That's a Great Question!

Teaching Theology means learning to expect the unexpected.

A hand shoots up in class. A knock comes during office hours. A student catches your eye on a campus walkway.

At any of these moments, professors realize we can be on the receiving end of a hard-hitting question about God, the Bible, an ethical dilemma or a spiritual struggle. These conversations keep us on our toes — and they’re often the most life-giving, mind-sharpening, soul-stirring part of any given day.

Talbot Magazine recently caught up with eight Talbot School of Theology professors — representing a range of programs and disciplines — and asked them to share the most insightful or challenging questions they’ve been asked by students recently, along with how they responded. Their answers reveal both the depth of student thinking and the richness of Christian scholarship at Talbot that seeks to engage real life with biblical truth.

How were people saved in the Old Testament?

Keeping the torah in ancient Israel was never for salvation (because salvation is not attained by works). Rather, the torah offered ways that people could express their faith/ trust in God. Initially, God acts graciously toward his people by accommodating them and rescuing them (as in the exodus event). Next, God gives gifts to his rescued people — he gives them his torah to disclose more of himself to them. God’s holy character is revealed in the torah not for people to attain it but for people to know God in covenant relationship.

Keep in mind that the holy status of God’s people is not something they achieve; rather, holy status is ascribed by God because he chooses to be present with his people. This is how it has always been. It has never changed from the old covenant to the new covenant.

The people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New Testament are consistently identified by their faith — not by their genetics, ethnicity, nationality, ritual practices, or torah observance. Saving faith is trust in what God has graciously revealed to people in time and space. Abraham had saving faith because he took God at his word (see Gen. 15:6; Gal. 3:6), not because he could articulate the gospel according to modern formulae. Gentiles like Caleb and Ruth trusted God based on the divine revelation (i.e., torah) that was available to them. Christians today are also saved because they believe what God has revealed to them (through the gospel of the LORD Jesus Christ).

How, then, is anyone saved? Salvation is God’s gift by grace through faith: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:8–9 NIV).

– Kenneth Way, Professor of Old Testament and Semitics

Are hot dog eating contests gluttony?

Even though I’ve been asked thousands of questions over the last 30 years of teaching theology to college students, a few weeks ago I was asked one I had never been asked before: “Are hot dog eating contests gluttony?”

Gluttony is the unwise and indiscriminate overconsumption of something so that it begins to control us rather than us controlling it. It is idolatry to give inordinate value and devotion to things. This overconsumption could be with food, where our stomachs have become our god (Phil. 3:19). While grossly impressive, it’s hard to deny that Joey Chestnut’s ability to eat 83 hot dogs and buns in 10 minutes is a kind of gluttony. While I think these financially driven competitions are gluttonous and fail to appreciate God’s great gift of food, they are not the most concerning display of gluttony today. While overeating may be a major problem for many in our society, many more people have far greater trouble with the gluttony of screen use.

The uncontrolled obsession with social media is leading to distraction, anger, superficiality, loneliness, depression, anxiety, lust, and unfruitfulness. Checking our phones hundreds of times a day and spending an average of five daily hours on them is creating devastating problems for us. If we treated our Bibles the way most of us treat our phones, we would be saturated with biblical wisdom. Instead, the tech geniuses have won the day, getting many of us to waste our precious attention on things that do not help us to thrive.

Far more than scarfing down hot dogs, social media gluttony prevents us from redeeming the time and attaining true joy (Eph. 5:15–16).

– Erik Thoennes, Professor or Theology

Why would God say “Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated”? I just can’t square this with the Bible’s teaching elsewhere that God is loving.

As an Old Testament professor, I’m often asked about troubling passages. It happened to me on a plane recently. I had settled into my window seat when my fellow travelers arrived. The man in the middle seat turned to ask why I was heading to Birmingham.

I told him I’d be giving lectures at Samford University the next day on the image of God. The man lit up. “Oh man, I have a question that’s been bothering me about the Old Testament.”

“Let’s hear it!” I replied.

“Why would God say ‘Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated’? I just can’t square this with the Bible’s teaching elsewhere that God is loving.”

I grabbed my Bible and we turned to Malachi 1. I explained that two factors are important for understanding this text. First, “love” and “hate” are technical covenant terms. Malachi is not suggesting that God dislikes Esau. The point is that God maintains covenant faithfulness to Jacob rather than Esau.

Second, Esau’s position with God is the result of Esau’s own choice. As the firstborn, he would have inherited God’s covenant promises through his father’s blessing, but Genesis tells us Esau “despised” his birthright. He thought so little of God’s promises to his ancestors that he traded away his covenant privileges for a bowl of stew.

