The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesiological Theology

SAET Blog

Ecclesial Theology Posts

• February 12, 2010 by Gerald Hiestand

  Two Birds With One “Pastor-as-Ecclesial-Theologian” Stone

  Nothing particularly new here. Todd and I had lunch with a number of area pastors who wanted to hear more about the SAET. We both came away feeling like maybe we could have been more precise in explaining the SAET vision and mission. So I’ve been trying to think in fresh ways about how best to frame the whole discussion. What problems are we trying to address? How does the SAET’s vision of an ecclesial theologian help address these problems? Writing helps me clarify my thoughts, so here you go. Your input is welcomed.

  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?

  Categories: Academic Theology | Ecclesial Theologian | Ecclesial Theology | Evangelicalism | Pastor-theologian | The SAET

  0 Comments

• January 13, 2010 by Gerald Hiestand

  Carl Trueman on “The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind”

  Carl Trueman has a piece over at 9Marks that resonates with much of what the SAET stands for regarding ecclesial theology. Trueman’s basic point is that there is tendency among (some) evangelical academics to pander to the fancies of the secular establishment, and that such pandering is harmful to the church and her theology. I used to push this message more ardently in the early days of the SAET, but have since concluded that stones can be thrown with more precision and care when thrown from the inside. Trueman, an academic himself (WTS), knows of what he speaks, and has earned the right to offer this insider’s critique.

  …There would seem to be a pervasive evangelical inferiority complex. This means that, while we do not wish to exclude anybody, we dread being excluded ourselves. Indeed, for the evangelical academic, in a world so ill-defined, it is always tempting to cut just a few more corners, or keep shtum [is shtum British slang?] on just a couple of rather embarrassing doctrinal commitments, in order to have just that little bit more influence, that slightly bigger platform, in the outside world. This is particularly the temptation of evangelical biblical scholars and systematicians whose wider guilds are so utterly unsympathetic to the kind of supernaturalism and old-fashioned truth claims upon which their church constituencies are largely built. In so doing, we kid ourselves that we are doing the Lord’s work, that, somehow, because we have articles published in this journal or by that press, we are really making real headway into the unbelieving culture of the theological academy. Not that these things are not good and worthy—I do such things myself—but we must be careful that we do not confuse professional academic achievement with building up the saints or scoring a point for the kingdom.

  It remains true (as James Barr pointed out years ago) that evangelical academics are generally respected in the academy only at precisely those points where they are least evangelical. There is a difference between academic or scholarly respectability and intellectual integrity. For a Christian, the latter depends upon the approval of God and is rooted in fidelity to his revealed Word; it does not always mean the same thing as playing by the rules of scholarly guild.

  He concludes,

  Years ago, Mark Noll wrote a book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, in which he argued that the scandal was that there was no such thing. When it comes to evangelical scholars and scholarship, I disagree: the scandal is not that there is no mind; it is that these days there is precious little evangel.

  On a related note, have you read George Marsden’s, The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Unbelief, or his shorter follow-up, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship? I’m not quite done with either, but I can already confidently recommend them to anyone interested in understanding how the academic scene in North America got to where it is today.

  Categories: Academic Theology | Carl Trueman | Ecclesial Theology | George Marsden

  0 Comments

• December 22, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

  Who Needs the Pastor-Theologian?

  The pastor-theologian programs of organizations such as the Center for Theological Inquiry, and the Presbyterian Church USA (both programs are discontinued) follow a nearly identical organizational model as the SAET—we each host symposiums, bring together a diverse body of pastor-theologians and academic theologians, present papers, and pursue publishing, etc. Yet for the CTI and the PCA, such activities are meant to further the pastor’s effectiveness as a local-theologian, not primarily to season the body of orthodox theological reflection.

  The SAET however, is primarily concerned to further the pastor’s ability to serve as an ecclesial theologian to the broader theological community. We encourage writing not primarily because the pastor is lacking (or even his local church), but because orthodox theology is lacking. Orthodox theology itself is most fundamentally in need of the pastor-theologian.

