Lightbulb moment at Moore

A common question I've been getting lately is how I've found first year at Moore College.

The most prominent thought I've had is just how basic everything has been. It's been challenging at times, encouraging, rebuking, and yet extremely consistent with all I have been previously taught. This works in me a great thankfulness for the excellent Christian instruction which I have received before College.

Basically, there's been few lightbulb moments. In this regard, it is a firm stamp of approval on the College's success. There was a time where Peter Bolt's narrative approach to Mark would have been groundbreaking. There was a time where Biblical Theology would have been a transforming influence on students understanding the whole Bible. That time is not today. We were taught by those who were changed by these approaches. There remains good reason for keeping first year as generally introductory, and it certainly has allowed me to keep my languages under control, and get back into study (read: realising I've never really studied in my life). But I guess in answer to the question 'How have I found it?' I have to say, 'Reassuring'.

I'm not sure what I expected from Bible College exams, but I think I was hoping for open book - open Bible, that is. I kind of assumed you'd get a Bible to use. Our first exam biblical theology we were supplied a Bible. So I then guessed I'd continue to get one, until I began to freak out when I read my syllabus again and found that for our three hour doctrine exam we weren't to be given a Bible. Oh well, it's a good thing we all know doctrine isn't based on the Bible.

It's fine to get through a doctrine and even a biblical theology exam without a Bible, but I kind of assumed I'd get one for New Testament. It's one thing to remember a couple of proof texts across the Bible, but when depth of knowledge is needed for an exam which only covers Ephesians and 1 Peter, I thought we'd get a Bible for sure. No. Freak out again.

However I was reassured by comments from Con Campbell (there's a rumour going around that he likes to be called Const, which just makes me think 'Constipated'). Con provided a real lightbulb moment for me. It was so simple, but it just got me. Know the book.

Simple, right? Know the book.

Con said, we just need to know it, to understand the movement, to grasp the thought process of the author, to get into his mindframe. That way we will know more than an outline, or some key verses but we'll be able to navigate the whole letter. This is what allows us to move thematically across the letter as well as framing each section within the wider context. Be the letter.

I think this is why so much of my study of the Bible just goes in my head and straight back out again. I am good on the details for a little while, but I haven't hooked it onto the wider movement of the writing. It's kind of why having now preached Micah twice I feel like I'm now starting to understand it and probably finally ready to preach it.

What I'm trying to avoid is the kind of superficial understanding of the text which leads to fairy floss teaching. Where we simply dig around long enough to get the main idea. This is unsustainable if we are to continue to learn from and be changed by the text before we seek to teach and apply it to others. I want to dwell in the mind of God.

Know the book.