The eyes explain the intention of what we will do. Our loyalties, dispositions, and convictions come out of our internal barometer. The thing which our eyes see is not the problem. The action taken when looking is not the starting line for our response to that thing. “The eyes are the mirror of the soul” is perhaps the closest equivalent explanation that can be given in English. It is ourselves (the self, the “soul”) that is the problem.

Our eyes belie our intention—the focus, absorbed concentration, rapt attention toward the appetite of our desire. We now “set our sights” upon, designate, and “mark out our territory.” Once the act of our will has been determined, once we decide for sin, the act of coveting begins. It is then that we “lust a lust” or “feel a gluttonous craving” (cf. Num 11:4; Prov 21:26; Ecc 6:2).

Pleasure, beauty, desire, delight, luxuries, what is precious, delicacies, and things in general are NOT the problem. The longing, the unquenchable thirst we develop for matter—whatever it is—is born of an internal decision which leads to our intention. Sin’s birth or death happens right here. What’s the matter with matter? Nothing. This is Genesis 2:9. Is matter all that matters? If the answer is yes, then this is Genesis 3:6. The phrase “depending on how you look at it” exactly suggests the point.

What is “pleasing” to our eyes may be ethically good or bad depending on our intention. The words in Genesis 2:9 and 3:6 are different though synonymous in the Hebrew language (both are used interchangeably to identify coveting something belonging to one’s neighbor; Ex 20:17, Deut 5:21). Things that give the individual pleasure are always a result of seeing them first (cf. Achan, “I saw…I coveted,” Jos 7:21). Once the sight is set upon something, that thing can then become an object of desire. Unrighteous craving extends to idols (Deut 7:25; Is 1:29; 44:9), prostitutes (Prov 6:25), the belongings of others (Micah 2:2), or simply evil itself (Prov 21:10). Craving parallels greed (Ps 10:3), selfishness (Prov 18:1), mockery (Prov 1:22), and getting something for nothing (Prov 21:25, 26). Compared to a wild donkey in heat (Jer 2:24) wicked desires come to nothing (Ps 112:10). On the other hand, righteous longing ends in good (Prov 11:23), is granted (Prov 10:24), fulfilling (Prov 13:12), and sweet to the soul (Prov 13:19). The object of affection for the believer begins with God’s Word (Ps 119:20, 40, 174): which is “more precious than gold” (Ps 19:11).

So our focus is off. We want what we shouldn’t have. Replacing God with what we want is the essence of idolatry. Our choice becomes God. We usurp power simply by decision. What is good can become god but does not a good god make. We seek the ultimate in the temporal. Our god can be a person, position, power, pleasure, or possession. But the problem is not with the thing, it’s with us.

Our ineptitude, our own smallness, our finite, fallen, and fragile nature must be behind Yahweh’s sarcastic response to Israel’s idols. “You’ve GOT to be kidding, right?! You think that rock that can’t hear, think, see, or act is better than Me?!” The problem is not with the rock; the problem is with us. I believe that is Isaiah’s point about carving an idol out of a felled tree. With one half the idolater warms himself with fire, with the other he fashions an idol. What happens if he burns the wrong half?! (Isaiah 44:6-20).

“Keep your eyes on your own plate,” among other dictates, come immediately to mind when Mark teaches about ‘eyes’ in Old Testament Survey at Crossroads Bible College. Originally written for “Faith and Learning,” a course, Mark developed at MBI in 2004.

Sucker punch. The term means you hit someone when they’re not looking. It happened to me; I never saw it coming. A tap on the shoulder, I turned, and the next thing I knew, I was on the floor. Hitting someone when they aren’t ready to fight doesn’t seem fair to most people. There is a sense that if you’re going to start a fight you ought to be looking the other person in the eye. The sucker punch takes many forms. Terrorists will fire on American forces while hiding behind women and children. Terrorists—a poor term since female skirts provide their cover—know U.S. soldiers will not return fire on defenseless civilians. The sucker punch is well known in business. Workers are “let go”, escorted from their work station without being allowed to retrieve any personal articles so supervisors can limit public opinion damage.

