This video made the rounds awhile back, but if you haven’t watched it yet, it’s worth watching. I think Piper is mostly correct here. Pastors don’t need to be doing academic theology; someone needs to, but not pastors. But more pastors do need to do PhD’s, with a view to ecclesial theology. I’m not sure Piper fully appreciates the distinction between academic theology and ecclesial theology.

Frankly, I’m not convinced most pastors need to bother with a PhD unless they plan to engage in some sort of theological writing ministry. An MDiv or a ThM is generally sufficient for what most pastors will face in the context of parish ministry.

HT: Dane Ortlund

Nearly all of my study up to this point has been in historical soteriology (Augustine, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, Anselm, Calvin, Luther, Edwards, etc.)  and New Testament studies devoted to Paul and justification (Wright, Westerholm, Seifrid, Bird, Moo, Dunn, etc.).  I’m a new-comer to contemporary systematic theology, so the analysis provided below must be seen as preliminary. What follows is my “initial sense of things” after reading portions of Jenson, Webster, and Pannenberg, contrasted with the sort of theological reflection written by Calvin, Luther, Augustine, etc. My comments here are not intended so much as a critique, but mere observations. As I will note in a coming post, academic theologians are able to do things that pastor-theologians cannot.

1. Academic Theology lacks a sense of the preacher’s burden. Academic theologians do not typically have to preach to the laity. This reality is evident in the way their work is constructed. The reader senses that academic theology, even explicitly Christian academic theology, is a couple of steps removed from the situation on the ground. Theology, at it’s core, must be pressing toward the pulpit. This does not mean that a theologian’s work should be hung low enough for the shortest goat. But it does mean that whatever I come up with must be — in its most distilled form — preachable. Academic theology lacks this at many points. Don’t misunderstand my point. I’m not saying that a theologian’s project must be preachable without translation — that every interested lay person should be able to pick it up and understand it. Augustin’e De Trinita, or Edwards’ Freedom of the Will, for example, are not easily accessible. But there is a sense in both Augustine and Edwards that they are writing as pastors who have to weekly (if not daily) draw a connection between their most profound thoughts and the lives of  average people. Academic theologians do not — as a matter of vocation — have to do this, and it gives them a certain luxury to split atoms that perhaps need not be split.

2. There is tendency in academic theology to speak of the believing community in the third person. John Webster, in his little book on holiness, is clearly driving toward an explicitly Christian application. Yet the readers notes a certain distance between Webster and the ecclesial community. His customary way of referring to the believing community is in the third person. He speaks of “the christian,” “the believer,” and “the church.” Yet throughout the book he often quotes Calvin, who in contrast speaks of the believing community in the first person — “I” and “we” and “us.” It’s not that Webster never self-identifies with the believing community. But the freedom to do so in academic prose is certainly less than what one finds in Calvin or Luther or Edwards or Augustine. I can’t help but feel that this rubs the ecclesial edge off of Webster’s work.

3. Academic theology is less self-consciously an expression of personal piety. Worship is a personal thing, and each person expresses it uniquely. Far be it from me to make a statement about the personal piety of academic theologians. Yet I think it a safe observation to note that contemporary scholarship (whether theology or biblical studies), is less self-consciously pietistic than what is found in theological treatises of old. One thinks here of Anselm’s Proslogion. In the opening paragraphs Anselm writes,

Lord, you are my God and my Lord, and never have I seen you. You have created me and re-created me and You have given me all the good things I possess, and still I do not know You. In fine, I was made in order to see You, and I have not yet accomplished what I was made for….I set out hungry to look for You; I beseech You, Lord, do not let me depart from you fasting.

The entire treatise is, in fact, a prayer. My point here is not that all theological treatise should be written as extended prayers. But there is certainly something to be said for a genre of writing that makes explicit the author’s personal hunger and love for God.

I like Webster and Jenson, and am finding their work helpful in many respects. And, as mentioned above, I think they are doing some important things that most pastor-theologians –given our eccleisal vocation –  find difficult to pull off. More on that in the next post.

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?

