Title: To Pray with the Prophets (or Not): A Christo/Pneumato-logical Talking Back to God
Taking its cue from J. Richard Middleton’s provocative “Abraham’s Silence: The Binding of Isaac, the Suffering of Job, and How to Talk Back to God” (Baker Academic, 2021), this paper offers to rehear three prophetic prayers: Jeremiah’s silenced intercession (Jer 7:16-20), Ezekiel’s personal intercession (Ezek 4:12-17), and Amos’s (un)relenting intercession (Amos 7:1-9). These three prayers of prophets are selected for the various roles they play in intercessions in the midst of a revelation of Yahweh’s determined judgment. In this way, these are offered as potential prayer patterns for the church. However, these are brought into brief critical Christological and Pneumatological rehearing (and taking up) of the intercessions of these prophets within the intercessions of Jesus and the Spirit. These intercessions might then function as a means of faithfully “talking back to God” in the midst of certain judgment.
Here are a couple of comments I give to all students for an assignment meant to read Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 on whether these seem to be texts about the fall of Satan. I require first a careful reading of the passages in whole as well as the surrounding passages noting the specifics of referent for the oracles as well as terms and phrases within the oracles and how they are meant to indicate the one being described and confronted.
A response concerning the “morning star” of Isaiah 14: The Hebrew was poorly translated into the Latin with “Lucifer” (and followed by the KJV) thus giving us a long history of a misreading as if this was about some evil being we name “Lucifer” or Satan (this is the ONLY text where the word “Lucifer” would have been used and given rise to the false idea as a name of Satan). “Morning star” was used as something pointing to divine blessing. It is also exclusively used as a name for Jesus in the NT: 2 Peter 1:19 and Revelation 2:28; and 22:16. In other words, it is never used of “Satan” anywhere in scripture unless we misread Isaiah 14 as such a reference.
A response to Luke 10:18 as if it were connected to Isaiah 14: Jesus says he “saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning” to his disciples on their return from a mission trip where they drove out unclean spirits, healed the sick, and raised the dead. It was not a claim about any original fall of Satan. It is about the victory of King Jesus over that enemy and all the works of death and chaos at work undoing the goodness of God’s creation and intent to set all things right.
A response to Edenic language in Ezekiel 28: Note that the cherub in Genesis 3 is placed to guard the way back. Yet it is the one likened to a cherub in Ezekiel 28 that is cast down from the mountain. Ezekiel 28 does not refer to any serpent (though interestingly the following chapters in Ezekiel will call the Pharaoh a sort of watery serpent/dragon to be fished from the river and given as food to the birds). Eden language is not sufficient since it is used a number of times in Ezekiel (as well as the imagery) just to refer to the idyllic beginnings of blessing by Yahweh. Further, it is part of the overall rich metaphoric imagery of Ezekiel to paint vivid and exaggerated prophetic pictures to communicate his message (easily noted throughout his book).
Today I received a typical email from one of my graduate students who shared that they felt like they were struggling with the readings at the graduate level. I get this type of email or question/concern every year from students and have offered advice previously along the lines I decided to write up and share for future reference for my students and others who might benefit from it. This should be heard as the words of someone just along the journey a bit further hopefully offering some helps to those struggling.
________________________________
It is a VERY common issue for students in graduate school to discover the level of readings (quantity and quality) have dramatically increased in challenge. A couple of tips I offer students:
You don’t have to read thoroughly everything that was assigned. Instead, you read smarter. Learn where to skim and where to pause and reread for care. The idea of the readings is not for fully grasping all of it but getting the sense along the way. You simply do not have the time for these readings to linger everywhere. So, figuring out what matters and how to read faster, longer, and with greater specificity will help immensely. Have grace for yourself along the way. You are stretching reading muscles that have not been stretched to this extent before.
You will definitely encounter terms and ideas you are unfamiliar with from any previous reading. This is to be expected as you are seeking to “master” a field of study. Know that you cannot always simply Google terms or ideas either. Since they may be technical to the field and searching for definitions online can actually at times be misleading because of the uniqueness of usages in any field of study. This is one of the reasons I have students journal all of their readings: to also ask questions about them (terms, ideas, challenges, approaches, etc.). This is the very place to ask such questions knowing that I expect students to not know all of the terminology and ideas so there is zero shame in asking (I’ve actually assigned students to ask such things). This is also where some books offer a “glossary” of the specific ways that terms are being used in the volume. There are often also other specialized books written specifically to help unpack such technical terms.
