Blogs

To my sisters and brothers in Christ, entrusted with the arduous task of leading and directing Cedarville University: greetings, grace, and peace. Allow me to thank you all for your countless hours of service to this institution. I do not want to underestimate your care and concern for this place. In fact, I want to reassure you that I share your passion. Here at Cedarville I have been blessed with the opportunity of meeting, falling in love with, and marrying my wife. Even more importantly, at Cedarville I have fallen in love with the Gospel. Thanks to godly men and women here – whose vision of God, his Word, and his world I’ve been privileged to catch – my eyes have been opened to the richness, complexity, and scope of God’s redemptive mission. ...

If you haven’t read my previous two blog posts, “Cedarville, Let there be Light. (pt. 1 and pt. 2),” please go do so before reading this post. Summary: I’ve been blogging in order to raise awareness of Cedarville University’s recent dismissal of Dr. Michael Pahl from his teaching post. Using the University’s statement on Dr. Pahl, I’ve raised some uncomfortable questions that I believe need to be asked in this situation. For example: ...

Read Part One Further Questions, All Relating to the University Statement on Dr. Pahl’s Dismissal: If Dr. Pahl’s book, The Beginning and the End, was controversial enough to lead to his dismissal, why was the book allowed to be used as a textbook last school year? Shouldn’t we trust the Bible professors’ judgment in their selection of the book as a text? If we should, then was it worth firing Dr. Pahl over a book which other CU professors approved of enough to require as a text for their courses? If not, why not? Why don’t we trust these highly-trained men and women as an institution? Shouldn’t they be a resource instead of a feared danger? Does this potential fear have anything to do with Dr. Pahl being dismissed? Do all members of the Board of Trustees agree with “each and every position of Cedarville University’s Doctrinal Statement” in the way Dr. Pahl was expected to in order to still be allowed to teach? If he was dismissed, despite the apparent alignment of his personal views and those expressed in his writing to the Doctrinal Statement, is there a possibility that some of the trustees should also be dismissed according to such strict standards? Was Dr. Pahl dismissed for something that wrote which contradicts the Doctrinal Statement? If so, what was it exactly that he wrote? (I have been unable to find anything in The Beginning and the End) If Dr. Pahl was not fired for something he wrote, was he fired for something that he didn’t write? Again, if so, what was it exactly that he didn’t affirm? Furthermore, is firing someone for not affirming something fair? Are all professors required to affirm the Doctrinal Statement in its entirety in everything they write and/or publish? What is the administration’s vision for the future of the Bible Department at Cedarville University? How does firing an orthodox, promising scholar who is committed to Scripture and to the gospel help to achieve that vision? Has Dr. Pahl been cared for by the University in any way during this process? As our brother in Christ, have we dismissed him in a way that is honoring to God and helpful to him and his family? What explanation has been given to the students who have been affected by Dr. Pahl’s dismissal (i.e. the ones registered for his classes)? Has that explanation been accurate and forthright? Are any other professors currently being considered for dismissal by the University for things they have written and published? (CONTINUED: An Explanation) ...

The Statement: “Dr. Michael Pahl has been relieved of his teaching duties because he is unable to concur fully with each and every position of Cedarville University’s doctrinal statement. This decision was made following a review by the University administration and trustees prompted by Dr. Pahl’s recent book, The Beginning and the End: Rereading Genesis’s Stories and Revelation’s Visions. Dr. Pahl’s orthodoxy and commitment to the gospel are not in question, nor is his commitment to Scripture’s inspiration, authority and infallibility. He is a promising scholar and a dedicated teacher, and he will be missed by his colleagues and students. Nevertheless, the University has determined this decision to be in the best interests of its constituency at this time.” ...

Undoubtedly the title of this blog post could be taken in hundreds of different directions. However, given recent developments close to home, and the Answers in Genesis conference coming to Cedarville University on Sept. 23-24, I’d like to get people thinking about Ken Ham, his organization’s agenda, and how Scripture might very well be getting abused for the sake of Young Earth Creationism. I say this as someone who used to be a zealous defender of everything that Answers in Genesis stands for. I viewed the Creationism vs. Evolution debate as central and foundational to the Christian life. I would sit for hours on end and listen to guys like Kent Hovind and their defenses of Young Earth Creationism… ...

