SAET » Taxonomy of the Pastor-Theologian, Part 2: The Pastor-Theologian as Local Theologian » The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesial Theology

November 25, 2009 by Gerald Hiestand

Taxonomy of the Pastor-Theologian, Part 2: The Pastor-Theologian as Local Theologian

Tweet

Continuing from part one…

The first, and I believe most common, model of the pastor-theologian is that of a local theologian to one’s own congregation. At this most basic level, the pastor-theologian is conceived of as a theologically astute pastor who ably services the theological needs of his local church.

Al Mohler Jr., in his recently published, He Is Not Silent: Preaching in a Post-Modern World, devotes a chapter to the calling and identity of the pastor-theologian. It becomes evident throughout the chapter that Mohler is working largely within the framework of the local theologian model. Challenging pastors to think theologically about ministry and preaching, Mohler correctly emphasizes the theological nature of pastoral ministry. Theological reflection is not an academic exercise, he argues; pastors, even more so than academicians, are called to engage in the theological task. Yet for Mohler, this theological task is carried out chiefly within the context of a pulpit ministry. “As a theologian,” he writes, “the pastor must be known for what he teaches as well as for what he knows, affirms and believes. The health of the church depends upon pastors who infuse their congregations with deep biblical and theological conviction, and the primary means of this transfer of conviction is the preaching of the Word of God.” Thus for Mohler, to be a pastor-theologian is to be a pastor who discharges his pastoral duty—most of all his preaching ministry—in light of careful theological reflection.

Along similar lines, John Piper (himself considered by many a consummate example of a contemporary pastor-theologian) and D. A. Carson (a pastorally sensitive academic scholar) recently gave twin lectures entitled, “The Pastor as Scholar” and “The Scholar as Pastor,” respectively. It was clear throughout both lectures that Piper and Carson view the identity of the pastor-theologian largely within the framework of the local theologian model. Though Piper has a robust writing ministry, neither he nor Carson mentioned a writing ministry as an essential aspect of the pastor-theologian’s identity. Indeed, both men discouraged pastors from trying to emulate the theological writings of past pastor-theologians such as Edwards, whose most penetrating discourse was considered beyond the reach of pastors (and presumably even pastor-theologians). For Piper and Carson, to be a pastor-theologian is simply to embody a robust commitment to theological reflection, and allow such reflection to influence one’s preaching and pastoral duties.

The local theologian model seems to be the general model most often affirmed by our evangelical laity as well. An elder in my church once introduced me to a colleague as “our church’s resident pastor-theologian.” My elder was not aware of the articles I’ve written or the papers I’ve presented, nor was he aware of my involvement in the SAET. He was mainly referring to the fact that I’m theologically minded, have a lot of theology books in my office, and enjoy teaching the adult theology classes at our church. My elder’s conception of a pastor-theologian was primarily that of a pastor who values theology as a vital aspect of pastoral ministry, and whose teaching ministry reflects this commitment.

While I agree in substance with Mohler, Piper and Carson, the local theologian model is insufficient for the sort of theological project the SAET seeks to embody. In the local theologian model, the term pastor-theologian—rather than suggesting an objective function (namely writing ecclesial theology)—acts primarily as compliment paid to those pastors who, in the estimation of the one issuing the compliment, give an appropriate degree of attention to theological concerns.

C. S. Lewis’ lament regarding the demise of the term gentlemen is helpful here. In his Mere Christianity, Lewis notes the de-evolution of the term from one that signified an objective fact, to one that designated a subjective impression regarding one’s opinion of an individual. He writes,

The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone “a gentleman” you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact….But then there came people who said—so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully—”Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should?…They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man “a gentleman” in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is “a gentleman” becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object….As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

The parallel is not exact, but instructive nonetheless. Like the term gentleman, the term pastor-theologian is not typically used to designate an objective function. Just as every Englishman should be a gentleman (whether they are a gentlemen or not), so too every pastor should be a pastor-theologian (whether they are a theologian or not). But sometimes less is more. In broadening the definition of pastor-theologian to potentially include all pastors, the term has lost its ability to serve a useful function in theological discourse. Like the word gentlemen, it has been spoiled for use.

The sort of theological engagement being advocated by Mohler, Piper and Carson is commendable. Would that more pastors appreciated the vital connection between pastoral ministry and theology. But there is a need, I believe, to reserve the title pastor-theologian for those who actually write theology. The local theologian model, in as much as it does not include writing theology as a vital component, is thus insufficient for the SAET project. The next two models—the pastor-theologian as popular theologian and the pastor-theologian as academic theologian—get closer. But not quite.

Categories: Pastor-theologian
Recent Comments
- Ed Eubanks said...
  
  Great post, and great series– I’m glad to have your thoughts on the “taxonomy” of Pastor-Theologians and a further, practical definition of ecclesial theology.
  