Until recently, journalism and education were thought to be arenas of safety from the sucker punch. Journalists were supposedly protected by free speech clauses in The First Amendment to The Constitution. Higher education and so-called “academic freedom” should have gone hand-in-hand. Free to inject ideas into conversations to give alternative perspectives, scholars, writers, and columnists make comments knowing others will not agree. This week we discovered that free speech and academic freedom mean nothing. Naomi Schaefer Riley was sucker punched in the pages of The Chronicle of Higher Education. Naomi Schaefer Riley, author of books on college education and published journalist in multiple papers and magazines around the country, was being paid by The Chronicle of Higher Education to inject ideas in its website blog. Last week Riley was critical of contemporary black study courses and programs. She had the audacity to suggest, in her words, the dissertation topics of the graduate students mentioned were obscure at best and “a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap,” at worst. Whether one agrees with Riley or not, she was exercising her free speech and academic freedom. A firestorm of protest resulted in ad hominem [against the person] attacks and bile-filled language. Did Riley utter so-called ‘hate speech’? No. She called no one names. Did Riley slander any person? No. Did Riley question something others had not already criticized in the past? No. She referenced a course of black, graduate level studies ‘claptrap’; that’s all. My African-American colleague with whom I teach, Professor Hosea Baxter said of The Chronicle, [Quote] “If black academia is sheltered from critique, then black academia can also be viewed as anemic, needing special protection.” [End Quote]

And what was the response from The Chronicle of Higher Education? Did the mouthpiece for undergraduate and graduate education stand by free speech? Did the most public forum for university ideas support academic freedom? Did the news source which touts its support of broadmindedness in the academe, stand by their paid contributor to the blog page entitled “Brainstorm: Ideas and Culture”? The answer to each question is “No.” The Chronicle of Higher Education capitulated; it caved to the pressure of wrongly-called tolerant, free-thinking, multicultural, open-minded academics who slurred Riley’s good name and reputation. The Chronicle of Higher Education did not stand for tolerance, free-thinking, multicultural, open-mindedness which the professorate claim for themselves who protested Riley’s words. Riley was sucker punched. Her words were an academic criticism for which she was summarily dismissed. The Chronicle of Higher Education hid behind the skirts of what they called “editorial standards of reporting.” The sucker-punch has taken on a new form in academic journalism; so much for free speech and academic freedom. Naomi Schaefer Riley’s story is a chronicle of lower education.

Mark believes that justice is intricately linked with freedom; that if one is lost, the other is sure to follow. Mark protects the academic freedom of his professorate–black and white–at Crossroads Bible College, Indianapolis, IN.  Dr. Mark Eckel is both an academic dean and a teaching professor.

As a reviewer, I decided to put my money where my mouth is: I ordered a box of Amy Sherman’s books and am giving them away. Amy L. Sherman’s latest volume, Kingdom Calling, is a catalyst for generational change. The subtitle Vocational Stewardship for the Common Good is the accelerant needed for the catalyst to ignite the transformation. Countless talk about socio-economic concerns, but Sherman tells the stories of many who are doing, not talking. The full title also explains Sherman’s belief. The King is king of the whole kingdom. The Church’s focus often centers on itself and its work, whereas the work of The Church’s people is who they are, where they are. ‘Calling’ is that of folks changed by The Call, practicing agents of redemption as janitors, doctors, trades-people, lawyers, coaches, philanthropists, and all the multi-colored gifts of God’s people (1 Peter 4.10). ‘Vocational stewardship’ means the “intentional, strategic deployment” of a believer’s full person and place “to advance foretastes of God’s kingdom” (20). Far from programmatic, Christian work in the world is missional only insofar as it is personal: missio Dei per imago Dei, the mission of God through the image of God. ‘The common good’ involves everyone within our sphere of influence who benefits from our God-given gifts. Inspired by a Tim Keller sermon on Proverbs 11.10, Sherman now inspires us to help communities flourish by the giving of ourselves to justice.

Sherman’s biblical-theological mindset gives Kingdom Calling its strength. Scripture sets assumptions. Authors ere when practice drives principle, where what one does cancerously morphs into pragmatism. Scripture teaches, on the other hand, that hearing drives doing. Sherman frames her arguments within the parameters of God’s words. Her exegetical introduction alone is worth the price of the book. The words of Proverbs 11.10 ripple impact across waters needing to be stirred. Chapters one and two unpack the key ideas of ‘justice’ and ‘peace’ enacted by the ‘righteous’ and ‘The Church’. Sherman allows biblical definitions correlated across The Bible to radiate their impact. Justice, for instance, is not simply standing against a problem or for a person. Biblical justice aims to rescue through opportunity finding its target in restoration. Biblical peace is a proposal across the quadrants of our lives: with God, ourselves, others, and creation. Sherman redefines what it means to be a “justice of the peace.”

However, the marriage of justice with peace is sometimes obscured by those overseeing the ceremony. The ‘righteous’ can subtract from the meaning of the gospel.

