Monday, February 28, 2005

Mush Watch

I went with the family to WEC last night. The service was pretty good. To my surprise Philip Hacking was the speaker.

Afterwards, I was reflecting with Susan on one of the songs we sang on the way home. Now everyone chooses a bad song to sing now and again, so I am not challenging the one who chose it, but this was a particularly bad song. It can be found here. The last verse goes

Father, I love You
Come satisfy the longing in my heart
Fill me, overwhelm me
Until I know Your love deep in my heart

Now it is not that I am against experiences and feelings when in relationship to God. Would that we had more, in some ways. It's just that the theology is so bad, misleading and damaging.

As I began to sing the last two lines, Romans 5:8 popped into my head:
But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (NIV)
Note the difference. In the song we are praying that the Father will make his love known through a feeling. The Scripture tells us God the Father makes his love known through a demonstrable fact. The song makes no references at all to the objective facts of redemption. In fact, it is not even distinctively Christian! As you might guess, I didn't sing those lines after all.

Susan put my concerns rather succinctly: I don't need to know God's love as a feeling. I need to know God's love just like I know tomorrow is Monday.

Isn't she wise? That's such a good statement!

Friday, February 25, 2005

Mixed Up

So, things get worse in the Anglican Communion. There was a chap being interviewed on BBC Breakfast this morning who is on the General Synod (whatever that is). He was arguing that the division that we see is all about culture not about theology.


Is he deaf? blind?

Anyway, he went on to argue that as communication improves and as more and more Africans gain the courage to 'come out' the church there will have to compromise on the homosexual issue. In other words, some time in the future 'they' will catch up. Not only is this view gravely in error (it is about theology - the theology of man, of marriage) but it also demonstrates the tendency of the Western elite to patronise the poor. Yes, one day they too shall be as enlightened as we have made ourselves!

Aside from all that, there was something much, much, much more important! Did you see what he was wearing!? He looked like a typical clergyman, at least from the neck to the waist - black clerical shirt, little white Fairy liquid collar thing. But above he was a hippy. Below, the jeans of a thirty-something Dad at the weekend. It was a bit like these kiddies books you get where each page has a picture of a person in a different outfit, but the pages are split in three so you can mix and match! You know, woman in flowery hat, policeman's tunic, frogman's legs. That kind of thing.

The interviewee didn't seem to know what he was. Summarises the Anglicans, really.

Harry's Insight

Here's an interesting start to an article at Harry's Place on religion and politics in the US:
Religions die in a number of ways. First, they can be put to the sword and flame: the fate of Zorastrianism at Alexander the Great's hands. Second, they can go underground, as Marranos Jews did during the Inquisition (and, some might say, Zoroastrians did in Persia), until the hidden faith mutates in the minds of the forgetting generations into something only half understood. Third, in a liberal society, the children of the religious just find that they have better things to do with their time.
Good comment, but in the UK it's not just the children of the religious that have better things to do with their time - it's the self-professed religious these days!

The rest of the article is a bit patronising, but the start is good...

Thursday, February 24, 2005

More Blogroll Changes

Recently I was telling a friend that I had removed a couple of blogs from my blogroll. These were blogs from the "emergent church" faction of the blogosphere, which, after some consideration, I could not recommend or suggest that I approved of.

After further consideration today I felt it necessary to take a further step in this direction with the removal of those asociated with the so-called "Federal Vision". I confess I am not able to mount a robust argument against FV - I await the time to study the issue in depth. However, I am sufficiently concerned about it that I feel it necessary to remove any suggestion that I support it by listing their blogs.

I make an exception for any who blogroll Doggie's Breakfast. My reciprocation I see as a common courtesy.

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

The Spirit and Interpreting Scripture

A few days ago I posted a quote from Moises Silva's book Interpreting Galatians. He was proposing that, all other things being equal, the accuracy of the exegesis of passage of Scripture would be no better for spiritual believers as it would for unspiritual unbelievers.

It was quite a surprise to read this, and one is tempted immediately to reject the idea. Surely a believer, with the help of the Holy Spirit, is much better able to get to the real meaning of the text of Scripture? This seems to be the accepted view. Silva cites Bruce Waltke to this effect. As a check, I looked at my copy of Know the Truth by Bruce Milne (easier than wading through my John Owen tomes) and found a section in it headed "Scripture can be interpreted only by the Holy Spirit". In other words, it seems, the unbeliever has no chance. Waltke argues that the espousal of Enlightenment values has led to the percieved diminution of the role of the Spirit in exegesis.

