More relevant to the focus of this blog is the extent to which the work of Jenson — a systematic theologian– can be considered “ecclesial” theology according to the SAET’s understanding of ecclesial.  As regular readers of this blog will already know, the SAET is concerned to advance a theology that is more ecclesially sensitive than what is typically found in academic circles. The tendency for academic scholars to suspend their Christian presuppositions and agendas when doing their scholarship is decidedly unhelpful for the church. One sees this sort of thing most often in historical and biblical studies, where the reigning academic methodology does not allow for supernatural presuppositions. Thus historical studies and biblical studies often fail to terminate in theology; little or no effort is made to provide an ecclesially relevant synthesis that advances/protects the message of the church. As George Marsden properly notes, such stricturing is an unnecessary capitulation to secular presuppositions. Much of the SAET’s critique of academic theology has been precisely at just this point.

But to what extent does this same critique hold true for Christian academic systematicians, who by the very nature of their academic vocation, consciously press toward theological concerns? This is an interesting question and one that I’ve been ruminating on for the past month or so. In as much as the SAET’s vision for the pastor-theologian pushes towards systematics, it’s appropriate to ask if there remains a need for the pastor-theologian when we already have gifted academic theologians like Jenson.

Jenson is brilliant — a remarkable thinker and scholar.  He is a significant voice in the ecumenical movement, and those familiar with his overall work know that his theology pushes beyond mere academic concerns. His work is centered around the life of the church, and is distinctly and consciously Christian; it is not merely descriptive, but ecclesially prescriptive.  So the basic critique that I’ve leveled against Christian academic scholarship does not obtain with Jenson (or, I suspect, with other trinitarian theologians such as a Guton, David Hart, Pannenberg, Webster, Vanhoozer, etc., none of whom I’ve read extensively.)

So where does this leave the pastor-theologian? What can a pastor-theologian contribute to orthodox/evangelical theology that is not already being done by academic theologians? In a previous post I had argued for a division of labor between academic scholars (representing their respective narrow guilds) and pastor-theologians. But there is, I now see,  a need for a further division of labor between academic theologians and pastor-theologians. After reading Jenson (and some of Pannenberg) with this question specifically in mind, I’m still convinced the pastor-theologian has something helpful to offer the church’s theology. In a number of subsequent posts I will lay out a preliminary apologetic for the existence of the pastor-theologian against the backdrop of ecclesially sensitive academic 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.”