Karl Barth on Revelation

Blogging with Barth: CD 2.1 §29 "The Perfections of God" pp. 322-350

Check here for previous posts in the "Blogging with Barth" series or check here for a detailed reading schedule for the Church Dogmatics with links to the respective posts I've written to accompany each day's reading.

The Leitsatz (thesis statement) for §29 states: "God lives His perfect life in the abundance of many individual and distinct perfections. Each of these is perfect in itself and in combination with all the others. For whether it is a form of love in which God is free, or a form of freedom in which God loves, it is nothing else but God Himself, His one, simple, distinctive being."

In paragraph §29 ("The Perfections of God"), Barth now turns to a discussion of God's perfections. For Barth, to know God is to know His perfections. In his opening statement, Barth asserts that God's being consists in the fact that He is the One who loves in freedom and yet God's perfection is known in the abundance of His perfections:

God’s being consists in the fact that He is the One who loves in freedom. In this He is the perfect being: the being which is itself perfection and so the standard of all perfection; the being, that is, which is self-sufficient and thus adequate to meet every real need; the being which suffers no lack in itself and by its very essence fills every real lack. Such a being is God. He is this being because He lives as such. It is as we return to life as the fundamental element in the divine being that we also move forward to God’s perfections. The one perfection of God, His loving in freedom, is lived out by Him, and therefore identical with a multitude of various and distinct types of perfection. There is no possibility of knowing the perfect God without knowing His perfections. The converse is also true: knowledge of the divine perfections is possible only in knowledge of the perfect God, of His loving in freedom. But because God lives His perfect being the knowledge of His perfections is also a way—the way which in the presence of the living God we must tread. In other words, even in the knowledge of the one perfect God we are confronted by His richness. The real God is the one God who loves in freedom, and as such is eternally rich. To know Him means to know Him again and again, in ever new ways—to know only Him, but to know Him as the perfect God, in the abundance, distinctness and variety of His perfections (322).

Since God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost, i.e., loves in freedom, every perfection exists essentially in Him (323).

Of course, we must not become confused in the abundance of God's perfections, there are many things which God is not - death, a creature, sin, etc. (323). The attributes are not something that God merely possesses - they are a part of his being (323). He exists in His perfections, and He is not only the Lord, He is the Lord of Glory (324). Barth cautions us here - we should not see God as something different behind these perfections, as if these are economic projections of Godself which differ significantly from true God. At the same time, we shouldn't think these perfections are all that God is - like forces - and a force - that we worship. God is a personal God. As Barth remind us from scripture (1 Cor. 2:8 and James 2:1) - God is the Lord of glory and we should see His glory as the glory of the Lord (324-325).

Barth now moves to a new thought: can we speak of the perfections of God in the plural? Behind this question is a historical problem: nominalism and expressivism, both which are lacking in that they insist, in different ways, that the perfections are not connected to the being of God, but are rather chastened, subjective statements which arise from human beings themselves or from God accommodating Himself to us, as if God is expressing a different nature other than His own being for our benefit. In reply to these historical appreciations of the perfections, Barth offers the following observations:

1. The multiplicity, individuality and diversity of the divine perfections are those of the one divine being and therefore not those of another divine nature allied to it. In regard to the realistic understanding of the divine perfections, the question has been asked whether it does not imply the existence of a second, alien divinity in God. To such a question our answer must be a flat negative. In so far as God is almighty, eternal, wise and merciful, it does not add anything new or strange or half-divine to His being as the One who loves in freedom. On the contrary, the divine being as the One who loves in freedom is the divine being in the multiplicity, individuality and diversity of these perfections. He does not possess this wealth. He Himself is this wealth. He is not what He is in a height or depth beyond these His perfections in their multiplicity, individuality and diversity. But He is Himself the perfect One in the abundance and variety of these His perfections. Every question: Of what nature is God? can be understood only as a repetition of the question: Who is God? and any attempt to answer the former question can be only a repetition of the answer which is given us by God Himself to the latter question—an answer which makes possible and necessary both the question: Who is God? and the question: Of what nature is God? In describing God as almighty, eternal, wise, or merciful, we are only repeating this answer; we are only naming Him again and yet again as the One who loves in freedom. But by reason of the fact that it comes from the living One who loves in freedom this answer is so framed that we must continually repeat it, not speaking of any other but God’s one being, but in continual recognition and confirmation of the plenitude and richness of this one being of God. God is in essence all that He is. But He is in essence not only one, but multiple, individual and diverse. And these are His perfections (331).

