In related news, Vanhoozer has just released his (self-professed) first major work of theology, Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion and Authorship (Cambridge University Press, 2010). Vanhoozer describes his aim for the book:

For years I’ve felt that the doctrine of God was a relatively weak spot in evangelical theology. Then open theism happened and my suspicions were confirmed. One major aim, then, is to provide a retooling of classical theism that takes into account the concerns of open theists – in particular, the integrity of God’s loving relationship to the world – while simultaneously maintaining what I take to be the correct Reformed emphasis on divine sovereignty. Another aim is to scrutinize the oft-heard claim in contemporary theology that God’s love entails divine suffering.

The above excerpt is from an interview conducted by Guy Davies. See Davies’ site, The Exiled Preacher for the rest of the interview.

HT: Mike Bird

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

“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.

1. Doug Sweeney, this year’s Senior Theological Consultant, reminded us of the need for a healthy division of labor between the academy and the church.  His insight here was worth the whole conference for me. I’ve got more to say about this in a future post, but Doug’s basic point (as I remember it) was that academic scholars such as himself should continue to do primary level research, but that systematic theology  should move back into the pastorate. This is a profound insight, and something that has lurked around in the back of my mind before, but not with the clarity that Doug articulated it. The present division between the academy and the church is “Professors should do the thinking,  pastors should take care of the practical stuff.” But Doug was suggesting, “Professors should do the research, pastors should do the theology.” This comports with Vanhoozer’s comments, which I just saw today (see his closing sentence).

2. We saved a few seats this year for doctoral students who are not yet in pastoral ministry, and I think that worked well. The intent was to give the next generation of theologians a view of what ecclesial theology in a local church context might look like. So it was great to meet Dane Ortlund (PhD candidate at Wheaton) and Mark Rodgers (PhD Candidate at TEDS), both of whom seem like great guys positioned to make significant theological contributions to ecclesial theology.

3. The number of guys who showed up this year was very encouraging. Frankly, we’re maxed out in our current Fellowship. Adding more guys would begin to erode the collegial nature of the Fellowship, but we hate to limit participation, as there are so many great guys out there who have a vision for the sort of thing we’re doing. In light of this, the SAET board has decided to explore the possibility of starting a second Fellowship. This second Fellowship would meet in late Spring and run parallel with the first Fellowship (same topic, same Senior Consultant, etc., just a different group of guys). Ideal candidates to the SAET Fellowship are full-time pastors with a demonstrated publishing record and a terminal degree. More information on a Second Fellowship will be forth-coming.

4. The paper presentations went well, and it seemed that each of us resonated with different papers. I was assigned as a respondent to Joel Lawrence’s paper on Bonhoeffer, which worked well as I found Joel’s treatment of Bonhoeffer fascinating. Joel is one of our dual-vocational pastors (he teaches at Bethel Seminary, as well), and his discussion of Bonhoeffer as an ecclesial theologian who worked within the context of the academy was insightful.

5. It was great to finally meet Preston Sprinkle (another one of our dual vocational Fellows), who joined the Fellowship for the first time this year. Preston and I met online back in 2005  before the SAET was the SAET, and exchanged a number of e-mails about the need for such a project. I tried to talk Preston into locking arms with me, but he was headed to the academy and wouldn’t budge. Perhaps to get me off his back, he recommended I connect with Todd Wilson, whom he had met over in the UK, and who had subsequently taken a pastoral position at  College Church (a few miles from where I was living). Meanwhile, Jonathan Cummings (one of the early board members) had recently begun an internship at College Church and told me I needed to connect with his supervisor who was none other than (you guessed it) Todd Wilson. So Todd’s name came up twice in the span of a week. As I joked with Preston, Todd has been the equivalent of a theological venture capitalist for the SAET. So Preston was instrumental in connecting the SAET with Todd, who has been instrumental in connecting the SAET with, well, everyone else. So it’s been fun to go full circle and now have Preston as part of the Fellowship.

All in all, the Symposium was great. It was a bit of a let-down to settle back into the day to day routine of local church ministry, though mentally I was done in. Regardless, it’s time to get back to the hard work of being a pastor and writing theology.