Education has always played a large role in my thinking on the hope of future reunion of the Protestant churches, because I am convinced that a major reason (though not the only reason) for our disunity is lack of education about our theological heritage. Christians generally have no idea what the real issues that divide them from other Christians are or how those differences came about; much less do they have the first clue about how these divisions might be healed. This lack of historical and theological perspective serves only to increase defensive and militant postures towards opinions foreign to us and those who hold such opinions. And this is by no means a problem which simply exists among the laity. It is in fact just as much a problem within the theologically “educated” clerical ranks.
Playing a part in rectifying this problem has thus always been in the forefront of my mind as I have pondered where to exercise the gifts I have been given. I was at one time convinced that the best place for me was in the academy, working to educate the future leaders of the church and hopefully playing a part in instilling in them a desire to be united with their brothers and sisters with whom they may differ, or at least helping them to understand why they differ. A laudable goal, I’m sure you’ll agree. However, I have since decided to seek ordination to pastoral ministry, and what follows lays out, in all too brief a manner, my basic line of thinking which initially convinced me that I should forsake the idea of pursuing a career in the wonderful world of academia.
I remain convinced that God does indeed call people to work in the academy in order to serve the church in that capacity, so I don’t want any of my comments here to be taken as a deprecation of the academy per se or those who work therein by any means. However, I am concerned about a rather troubling trend which I have noticed for some time now. Most of the best Christian scholars are going to the academy while those who are not “academic” are going into the pastorate. Thus, our seminaries are full of a sort of intellectual hierarchy amongst the students (I say this as one who has observed closely the student life of two very prominent Protestant seminaries): the majority of highly intellectual students go for PhDs and a career in professional theologizing, while those who are not quite so intellectual enter the pastorate. Thankfully there are exceptions here, but this, it seems to me, is the general rule.
This is a dangerous trend, and one I hope to play a part in breaking. Theology exists for the church, not the church for theology. This is the natural order of things, and I am convinced that it has been reversed in recent years.
One thing we desparately need in order to reverse this situation is pastors who know the entire breadth of Christian thought and its history; who can speak intelligently to the church and the world in our day and effectively combat the fragmentation of church and society.
But also, it is imperative that the locus for theologizing move back to the church. The primary place where theologizing is done has been the abstract world of the academy for far too long. In this situation, the theologizing of the church has come in one of two forms: either a trickle down of ideas originating in the academy, or a reaction against the academy. But in both cases, the academy has dictated the direction in which the theology of the church has moved. But history furnishes us with numerous examples for the rule that most of the best theologians (and by “best” I mean those who have had the most wide-ranging impact) are generally also pastors, so this situation is needless, not to mention very unhealthy.
Thus, I don’t think it is too much of an overstatement to say that the professionalization of theology is a plague on the modern day American churches, and I am convinced that it has played perhaps the biggest role of all in the continual fracturing of the church in this country.
I am not the only one who has seen this. In fact, professional theologians themselves are pointing it out. E. Brooks Holifield, in his magisterial work Theology in America (New Haven: Yale, 2003) provides a very revealing assessment of the beginning of this phenomenon in the nineteenth century:
Presbyterians, both Old school and New, assumed leadership in the professionalizing of theology. As a full-time theologian who never held a position outside the academy, [Charles] Hodge joined the ranks of a new kind of American religious leadership. And as theology moved from the parishes to the seminaries, rivalries among the schools intensified theological disagreements. Princeton saw Andover, for instance, as dedicated to making ‘Old-School doctrines appear ridiculous and odious,’ and it viewed Yale as an enemy of orthodoxy. Old School seminaries competed also among themselves; the southerners at Union, Danville, and Columbia tried to ‘break the charm’ of Princeton’s ‘ascendancy,’ and northern ultraconservative kept Princeton on the defensive by threatening to create new schools whenever the Princeton faculty strayed. Other seminaries, including Auburn in New York, Lane in Ohio, and Union in New York City, became centers of New School thought arrayed against Old School institutions. (371-372)
And, as many of us well know, this was only the beginning.