As the sun of the apostolic age set, pastors were appointed to carry on the ministerial and theological leadership of the church. In Peter’s first epistle we see him passing the baton of church leadership to his “fellow elders,” exhorting them to shepherd the flock in a way consistent with the model Christ had showed him (1 Peter 5:1-4). And John, late in life, addresses his third epistle to Gaius, whom he charges with exercising ministerial/theological care over the members of his local community. Luke records this transition as well, painting for us a dramatic portrait of Paul as he hands off his pastoral leadership fully and finally to the elders at Ephesus who are now tasked with guarding the apostolic message (Acts 20:29-31).

Most significant for our purposes, this passing of church leadership was decidedly theological. Paul’s pastoral letters provide a unique window into the transmission of theological leadership from the apostles to the emerging pastoral community. Timothy is to take what he has heard from Paul in the presence of many witnesses and “entrust it to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2). He is to give himself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and to teaching—all excplicitly theological activities. Titus likewise is tasked with rebuking false teachers and promoting “what is in accord with sound doctrine” (Titus 1:10-11, 2:1). And perhaps most significantly, the pastoral epistles show that even the appointment of elders has been passed on as well. Titus and Timothy are given a list of elder qualifications in anticipation of future elder appointments, and Titus is told to “appoint elders in every town”—a duty that Paul and the other apostles performed at the height of their apostolic ministry (Acts 14:23).

That the second generation of church leaders—the pastors—were called upon to provide theological leadership to their local congregations is evident. But what is often overlooked is the fact that the emerging pastoral community also assumed the role of the wider-theologian in lieu of the fading apostolic community. James the elder—a significant church leader, but not one of the twelve—wrote his epistle “to the twelve tribes” of the diaspora. Likewise, his dominant influence at the council of Jerusalem (as well as the ruling presence of “the elders”) demonstrates that the transition of wider theological leadership from the apostles to the pastors is already well underway by 70 A.D. Along similar lines, the epistle of Hebrews and the Gospel of Mark are further examples of non-apostolic pastors functioning as wider theologians to the whole church.

The pastors—the elders of the church—have been collectively charged with guarding the trust of the apostolic message. They “represent the unity, continuity, and integrity of the community of faith.” It is theirs to articulate that message against the backdrop of an unbelieving culture, and to construct for the church a distinctly Christian worldview—to refute error, to promote orthodoxy. This guardianship has been handed to the clergy via the apostles, via our Lord himself. When faced with wider theological crises, the pastoral community is the group that—collectively—must respond. This does not mean that every pastor of every local church must individually articulate a response to every issue, but it does mean that the Scriptural weight of responsibility for providing an articulate, timely, orthodox response to the shifting theological needs of the moment lies with the pastoral community as a whole.

Yet this is not where we find ourselves today. Indeed, the occupation of theologian and the occupation of pastor are no longer harmonized. And even our present attempts at combining the two fail to realize the biblical ideal. Present day paradigms of the pastor-theologian reduce the pastor to a local theologian to his own congregation. However valuable this “local theologian” model may be (and it is valuable), it is not a fair reflection of the comprehensive Scriptural mandate, nor the historical precedent. The pastoral community has—in the main—ceased to function as the primary theological voice of the church. The heavy lifting has been delegated to the academy—to professional theologians, most of whom lack an official ecclesial charge to serve as overseers of the Christian community, and most of whom are immersed in a social location (the academy) that often fails to fully grasp ecclesial concerns.

Of course one might suggest that the foregoing methodology is decidedly anachronistic. After all, the Scriptural charge to pastors to serve as wider theologians is to be expected—there was no one else to do it. It’s unfair, one might suggest, to make the Bible arbitrate between pastors and professors when pastors where the only viable candidates in the in the first-century context. Perhaps. But I’m certain the burden of proof lies on the side of those who would deny the theological primacy of the clergy in maintaining and articulating the church’s message. A plausible and convincing reason must be put forth demonstrating how the cultural moment has so changed that clergy need no longer take responsibility to function as wider theologians. I doubt that one can be found. That the Scriptures lay this charge upon the pastoral community is undeniable. That the pastoral community has—on the whole—farmed this responsibility out to the academy is, it would seem, an egregious case of pastoral neglect.