Silva's argument against Waltke is based on two pieces of evidence. Firstly, the scientific method of exegesis seems to work. Unbelievers do get it right. Secondly, many believers come up with bizarre interpretations. Silva therefore asserts that there is no discernible correlation between spiritual health and interpretation.

The interesting element of Silva's argument comes when he tries to explain this apparent phenomenon. He believes that the key to this question is understanding the nature of the Bible. It is both human and divine. In one sense it is "just another book", but in another it is completely unique. The human elements of the book lend themselves to human enquiry, independent of spiritual state. For example, the understanding of the Greek language is a scientific endeavour subject to rules and procedures. It is analogous, says Silva, to the procedure for driving a car. There is no reason why the spiritual state of the driver should have any bearing on the quality of the driving. So too with exegesis.

However, the Holy Spirit witnesses to us that we are God’s children, helps us to understand the things of God, transforms our hearts in obedience. These are things that happen as believers read and meditate on the Scripture, which cannot happen to the unbeliever.

It seems to me that in this view, the Holy Spirit takes the 'knowing' of the believer from mere knowledge of what the Bible is saying to knowing that it is true and, where appropriate, that it is true for him/her. Ultimately, the Spirit testifies to the truth of the relationship that the believer has with God.

All well and good. The only problem I have with this division of human/divine is that there remains the possibility that a believer can be way off track in interpretation, and therefore get the wrong idea of what the Bible is saying and still be called a 'believer'. But there are certain elements of biblical revelation that must be believed to be true for the person to be a believer. If the individual gets the exegesis of any part Scripture wrong, the Spirit can't testify its truth. The work of the Holy Spirit would be contingent upon the correct application of the scientific method of exegesis. This can't be so. Therefore, doesn't that mean that the Spirit must play some role in attaining a correct interpretation, at least in the key areas?

But what about Silva's two points of evidence against this idea? A closer inspection of Silva's assessment of the evidence for or against a correlation between spirituality and accurate interpretation does seem rather flimsy and subjective.

I'm afraid at this moment I must conclude that Silva is wrong.


The Bible shouts loud and clear that God is holy. But God's holiness is no mere abstract idea. It defines how our lives must be:
Be holy, because I am holy.
(1Peter 1:16, NIV)
Isaiah did not just see the words about God's holiness written on a scroll. He had a vision which he recorded in Isaiah 6. It had a profound effect on him and on the seraphs surrounding God's throne, each I suggest for different reasons.

Firstly, the seraphs in the vision are themselves holy in their life and conduct. There is no grubbiness of sin about them. But their reaction before God is maybe surprising. They cover up their faces and feet with their wings. What caused this? I suggest that the gulf between God as creator and them as creatures is so vast that they feel compelled to do so. God is so very 'other' than his creatures.

Secondly, Isaiah's immediate response to the vision is to become acutely aware of his sins. He knows he is "a man of unclean lips". Well, who knows what "unclean lips" meant! In our day profanity and vulgarity are commonplace and we just live with it. So it might be difficult to imagine such an extreme response from Isaiah. But it reminds us that anyone who comes before God (and we all shall) will become intensely aware of his every moral failure, great or small. God's holiness makes this inevitable.

The awareness of our sin is not just new interesting information about ourselves, like doing some kind of Myers-Briggs personality test. It carries implications. The consequences of moral failure, having seen God, led Isaiah to cry out, "Woe to me! I am ruined!" He knew he was in deep trouble, and there was absolutely nothing he could do about it.

One day we all will see God. We will all sense our impending ruination, unless we are saved somehow.

Monday, February 21, 2005

Getting to the Meat

When I was a kid, my palate was not very sophisticated. Besides, I just wasn't interested in eating. I would much rather play instead. So, I used to have real difficulty identifying what kind of meat I was eating. (Not that I cared much.) Was this lamb, beef, pork, turkey? I was confused. It was funny for my parents. Eventually I got teased about it. "No, it's Giraffe!" they would jokingly say.