This is a shame, and I believe it is the calling of our generation to begin an effort to reverse this situation. There is a place for the academy and for academics working therein, of course. But there also needs to be a place in the church for pastors who undertake rigorous academic work and also for career academics who are deeply immersed in the life of the church. And a healthy relationship will never exist between the two institutions unless the church begins to reassert its role as that place for which theology exists and in which the task of theology is to be undertaken.
Also, it is necessary that theologians be pastoral in both perspective and ethos if their ideas are ever really going to have any impact on people. To steal an immortal phrase from The Fearsome Pirate: “If you don’t give a crap about people and their crap, it all goes to crap.” I am convinced that a major problem with the church’s theologizing in our day is that it exists only for the most part in the form of abstraction. Our theology is “out there” somewhere. It exists in an ideal world. But the problem is that the church (for the good of which theology exists) does not exist in an ideal world. The church is a real life, messy place, full of sinful men and women. Jesus Christ took on flesh so that we would no longer have to theologize about a God “out there” with endless theorem. Theology—if it does not exist in the real world and for the real flesh and blood people who constitute the church—“all goes to crap.”
And indeed, it has very much gone to crap in a variety of ways. We find ourselves in a lamentable situation. But it is not a hopeless one.
Jonathan,
I couldn’t agree more. Excellent post, my friend.
peace
P
Very thought provoking. Thank you. However, I am interested in how you think it can be fixed. Is it simply by having people who are qualified for ‘academia’ go into the pulpits and still write books and theologize (if that is really a word)?
Do you think the independent nature of most seminaries is a part of this problem of professionalization? Should seminaries be run by denominations and answerable to them?
I would love to hear some more practical ways to fix this problem you have identified.
Thanks again,
Lee
Sorry for the name in the above post. For some reason my wife’s name appeared.
It really is me.
Lee
Hi Lee,
Honestly, I’m not sure of the *best* way to fix the problem. A good start however would be to recognize that there is a problem, which I believe that more and more people are. I do think the independent nature of seminaries is a big part of the issue, but not all there is to it. At root I see the problem in the failure of churches to realize their responsibility to provide spiritual and religious training for men they deem equipped for ministry, and the holding up of the seminary MDiv as the ideal for future ministers within most denominations rather than encouraging young men to be mentored by experienced and learned pastors in real church situations.
The rule (and I know that I’m generalizing) that I’ve seen is that most men whom the church considers gifted for the ministry are told to go off to seminary and/or shuffled off to some form of youth ministry and forgotten about for the most part (except, of course, when there is a problem with some of the youth). Of course, this goes hand in hand with the rise of theological seminaries, and as I’m no expert in the history of that phenomenon, it’s hard to really say which came first. Did the lack of ability/desire among existing churches to train young ministers make having so many seminaries necessary, or did the rise of the seminary cause churches to slack off in their duty to train future ministers? I’m not really sure.
Anyway, I’m not *so* down on seminaries. They are much better than nothing. But there is most definitely a better way than how it is being done now. I think a start would be to have local churches more involved in the regular life of the average seminary and have the seminary more intimately connected with the church. Some already do this better than others (the seminary I’m currently at does it much better than my former seminary, imo), but there is still much room for improvement.
And yes, we definitely need more intellectually equipped and studious pastors. Desparately. I would encourage everyone who is in seminary and considering doing a PhD in some theological discipline for a career of academic work to take some time and seriously consider whether or not this is truly the calling of the Lord upon their lives, or if it’s just their way of falling in line with a faltering system which will just continue to perpetuate itself unless gifted men such as them decide to reject it and go another route. This is not to say that no such men should go into the academy (Certainly many should! And certainly, also, many should stay far, far away from the pastorate!), just that the idea that those of an “intellectual” bent are reserved for careers of academic work, while those of a more “practical” bent are destined for the ministry (which always starts in “youth ministry”, as we all know) is completely ridiculous, and folks preparing for either field should strongly consider how they might play a part in breaking this trend. And whether or not intellectually gifted pastors write books is secondary. Books are good. But pastors are first and foremost called to be theologians for the people directly under their care. If they can write books too, that’s great.