A context in which much Christian preaching, music and books emphasize a highly individualistic understanding of the gospel does not provide rich soil for the nurture of believers who will live as the tsaddiqim (righteous ones). . . . Put differently, it focuses only on what we’ve been saved from, rather than also telling us what we’ve been saved for (70-71, emphasis hers).

So theology matters. As R. C. Sproul has said for years, “Right now, counts forever.” Heaven does not mean much if earth means little. The gospel impacts the present for the future. Highlighting the Four Circles illustration by James Choung (78-82), Sherman refocuses the Christian mindset. God’s original intention, damaged by our inherent corruption, finds earthly restoration in our gospel participation. Christians should contribute to God’s cosmic plan through wholistic work: a dedication of our vocational selves to evangelism, compassion, and justice. Incarnational theology should be our response to brokenness wherever we are in whatever we do with whomever we meet.

Excitement surges through readers as they encounter story after story after story about how believers are enacting their giftedness for the benefit of others. Accounts of daily work for The King pulse through every chapter, every page. “Christian architects, engineers, business owners, historians, entertainers, photographers, chemists, dancers, sales reps, lawyers and real estate appraisers” (91) have their stories told.

What the individuals and church leaders profiled in this book have accomplished is not outside the realm of possibility. These are people like you; these are congregations like yours (224).

But Kingdom Calling supplies the reader with biblical-practical tools to engage any community. Part 2 identifies how to disciple for vocational stewardship: the integration, inspiration, discovery, and formation of faith with work. God’s intention for work has not changed since Genesis 1 and 2. Sin’s corruption is overcome by salvation’s redemption. Sherman offers the collaborative best of many vocational stewards as they enact their ‘dimensions of vocational power’ (120-26). Seven facets of stewardship are much more than leadership lessons baptized with Bible verses; they comprise the thinking-being-doing of Christians dedicated to missio Dei per imago Dei. We have been given a time and place to live with vocational giftings to be God’s hands in God’s world.

Sherman gives ‘four pathways’ empowering those hands to deploy their vocational power: blooming, donating, inventing, and investing. The biblical concept of place is given short shrift in biblical theology until recently.(#1) “Bloom where you’re planted” takes on its original meaning in a Christian context. We should be who we are, where we are, with what we have. “Volunteering” retains its others-centered focus with others-connected partnerships in the gospel. “Inventing” sees peoples’ needs and seeks ways toward “investing” where intentionality cushions the poor instead of padding bank accounts. Vocational stewardship, it must be warned, is no panacea. There are pitfalls and temptations to be overcome. Sherman’s honesty with each story’s difficulties reminds us that we enact our vocational intentions within a fallen culture. Yet the joy of ‘the city’ resounds in each community where Sherman finds believers who engage their calling.

Since reading Kingdom Calling I’ve been texting and emailing church and academic leaders around the country to encourage the addition to reading and syllabi. Indeed Sherman’s book has now been included for seminal courses where I teach. We can thank Amy Sherman for a book which demonstrates true biblical praxis: common grace for the common good. And if you come by my office, I’ll give you a copy from the box full I ordered. Kingdom Calling should be given to Christians so they can give themselves away.

(#1) For instance, see my biblical-theological overview: http://warpandwoof.org/biblical-theological/this-world-is-my-home-a-theology-of-place/

Reviewed by Dr. Mark Eckel, Dean, Undergraduate Studies, Crossroads Bible College.  Amy L. Sherman, Kingdom Calling: Vocational Stewardship for the Common Good. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011. 271 pp. $16.00.  Also published at Englewood Review of Books, 12 May 2012, volume 5.

If someone asks me how I hope to change the world I tell them I read books.  It may come as no surprise that college faculty read, study, research, reflect, write, and teach.  But what might surprise you is what is produced from those intellectual pursuits.  Some folks like to demean college professors because it is thought they don’t live in ‘the real world’; they never come down from their so-called ‘ivory tower’.  Instead, let me introduce you to some towers of learning who wed that learning with the real world.

