The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesiological Theology

SAET Blog

Pastor-theologian Posts

• November 25, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

  Taxonomy of the Pastor-Theologian, Part 2: The Pastor-Theologian as Local Theologian

  Continuing from part one…

  The first, and I believe most common, model of the pastor-theologian is that of a local theologian to one’s own congregation. At this most basic level, the pastor-theologian is conceived of as a theologically astute pastor who ably services the theological needs of his local church.

  Al Mohler Jr., in his recently published, He Is Not Silent: Preaching in a Post-Modern World, devotes a chapter to the calling and identity of the pastor-theologian. It becomes evident throughout the chapter that Mohler is working largely within the framework of the local theologian model. Challenging pastors to think theologically about ministry and preaching, Mohler correctly emphasizes the theological nature of pastoral ministry. Theological reflection is not an academic exercise, he argues; pastors, even more so than academicians, are called to engage in the theological task. Yet for Mohler, this theological task is carried out chiefly within the context of a pulpit ministry. “As a theologian,” he writes, “the pastor must be known for what he teaches as well as for what he knows, affirms and believes. The health of the church depends upon pastors who infuse their congregations with deep biblical and theological conviction, and the primary means of this transfer of conviction is the preaching of the Word of God.” Thus for Mohler, to be a pastor-theologian is to be a pastor who discharges his pastoral duty—most of all his preaching ministry—in light of careful theological reflection.

  Along similar lines, John Piper (himself considered by many a consummate example of a contemporary pastor-theologian) and D. A. Carson (a pastorally sensitive academic scholar) recently gave twin lectures entitled, “The Pastor as Scholar” and “The Scholar as Pastor,” respectively. It was clear throughout both lectures that Piper and Carson view the identity of the pastor-theologian largely within the framework of the local theologian model. Though Piper has a robust writing ministry, neither he nor Carson mentioned a writing ministry as an essential aspect of the pastor-theologian’s identity. Indeed, both men discouraged pastors from trying to emulate the theological writings of past pastor-theologians such as Edwards, whose most penetrating discourse was considered beyond the reach of pastors (and presumably even pastor-theologians). For Piper and Carson, to be a pastor-theologian is simply to embody a robust commitment to theological reflection, and allow such reflection to influence one’s preaching and pastoral duties.

  The local theologian model seems to be the general model most often affirmed by our evangelical laity as well. An elder in my church once introduced me to a colleague as “our church’s resident pastor-theologian.” My elder was not aware of the articles I’ve written or the papers I’ve presented, nor was he aware of my involvement in the SAET. He was mainly referring to the fact that I’m theologically minded, have a lot of theology books in my office, and enjoy teaching the adult theology classes at our church. My elder’s conception of a pastor-theologian was primarily that of a pastor who values theology as a vital aspect of pastoral ministry, and whose teaching ministry reflects this commitment.

  While I agree in substance with Mohler, Piper and Carson, the local theologian model is insufficient for the sort of theological project the SAET seeks to embody. In the local theologian model, the term pastor-theologian—rather than suggesting an objective function (namely writing ecclesial theology)—acts primarily as compliment paid to those pastors who, in the estimation of the one issuing the compliment, give an appropriate degree of attention to theological concerns.

  C. S. Lewis’ lament regarding the demise of the term gentlemen is helpful here. In his Mere Christianity, Lewis notes the de-evolution of the term from one that signified an objective fact, to one that designated a subjective impression regarding one’s opinion of an individual. He writes,

  The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone “a gentleman” you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact….But then there came people who said—so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully—”Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should?…They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man “a gentleman” in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is “a gentleman” becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object….As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

  The parallel is not exact, but instructive nonetheless. Like the term gentleman, the term pastor-theologian is not typically used to designate an objective function. Just as every Englishman should be a gentleman (whether they are a gentlemen or not), so too every pastor should be a pastor-theologian (whether they are a theologian or not). But sometimes less is more. In broadening the definition of pastor-theologian to potentially include all pastors, the term has lost its ability to serve a useful function in theological discourse. Like the word gentlemen, it has been spoiled for use.

