The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesiological Theology

November 27, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

Taxonomy of the Pastor-Theologian, Part 3: The Pastor-Theologian as Popular Theologian

Moving beyond the local theologian model, we arrive at a more objective definition of the pastor-theologian—the pastor-theologian as popular theologian. In this model, the pastor-theologian is a pastor who actually writes theology—an objective function not typical of most pastors. Bridging the gap between the professional theological community and the local church, the popular theologian translates academic theology “down” to other pastors and the laity. Many pastor-theologians of this variety have post-graduate degrees, read widely in theology, and serve as significant (and necessary) voices in contemporary evangelicalism.

The writing ministries of pastors such as John MacArthur, John Piper, Kent Hughes, Kevin DeYoung and Mark Driscol come to mind here. (Naming names at this point runs the risk of landing on the wrong side of a given pastor’s self-understanding, but for the sake of clarity, I press on.) Writing of this sort is not primarily an attempt to enter into the high-level theological discussions taking place among professional theologians (with perhaps the exception of Piper’s recent work of justification). Rather it is an effort to help pastors and other non-theologians better understand the importance of relevant issues in theology.

Thus, in the popular theologian model, the job of the pastor-theologian is to unpack the complexities of Nicene Trinitarianism, Chalcedonian Christology, aberrant atonement theories, and the like, in ways that are accessible to the average pastor and person in the pew. Commentaries written in this genre tend to be devotional and focused on application. Theological works tend to be introductory.

To be sure, popular-level theology is necessary for the health and life of the church. I do not use the term “popular” in a pejorative sense. As a pastor, I engage in such writing myself. And indeed, many evangelical academic theologians (Packer, Carson, McGrath, Sweeney, etc.) regularly function as popular theologians. But here we must ask if such theological writing appropriately qualifies a pastor as a theologian in the fullest sense of the term. Theologians such as Carson and Packer are not considered theologians on the basis of their popular theology. They are considered theologians because they contribute regularly to the scholarly discussions of their respective theological guilds. The difference is not inconsequential.

In as much as we have allowed the pastor-theologian to be solely identified with popular-level theology, we have compromised the intellectual integrity of his theological project. Just as a DMin lacks the theological credibility of a PhD, so too a pastor-theologian has come to lack the theological credibility of an academic theologian. This lack of theological credibility, I believe, is fueled by our willingness to use the term pastor-theologian in this truncated sense.

But this credibility gap is not reflective of the historical precedence. Pastor-theologians such as Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and Wesley did not limit themselves to popular theology (though they did write popular theology). Their theological systems represented the cutting edge thought of their day. Ultimately (and here’s my main concern), when we identify the pastor-theologian with popular theology, we diminish the theological credibility of ecclesial theology. If we embrace the popular theologian model as the chief identity of the pastor-theologian, ecclesial theology will never rise above popular-level discourse. Popular theology is great, but we already have plenty of it. What we’re missing is robust ecclesial theology.

Categories: Ecclesial Theology | Pastor-theologian