The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesiological Theology

SAET Blog

Ecclesial Theology Posts

• October 12, 2010 by Jason Hood

  Revelation, served three ways

  I’ve really enjoyed teaching through Revelation with my buddy Robbyn Abedi.  I’ve really enjoyed reading three books (in addition to commentary dabbling), by very different writers whose perspectives result in very different insights:  a scholar-exegete-theologian (Richard Bauckham, Theology of the Book of Revelation), a worship leader, musician and pastor (Michael Card and Scotty Smith, Unveiled Hope), and a contemplative-pastor type (Eugene Peterson, Reversed Thunder).  It’s been a great exercise, and a fantastic reminder that those with different gifts have much to give one another–surely one lesson we’re trying to learn at SAET, by focusing on what it means to be in the church doing theology.

  For one sample of Peterson’s pastoral angle:  the first century churches in Asia were not a bunch of weaklings. On the outside, especially by the standards of their culture, they may have looked like it. But should we see these Christians as harried, harassed?  Eugene says no:

  “These men and women from the moment of their baptism in the name of the Trinity, knew their lives as miracles of resurrection. The people who gathered each Lord’s Day to sing their Lord’s praises and receive his life were the most robust in the Roman empire.

  They were immersed in splendors. They brimmed with life. Even when their zeal cooled, as it sometimes did, and their taut loyalties went a little slack, as sometimes happened, there was far more going on in their lives than in the Babylon-seduced lives of their contemporaries. And they knew it. When they forgot, St. John reminded them.

  We must never forget that the pictures of wildly celebrative praise in heaven and catastrophic woes wreaked on earth…that all this stuff was made out of their daily traffic in scripture, baptism, and eucharist. In this heaven-penetrated, hell-threatened environment they lived their daily lives. Nothing . . . could equal it for depth of meaning and drama of inciden

  There could not have been many dull moments in those lives, nor need there be in ours. When dull moment did come, they were recognized as the work of the devil and were chased by the apocalypse-informed imagination at worship.” (Reversed Thunder, 70-71)

  Categories: Ecclesial Theologian | Ecclesial Theology | Jason Hood | Pastor-theologian | Revelation

  0 Comments

• October 5, 2010 by Jason Hood

  Of bishops and book-banning

  Preparing for a talk on “Historicity:  Christianity and other gospels” for a women’s group (not what I would have picked, but that’s the topic they wanted), I looked back through some works on Gnostic/semi-gnostic gospels.  Very often one finds the beliefs that (1) these ancient texts have something to offer believers today, and (2), that they were unfairly eliminiated from the canon.  The explicit or implicit corollary is that the bishops and other church leaders who helped rule out such texts were bad boys.

  Apart from the historical difficulties in this sort of characterization, I find it impossible to be sympathetic with the skeptical approach.  What pro-gnostic scholars appear to be advocating is something more akin to a liberal arts approach to spirituality; but what is often lost is that we cannot approach the ancients as if they were contemporary liberal arts students.  I have no problem putting the Gospel of Judas in the hands of my well-educated folks, but in the ancient world bishops were simply protecting those who were illiterate, under-educated, and thus easily misled or confused.

  

  It is almost impossible for those of us who are educated or well-read to put ourselves in the shoes of those who do not share that luxury.  Most of my pastoral and theological peers (evangelical or otherwise) get very annoyed when they hear something along the lines of, “Just tell me what to do or what to believe.”  And only slightly less annoyed when they say, “Just tell me what to read.”  But we need a bit of sympathy, and we need to realize that people value the sort of leadership capable of helping us edit our inputs not out of laziness, but of the same sort of respect that leads people to listen to (say) tax experts. 

  The same is largely true today, even if many of my congregants are capable of picking up (say) the Gospel of Judas for a brief read, as I think they probably should be.

  There are a range of issues a believer or congregation needs to deal with, and almost all the laity I know really value help in determining what is useful and what is not.  (Some pastors are in this boat as well, and on a number of topics I count myself among them.) There is not enough time to read everything on a topic, nor is there time enough to read everything worthwhile.

  Moreover, the practical implications of failing to come to the theological aid of laypersons can be tragic.  Some gnostic literature discouraged fidelity in the face of persecution and made Christian distinctives like neighbor-love all the more difficult.  Allowing or encouraging the use of that literature would have flown directly in the face of what NT and some other early Christian lit taught with regard to persecution, faithfulness, and love.   