  The sort of theological engagement being advocated by Mohler, Piper and Carson is commendable. Would that more pastors appreciated the vital connection between pastoral ministry and theology. But there is a need, I believe, to reserve the title pastor-theologian for those who actually write theology. The local theologian model, in as much as it does not include writing theology as a vital component, is thus insufficient for the SAET project. The next two models—the pastor-theologian as popular theologian and the pastor-theologian as academic theologian—get closer. But not quite.

  Categories: Pastor-theologian

  13 Comments

• 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

• September 3, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

  Bray on the Pastor-Theologian

  In a response to Tom Wright’s book on justification, Gerald Bray chastises Wright for producing a book that has “let us down badly” and is “full of digressions, personal anecdotes which appear to have no purpose other than to win sympathy for the author, and random attacks against unnamed people who are supposed to be typical of popular modern Evangelicals.” In short, Bray didn’t care for the book.

  Aside from the caustic tone of the review (and to be fair, Wright’s tone wasn’t always particularly charitable in his book), and a few mischaracterizations of Wright’s position (contra Bray, Wright doesn’t see Christ as a “plan B” after Israel’s failure), I agreed with much of what Bray wrote.

  However, I didn’t find myself in much agreement with Bray’s concluding comments.

  If anything is clear from Bishop Wright’s book, it is that it is impossible to serve two masters at the same time. Either one is a diocesan bishop or one is a serious scholar—having a day job in Auckland Castle and pottering around with scholarship in one’s spare time is not a viable option in today’s world. Bishop Wright pleads lack of time for what even he recognizes is the inadequacy of his response to Mr. Piper, but if that is so, he needs to reconsider his priorities. There is no shame in giving up scholarship, or in resigning a bishopric, when the pressures become too great, but doing a half-baked job in one is bound to lead to the suspicion that one is doing an equally half-baked job in the other, and that the long-suffering recipients of such treatment are ending up with the worst of both worlds….Let us hope and pray that he will see this for himself and decide whether he wants to be a bishop or a scholar—but not both. We would all be better off if he has the courage to take the right decision and choose one or the other, but best of all, he himself would be a happier and more productive man for it, and it is for him that our primary concern at this point must surely be (Churchman, 104).

  Hmmm. Does Bray really mean to look down his nose on the pastor-theologian model? Bray spends the whole review complimenting Pastor Piper’s handling of the subject, and then, in an attempt to insult the scholarly capabilities of Wright, delivers an (unintended?) shot to Piper by insulting the pastor-theologian model en toto. What the right hand gives, the left hand takes away.

  Bray prefaces his critique of the pastor-theologian model by stating that it is not a viable option in “today’s world.” Presumably, then, he appreciates the viability of the model for days gone by. And indeed, how could he not? Church history is filled with evidence to the positive: Athanasius, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Wesley, Barth, et al. The list is nearly endless. But Bray raises a question worth considering: is such a model attainable in our contemporary context? Two thoughts here:

  First, we haven’t really tried to find out. There is a dearth of intellectuals in the pastorate, and therefore it is difficult to assess accurately the viability of the model. Can a pastor realistically produce a book like’s McGrath’s Iustitia Dei, or Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God (written before he became Bishop of Durham)? Maybe, maybe not. But it should be pointed out that not every academic scholar can produce this sort of magisterial work either. It’s a bit unfair to compare the two groups of theologians, simply in light of the sheer difference in numbers. If we had as many pastor-theologians attempting to do “serious scholarship” (as Bray calls it) as we do academic-theologians, we would better be able to assess the viability of the pastor-theologian model. So maybe time will tell.

