Method in Douglas Sean O’Donnell, The Beginning and End of Wisdom

My last review of this light and engaging book examined the book’s sermons.  I also want to highlight the importance of being alert to our own methods and the power they have to shape what we preach.

O’Donnell’s method is perhaps most clearly revealed in the way he makes us of scholarly works.  He cites many of the most renowned wisdom scholars like Gerhard von Rad, James Crenshaw, Bruce Waltke, Michael Fox, and Leo Perdue.  Without exception, these scholars characterize biblical wisdom as knowledge of the harmony, order, and structure built into the creation.  Yet O’Donnell does not mention the link between wisdom and creation nor with the creation order.  Nor does he mention two of the most profound wisdom texts: Proverbs 3:18-20 where wisdom provides a path back to tree of life and the lost garden, and the longest poem in Proverbs 8:1-36 where Woman Wisdom testifies to the origin of her expertise: she saw the world made.  Creation, that center of ancient wisdom theology, does not really appear in his book.

But why? And what does appear instead?  O’Donnell’s Reformed focus is shaped by a theology of salvation and the glory of God which seems to send him looking for three themes: salvation, moral guidance, and metaphysical concepts about God, like omnipotence and sovereignty (pp. 137 and 209 n.3).  While these are all central, biblical themes, I’m not convinced they are at the heart of the wisdom literature.  None of these biblical books mentions the covenants or Israel’s history of salvation.  Their primary context is creation – its breadth, its order, and its inner operations.   

How might a method of a fuller theology look different than what we find in O’Donnell’s book?  First, take O’Donnell’s focus on morality.  What if, as many argue, ethics has its roots in a theology of creation?  Wisdom, in this case, would be more than just doing good, but actions that are good because they seek out the justice, order, and hierarchies of the moral world God has created.  This greater depth is important.  A law professor I know often reminds me that few legal issues are solved by applying individual laws. Most situations fall somewhere between two or more laws and the job of the lawyer or judge is to discern the best application.  That’s wisdom: the comprehensive moral viewpoint that sees the system as a whole and finds justice in each new situation.  God fit this thing together and that should give every one of us confidence that wisdom can guide us in the countless decisions we make in our homes, neighborhoods, churches, and jobs – moral or not.

Second, the wisdom-creation focus also goes further than O’Donnell in affirming the goodness of the created world and the whole of human life.  In other words, as I observed in my earlier review, wisdom affirms the enormous range of human callings to make something out of this world, just as we find in the valiant woman in Proverbs 31 who excels at farming, textiles, trading, wine making, parenting, and social justice. If there is an order to creation then there is an order or harmony within each of these callings.  Wisdom, focused on God’s final design for the world, is the way to access that order.

Finally, tying wisdom to the created order also opens new windows into the meaning of Jesus’ work and ministry.  O’Donnell chooses not to address the long poem in Proverbs 8 where Woman Wisdom sees the process of creation, and for this reason he has no reason to mention that the New Testament writers put Jesus in the place of this woman “in the beginning” (John 1 and Hebrews 1).  Only for these NT authors, the Creator has become the Creature in order to restore all of the order, beauty and wholeness that have been lost in the fall.  In so tying Jesus to wisdom, Hebrews and John announce good news for us and for everything else too: parks, cities, schools, families, gardens, the arts, medicine and so on.

O’Donnell’s path through these books gives us a wise and Sovereign God, a generous Savior, and a call to faith that results in righteous living.  The wisdom literature is no easy genre and, in a day when a vacuous “spirituality” is increasingly in fashion, his emphasis is very much appreciated.  My own approach, guided less by the doctrines of the Reformed tradition, pursues the close theological link in these books between creation (stuff) and wisdom.  On this path we meet God as our Creator and the Savior of creation.  God’s salvation work in Jesus – the Creator who took on flesh – banishes the sin of death and restores all things to their fullness in the power of his fleshly resurrection.  Creatures are not just forgiven, but, as wisdom scholar Al Wolters has said, “Creation (is) Regained.”  I would hope that the church will come away enriched by both methods of study and both ways of preaching this excellent literature.

As I suggest this, what comes to mind for you? Strengths/weaknesses/dangers? Do you know of anyone who has tried this, and what their experience was like?

I would try to apply this to fiction and non-fiction. I probably have to exclude reading that is necessary for teaching and writing projects, although even there I think I could restrain myself a good bit.