You need to figure out your ideal spaces and paces for best practices of reading. Be okay with your own pace of reading and be happy with simply moving on without having to have grasped all that you’ve read. Also, at the grad levels you will likely be reading things over years that circle back around using similar ideas and language and thus at your first exposure (or the first you’ve noticed) you aren’t necessarily even expected to remember it. You will pick some things up only through long-term and regular exposures. If you feel you really need to soak some part of a book, then consider writing a VERY brief summary of that part (like a single sentence for a paragraph or even chapter). Finding the right times in one’s day and week for particular reads is imperative. As is the right kind of space. Some places and times simply do not help with reading of technical works. I also recommend always having something to write with available. Feel free to mark up books or keep a writing journal beside you. This can even be where you simply indicate some idea to come back to later when you have a more opportune time or space to follow up.
You will benefit from people and places to discuss what you are reading. Your fellow classmates, professors, and sometimes others, will prove invaluable for discussing readings. Reading is not best experienced only as an isolated individual practice. I find it personally incredibly helpful to me (for retention and even insight) to find someone to talk with about what I’m reading. When you are reading with a class you have a built-in “book club” that is pre-made to discuss what is being read together (before, during, and after classes). This is also where I find journaling what I’m reading as well as simply making notations in books a helpful exercise. I’m not simply reading with others but reading with another version of myself. The version of myself that has not yet finished the readings. I can go back later (hours, days, weeks, etc) to encounter what I had written about what I was reading and have internal dialogue about such. This is actually a conversation with different versions of yourself. Further, find ways to incorporate the ideas and language of your readings into other courses, into life and ministry, etc. This will likely require “translation” as the terms and ideas are not meant to be directly shared in such settings, but when we “translate” terms and ideas (or at least attempting to) we often find ourselves better comprehending what we read to begin with or even discovering something as we tease it out in life and practice.
Hopefully these few tips can prove beneficial for you going forward.
I wrote a post back in March that garnered some attention: “Seven Reasons Theological Faculty Might Not Embrace Online Instruction”. While I offered reasons that I have encountered in my work across various institutions and educational organizations for the last number of years (that also included some of my own struggles with embracing online instruction), I had planned to post this follow-up post sooner. Better late than never.
So here are four reasons that I (personally) embrace online instruction as a theological educator though still with tempered enthusiasm by a number of reasons noted in that earlier post.
Location, Location, Location. I have the opportunity to contribute to the life of students I would not otherwise engage who cannot relocate to my institution for live-seated classes. At least in this day and age there is still the possibility of live courses online (a definite preference over asynchronous courses for myself).
Apostolicity.* Related to the first reason given above of engaging those who cannot physically attend the campus classes is the ability to engage students in otherwise “creative access countries” (and even more significant to my own sense of apostolic engagement where the church has yet to be planted or finds itself under severe restraint for open witness). I have many students all over the planet who simply do not have any opportunity otherwise for advanced theological and biblical training without leaving their setting. These students live and minister in contexts that are considered closed to open missionary engagement and so they require “creative” training for “access” to deeper discipleship into the good news of Jesus. In many of these contexts there are VERY few known believers (and/or the church is persecuted openly). The opportunity to contribute to the strengthening of gospelizing nations and peoples unreached, or governmentally unopened, is precisely my sense of call toward the apostolic work of the church advancing everywhere. My initial call to vocational ministry was (and remains) a call to the least reached and the yet-to-be reached.
Mediation is already the name of the game. As the Church, we already know that while disciples are best made in direct contact and shared life together, that we also are discipled by other media forms as mediated by the Spirit: scripture being the prime example in our lived experiences. The scriptures are words written to others in an ancient past that we confess (and hear and repeat and live into) that mediate God’s revelation to and for us. This modality of engaging text (in written or auditory form) should remind us that as we are engaged by the scripture to be more like Jesus, so we can be engaged in the digitally mediated environment to do the same for others. I was reminded of this by some of the constructive discussion Amos Yong (no surprise here) offered in his (and Dale Coulter’s) book “The Holy Spirit and Higher Education: Renewing the Christian University” (Baylor University Press, 2023).
It is our reality. This is the time and place we have been given. And it includes the digital. We do well to engage online forms of education as best we can (even when there seems to me to be better ways, we simply cannot avoid this altogether as the academy committed to serving the Church and the world). I owe it to my students (and potential students) to commit to making disciples who will make disciples using every tool available to do so.