  Still, I wonder if you aren’t beginning to draw a line too clear: when it comes to men like Edwards, Owen, Calvin, and contemporary guys like Piper and (to a degreee) Carson– all what we might call Pastor-Theologians– isn’t the real value that they brought an essential lack of distinction between their pastoral ministry and their theological ministry? It seems to me that what we should be striving to emulate from those men, what we should be teaching our interns and seminarians, and what we should expect of our brethren in sister congregations and at presbytery is that to be a Pastor IS TO BE a theologian; that the work of pastoral ministry is inherently theological.
  
  I realize that we currently have such distinct categories (academic and ecclesial, and even, to a degree, theological vs. ministerial) that are unhealthy and unhelpful. We need to see that change, certainly– and your work here is a champion effort toward that.
  
  But I don’t think the real solution is to simply re-draw the boundaries of the categories, but to do away with them as much as we can, if not entirely.
  
  11/26/09 11:21 AM | Comment Link
- Nic Gibson said...
  
  What language should used for the kind of thing Mohler, Carson and piper are after- a theologically minded pastor? I think they would seek to argue that the theological pastor may be of greater importance and of more urgent need of duplication than more writing churchmen.
  
  And I’m am also anticipating your definition of ‘writing’ also. Since it seems like you do not consider the publishing of sermons as theological writing. But it seems like a sermon is a writing for a local and popular audience. Does this mean that the true pastor-theologian must write for other pastors or to the academic community? Is the distinction here what counts as theology?
  
  For example is Stott’s ‘The Cross of Christ’ theology written? And if so what about Loyd-Jones book on the sermon on the mount? (which is essentially a book of sermons) Or what about John Wesley’s publishing of mainly sermons (Though he published much more)?
  
  Could Mohler successfully argue that the preaching ministry is the primary theological publishing ministry of the pastor? The distinction between the two that disqualifies the sermon as published theology is necessary, right?
  
  11/26/09 2:55 PM | Comment Link
- Gerald Hiestand said...
  
  Nic and Ed,
  
  Thanks for your helpful thoughts. This whole taxonomy thing is a work in progress; a number of the guys at the SAET symposium said similar things. So I appreciate your pushback and am thinking about it. I may end up revising my paper before publication.
  
  But I do think the writing piece is important, particularly for the SAET’s mission. There are already quite a few ministries that advocate the pastor-as-local-theologian model. But there aren’t really any that I’m aware of (beside the SAET) that are advocating for the pastor-as-ecclesial-theologian model (a model that includes writing).
  
  If you haven’t done so already, I encourage you to read my “ecclesial theology” piece from Reformation 21. That will give you a sense of the sort of theological writing I’m thinking about. (And yes, Stott’s Cross of Christ would count).
  
  I should also add, that the SAET’s vision of the pastor-theologian is not for every pastor, nor should it be. I don’t think God calls every pastor to stand on the wall for the larger church. For most pastors, it is enough to be an effective theologian for their own local church. But God does gift and burden some people with a sense of theological calling for the larger church (men like Carson, Piper, Packer, et al). And I think that in the years to come, many of these people need to be pastors. I think we would all agree that each generation needs thoughtful, articulate, ecclesially sensitive theologians who wrestle with the pressing theological issues of the day. We need theologians who tackle the most important theological issues threatening the health and mission of the church–who stand on the wall, so to speak. And I don’t think this service can be adequately fulfilled apart from some sort of writing ministry. How effective would Piper be if he didn’t have a writing ministry? Or Packer or Mohler or Carson, for that matter? These men have had such positive influence largely because of their writing ministry. But from the 18th century on (in North America, anyway), this duty to the wider church has been delegated to the academy. And I think that has been a mistake.
  
  So I agree that the work of pastoral ministry is inherently theological. But I think we lose out if we never advocate for a pastor-theologian model that includes writing for the larger church. So my post is not to discount the pastor-as-local-theologian model (maybe my tone is too dismissive). Rather it’s to lay out the SAET’s vision for pastor-theologian-as-ecclesial theologian.
  
  Anyway, thanks for your helpful comments. As I said above, this is all still a work in progress, so I very much appreciate the feedback.
  
  11/26/09 5:30 PM | Comment Link
- Gerald Hiestand said...
  
  Nic,
  
  Does this mean that the true pastor-theologian must write for other pastors or to the academic community?
  
  I guess it depends how one defines “pastor-theologian”. If we mean by pastor-theologian the sort of pastor every pastor should be, then certainly not.
  
  But if we mean by pastor-theologian, that particular pastor who has a theological ministry to the wider church, than yes, I think so. Though I’m not sure I would see the academic community as the primary target. I would rather such pastor-theologians write to the theological center of gravity within the ecclesial community.
  
  11/26/09 5:36 PM | Comment Link
- Nic Gibson said...
  