And btw: Yes,”theologize” is a word. Not sure if it is in a standard dictionary or not, but it is a term commonly used in seminary-type circles to describe the art of “doing theology.”
Hey Jonathan,
I think if theology moves back to the church, in such a way that all substantive theological investigation and discussion is located in the church, then we would be moving back to Inquisition and Witch-hunts. I am not saying you are saying that, to be clear.
Nor am I sure the “Church” is capable of engaging is serious academic inquiry anymore. Rather the Ecclesia needs to engage the Academy.
And in my experience, when theologs in the church think they control the academy, the discussion moves to ‘white hat vs black hat,’ with the pointy end of the big stick of exclusivism being wielded.
I have sorta lost confidence that the Reformed community can return to a solid academic base because the goals of Academia is to reveal truth, whereas the goal of the Ecclessia is to inculcate and defend “truth” (as they see it, which is more often than not, along narrow lines of what is, and what is not ‘good,’ etc).
My 2 cents worth.
David
Hi David,
I hear what you’re saying. I’m not speaking primarily of the church as denominations here. I’m speaking of the church primarily at the local level as the place where pastoral/theological training ought to take place. Local churches must have a confessional base though, of course, and in this sense are “denominational” in character.
I’d argue that the primary reason the Church seems to be incapable of serious scholarly inquiry is because most of her best scholars have chosen to be primarily academics rather than churchmen. What I am calling for is a reversal of this trend.
And I’d question the validity of viewing theology primarily as an academic discipline in the first place, so we probably have different understandings about the purpose/task of theology. In my thinking, if theological disciplines are not being undertaken in order to serve actual churches, they are all pointless. To the extent that a theologian undertakes his task as a purely academic discipline, to that extent he leaves his very calling and purpose for existence unfulfilled.
David,
You wrote:
“the goals of Academia is to reveal truth, whereas the goal of the Ecclessia is to inculcate and defend “truth” ”
LOL! Yeah, popular academics is overrun with objectivity and agenda-less driven scholarship.
God save the academy from itself.
Hey Jonathan,
I appreciate you reply. But for myself, Ive only seen Church–at all levels–use knowledge to beat people up. Most of us, if you scratch us below the skin, we really want a sort of intellectual theonomy or hegemony. I know, I am cynical. Ive seen to much abuse to the point that I no longer believe that the Church and engage in good honest academics.
But here is the critical point for me, when I do see Christians do good academics, its because they have a strong sense of a secularist spirit pervading their thinking.
I probably wont be able to explain that well, but good scholarship takes the right mix of faith and secularist thinking.
To St. Worm,
Oh you foolish little worm. :-)
I realized after I sent my note that that could be a comeback. The fact that we all have agenda aside, if we take history for example, good history writers have a desire to display truth. They will make an argument, for sure, but the motive is to win folk over by the display of the evidence and truth. That’s in good history, not propaganda.
The Church when it dabbles in history it tempted to propaganda.
If I could think of a crude example, some of the histories of the WCF by R. S. Paul for example, the “tone” of the work is very different to that say of Hetherington’s and Warfield’s works on the same general subject. There is something intellectually “pushy” about Hetherington and Warfield’s works where you know the setting out knowledge on its own terms is not what they really want to communicate. It gets the point that the sort of self-conscious eccliasial histories of men like Warfield and Hetherington mean that their works are of little real academic value.
I know I am not expressing myself as clear as I could.
If we want our pastors to be more intellectual, that to me is another issue. When I think of academics I think of a more disciplined level of intellectual endeavor.
