What do you think?
Rate this book
The Pastor Theologian: Resurrecting an Ancient Vision
Pastoral ministry today is often ruled by an emphasis on short-sighted goals, pragmatic results, and shallow thinking. Unfortunately, those in the academy tend to have the opposite problem, failing to connect theological study to the pressing issues facing the church today. Contemporary evangelicalism has lost sight of the inherent connection between pastoral leadership and theology. This results in theologically anemic churches, and ecclesial anemic theologies. Todd Wilson and Gerald Hiestand contend that among a younger generation of evangelical pastors and theologians, there is a growing appreciation for the native connection between theology and pastoral ministry. At the heart of this recovery of a theological vision for ministry is the re-emergence of the role of the "pastor theologian." The Pastor Theologian presents a taxonomy of the pastor-theologian and shows how individual pastors—given their unique calling and gift-set—can best embody this age-old vocation in the 21st century. They present three models that combine theological study and practical ministry to the The Local Theologian—a pastor theologian who ably services the theological needs of a local congregation. The Popular Theologian—a pastor theologian who writes theology to a wider lay audience. The Ecclesial Theologian—a pastor theologian who writes theology to other theologians and scholars. Raising the banner for the pastor as theologian, this book invites the emerging generation of theologians and pastors to reimagine the pastoral vocation along theological lines, and to identify with one of the above models of the pastor theologian.
192 pages, Paperback
First published May 26, 2015
54 people are currently reading
274 people want to read
About the author
Gerald L. Hiestand
16 books9 followersGerald L. Hiestand (PhD candidate, University of Reading) is the senior associate pastor at Calvary Memorial Church in Oak Park, Illinois, and the cofounder and director of the Center for Pastor Theologians. He is coauthor of The Pastor Theologian: Resurrecting an Ancient Vision and coeditor of Becoming a Pastor Theologian and Beauty, Order, and Mystery.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews
April 8, 2024
Every pastor should do theology for the church, as this book encourages. While too ecumenical for my tastes and some example are from questionable theologians, the practical steps in ch. 11 are worth the time to read this book. I appreciate how tge authors describe their weekly schedules and use of study time.
April 6, 2020
The intent of re-kindling in pastors a desire for theological astuteness and academic leadership is laudable.
Appreciated the distinction between the local theologian, the public theologian and ecclesial theologian, and the implication of each for pastors.
The examples of existing pastors were also helpful.
But the book repeats itself a lot and, strangely for the topic, lacks depth in many areas.
Appreciated the distinction between the local theologian, the public theologian and ecclesial theologian, and the implication of each for pastors.
The examples of existing pastors were also helpful.
But the book repeats itself a lot and, strangely for the topic, lacks depth in many areas.
December 18, 2021
A premise with which I basically agree and to which, practically speaking, I've devoted my life thus far (the Church had, has lost, and needs again pastor-theologians). A needlessly overstated case. A helpful taxonomy (academic/local/popular/ecclesial theologians). A far-too-rosy view of the present state of institutional academic training and its benefits.
September 7, 2015
I picked up this book on a whim and expected to find in it a plea for pastors to be more deeply rooted in theology -- to be students of doctrine. While this kind of pursuit is woefully lacking in the church today, this work moves further and deeper still. At it’s core, The Pastor Theologian is an articulation of a paradigm shift which has the potential to reshape how pastors and academics think about the work of theology.
The work contains 9 chapters (122 pages) and an extensive appendix (40 pages). Most of the appendix is a catalog of theologians from the history of the church and is largely included as substantiation for the claims made by the writers in the second chapter.
Chapter 1 overviews the argument of the book. The pull of academia and the church serves as a focal point here. Any pastor or seminary professor can testify to this tension. By starting with this problem, Hiestand and Wilson artfully grab the theologically minded reader’s attention. They set before the reader the idea of the pastor as responsible for the theological health of the church -- a health which drives the piety and passion of the same body (19-20).
Having laid this groundwork, chapter 2 addresses this bifurcation from the historical theological vantagepoint. This twenty page (21-41) survey of church history is full of powerful and tangible vignettes of clerical, non-clerical, and monastic theologians of the past centuries. The writers’ argument in this chapter is that clerical or pastoral theologians have maintained a substantial presence in the theological work of the church up until the time of the Enlightenment.
Chapter 3 deals with the reason for the shift in the vocations of theologians during the Enlightenment and beyond. The writers address this change in two parts: the European shift and the North American shift. In terms of the European shift (43-46), the authors suggest that one of the substantial factors in the disconnect between pastoring and theology came as a result of a cultural phenomenon which viewed the church as irrelevant, the Bible as non-supernatural, and scientific precision as the greatest end of biblical studies. The North American divorce (46-49) was largely shaped by Revolutionary anticlerical egalitarianism and populist revivalism. The writers admit that none of these explanations fully detail the reasons behind the pastoral-theological disconnect (49), and offer several additional insights that affected the change in dynamic (49-52).
