Bridging Gaps

One of the best ideas I learned in seminary was to be willing and able to learn how to bridge gaps in order to communicate more effectively. For missionary work, this meant to learn the culture and how to communicate best to that culture. For church planting, it meant to understand your area and speak to them in a way that resonates with them. Meaning, if you're in Southern California you won't preach or teach the same way you would if you were in Southern Alabama.

With my interests in American Church History, I truly believe I made a good decision to go the public university route. Why? I think there is a real need for church historians to be involved not only in the conversations in "our circles," but also in broader conversations. For my interests it means I not only need to know what scholars of 20th century fundamentalism and evangelicalism say, but also what "secular" or "the academy" is saying about the context I am interested in. That doesn't mean a PhD from Westminster Seminary or Wheaton is inferior to a public university PhD. There are definite trade-offs for me in the route I am taking. One has been that my professors are not as well-versed in some of the specifics I want to study. This means I have to explain and define like crazy before I get an, "Oh, I see what you're talking about" response. So, I am not saying there one way is better than another, though I hope more of "us" can take the route I am taking (it's lonely being the token christian!).

For me, I am still happy with my course because I have never been in a public education setting, so I will be better able to communicate between two worlds in history, and also when I minister to people who have not been educate from a private, religious education as I have.