Hope that helps, and again thanks for your patience,
David
Dave,
I love academia. Don’t get me wrong. And on the whole I agree with you. I only was meaning to be funny because it’s true that academia is entirely not immune to high-browed anti-intellectualism (if that makes sense), under the guise of “scholarship”. I’ve met idiots and fools with PhD’s. I’m sure we all have at one time or another.
Blessings.
David,
I am very sympathetic to your concerns, and mostly agree with your observations: and in this regard, you might find Eugen Rosenstock’s (approving) account of the Lutheran settlement regarding the independence of the academic theologate, in his “Out of Revolution”, very illuminating. The academic theologate had a relative independence which was sponsored by, though not controlled by, the prince. On this question of the realm of relative “secularity” insured by the magistrate, see Steven Wedgeworth’s recent post “Theocratic Corpus Christianum” over at his blog, Wedgewords.
But even granting the substance of your concerns, I think it is quite clear that Jonathan isn’t denouncing rigorous academic formation for pastors, nor is he demanding that the ministerium as such, in its proper locus (congregation), exercise some sort of absolute monopoly on historical theology, Biblical studies, or even dogmatics- let alone, Christian intellectual life altogether. He is rather suggesting that the brightest minds in the church should be serving the church as pastors rather than solely as professors. He is also arguing, I think, that theological formation should not simply academic, but should occur within a matrix (seminarium!) of devout worship and personal discipleship. My guess is that Jonathan means more, of course, than the usual “chapel requirements” and the patterns of informal mentoring which develop sometimes between professors and seminarians.
peace
P
Hey Worm,
I am fine, I hoped that my smilie would communicate my friendly demeanor.
What I am thinking about is not easy to explain. But there is something that separates, for example, good histories on the English Reformation from Fox’s Book of the Martyrs. In terms of modern scholarship, the there is a solid difference between the quality of the works of say Richard Muller to that of Scott Clark.
The need for a secularist aspect to good history is something which would take a lot of words and examples to explain, and probably not here.
Thanks
David
Hey Peter,
You say:
He is rather suggesting that the brightest minds in the church should be serving the church as pastors rather than solely as professors. He is also arguing, I think, that theological formation should not simply academic, but should occur within a matrix (seminarium!) of devout worship and personal discipleship. My guess is that Jonathan means more, of course, than the usual “chapel requirements” and the patterns of informal mentoring which develop sometimes between professors and seminarians.
David: I apologize for my reader response reaction to Jonathan’s post. All I can say is that something unsettles me. To your first part of the quoted paragraph, sure thats fine with me.
To the reference to the seminarium, I think thats what it is. I think thats my concern: I dont think it can be done with proper intellectual honesty.
I will think about this some more.
Thanks again,
David
Just so y’all know: Peter reads me rightly.
And, btw, David: Give me a good academic text on the English Reformation (preferably Dickens) over Foxe any day of the week! I by no means want to see a disintegration of sound scholarship. But I would question the assumption which says that if a man serves primarily as a churchman he will necessarily lack the ability to produce such scholarship. What I want to see is sound scholarship done in service to real-life churches.
My chief concern here is to safeguard the fact that theology and theological disciplines exist for the good of the people of God. To this end, I desire both an increase of good intellectual/scholarly labor amongst pastors as well as an increase in pastoral ethos and purpose amongst academic-type theologians. It is the abstraction of rigorous theological labor from the normal life of the church, and the consequent abstraction this brings in the vacuumesque theological training of future pastors, which I am attempting to combat.
Hey Jonathan,
Here is what I thought was a critical line from your post: ie the line that focused my response:
“But also, it is imperative that the locus for theologizing move back to the church. ”
[emphasis mine.]
I picked up on your use of the word ‘academy’ and then your use of ‘theology’ and took them as intended as fairly interchangeable.
For myself, the “academy” or its functions cannot be moved back into the church. I see a danger in that, unless there is a proper balance of a secularist approach mixed with the religious; but that very thing is not easy for the church.