2. The multiplicity, individuality and diversity of the perfections of God are those of His simple being, which is not therefore divided and then put together again. In God multiplicity, individuality and diversity do not stand in any contradiction to unity. Rather the very unity of His being consists in the multiplicity, individuality and diversity of His perfections, which since they are His are not capable of any dissolution or separation or non-identity, and which again since they are His are capable of genuine multiplicity, individuality and diversity. The plurality which is to be predicated of God can therefore, even in its multiplicity, because it is the multiplicity of God, signify only the unity. The unity which is to be predicated of God must with equal necessity, because it is in reference to God, signify the plurality. Every individual trait which is to be affirmed of God can signify only the one, but the one which is to be affirmed of Him must of necessity signify also every individual trait and the totality of all individual traits. Every distinction in God can be affirmed only in such a way as implies at the same time His unity and therefore the lack of essential discrepancy in what is distinguished. But again, it would not really be the unity of God if no distinctions were recognised and confessed. Our doctrine therefore means that every individual perfection in God is nothing but God Himself and therefore nothing but every other divine perfection. It means equally strictly on the other hand that God Himself is nothing other than each one of His perfections in its individuality, and that each individual perfection is identical with every other and with the fulness of them all (332-333).

3. The multiplicity, individuality and diversity of God’s perfections are rooted in His own being and not in His participation in the character of other beings. The recognition of divine attributes cannot be taken to mean that for us God is subsumed under general notions, under the loftiest ideas of our knowledge of creaturely reality, and that He participates in its perfections. It is not that we recognise and acknowledge the infinity, justice, wisdom, etc. of God because we already know from other sources what all this means and we apply it to God in an eminent sense, thus fashioning for ourselves an image of God after the pattern of our image of the world, i.e., in the last analysis after our own image. Even less in the ontic sphere is it that God shares in truths and realities distinct from Himself, that He is subordinated to certain general laws of being, so that He can be defined in accordance with this participation and subordination and therefore to have such and such qualities. God is subordinate to no idea in which He can be conceived as rooted or by which He can be properly measured. There are not first of all power, goodness, knowledge, will, etc. in general, and then in particular God also as one of the subjects to whom all these things accrue as a predicate. But everything that God is, and that is in God, is—as the origin of all that is distinct from God and that can be the predicate of other subjects too—first and properly in Him. Indeed, it is first and properly God Himself as the One who loves in freedom, He Himself in His own being. Therefore God does not borrow what He is from outside, from some other. On the contrary, it is the problem of everything that exists outside of Him that it can be what it is only in virtue of the truth and reality imparted to it by God. God is the being of all beings, the law of all laws, and therefore the nature of every nature. In Himself, then, He is rich, multiple, individual and diverse. He does not need to become this by entering into relation with the “golden outpouring of the world” (333-334).

Barth now turns to a discussion of how the perfections exist. He reviews a number of erroneous ways/groupings from the tradition which he rejects (335-340). He will ultimately conclude that the correct way to distribute, orient, etc. the perfections is along the axis of God's love and freedom. He concludes that God reveals His perfections in unity and distinction corresponding to the unity and distinction of love and freedom in his own being:

The further fundamental question to which we must now turn, is this: To what extent do these many individual and various perfections of God exist? How do we come to recognise them as such, and to speak of them proprie (correctly), i.e., on the basis of God’s revelation, and in responsibility to this revelation, without reservation in respect of their truth? In traditional theology this question is known as the problem of the derivation and distribution of the divine attributes. The apparent unsuitability of these ideas is obvious at once. We can see how close and tempting at this point is a total or partial nominalism. For what is there to derive and distribute when it is a question of the being of God and His perfections? (335). 

In this connexion we may consider as obvious errors all those types of a doctrine of attributes which attempt to define and order the perfections of God as though they were the various predicates of a kind of general being presupposed as known already, whereas in reality each of them is the characteristic being of God Himself as He discloses Himself in His revelation. The right way, on the contrary, will consist in understanding the attributes of God as those of this His special being itself and therefore of His life, of His love in freedom (337).