  Second, Bray is absolutely correct that the pastor-theologian cannot serve the two masters of pastoral ministry and academic scholarship. This is a point I’ve made elsewhere. But the SAET (at least) is not looking to do academic scholarship. Ecclesial scholarship marks a third way, and—properly understood—is not a competing master to the pastoral calling. Indeed, the two masters are one. It may be true that the contemporary pastor-theologian will not have the luxury or time (or even interest) to chase down the secondary literature with the same vigor as the academic scholar. Undoubtedly the organizational structure of parish ministry needs to shift in such a way that the pastoral office is once again freed up to do serious theological reflection. But regardless, the pastor-theologian brings to the theological task an important strength the academic scholar lacks: an ecclesial context. The Scriptures are not merely an historical document, dead words on a page and fodder only for historians and scholars. The Scriptures are the life-blood of the Church—the local church not least. The sword hilt of Scripture has been uniquely fashioned for the pastor’s grip. The sensitive academic-theologian can wield it with profit, but it’s natural home is in the Church. The whole thrust of contemporary orthodox scholarship has largely forgotten this vital truth. We can not move theological reflection and writing out of the context of the local church without consequence.

  Categories: Book Review | John Piper | Pastor-theologian | Tom Wright

  0 Comments

• August 5, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

  No Excuses: Even Hengel Couldn’t Find Time to Write!

  One of the challenges facing the serious pastor-theologian is finding time to study and write, particularly in a contemporary ecclesial context that doesn’t place the same value on the pastor-theologian model as in years gone by. But apparently it isn’t only pastors who can’t find time for serious study and writing. In the introduction to his The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament, the late Martin Hengel laments,

  In it’s present form, this work cannot be more than a fragment. The reason why I have nevertheless allowed it to be published in this form is that the situation in many German universities is fundamentally inimical to scholarly work: the burden of teaching, examining and administration no longer allows the university professor to produce large-scale, comprehensive monographs within a reasonable length of time. Those who are plagued by a chronic lack of time have to approach their goal one short step after another.

  In spite of Hengel’s comment, I suspect the modern university professor has a few more hours in the day for study than the typical pastor. Historically, this has not always been the case, nor need it be today. But it is, at least for now. We can hope for and work toward the day when once again the pastoral calling is seen most fundamentally as a theological calling. But until that day, the pastor-theologian does well to heed Hengel’s advice. Slow and steady is better than not at all. Let’s make use of the time we do have, rather than complaining about the time don’t have.

  Categories: Martin Hengel | Pastor-theologian

  0 Comments

• July 20, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

  The Pastor-Theologian: Regarding Definition

  

  A continuing challenge for the SAET vision is overcoming the contemporary understanding of the term “pastor-theologian.” For the most part, the term is understood in the common vernacular to signify a pastor who ably services the theological needs of his own local congregation. Working from this definition, there is a real sense in which every pastor is called to be a pastor-theologian.

  But the SAET vision of a pastor-theologian is not for every pastor. We’re not simply advocating theological engagement on a local church level (though we are doing that too), but we’re looking to encourage those particular pastors whose theological calling extends beyond their local church to the broader theological conversations. In other words, we’re looking to come alongside pastors who have a heart to actually write theology for the broader ecclesial community.

  I’ve wrestled with how best to communicate the SAET’s vision of the pastor-theologian. In many ways, using a term that has a truncated meaning hampers our ablity to communicate the vision we’re looking to embody. When I say, “The SAET is a theological society for pastor-theologians,” people immediatley think of the first definition and thus don’t really grasp what we’re about. But I can’t think of a better term. Any thoughts?

  Categories: Pastor-theologian

  0 Comments

• July 3, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

  Doug Sweeney on Jonathan Edwards: A “Priestly Theologian”

  Doug Sweeney (senior consultant for the SAET’s 2009 Symposium) is one of today’s  leading Edwards scholars.  I had the good fortune of taking his class on Edwards while at TEDS, so when I heard about his new book Jonathan Edwards and the Ministry of the Word (IVP Academic), I quickly snatched up a copy and read it. If you haven’t had much exposure to Edwards, this is a great book. It tops out at 200 pages and is pitched toward the non-specialist. It’s clear throughout that this is not merely an academic tome, and Sweeney is not afraid to drop the occasional devotional comment, challenging the reader to consider and apply some of the lessons Edwards’ legacy teaches us. Yet the footnotes are fairly extensive given the intended audience, and those looking for more detailed research direction on Edwards will find the book helpful as well.