Like most kids gradually I learned. One of the key indicators to what I was eating was what went with the meat on the plate. Mint sauce with lamb, apple sauce with pork, tartare sauce with fish (fish? - yup, I began to joke about it too) etc.

When reading the Bible there are certain things we consider the real meat and certain things we consider the embellishments - sauces, garnishes etc. Prepositions can be treated as the parsley on the hollandaise sauce - nice, if you like that sort of thing, but disposable if you don't. Either way let's get to the real meat!

However, the importance of prepositions shows up in this pair of verses from Paul:
For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.Romans 8:3,4 (NIV)
How did you read it? In this case it seems to me that the preposition is crucial. Often we read
... the law might be fully met in us ...
... the law might be fully met for us ...
Did you get the difference? In other words, often we read this verse, which is about our ongoing sanctification ('in us'), as a verse about the atonement ('for us').

There are some people who take the view that the law has no place in the life of the believer. They want to read the Scriptures in this way. Therefore, the idea that the God might be doing something with the law in us, they say, is unacceptable. "For us"? Yes, on the Cross. "In us"? No, the law is obsolete.

But you can only take this view if you ignore the garnish. Here, the prepositional garnish is an essential pointer what the doctrinal meat is. Yes, we can try and do without it - "lets get to the meat!" we say. But this attitude makes for a pretty dull meal, which may consist of a slab of something we find difficult to identify.

Sunday, February 20, 2005

Bloggy Chum

I've just discovered an old chum who has just started a blog David Muir. David and I were at Glasgow Uni at the same time in the early '80s (was it really that long ago). Looks like his blog will have a professional bias, though who knows. Check him out!

Friday, February 18, 2005


Arrived home from ETCW at about midnight last night. Too awake to sleep. Went to bed v. late. Got up late. Back in the saddle but struggled to get going today.

ETCW was fun. I was only there for about 30 hours. But I met some new students and caught with some 'old' ones. This is the most useful part of the Residential. Studying by distance learning can be quite a lonely existence. Catching up is important.

However, other than providing an environment for this kind of fellowship and support, I'm not sure what the College thinks it is doing. The residential is hardly an intensive learning experience. It is rare to have more than one lecture for each module and even then there is little time for more than an intro. Sometimes the lecturers just focus on the books we need to beg, borrow or ... buy. Why can't this be written down so that we can properly get into the subject matter? Seems like a wasted opportunity to me.

Anyway, I plan to cover
  • Hebrew Grammar II
  • Job
  • Pastoral Principles and Practice
The last one seems particularly interesting since it will involve the practice of diagnosing spiritual health. Scarey, full of pitfals I'm sure, but interesting.

Thursday, February 17, 2005

For Those Time-Poor

A quick theology primer from Discoshaman.

Ho ho.

Wednesday, February 16, 2005


I'm off to my residential at ETCW for a couple of days. I'll be studying Job, Hebrew Grammar and Pastoral Principles and Practice next semester. The visit will give me the chance to use the library.

In the meantime, to keep us thinking: have you ever met a Christian who is godly and spiritual, but sometimes comes up with the craziest interpretations of Scripture? Or, have you ever come across (read or heard) someone who seems to have a very clear ability to interpret (exegete) Scripture and then find that he/she is not a believer? What's going on there?

Here's a quote from Moises Silva:
...our spiritual condition has no bearing whatever on the accuracy of our biblical exegesis.
Interpreting Galatians (Grand Rapids: Baker) p.210
Is he right or wrong?

Monday, February 14, 2005

The Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth

The public voice of the church to the world proclaims 'God is Love'. And it's true. Who can deny it? It's in the Bible (see 1 John 4:8,16). So why is it amongst the first reactions to the gospel that people say, "If God is love, why is there so much suffering?" After all, a loving God would intervene and stop it all, wouldn't he? It always surprises me that this reaction should be so swift.

It seems to me that the world can see the incompleteness of this message. God is love, but that's not all that's true. Unfortunately, the world doesn't like the rest of the truth. It will stick with the 'God is love' idea when talking to our children, but in the real world it isn't true. Granny and Grandpa have gone to heaven, but Mum and Dad are in the ground.