(Read Pt. 1 and Pt. 2 first!) CREATION AND REDEMPTION: CHRIST AND NEW CREATION Throughout the New Testament, the main use of creation theology is to link creation with redemption, resulting in the praise of the Creator through the Creator-Redeemer, Jesus the Messiah. However, the linked concepts of creation and redemption have a rich OT history. For example, cited impetuses for keeping the Sabbath are Yahweh’s creative work (Exod 20:11) and his redemptive work (Deut 5:15), revealing a close connection between the two actions.[\[1\]](/Users/Josh/Downloads/CREATION%20(2).docx#_ftn1) The logic behind this correlation is one of continued creation: Yahweh is personally invested in the success of his creative purposes, the functionality of his temple.[\[2\]](/Users/Josh/Downloads/CREATION%20(2).docx#_ftn2) Sin and Death will not have the final word. The Creator will redeem by creating anew through his Son. The New Testament unites creation and redemption in the person of Jesus the Messiah. Evidence abounds, but consider three poignant examples. In John 1:1-18, Jesus is spoken of as the agent of creation (1:3) and the redemptive agent of grace and truth (1:17).[3] In Colossians 1:15-20, Jesus is the “image of God, the firstborn over all creation (1:15),” illustrating his role as the eternal nexus between Creator and creation.[4] Furthermore, Christ is spoken of, again, as both the agent of creation (1:16) and reconciliatory redemption (1:19-20).[5] Finally, in Heb 1:1-4, the author of Hebrews takes special care to link the Son’s creative work with his redemptive work through a verbal parallel: through the Son, the universe and redemptive cleansing are both made (poievw).[6] ...

(Read Pt. 1 First!) CREATION, COMPLEXITY, AND CHAOS Much of the chaos in the universe can be ascribed to the infiltration of Sin and Death as described in Genesis 3. However, an oft-overlooked facet of biblical creation theology is the appropriate place of complexity and chaos within God’s creation. Even when the effects of the Fall are ignored, God’s temple is by no means a tame environment, nor is humanity the sole venue through which Yahweh receives glory. This facet is a crucial one, for it reorients a proper view of worship in an untamed temple, necessitating humility in the worship of the Creator. ...

INTRODUCTION In many conservative evangelical circles, biblical creation theology has been hijacked and eclipsed by the vitriolic debate between Young Earth Creationism and Neo-Darwinism.[1] It is often difficult to see beyond this morass the beautiful tapestry of creation themes in biblical theology. Waltke summarizes the problem well: “Instead of metaphysical questions that shape culture, questions about dinosaurs, a young earth theory, and such dominate the evangelical landscape. This is unfortunate.”[2] Nevertheless, there is an embarrassment of riches when it comes to Scripture’s use of creation themes, whether the evangelical community gives them appropriate attention or not. Unfortunately, a comprehensive analysis of biblical creation theology, a field fertile enough to provide lifetimes of work and study, far exceeds the purview of this essay.[3] However, a brief analysis of the motifs of creation as temple, chaos, and redemption will show that the overarching use of creation theology in Scripture is to bring about the praise of the Creator. Biblical creation theology, properly understood, leads to doxology. ...

(The following is an expanded version of the speech I gave at this year’s CU Scholar Dessert Reception.) The first thing I ever decided about Cedarville University was that I would not, under any circumstances, attend. Since my administrator’s son, Drew Flamm, worked in admissions at CU, I had been inundated since before I could remember with calls to become a yellow-jacket, and out of sheer stubbornness of heart, I refused. ...

The Traditional Wedding Vows In case you didn’t know, the “traditional” wedding vows – in English, at least – are found in the Book of Common Prayer. In the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the marriage vows read as follows: I M. take thee N. to my wedded wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better for worſe, for richer for poorer, in ſickneſs and in health, to love and to cheriſh, till death us do part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth. ...