A fully restrained and fully alive doctrine of God’s attributes will take as its fundamental point of departure the truth that God is for us fully revealed and fully concealed in His self-disclosure (341).

This unity and this distinction corresponds to the unity and distinction in God’s own being between His love and His freedom. God loves us. And because we can trust His revelation as the revelation of His own being He is in Himself the One who loves. As such He is completely knowable to us. But He loves us in His freedom. And because here too we can trust His revelation as a self-revelation, He is in Himself sovereignly free. He is therefore completely unknowable to us. That He loves us and that He does so in His freedom are both true in the grace of His revelation. If His revelation is His truth, He is truly both in unity and difference: the One who loves in freedom. It is His very being to be both, not in separation but in unity, yet not in the dissolution but in the distinctiveness of this duality. And this duality as the being of the one God necessarily forms the content of the doctrine of His perfection (343).

As Barth points out, even though he is going to treat with God's perfections through the categories of love and freedom, this does not mean that he is speaking of two different subjects. There is a unity of these in God's revelation and His being. Barth concludes (344-350) with several observations about the way that the perfections should be ordered (and also not misunderstood). In the end, he suggests that the divine reality suggests an ordering to which the account of the perfections must correspond. Those which correspond to the sphere of divine love come first (that is, those which correspond to the reality that God is for us); those which correspond to the sphere of God's freedom come next (that is, those which suggest that God is his self-giving remains Himself).

Survivor's Guide to Seminary, Post #2 (Tips 1-4 on Preparing the Mind for Seminary)

Previous entries in this series can be referenced here.

“The horror of that moment,” the King went on, “I shall never, never, forget!”

“You will though,” the Queen said, “if you don’t make a memorandum of it.”

Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

Repeat after me: “My name is _______________ and I am not ready for seminary.”

Go ahead and say it. I’ll wait. Now, say it again and let it sink into your mind for a bit.

Got it? Okay, good.

I know it is weird to admit but you’re not ready for seminary. Of course, there are savants (learned persons) out there who enter their theological education and never blink an eye, but there aren’t many of them (thank goodness – most are regular folks like me). Sure, you might have grown up in the church and have been studying the bible all your life. Even so, you’re probably not ready because seminary is different.

How so? Good question. Seminary is for the academic study of things. The academic study of the bible, obviously. But also the academic study of theology, languages, history, philosophy, etc. too. In this way, what you are getting ready to experience is like any other graduate program in the world. The academic study of things. Critical thinking and all that.

But it’s likely that you’ve never studied the bible academically. Maybe you’ve never asked lots of critical and probing questions of scriptural and theological truths. If you haven’t (not many have) then you’ll want to prepare your mind for the intellectual and spiritual challenges (and blessings) ahead.

To start, let’s get you oriented. It’s important to realize that your seminary is a part of the academy – that ancient learned culture that goes back to Ancient Greece. We’re talking about the Old Academy, which was the original question and answer session. You know, professors like Dr. Plato and company. And now you’ve joined the latest iteration of that grand tradition. You’re here to think critically, write thoughtfully, and speak broadly on the topic at hand: biblical and theological studies. Welcome to the academy!

Here’s a little secret for you: the academy favors the prepared mind. True, you don’t have to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but you do want to come prepared and you will want to work hard.

What does it mean to come with a prepared mind? Here are some tips…

TIP #1 – Embrace the idea that your thoughts will be challenged.

Not everyone is going to agree with you. That’s a good thing. It will help you be a better thinker. Now, we all know that when our thoughts about a topic are challenged and someone disagrees with us, it is not always fun. We experience cognitive dissonance and sometimes we might even want to explode into a rage, like we’re the Hulk or some evil monster.

Get over this quick! Accept the idea that you are coming to sharpen your mind by having your thoughts challenged. Just like your muscles feel when you lift a heavy weight, it will leave your mind sore and tired. But if you will allow your thoughts to be critically assessed on a regular basis and will embrace this – your brain, which is like a muscle too – will grow and become stronger. Prepare yourself to have your thinking challenged. It is the beginning of gaining new perspectives. That’s a good thing.

TIP #2 – Professors who challenge your thinking are doing you a favor and they are your colleagues

Gaining new perspectives will frequently happen when your professors challenge your thoughts or the way you are thinking. These men and women are the primary sculptors that will be shaping the way you think. That’s what they do.