I would title chapter 4: “Why the church needs the pastor theologian.” And chapter 5 would then become: “Why the academy needs the pastor theologian.” Both of these are interesting chapters, but are fairly self-explanatory. The church needs the pastor theologian because the church has weak ethics as a result of weak theology, which comes as a result of pastors who are weak theologians. The writers dismiss the notion of the pastor as a broker of theology to the masses and suggest some better views on the pastor’s role in respect to theology (59-64). The academy needs pastor theologians because the questions that academic theologians are asking and the way in which they answer those questions are quite often unhelpful to the church at large (67). This disconnect is attributed by Hiestand and Wilson to the vastly different social locations (67-70) and theological methods (70-77) of the church and the academy.
Chapter 6 articulates a taxonomy of what it looks like to be a pastor theologian. This paradigm is something like a funnel. At the bottom, one finds the local theologian (81-83); this is the pastor who understands and articulates theology well to his congregation. One layer up, the popular theologian (83-85) is more of a writer, broadening his influence and restating academic theology for “other pastors and the laity” (83). At the top of the funnel, stands the “ecclesial theologian” (85-87). This is a pastor who makes genuine advances to theological writing with a keen eye to the needs of the church at large. The writers envision this funnel as integrally related. In other words, in order for a pastor to be a popular theologian or an ecclesial theologian, he must first be a local theologian. “The theological contributions of the ecclesial theologian spring from the overflow of the shepherding responsibilities that he carries for his local congregation” (85).
“The Pastor Theologian as Ecclesial Theologian” is the title for the seventh chapter. Here the authors plumb the depths of what this theological dodobird looks like. They explain that an ecclesial theologian inhabits the social location of the pastorate (88-90), places ecclesial questions on the front burner (90-91), aims for clarity and simplicity over subtlety and complexity (92-93), engages in theology with a prophetic imperative (93-94), treasures the church and the wealth of its resources (94-95), functions as a consummate generalist (96-97), partners with academic theologians (97-99), and studies himself closely (99-100).
Chapter 8 includes 3 helpful case studies and 10 strategies which point those seeking to become pastor theologians down a distinct path. The strategies that Hiestand and Wilson suggest are as follows: get a PhD (104-107), hire other like-minded pastors (107), network with other academic and pastor theologians (108), maintain blocks of undistracted study time (110-113), read with variety and copious amounts of ecclesial theology (113-114), refer to your place of work as a “study” (116-117), take advantage of study and writing leave to maximize your productivity (117-118), give opportunities for budding pastor theologians to intern with you and help you in your research (118), ensure that your church leadership is on the same page (120-121), and shape your theological pursuits with deep love for the local church (121-122).
The final chapter closes with admonitions to academic theologians (123-125), pastors (125-127), and the next generation of students who feel pulled to the breaking point between the church and the academy (127-128). This chapter lands the plane, pulling in numerous practical examples of the ecclesial theologian that the writers are calling pastors to be as well as the complex interplay they should have with the academic community. The writers close with a powerful prayer for a reshaping of the theological paradigm of the modern church (128-129).
In analysis, I’ll offer a few critiques. First, the book is at times a little repetitive. While the writers often helpfully restate their thesis and previous arguments, the net effect is often a deja vu-like experience. Secondly, I almost found chapters four and five as unnecessary. I suppose that they are needed from the standpoint of filling out the argument of the book, but they seem almost too blatantly obvious for most readers. In other words, many readers need absolutely no argument to prove to them that the church is, on the whole, theologically anemic and that the seminary is largely unaware of the pressures of church ministry. Finally, one may wish to see greater strides toward putting skin on the ecclesial theologian. The three case studies do help pastors envision how a pastor theologian can function in a smaller or less affluent ministry. The handful of representative research and writing projects in the final chapter provide a glimpse into what ecclesial theologians can produce. But to some extent, whether good or bad, the writers leave pastors to write this part of the book.
I absolutely view this book as a worthy investment for all pastors, academic theologians, theology students, and next generation leaders in the church. The paradigm is at least worthy of consideration and at most, a necessary and vital step for the health of the church. As one who has acutely felt the tension between the pulpit and the lectern, the pressure to adopt the status quo, and a growing sense of distance from the church during my academic career, I greatly admire the tenacity, vision, and risk that the writers have undertaken in this volume. I hope that the next generation of theologians finds the road clearer as a result of this pioneering work.
