My last post on ‘Theological Tongues’ prompted a reply from theologian Justin Stratis, he invoked one of our Protestant Church Fathers, Karl Barth (taken from Barth’s 2nd edition to his Commentary on Romans p. 4-5); Barth says:
“Those who urge us to shake ourselves free from theology and to thinkβand more particularly to speak and writeβonly what is immediately intelligible to the general public seem to me to be suffering from a kind of hysteria and to be entirely without discernment. Is it not preferable that those who venture to speak in public, or to write for the public, should first seek a better understanding of the theme they wish to propound? Ragaz and his friends reply hurriedly that this proceeds from callous theological pride. But this cannot be granted for one moment. Those who are genuinely convinced that the question is at present trivial must be permitted to go their own way. Some of us, however, are persuaded that the question, What are we to say? is an important one, particularly when the majority are prepared at any moment to lift up their voices in the street. I do not want readers of this book to be under any illusions. They must expect nothing but theology. If, in spite of this warning, it should stray into the hands of some who are not theologians, I shall be especially pleased. For I am altogether persuaded that the matters of which it treats and the questions which it raises do in fact concern every one. I could not make the book more easily intelligible than the subject itself allowsβ¦.[W]e theologians serve the layman best when we refuse to have him especially in mind, and when we simply live of our own, as every honest labourer must do.”
My previous post was somewhat lamenting the failure of academic theology to somehow reach those in the pew. Admittedly, this is no small task—that is for theology to reach the layman—but my question, in lieu of Barth’s boundaries, is; is it okay for there to be a hard dichotomy between the theologian and the layman, in the way that Barth construes it in the aforementioned quote? Should theology be done for the church? Barth would say Yes! But is it possible to do theology for the church when it is not done from within the context of the church? These are all questions that have technical responses available to them; and ones that are still being contested amongst the Yoderians, Hauerwasians, Barthians, Schleiermachereans, Lindbeckians, Frieans et. al. amongst us. These are questions that so called cultural-liguistics and language games have something to do with. But my question, in this instance, is more aimed for those who might be considered “lay.” Those who, at least, don’t have a particular dog in this fight. I consider myself a theology guy, but I am not as involved in these kinds of discussions as maybe I should be. Nevertheless, I’d like to hear from you lay people, especially; but then also any of you theologians, who might have a dog, I’d like to have your insight too.
Of course defining what the Church actually is, is part of the issue at stake in answering this particular question. And then, subsequently, what being for the church actually entails. I would contend that being for the church, from Scripture (esp. Paul), is to be someone who edifies and builds up the church into the one body of Christ (a Pauline image for the ‘Church’). I don’t want to qualify this to death, I would like to hear simple replies; as simple as they might be.
First, I’d say calling Justin Stratis a theologian is a bit of a stretch, but as adequate language is lacking here, we’ll let “theologian” stand for now.
Second, my thinking on this topic, which I think has been prompted by observations similar to yours, has led me to think of the division of theological labors as functioning best when those at either end of the spectrum (the preacher focused on clear and persuasive communication on one end and the theologian on the other end seeking to articulate the rational content of the gospel with as rigorous a precision as possible – I don’t know, does that distinction sound right?) perform their own task as well as possible and look to the other to help them without seeking to be the other. I say that in attempt to agree with Barth’s defense of the theologian doing his work focused on the reality of God and not worrying about whether the laity can keep up. However, if the theologian really does outrun not only what the pastor could do but even what he/she can understand, as is often the case in my own experience, there arise the need for middlemen/women, people (and here I am unashamedly describing myself) who might not be the most gifted communicators or the sharpest minds but understand the concerns and have some degree of skill in both disciplines and can help bridge the gap. Practically speaking, I think the gap needs to be bridged primarily in the direction of theologian to pastor so that the short-stop is trained in reading theology, discerning good and bad theology, and mediating the insights of good theology to pastors. Getting PhDs on church pastoral staffs is what I have in mind here (and what I’m trying to do professionally – this is a very narcissistic reply I’m giving you). Of course, there is need to bridge the gap the other way too, which I think primarily looks like academic professors with pastoral experience bringing that experience to bear on academic theological conversation.