The other side of the truth is that God is holy. He altogether different from us. He is the Creator, we are his creatures. He is morally pure. But this does not become clear by measuring God against some objective moral standard. Who would be qualified to define the standard? God himself is the standard. He defines wisdom, goodness, love, truth - and holiness.

We are made in his image, above all other creatures, made for relationship - a covenant bond - with him. But, things as they are, we don't care too much about that. There are too many things to be interested in, to worry about, to watch. We can sort it all, though.

God hates sin. His very nature is implacably opposed to it. In a sense, He does not choose to be against it - He just is. He is against us - sinners. Against you and me. We deserve to be cast out. The curse of death is upon us.

Every death reminds us of God's opposition to us. Every tragedy. Every disaster. The fact that it doesn't happen to each of us right now, is evidence of his patience with us. Every moment that we breathe we don't get what we deserve. God is good - He gives us a chance. God is love.

The world is cynical about the 'God is love' message. When we preach 'God is love', without due regard to the holiness of God, the world smells a rat. It knows that can't be all there is to it. True, the reaction is out of proportion. Man has no right to be cynical about any of God's truth. But it is there, and the church has to deal with it. So she must be courageous and tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Friday, February 11, 2005


My last post was prompted by Tim Challies' post on Total Depravity. I left a comment about the need for Christ-centred testimony and Tim challenged me to write more about it, which I did. However, he commented that testimony was not the main thrust of his post. Tim then took up the theme of my post and responded with his own excellent post, agreeing with me and giving his own take on the question.

Again he commented that testimony was not the main thrust of his original post. That worried me. Having gone back and read what he wrote I find that he's right! I missed the main thrust. It's always annoying when one gets the wrong end of the stick.

Total Depravity is a great leveler. All are equally without hope before a holy God. But further, appreciation of this fact makes possible the clear testimony to the wonderful gospel of Jesus Christ and a shift of focus away from grubby self. The two are connected. A person who has not grasped the extent of his/her need is unlikely to see the relevance of a strange story 2000 years ago. Instead he/she will want to focus on personal spiritual experience.

On Testimonies

I was converted through the work of the Navigators at Glasgow Uni back in 1980-ish. It was a great year for conversions - 10 in my hall of residence out of just over 200 in that year. One of the guys who was converted came up to Uni at the same time. I knew him in secondary and primary schools. Ken was converted some months before me and became something of a mentor to me. We would meet once a week, he would choose a topic on some aspect of Christian living and we would kick it around for an hour or so. It was great fun and immensely valuable to me.

One time we were talking about testimonies. It is always good to be able to say clearly how you came to Christ if there is ever the opportunity to tell someone. Ken was very wise. He said that it was important not to over-dramatise the story. You know the kind of thing, "I was hanging from the cliff by my finger-tips. At that moment I realised I needed to be saved and so I cried out to God, 'Save me!' Amazingly, God did! " It was an important lesson.

Even so, it took some time to learn. I remember giving my testimony at a mid-week meeting at New Prestwick Baptist Church. I also did so when I was baptised there. Each time I was told "just a couple of minutes". Each time I took more than five. My story was a long one with lots of interesting detail which I was sure everyone wanted to know.

I have heard many testimonies now, and quite a number in formal settings. Over the last few years there has been a number of young people baptised at my church. As is traditional they were given the opportunity to give a word of testimony. I have to say I have usually been disappointed and even a little concerned. Whereas testimonies used to focus largely on the experience of conversion, I have noticed that more recent offerings have focussed on the experience of being baptised. "It wasn't the right time until now", "I felt ready to be baptised", "It felt like the right thing to do". After all, it can be quite emotional experience with all your friends around you, singing etc. But I must admit, on the basis of what I have heard I really doubt whether some have been converted at all.

Why do I say this? Well, it seems clear to me that testimony has two aspects to it - the objective and the subjective. The objective aspect consists of the work of Christ. Paul testified to this clearly, for example, in 1 Corinthians 15:3,4. It was the substance of the apostles teaching - you only need to read the Acts narrative to see this.

