My professor was Gilha Lee, a South Korean scholar with more than a decade of experience teaching in the United States. The course examined the New Testament through literary and historical lenses. We started with Mark, which many scholars view as the earliest Gospel and a likely source for Matthew and Luke. This order helped clarify the relationships between the Gospels.

Mark’s narrative is short, direct, and intense. Many stories from Mark reappear in Matthew and Luke, while Matthew and Luke also draw from a second source that is no longer extant. Studying Mark first made the sequence of Gospel material easier to follow.

After Mark, we studied Matthew and Luke. Both books build on Mark while adding their own theological emphasis. Learning that Luke and Acts were written by the same author was especially compelling, because together they form a two-volume narrative that spans the life of Jesus and the early church.

John stood out as a very different Gospel. Its theological language is deeper and more reflective, and it connects with the other Johannine writings: 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation.

We also examined Paul’s letters. I found it valuable to learn that only seven epistles are generally accepted as Pauline, while the authorship of the others remains debated. Hebrews is anonymous, and Revelation reads as a book of hope. The New Testament felt less like a single book and more like a community of voices.

This course was one of the term’s most engaging experiences. Regular exams every three weeks kept the pace steady and focused.

This course was especially meaningful because I lead worship ministry in the Philippines. My professor was Rachel Miller Jacobs, who also serves as program head for the MA in Christian Formation. Her guidance made the course both rigorous and practical.

We engaged a lot of reading and completed weekly assignments. I appreciated how the course moved from concepts to practice, inviting us to apply what we learned to real worship settings.

Four insights stood out most. First, the direction of speech in worship matters: spoken prayers and prompts should be clear and intentional. Second, worship should be scripture-centered, since for many people worship is the primary place they encounter Scripture.

Third, ritual actions and visual installations require careful thought. As a worship leader, I must consider whether visual elements communicate well to people of all ages and abilities. Fourth, the idea of a worship diet was powerful: evaluating worship as a whole experience helps identify strengths and gaps.

The course inspired me to be more creative and more intentional in planning worship. Leading two chapel services gave me a chance to integrate these lessons, and the second service felt like a strong capstone for the term.

This course was one of the most demanding and rewarding of the term. It challenged me to think theologically at a deeper level. My professor was Jamie Pitts, whose expertise in Anabaptist theology shaped the class with clarity and care.

We began with his book Love Seeking Justice, which grounds theological reflection in the Holy Spirit. That emphasis changed how I approached scripture and theological questions, reminding me that theology is a relational process rather than a purely academic task.

For six weeks, we developed research papers in stages. I chose to work on the Mennonite World Conference Shared Convictions, focusing on the theology of mutual accountability. That topic was challenging because there is no formal “Mutual Accountability Theology,” so I had to trace the theme through biblical texts and theological literature.

The process required extensive reading and careful synthesis. In the end, the paper raised more questions than it answered, but that is precisely what good theological work should do.