  Categories: Ecclesial Theology | Pastor-theologian | The SAET

  2 Comments

• December 18, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

  Thielicke on the (Ecclesial) Theologian

  “Insofar as we are determined to be true theologians, we think within the community of God’s people, and for that community, and in the name of that community; – how shall I say? – we think as a part of the community itself.”

  and again,

  “I should like to add to all this that the church has the prior right to question us, even if it does not and cannot understand the details of our work; for we are pursing our theological study in its very midst as sure as we are members of that church. Therefore these questions, even if they lack in detail some of the definite theological concerns that we entertain, may be highly relevant and constitute a fire through which we must always march.”

  A Little Exercise for Young Theologians, pp. 4-5 and 25-26.

  Categories: Book Review | Ecclesial Theology

  0 Comments

• November 30, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

  Taxonomy of the Pastor-Theologian, Part 5: The Pastor-Theologian as Ecclesial Theologian

  Having discussed the reigning models of the pastor-theologian (local, popular, academic), the SAET’s vision for the pastor-theologian begins to emerge—the pastor-theologian as ecclesial theologian.

  The pastor-as-ecclesial-theologian marks a new path. The ecclesial theologian is as church centered as the local and popular theologian models, and is as intellectually rigorous as the academic theologian model. The ecclesial theologian is a pastor who writes robust, biblical, ecclesially centered, theological reflection to other theologians. It includes, but pushes beyond, the local theologian and popular theologian models, prosecuting a theological agenda consistent with ecclesial theology.

  Luther’s Galatians commentary comes to mind here. Luther’s work is quite a bit different than your average modern academic commentary. It’s different in that it doesn’t feel such a need to plumb the nearly endless depths of secondary literature (there wasn’t as much), because it’s not afraid to be explicitly theological and confessional, because it interacts with the great thinkers of the past who have helped shape orthodox thought, and—most significantly—because it prophetically calls the church to take action. But it’s not different because it’s “lighter” or “easier to read” or “pitched to a less informed audience.” Luther did not change the world because he was a successful academician (though he was). Nor did he change the world by writing merely popular tracts (though he did). He changed the world because he wrote as a robust, theologically informed, intelligent, prophetic ecclesial theologian.

  The ecclesial theologian counters the sentiment that says, “Deep, penetrating commentaries and books on the atonement—that stuff is for the academy. Pastors should stick to writing pop theology and Christian living stuff.” God forbid! Expounding God’s Word and reflecting on the nature of the atonement, etc., needs to be brought back into the domain of the church. The ecclesial theologian represents a return to the days when pastors wrote theology that was richly theological, deeply biblical, historically informed, culturally aware, prophetic, and intelligent.

  Not every pastor is called to be an ecclesial theologian. But many pastors today—particularly among the younger generation—feel pulled between the life of the mind and the life of the church. They love study, writing, reflection, and theology. But at the same time they have a deep heart and calling for pastoral ministry in the local church. Our current context compels such people to choose between these two callings. Yet this need not be—history has proven otherwise! Evangelical theology is crying out for individuals who are willing to unite the life of the mind (and pen) and the mission of the church.

  More work remains to be done. Perhaps the next great challenge will be overcoming the institutional hurdles of local church ministry. The local church, in its present form, is rarely an incubator for birthing ecclesial theologians. But such change will take time. For now, those of us committed to charting the uncharted territory of ecclesial theology must content ourselves with working in a system—as best we can—that does not always lend itself to the project we are pursuing. Our pioneering generation may not reap the full benefit of our efforts. But I’m convinced that our work now is laying the ground work for a return of the ecclesial theologian, for the renewal of the church.

  Categories: Ecclesial Theology | Pastor-theologian

  1 Comment

• November 27, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

  Taxonomy of the Pastor-Theologian, Part 3: The Pastor-Theologian as Popular Theologian

  Moving beyond the local theologian model, we arrive at a more objective definition of the pastor-theologian—the pastor-theologian as popular theologian. In this model, the pastor-theologian is a pastor who actually writes theology—an objective function not typical of most pastors. Bridging the gap between the professional theological community and the local church, the popular theologian translates academic theology “down” to other pastors and the laity. Many pastor-theologians of this variety have post-graduate degrees, read widely in theology, and serve as significant (and necessary) voices in contemporary evangelicalism.