Now in my mind, being that I am into history, I used history as one expression of the academy’s intellectual endeavors. I therefore used history as an example, and so made my claims.
Now this I totally agree with:
“But there also needs to be a place in the church for pastors who undertake rigorous academic work and also for career academics who are deeply immersed in the life of the church.”
It was the idea of ‘relocating’ something which tweaked my interest.
Does that make sense?
I dont think the “church,” even at the pastoral level, can do what the academy does; nor should it try to. I dont think “the Church” can fulfill the role of the academy, nor should it seek to.
Should we have a more intellectual clergy, by all means.
Does that help to understand what I was tapping into from your original post?
Thanks again,
David
Bravo, Jonathan. I echo Peter’s words.
Wasn’t it James Denney who said that the best theology was simply good preaching?
David,
I see how you could have read me that way, and understand your concerns. I assure you I don’t want to see the academy as such relocated to the church. Much to the contrary, actually. I want to see serious scholarship done in service to the church by folks who minister to actual congregations, and to see a relocation of the primary setting where the theological task is undertaken to the church. In essence, I am combatting the assumption that theology is primarily an academic discipline in the first place, so I am definitely not wanting to see the church do what the academy does. Rather, I want to see the church do what the church ought to do, so that its theological undertaking might no longer be dictated by the academy, whether in the form of independent seminaries or “secular” universities.
However, I do not want to be misunderstood as saying that I would like to see the academy completely done away with. It still has an important place in society, and in my opinion all churchmen as a general rule ought to have some academic training. However, in my opinion a Christian view of theology necessitates that we reject the notion that it is a strictly academic discipline. It rather ought to be undertaken for the good of the church. Apart from their service to the church theologians serve no meaningful purpose other than giving people something to talk about.
Andrew,
Thanks for the kind words. It’s good to see a comment from you here! :-)
Hey Jonathan,
Thanks for your post. I appreciate it.
I am not trying to troll when I post comments here. It was just the wording of the “locus” of theological discussion should be moved back to the church that caught my specific attention.
If I can be a little picky, and I don’t say this to be bullish, but Sandlin’s comment could be read very differently. In one way it could be taken to typify the very concern I had. Let me paraphrase: “The best theology is preaching.” Is this reducible to this: ‘Theology is only at its best when its preached’? :-) I would have to say no. Good preaching is good theology, but that’s not the same as best theology is found in good preaching.
My personal fear is that the church cannot do good and true academic work because whenever and wherever (eg., PCA or PCUSA to cite two extreme which can end in a totalist confessionalism) it is always tied to confessionalism; and as Wedgeworth says, the so-called ‘confessional hermeneutics’ (again whether PCUSA or PCA, for example) will kick in and delimit proper investigation. For a lot of reasons I think this.
But again, thanks for your patience,
God bless and take care,
David
One problem with academicism is sterility. As Rosenstock-Huessy argued, the academy is a Greek institution and adolescent: the age of comparison and contrast. One has to mature into the “poet” stage of overcoming differences by the Spirit of God, the Divine Matchmaker. You pointed this out quite well in your original posting.
When the academy moves into the church, as it has in the Reformed churches, the church becomes a place of warfare and constrast rather than a place of communion. Holy Communion is rare, and preaching (against) is common. Suspicion abounds.
Moreover, the intensely political/social theology of the Bible is transformed into individualism. Song of Songs is read as a marital manual rather than as Political Eros (king and people). Paul’s new community becomes nothing but new ideas.
You are right: The academy has its place. As Rosenstock said, it’s a place of adolescence on the way to mature warfare and romance (each ways of overcoming distance). Sadly, it has become an end in itself.
Jonathan,
Do you mind if I ask by which denomination you will seek to be ordained?
Hi Teri,
I am currently under care of the Eastern Pennsylvania Presbytery of the PCA.