What might be reasons you are committed to online teaching (if you are a professor/educator)? Or what other reasons do you think we ought to emphasis in our critical embrace of online educational modalities?
* “Apostolicity” is not being used here with regard to ideas of apostolic succession or to apostolic teaching. I would and have argued for such usage in other writings. For the sake of my usage here, I simply mean gospelizing among the least reached and/or unreached to see the church planted and multiplying.
Pentecostals should read Barth because of his radical Christological focus. He finds Jesus inescapable for all theological construction. This should resonate immediately with Pentecostals who are committed to the “Full Gospel” message about Jesus: saving, sanctifying, baptizing in the Spirit, healing, and coming soon as king.
Pentecostals should read Barth because of his intentional pastoral concerns in his writings (Evangelical Theology; Dogmatics in Outline;Church Dogmatics) not to mention the collections of sermons and reflections on prayer. Barth was a pastor and preacher. His concerns were for the lived life of the church. While Barth was not pragmatic and all too many Pentecostals may be, Pentecostals are likewise committed very intentionally to pastoral concerns and churchly life. Here he offers deeper levels of reflection by and for the church.
Pentecostals should read Barth because he was a man committed to careful reflection upon the Scriptures (one may note for example the sheer volume of citations in his final volume of Church Dogmatics on Scripture references that is fashioned for use within the church’s life). Barth’s publications are saturated in the Scriptures and seek always to flow from and back to the Scriptures as faithful witnesses to the God of the Scriptures. One can quibble about his interpretations of the Scriptures, but not about his concern to try to hear them well.
Pentecostals should read Barth because of his language of testimony as a shared feature of his theology and the Pentecostal emphasis on testimony. This is rooted in God being toward us and our responding to him. We confess who he is and what he has done. We testify what we hear and see and experience of the life of God in and among us. Pentecostals might benefit from a more clearly articulated theology of testimony rooted in God’s self-giving love toward us and toward the world.
I offer this list not as in any sense comprehensive for why I contend Pentecostals should read Barth. Further, I can understand and appreciate those who have their emphatic reasons for why they might reject Barth or his writings (some owing to poor early interpreters of Barth, some to professors of their own who simply never spent time with Barth and received a message of danger regarding Barth without themselves reading him, and some for Barth’s life that failed to align with the message he proclaimed).
In the end, I would encourage folks because they will find a friend for their journey who longs to proclaim the God who is always better than our proclamations and who will do all that must be done for our good and for the good of the world He has created.
For those who may be interested (I’d recommend finding a library for access given its cost), there is a new publication out on Karl Barth and Pentecostal Theology (T&T Clark, 2024) written by a stellar lineup of fourteen Pentecostal scholars (check out the list of contributors and their respective chapters in the link above). Sadly, I am not one of them. HA.
Have you ever wondered what the Church is supposed to do about those crazy texts of the Spirit of the LORD coming upon folks in the OT and then they go out and kill people? Or what about the Spirit of the LORD that deceives? Or what about that “evil spirit from he LORD” that comes on Saul? Well…wonder no longer (not really, but at least I offer one way of hearing these texts).
I was invited to lead a book club presentation for Evangel University in Springfield, MO, on Wednesday, April 9th on my book A Theology of the Spirit in the Former Prophets: A Pentecostal Perspective (CPT Press, 2018). There is a link to the audio below as well as a one page handout I provided at that gathering. The audio includes all manner of my typical spice and sarcasm in presenting things I love. 🙂 I am imagining I propose things in this presentation that might just challenge many of the ideas about the Spirit in the OT.
HERE is the audio link for those who might care to listen to my half hour summary(ish) presentation of the book. I do share about some proposed new trajectories for a theology of the Spirit.
And for those with money burning a hole in their pocket who just want to support the writings of a theological bibliophile, here is a link to my book on Amazon.com:
It is hard to believe that with all of the courses I have taught over the years that I have yet to lecture on Karl Barth. Though nearly every position I have held as a professor (full faculty, lecturer, visiting lecturer, etc) has been in Old Testament, I have done substantial reading and reflection (and academic work) in theology itself and specifically the works of Karl Barth (and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, but I have taught a full course on the life and work of Bonhoeffer). Those who spend much time with me in person will encounter Barth making his way into conversations at some point. Those who know some of my history may know that I co-blogged some years ago at the affectionately named iheartbarth.wordpress.com. That says something of my affinities even as it does not say anything of my critiques or differences. Those who video chat with me from my office may even see Barth volumes in my background (right below Bonhoeffer 😉 ).