I’ve only just begun to ponder what this would look like. But here are a few stream-of-consciousness thoughts on my motivations:

1. Ironically, a desire to try something novel (not in the fiction sense!) probably plays a role
2. the degree of enjoyment I get when I re-read texts, or finish good books left unfinished
3. in part because of emphases on (say) classics and “what really matters” at SAET; in the end there aren’t that many “lasting” pieces. However I do appreciate the ability to swim in all kinds of literature; and I do think that there’s a certain kind of cultural, scholarly, and theological fluency that comes from the approach I often take, which tends toward the smash-and-grab.
4. I’ve always been curious about the impact of social location on reading (for instance, Lewis’s Space Trilogy made more sense after my experience in British higher education)…if I read book ___ now, will I have the same response as when I first read it? Will I see new ideas, wrinkles, errors?
5. On the same line of thought, I find myself recommending books I haven’t seen in a decade or more, and I want to know if I should still be recommending them!
6. For fiction alone this should be highly enjoyable: Brothers K, Lord of the Rings, etc.
7. For biblical studies it’s a help in several ways. There are many good books whose ideas won’t be fresh for me, but could be applied in fresh ways and weighed in light of what I’ve learned lately. Plus it would push me to retrench in the primary sources–never a bad idea. As Howard Marshall used to tell us when we first started doctoral work, “Make the primary sources your mistress.” It’s easy to lose that mistress if you are married to the latest and (allegedly) “greatest”. Finishing unfinished books could be helpful, and getting back into commentaries is a plus.
8. Concerned friends sometimes question the number of books on my shelves, and rightly so…but rereading would at least help justify possession…

Auburn Seminary, a mainline institution in New York City, did a lengthy study of seminary graduates from across the spectrum of Jewish and Christian belief. Among other points, they found that regardless of one’s religious persuasion, the traditional academic disciplines–Bible and theology–were ranked one and two, respectively, by every group. Whether mainline protestant, evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Jewish, those two items were rated the “most important areas of study for professional life and work.”

(I know that Justin Barnard and Matt Lee Anderson, among others, will not be surprised that Roman Catholics ranked Ethics #3; I find it surprising and interesting that mainline pastors marked preaching significantly higher than others.)

One of the implications of this study, I think, is that serious engagement with sacred text and the theology it produces matters–and not just in seminary.

I’d also add a second point. I think I speak for Gerald and SAET in general when I say that such study can be an act of worship. Not just in leading us to worship (although sometimes it does this). Worship involves actively giving our bodies and minds to God (Rom 12:1-2), not so that they will be unused or empty, but so that they will be full of him and his word. “Thinking God’s thoughts after him” is an act of worship.

This morning I spent two hours teaching/discussing Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Job with some young believers. Among other things, we were able to engage the way in which Wisdom literature points to Jesus, as well as a biblical perspective on sex, sovereignty, and suffering. In a world saturated by sex, suffering, and human and demonic pretense to sovereignty, I can think of few better things to do than to prepare myself and others to discern God’s message in those areas.

I can’t study in the same way as Gerald, but a regular diet of study–even after completing my doctoral work–prepares me to wrestle with those questions and many others.

KV spoke of the importance of direct and indirect communication (Kierkegaard’s distinction): story, parable, proverb, and action are vital (and sometimes overlooked) tools for getting a message across. This prompts KV to ask if forms or genres of Scripture have authority, and if so, how? If they are not authoritative, we could simply download true facts abstracted from the Bible and be done with the tricky forms! (I also have in my notes the question, “Is Paul’s life canonical?” i.e., 1 Cor 4:8-17, but I cannot remember if that’s KV’s idea or my own reflection.)

The goal of theology is to form people of wisdom, not least so that theology and the life lived are not divorced. He gave the example of Philemon, where Paul foregoes command in order to facilitate a “fitting act that refreshes the heart,” as Vanhoozer interpreted it; or “prepared spontaneity,” in Paul Tripp’s wonderful phrase, brought out by Matthew Mason in his response paper. First Theology is about the gospel, but in a broad sense, larger than sin-defined needs–that’s milk, the beginning, but not the end.

Kevin’s recommendations included Fred Sanders, The Deep Things of God; he urged us to pursue a trinitarian gospel-centeredness, so that our gospel accounts for and celebrates “Not just God for us, but God with us and in us.” This is just one example of KV’s consistent effort to overcome theory-praxis distinction, a theme that arose repeatedly inDrama and in our discussion. KV asks what it means to be biblical, and he very forcefully insists that it is not enough to have the right propositions in hand…we must follow those facts, “walk in the way,” exercising (and acting in) judgment: we are actors, not just spectators.

The theologian also has the task of cultivating not just the intellect, but intellectual virtues, and habits of the mind linked to those virtues. Humility, not hubris; honesty, justice, patience; an intellectual pursuit that is “less about me.” A high view of our own thoughts over time makes us closed-minded and pastorally disastrous. (JH note: How do we balance this with the pastor-theologian as “public intellectual” and “Big Picture Specialist”?!? I’d recommend John Dickson’s new book, Humilitas.)