Rev. Jordan,
Thanks for the added perspective/insight.
Just my two cents…
I happen to be a doctoral student and adjunct professor in theology at a Jesuit university and I don’t recognize the conditions of sterility or separation from the church named in this conversation. Indeed, my present experience of the academy is in many ways spiritually richer than either my seminary or Bible college experiences. I have also found the balance between academic freedom within the confines of a the broader Jesuit mission to be nearly ideal. It is certainly to be preferred over the recent developments at WTS (Philly) and Covenant.
While I wouldn’t dare project my limited experience on the whole, I do weary of the “spiritually dry, ivory tower academic” caricature. It tends toward an anti-intellectual populism and, as with the present dismissal of conservative intellectuals as the “Georgetown cocktail party set”, it becomes a convenient cover for insulating oneself from the discomforts of criticism and rational self-examination.
That said, I find myself in large agreement with Jonathan and Peter and aspire myself to the balance of priestly ministry and academic involvement. Indeed, my own theological investigations and teaching have been a natural expression of my priestly vocation and both have enhanced my work in local parishes in Chicago and St. Louis.
MJGP+
Thanks for answering, Jonathan. That seems to me the hard part.
I enjoyed your post.
You know, the more I think about the more I think that the professionalization of theology is probably the heart of of the error of Protestantism.
Rosenstock-Huessy says that Luther was highly important in the reformation not simply because he had good doctrinal points, but precisely because was a type that people after him followed.
And the type that Luther established was the university professor. Moreover, because of the nature of the battle in the Reformation, and because of humanism, there was a strong push to study origins, and discover what the fathers had really said and meant. Now this drive wasn’t, of course, problematic in itself, but it again has the tendancy to make theology the matter of the academy, of scholarship. Aquinas of course could dig around the Fathers like the best Reformer. But he could just as easily quote a practice of the Church of His day. But for the Reformers the practices of the Church of their day weren’t authorative, it was the Fathers. Which means the Church has authority when we look away from the Church now and peer into the past seeking to discover what she was like then. Rather than the Theologian being raised by the Church, the theologian became a scholar peering into the past, examining the Church to discover what she really did.
Thus the Protestant drive was doubly for scholarship upon the Church, not prayer and learning in the Church. People were made into professors first, because they were images of Luther, second because they needed to peer into the past and discover what the true Church did.
Thus there is a tendency to over scholasticism in Protestant Churches–see for instance many Lutherans or overly Calvinistic Presbyterians–to viewing Christianity as scholarship. And there is also the tendency, embodied in the Charismatic movement, and the non-conformists, to react against the stogy intellectualism of the Magisterial Reformers, and chuch the intellect alltogether, to react against the overly historical Magisterial Reformers, and reject tradition wholesale.
Far better is the Jesuit model which defends a living person, and is, at its heart, centered on prayer and silience.
Or maybe if I wanted to get someone to post I should just ask rather than putting up a ludicrous post that will almost certainly meet with disapproval.
Matthew,
Well, at least you know it is ludicrous. The post is an uncooked stew of misrepresentation and historical ignorance. If you really believe what you wrote, I can only suggest you hit the books hard, so you’ll come to have half-a-clue about what you are giving strong opinions on.
Matt,
I will at least grant that the Jesuit model is based on silIence. ;-)
Other than that, I really haven’t the foggiest clue of what you’re talking about.
Matt,
It’s not that you’re post is totally ludicrous as it is an oversimplification. Like Calvin, Luther was an intensely pastoral man. He wasn’t just a university egghead. Remember that his reform really got moving when he found out the disgusting outrage that Tetzel was perpetrating on his people.