Hosea cannot park cars in his 2 car garage because that’s where he keeps his books.  He is one of the most well read professors I know.  One of Hosea’s many gifts to his urban leadership students is connecting them to a wide variety of resources they will need for future ministry.  The best team-teachers are brought into his classes; folks who are living Hosea’s teaching.  Hosea has countless community connections.  Living in the city in which he teaches Hosea’s instruction transfers immediately into meeting the needs of people.  Lilly was on the fast track in the corporate consulting world.  When 9-11 hit, Lilly asked herself what her Christian contribution to the world should be.  Radically changing the trajectory of her life, Lilly earned two masters degrees and will soon complete her doctoral dissertation.  Deep learning is transmitted into deep care for others in Lilly’s relational, practical teaching.  Now, Lilly commits her intellectual-applicational pursuits to training young people how to biblically counsel others.  Joel trains local church leaders, constantly connecting students with people who live on the front lines of helping people.  If you ask Joel if he knows about a nationally known leader, he’ll tell you about a conversation he had with that person just days ago.  The wonder of Joel’s teaching is interdependence with other voices who can speak into the lives of his students.  Working through his second doctoral degree, Joel’s intellect is interwoven with his love for others because of his love for Jesus.  Nicholas is teaching his students how to answer questions by putting on a public lecture at our local city library.  The practice of debating controversial issues transforms Nicholas’ classroom into a real-life laboratory.  Students are not taught canned answers to easy questions; instead they are hit with the reality of living which they will face each day.  Practicing his craft of apologetics while completing his doctoral dissertation is a testimony to young minds that the Christian life is empty without the Christian mind.

Now I’ll be honest.  There are some college professors who climb up into their ivory tower and stay there.  Some can’t teach their way out of a wet paper sack.  But I have watched members of my faculty as they climb the steps of that ivory tower; they come back down to give what they have learned and to live what they teach.  For Moody Radio, this is Dr. Mark Eckel, personally seeking truth wherever it’s found.

Mark believes Crossroad’s professors will do what some are afraid of: “these who have turned the world upside down have come here too” (Acts 17.6).  Tweet or Share if you like this post.  This audio-blog will air in April or May, 2012.

He was stuck on a boat, returning from a European trip. For eight days, all he could hear were the ship’s engines going, chug-chug-chug. It seems the sound got stuck in his head. From that moment on, Theodor Geisel began to write books according to rhythm. Rhythm turned to rhyme in his first children’s book entitled And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street. An Atlantic Ocean crossing and the chug-chug-chug of those engines began the career of the man who could tell children’s stories in poetry. Of course, Theodor Geisel is better known as Dr. Seuss.

Seuss’s first book And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street turned 75 this year. Originally, publishers rejected the book 27 times. As one historian tells it, Geisel had almost given up on the book, deciding to destroy it instead. But a surreptitious encounter with an editor friend as he walked home one evening after work changed all that. Had Geisel been walking on the other side of the street we might never know of Dr. Seuss. The editor friend liked Mulberry Street, got it published, the book received great reviews, and for six decades after, everyone knew the name Dr. Seuss.

Seuss’s brilliant way with words was wonderfully augmented by his own artwork. Verbal and visual came together in Dr. Seuss books to tell story in poetry. As with any writer, Dr. Seuss also stirred controversy with his political viewpoints. The Lorax was Geisel’s environmental treatise against the business of cutting down trees. And The Butter Battle Book was Geisel’s view of The Cold War. Seuss wrongly believed the only moral difference between Communist Russia and Western democracy was the difference between choosing to butter a slice of bread on the top or bottom. However, many stories were morality tales I have used to teach positive lessons. Yertle the Turtle explains that some leaders get too big for their britches, ending up in ditches. How the Grinch Stole Christmas pronounces one’s view of holidays depends on the size of one’s heart. My personal favorite, Horton Hears a Who, contains the line which preaches by itself: “a person’s a person, no matter how small.”

Students from junior high to graduate school have heard me read Dr. Seuss both in disagreement and in celebration. Teachers have used Theodor Geisel’s rhythm and rhyme books to coach phonics. Green Eggs and Ham or The Cat in the Hat are titles which have taught children to read. The chug-chug-chug of a ship’s engines changed the course of children’s publishing. I own every Dr. Seuss book in print. The reason? I could never preach in 45 minutes what Dr. Seuss books help me teach in 5. For Moody Radio, this is Dr. Mark Eckel, personally seeking truth wherever it’s found.

Poetry in story, Mark believes, is the best communication combination.  This post will air on Moody Radio sometime April-June 2012.

It was 1994. I was a high school teacher instructing young people that there must be a source of authority outside of ourselves. Then I read a speech that the president of The Czech Republic had given at Stanford University. In essence, Vaclav Havel said

“Democracy must rediscover and renew its own transcendent origins. Democracy must renew its respect for an external order. This order is above us but also in us and among us. Transcendence is the only possible and reliable source of human respect, political order, and all authority.”