  The title captures well the thrust of Sweeney’s focus. Throughout the book  Sweeney shows how Edwards’ deep commitment to the written Word influences every aspect of his life and ministry. Sweeney’s book is more bibliographic than theological, and focuses mostly on Edwards’ life and ministry. Yet Sweeney does a good job of introducing the reader to Edwards’ major theological themes. (In Chapter 5 Sweeney provides concise summaries of Edwards’ four major theological treatises—The Freedom of the Will, Original Sin, On True Virtue, and The End for Which God Created the World.)

  While I’ve frequently pointed to Edwards as a consumate example of the pastor-theologian, I have always tried to be realistic about the disconnect between Edwards’ eighteenth-century New England and our contemporary context. Certainly the North American academy was not established as it is today, and thus theological discourse as a whole tended to be more ecclesial in nature, simply by default. Further, I supposed that much of Edwards thought emerged prior to the rise of higher criticism, allowing Edwards to focus more on ecclesial matters and not be sidetracked by apologetic concerns. Yet it appears my chronology is askew. Sweeney points out that Edwards was “fully apprised of recent trends in modern critical thought,” and that he “devoured” the writings of the higher critics (p. 95). The fact that Edwards engaged with the deconstructive academic theology of his day and yet devoted his theological writings to ecclesial matters demonstrates the extent to which Edwards’ theological project was primarily driven by ecclesial concerns.

  Edwards was (and remains) the most influential theologian in North America, and it should not be lost on us that he was—first and formost—an ecclesial theologian. My favorite phrase in Sweeney’s book appropriately captures the Edwardsian vision of the pastor-theologian. Edwards was, Sweeney points out, a “priestly theologian” devoted to the oracles of God and their application in the lives of his people.  I can think of no better label to describe the SAET’s vision of a pastor-theologian. If you’re a pastor with a desire to embody the Edwardsian vision, I encourage you to pick up a copy of Sweeney’s book.

  Categories: Book Review | Jonathan Edwards | Pastor-theologian

  0 Comments

• May 27, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

  Keener and Bird on the Generalist vs. the Specialist

  Michael Bird and Craig Keener have a nice piece in the online SBL Forum that discusses the tension between the generalist and the specialist. The essay is directed toward the academy, but I think it has relevance for the SAET vision.

  As I wrote about here, the pastor-theologian—by the very nature of his calling as a pastor—cannot afford the luxury of isolating himself in one narrow field of study. Ours is a systematic task; we must construct for our people a cohesive world view—a way of thinking holistically and christianly about the world. Devoting ourselves to three years of study centered on one Greek verb (though important, no doubt) won’t get the job done.

  Toward the end of the article, Bird and Keener offer a number of suggestions about how to advance the generalist agenda. One suggestion involves staggering one’s work between generalist and specialist topics. Modifying this slightly for the pastor-theologian, I recommend that we stagger our work between popular-level works and scholarly works. Writing to both communities forces us to be both relevant (popular level stuff) and informed (scholarly stuff). Too often, many pastors and scholars  write in only one genre. The result is often a popular-level theology that is not rigorously intellectual, and a scholarly-level theology that is not practically relevant. Writing both ways keeps one honest.

  An additional note: Bird and Keener talk about the importance of the generalist reading primary literature, even if it means short-changing the secondary literature. This, I believe, is crucial for the pastor-theologian. As full-time pastors there is a temptation to bypass the primary material for the quick-fix summaries found in the secondary literature. But if we have to choose between the two (and we often do), our efforts are best spent in the primary literature. Anything less and our theology becomes derivative.

  Categories: Pastor-theologian

  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