The Dawn of a New Day?
I've been reading Marva Dawn's "Talking the Walk," which is about reclaiming Christian language. It's very simple--deceptively so. I found myself growing a little frustrated by the book's taking so many theological and biblical discussions for granted and moving from there. Then I reconsidered the book's introduction. This is not a book about theology; it is a book about God. Theology is complex, involved, old, conditioned, and fascinating. God is simple, reachable, fresh, unconditional, and beautiful. Dawn is not writing as a trained New Testament theologian here (which she is), but as a believer who happens to be a NT theologian. There is a significant difference. Reading the book in this light removes my frustration, lets me read less guardedly, and simply enjoy the edification.
In light of teaching a class on Revelation on Sunday nights at my church, I believe it better to take Dawn's (dare I say) pastoral approach, rather than that of the systematic theologian. That begs the question, of course, Can systematic theologians be pastors? Methinks they can...but perhaps being more systematic for some and more pastoral for others.
In light of teaching a class on Revelation on Sunday nights at my church, I believe it better to take Dawn's (dare I say) pastoral approach, rather than that of the systematic theologian. That begs the question, of course, Can systematic theologians be pastors? Methinks they can...but perhaps being more systematic for some and more pastoral for others.
posted by Aaron Perry at
4:45 PM
11 Comments:
Just love Jesus
If pastors can't be systematic theologians, it kind of throws Augustine, Bishop (i.e., chief pastor) of Hippo into a bad light. Or Ambrose of Milan or Athanasius of Alexandria or Cyril of Alexandria. Or John Calvin, chief pastor of Geneva. Or Karl Barth, pastor of the Reformed Church at Safenwil. Or JOhn Paul II or Benedict XVI. Or Rowan Williams, or your hero, NT Wright, Bishop of Durham.
It seems to me that one of the chief problems both of the theological academy and the church is that too few pastors are theologians (or know that they are). You AP, are a blessed and wonderful exception. And vice versa, too many theologians do their business effectively divorced from the Church. On this point, FDE Schleiermacher is right and CFH Henry is wrong.
As you say, of course, audience sensitivity matters. (You shouldn't be teaching Pannenberg to a Sunday School class.) But surely a man (or a woman) can wear more than one hat, even when one of them is a mitre.
Or, conversely, we could just love Jesus and leave the book-learnin to the librawls.
SGFMB
Aaron.
You blog too often for my comments to be current!! I blink and there is a 2 new post. I am no theologian so I will wait for an econ thought and I will try to get a word in! :)
When Marva Dawn spoke at Asbury last year, she spoke so beautifully and so powerfully and the focus was so clearly on God that I sort of forgot her and found myself drawn to God. What's better than that?
When I'm done with seminary, I will put that book on my list to read. Thanks for the post.
John
Some Guy, I think, has raised another issue. I'll get to it in a second. First, perhaps I should rephrase the question: Can systematic theologians be pastors in Wesleyan churches (TWC)?
The issue he raised that I think is important is the nature of the church. In other words, operating in a call system, like TWC, churches get to choose their pastors--and therefore the *kind* of pastors they get. I think this is why the Emergent Church is gaining ground in TWC's colleges and approved seminaries: the students feel appreciated in being who they are. This, of course, is why Drury blogged a few months ago about Barna's book, shouting, "Don't forget the 'local' church!" seemingly forgetful that they haven't forgotten the local church, but are trying to join it.
(Now, this is not about the church I am at in particular. The original post showed my own lack of pastoral insight and so the fault is mine.)
john--if i'm done with the book by the time you get here, you can have it. it's a book to read and pass along.
AP,
hmmm...and all this time i thought that theology was "about God" with the goal being to make His complexities and relation to us more (easily) understood. [Or is this the def. of "pastoring"?]
so, what's the frustration if someone who is trained in the complexities (a la Dawn)then puts descriptions/images of Him in the vernacular?
do you think that simplified communicative language doesn't count as "real" theology? that genuine theology is *only* systematically communicated? i'm curious...
Ah, my German is just fine (Ha!)
Anyway, pastors should be theologians and vice-versa. Is theology not done for the church inside of the church? Well, then again, maybe doctrine is done inside the church for the church. Maybe the goal of theology is to lay down a language that the church can use, while still being able to dialogue outside the church? I don't know.
no frustration with Dawn after i reconsidered what she was doing. besides that, i'm a little offended at you even thinking that i might think theology is only done systematically! :) of course no. (ST does have a plaec, but not the only one.) dawn wrote a book about God, but not about theology; i reading for the latter and got the former. i just had to re-orient myself.
nate--good questions and ones i might raise again for all to consider. i agree that theology is for the church and only done well inside the church; i'm just not sure many "local churches" want it so much.
oh try not to be offended. :) the reason i asked for clarification is because i thought "surely i'm not reading him correctly--he really isn't saying that, is he?"
what causes my confusion is when you seem to separate the defining characteristic of "about God" from "theology" when you say that the book is "this", but not "that" respectively. as if there was now an invisible line there between the two.
anyway, i'm glad to know that i misread you, instead of the opposite being true.
i'm a little confused, jo, so let me clarify. when i say dawn is writing about God, she is doing theology (and, for the most part, fairly well in this book). so, she is writing a book about God (doing theology); she is not writing a book about theology (doing critique of/enquiry into/etc. theology). does that make better sense?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home