  The writing ministries of pastors such as John MacArthur, John Piper, Kent Hughes, Kevin DeYoung and Mark Driscol come to mind here. (Naming names at this point runs the risk of landing on the wrong side of a given pastor’s self-understanding, but for the sake of clarity, I press on.) Writing of this sort is not primarily an attempt to enter into the high-level theological discussions taking place among professional theologians (with perhaps the exception of Piper’s recent work of justification). Rather it is an effort to help pastors and other non-theologians better understand the importance of relevant issues in theology.

  Thus, in the popular theologian model, the job of the pastor-theologian is to unpack the complexities of Nicene Trinitarianism, Chalcedonian Christology, aberrant atonement theories, and the like, in ways that are accessible to the average pastor and person in the pew. Commentaries written in this genre tend to be devotional and focused on application. Theological works tend to be introductory.

  To be sure, popular-level theology is necessary for the health and life of the church. I do not use the term “popular” in a pejorative sense. As a pastor, I engage in such writing myself. And indeed, many evangelical academic theologians (Packer, Carson, McGrath, Sweeney, etc.) regularly function as popular theologians. But here we must ask if such theological writing appropriately qualifies a pastor as a theologian in the fullest sense of the term. Theologians such as Carson and Packer are not considered theologians on the basis of their popular theology. They are considered theologians because they contribute regularly to the scholarly discussions of their respective theological guilds. The difference is not inconsequential.

  In as much as we have allowed the pastor-theologian to be solely identified with popular-level theology, we have compromised the intellectual integrity of his theological project. Just as a DMin lacks the theological credibility of a PhD, so too a pastor-theologian has come to lack the theological credibility of an academic theologian. This lack of theological credibility, I believe, is fueled by our willingness to use the term pastor-theologian in this truncated sense.

  But this credibility gap is not reflective of the historical precedence. Pastor-theologians such as Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and Wesley did not limit themselves to popular theology (though they did write popular theology). Their theological systems represented the cutting edge thought of their day. Ultimately (and here’s my main concern), when we identify the pastor-theologian with popular theology, we diminish the theological credibility of ecclesial theology. If we embrace the popular theologian model as the chief identity of the pastor-theologian, ecclesial theology will never rise above popular-level discourse. Popular theology is great, but we already have plenty of it. What we’re missing is robust ecclesial theology.

  Categories: Ecclesial Theology | Pastor-theologian

  1 Comment

• November 22, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

  Taxonomy of the Pastor-Theologian: Part 1

  I’ve been reading The Power to Comprehend with All the Saints: The Formation and Practice of the Pastor-Theologian. The book is a collection of essays written by the group of pastors who were part of the (now disbanded) Pastor-Theologian Program of the Center For Theological Inquiry. The CTI’s Pastor-Theologian program was, in many respects, a mainline version of the SAET.  The book has a number of robust essays that, as the sub-title suggests, explores the formation and practice of the pastor-theologian. I’m not finished yet, but given the subject matter of the book one glaring deficit stands out—a deficit not unique to this book. As I’ve spent the last number of years reflecting on the SAET’s vision for the pastor-theologian, it has become apparent to me that we throw the term around without really clarifying precisely what we mean. What, after all, is a pastor-theologian? What makes one pastor a pastor-theologian and another pastor just a pastor? Is a pastor-theologian just a really smart pastor?

  It is apparent (at least to me) that our ecclesial and theological communities have assumed a definition of the term pastor-theologian without having adequately thought through that definition. That the term is used frequently is obvious. That we understand what we mean by it is not. Bringing definition to the current understanding of the term, therefore, is a necessary first step in identifying the SAET’s vision of the pastor-theologian. In my analysis, the term pastor-theologian is used in a broad sense to denote three basic models: the pastor-theologian as local theologian, the pastor-theologian as popular theologian, and the pastor-theologian as academic theologian. While the SAET affirms—in varying degrees—the legitimacy of each of these models (most especially the first two), the SAET reserves the term pastor-theologian for a fourth model—a model that has all but gone extinct in recent times: the pastor-theologian as ecclesial theologian.

