The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesiological Theology

SAET Blog

Ecclesial Theology Posts

• 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

• August 21, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

  Piper and Wright as Ecclesial Theologians

  I read John Piper’s book, The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright a number of months back, and am now finally reading Tom Wright’s book length response, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision.

  There’s a lot that could be said here (and I may say some of it later), but I’ll say this much now: both Wright and Piper have produced fine examples of ecclesial theology. I don’t agree fully with either theologian’s treatment of Paul, but it’s clear that both men are writing as Christians and as pastors. The subject matter is not mere academics for either of them. Further, these books are not pitched toward a lay audience, but to fellow theologians and thinkers who share their concern for the health of the church and the advancement of the gospel.

  Piper and Wright may not have a common vision on justification, but they do share a common vision for theological reflection.

  Categories: Ecclesial Theology | John Piper | Resurrection | Tom Wright

  0 Comments

• August 14, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

  Reformation 21 Article

  The kind folks over at Reformation 21 have posted my article, “Ecclesial Theology and Academic Theology: Why We Need More of the Former.”

  The article briefly recounts the founding of the SAET, and is my latest attempt to flesh out a distinction between academic theology and ecclesial theology. If you read it and have thoughts, I’m interested to hear them.

  Categories: Academic Theology | Articles | Ecclesial Theology | Resurrection | Uncategorized

  0 Comments

• May 25, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

  Writing vs. Reading: A Few Thoughts on the Piper/Carson Lectures

  I’ve finally had a chance to listen to the Piper-Carson event hosted by the Henry Center. In as much as the title of the event—The Pastor as Scholar and the Scholar as Pastor—intersects with the mission emphasis of the SAET, I was particularly interested to hear what the good doctors had to say.

  I won’t summarize the content of the lectures beyond stating that Piper’s talk was primarily directed toward pastors, and Carson’s talk was primarily directed toward academics and graduate students with an academic calling. I enjoyed the lectures, and appreciated the sage counsel offered on a variety of issues. Piper’s introductory comments regarding his dissatisfaction with F.F. Bruce’s “non-emotive” scholarship were particularly noteworthy, as were Carson’s thoughts on how to keep one’s scholarship in service to the church. But it became clear throughout both lectures that Piper and Carson’s vision of a “pastor-scholar” is not identical to that of the SAET’s.

  In short, the difference between the SAET and Carson/Piper on this issue can be summarized as follows: Carson and Piper view a pastor-scholar as a pastor who reads theology. The SAET views a pastor-theologian as one who writes theology.

  Based on their lectures, neither Carson nor Piper views the identity of the pastoral-scholar primarily in terms of writing biblical and theological scholarship. To be sure, both men are keen on encouraging pastors to grow robustly in their understanding of the Scriptures and theology. But neither men used their lecture to encourage pastors to actually write theology. Indeed, when our own Owen Strachan referenced Edwards as a model of the ideal pastor-scholar, Piper and Carson largely discouraged pastors (even pastor-scholars!) from trying to replicate the genre of Edwards’ most penetrating theological discourse. No doubt emulating Edwards is a tall order for any theologian, pastor and professor alike. But would Carson and Piper have likewise discouraged a group of academics? Probably not.  One was left with the distinct impression that a pastor-theologian is not really a theologian—at least not in the sense one typically understands the term when used in reference to academic-theologians.

  In contrast, the SAET conceives of the “pastor-theologian” as a pastor who not only reads theology, but actively writes theology. And not just popular-level theology, but the kind of theology written by Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Edwards, etc. And not merely academic theology, but ecclesial theology. To be sure, the SAET has no grievance with the kind of theological writing and reflection done by a pastor like Piper. Indeed, this constitutes one important aspect of ecclesial theology. Yet it is only one aspect. For the good of the church, and for evangelical theology as a whole, pastor-theologians should be writing to other theologians, just as much as they are writing to non-theologians.

  As both Piper and Carson pointed out, not every pastor has the intellectual curiosity, stamina or motivation required for being a pastor-theologian. Agreed. But some do. And those that do should be encouraged to make use of the gifts God has given them. Not just for the good of their own local churches, but for the good of the church catholic.

  Too many graduate students today mistakenly believe that the academy is the only viable context for sustained, robust theological engagement. Consequently, many would-be pastor-theologians abandon an ecclesial calling largely because they can’t conceive of a vision of the pastor-theologian that actually allows one to be a theologian in the fullest, historic sense of the term. I have a great deal of respect for both Carson and Piper, but their lectures did nothing to overturn this false assumption, and perhaps, in many ways, reinforced it.

  The lectures as a whole reaffirmed my conviction that the SAET’s vision of the pastor-theologian represents a paradigm shift away from the contemporary understanding of the term. A good deal of work needs to be done in recasting a vision of the pastor-theologian that runs along more historic lines.