And while I have yet to lecture on Barth, to be sure, he is ever present in my ideas and words in preaching and teaching and in nearly everything I have written over the last 15 years even though not always specifically cited…not plagiarized (so my students hear that)…just present.
Tonight that changes. I was asked to lecture in a graduate course on World Christianity specific to the life and works of Barth and even more so to his response and challenge to the German Liberalism of his day (many thanks to Lisa Millen for the invite!). With that in mind, I wrote up a few page talking point lecture and share those notes here, for whatever it may be worth to my readers. Happy reading. And if you want to chat Barth…let me know. 🙂
Today in my AGTS Hermeneutics class we were discussing the genre of “epistle” or “letter” and the ways in which elements of “occasionality” and “rhetoric” fit into good readings of the New Testament letters. I always expect students will have questions about “women” and “ministry/preaching/teaching/eldership”. While I have written on the subject pertaining to other texts of the Bible elsewhere (in blogs and in publication), I offer here a short 6 minute 50 second student recorded audio of my end of class discussion on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in answer to a student’s pointed question about this text. Apologies as the recording was begun about 30 seconds into my reply. The student had decided to record the discussion for a friend and when I found out, I asked for a copy to share as well. So here it is for whatever it is worth. 🙂
Here is the text in the New English Translation:
11 A woman must learn[r] quietly with all submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow[s] a woman to teach or exercise authority[t] over a man. She must remain quiet.[u]13 For Adam was formed first and then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived,[v] fell into transgression.[w]15 But she will be delivered through childbearing,[x] if she[y] continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control.
(and HERE is the hyperlink to the text on Bible Gateway that includes the helpful footnotes as well)
I wrote four short phrases or words on the white board as the student had read these verses:
“learn in quietness”
“teach or exercise authority”
“deceived”
“saved through child-bearing”
You will hear the audio pick up where I’ve already begun discussing “learn in quietness”. I have offered that this phrase is the precise expected posture and response of a disciple or student rather than intended as a censure against. It is a call for entering into discipleship directly.
I know this short response does not answer all manner of questions you may have about the text (or that I still have about this text). It is not comprehensive of the passage. I say these things recognizing there are numerous other readings of this text and its possible function and intent. Yet all these caveats aside, I have offered here a brief reply for those who have wondered about this pivotal passage for those arguing that women cannot be pastors or preach.
And I say, not only can women preach and teach the good news of King Jesus … they MUST do so … as we all must do so!
A friend wrote to me today asking why I thought faculty tend to be opposed to or simply not sufficiently embracing the move to online modalities of learning in higher education, particularly with regard to seminaries and theological education. Administrators all seem keen to the move (less costs, wider market) or at least the ideas of such. In reflecting on my reply I came up with the following seven reasons I gave for why I think this is happening (seven just seemed the right spiritual number for a response from this seminary professor 🙂 ).
Lack of knowledge/skill with online modalities in general (tools, modality, engagement, etc). An awful lot of faculty have spent a tremendous amount of time becoming experts in a niche field of study. Online education was not one of those for most. Nor even pedagogy/androgogy (nor online approaches to such). Some may simply lack tech skills in general or may even fear such (whether consciously or unconsciously). Lack of awareness and lack of experience contribute to make this an area many theological faculty simply are unequipped to deal adequately with as part of their teaching life.
Concern over lack of genuine and/ or deeper student engagement and discipleship. This is a concern for quality of engagement that seems all too lacking in online modalities. The kinds of conversations that happen by sharing space and time in person simply do not happen. There are other engagements, but these are never of the kind one encounters in person. Whether faculty are genuinely engaging in such positive ways (in person or online) is another issue altogether.
Lack of sufficient care or interest for courses where one does not face students in person so may under develop their courses just by default. Honestly, for myself, I find myself far more engaged in heart and mind toward in person courses. Online modalities simply do not give the same stimulation intellectually, emotionally, or socially that in person classes offer to professors (even to introverted professors). This lack of care may not be fully appreciated by the faculty themselves who may not even be aware they lack the same intuitive draw for person-to-person engagements.
(Often) lesser remuneration especially as online requires unique course developments. While there are schools which pay to develop courses, the person paid to develop the course may not even be the one teaching (or grading, or engaging in dialogue online, etc). Some schools simply expect faculty to develop courses in the normal fashion of in person where there is not usually any thought of extra remuneration for course development. The amount of time that may be required is often tedious and little more than data entry beyond the actual contents of a course. This can be a demotivating factor for faculty driving further lack of interest or enthusiasm for online instruction.
