Joel Willitts, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor in Biblical and Theological Studies. He has had a wide breath of experience within both the Christian community and academia. After graduating with a BS (’93) he spent 7 years in youth ministry in Texas, Florida and Illinois. He eventually earned a Th.M. (’00) and then a M.Phil. (’02) and Ph.D. (’07) from Cambridge University in England. Joel has published books, essays and journal articles in the areas of New Testament and the Dead Sea Scroll studies. He is married to Karla (16 years) and they have twin toddlers, Zion and Mary.

Joel blogs regularly  over at euagelion. Welcome,  Joel!

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.

One of the most perplexing problems in Pauline studies is the meaning of the phrase pistis christou. Is Paul speaking of our faith in Christ or of Christ’s own faithfulness toward God? Here noted contemporary New Testament scholars join forces–and lock horns–to shed light on the answer by presenting rigorous exegetical studies from both sides of the debate. They also bring fresh creative proposals to bear on the problem, and place the discussion in the wider spectrum of historical, biblical, and systematic theology.

The most penetrating and comprehensive attempt to date to grapple with the significance of Jesus’ faithfulness and obedience for Christian salvation, and the extent to which it is represented in key biblical texts.

CONTRIBUTORS
University of Durham luminary James D.G. Dunn authors an erudite foreword; and editor Michael Bird introduces the problems and prospects for a New Testament conversation on the topic. Debbie Hunn, Stanley E. Porter, and Andrew W. Pitts contribute essays about the background of the pistis christou discussion. Douglas A. Campbell, R. Barry Matlock, Paul Foster, and Richard Bell clarify Pauline texts in contention. Mark A. Seifrid, Francis Watson, Preston M. Sprinkle, and Ardel B. Caneday explore Pauline exegesis, hermeneutics, and theology. The witness of the wider New Testament is covered by Peter G. Bolt, Willis H. Salier, Bruce A. Lowe, and David deSilva. Finally, Mark W. Elliott and Benjamin Myers offer historical and theological reflections from the church fathers, Karl Barth, and others.

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

In an age where “church discipline” has fallen out of favor in the context of many churches, Eric Bargerhuff calls the church to a deeper understanding of its nature and purpose as an expression of God’s “fatherly love” towards his people. As a biblically mandated activity instituted by Christ himself in Matthew 18, church discipline is an essential practice of any faithful church that is committed to sharing the Gospel and making disciples.

Tackling some of the false notions and assumptions surrounding church discipline, Bargerhuff sets forth a historical, biblical, theological, and practical position that centers its identity and purpose on a proper understanding of the cross of Christ. Since the punitive wrath of God was poured out for sin on the cross of Jesus Christ (a penal substitutionary atonement), it is therefore necessary to reject the notion that church discipline is “punishment,” but rather it should be seen as God’s hand of forgiveness and grace extended for the purpose of restoring, reconciling, and rescuing one of his own, a “sheep that has gone astray.” It is to be regarded as God’s love in the actions of a forgiven and forgiving community.

Endorsements:

“Here is a biblically rooted, theologically formed, and long overdue case for conceiving church discipline as a loving practice of the church. Bargerhuff flies against the prevailing cultural winds that lead most of us, when we hear mention of ‘discipline,’ to complete the phrase with the other part of Foucault’s title: ‘. . . and punish.’ The evangelical church—and not only the evangelical!—desperately needs to recover this neglected church practice as an important means of edification, if not of grace itself.”

—Kevin J. Vanhoozer
Blanchard Professor of Theology
Wheaton College Graduate School

“This is a wise, insightful, practical, and theologically rich study of the teaching of the entire Bible about God’s loving discipline of his children. It will challenge every church to exercise discipline according to Scripture, lest the church itself fall under God’s discipline through unfaithfulness.”

—Wayne Grudem
Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies
Phoenix Seminary, Phoenix, Arizona

“Viewing [church discipline] as an incarnate expression of God’s fatherly discipline, Bargerhuff helps us understand church discipline as a necessary part of being a forgiven and forgiving community. I recommend this book very highly to all who long to see the church flesh out God’s dual commitment to ethical and doctrinal purity and to his forgiving, restoring, rescuing love.”

—Steven C. Roy
Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

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?

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.

“Catholicism met this challenge by building intellectual walls around the church, thus temporarily dropping out of the story we are tracing here. Protestantism first met it by making the doctrine of scriptural authority into an antecedent basis for theology’s claims. Thus traditional natural arguments for the reliability of Scripture came to bear a new load: we may, it was said, believe Christian doctrine because it is drawn from the Bible, whose truth can be made antecedently plausible. Seventeenth-century Protestant systems’ doctrine of Scripture thus already carried the modern prolegomenal burden.”

Catholicism built walls and retreated from the anti-supernatural claims of modernity’s epistemological Pelagianism; Protestantism granted the modern presupposition and tried to meet it head on via its doctrine of Scripture. Both attempts failed. The epistemological presupposition of modernity never should have been granted in the first place.

-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.