After I read his speech, the Czech president Vaclav Havel became my favorite politician. Havel was jailed for standing against the Communist regime in the 1970’s and 80’s. For instance, Havel angered his Communist oppressors by signing a human rights manifesto during The Cold War. Havel and 200 other signers were protesting the imprisonment of a rock and roll band. Havel was known as a poet-playwright. Often his plays would subtlety poke fun at his dictatorial oppressors. He referred to the now defunct Soviet Union as ‘absurd.’ When the Soviet system died and the Berlin Wall fell, Vaclav Havel was moved from prison to the presidency. For a dozen years Havel enacted the epitome of his poet-playwright roots as president. He asked the big questions of life—Why are we here? What is real? Whence comes knowledge? But Havel focused principally on one question: What is my responsibility? At times he sounded like a preacher,

“When we lose God in the modern world, we lose meaning, purpose, accountability, and responsibility.”

Vaclav Havel is my favorite politician for many reasons. Havel stood for his beliefs in the face of jail time. Havel believed Communism and all other totalitarian viewpoints were bankrupt. Havel invited the Dali Lama to his nation 2 days after he became president: a symbolic gesture against the tyranny of Red China. Havel stood with President George W. Bush against Saddam Hussein in 2003. Havel referred to the Iraqi dictator’s actions as “a threat against world security.” Havel was a man of the Czech people; he cared for them and they cared for him. But I will miss Havel most for his view of God and man. As he insisted in his Stanford speech, a source of truth must exist outside of humanity. Havel believed that human responsibility only makes sense if divine authority exists. I wish every politician would practice Vaclav Havel’s belief. Vaclav Havel died this past December. May he have the peace in the afterlife which he fought so hard to secure for people in this life. For Moody Radio, this is Dr. Mark Eckel, personally seeking truth wherever it’s found.

Vaclav Havel followed other Czech heroes such as Jon Huss and Jon Comenius, other men Mark emulates.  This post will be aired on Moody Radio sometime April-June 2012.

James K. A. Smith opening essay acts as a broadside across the whole integrative discussion. Indeed, Smith would rather replace the term “integration” with Charles Taylor’s “social imaginary.” Smith also wishes the suspension of Christian ‘thinking’ or ‘worldview’ as primary components for the Christian academe. Smith commends the affective-biblical interaction, instead, suggesting for example “before we think, we pray” (23). Smith says current emphasis on the ‘thinking’ as a Christian usurps ‘being’ as a Christian: the mind replacing the heart, creating a kind of syncretism. He points out various problems in Christian scholarship as it currently stands, calling for “unapologetic Christian scholarship,” meaning that Christian scholars should not attempt to weave their foundational commitments with those antithetic to The Faith (31). Smith stresses a renewed emphasis on ecclesiastical scholarship, interweaving liturgy with learning, understanding with “habits of seeing,” imagining with living. However one responds personally to Smith’s re-formation of integration, a reflective spirit will benefit the reader.

Timothy Larson’s well written essay deserves special attention. He addresses the intersection of thinking as do the others. But Larson explains to the Christian historian how to write their work better. He admonishes academic writers to choose subjects whose Christian lives speak for themselves. The task of the Christian historian is not to pronounce declarative interpretations of historical events but simply to expose the historical events to show how Christians involve themselves in life. Above all it is “the historian who tells the most compelling narrative [who] wins” (117). Interdisciplinary methods are obviously linked with other disciplines. Larsen rightly holds the tension of interdisciplinary studies while encouraging change.

John W. Wright’s pastoral voice introduces the reader to a seemingly obscure writing of Immanuel Kant: The Conflict of the Faculties. Kant’s evaluation is that of state controlled education. Governmental authorities demand compliance to national standards. In so doing, local authorities lose control. The parochial nature of some schools is not always due to ingrown stagnation. More often than not, federal constraints create educational lockstep becoming “the university’s Alpha and Omega, its beginning and end” (169). The question left for the academe to answer is “Who are the educational theologians?” So Wright brings to bear the concept of habitus on his discussion: internal dispositions enacted externally (171). Social structures inhabit universities and thus can inhibit educational change. Ingrained within the fabric of educational thought, students are fashioned by the weaving of academe structures. Theology is co-opted by state revelation, compartmentalized into ineffectual, unproductive experiential-individual, separated from any real educational impact. Wright cries out for The Church’s reengagement for the future of Christian higher education through the integration of faith and learning.

But this is the problem with the connective “and.” Wherever Christian thinkers utilize the phrase “faith and learning” one begins an unnecessary bifurcation. So to discuss any of the subjects in the present volume from the perspective of addition introduces duality from the start. Hyphenation (i.e., faith-learning) announces oneness; the unity of The Christian Faith allows the process of interdisciplinary study. Further, complaints about “correlation” or “addition” of Scriptural citation to academic quests go both ways. Herein is the problem for the Christian university operating in compliance with state standards: the state accepts institutions into their guild when said institutions submit to the regulations which arise out of political, economic, and business paradigms which are antithetic to Yahweh’s Revelation.

