the Lord may not judge him along with Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, but neither does he validate his words with those of Job (42:7) - they are simply not commented on; and (2) Elihu can have some pretty harsh words for Job as well (e.g., 35:16), which establishes some continuity between Elihu and Job's other friends.

What is the function of Elihu in the book of Job? Kidner suggests that he delays, and therefore builds anticipation for, the Lord's response in chapter 38 (The Wisdom of Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes, IVP 1985, 70). I think this is helpful, but beyond this, I am uncertain how to interpret Elihu, although I am inclined to be more sympathetic than unsympathetic. Unless we seriously violate the text by taking the higher-critical view that Elihu must be a later redaction, there is tension here.

4) The final tension that I see in the book is with the Lord himself, and his final response to Job. It is so unlike what one might expect! Several notes:

1. God speaks to Job "out of the whirlwind" (38:1). He is on the offensive, unapologetic, masculine, direct. He does not explain, comfort (yet), or encourage.

2. God completely changes the subject. Rather than defending himself from Job's questions, he simply ignores them. Kidner: "the inference could hardly be plainer that Job and his friends have not only found the wrong answers; they have been asking the wrong questions (70).

3. The essence of the Lord's speech seems to be a reminder of the Creator-Creature distinction. He is saying, "Job, I'm God, and you're not. Do you want my job?" Kidner: God's speech "cuts us down to size, treating us not as philosophers but as children - limited in mind, puny in body - whose first and fundamental grasp of truth must be to know the difference between our place and God's, and to accept it" (72).

While some might see it as harsh, or a non-answer, I find it beautiful that God does not apologize to Job. This, combined with the humility and joy reflected in Job's response, reminds me that simply seeing God face, though not the answer we usually ask God for in the midst of confusion and suffering, is nevertheless the answer we most often really need. Like Orual discovers in C.S. Lewis' Till We Have Faces, there is a kind of joy that is far better than what we think we want.

Dave Matthews Band: Proudest Monkey with Tim Reynolds

Tim's solo from 3:44-6:15 totally captures the emotion of this song. I love the slow, peaceful, build up - so interesting. The video graphics are interesting as well. From their summer 2008 tour.

Finished McCullough's John Adams

A few minutes ago I finished David McCullough's biography of John Adams, which I had been hacking away at, off and on, since December. A couple of times I feared I would never finish, but with school over I was able to crank through the last big section more easily and finally cross the finish line. I love that feeling of satisfaction when you have finished a significant book! If I were to begin discussing all that I learned, enjoyed, and appreciated in the reading of this book, this post would probably be longer than my post on Abraham Lincoln, so I think I will just say by way of summary that it is an absolutely engrossing read which I heartily recommend if you are (1) looking for a model biography or (2) interested in early American history.

The next book on my summer reading is Manhunt, which I am about 1/3 into and am determined to finish without too much skimming. I never would have expected this, I am becoming more and more interested in history.

Genesis 5:3 and the Imago Dei

At the climax of the biblical creation narrative (Genesis 1:26-28) and throughout subsequent chapters (Genesis 5:1-2, 9:6) we are told that God made man "in his image, after his likeness." But what does this mean? Does it refer to our ontology, or our function in relation to the rest of creation? To who we are or what we do? Is it speaking about our ability to reason? Our capacity for language? For loving relationship? For worship? Our ability to make moral choices? The fact that we have souls? Something about our physical composition? All of the above? Its obvious to see why these questions are so important - they go to the heart of what we are as human beings, and what our purpose is in this world. Yet theologians differ widely in interpreting the meaning of the imago dei.

While reading through Genesis last fall I stumbled across the most interesting and perplexing verse (in the midst of a genealogy!), and I have been thinking about it ever since:

"When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth" (Genesis 5:3, italics mine).

I have never heard anyone relate this verse to the meaning of creation in God's image. Nor can I find any discussion of it in any of the relevant books on my shelf (Hoekema, Sherlock, even Bavinck). I find this very surprising given:
(1) the importance and ambiguity of the meaning of the imago dei (think how much ink has been spilled on it);
(2) the closeness of this verse to other references to creation in God's image in the Genesis 1-9 (especially when you read straight through from verse 1 to verse 3 in chapter 5);
(3) the verbal similarity of this verse to the other imago dei texts (using both the term "image" and the term "likeness," terms not paired elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible).

It is possible to avoid of the conclusion (however much it appears to have been missed by various theologians) that a large part of the meaning of creation in God's image is that human beings are, in some sense, God's children? That there is some kind of parallel between Adam --> Seth, and God --> Adam?

"Adam, the son of God" (Luke 3:38).

"We are his offspring" (Acts 17:28).

Whether or not this this is right, I submit that Genesis 5:3 is an important and very much neglected text in discussions about the meaning of creation in God's image.

