The point above regarding diverging social locations is aptly illustrated by a recent exchange between SBL and a disgruntled former member, Ronald S. Hendel. Hendel accuses SBL of becoming too cozy with faith perspectives. The response from SBL is revealing:

“Although SBL invites vigorous discussion of all relevant topics, proselytizing activity is neither welcome nor permitted in SBL-sponsored events and publications and is inconsistent with the SBL’s core values: accountability, inclusiveness, collaboration, leadership in biblical scholarship, collegiality, productivity, commitment, responsiveness to change, communication, scholarly integrity, efficiency, and tolerance. Consequently, any instances of proselytizing activity should be reported to SBL staff. Further, we are unaware of any RBL reviews that even “hint” that anyone is “going to hell.” If any SBL member can point us to such a review, we will immediately remove the review and disavow its sentiments.”

Clearly the rules of engagement governing SBL do not lend themselves to the sort of theological task historically prosecuted by  the church’s most influential theologians. The church’s task is, explicitly, a proselytizing one. Indeed, a significant bulk of the church’s reflection is driven by, and born out of, the duty of proselyting.

I’m glad believing, orthodox scholars like Michael Bird and others are present and moving in the SBL environment. The Christian community needs a voice there;  we have both things to learn and to teach. But given the stated aims of SBL, it should be clear that the agenda of SBL — reflective of the wider academic context –  represents an entirely different sort of agenda than what must once again come to constitute the core of orthodox, theological reflection. We are in need of a rebirth of the ecclesial theologian — the kind of theologian whose primary vocation is pastoral, and whose intellectual center and theological agenda is constituted by the church.

Yet in drawing a contrast between academic theology and ecclesial theology, an important words needs to be said here about the mutually dependent nature of the church and academy. As my vision for ecclesial theology has unfolded, I’ve become increasingly aware of the need for a robust partnership between believing academic theologians and pastor-theologians. Doug Sweeney (himself a respected academic historian), helped crystallize this for me at the close of the 2009 Fellowship Symposium of the Society for the Advancement of Ecclesial Theology (SAET). Sweeney suggested:

“We will not always need academic, systematic theologians to do all the heavy theological lifting for God’s people. We are not often explicit about this, but systematic theology, insofar as it is distinguished from biblical, historical, philosophical, psychological, and intercultural theology, is the work of generalists, people who synthesize the findings of those in the other scholarly disciplines and neither have nor require a methodology of their own. They put the big picture together and apply it to our lives. They don’t require the resources or the structures of the academy to do this kind of work (though they do need very good libraries). In fact, the people best suited to synthesize our knowledge of God and His ways in the world, applying this knowledge to the empirical realities people face, are pastor-theologians.

We should work toward a day when professors view themselves as handmaids serving pastor-theologians, and pastor-theologians play an important public role in guiding people theologically. Professors should continue to offer specialized instruction in ancient languages and history, exegesis, church history, social science, and philosophy. They will continue to raise up future generations of pastors. But we should work to raise up the kinds of pastors who can synthesize, exposit, and apply the knowledge of God to the lives of all God’s people with authority.”

We no longer live in a pre-critical context, and thus the pastor-theologian can no longer go it alone. The modern research university—with all of its blessings and challenges—is here to stay. Thus academic theologians and pastor-theologians must work in tandem, each bringing a strength to the theological task the other lacks. As a general rule, the academic context will push professors toward specialized research, while the ecclesial context will push pastors toward multi-disciplinary synthesis. Consequently, the pastor-theologian, even though widely read, will likely lack narrow expertise in the sub-fields of the various theological disciplines. He is thus in need of the believing research professor to help him sort through the myriad of secondary literature, and to serve as a guide to the wealth of resources housed within the academic community. And believing professors need pastor-theologians who can partner with them in thinking through the ecclesial relevance of their academic work, providing professors with a more robust understanding of how the various theological/intellectual paradigms of the academy intersect with the situation on the ground.

The intent is to include this paper in an edited volume alongside the other 2009 Pastor-Theologian Symposium papers, so any feedback before publication is welcome.  Here’s the introduction followed by a link to a pdf:

The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesial Theology (SAET) is, as its name suggests, a society dedicated to the advancement of ecclesial theology. And in its effort to advance ecclesial theology, the SAET has largely placed its hope in the resurgence of the pastor-theologian. Not because academic theologians are incapable of producing ecclesial theology (quite the contrary), but because the pastoral office uniquely positions one to think both theologically and ecclesially. If history is any guide, the relationship between the pastor-theologian and ecclesial theology is such that the success of each rises and falls with the other. And postmodernity—for all its weaknesses—properly reminds us of the connection between theological formation and social location. As Daniel Migliore appropriately notes, “the concrete situation of theology helps to shape the questions that are raised and the priorities that are set.” Who better, then, to articulate theology with a view to the church than those whose primary social location is the local church?

The Pastor as Ecclesial Theologian

Here are the two major problems on the SAET radar:

1. The local church in North America is—in the main—theologically anemic.

2. Evangelical theological reflection is—given its location in the academy—often disconnected from ecclesial concerns.

Does anyone really dispute either of these? Evangelical theology is not about to run off the cliff of ecclesial irrelevance. Nor is the evangelical local church on its last theological breath. But I think most of us concerned about both would agree that the dough of evangelical theology could stand a little more ecclesial yeast, and that the local church would benefit from a more theologically substantive pastorate.

Solution? The pastor-as-ecclesial-theologian (i.e., a pastor who writes robust, ecclesially-sensitive theology). The ecclesial-theologian  simultaneously addresses both of the above problems by at once returning a strong theological presence to the pulpit of the local church, and by influencing broader evangelical theological reflection toward ecclesial concerns.

It is self-evident that a theologian in the pulpit will go a long way toward addressing the theological anemia of a local church. Further, it is clear that a theologian’s pastoral vocation will influence his theological writing toward ecclesial concerns, thus returning a distinctly ecclesial voice to evangelical theology. Thus the pastor-as-ecclesial-theologian kills two birds with one stone.

Without a significant body of respected ecclesial theologians, the pastoral office will continue to be seen as a largely non-theological vocation; the local church will remain theologically anemic. And without the ecclesial theologian, theological reflection will continue to remain—at some level—disconnected from ecclesial concerns.

And having made the above argument, one can go on to point out that the pastor-as-ecclesial-theologian model is more than just a good idea; it’s detailed for us in Scripture.

Thoughts?