Jerry Pattengale’s conclusion could have expanded comments centered on faculty hiring to maintain a commitment to biblical Truth. College presidents and provosts must act as gate keepers. There is a need to hire faculty not with a focus on credentialing but rather on teaching philosophy. Academic freedom must come with institutional responsibility. Preservation of mission for Christian higher education is dependant upon a commitment to Scripture’s reliability, authenticity, and authority. Mission is the spearhead of vision. As it relates to faculty commitment to biblical authority and Christian teaching, why not ‘grow’ the next generation of professors for schools based on a planned trajectory over 5-10 years? In the short term, exacting standards for faculty appointment must transcend where one did their schooling to incorporate how one teaches.

Beyond Integration? is an appropriate first step down the path of Christian higher education interdisciplinary processes. Appropriate humility within the craft of integration, however, must not give way to vacillation. One would wish for a manifesto or confession entitled Beyond Questions? where variant voices would all agree to some salient signposts, even doctrinal commitments. For instance, could all Christian academics declare allegiance to Transcendent justice as the only basis for immanent peace? Could Bible-believing academics commend “interdisciplinary” over “intra-disciplinary” academic pursuits? Could Jesus following academics accept a definition of “worship” as the total response of the total person to the Lord Jesus? Educational foundations are shifting under the collective feet of the educational world. Entrepreneurial endeavors are necessary now. Decision is decided by direction. There is an immediate need to process how we will begin. Beyond Integration? could be given to professors for summer reading, pursuant to dialogical engagement before classes begin.

Ultimately, there is a need for a comprehensive, cohesive, consistent plan to create faculty-curricula which compels classroom conversation—the front lines of restructured thinking for students. References to monastic practices suggest smaller educational environments (177). Is there a true wholeness to the whole of student life? Are we willing to adopt a type of monastic focus, such as is practiced at Nashotah House Theological Seminary in Wisconsin? Of course all the reformation of students depends on university ethos, faculty compliance, and administration leadership. One wonders if an initial class or chapel—suggestions made throughout the volume—will go very far in reordering the thinking of students immersed in a culture antithetic to Jesus. Wright’s clarion call need be rung on the bell of every Christian campus: “Without theology, its founding discourse and the life of the church to sustain it, it is not apparent that the university can sustain a coherent life and continue its drift into irrelevancy” (183). Davis is right: doctrine forms the bedrock of a Christian college—all disciplines are subservient to it (153).

Each essay deserves a singular response. Perhaps such a volume could be useful in the future as a point-counterpoint perspective. On a personal note, some of my own interdisciplinary thinking was augmented and enlivened by my years of teaching in Christian high schools. My compatriots and I were constantly interacting with each others’ disciplines. Team-teaching was ongoing. Collaboration was taken for granted. After a few years I altered the title of “Bible” for my classes replacing it with the moniker “Christian Life and World Studies” (CLAWS). As colleagues were engaging biblical texts in their classrooms, I was bringing math, science, history, literature, and fine arts to intersect with Scripture. So thoroughly did the interdisciplinary process unfold, that end of the year projects were often one paper for two classes. K-12 as well as undergraduate and graduate schools should be heard within the discussion of interdisciplinary synthesis. Sometimes discussions amongst the professorate can be ethereal and esoteric. True praxis is often found within the seven hour a day process of K-12 teaching where students actually ask the question “Why should I listen to you today?!” Academicians everywhere at every level bear the responsibility to succinctly, specifically weave theory with practice, everyday life with a biblical mind grid, and their own discipline with those of others.

Beyond integration? Inter/Disciplinary possibilities for the future of Christian higher education. Edited by Todd C. Ream, Jerry Pattengale, and David L. Riggs. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press. 2012. 208 p. $19.99. paper.

Review by Mark Eckel, Dean, Undergraduate Studies, Interdisciplinary Studies Director, Crossroads Bible College, Indianapolis, IN. To appear in the Fall, 2012 edition of CEJ, Christian Education Journal.

He had crossed the line. Professor Timothy Messner-Kruse is an expert in American labor history. Dr. Messner-Kruse was attempting to edit an errant post on the internet website Wikipedia. Wikipedia is known for its active knowledge base—people who know about a subject can make changes to entries on its pages. In this particular instance, the professor had just written a book about his field of expertise. He noticed a misleading statement and proceeded to alter the wording to fit the facts. Timothy Messner-Kruse retells what happened next in The Chronicle of Higher Education:

I tried to edit the page again. Within 10 seconds I was informed that my citations to the primary documents were insufficient. Wikipedia requires its contributors to rely on secondary sources, or, as my critic informed me, “published books.” Another editor cheerfully tutored me in what this means: “Wikipedia is not ‘truth,’ Wikipedia is ‘verifiability’ of reliable sources. If most secondary sources which are taken as reliable happen to repeat a flawed account or description of something, Wikipedia will echo that.