This is not a story of an earnest person trying to please God who is rejected. Esau is short-sighted to the extreme, placing no value on God’s blessing. For this reason, the covenant promises fall to Jacob, a complicated man who nevertheless gladly received what God wanted to give. He becomes the heir of Isaac’s covenant promises, passing them to all 12 of his sons.

The man beside me found this answer so helpful that he showed up the next day at my lecture!

– Carmen Joy Imes, Associate Professor of Old Testament

How does the Bible speak to pornography addiction?

I am often asked about pornography addiction by struggling students looking for biblical answers. Many have hit a point of despair, having exhausted every countermeasure they can imagine — blocking software, old-fashioned flip phones, accountability groups, and more.

In addition to pointing them toward John Owen’s classic Mortification of Sin, I take them to Paul’s first letter to the church in Thessaloniki, where porneia — a broad New Testament term for sexual immorality — was rampant. Paul’s advice is not a call to superficial behavior modification. In 1 Thessalonians 3:12 he prays, “may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another.” Here the Spirit-inspired Paul offers a revealing diagnosis of what drives porneia. It is fundamentally a failure to love.

Porneia does not treat image-bearers of God as image-bearers but flattens multidimensional human persons into two dimensions — mere bodies in motion — no divine image, just an erotic image whose only value consists in stimulating a self-centered and momentary physical rush. Then Paul prayerfully appeals to God’s sovereign ability to make the Thessalonians increase and abound in love. As God, he can answer such a request to produce love without reducing human agents to Chatty Cathy Dolls.

Paul is tapping into a deep Old Testament theme of God’s unique ability to generate supernatural love. In Deuteronomy 30:6 we meet God as the great Heart Circumciser where recipients of his grace “will love the Lord.” In Ezekiel 36:26–27 we encounter God as a skilled Heart Surgeon replacing the rocks in our chests with responsive hearts that obey his love commands. Jeremiah 31:33–34 reveals God as a tender Heart Scribe, writing his law within us such that we know and love him and one another.

I pray like Paul with and for my students. We pray that God would cause them to increase and abound in love, that he would sovereignly recalibrate their affections such that dehumanizing others for a sexual rush becomes unthinkable and loving God and neighbor becomes irresistible. After 11-plus years of seeing students set free from porneia, I have seen firsthand — the prayer to increase and abound in love is a prayer that God loves to answer today as he did in Thessaloniki.

– Thaddeus Williams, Associate Professor of Theology

In the age of artificial intelligence, why does human engagement matter?

Since the advent of generative AI, large language models and diverse social media platforms, our attachment to technology has increased in ways never seen before. No part of our life seems to be isolated from the intrusion of technology. As a result, these tools are shaping our thinking, our priorities, our preferences and our relationships (with God, other people and the environment).

In other words, these tools are setting the tone for our habits, thereby influencing our lifestyle in all its forms and complexities. On a more serious level, the tools in question influence our beliefs, desires and intentions. In short, technologies shape our perception of reality as it pertains, among other things, to our own metaphysical identity and nature.

For example, transhumanists believe that technology will at some point enable humans to defeat physical death, thereby freeing them from their biological and other limitations. In fact, on the transhumanists’ worldview, digital immortality is something achievable once humans figure out how to extract their mind from its biological base and merge it with suitable digital technology. The question remains: is technology neutral? The answer to this question must be a resounding no.

If technology is not neutral, how should we engage with it? I can think of two broadly defined good and bad ways of engagement. I call these ways (1) the passive engagement model and (2) the active engagement model, respectively. Given the current brand of technology (which does lots of things on behalf of humans), (1) consists in outsourcing any effort-involving, demanding and time-consuming but rewarding activities to technology. In concrete terms, such outsourcing includes reading books, essay writing, translations, lesson plan preparation, sermon preparation, crafting paintings/ images, writing lyrics and so on. Given (1) the current brand of technology enables one to fake almost anything that is being done behind closed doors. In this case, (1) stands in sharp conflict and tension with (2).

Given (2) one must read books, not just rely on snippets of summaries downloaded from AI. One must sweat over writing essays and so on. But model (1) is said to be a time-saving and productivity-enhancing approach whereas model (2) is said to be archaic and time-consuming.

The tension between model (1) and model (2) is something that characterizes the questions we are asking, and wrestling with, within academia in general. In my view, the solution is to embrace model (2) if we really care for the sanctity of education. Model (1) completely robs us of our independence as thinking and creative beings.

So, we need to draw a clear boundary between model (1) and model (2). As things stand, there is a tendency to reduce model (2) to model (1). I think that is a recipe for disaster. We are already witnessing increasing global incidents of plagiarism, academic fakism and a growing and disturbing attitude of wanting to dodge demanding mental tasks. But what is the end goal of that?

– Mihretu P. Guta, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics

When have been the most sorrowful times of your life?