Anyway, I think envisioning this kind of mediatorial work allows for those whose gifting is more one sided to pursue that work rigorously and without shame for the gifts they might be lacking. I do think the good theologian will need to have the church in mind as they pursue their work, but they needn’t have the church’s intellectual capacity in mind – they can honorably leave that work to others, unless they (most justifiably) think their insights will get mutiliated in the translation process…
Hey Adam,
I was just trying to give Justin the benefit of the doubt on “theologian,” since I don’t know him well enough to jab him like you do; so I’ll just have to live vicariously through your jab, then π .
I like your thinking on this topic, and really appreciate your feedback; since I know that your current situation has you dead centered in the ecclesial context. Just for a little more context, on my own formation, let me say that the reason I continue to struggle with this is because I don’t really see myself any differently than anyone else in the church. I love Jesus, I want to know Jesus, and so that has led me to get a couple of degrees (hopefully with a 3rd on the horizon) with the goal of enhancing my knowledge of Jesus. I think my dissonance comes in when I get around other Christians who don’t seem to have any drive, whatever, to do likewise. I don’t say this from a holier-than-thou position, but instead from an honest bewilderment. I would be satisfied with Christians simply reading their Bibles on a consistent basis; but I am positive that this doesn’t even happen, in general, in the church. And I know these same people love Jesus, they have a sensitivity to his Spirit, but then it appears the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak mantra takes over. With that said, I like your distinction on pastor/theologian; they serve each other and the church in a symbiotic way; with the recognition that each has their gifting in a particular direction (of course some can be both, like Calvin … maybe that’s what I have in mind … I’m too idealistic). I agree with your middle-man point too; in fact, humbly I say, that’s where I see myself as well. And maybe that’s why I have this kind of angst about this; I’m not 100% theologian or 100% pastor, I’m somewhere in the middle, which makes finding my identity (both vocationally and personally) within the church somewhat tenuous. I also agree with you about the level wherein this bridging needs to mostly take place, between the theologian and pastor; which then serves more as an argument for seminaries than church staff theologians (but maybe not).
I do agree, ultimately, that the theologian has a certain place in the church; and that place might be called the academy, in some qualified instances. But then again, like you, I don’t see myself in the academy, I see myself serving in the church; in both worlds as it were, being a translator, as you say. I think we may be at similar spots, Adam, in our particular roles in the church. Thanks for your feedback, that helps me (so now I’m being narcissistic, but I think we need to be somewhat intentional if we are going to carve space for theologians in the church).
I think having pastors get seminary degrees is the current model for keeping pastors in touch with theologians/biblical scholars (who should be working symbiotically but really undercut each other in my experience), but I think it really doesn’t work very well. In my own tradition at least (seeker sensitive conservative-baptist/non-denom – that a-lot of hyphens) seminary is so often seen as the hurdle you have to jump to get on with the real business of ministry. In most cases, some of the language and exegetical skills are maintained, but all interaction with the church’s theological tradition is immediately halted upon graduation if it had ever really even started. That’s why I want to see more people on pastoral staff that are getting patristic, medieval, Reformation and modern theologians on their shelves, regularly interacting with them and then hopefully even tricking some of the other pastors around the office to borrow some of them and begin their own discipline of theological reflection. There are just so many good people in the pastorate with all kinds of good intentions and a huge love for Christ and his church but that just don’t put anything of any quality in their brains on any kind of regular basis. I don’t think seminaries are doing enough to change that. We need people on the inside, putting Anselm, Barth and Stratis under pastors’ noses.