Think about what we just read: “Wikipedia is not ‘truth’” and Wikipedia “repeats flawed accounts based on reliable sources.” I must say, as an academic, these statements take my breath away. First, I must stand with Professor Messner-Kruse whose research should be heard on a website supposedly dedicated to trusted information. Secondly, I want to reclaim the word ‘truth’ as a term for trustworthy. Third, and most important, I am shocked that I am asked to trust faulty information simply because it is repeated by others.

When we were kids, remember what our elders would say if we blindly followed what someone else was doing? Our parents would mockingly ask, “If Johnny told you to jump off the bridge, would you do that too?” The same mocking question could be asked of any person, group, or website which asks us to trust them. Should we blindly follow information just because someone else tells me it’s true? Thankfully the professor could tell his story to correct the facts. Protecting the words truth, reliability, and trust are important not only in academics, but in all of life.

Throughout my 30 years as a biblical educator, my students have heard me incessantly repeat this statement: “I don’t want you to believe anything I tell you. Go back to Scripture to see if what I’m saying is true.” It is important for me as a professor to tell my students that trusting my words is not sufficient evidence for trusting the Bible. In fact, I still go on to say to my students, “If someone asks you to follow their words without question, I would seek someone else to listen to.” You see, the words truth and trust should go hand in hand. For Moody Radio, this is Dr. Mark Eckel, personally seeking truth wherever it’s found.

Mark believes the phrase ‘academic freedom’ also means ‘academic responsibility’ both for the author and the publisher.  This post will be aired on Moody Radio sometime April-June 2012.

A good many books have arrived on bookshelves which broadly address the Christian intellect. Surely the grandfather of them all is Harry Blamaires’ The Christian Mind (1963). Others followed, all adding to the essential discussion, pleading with Evangelicals to honor God’s gift of intellectual pursuit left with humanity. A biblical-theological case established in each tome structured direction in overview fashion that The Church bore responsibility for Christian thinking. Andreas J. Köstenberger now adds personal depth to the entire dialogue. Excellence maintains that a believing scholar’s intellectual pursuits must always originate from Jesus’ transformation of the Christian which changes the mind.

The principles and commands of Scripture run throughout life and so, should run through the Christian scholar. My copy of Excellence is pock-marked with exclamation points, cheers, and penciled shouts of glee. Always, always, always must the believer premise examination and explanation of anything on the exegesis of The Book. It has been some time since I have seen a volume so full of argument sustained with an avalanche of biblical texts! Answering the question “Where is that found in The Bible?” is answered again and again evidenced by deep exegetical study. Word studies abound. Correlation passages pound the truth that Scripture is Its own best interpreter. Hebrew and Greek understanding is brought to bear on seemingly every item in Köstenberger’s passionate exploration. As a good scholar should do, Köstenberger builds his case on the foundation of biblical theology. Copious, intricate endnotes cast a wide net, gathering sources, evidence, and added application. At times, the footnotes expand understanding to such a degree they seem to supersede the text itself!

The opening chapters give credence to theological truth about a scholar’s pursuit of excellence. This is no esoteric manuscript! For example, as Köstenberger begins to make his case, he carefully and clearly transitions the biblical concepts to educational practice. He rightly links arête and telos to affective goals in education (43-46). In keeping with his goal, Köstenberger argues, as he should, that our doing arises out of our being. Applicational statements pop off each page. Excellence is prompted by virtue which should prompt intentionality connected to community ultimately culminating in gratitude (48-53). What should be obvious to any Christian scholar who claims The Name is specifically spelled out for all to see.

Köstenberger then examines what should be the essential basis for all of life for the believer—holiness (55-66). Ultimately Excellence is the fruit of distinctiveness coming from the root of holiness. What joy to discover an author who properly links the human corruption of worship in idolatry to its roots in The First Testament! Distinctiveness in Christian scholarship from other viewpoints is the obvious application when worship of other presuppositions is properly exposed. Christian scholarship emphasizes an apologetic of love born of holiness (81). Each chapter echoes the essence of holiness: diligence, courage, passion, restraint, creativity, eloquence.