On bad days, you might not appreciate this. Sure, you’re jazzed right now and have lots and lots of love for these heroes. But just entertain the idea that someday soon you might be having a bad day – and in a moment of weakness – you’ll be tempted to think that your professor is out to get you. “She’s an enemy! She hates me!”, you think to yourself.

No, no. That’s not true. They are your colleagues and they are helping you think well. It may not feel great. It doesn’t feel great when that trainer at the gym gives your ten more reps of your most dreaded exercise, does it? But it will make you stronger. If you’re going to be a minister or an academic, you need to grow stronger intellectually in the study of God’s word. Your professors will help you.

Don’t forget though that your professors aren’t the only people that will shape your mind over the course of your degree. There are, of course, your fellow students too. They will be the folks who, over late night coffee or quick lunches, will be shaping your mind as well. Embrace them as your learning community. They are not your enemies either, but your colleagues, even when they disagree with you. In fact, they are potentially life-long friends.

TIP #3 – Embrace cognitive dissonance

‘Cognitive dissonance’ is a psychological term. It refers to the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes. Another way of thinking about cognitive dissonance is to equate it with the unexamined mind. Professors and educational institutions like seminary exist to help you sort out your inconsistent thought, beliefs, and attitudes. They help you move from an unexamined mind to an examined mind. What we colloquially refer to as ‘cognitive dissonance’ is the feeling you experience when your inconsistent thoughts or convictions on some topic are being challenged and straightened out.

You might as well go ahead and make a pact with yourself that you will embrace the cognitive dissonance that you’re going to encounter in seminary. In fact, you’re going to embrace it so well that you’ll be asking for mustard and relish with your cognitive dissonance – that’s how much you’ll love it, right?

It’s best to ask yourself – no matter what the circumstance – what you can learn from any situation. Where can your inconsistent thoughts be examined and straightened out? After all, that’s why you came to seminary, right? To be a better thinker so you can succeed in whatever ministry God has for you. This is all a part of the process.

Soon enough, you’ll begin to understand that as a minister and theologian, learning is what you do. In that way, you’ll learn to embrace cognitive dissonance as an essential part of your “learning trade.” Often cognitive dissonance precedes learning as old presuppositions and ways of thinking about things are replaced by new and better ways of thinking about things.

TIP #4 – A prepare mind puts its thoughts out on the table

Having come from an undergraduate experience in college, you might not be used to putting your thoughts and comments out there in a room full of people for scrutiny. I remember lots of large lecture halls in my undergraduate days where it was easy to hide.

Don’t do this in seminary! Part of having a prepared mind is cultivating a mouth that will speak.

Your classes will be richer when you contribute your voice and your unique perspectives. Sure, qualify your comments as much as you want to as a new student. Add things like, “this might be really dumb, but…” and then say what you’re going to say. Soon enough you’ll be speaking your mind and sharing your thoughts without need of qualifiers and all will marvel at your bravery and boldness.

Just whatever you do, put your mind out there and add to the symphony of thought. I admit, as an introvert, this isn’t always easy. But the graduate seminar is no time to be a wallflower. You’ll be denying the class conversation your own contributions and you’ll make the other students work harder than they should.

The prepared mind speaks…and trust me…will sometimes say dumb things! It’s all part of the fun…and growing process.

Next time, tips 5-6 for preparing the mind for seminary.

Blogging with Barth: CD 2.1 §28.3 "The Being of God in Freedom" pp. 297-321

Check here for previous posts in the "Blogging with Barth" series or check here for a detailed reading schedule for the Church Dogmatics with links to the respective posts I've written to accompany each day's reading.

The Leitsatz (thesis statement) for §28 states: "God is who He is in the act of His revelation. God seeks and creates fellowship between Himself and us, and therefore He loves us. But He is this loving God without us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the freedom of the Lord, who has His life from Himself."

In paragraph §28 ("The Being of God as the One Who Loves in Freedom") and in subsection §28.3 ("The Being of God in Freedom"), Barth starts in this way:

The being of God is His own. His act is His own. His love is His own. In this His being and act God is who He is. After all our previous considerations, we cannot lay too strong an emphasis on this fact in characterising the divine being (297).