The notion that looking into the past rather than taking the living community in the here and now as the starting point is at least as problematic as imagining that there is a pure pattern in the past which we must try to repristinate. Repristination is not possible, but imagining that the here and now is sufficient is not plausible. The papacy, through Gregory VII, tried to repristinate the patristic age (albeit a false concept of the patristic age), and what came from his work was precisely the apathetic “just live and pray” attitude of Cajetan, who, when faced with a floodtide of conciliarist opposition to the papacy, lamely advised that everyone just sit around and pray for God to fix things rather than lifting a finger to perhaps be God’s instruments for fixing things.
Also, in light of the Medievals being intensely aware of parallels between themselves and the Old Testament, might not the Reformers’ Renaissance approach to the past be more charitably likened to, say, King Josiah finding the Law of the Lord buried in the Temple and setting out to restore the people to the words of the Lord which they had so long forgotten?
Well, what some might call oversimplification, I call gross misrepresentation.
But that’s just me.
Jonathan,
And it’s worse than just a gross misrepresentation, it’s a gross misrepresentation made with full knowledge it’s a gross misrepresentation.
Luther primarily a university professor? Not a hymn writer? Not a Bible translator?
Tim,
I know that doesn’t represent Luther at all. The problem Jonathan was getting at in the original post is a modern problem, not a Protestant one. I wanted more posts. It’s been about two weeks since anyone said anything.
The easiest way, of course, to get a post is to post something myself. But I didn’t have anything to say on any of this either. So I decided I’d post, as a joke, something with a strong enough connection to history, and to what I believe, that I plausibly could believe it. But then make it clear that I was just fishing for comments with nonsense so no one got upset.
There is however, a bit of substance to the post, and it contains a grain of what I believe. I do think that searching for roots can be problematic, though I don’t think it’s a damning error of Protestants.
As Christians we have to hold two things in tension. (I suppose I could appeal to Rosenstock-Huessy again, and say the cross of reality pulls us in two directions. Though my knowledge of him comes through Dr. Leithart.) First, we have to be always digging back holding to what has always been done, and fighting against the modern nonsense.
But at the same time, we must respect the Church today, and submit to her and learn from her and take her current practices as authorative.
We see the same sort of tension in our relations with other people. You and your wife must always be asking (of each of you) “how am I beginning to move from Christ”, yet if you told her “back then you were much more like Christ than now, why don’t you start doing more of those things you did then” you’d, rightly, be beaten like Parker was for getting a tattoo of Christ.
And in my opinion, Protestants tend to fall in the direction of the first, Catholics in the direction of the second. It’s all too easy for a Protestant to say “I wonder what I should believe on this topic, I’d better read the Fathers and see if I can find this or that opinion in them.” And it’s far to easy for a Catholic to memorize the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or to think it has the final word on doctrine, or that it puts our doctrines in the clearest most precise fashion.
Matt
Matt,
If I were you, I’d put down Leithart and Rosenstock-Huessy and actually get into the source material of history that is available for us to read and review. At best, your views represent an ignorance of the historical record if not an outright misrepresentation that is oddly commonplace and trumpeted all too loudly for “converts” to Roman Catholicism. Of course, going “ad fontes” means significantly more time spent really considering both the way things were and how they are applicable to today’s situation than just taking your bishop’s word on the matter.
Protestants don’t do anything, btw, that they didn’t get from their Mother in one way or another via the Roman or Western Church. When we talk about responsibility and leadership in regards to the corruption of the Church, this is where we must look at base–that or Rome really never had any authority and responsibility in the first place something I gather you wouldn’t argue on your best day defending “Sacramental Magisterial Authority”. Having that authority undoubtedly is a two-edged sword if we charitably grant just for the moment that there is any truth at all to your contention.
This may be overstatement as well but half the Reformation was about refuting and rebutting both the errors and the lives of the medieval schoolmen (who made today’s attempts at professionalization of theology look like the silliest child’s play) with an attempt to turn churches and their people back to God, His gospel, the commandments, and a rightly-lived life.