Prioritization of seated modalities in the mind of professors. Faculty are most often hired for seated courses. While most faculty roles include the need to teach online as well, these are viewed as a portion of the job and may not be perceived as holding the same central aim as in person modalities. The question of value matters. If online modalities are expected, but not viewed as primary then there is the potential for a psychological barrier to its value being equivalent.
Lack of value to the professor who desires personal relationship and personal engagement. Faculty are people. And people are made for relationships. While this can happen online (and does in all sorts of modalities through social media, for example), there is something lost in not seeing, hearing, and sharing space with others. This unique sharing of time and space can serve as an innate potential for bonding. And many faculty may feel already isolated in much of the work of researching, course prep, writing, meetings, etc. Thus, this is both a relational outlet and relational input for many.
Resistance to reducing classes to information transfer. While I am unaware of any online courses being promoted as if it were just about information transfer, this seems to be a default setting in all too many cases. This can be all too true in any form of education, but seems perhaps more prone to such when there is less direct human engagement. While faculty should not fear such, it seems to linger as a fear in the back of many minds. And theological faculty might often explicitly be committed to modalities of discipleship in how they teach (and engage students). And discipleship is never reducible to an information transfer.
And having listed my seven replies, let me add one more: sometimes we’re just lazy (or done). Maybe I shouldn’t be saying it. But the reality is that we are people who wear out and care about what we care about and don’t care about what we don’t care about. We only have so much energy and time and focus. And when all is said and done we may simply not care about the online courses like other courses and thus take lazy ways out. Copy and paste. Quizzes. Discussion boards. We just don’t want to put in the effort for an alternate modality and course development that requires alternative approaches, alternative tools, alternative assessments.
The following is an answer I provided one of my graduate students regarding a “canonical approach” which was asked with reference also to Star Wars “canon” in a reading assignment for a course in Old Testament Theology. I felt a fair bit of explanation was helpful and thought there might be others who would also benefit from our discussion (though I’ve only included my reply). _________________________________
Let me offer some reflections on the language of “canon” and a “canonical” approach to OT theology. It would seem there might be an improper understanding of the use of the term “canon” (in the study of OT theology or with regard to Star Wars) as it is being used in these contexts. Canon refers to the authorized forms of texts (films, books, series, etc) that were received by their respective community as authoritative for the community (in some fashion, which is not equivalent, but for the sake of discussion I will make use of such). This is why there is debates over who shot first: Han or Greedo [Han shot first is the only correct answer]. An altered version exists (and in this case is attributable to the “original author” but many claim the original film version as canon by which to judge the latter as an alteration of canon) but was not original to the series. Instead it belongs to a reworked, reimagined version (which enters the debate in Star Wars about a flexible canon and how inclusive and diverse it might be). Fan fiction accounts of Star Wars do not enter the canon of Star Wars.
On biblical texts (and the OT in this case), it is to say that the form received of our texts matters. Instead of simply tracing the history of individual texts as they developed (which is what Historical Critical studies does) canonical approaches contend for the final received version of the text (even while recognizing there are multiple communities and texts which reach back to the earliest centuries). Making it overly simple, the issue with Scripture is that we have at least two divergent accounts (technically many more) of our texts (some of them significantly divergent, some of them not so much): Masoretic Hebrew and Greek Septuagint.
The Church received the latter of these for nearly 1500 years as its text-form. The Reformation changed that though many of the Reformers and their translations included the Apocryphal/Deuteroncanonical books until the end of the 1800s. This was not only a difference of books bound within the covers of the “Canon” (where some were still called “deutero-canon” or “second/ary canon”), but also differences in the shapes of a number of the books altogether (with several fairly significant variants: 1 Samuel, Jeremiah, Daniel, Esther). So when speaking of a canonical approach such includes both discussions of the variant forms of the books (that were all independent scrolls until the Christian era) and even the arrangement of the books themselves in relation to one another (by “arrangement” I am including the idea of inclusion/exclusion of books). In an fascinating mixture of these canons, our current Protestant order of the OT follows the Greek Septuagint order, but uses the Hebrew Masoretic as the primary base text for the forms of the books within the Greek order.
While much of the theology one may suggest and/or derive from the divergent “canons” of the OT, perhaps the larger issue is related to the theological idea of “canon” itself and the group which receives/recognizes/confesses said “canon” as “canon”.