  (And since we referenced him in playful parody recently, I should add that the single best thing one could recommend for a layperson on gnosticism is, I think, N. T. Wright’s Judas and the Gospel of Jesus.  It’s not the best intro to gnosticism or even to Gospel of Judas, for instance, he’s a bit behind on Judas scholarship in light of April DeConick’s challenge to the view of Judas as a positive figure.  But NTW does a wonderful job of contrasting the general beliefs and worldviews of the orthodox and the gnostics, identifying the former as bold and radical and the latter as sadly cynical, etc.  Perhaps the best recommendation:  I know laypeople who have read, understood, loved, and recommended this book to others.)

  Categories: Ecclesial Theology | General | Jason Hood | Tom Wright

  1 Comment

• September 30, 2010 by Matthew Mason

  theology to reform the church

  Here’s a shameless plug for the journal I edit.  Ecclesia Reformanda is a journal of ecclesial theology, that seeks to get high-quality, biblically faithful theology into the hands of pastors, students, and scholars.

  You can  get a flavour what the journal is trying to accomplish from my editorial to the first edition, and a feel for what that looks like from some freely available articles and book reviews from previous issues.  Issue 2/2 is about to be published, and the contents and abstracts are now online.

  We’re always interested in receiving submissions from writers broadly within the Reformed tradition who are looking to serve the church.

  Categories: Ecclesial Theology | General

  0 Comments

• September 20, 2010 by Jason Hood

  5 Influential Texts from the Mainline Tradition

  The members of SAET are, generally speaking, evangelicals.  I’d like to start a post series on valuable texts from outside the evangelical tradition.

  Can you come up with a “top five” list of books from mainline writers?  This can be difficult inasmuch as it requires using labels, which some writers (Jimmy Dunn comes to mind) resist with all their might.

  Two of the texts that come to mind are not the normal sort of theological or religious text one might envision in this category:  Langdon Gilkey’s Shantung Compound and To End All Wars by Ernest Gordon.  These books have a good deal in common.  Both are quite readable; both tell a story than involves a fair bit of theology; both are about life in a Japanese prison camp (POW in Gordon’s case, which was much more trying; Gilkey was in a civilian case with much less death).  In both instances the theology and worldview of these authors changed drastically while in prison.  Both exemplify ecclesial theology, wrestling with doctrine while life has you in its teeth.

  Gilkey’s book, and many other fine contenders for a list like this, can be found in Christianity Today’s list of the top 100 books “having a significant effect on Christians” in the 20th century.

  Which books would you select and why?

  Categories: Ecclesial Theology | Mainline Protestantism

  1 Comment

• June 24, 2010 by Gerald Hiestand

  Ecclesial Theology and SBL

  Elsewhere I’ve argued that the social locations of the academy and the church represent two distinct (and often diverging) fields of theological discourse.  In as much as most of our theologians and scholars are situated in the academy, orthodox theology has become, in many instances, detached from the church and her concerns. While there remains some overlap between the academy and the church (particularly when one includes the seminary as a sub-set of the academic world), overall, these two social locations represent diverging theological/scholarly agendas.

  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.

  Categories: Academic Theology | Ecclesial Theologian | Ecclesial Theology | SBL

  0 Comments

• June 20, 2010 by Gerald Hiestand

  Pastor-Theologians and Academic Theologians: Toward a Healthy Division of Labor, Part 3

  Following up from part one and part two…

  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.

  Categories: Academic Theology | Ecclesial Theologian | Ecclesial Theology

  0 Comments

• June 17, 2010 by Gerald Hiestand

  Ecclesial Theology as the Foundation of Popular Theology

  Popular theology and ecclesial theology share much common ground. Both are concerned with the life of the church. Both are prophetic and call the church to action. But ecclesial theology pushes beyond the introductory nature of popular theology, and serves as its ground. Indeed, the ecclesial theologian engages in ecclesial theology as a necessary first-step in laying a solid foundation for his popular theology. In other words, a significant function of ecclesial theology is to make sure that one’s subsequent popular theology is built on a solid footing. Thus ecclesial theology may not always be “user-friendly” to the average Christian. But ecclesial theology is always concerned with the sitz im leben of the average Christian.

  Too many popular theologians are forced to build their popular theology on the foundation of academic theology. And too many serious theologians don’t bother with popular theology at all. The ecclesial theologian writes in both directions, always with a view to the Church.