  In the next few posts I will be posting excerpts from my ’09 SAET Symposium paper The Pastor-Theologian as Ecclesial Theologian, which seeks to provide a working taxonomy of the pastor-theologian, and argues for theological writing as a vital component of the pastor-theologian’s identity.

  As we will see, the local theologian model is insufficient in as much as it does not include writing theology as a vital component of the pastor-theologian’s identity (this seems to be the assumed model in play for The Power to Comprehend). The last two models, while they advocate writing theology as a necessary component of the pastor-theologian’s identity, are insufficient in that they advocate the wrong sort of theology.

  Stay tuned…

  Categories: Academic Theology | Ecclesial Theology | Pastor-theologian

  4 Comments

• November 9, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

  Doug Sweeny On the Professor as Researcher and the Pastor as Theologian

  At the close of the ’09 SAET Symposium, our Senior Theological Consultant, Doug Sweeney, offered the following proposal regarding the future relationship between academic scholars and pastor-theologians:

  “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.”

  In sum, professors in the academy should continue to focus on primary-level research, but theological reflection and synthesis should be moved back into the churches. Doug’s way of parsing this out was extremely helpful in reminding me of the need for church and academy to lock arms. Given the rise of the modern research university, as well as the development of the specialized theological guilds, it is no longer realistic to expect one person to be both a cutting edge research scholar and a robust systematic theologian. The fields have simply become too specialized and the secondary literature too vast.

  Given our current context, the professor is best positioned to engage in primary-level research. Pastors—in the main—simply cannot afford the time away from their parishes to do the sort of work the modern research professor does (visiting research libraries, study centers, etc.). And if the professor is uniquely positioned to engage in primary research, the pastor is just as uniquely positioned to engage in theological analysis. Who better to write ecclesially sensitive theology than pastor-theologians?

  Doug’s willingness to refer to himself and other academics as “handmaids” is remarkably charitable, and no doubt a word for those in the academy. But for my part, I had lost sight of the fact that pastor-theologians were in need of such handmaids. But we no longer live in a pre-critical context, and thus the pastor-theologian can no longer go it alone. The days of Calvin, Luther and Edwards are gone; the modern research university is here to stay. Pastor-theologians need believing research professors who ably hand them the raw data necessary for theological reflection. And believing professors need pastors who can ably synthesize the data they mine, for the good of the church.

  The current division of labor between the academy and the church is, ”Professors will do the thinking, pastors will do the praxis.” But if we follow Doug’s advice, it should become, “Professors will do the research, pastors will do the theology.” Of course, it’s not a zero-sum game. No doubt pastor-theologians can (and will) do primary-level research. And certainly professors will continue to make helpful theological contributions. But in the main, Doug’s suggestion makes the best use of our respective social locations.

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

  1 Comment

• October 18, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

  Vanhoozer’s Ten Theses and the Pastor-Theologian as Evangelicalism’s Default Public Intellectual

  Michael Bird posted these ten theses from Kevin Vanhoozer’s paper entitled “Interpreting Scripture between the Rock of Biblical Studies and the Hard Place of Systematic Theology: The State of the Evangelical (Dis)union,” delivered at Gordon-Conwell for the Renewing the Evangelical Mission conference. These have been floating around the blogosphere, but they’re worth posting again here, particularly the closing observation he makes regarding pastor-theologians.

  1. The nature and function of the Bible are insufficiently grasped unless and until we see the Bible as an element in the economy of triune discourse.

  2. An appreciation of the theological nature of the Bible entails a rejection of a methodological atheism that treats the texts as having a “natural history” only.

  3. The message of the Bible is “finally” about the loving power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16), the definitive or final gospel Word of God that comes to brightest light in the word’s final form.

  4. Because God acts in space-time (of Israel, Jesus Christ, and the church), theological interpretation requires thick descriptions that plumb the height and depth of history, not only its length.

  5. Theological interpreters view the historical events recounted in Scripture as ingredients in a unified story ordered by an economy of triune providence.