Study Projects

Although, unlike Calvin, I enjoy school, it is still really nice to have a break. I want to keep learning while being out of school, and it seems to me that not being in school is an excellent opportunity to develop some specific personal projects and go deep with them. So I have picked one topic in systematic theology, one book in biblical theology, and one figure in historical theology to focus on over the next three years (when I would begin to consider further full-time theological study). And the winner's are (drumroll please):

1. Christ's resurrection
2. Hebrews
3. St. Anselm

In the spirit of shorter posts, just one sentence by way of explanation for each of these three:

Christ's resurrection because it is a hope-inspiring and happy doctrine, as well as a crucially important one (in soteriology, Christology, apologetics, redemptive history, etc.) that is sometimes neglected in favor of Christ's death, despite being the backbone of Christianity, the center of human history, and the crucial victory of good over evil. Hebrews because it is a fascinating, practical, theological, weighty book in the New Testament canon that sometimes gets short shrift in favor of Paul and the gospels, despite being one of the most helpful books for putting the whole Bible together. Anselm because he is (1) pre-modern (and thus refreshingly free from certain questions of modernity), (2) medieval (and thus intriguingly different and interesting), (3) a great theologian whose works are beautiful, rigorous, and worship inspiring.

More posting to come on these topics, I am sure....

Thanks be to God for Covenant Seminary

Friday night Esther and I graduated from Covenant Theological Seminary here in St. Louis. Esther received a Master of Arts in Counseling, and I received a Master of Divinity. There were lots of emotions I felt during the course of the evening - joy, a sense of accomplishment, excitement about the changes in our life over the next few months, amazement at how quickly the past three years have gone, and a bit of loneliness and nostalgia as we prepare to end our time here in St. Louis and embrace what God has for us in the future.

Being involved in the community here at Covenant has been a great blessing. We have learned, loved, struggled, grown, persevered. I cannot think of a better way to have started off married life together, and the friendships we have made here are those that will last a lifetime.

Every seminary has its pros and cons, and no one place is right for everyone, but there is certainly nowhere else that I would have rather been for my M.Div. than Covenant. I learned not just to see new things, but new ways of seeing. As an expression of praise to God, I would like to list some of the things that impacted me the most during my time here. Its impossible to summarize everything, of course - or even be aware of everything - but here are a few things which stand out as particularly significant, and as somewhat distinctive of Covenant's program:

1) The Priority of Grace.

I think I understood before seminary on some level (a dimmer, more theoretical one) how the true engine of sanctification is grace ---> love for God, rather than law ---> fear of God (and how we all tend to gravitate towards one of these two). But at Covenant I got to soak in this emphasis for three years and see how it plays out in various areas of the Christian life and theology. This grace focus forms a large part of the corporate ethos at Covenant and trickles down throughout the curriculum, staff, and general atmosphere of the seminary. All you have to do to see how this makes a difference is walk around the campus and talk to people. It is a beautiful thing, and it has become a foundational pillar not only for my understanding of pastoral ministry, but for my own Christian walk.

2) Getting the Big Picture

A running thread throughout the curriculum is the Creation-Fall-Redemption-Consummation paradigm for biblical hermeneutics, missiology, ecclesiology, and worldview formation. I think this is a helpful approach for putting the whole Bible together, and I think it helps our understanding of our role in the world as Christians by placing the church's mission in a larger biblical-theological framework (built upon passages such as Genesis 1:26-28 and Genesis 12:1-3). These were not dots I had connected very clearly before seminary. I remember sitting in Ethics one day as we were thinking about various issues in light of this paradigm thinking, "this works - this actually works."

3) The Reality of Common Grace

I somehow missed out on the idea of common grace prior to seminary. This left me wondering why I loved and respected the art (music, movies, books, etc.), the wisdom, the leadership, and the personalities of non-Christians so much. My time at Covenant, and especially my time under Prof. Barrs, helped to recognize how generously God has given skills, wisdom, and gifts throughout the human race, and how there is both dignity and depravity in all people since all people are made in God's image and live in God's universe. Since all truth is God's truth, and all beauty is God's beauty, I don't need to wonder at the good I see in the world - I can instead give God all the more glory for it.

I don't believe this is an impediment to the urgency of evangelism, but rather a stimulus to it.

4) Church Personality Dynamics

My time studying under Dr. Douglass helped me understand how much conflict in the church is related to personality dynamics, and how important it is to factor this in when searching for, arriving at, and serving in a local church.

5) Preaching Basics

Covenant's homiletics program is fairly rigorous, including four different courses. Sitting under Dr. Chapel your first semester and then practicing preaching sermons in 3 small practicum classes gives you, I think, a good foundation for the basics on preparing and delivering expository sermons. Of course, the only way to ultimately learn how to preach is to do it, and everyone needs to find their own unique preaching voice, but I think this program gives you a good launching pad to begin with.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Summer Plans

Through June 30 we will be in St. Louis, finishing various responsibilities, saying goodbye to friends, and resting. For July we will be in Nashville with family for vacation, and then visiting with friends. Starting August 7 we will be in Washington D.C. I will be an intern at Capital Hill Baptist Church and Esther will be looking for a job. Thank you for those of you who have been praying about our future! Please keep praying for the Lord to open a door to a good job for Esther, and for a restful and fruitful summer in which we are able to connect with many friends and prepare well for what the future holds.