Kevin Vanhoozer was our special guest; Doug Sweeney, our regular Second Fellowship advisor, was also in attendance, and both brought the wisdom for us. Several of us gave papers that attempted to make Pumpkin Pie out of The Great Pumpkin, Vanhoozer’s Drama of Doctrine. KV interacted with our responses and spent time reflecting with us on what needs to happen in the theological-pastoral enterprise in which we are all engaged. A few soundbites faithfully (I hope) paraphrased:

“Theology is the study of reality. A theologian is a minister of reality.” Part of the theologian’s task is to challenge and cast down idolatrous counter-realities.

The task of the theologian is that of “public intellectual,” not necessarily in the global, CNN sense, but in the local sense. In a segmented world, pastor-theologians are the ones who can help make sense of the world as a whole. Local attempts to provide an answer to truly challenging questions, i.e., “What is a human being?” and thus make sense of the world cannot in fact do so.

The attempt to answer such questions can be made within the solar systems of economics, social media, medicine and science, politics, journalistic media, etc., and we can learn from such attempts. But wherever the attempt is made reductionism mars the end result. Theology alone gets to say, from a cosmic perspective, “God and reality are more than economics,” and theologians alone are the “Big Picture Specialists.”

“Theology and Christianity is not about getting God into my life, but about me getting into the life and story of God, who is restoring all things and renewing his image.“

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?

-Fellowship Prospectus
-Fellowship Application

SAET Overview
The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesial Theology (SAET) is an organization dedicated to assisting pastor-theologians in producing biblical and theological scholarship for the renewal of the local church.

Operating within the historic evangelical tradition, the SAET believes the contemporary bifurcation between the pastoral calling and theological formation has resulted in the loss of a distinctly ecclesial voice in orthodox theology. The SAET seeks to resurrect this voice. In an age that has rightly emphasized the relationship between social location and theological formation, our vision is to bring together a unique kind of pastor-theologian—not simply those particular pastors who desire to pursue a theologically informed parish ministry—but even more, pastors and priests who feel called to function as writing theologians to the broader ecclesial community.

Armed with the conviction that pastors can—indeed must—once again serve as the church’s most important theologians, it is the aim of the SAET to provide a context of theological engagement for those pastors who desire to make ongoing contributions to the wider theological/scholarly community for the renewal of orthodox theology, for the renewal of the church.

Fellowship Overview
Toward this end, the SAET hosts two Fellowships—each representing a small nucleus of pastor-theologians from nearly every major Protestant tradition: Lutheran, Pentecostal, Episcopal, Baptist, Messianic Jewish, Presbyterian, Wesleyan, Free Church, and independent Bible church traditions.

The majority of our SAET Fellows are young pastors who have—or are completing—terminal degrees from some of the finest theological institutions in the world (Cambridge, Oxford), and all are committed to bringing the strengths of their respective traditions into conversation with the Great Tradition, with a view to being shaped by, and shaping, the theological reflection of the broader ecclesial theological community.

The Fellowship Symposia
Each Fellowship meets annually for a three-day working symposium (Sunday evening through Tuesday lunch) at Calvary Memorial Church in Oak Park, Illinois, near Chicago, O’Hare. The Symposia bring together a diverse body of both pastor-theologians and ecclesially sensitive academic theologians, with a view to establishing collegial relationships and collaborating on theological projects relevant to the life of the church. Meals, lodging, and travel expenses (as needed) are covered by the SAET.

Fellowship Benefits
Fellowship benefits include:

• The opportunity for Fellows to have their work peer-reviewed by a diverse group of ecclesial and academic theologians.
• An all-expense paid, three-day theological symposium with noted academic and ecclesial theologians (includes lodging and meals, and travel as needed).
• A robust network of scholarly, ecclesially diverse relationships.
• Opportunities for publication.
• Additional interaction with other Fellows via quarterly conference calls.

Fellowship Responsibilities
The SAET Fellowship strives to balance the demands of parish ministry and the theological calling. Fellowship responsibilities include:

• Submission of one chapter length essay for review and critique every other year at a Fellowship Symposium.
• Reading and critiquing Fellowship papers prior to symposium.
• Regular attendance at an annual three-day Fellowship Symposium. The First Fellowship meets Columbus Day Weekend; the Second Fellowship meets the last weekend in May.
• Participating in quarterly conference calls as able.

Ideal Candidates
Qualified candidates are encouraged to apply for membership to one of our SAET Fellowships. The ideal candidate is:

• A vocational pastor who views the writing/publication of ecclesial theology as a significant ministry calling.
• Has a ThM or PhD.
• Has a demonstrated publishing record in ecclesial theology.
• Is a young(er) pastor who is in the early years of his pastoral and writing ministry.

Each Fellowship is limited to eight-teen Fellows. Applicants who do not fit the “ideal” description are nonetheless encouraged to apply if strength in one qualification offsets a deficiency in another. For instance, the applicant who does not have a ThM or PhD, but does have a demonstrated publishing record, is encouraged to apply.

To apply to one of our SAET Fellowships, please download a Fellowship application. For general inquiries, please contact Gerald Hiestand at ghiestand [at] saet-online.org.

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.