The problem of the professionalization of theology and institutions which support it is an old one in Christianity and one that reaches far back beyond the Reformation to the establishment of the monasteries, clerical orders, and universities in the Western Church. I’ll grant you that the Jesuit model was at one time certainly a reaction against that but the reaction of Ignatius Loyola and his early followers to these things were reactions that took place within the heart of Roman Catholicism and not at the behest of Protestant ne’er-do-wells during the Magisterial Reformation. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
For my part, it is the existing hierarchies in many branches of Christendom that serve to make this professionalization a systemic problem that cannot be fully addressed without a revolutionary change in the way “church” and “seminary” are done. And, asserting that there are priests who do things and mediate for things that ordinary people either do not or cannot do themselves is at root part of the very problem inherent in a worldview that sees the professionalization of theology as a necessary component in our churches and seminaries.
We must return to a day when the priesthood of all believers is put forward not as an excuse to let people do what they want, but especially to provide the church with everyone exercising the God-given Spirit-inspired giftedness that He has blessed us with. Only when the Christian is empowered to be who God has called him to be will this problem (and many others) take care of itself. That can’t happen when certain classes in Christian society think that they alone have the power, right, duty, and privilege of performing and existing over and above others.
Matt, have you converted to Catholicism? Ordinarily I wouldn’t ask personal questions, but it seems that this one might be relevant to the sorts of things you ask and say.
Kevin
It was a joke. I have a very dry sense of humor, which can be hard to capture online, but I tried to to it by posting the nonsense I would say with only the slightest hint of a smile, and then in the next post say that I knew it was nonsense.
Like I told Jonathan, it wasn’t just an outright misrepresentation, it was something far worse. It was a willful misrepresentation.
I was tired of comming here and seeing no new posts, no new comments. “Wouldn’t it be nice if someone could post something to get things stirred up?” I asked myself. “Why not do it yourself?” “Yes, if I had something good to say, but of course I don’t have anything good to say either.” “Then maybe I should just tell them I’m bored with this site, and someone needs to post, or at least comment!” “But that would be booring. Maybe you could pretend to think you have something good to say (but make it obvious you were only pretending), and therby ask everyone to get back to posting.”
Comment 27 was supposed to say “That was just a joke! I don’t really believe that nonsense!”
From Jonathan’s comment on the Jesuits (#29), I think he caught the joke.
But let me reiterate it for you again. It was just a joke. I don’t believe a word of comment #26. I know it is filled with misrepresentations. Willful ones.
:-P
Matt
Tim
No I haven’t converted. And if I ever do, it won’t be because I think Protestantism has problems, but because she doesn’t have Mary. I can’t stand obnoxious historical cliches anymore than you.
I’m not sure what why you’re asking, so let me clarrify post #32 a little. I wasn’t trying to disagree with you or argue with you or anything like that. I was trying to say “yeah, I know that’s nonsense. I more or less agree with your comment on repristination and imagining the current situation is sufficient. Here’s what I really believe.”
And I agree we should see the Reformation along the lines of Josiah finding the book of the Law. (Though it does make me laugh to think of the Reformers as being for the Law, and the Catholics as against the Law.)
Or in my opinion, it would be even better to see the Reformation as the ten northern tribes, faithfully, telling the southern monarchy to lighten the load (both physically and spiritually) and being told that whips were insufficient, now they get scorpions. I think we should see Luther as a faithful Jeroboam.
Greetings to all.
I have a hard time considering theologians apart and not subordinate and in service to the Church. The Church is served and tended to by its members. The members are to look to the edifying and upbuilding of the Church. The way the Scriptures speak of pastors, teachers, etc. is to build up the Church. Theologians aren’t to be wandering the country side doing whatever their hearts desire. They’re to be looking out for (as all Church members) the interests of their brethren.
By the way Jonathan interesting discussion.
BTW sorry I am so late to the discussion, viewing the last post’s date after I sent my comment in. Er…sorry.
Durrell,
Thanks for the comment. As you can tell, things have been extremely slow around here lately. Hopefully after the new year we’ll be able to pick the discussion up again.