Now, there is room for a subjective testimony. Paul does gives testimony in Acts 22 before the crowd in Jerusalem, and before Agrippa in Acts 26. He "tells his story" to the Galatian Christians in Galatians 2:13ff. However, it seems to me that he has two purposes in mind. The first is to explain Christ's interaction with him. For Paul, Christ has not simply acted in history, but in his life personally. Redemption has been accomplished and applied. His second purpose is to explain why he is doing what he is doing. After all he was a zealous Jew intent on destroying the church. Now he was its strongest advocate. This takes some explaining. Further, as far as the Galatians are concerned Paul needs to establish the source of his gospel in order to bring them back in line. Thus his testimony has a specific objective in ministry.

Paul's use of testimony seems to be a far cry from what we see today. The strong individualism of the surrounding culture affects us all, perhaps especially the young. It makes much of personal experience. True, this provides opportunity for Christians who have marvelous personal experiences of Christ to share. But it also can be a temptation to become self-absorbed. What seems to matters in 'my testimony' is the greatness of my problems before meeting Christ ('poor you!'). But I decided to follow Jesus ('good for you!'). Now my life is great and full of purpose. Is that really what it is all about? Substitute 'Bhudda' or 'Krishna' for 'Christ' in the above story and you have the testimony of many other people. No, this is not the testimony the Holy Spirit enables us to bear.

Christianity is not a recipe for self-help. Nor is giving your testimony an occasion for focussing on me. God save us from that! It is about a man whose life, death and resurrection are the only hope for the world. This is the only testimony that we have and by the power of the Holy Spirit we are enabled to share it.

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Fluffing Your Lines

One of the blessings of preaching regularly, especially if you is preaching through a book or letter in the Bible, is that you are invited to think through issues more fully than you would otherwise. After all, you are teaching others to believe, unless of course you expect them to be asleep.

I say 'invited' rather than 'forced', because for last Sunday I declined the invitation for part of my sermon. I was preaching on 1 Thessalonians 5:23-28. Verse 23 says
Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (NKJV)
I declined the invitation to mug up on the nature of man - Paul here addresses the whole person as 'spirit, soul and body'. Clearly the issue for Paul is the fact that God sanctifies the whole person - there is nothing left out. But the verse does suggest how man may be constituted. The verse at first sight seems to suggest three parts: body, soul and spirit.

I'm afraid on Sunday I rather fluffed round this. Though correctly emphasising that the whole believer is to be sanctified, I chose to explain the three-fold description in aspectival terms rather than ontological terms. [What? :-( ] By aspectival I mean that Paul is looking at the whole man from different vantage points, rather as you would the plans for a building: left elevation, front elevation etc.. Each elevation looks different but still describes the same whole entity. They cannot be separated, because in doing so you would lose the 3-dimensionality of the house. (Incidentally, I did not use this illustration in the sermon, you'll be glad to know. It's just too complicated and technical.)

I now realise this is bunk. The components of man must be viewed ontologically. The bible clearly teaches the separation of body and soul. Jesus said,
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28 (NKJV)
This was brought to my attention while reading Calvin (Inst. I.XV.2).

I did some further reading on this and found three views of man:

Monism: Man is a total "one" before God. This is the view I had adopted on Sunday. The view sees terms such as soul and spirit as too imprecise to make them distinct entities. This view adopted by Berkouwer. The advantage of this scheme it seemed to me was that it fitted in with the Jewish view of the unity of man and did not pander to the dualism of human nature found in Greek philosophy.

Dichotomy: Man is soul and body. This is indicated by Jesus' words above, and other verses (Ecc 12:7, 2 Cor 5:1-10). Scripture speaks of separation of the two at death. However this dichotomy should not be seen as Greek dualism. The two entities are united in one being, akin to Jesus' human and divine natures, distinguishable but indivisible.

Trichotomy: Man is body, soul and spirit as suggested by 1 Thessalonians 5:23. Other verses suggest a distinction between soul and spirit (e.g. Heb 4:12, 1 Cor 15:44).

Reymond calls monism 'nonsense' (A New Systematic Theology p. 419) and adopts the dichotomous view. Calvin says that dichotomy 'ought to be beyond controversy' (Inst. I.XV.2). I tend to agree with this view. Monism does not seem to do justice to Scripture, while the trichotomy view, though better than monism, seems exegetically weak. However, I have only read these arguments through the eyes of pro-dichotomy authors!

The lesson here, is to examine every argument and statement before preaching it. It's irresponsible not to. These things could be life and death.