  Categories: Ecclesial Theology | Popular Theology

  0 Comments

• March 27, 2010 by Gerald Hiestand

  Webster on “Technical Sophistication” and Ecclesial Theology

  Theological reflection that cannot connect with the existential questions of the congregation is not ecclesial, however robust it might be. But popular theology, in and of itself, cannot be the sum total of ecclesial theology. The theological needs of the church will often compel us to press beyond a lay level of discourse, yet such pressing need not degenerate into irrelevant abstraction. John Webster helpfully notes,

  [Theology] attempts a ‘reading’ of the gospel which in its turn assists the Church’s reading. Developing such a ‘reading’ of the gospel entails, of course, the development (or annexation) of conceptual vocabularies and forms of argument whose range and sophistication may seem distant from the more immediate, urgent idioms of Scripture. But though technical sophistication is not without its attendant perils, it is only vicious when allowed to drift free from the proper end of theology, which is the saint’s edification. When that end is kept in view and allowed to govern the work of theology, then dogmatics can be pursued as a modest work of holy reason, transparent to the gospel and doing its service in the Church as the school of Christ (Holiness, 4).

  Webster is exactly correct here. It is appropriate for a pastor to ask about the “usefulness” of any particular theological synthesis. But the pastor must be able to see beyond the need to gather fodder for his next sermon. Sound theological preaching will often require preliminary “intramural” discussions among theologians, as a way of sorting through the legitimacy of its popular level proclamation. Short-changing this theological spade work, or abdicating it solely to academy, is a mistake.

  Categories: Ecclesial Theology | John Webster | Popular Theology

  0 Comments

• March 8, 2010 by Gerald Hiestand

  Pastor-Theologians and Academic Theologians: Toward a Healthy Division of Labor

  I’ve spent the last few weeks reading Robert Jenson’s Systematic Theology. The trinitarian framework that permeates Jenson’s project is fascinating. I’ll need more time (a lot more time!) to sort through all of the implications, but his desire to liberate Christian theology from Greek notions of impassibility and move it toward a (in Jenson’s mind) more biblical notion of God’s ontology has my mind churning in all manners of soteriological directions. But that’s for another time.

  More relevant to the focus of this blog is the extent to which the work of Jenson — a systematic theologian– can be considered “ecclesial” theology according to the SAET’s understanding of ecclesial.  As regular readers of this blog will already know, the SAET is concerned to advance a theology that is more ecclesially sensitive than what is typically found in academic circles. The tendency for academic scholars to suspend their Christian presuppositions and agendas when doing their scholarship is decidedly unhelpful for the church. One sees this sort of thing most often in historical and biblical studies, where the reigning academic methodology does not allow for supernatural presuppositions. Thus historical studies and biblical studies often fail to terminate in theology; little or no effort is made to provide an ecclesially relevant synthesis that advances/protects the message of the church. As George Marsden properly notes, such stricturing is an unnecessary capitulation to secular presuppositions. Much of the SAET’s critique of academic theology has been precisely at just this point.

  But to what extent does this same critique hold true for Christian academic systematicians, who by the very nature of their academic vocation, consciously press toward theological concerns? This is an interesting question and one that I’ve been ruminating on for the past month or so. In as much as the SAET’s vision for the pastor-theologian pushes towards systematics, it’s appropriate to ask if there remains a need for the pastor-theologian when we already have gifted academic theologians like Jenson.

  Jenson is brilliant — a remarkable thinker and scholar.  He is a significant voice in the ecumenical movement, and those familiar with his overall work know that his theology pushes beyond mere academic concerns. His work is centered around the life of the church, and is distinctly and consciously Christian; it is not merely descriptive, but ecclesially prescriptive.  So the basic critique that I’ve leveled against Christian academic scholarship does not obtain with Jenson (or, I suspect, with other trinitarian theologians such as a Guton, David Hart, Pannenberg, Webster, Vanhoozer, etc., none of whom I’ve read extensively.)

  So where does this leave the pastor-theologian? What can a pastor-theologian contribute to orthodox/evangelical theology that is not already being done by academic theologians? In a previous post I had argued for a division of labor between academic scholars (representing their respective narrow guilds) and pastor-theologians. But there is, I now see,  a need for a further division of labor between academic theologians and pastor-theologians. After reading Jenson (and some of Pannenberg) with this question specifically in mind, I’m still convinced the pastor-theologian has something helpful to offer the church’s theology. In a number of subsequent posts I will lay out a preliminary apologetic for the existence of the pastor-theologian against the backdrop of ecclesially sensitive academic theologians.

  Categories: Academic Theology | Ecclesial Theology | Systematic Theology

  2 Comments

• February 21, 2010 by Gerald Hiestand

  The Pastor-Theologian as Ecclesial Theologian

  I’ve reworked my 2009 Symposium paper in light of feedback received. The paper brings together the content of my Reformation 21 article, with the content of my taxonomy series, and seeks to articulate an understanding of the pastor-theologian that includes the writing of ecclesial theology as as significant factor in the pastor-theologian’s identity.

  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

  Categories: Ecclesial Theologian | Ecclesial Theology | Pastor-theologian | Symposium

  1 Comment