The following excerpt from the essay details the function of the apostles as wider theologians, with a view to demonstrating (in the next excerpt) how this function was passed to the pastoral community. From the essay…

I. Biblical Evidence that Pastors Should Serve as Wider Theologians

That the apostles—and subsequently the pastoral community—functioned as the wider theologians of the early church is sufficiently evident that it hardly needs demonstrating. But it’s not enough to simply observe the theological primacy of the apostles and pastors as a point of church history. We must press beyond mere description toward prescription. Does the New Testament speak to the issue of who bears final responsibility for guarding the theological integrity of the church catholic? Upon whose shoulders must the mantle of the wider theologian rest? As we will see below, the apostles explicitly transmitted their theological self-understanding to the emerging pastoral community, charging the pastoral community with the task of the wider theologian; Scripture does not leave open the question of who must serve as the theological guardians of the church. Inasmuch as this fact is often overlook, and even more often under-applied, it bears touching upon briefly.

A. The Apostles as Wider Theologians

Given the unfolding of Luke’s history in Acts, as well as the New Testament documents themselves, it’s clear that—on the whole—the apostles saw themselves as the guardians and announcers of the New Covenant message regarding Jesus Christ. Likewise, it is evident that they exercised this responsibility as theologians—as men who thought carefully about how to relate the Jewish Scriptures with the Christ-event and their own personal experience, and to bring all of this to bear on the reigning cultural/religious assumptions of the day—both inside and outside of the covenant community. Matthew’s gospel records Jesus’ distinctly theological charge to the twelve; it was theirs to bind and to loose, to teach and to baptize, to ready the Lord’s people for his return (Matthew 16:13-19, 28:18-20). And so they did, with theological acumen.

1. Apostolic Sermons

Peter’s speech at Pentecost, for instance—directed inward, toward the covenant community—shows his firm grasp of salvation history, and his ability to relate the present occasion (the outpouring of the Spirit) with the overall purpose of God to redeem his people through Messiah. His speech is inherently theological and synthesizing, demonstrating the continuity between the new message of the apostles and the ancient message of the Jewish prophets. With his sermon, Peter seeks to shape a new worldview for the covenant community in light of the Christ-event; a new age has dawned, the ancient message must be must be proclaimed with a new voice.

Along similar lines, Paul’s speech at the Areopagus equally demonstrates the apostolic commitment to theological articulation. Unlike Peter’s speech in Acts 2, Paul’s sermon is directed outward toward the pagan culture. He shows a keen ability to bring his own Jewish religious tradition (with its post-Messianic twist) into contact (and conflict) with the starting philosophical/theological assumptions of Athens. In both cases, the speeches of Peter and Paul demonstrate the ability of the apostles to function as theologians—not simply practitioners.

2. The Apostolic Councils

More broadly, the first ecumenical counsel in 70 AD highlights the willingness of the apostles to serve as the final arbitrators on theological matters. The issue of circumcision—like many issues that have arisen in the last two millennia—was not directly addressed by Christ. How then should the church think about the conversion of Gentiles and their subsequent integration into the church? What was the relevance of the Jewish Law to the Gentile community? Or even of the Law to the Jewish community itself now that Messiah had come? It is clear that the apostles (and the elders) felt the collective weight of responsibility to provide decisive leadership on the matter—a matter that was profoundly theological. Further, the apostles’ decision on this matter became the rule by which the larger church governed itself. That the wider church looked to the apostles for theological leadership on this matter is seen in their submissive response to news of the council’s decision.

3. The Apostolic Writings

But even more relevant for our present purposes is the fact that the apostles wrote for the broader ecclesia. That the apostle’s collective sense of responsibility extended beyond their own local provinces is seen clearly in the writings of Matthew, John, Paul and Peter—all of whom wrote theological works specifically intended to reach a readership beyond their own personal connections. Writing, more so than sermons, reveals a commitment to function as a wider theologian. Sermons—regardless of how theological—are generally intended for a local assembly. But treatises and epistles are meant for the whole church.

In sum, the apostles took upon themselves the collective responsibility of the wider theologian—to maintain and prosecute the gospel entrusted to them by Christ.

In the next post, I will explore the transition of theological leadership from the apostles to the pastoral community.