  Categories: Ecclesial Theology | Pastor-theologian

  2 Comments

• March 14, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

  McGrath on Pastoral Ministry and Theology

  Alister McGrath on the historic connection between theology and pastoral ministry, from his book Historical Theology:

  “It cannot be emphasized too strongly that Christianity does not occupy its present position as a global faith on account of university faculties of theology or departments of religion. There is a strongly pastoral dimension to Christianity, which is generally inadequately reflected in the academic discussion of theology. . .  This academic bias is, however, a recent development. Puritanism is an excellent instance of a movement which placed theological integrity alongside pastoral applicability, believing that each was incomplete without the other. The writings of individuals such as Richard Baxter and Jonathan Edwards are saturated with the belief that theology finds its true expression in pastoral care and the nurture of souls. ”

  Indeed.

  Categories: Ecclesial Theology

  0 Comments

• January 16, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

  Theology for the Church

  Eclessial theology needs to get over any inferiority complex it might have in the face of secular/academic theology.  Frankly, ecclesial theology has the potential to be more robust and theologically richer precisely because it’s not hemmed in by academic concerns and constraints. Edwards is a fine example of someone who wrote theology with the church in mind. He wasn’t trying to impress a bunch of secular academicians. If Edwards tried publishing his Freedom of the Will today as a doctoral dissertation, no university (or divinity school for that matter) would publish it as is. It lacks secondary sources, doesn’t demonstrate enough historical sensitivity, plus it ignores all the contemporary discussions on this topic. And that’s the point.

  The goal of the SAET is not to get a bunch of pastors together so we can write academic books that are accepted by the wider/secular academic community—or even necessarily the evangelical academic community (though I hope we would have more success there, in as much as the divinity schools are training future pastors).

  The Church is God’s vehicle for changing the world. Our reflection and writing needs to be written in service to the church, to the believing community. But our reflection also needs to be deep, robust, biblical, historically informed, culturally aware, thoughtful, and prophetic. Frankly, the sort of theology the SAET has in mind will likely not find much favor in the wider/secular academy, given its current rules of engagement. But that’s fine—our goal isn’t to win the favor of a secular academy; our goal is to renew the church.

  Categories: Ecclesial Theology

  3 Comments

• January 13, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

  Review of My WTJ Article

  Eric Redmond has a nice review of my recent Westminster Theological Journal article. In the article, I argue that the eighteenth-century transition in North America from pastor-scholar to professor-scholar has resulted in the loss of a distinctly ecclesial voice in North American evangelical theology. There is, I contend, a need to return theological reflection and articulation back to the domain of the local church. Not every scholar needs to be a pastor, nor does every pastor need to be a scholar. But many are gifted and called to both pursuits, and we do the church a disservice when we separate the two.

  Those of you interested in combining theology and pastoral ministry may find the article interesting.

  Categories: Ecclesial Theology

  0 Comments

• December 21, 2008 by Gerald Hiestand

  More Thoughts on Ecclesial Theology

  The “Christian Living” genre should be included within the scope of ecclesial theology. In the past, I’ve been too dismissive at this point. There is a need for thoughtful, intelligent, theologically robust books on the Christian Life. Having said all of this however, I am not content for ecclesial theology to be limited to the Christian living genre.

  There is very much a need for pastors to reengage as serious theologians and scholars. But “Pastors writing academic theology” is not the goal of the SAET. Rather, what we need is a return to the kind of thoughtful, theological reflection that Edwards, Calvin, Luther, the Puritans, etc., did. Ecclesial theology will be of a different flavor and tone than academic theology, while remaining intellectually rigorous and theologically intelligent. For instance, my conception of a commentary written by a pastor-theologian is quite a bit different than what is typically produced today by your standard academic press. But it’s not different because it’s “lighter” or “easier to read” or “pitched to a less intelligent audience.” It’s different in that it doesn’t feel a need to chase down all the rabbit trails of the secondary literature, 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 because it prophetically calls for the Church to take action.

  Luther’s Galatians commentary comes to mind here. Luther didn’t change the world because he was a successful academician. He changed the world because he wrote as a robust, theologically informed, intelligent, prophetic Christian. The SAET is trying to counter the sentiment that says, “Deep, penetrating commentaries and books on the atonement—that stuff is for the academy. Pastors should stick to writing 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. Pastors need to be writing commentaries (among other things) that are richly theologically, deeply biblical, historically informed, culturally aware, prophetic, and intelligent—not so they will be accepted by the academy, but so that they will renew the church. We may not be as gifted as a Luther or an Edwards, but we should be writing with that same spirit, in that same genre, and speaking to those same issues. It’s a pity that pastors have shirked their responsibility as the guardians and articulators of the deep things of the Lord. We must stop farming out our doctrinal/theological responsibility to the academy.

  Categories: Ecclesial Theology

  3 Comments