He is the God who acts and loves in freedom. We're not dealing with just any being here (or an abstraction) - this is the life, act, and love of God. Barth wants to explore the depth of this divine being. Of course, this exploration must occur within the revelation of God in Jesus Christ! The being of God is life-giving from His own center (300). His loving is loving for its own sake (300-301). And He manifests these in freedom (as the title of the section would indicate):

God’s being as He who lives and loves is being in freedom. In this way, freely, He lives and loves. And in this way, and in the fact that He lives and loves in freedom, He is God, and distinguishes Himself from everything else that lives and loves. In this way, as the free person, He is distinguished from other persons. He is the one, original and authentic person through whose creative power and will alone all other persons are and are sustained. With the idea of freedom we simply affirm what we would be affirming if we were to characterise God as the Lord. But His lordship is in all circumstances the lordship of His living and loving (301). 

If we enquire how, according to His revelation in Jesus Christ, God’s lordship differs in its divinity from other types of rule, then we must answer that it is lordship in freedom (301).

Barth characterizes God's freedom in this way:

Freedom is, of course, more than the absence of limits, restrictions, or conditions. This is only its negative and to that extent improper aspect—improper to the extent that from this point of view it requires another, at least in so far as its freedom lies in its independence of this other. But freedom in its positive and proper qualities means to be grounded in one’s own being, to be determined and moved by oneself. This is the freedom of the divine life and love. In this positive freedom of His, God is also unlimited, unrestricted and unconditioned from without. He is the free Creator, the free Reconciler, the free Redeemer. But His divinity is not exhausted in the fact that in His revelation it consists throughout in this freedom from external compulsion: in free utterance and action, free beginning and ending, free judgment and blessing, free power and spirit. On the contrary, it is only manifest in all this. For He has it in Himself quite apart from His relation to another from whom He is free. He in Himself is power, truth and right. Within the sphere of His own being He can live and love in absolute plenitude and power, as we see Him live and love in His revelation (301).

Barth then discusses the theological idea of God's aseity, rooting it in a biblical doctrine of freedom. God's freedom embraces the freedom to reveal Himself in creation - and the freedom in which He proves His existence is the freedom of God in His revelation:

According to the biblical testimony, God has the prerogative to be free without being limited by His freedom from external conditioning, free also with regard to His freedom, free not to surrender Himself to it, but to use it to give Himself to this communion and to practise this faithfulness in it, in this way being really free, free in Himself. God must not only be unconditioned but, in the absoluteness in which He sets up this fellowship, He can and will also be conditioned. He who can and does do this is the God of Holy Scripture, the triune God known to us in His revelation. This ability, proved and manifested to us in His action, constitutes His freedom (303).

The freedom in which God exists means that He does not need His own being in order to be who He is: because He already has His own being and is Himself; because nothing can accrue to Him from Himself which He had not or was not already; because, therefore, His being in its self-realisation or the actuality of His being answers to no external pressure but is only the affirmation of His own plenitude and a self-realisation in freedom. If, therefore, we say that God is a se, we do not say that God creates, produces or originates Himself. On the contrary, we say that (as manifest and eternally actual in the relationship of Father, Son and Holy Ghost) He is the One who already has and is in Himself everything which would have to be the object of His creation and causation if He were not He, God (306).

God's freedom is true freedom to be - free from all external conditioning and free from all origination (307-309). Also, God's freedom has two implications:

The fact that God is free in His relationship to all that is not God means noetically that God cannot be classified or included in the same category with anything that He is not. There exists no synthesis in which the same attribute, whether being, spirit, life or love, can be predicated in the same sense both of God and of something else; in which, therefore, God is to be an element embraced with other elements in the one synthesis. Whenever God is placed side by side with another factor (with the explicit or implicit copula “and” or in some other way), we must clearly realise that there can be no question of a synthesis; that any conceivable synthesis is precluded in advance by the inclusion of the element God along with others; that the element God stands in such a relation to all other elements that the latter, in spite of individual variations, are all characterised as one group; that by their intrinsic difference they are all separated from the divine in such a way that no higher unity is possible between them and God which can be expressed by a higher comprehensive term (310).

