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?