Köstenberger’s charge to theological thinkers begins and ends with himself. Over and over, the author demonstrates that his personal compulsion to practice his scholarly craft rests on application of truth to life. Grand additions to Excellence are the questions the author includes within every section. Christian scholars are expected to personally reflect on their response to Köstenberger’s applicational concerns. Examples of scholars who have moved away from a presuppositional approach to Christian scholarship as well as those who continue the pursuit of distinctive biblical engagement are found throughout the volume. Köstenberger deals with PhD work, plagiarism, workaholism, distractions, or peer pressure brought on by cultural pressures scholars face. Of course, Excellence is ultimately a commitment born of a covenant loyalty which has changed us.

From time to time disconnects occur. The biblical principle of ‘rest’ rightly applied to the scholar seems not to flow with other ideas which are assumed to emanate from it (38-39). Sexual temptation is proffered as a problem for the Christian scholar but the connection to excellence in scholarship is not obvious (57-59). One wonders in later chapters why the exegetical word studies give way to examples of believers from Scripture. What was begun in the first sections of Excellence is not carried through to the end: the section on ‘wisdom’ could have been easily supported from Hebrew vocabulary (177ff). Sometimes Köstenberger too easily dismisses other points of view. Monastic traditions, for instance, are not given full coverage to color them as simply “ascetic spirituality” (76). Small quibbles arise when the reader has to endure repetitious statements such as “I will have more to say about this in a later chapter” (i.e. 59). Transitional elements should trump such pedestrian linkage. But these minor shortcomings do not mar Köstenberger’s pristine work.

For years, a self-made poster hung in my classroom: “not just information but transformation.” My admonitions to young charges to “think, biblically” resounded through educational hallways. Köstenberger may have had just such written spoken admonitions for his own students. He has set a standard for other scholars to follow. My responsibility in the study is to dig deep, push wide, and explain my findings simply in the classroom. So here, Köstenberger gives evidence of his exegetical work buttressed by his analysis with real world examples. Christian scholars could have their own excellence expanded by reading Excellence.

Excellence: The Character of God and the Pursuit of Scholarly Virtue by Andreas J. Köstenberger. (Crossway, 2011). 270 pp. $17.99. Reviewed by Mark Eckel, Professor of Old Testament, Dean Undergraduate Studies, Crossroads Bible College, Indianapolis.  To be published at www.gospelcoalition.org.

Alone. Anne Rice said that is how she must find answers to eternal questions. As a human being, she was left alone to figure out solutions to good and evil. Who is Anne Rice? Why does Anne Rice matter? For those who may not know, Ms. Rice is most famous for her supernatural thriller novels. Her special focus had been on vampires. Tom Cruise famously played Lastat, a character based on Rice’s well known volume Tales of a Vampire. Then, suddenly, Anne dedicated herself to Christianity. Her conversion lasted a few years during which time she wrote two novels about Jesus. But two years ago, Ms. Rice renounced her belief in Christianity. It was during a National Public Radio program that Rice was asked how she answered eternal questions after renouncing Christianity. Rice answered

“If there’s a modern temper, it’s that we are alone now,” she says. “A lot of the institutions in the past that gave us guidance are now suspect. Yet we still want very much to be good people. A lot of people feel this way; we are left alone to figure out answers to right and wrong, good and evil, and eternal questions.”

Rice is now obsessed with living out a good life but doing it on her own.

Anne Rice’s search for the good life is exactly what the Hollywood film Young Adult wants to find. Academy Award Winner Cherlize Theron plays the role of Mavis Gary who is trying to relive her glory days from high school. Theron’s character is a writer of young adult fiction which is just as much yesterday’s news as Mavis herself. You see at the age of 37, Mavis Gary is still a young adult. Mavis tries to go back to revive her place in her old home town. But, as you might imagine, the old home town is having nothing of it. Mavis is still the same self-centered, could-care-less-about-others, belligerent, arrogant, know-it-all that everyone loathed then and still does now. Mavis never grew up after high school. Yet, while Mavis is still searching for the good life, her old home town is jealous of the life she has. It seems they want it too. In a tragic final scene, we discover that one of Mavis’s near-classmates has spent her disappointing life imagining what it must be like to be Mavis. So-called “coming of age” movies do not declare the obvious truth. Underneath it all, people view their own lives as empty; loneliness is a void to be filled.

Both Anne Rice and Mavis Gary are alone. There is one problem with searching for answers to the good life alone: you only have yourself to talk to. For Moody Radio, this is Dr. Mark Eckel, personally seeking truth wherever it’s found.

Mark is glad he is not alone.  To be aired by Moody Radio sometime April-June, 2012.