Here are SermonAudio links to the first two lectures in my Old Testament Introduction course.
And if you’re really keen, here are the skeleton notes that I give to the students and ask them to fill out as we go along.
And if you want to keep track of where we’re going with the lectures in the coming weeks, here’s the Course Schedule (pdf).
Aug 31, 2011 • By David Murray • 12 Comments
Ten years ago I was asked by my church in Scotland to put together the Old Testament courses for our fledgling Free Church Seminary. As I didn’t really know where to start, I got on the Internet and emailed as many Seminaries as I could to get hold of their syllabi and course materials; and I broke the bank on Amazon.
However, with a few rare exceptions, I was quite disappointed with what I found. As I opened each package, some familiar patterns began to emerge which highlighted a number of significant problems with how the OT is being taught in Seminaries. They include:
1. Excessive Hebrew Grammar
In some OT courses, more time is given to the study of Hebrew Grammar than the study of the OT. Certainly, the ability to read and exegete the Hebrew Bible is vital, and ought to be pursued. However, it is not the first and most important area of study. Students may leave their courses with an ability to parse the many forms and stems of Hebrew verbs, and yet have little or no knowledge of the contents of Joshua or Chronicles. This is like studying a flower under the microscope without having looked at the field or landscape it came from. Instead, OT courses should prioritize covering the whole OT so that the student will get the “big picture.”
2. Excessive Concessions
Some OT resources tend to concede too much to historical and literary criticism. It often seems that evangelicals are prepared to concede evangelical truths and certainties in order to gain a hearing and win respect in the scholarly world.
No Christian scholar should abandon the presuppositions of biblical inspiration and infallibility when studying the Word of God. Nor should he attempt to approach the Word of God with an “open” mind and so-called “neutral” presuppositions, in order to interact with unbelieving scholarship. As Michael Barrett says in Beginning at Moses:
As believers, we must come with an open and receptive heart to receive and believe what God says. The mindset of a believer every time he opens the Bible must be the conviction that whatever the Bible says is true. We cannot trust our reason to determine what is true or false, right or wrong. By faith we believe in the inspiration of the Bible, and therefore we affirm its authority, infallibility, sufficiency, and effectiveness from cover to cover.
The evangelical Old Testament scholar E J Young tried to approach the OT as Moses approached the holy ground of the burning bush (Ex. 3:5). He said:
This verse effectively disposes of the so-called “scientific” method, which assumes that man can approach the facts of the universe, including the Bible, with a neutral mind, and pronounce a just judgment upon them. It is time that we cease to call such a method scientific. It is not scientific, for it does not take into consideration all the facts, and the basic fact it overlooks is that of God and His relation to the world which He has created. Unless we first think rightly about God we shall be in basic error about everything else.
The student of Scripture must not only adopt the right presuppositions but also the right attitude of reverence for the Scriptures. There has to be a receptive, teachable, and humble spirit if any spiritual progress is to be achieved.
3. Excessive Defense
In the face of critical attacks, and some evangelicals’ “critical accommodation,” some OT courses tend to focus all their attention on defending the OT from critical attacks.
While it is important for Evangelicals to robustly defend the Scriptures and expose the false assumptions and methods of liberal scholarship, the actual contents of individual books tends to be forgotten in the midst of the academics’ arguments and debates. It is as if a beautiful book was written and subsequently attacked by literary critics. Friends of the author then went to the defense of the book, writing articles and giving lectures on the weakness and faults in the critics’ case. However, in the midst of all the literary attack and counter-attack, the book went unread and the message went unheeded.
While the critics’ arguments may be regularly noted and rebutted, the focus of OT studies should be on the contents and meaning of the OT.
4. Cursory Survey
While some courses avoid the previous pitfalls, and do concentrate on communicating the contents of the OT books, they fail to give more information than a cursory reading of the scriptures would also yield. More is needed than just numerous summaries of the contents of individual books. Analysis is also required, and different analytical tools are available: the tools of Historical Analysis, Literary Analysis and Thematic (or Theological) analysis are all essential if we are to understand the form, content and message of the Hebrew Scriptures.
5. Selective Study
Some OT courses go to the opposite extreme of rapid cursory survey and instead focus on the detailed study of selected passages. For example, Genesis 1-3, or the Covenants, or other well-known passages may be studied in minute detail in Hebrew and English. However, again, the student then lacks an overall grasp of every book and they way each connects with rest of the Bible.
In-depth knowledge of a few selected passages, in the absence of an overall view of biblical history and biblical theology, is like a surgeon specializing in the kidney and liver, but knowing little or nothing about how they relate to the heart and other vital organs.