Adam, again, great points! I once heard our beloved Chuck Swindoll addressing a graduating class from Dallas Theological Seminary, he said exactly what you just did; except he was encouraging this as the President, at the time, of DTS; that is to forget everything you just learned, and begin the process of really learning what it means to be a pastor. I couldn’t believe it, I mean I know that this is the reality; but to hear it explicitly encouraged and articulated really disheartened me, esp. coming from someone who supposedly is in the “business” of providing theological education. And then, too, my own experience parallels yours in seminary (and Bible College); so many of the folks there could care less about learning patristic/reformation/systematic theology (even Hebrew and/or Greek for that matter). They seemed to see getting an MDiv or MA in Pastoral Studies as the necessary stepping stone to entering into the ministry full time. Which all of this makes sense given the American corporate model that Evangelical churches, in general, mimic. I hear you, and whole-heartedly agree with you! Thankfully my pastor (of only about 5mos) is very astute, and seeks to exegete the text with his whole heart, and he even likes to talk to me π . But yes, the sooner pastors can get Stratis, Barth, and Schleiermacher under their noses; the church will be on its way hehe.
Good discussion here guys. Don’t you think part of the problem is the old dichotomy that sees highly intellectual theology disconnected and irrelevant to the average concerns of the average Christian? What does the perichoretic relations within the Trinity have to do with the couple struggling to keep their marriage intact? So instead of encouraging them to read theology, the church pushes self help marriage books.
I think this is where the translation process you talk about comes into play. Can we make theology proper relevant and meaningful to the average Christian? Do we even know how?
The other hurdle is that the intellectual curiosity of our culture is on the wane and the immediate gratification of entertainment is dominant. So how much of a demand is their for good theology presented in terms all can understand? Perhaps by presenting it more often we can create demand once the “consumer” gets a taste of the good stuff. π
Adam – don’t think you can atone for your grievous insult by including me with the likes of Anselm. At least Bobby puts me with Schleiermacher…
Anyways, on the Romans quote, I think what Barth was saying is that the first task of the theologian is to get clarity on the subject matter of the Christian faith before seeking to “break it down” for the laity. Otherwise, it would be like selling a product before giving it sufficient time to simmer in research and development. It would be stupid to have this great idea for an mp3 player and then rush it to market before its ready; similarly, it would be unwise not to give theologians the space and freedom to work out the complicated bits before taking this stuff to press. I don’t even want to know the crazy engineering that went into designing the iPod – all I know is that because some other person went to the trouble of dealing with all those complexities, now my 2 year old can operate an iPod without my even showing her how to do so.
Of course, if you’re just using big words to sound smart, well then, you’re neither getting clarity nor helping the layperson – you’re just an a-hole.
Justin, what you’re saying here is good, as long as the “product” in question isn’t thought to be the gospel itself, the saving presence of God in his preached Word by the power of the Spirit which is never a product any human being could be in control of. The product must be then a critical conceptual construct developed in light of the gospel (for which the theologian is best in constant contact with the gospel, meaning in church fellowship and worship) that serves the preacher as a measuring instrument for the theological adequacy of his/her preaching? I do think, however, theologians do get in the nasty habit of thinking the preacher depends (or ought to depend) primarily on their work, that theologians are responsible for the pure research of the gospel, the practical theologians refine this into something technologically useful, and the homiletician markets it to the masses. Pardon me, I just vomited on my laptop.
@Jon,
I agree, that perichoresis and the normal Christian experience don’t seem to mix. Of course, if we can explain/teach folks these concepts w/o using the $2 words; then it is here where the lay person can be most edified, and not intimidated. This is the role of the pastor (pastor/theologian), I think.
Unfortunately, we do live in an ADHD society; but that’s no excuse for the Christian, and I think this can and should also be addressed (in love) from the pulpit.
@Justin,
I agree, there are places for all of us; and indeed, there are doctors, techies, garbage men, etc., each has their own peculiar vocab, and modes of operation. The theologian is no different in that regard; I have used this analogy myself, in defense of theology. It is this place that the theologian inhabits, but I think that the theologian should always remember that it isn’t for him or his name, but for the church and Christ’s people; that is all I think theologians should remain cognizant of. They are in a unique position, they aren’t “just” a dentist or something; they serve as mediators and teachers in the church. I think Adam’s qualifications are also important ones π .
I knew you would like Schleiermacher; somebody has to π .