The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesiological Theology

January 29, 2010 by Gerald Hiestand

Biblical Evidence that Pastors Are Called to Serve as Wider Theologians: Part 2

Continuing from part 1…

As the sun of the apostolic age set, pastors were appointed to carry on the ministerial and theological leadership of the church. In Peter’s first epistle we see him passing the baton of church leadership to his “fellow elders,” exhorting them to shepherd the flock in a way consistent with the model Christ had showed him (1 Peter 5:1-4). And John, late in life, addresses his third epistle to Gaius, whom he charges with exercising ministerial/theological care over the members of his local community. Luke records this transition as well, painting for us a dramatic portrait of Paul as he hands off his pastoral leadership fully and finally to the elders at Ephesus who are now tasked with guarding the apostolic message (Acts 20:29-31).

Most significant for our purposes, this passing of church leadership was decidedly theological. Paul’s pastoral letters provide a unique window into the transmission of theological leadership from the apostles to the emerging pastoral community. Timothy is to take what he has heard from Paul in the presence of many witnesses and “entrust it to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2). He is to give himself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and to teaching—all excplicitly theological activities. Titus likewise is tasked with rebuking false teachers and promoting “what is in accord with sound doctrine” (Titus 1:10-11, 2:1). And perhaps most significantly, the pastoral epistles show that even the appointment of elders has been passed on as well. Titus and Timothy are given a list of elder qualifications in anticipation of future elder appointments, and Titus is told to “appoint elders in every town”—a duty that Paul and the other apostles performed at the height of their apostolic ministry (Acts 14:23).

That the second generation of church leaders—the pastors—were called upon to provide theological leadership to their local congregations is evident. But what is often overlooked is the fact that the emerging pastoral community also assumed the role of the wider-theologian in lieu of the fading apostolic community. James the elder—a significant church leader, but not one of the twelve—wrote his epistle “to the twelve tribes” of the diaspora. Likewise, his dominant influence at the council of Jerusalem (as well as the ruling presence of “the elders”) demonstrates that the transition of wider theological leadership from the apostles to the pastors is already well underway by 70 A.D. Along similar lines, the epistle of Hebrews and the Gospel of Mark are further examples of non-apostolic pastors functioning as wider theologians to the whole church.

The pastors—the elders of the church—have been collectively charged with guarding the trust of the apostolic message. They “represent the unity, continuity, and integrity of the community of faith.” It is theirs to articulate that message against the backdrop of an unbelieving culture, and to construct for the church a distinctly Christian worldview—to refute error, to promote orthodoxy. This guardianship has been handed to the clergy via the apostles, via our Lord himself. When faced with wider theological crises, the pastoral community is the group that—collectively—must respond. This does not mean that every pastor of every local church must individually articulate a response to every issue, but it does mean that the Scriptural weight of responsibility for providing an articulate, timely, orthodox response to the shifting theological needs of the moment lies with the pastoral community as a whole.

Yet this is not where we find ourselves today. Indeed, the occupation of theologian and the occupation of pastor are no longer harmonized. And even our present attempts at combining the two fail to realize the biblical ideal. Present day paradigms of the pastor-theologian reduce the pastor to a local theologian to his own congregation. However valuable this “local theologian” model may be (and it is valuable), it is not a fair reflection of the comprehensive Scriptural mandate, nor the historical precedent. The pastoral community has—in the main—ceased to function as the primary theological voice of the church. The heavy lifting has been delegated to the academy—to professional theologians, most of whom lack an official ecclesial charge to serve as overseers of the Christian community, and most of whom are immersed in a social location (the academy) that often fails to fully grasp ecclesial concerns.

Of course one might suggest that the foregoing methodology is decidedly anachronistic. After all, the Scriptural charge to pastors to serve as wider theologians is to be expected—there was no one else to do it. It’s unfair, one might suggest, to make the Bible arbitrate between pastors and professors when pastors where the only viable candidates in the in the first-century context. Perhaps. But I’m certain the burden of proof lies on the side of those who would deny the theological primacy of the clergy in maintaining and articulating the church’s message. A plausible and convincing reason must be put forth demonstrating how the cultural moment has so changed that clergy need no longer take responsibility to function as wider theologians. I doubt that one can be found. That the Scriptures lay this charge upon the pastoral community is undeniable. That the pastoral community has—on the whole—farmed this responsibility out to the academy is, it would seem, an egregious case of pastoral neglect.

Categories: Pastor-theologian | Wider Theologians