6. Specialized Analysis
Some OT Introduction books and courses, while focusing on the contents of the OT books, concentrate all their attention on either Historical Analysis, or Literary Analysis, or Thematic Analysis, instead of combining the strengths of all these approaches. This unbalanced specialization is like trying to drive a car with only one tire inflated. It does not lend itself to balance, or smooth and efficient running.
7. Disconnection from New Testament
I know one OT professor whose opening words in Lecture 1 are: “The New Testament is banned from this class.” Although few OT courses are as blatantly disconnected from the NT, many do suffer from a lack of mutual support and interaction. It is like trying to study a room in the dark, even though a torch is lying on the table. The tool of New Testament Analysis, then, needs to be added to those of Historical, Literary and Thematic Analysis.
8. Inconsistent Presentation
OT Introductions often approach the different books of the OT in different ways. The outline of the lectures or chapters is unpredictable and often inconsistent. Some Introductions regard this as a virtue.
The human mind, however, greatly benefits from recognizable and consistent structures. It is much easier for a builder to vary and change the outward appearance of a house, if the basic foundation and structure is always the same. Research has shown that students seem to appreciate a uniformity of approach in lectures, and the benefits of this considerably outweigh any disadvantages. Consistent lecture structure will aid memory of the content and develop patterns of thinking which will guide the preacher in his approach to any portion of Scripture.
9. Devotional Deficit
Academic conclusions should never be the conclusion. All study of the Scriptures should aim at bringing the student to worship God and to personal, experimental application. Reading OT stories without a keen interest in the Spirit’s transforming influence in our lives can turn these texts into dry relics of ancient history. Technical, detached examination must not be substituted for personal encounter with God. As Dale Ralph Davies has said:
I do not think I can expect my students to warm to the Old Testament unless they sense it nurturing them as they hear it taught.
If lectures do not result in more worship and more godliness, it is highly unlikely that the student’s Old Testament preaching will result in his hearers living more devoted and obedient lives. Professor J Pipa focused on this in a recent paper examining Seminary Education. He wrote:
Hardly a day passes that I do not think about the fact that no Christian institution of learning has ever remained faithful to God, none even as long as Princeton. This fact is sobering. A number of reasons may be offered, but the two most important are seeking academic acclaim and failure to teach from an experimental point of view – with love for God so that we do not turn our subject matter into abstractions. We must worship as we study. teach, and learn. Pray for us that we will be faithful, humble, and worshiping teachers.
10. Neglect of Bible reading
Many Seminary students can testify that they read less of the Bible during the years of their formal training than at most other times in their lives. It is sadly possible to be engaged in the full-time study of the Bible and yet be reading little or nothing of it. Lasor, Hubbard and Bush conclude the preface of their Old Testament Survey with words we can heartily agree with:
In no way is our design to substitute for the Bible. What book can? Our hope is that it will be read as a guide and supplement to the biblical text itself, and that, as such, it will enhance the devotion and obedience of its readers to Scripture and to Scripture’s Lord….Obedience to God and worship of his holy name are our ultimate aim as God’s people. Such obedience and worship will be best informed where we have grasped the how, why, when, where and by whom of his sacred revelation. Both piety and study are essential to sound discipleship. To combine them has been the goal of our ministries and of this book.
If OT courses would find 10 remedies for these 10 ailments, there would be a lot more blessed spiritual heartburn in our classrooms (Luke 24:32).
 M P Barrett, Beginning at Moses (Greenville, SC: Ambassador-Emerald International, 2001), 5.
 E J Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (London: The Tyndale Press, 1953), 10.
 Dale Ralph Davies, Joshua (Scotland: Christian Focus, 2000), Preface.
 J A Pipa, Seminary Education (Chalcedon Report, 2001).
 Lasor, Hubbard, Bush, Old Testament Survey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1996), xiv.
Aug 30, 2011 • By David Murray • 11 Comments
Produced by HeadHeartHand Media
Aug 30, 2011 • By David Murray • 0 Comments
Over at the Harvard Business Review, Thomas Delong has written an excellent piece calling upon businesses to Stop Ignoring the Stalwart Worker. I couldn’t believe how apt it was for churches as well. I’ve reproduced the post below in slightly edited form – basically all I’ve done is changed “organization” or “business” to “Churches,” “employees” to “Christians” or “members,” and “CEO” to “pastor.” The changes are in italics. Have a read and see if you recognize yourself or your church.
There’s an unnoticed population of Christians in churches today. Strangely enough, they’re also the majority.
The diagram below illustrates the labels that churches often use (knowingly or unknowingly) to classify their members. The y-axis focuses on how a member is measured in acts of church service and ministry. The x-axis centers on how the member measures up to moral standards and values.