  I think writing for the larger church also has the issue of audience, job description and publishing opportunity. For most of the writing pastors, they are a pretty tight guild of people who have access to publishing gate keepers. My experience is that there are more writers than readers and publishers for this kind of writing. Have you found it to be otherwise? Or do you think what is coming off the presses is not adequate? Has SAET talked with Mark Dever, or does it see him as a model?
  
  11/26/09 10:30 PM | Comment Link
- Gerald Hiestand said...
  
  I think Dever comes pretty close to what the SAET is advocating for, but I confess I haven’t read much of his stuff. I like what the “writing pastors” of today are doing (mostly), and I think it’s important work. But for the most part, the “writing pastors” are writing popular theology. I have nothing against popular theology (my book on purity falls into this category) but it’s not the same thing as ecclesial theology. Ecclesial theology, like popular theology, is focused on the life of the church and is written to the believing community, but unlike popular theology, it’s written to other theologians, pastors, and theologically interested laity. Ecclesial theology is popular theology on steroids.
  
  And yes, I do think there is a robust market for this sort of writing. At present, guys like you and I often have to choose between popular theology that is relevant to the life of the church but not always as robust as we need, and academic theology which is intellectually robust, but not always as relevant to the life of the church. Ecclesial theology marks a third way.
  
  In truth, the SAET vision is for a narrow group of pastors. Not every pastor is called to pursue the sort of theological engagement being advocated by the SAET. But some should and do.
  
  11/26/09 10:53 PM | Comment Link
- Nic Gibson said...
  
  I think Dever and 9 marks is the closest thing to what your thinking in terms of impulse with SAET, but serving a different purpose. 9 Marks does write Ecclesial theology aimed at pastors (9 Marks of a Healthy Church, The Deliberate Church…), and Mark’s expertise in his own words is helping the church think theologically about the church- as opposed to ‘methodological pragmatism’- sort of al la Micheal Horton, just a lot more baptist. I think knowing more about 9 marks will help considerably with defining SAET. 9 Marks’ end is not getting pastor’s to write, but it is a body of writers. So it may be that he is a pastor-theologian, but not mentoring people into pastoral-theologians, just local-theologians- but good ones.
  
  11/27/09 8:53 AM | Comment Link
- Gerald Hiestand said...
  
  Nic,
  
  “So it may be that he is a pastor-theologian, but not mentoring people into pastoral-theologians, just local-theologians- but good ones.”
  
  I think this is exactly correct. And I think that’s what separates the SAET from 9 Marks and TBI and other organizattions and pastors who advocate for the pastor-theologian model. They’re after local-theologians, which is great. We’re just doing something a bit more focused on writing.
  
  11/27/09 9:28 AM | Comment Link
- SAET » Taxonomy of the Pastor-Theologian, Part 3: The Pastor-Theologian as Popular Theologian » The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesial Theology said...
  
  [...] beyond the local theologian model, we arrive at a more objective definition of the pastor-theologian—the pastor-theologian as [...]
  
  11/27/09 9:34 AM | Comment Link
- Ed Eubanks said...
  
  I want to agree/second what Nic put forth, that sermons are essentially a writing ministry. And also that the issue of audience and publishing opportunity are obstacles to accomplishing the goals that are articulated here.
  
  I think that most people would be surprised at how much of the published writing of many of the “writing pastors” has its origins in sermons. Lloyd-Jones has already been mentioned, and TONS of his writings were basically transcribed sermons; similarly with Stott. So much of R.C. Sproul’s stuff is the same, though it derived from his teaching ministry rather than a preaching ministry.
  
  But the question of publication is an important one. The definition of “Pastor-Theologian” that you seem to be implying, Gerald, is that one must publish in order to be considered one. Why is that? Especially when the majority of today’s publishing industry is, by far, controlled by questions of profitability (on an economic basis), which begs the question of whether Kingdom-mindedness or the advancement of the Church EVER enters the equation. Should we let the secular accountants be the gatekeepers of whether someone qualifies as a “Pastor-Theologian”?
  
  For example, I know at least three guys who have been trying to get their PhD dissertations published for nearly a decade. The trouble is, every publisher tells them that its not publishable– but not because the writing is inferior or the ideas unimportant. It’s because the subject is too narrow a niche, or the potential purchasing audience is too few. Now, I’ve read some of these dissertations, and believe the work to be quite valuable indeed– I wish it were published for the sake of the Church. Meanwhile, these guys have had a difficult time advancing their academic careers because colleges and seminaries tell them that without a published dissertation then they aren’t as appealing. Two of these men have settled into teaching high school.
  
  The take-away is this: if the measure of good theological work is publication, then everyone who is serious about measuring up will move to the general, the safe, the acceptable. Only the elite few– the Carsons and Pipers, who have published so much and banked so much that any publisher will give them free reign– will have the capacity for new ideas, innovation, or niche topics.
  
