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?

The book’s oddest feature is how it both suggests that evangelicalism is “a fantasy,” but also credits it with an eroding American ecclesial culture and depriving millions of lasting spiritual nourishment. (A rather concrete fantasy.) No doubt chasing after evangelicalism is like chasing after the wind, but there are times, it seems not unreasonable to suggest, when that fleeting wind is the Holy Spirit. If evidence of intellectual output and coherent tradition is paramount, are we to suppose that the explosion of Global South Pentecostalism isn’t actually happening?

and again,

Hart’s attempts to sever the connection between neo-evangelicalism and the American Awakenings will be very appealing to ex-evangelicals, but the move is less than convincing. Hart claims that “historians have shown” this connection to be false, for the Revival “tradition ran out of gas in the mid to late nineteenth century.” With that assertion, a wimpy footnote points to only one such historian (Conforti). The majority report, which in addition to Noll and Marsden would now include Thomas Kidd, have also shown the long view of North American evangelicalism. Hart himself, in an unguarded moment in an interview, claims the experience based evangelical worship of today can indeed be traced to American revivalism (which he dislikes.) Hart, therefore, can connect the unpleasant part of the Great Awakening to contemporary evangelicalism, but reserves the best parts – the intellectual ones – for his own Reformed tradition.

Read the whole thing here.