  6. The Old Testament testifies to the same drama of redemption as the New, hence the church rightly reads both Testaments together, two parts of a single authoritative script.

  7. The Spirit who speaks with magisterial authority in the Scripture speaks with ministerial authority in church tradition.

  8. In an era marked by the conflict of interpretations, there is good reason provisionally to acknowledge the superiority of catholic interpretation.

  9. The end of biblical interpretation is not simply communication – the sharing of information – but communion, a sharing in the light, life, and love of God.

  10. The church is that community where good habits of theological interpretation are best formed and where the fruit of these habits are best exhibited.

  Vanhoozer goes on to write, “Seminary faculties need the courage to be evangelically Protestant for the sake of forming theological interpreters of Scripture able to preach and minister the word. The preacher is a “man on a wire,” whose sermons must walk the tightrope between Scripture and the contemporary situation. I believe that we should preparing our best students for this gospel ministry. The pastor-theologian, I submit, should be evangelicalism’s default public intellectual, with preaching the preferred public mode of theological interpretation of Scripture.”

  Categories: Ecclesial Theology | Kevin Vanhoozer | Pastor-theologian | Systematic Theology

  1 Comment

• October 4, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

  Who Cares What Calvin Thought? (The Church, That’s Who)

  Despite their comments earlier in the book, Bradley and Muller acknowledge the difficulty of achieving total objectivity in historical studies, and indeed, affirm the importance of having a sense of involvement in and with the events of history. “Objectivity in historical studies does not, and cannot, exist if it is defined as an absence of involvement with or opinion about the materials.”

  This is more reasonable, even  if out of step with their earlier comments. But what the right hand gives, the left hand takes away. Bradley and Muller go on to state that a historian should not render judgment on the matter studied. “As a historian, one makes no judgment about the rightness or wrongness of the person’s teaching on an absolute scale. . . the student should not ask whether or not Arminius is ultimately doctrinal right or wrong.” And again, “One’s own writing should not register one’s own theological opinion, pro or con.”

  Here I must voice strong disagreement. The entire point of historical studies as done by Christian theologians and historians is precisely to render theological judgment in service to the Church. The conscious divorce between systematic theology and historical studies is the curse of academic theology. To be sure, historians—christian or non—must be careful to do the hard work of finding out what was really going on in the original context; we can’t appropriate what we haven’t accurately understood. But to suggest that Christian historians shouldn’t appropriate the theological reflection of our tradition is significantly unhelpful.

  I am reminded here of a recent exchange in JETS between two Calvin scholars on the role of “union with Christ” in Calvin’s soteriology. Thomas Wenger argues for a more traditional, forensic reading of Calvin and accuses Marcus Johnson of allowing his theological agenda to carry undue weight. Wegner writes, “It seems that Johnson has a vested interest to ground his existing theological views in Calvin, and in then grounding Calvin in Paul. . . My arguments have been decidedly historical, and in the original article I do not make a single theological claim.”

  Pause here. What was the point of Wegner’s article then? With all due respect to Dr. Wegner (who is a pastor, ironically),  I don’t really care what Calvin thought about anything unless it can be demonstrated that Calvin’s thought has relevance to the Church as she exists today. Wegner’s article is excellent. Indeed I think his read on Calvin is more accurate than Johnson’s  (and I even agree theologically with Johnson!). But the superiority of Wegner’s article is not because he refuses to render theological judgment. If anything, this is a significant weakness of the article. Who is he writing this for, anyway? Apparently not the church, whose very life-blood runs red with theological judgments.

  Johnson has not misread Calvin because Johnson has a vested interest in the subject matter. No doubt Wegner has a vested interest as well. No. Johnson has misread Calvin because he misread Calvin.

  Bradley and Muller are correct. “It is…exceedingly unlikely that badly done history can be the basis of well-done theology.” Agreed. But  “well-done theology” is the ultimate telos of good history. Historical analysis that doesn’t terminate in theological assertions and a prophetic call to mission is like a “house” with no framing and only a foundation. Good as far as it goes, but useless in and of itself.

  Categories: Academic Theology | Book Review | Church History | Ecclesial Theology

  0 Comments