I was asked this probing question by a student with whom I was spending regular mentoring times. I told him I needed a week to think and pray before answering. I wrestled through his question with my wife, Trudi. We talked and prayed and cried as we remembered past pain. And we both agreed…

The most sorrowful times of my life (and Trudi’s) have not occurred because of physical pain, though I have known excruciating pain. Nor have they occurred through the death of a loved one, though I have painfully grieved the loss of dear loved ones. As I pondered this question in the days following my young friend’s query, I realized that my most sorrowful times have occurred during strained relational conflicts, and particularly when I risked losing a close relationship with someone I loved. I’ve felt my cruelest sorrows when I desired a good relationship with someone I cared about deeply, but when that person decided that he or she no longer wanted a relationship with me — or worse, turned on me and started to view me as an opponent rather than a friend.

I continued deliberating this question. I found comfort in all the places in the Bible where I saw relational loss, betrayal, and conflict highlighted. Think of the lament psalms: how many are about broken relationships and betrayal? The apostle Paul suffered terrible physical pain (2 Cor. 11:23–27; 12:7; Gal. 4:13–15) but sometimes wrote as though relational conflict was the hardest thing for him to bear (2 Cor. 2:4; 7:5; 11:28–29). And don’t forget that our Lord Jesus was treacherously betrayed by one of his closest disciples.

I never landed on a simple answer for my most heartbreaking interpersonal pain; rarely is a simple solution forthcoming. But I reminded myself then, and I remember today — and will do so in the future — that God’s Word is replete with examples of God’s people turning their eyes upward while experiencing relational pain. (For more on how dealing with relational pain, see my new book with Keith Krell, God’s Purposes in Our Pain: 10 Ways God Uses Suffering for Our Good.)

– Kenneth Berding, Professor of New Testament

Does “identity” determine dignity?

Many argue we define our dignity by our self-concepts. This stands in contrast with humans having intrinsic dignity based in our soul, or essential nature, which is made in God’s image. They reason that in a scientific age we no longer believe in such things. Moreover, people have misused “essences” to control people (e.g., women, minorities). So, we should support gender-affirming medical care and more.

On this view, free people have inalienable rights, including to autonomously define their concept of existence. Thus, the law shouldn’t “disparage their choices and diminish their personhood” (as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges). So, for instance, people should be free to define their own gender identity and obtain medical help to transition.

Of course, people suffering with gender dysphoria need much love, empathy, and compassion. But my focus is on what grounds humans’ dignity. If we don’t have an essential nature, we aren’t intrinsically valuable. But that is contrary to Christian teaching based on the imago Dei.

Also, on autonomy-based dignity, we are valuable to the extent we can exercise our autonomy. But many humans, such as the unborn, infants, and some of the elderly, do not meet that criterion. If so, why couldn’t they be mistreated or even killed?

Moreover, while our self-conceptions affect how we think and feel about ourselves, they do not enter into and create our being. We can change our self-concepts, whether about gender identity, profession, etc., for they are contingent. I teach apologetics, but that fact does not make me who I am. Indeed, we can know introspectively that we are the same person who endures through time and change. How can that be? It seems the best answer is that we do have an essential nature (the soul), which can ground our intrinsic dignity.

– Scott Smith, Professor of Christian Apologetics

Is the current state of higher education going to get better?

As I interact with students pursuing terminal degrees that qualify them to serve in higher education, I listen to questions like this, which is followed by them wondering if there will be an opportunity for them to teach in higher education. For those of us who are already teaching in higher education, the question is not if we will have a chance to teach, but we wonder if the current issues defining higher education will ever get better.

Global changes due to social, political and ideological agendas, increase of technologies, fragmented economies, accelerated development of artificial intelligence, marketization of higher education, and accreditation demands, among others, continue defining how educational institutions will remain operating internally to maintain trust and value, and progressively transform traditional educational models.

Institutions of Christian higher education committed to carry on their mission are not exempt from being impacted by these pressures. Nonetheless, in the book Christian Higher Education: Faith Teaching, and Learning in the Evangelical Tradition, David Dockery reminds us that our main concern as Christian educators should not be whether evangelical higher education will survive, but about our commitment to ensure an education that pursues quality and provides “Christ-centered education that promotes excellence and character development in service to the church and society.” Keeping our perspective on what really matters will help us to prevent worrying about the challenges that academic leaders and faculty in institutions of Christian higher education strive to solve day to day. Instead, we will focus on helping students to flourish in all dimensions of their lives and their communities, pursuing academic achievements, learning to love God and their neighbors, and growing in their commitment to practice justice and live as genuine disciples of Jesus.

The question of whether higher education is going to get better than its current state may still remain in our conversations as we think of the future. Yet we need to continue striving to present perfect in Christ men and women whose education has been entrusted to us.

– Orbelina Eguizabal, Professor of Christian Higher Education