In each of the four corners, we find the Stars, Sinners, Low Performers, and Saints. For now, I want to bring to your attention those falling in the middle of the diagram — the Stalwarts.
These solid citizens make up the majority of Christians in most churches. The odds are you may find yourself among the Stalwarts at some point in your church life, no matter how high-revving your internal drive is. If so, you probably will find yourself questioning your significance.
That’s because, despite the number of Stalwarts in a church, these good, solid citizens go largely unnoticed. Few pastors think about the motivation, inclusion, and explicit spiritual development of the solid performers. One church leader said, “I thought that it couldn’t be true that so many Christians are systematically ignored through no fault of their own (except for the fact that they may not be politically astute or they don’t draw attention to themselves). But the more I reflected on my own church, the more I realized that I spend all my time worrying about the high performers and assume that everything is OK with everyone else.”
So what exactly is the Stalwart temperament? Perhaps the defining characteristic of Stalwarts is their aversion to calling attention to themselves — even when they need to. They are like the proverbial wheel that never squeaks — and, consequently, gets no grease. The quickest way to identify Stalwarts is to list the people who make the fewest demands on the pastor’s time. Such reserve is utterly alien to most Stars, who make sure that they squeak loudly enough to get the attention they want.
The other signature trait of Stalwarts is their deep loyalty to the church. They are responsible and care deeply about the church’s values, and they generally steer clear of risk. Stalwarts are intrinsically motivated by the service they can render for the good of the church, and they let their own talents and ministries take a backseat to the church’s well-being. They feel that they have accomplished something if the church is running like a well-oiled machine.
If you’re an pastor or leader who manages Stalwarts, it may be time to reexamine the way you perceive your Stalwart members.
(Delong then goes on to look at five myths about stalwarts, and concludes with this paragraph – with my changes again in italics)
Stalwarts bring depth and stability to the churches they serve, slowly but surely improving both the church’s ministries and resilience. They are always there as quiet yet powerful reminders to high performers obsessed with themselves or as examples to low performers terrified of failure. They will never garner the most revenue or publicity, but they are also less likely to embarrass the church or flunk out. They know intuitively how to stay grounded even when their footing may be unsure. And while pastors often take this amazing ability for granted, it brings real value to churches day after day. In times of crisis, Stalwarts can be a church’s saving grace.
Read Delong’s whole piece here.
Aug 29, 2011 • By David Murray • 3 Comments
Prominent Christian leaders have a great privilege; they also have a great responsibility. Because they have been given the privilege of speaking in the name of the Lord to a wide audience, of guiding and of influencing many of God’s people, their words are especially watched by the Lord and will be more strictly judged by Him (James 3:1). God requires much greater verbal carefulness from those to whom He has given the privilege of a national profile or platform.
There are two areas in particular that all Christian leaders, but especially national Christian leaders, need to bear in mind.
1. Remember that some of your followers will take your emphasis further than you wish.
When we come into a congregational situation or a particular context that requires we “over-emphasize” a certain theme or direction to re-balance a previous ministry or cultural emphasis, we must remember that people (especially young people) who grow up under such teaching will themselves be unbalanced unless there is very careful explanation of what we are doing and why, with suitable and clear qualifications. Without such, those who follow us will not only be un-balanced but will usually go much further in the direction we titled towards.
2. Remember that your influence extends far beyond your own immediate context.
Some of the recent blog posts about the imperative/indicative debate have argued that: “Well, the context I’m ministering in requires overemphasis of the indicatives to re-balance previous teaching and misunderstanding of the Gospel.” Others might argue: “Because my congregation have over-dosed on theology and doctrine, I need to call them to faith and action more.”
Our particular contexts will, of course, impact our choice of texts and the unique emphases of our sermons. However, well-known preachers and teachers must also remember that, with modern technology, their sermons are going much further afield than their own congregation and context. Within minutes or hours their sermons are being heard by Christians in very different situations. That calls for a much greater and wider sense of responsibility.
I know a pastor who was accused by someone in his congregation of “preaching to his SermonAudio.com audience more than the people right in front of him.” Well, if online listeners are more important to a preacher than the flesh and blood preachers in front of him, then obviously there’s something very wrong. But, if a preacher who broadcasts his sermons online takes no account of listeners who are facing exactly the opposite danger he’s addressing, and provides at least some careful qualification and nuancing of his message, then he is being irresponsible.
And, of course, when Christian leaders blog on such subjects, and blog without thinking about how their words will be read by people in a very different context, that’s not only irresponsible, it’s also extremely frustrating and demoralizing for local pastors who are battling the opposite problem.