Leaving on Wednesday (12/12), we’re heading to England over Christmas and New Years. We’ll be back just in time (the day before) to start our respective schools on January 7th. J-term Hebrew I, here I come.

As long as Dr. Hogg teaches, there’s only one choice for Church History at Southeastern. Dr. David S. Hogg is also the only Church History professor I’ve taken at Southeastern. But as I say to people who ask why I got married so young: why keep looking if you’ve found what you were looking for? There’s only one choice for Church History at Southeastern. What I can appreciate about Dr. Hogg is that he hasn’t gone through the “Southern Baptist” education system, majoring in Bible at Famous Baptist of Yesteryear College in Podunk, South, but has worked through the University of Toronto, Westminster Seminary and the University of St. Andrews. As one reviewer noted on RateMyProfessor, he is “quite possibly the coolest Canadian in existence.” Why he is at Southeastern we may never know, but that he is we can rejoice for the way he de-homogenizes our SBC milk. In summary and because I’m enjoying lists at the moment, here are some further pointers evincing the notion that one should take a professor and not a course, in this case Hogg:

• No textbook.
• In place of a textbook are primary sources that are freely available in the public domain. Instead of reading what someone has to say about Athanasius, you read Athanasius. What a concept.
• Direct application to ministry. Hogg asks, what can we learn from the ministry of John Chrysostom? Nobody asks that question and for three reasons: (1) they don’t know Chrysostom, (2) they don’t know to even ask about Chrysostom’s ministry, and (3) they don’t know Chrysostom’s ministry and the practical import thereof.
• Hard exams. You actually feel like you’re in seminary, not a Sunday school class.
• Balance. We considered the basis for the papacy. Not only that, but we did a long section on the popes of the Middle Ages.
• Regular writing exercises instead of regular quizzes. Last semester’s syllabus contained this quote by Augustine: “I count myself one of the number of those who write as they learn and learn as they write.”
• History is narrated instead of regurgitated from a Powerpoint.

I’m excited to see that he has also taken on teaching Theology. My Friday’s will be spent with him next semester in Theology II.

[Insert vain post here]

If you go to my alma mater’s web site, WVU.edu, you’ll see yours truly as the featured image. It’s just a shame that I graduated last December and they’re using me for this December. Nonetheless, I’ll take it!

I heard an ad on the radio for Valentine’s Day. It’s December!

Someone asked why I say “gandhi” instead of “oh my god” or simply “god.” Let me count the ways:

1. First, I’m not overly interested in taking the Lord’s name in vain or blaspheming. Generally, I try to avoid it.
2. “Gosh” or “golly jee” or “jeepers creepers” are just euphemisms, saying ‘well’ what you’d really like to say.
3. I have a (seminary!) professor who says “oh my god” and “god” flippantly. Can’t stand it; appalled, to say the least.
4. Gandhi is multisyllabic. You can stretch it out in true moments of angst. Gannnn-dhi!
5. Gandhi is no one’s deity; just a surname. It’s therefore less likely that someone will be offended by taking Gandhi’s name in vain.
6. Overall annoyance at hearing “oh my god” used so flippantly. “Oh my Gandhi” is a cause for pause. It scores minor uniqueness points.
7. Finally, humans (homo loquens) need a word or phrase which can be used to express frustration or angst. All languages have such words. My idiolect employs “Gandhi.”