  I feel similarly about the SAET requirement for advanced degrees to be a “fellow”. The implication is that a pastor with an M.Div., who otherwise might be quite a potential “Pastor-Theologian”, is inherently disqualified by lack of academic degree. The irony is thick: you want to re-align the place of the academic in theological work, but only after those in the SAET have mined the academy for its value…?
  
  Why not throw off the boundaries? Why not simply state, “THIS is the level of work that we all want to strive for– THIS is who and what we want to be” and let all who are able attain it with you?
  
  11/27/09 10:55 AM | Comment Link
- Gerald Hiestand said...
  
  Hi Ed,
  
  A lot of good thoughts here. Not sure I’ll address all your questions, but here goes…
  
  I do think sermons can qualify as ecclesial theology. However, I’m not certain a sermon can (or even should) try to address all of the theological topics that exist within the larger rubric of ecclesial theology (church history, soteriology, philosophy, soteriology, ecclesiology, eschatology, etc.). So I think you have a fair point, but I wouldn’t want to limit ecclesial theology to what can be contained in a sermon. Frankly, I think there are some things that theologians need to discuss that the average lay person doesn’t need to be burdened with.
  
  And I agree that publication can be a tricky business, particulary in the larger, more respected publishing houses. But those who have a gift for writing, a sense of calling, and are disciplined enough to stick with it generally find their way, even if in a journal, or a smaller publisher.
  
  The irony of the SAET asking its fellows for an advanced degree is not lost on us. The board spent some time discussing this. In the end we concluded that an advanced degree is a helpful way for the SAET to vet those who have a gift and calling to write high level theology. Generally, the person who pursues a ThM or PhD enjoys reflection and writing. And we’re not anti-academy. I’m certain all of the SAET fellows would very much affirm the value of our time at University or in Seminary. But please do note that an advanced degree is not a firm requirement for membership in one of our Fellowships. It’s only one of four qualifications that reflect an “ideal” candidate. Probably only a third of our guys meet all four requirements. A few of our guys (self included) do not have advanced degrees, but instead have a demonstrated publishing record, thus showing a commitment to a writing ministry. So an advanced degree is not a wooden requirement.
  
  And finally, I think you are probably right that my definition of the term “pastor-theologian” is too narrow. I’m thinking through that. Perhaps it’s better stated that the SAET is looking to support and advocate for a particular kind of pastor-theologian – the kind who has a heart to write ecclesial theology. I’m working on a follow-up post for my Taxonomy series that will address this.
  
  Thanks again for your helpful feedback.
  
  11/27/09 2:47 PM | Comment Link
- SAET » Taxonomy of the Pastor-Theologian, Part 4: The Pastor-Theologian as Academic Theologian » The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesial Theology said...
  
  [...] is a theological society for pastor-theologians, I am initially understood to be speaking of the local theologian model (part 2). When my listeners come to realize that I envision a writing ministry as a vital component [...]
  
  11/29/09 4:35 PM | Comment Link
- SAET » Taxonomy of the Pastor-Theologian, Part 5: The Pastor-Theologian as Ecclesial Theologian » The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesial Theology said...
  
  [...] discussed the reigning models of the pastor-theologian (local, popular, academic), the SAET’s vision for the pastor-theologian begins to emerge—the [...]
  
  11/30/09 2:40 PM | Comment Link
Leave A Comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published)

Website

About the SAET Blog

Welcome to the SAET blog. Herein you will find the theological/pastoral ramblings of the Rev. Matthew Mason, the good Doctor Jason Hood, and Pastor Gerald Hiestand. All three write under the premise that theology and the pastorate belong together, and that (at least some) pastors must once again function as writing theologians for the wider church, for the ecclesial renewal of theology and the theological renewal of the church.

Contributors

Gerald Hiestand
Gerald has served as the SAET board president since 2006. He has been in pastoral ministry since 1999, and serves currently as the Senior Associate Pastor of Calvary Memorial Church in Oak Park, IL.

Jason Hood
Jason is a graduate of Rhodes College, Reformed Theological Seminary, Highland Theological College and the Univ. of Aberdeen. Jason works as Scholar-in-Residence and director of Christ College Residency Program at Christ UMC. He's trying to figure out the twitter thing, @jasonbhood, and sometimes writes for ChristianityToday.com.

Matthew Mason
Matthew earned an MTh at Oak Hill College, London. He is an Assistant Pastor at Church of the Resurrection, Washington D. C. (Anglican Mission in the Americas), and edits Ecclesia Reformanda, a journal of Reformed theology.

The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesiological Theology

Taxonomy of the Pastor-Theologian, Part 2: The Pastor-Theologian as Local Theologian

Recent Comments

Leave A Comment

About the SAET Blog

Contributors

SAET Blogs

Blog Categories