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

Who Need's It?

I met a woman once who, when she found out that I was a Christian, started listing all the good things she had done in life. All the charities she had helped, the donations she had made. You name it she mentioned it. Couldn't get a word in edgeways. Once she had completed reciting this list, there was no more to be said, was there? So the conversation was finished. She did not need or want to hear what could be said about the marvelous gospel of Jesus Christ. So I said goodbye and went on my way.

Lots of people believe they are Christian. And not just those who wear nice hats or coats and go to church. Plenty of people stay at home and watch TV or sleep and call themselves Christian. Lots of other people stay at home or sleep and would not call themselves Christian. But they believe that when they get to the pearly gates (if there are any) they will be welcomed in. Basically, everyone thinks they are good enough. After all, being a Christian is not about going to church it's about how you live your life, don't they say?

So who needs the Good News?

The trouble is that often the people who think themselves OK, decent, acceptable people, seem to bear the greatest resentment towards others. "There are a lot of evil people in the world. And them next door..." And so begins a rant. It's necessary - to make sense of the way the world seems to be. "Yes there's a lot of trouble in the world, but I'm OK. If only people were more like me. Yes the world needs the Good News, but not me thanks."

Try harder, educate, think deeper, rant more. That'll do it. No, there aren't many who believe they need the Good News.

Grab a Book (again)

OK, here's something I've done before. It's come round again with a slight variation (chinese whispers?). Hey, it's fun Let's do it. Here it is:

  1. Grab the nearest book.

  2. Open the book to page 123.

  3. Find the fifth sentence.

  4. Post the text of the sentence in your journal along with these instructions.

  5. Don’t search around and look for the “coolest” book you can find. Do what’s actually next to you.

Mine is,
The Lord himself will come down from heaven with a loud command, as Jesus also taught: 'I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live' (John 5.25).
From The Authentic Church: A Study of the Letters to the Thessalonians by David Jackman (Christian Focus 1998)

From Figured Out.

Monday, February 07, 2005

Everyone Knows, Don't They?

As a young child I used to have a view of God as a bearded smiling figure who was "up there" looking down upon us all. I must have got this idea from school and church.

At school we sang hymns, had the minister visit, went to the local parish church for an end-of-year service. In Primary 2 I remember Mrs McKinnon marching up and down the isles between the regimented rows of six-year-olds chanting out Psalm 23 from the psalter. We dutifully followed the chants and learned the psalm.

In Primary 4 Mrs Bowman read stories out of the Bible every morning. I remember about Abraham, and Jacob and Esau. On reflection, I think she must have been a true Christian, though at the time I thought everyone was. The only other thing I can remember about her was the strange headbands she used to wear.

I went to Church (of Scotland) with my brother, though we went to different Sunday School classes. I remember thinking it was funny that people dressed up for Church. Was God impressed with them, even if on the inside they were unchanged? It's quite remarkable to me that I was able to think like that. I still think like that.

I don't know where I got the idea of the fact that God is holy. As in most liberal ecclesiastical establishments God's love was the idea majored on. Holiness was left in the shadows. Yes, we were encouraged in the idea that there was 'right' and 'wrong' and God is on the side of 'right'. But I don't remember any teaching on God's holiness or his reaction to sin.

Yet I knew He was/is opposed to it. You know, knew. In fact, He would deal with it one day. I suspect I wasn't the only one who knew it deep down.

Friday, February 04, 2005

Post Mortem

I got back last night from ETCW. The exams went OK I suppose.

19th Century Christianity seemed easier than I expected.

Hebrew Grammar was as expected ( I sat it last year then dropped out). I think I probably did better than last year.

In Greek Text (Galatians) we were given four passages, from which we were to choose two, translate them and make exegetical comment. I never know with exegetical writing whether I am hitting the mark. I was able to write, and therefore felt happy about it, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it was weak. Never mind.

Anyway, I can relax a little now.

Tuesday, February 01, 2005


I'm off for a couple of days for my end-of-semester exams.

This afternoon: Travel to Bridgend
Tomorrow: a.m. 19th Century Christianity p.m. Hebrew Grammar
Thursday: p.m. Greek Text (Galatians) Return in evening.
Friday: Sermon prep.