Reflecting on this implication, Barth rejects the RC doctrine of the analogy of being and Kant's "intolerable doctrine" - that God's freedom and immortality are lumped together in subordination to reason. And now the second implication:

But behind this noetic absoluteness of God there stands decisively His ontic. This is decisive because in God’s revelation it is really a question of His ontic absoluteness, from which His noetic absoluteness inevitably follows. God’s freedom in relation to all that is not God signifies that He is distinct from everything, that He is self-sufficient and independent in relation to it, and that He is so in a peculiar and pre-eminent fashion—as no created being confronts any other (311).

Every relationship into which God enters with that which is not Himself must be interpreted—however much this may disturb or correct our preconceived ideas of connexion and relationship—as eventuating between two utterly unequal partners, the sheer inequality consisting in the fact that no self-determination of the second partner can influence the first, whereas the self-determination of the first, while not cancelling the self-determination of the second, is the sovereign predetermination which precedes it absolutely (312).

On the basis of this implication, Barth rejects pantheism. God's freedom has implications for his immanence and His transcendence:

Now the absoluteness of God strictly understood in this sense means that God has the freedom to be present with that which is not God, to communicate Himself and unite Himself with the other and the other with Himself, in a way which utterly surpasses all that can be effected in regard to reciprocal presence, communion and fellowship between other beings (313).

Therefore God can indeed (and this is His transcendence) be sufficiently beyond the creature to be his Creator out of nothing and at the same time be free enough partially or completely to transform its being or to take it from it again as first He gave it (313).

God is sufficiently free to indwell the creature in the most varied ways according to its varying characteristics. The fulness of the movement in which, according to the witness of the Bible, we find God relating Himself to the creature must not therefore be interpreted as inessential and analogical, but as in the strictest sense a reality, because it is in this movement that He shows Himself to be God and not an idol, and therefore free—in contradistinction to the limitedness of a being which, even though it bears the highest attributes, betrays its creatureliness in the fact that its mode of approach and relation to the creature is, from the latter’s point of view, inflexible (314).

God in His freedom can be with us in His presence in whatever way He chooses to be - and yet His presence and divine action centers unquestionably on a very definite center, Jesus Christ (316-317).

In the first place, the fulfilled union of the divine and the human in Jesus Christ is, to be sure, one among others of these various possibilities of divine immanence, but over and beyond that, it must be defined, in its once-for-all and unique aspect, as the possibility of all other possibilities. For the Son of God who became flesh in Jesus Christ is, as an eternal mode of the divine being, nothing more nor less than the principle and basis of all divine immanence, and therefore the principle of what we have called the secondary absoluteness of God (317).

Thus in spite of the almost confusing richness of the forms of divine immanence we are led to recognise a hierarchy, a sacred order, in which God is present to the world. We have only to grasp the fact that Jesus Christ is the focus and crown, and not merely the focus and the crown of all relationship and fellowship between God and the world, but also their basic principle, their possibility and presupposition in the life of the Godhead, and we shall see God’s freedom disclose and develop itself (317-318).

A freedom of divine immanence which is detached from Jesus Christ will exist only in heresy or idolatry (319).

If the freedom of divine immanence is sought and supposedly found apart from Jesus Christ, it can signify in practice only our enslavement to a false god. For this reason Jesus Christ alone must be preached to the heathen as the immanent God, and the Church must be severely vigilant to see that it expects everything from Jesus Christ, and from Jesus Christ everything; that He is unceasingly recognised as the way, the truth, and the life (Jn. 14:6). This attitude does not imply Christian absolutism or ecclesiastical narrow mindedness, because it is precisely in Jesus Christ, but also exclusively in Him, that the abundance and plenitude of divine immanence is included and revealed. If we do not have Christ, we do not have at all, but utterly lack, the fulness of God’s presence. If we separate ourselves from Him, we are not even on the way to this richness, but are slipping back into an impoverishment in which the omnipresent God is not known. The freedom of God must be recognised as His own freedom and this means—as it consists in God and as God has exercised it. But in God it consists in His Son Jesus Christ, and it is in Him that God has exercised it. In all its possibilities and shapes it remains the freedom which consists and is exercised in Jesus Christ. If we recognise and magnify it, we cannot come from any other starting point but Him or move to any other goal (319-320).

Survivor's Guide to Seminary, Post #1 (Introductory Remarks)

Seminary works best, in my opinion, when you approach it with a plan and with intentionality.