If you’ve followed the SAET for any length of time, you’ll know that we advocate for a pastor-theologian model that places a high importance on writing. And the reason we do so is because we believe orthodox theology lost an important ecclesial dimension when it moved all of its wider theologians to the academy. Thus our vision for the pastor-theologian is to pull together a group of pastors who desire to return a distinctly ecclesial voice to orthodox theological reflection. Toward this end, much of my apologetic for the SAET mission has been based on social location and historical precedent.

But lately I’ve been giving a good deal of thought to the Scriptural warrant for such a position. Does the Bible mandate who is responsible for guarding the apostolic kerygma? Do our Scriptures inform us about who should don the mantle of the wider theologian? Our current ecclesial context readily agrees that we pastors are responsible for providing theological guidance for our own local congregations. But when it comes to providing theological guidance to the broader church we loose all sense of responsibility and abdicate to the academy. I’m increasingly convinced that the Bible does indeed dictate who bears the ultimate responsibility for the theological health of the church — and it’s not the academy.

Do you see any biblical justification for the thesis that the pastoral community — as a whole — is responsible for providing theological oversight to the wider church? In short, does the New Testament explicitly look to the clergy to serve as wider theologians to the whole church? If so, where do you see this?

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.

1. All individuals are called to draw a circle of theological protection around themselves, taking responsibility for their own relationship with Christ.
2. Some have a wife and children, and their circle of theological protection must extend to include their families as well as themselves.
3. Some individuals are called to the pastorate and must draw a circle of theological protection around themselves, their families, and an entire local assembly of Christians.
4. And even more broadly, some individuals are gifted and called to draw an even wider circle, serving as theologians for large swaths of the Christian tradition, or even the whole of the tradition.

In our present day, the church has looked to the academy to draw the wider circles (number 4 above).  Historically, this hasn’t always been the case. Theologians such as Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Edwards, etc. were all churchmen, and it was understood that the “wider theologians” would be drawn mainly from the pastorate. But today, we no longer look for pastors to fill this role. Those who feel a sense of theological calling beyond the local church do not remain in the church, but move into the academy, in as much as the academy has become the new theological center of  gravity. Now certainly not every pastor is gifted or called to this broader function. But we do the church a grave disservice when suggest, (implicitly or explicitly,  that pastors need not aspire to this role. The bifurcation of theological formation from the womb of the church has been good for neither the church nor her theology. There’s been too much of an,  “Ah, let the academy take care of the theological needs of the church” sort of mindset today.

Thus the SAET is about trying to get (some) pastors to once again pick up the mantle of theological responsibility for the wider church – to step up and draw the wider circles. And it is those particular pastors the SAET is trying to serve and gather together. And it’s for this reason that I press so hard for a writing ministry as definitional to what the SAET pastor is about. Without a writing ministry, I don’t see how someone can effectively function as a wider theologian for the broader church. Transcribed sermons can serve this role in part, but I’m not sure that all the theological needs of the church (spanning epistemology, soteriology, eschatology, philosophy, church history, etc.) can or should be addressed in a sermon. Frankly, there are many subjects that theologians need to wrestle with, that lay people do not need to be burdened with.

So in sum, rather than co-opting the term pastor-theologian, perhaps we could drop the term pastor-theologian all together and say it like this:

1. All pastors are called to be local theologians to their own congregations.
2. Some pastors are called to be popular-theologians, writing “deep” theology down to the laity.
3. (Perhaps) some pastors are called to be academic-theologians, writing theology to the wider academic community.
4. And some pastors are called to be ecclesial theologians, writing theology for the wider ecclesial community.

Maybe it’s OK to call all four kinds of pastors “pastor-theologians”. But it needs to be pointed out that all four are doing something different. And I think that’s really what I’m trying to say with my Taxonomy series. Further, while all four models are in short supply, the fourth model – the pastor as ecclesial theologian – is the most important to resurrect, inasmuch as it serves as the foundation for the other three. I think a big part of the reason we see so few pastors functioning as local theologians is because theology is no longer being done by pastors, but by academicians. When we moved theological formation into the academy, we implicitly suggested that theology was an academic enterprise, thus demotivating  pastors from serving as local theologians.

If the theological gate-keepers of the church were once again pastors, this would not only leaven orthodox theology with ecclesial yeast, but would also bring back a level of theological credibility to the pastorate overall. This in turn would  increase the number of pastors who effectively serve as popular theologians and local theologians.

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.