So you’ve decided to go to seminary, eh? Nice work and great decision! I don't think there’s really any other educational experience like it. In fact, that’s pretty much what you’ll be told all along the way starting on day one. Question though—is it true?

Yes and no.

In many ways it is true. Seminary often marks the beginning of a significant chapter in one’s life, a chapter characterized by deep faith and spirituality. Perhaps the decision for seminary was made because you sensed a calling from God? Your work in seminary is going to prepare you for work in the church, or the mission field, and any other of the thousands of ways you can serve in the kingdom of God. Perhaps you have designs on entering the academy – being a professor of theology or doing biblical research in a university environment? The preparation for such ventures often begins with the work one will do in seminary – and there’s really nothing else like it that will serve as a bridge to these vocations.

But in other ways, seminary is essentially a generalized graduate school experience that shares so many of the same challenges that other graduate programs offer. In this way it is not a unique educational experience. It is like many other experiences: there’s lots of reading and writing, critical thinking, and seemingly endless project deadlines. Just like your colleagues in grad programs around the nation, you’ll do your fair share of “suffering” for the degree you are pursuing. It’s all part of the fun.

But though the seminary does share much in common with other master’s level work one might do (though often it is more expansive), the things that make it unique are important and special, and what you need is a guide of sorts—a wee little book like this that will offer you the necessary direction so you can be assured of success—in terms of the grade book, vocational preparation, and your spiritual life.

Hence: A series of blog reflections and guide I'm calling The Survivor’s Guide to Seminary!

So why should you read these posts as a guide to your future? Good question. 

The primary advantage of these posts is that I’m writing them in the last semester of my Master of Divinity work. I’m getting ready to graduate, so I thought, “What better way to celebrate than by penning a little ‘hitchhiker’s guide to the seminary’ for those coming on in behind me?” 

Wait, what? “You’re just now finishing?” you ask. Yes, I’m just now finishing.

I think one of the strengths of this guide is that it is being written at a time when so much of the advice I think a student needs is still very fresh on my mind. In other words, the resources and advice I offer is very fresh –and all because I am just finishing. Besides, the price is right, eh?

Let me articulate a little more fully why I think you should use this guide. When I applied to seminary, I looked for some helpful guides too. Here’s what I found:

Several of the books I used to prepare for seminary were written by professors who had long ago forgotten what it was like to show up as a student with very little seminary knowledge. Granted, the books were of good quality, but I wondered if they would really connect with me as a student. In some ways they did, but I found I needed more. There was something these preparation guides didn’t offer.

Several of the books were written by students who had long moved on from their seminary education into high flying doctoral programs. Again, it was a problem of distance. Their experience seemed too far removed from my own.

Hence: The Survivor’s Guide to Seminary. 

But there are other advantages too. Though I admit this in a humble way, I’ve had a little success as a student in seminary—and I’d like to point you to the way I’ve done it—the attitudes, tools, and resources which have helped me have success in my journey. 

Another advantage is that I have been a student in higher education for quite a while—over ten years—and because I entered seminary in my thirties while married with two children, I’ve taken the pursuit of my education very seriously. The gravity (and techniques) of my own pursuit I now pass along to you in book form. You’re welcome, grasshopper.

One final advantage of this guide is that I haven’t always been involved in the seminary (ministry, theological) world. My college education is in biology, and when I arrived at seminary I was in many ways a very non-traditional student. I had worked as a biologist. I had lived in the lab. I had done other things. In my opinion, this gives me an advantage for writing this book. My other experiences have given me perspectives and discipline that has served me well in seminary. This guide will share them with you.

In the end, I believe seminary is a very special and unique educational path. You’re in for an adventure and a tremendous period of intellectual and spiritual growth in your life. And I want to help you.

I recommend doing some deep thinking though—strategic thinking—about what you’re getting yourself into and where you want to go with this opportunity. Seminary works best, in my opinion, when you approach it with a plan and with intentionality. My hope is that The Survivor’s Guide to Seminary will be an essential resource for your success! Of course, I want you to do more than survive—I want you to thrive! I believe that if you heed my advice in these posts you will be well on your way—with God’s help—to a bright future in whatever vocational roles you decide to use your seminary training to pursue. If in some small way I have been a part of your success, my prayer for you and this guide has been answered. 

Now—onward and upward! In my next post on Monday, I'll explore how you can prepare your mind for seminary...