The work contains 9 chapters (122 pages) and an extensive appendix (40 pages). Most of the appendix is a catalog of theologians from the history of the church and is largely included as substantiation for the claims made by the writers in the second chapter.
Chapter 1 overviews the argument of the book. The pull of academia and the church serves as a focal point here. Any pastor or seminary professor can testify to this tension. By starting with this problem, Hiestand and Wilson artfully grab the theologically minded reader’s attention. They set before the reader the idea of the pastor as responsible for the theological health of the church -- a health which drives the piety and passion of the same body (19-20).
Having laid this groundwork, chapter 2 addresses this bifurcation from the historical theological vantagepoint. This twenty page (21-41) survey of church history is full of powerful and tangible vignettes of clerical, non-clerical, and monastic theologians of the past centuries. The writers’ argument in this chapter is that clerical or pastoral theologians have maintained a substantial presence in the theological work of the church up until the time of the Enlightenment.
Chapter 3 deals with the reason for the shift in the vocations of theologians during the Enlightenment and beyond. The writers address this change in two parts: the European shift and the North American shift. In terms of the European shift (43-46), the authors suggest that one of the substantial factors in the disconnect between pastoring and theology came as a result of a cultural phenomenon which viewed the church as irrelevant, the Bible as non-supernatural, and scientific precision as the greatest end of biblical studies. The North American divorce (46-49) was largely shaped by Revolutionary anticlerical egalitarianism and populist revivalism. The writers admit that none of these explanations fully detail the reasons behind the pastoral-theological disconnect (49), and offer several additional insights that affected the change in dynamic (49-52).
I would title chapter 4: “Why the church needs the pastor theologian.” And chapter 5 would then become: “Why the academy needs the pastor theologian.” Both of these are interesting chapters, but are fairly self-explanatory. The church needs the pastor theologian because the church has weak ethics as a result of weak theology, which comes as a result of pastors who are weak theologians. The writers dismiss the notion of the pastor as a broker of theology to the masses and suggest some better views on the pastor’s role in respect to theology (59-64). The academy needs pastor theologians because the questions that academic theologians are asking and the way in which they answer those questions are quite often unhelpful to the church at large (67). This disconnect is attributed by Hiestand and Wilson to the vastly different social locations (67-70) and theological methods (70-77) of the church and the academy.
Chapter 6 articulates a taxonomy of what it looks like to be a pastor theologian. This paradigm is something like a funnel. At the bottom, one finds the local theologian (81-83); this is the pastor who understands and articulates theology well to his congregation. One layer up, the popular theologian (83-85) is more of a writer, broadening his influence and restating academic theology for “other pastors and the laity” (83). At the top of the funnel, stands the “ecclesial theologian” (85-87). This is a pastor who makes genuine advances to theological writing with a keen eye to the needs of the church at large. The writers envision this funnel as integrally related. In other words, in order for a pastor to be a popular theologian or an ecclesial theologian, he must first be a local theologian. “The theological contributions of the ecclesial theologian spring from the overflow of the shepherding responsibilities that he carries for his local congregation” (85).
“The Pastor Theologian as Ecclesial Theologian” is the title for the seventh chapter. Here the authors plumb the depths of what this theological dodobird looks like. They explain that an ecclesial theologian inhabits the social location of the pastorate (88-90), places ecclesial questions on the front burner (90-91), aims for clarity and simplicity over subtlety and complexity (92-93), engages in theology with a prophetic imperative (93-94), treasures the church and the wealth of its resources (94-95), functions as a consummate generalist (96-97), partners with academic theologians (97-99), and studies himself closely (99-100).
Chapter 8 includes 3 helpful case studies and 10 strategies which point those seeking to become pastor theologians down a distinct path. The strategies that Hiestand and Wilson suggest are as follows: get a PhD (104-107), hire other like-minded pastors (107), network with other academic and pastor theologians (108), maintain blocks of undistracted study time (110-113), read with variety and copious amounts of ecclesial theology (113-114), refer to your place of work as a “study” (116-117), take advantage of study and writing leave to maximize your productivity (117-118), give opportunities for budding pastor theologians to intern with you and help you in your research (118), ensure that your church leadership is on the same page (120-121), and shape your theological pursuits with deep love for the local church (121-122).
The final chapter closes with admonitions to academic theologians (123-125), pastors (125-127), and the next generation of students who feel pulled to the breaking point between the church and the academy (127-128). This chapter lands the plane, pulling in numerous practical examples of the ecclesial theologian that the writers are calling pastors to be as well as the complex interplay they should have with the academic community. The writers close with a powerful prayer for a reshaping of the theological paradigm of the modern church (128-129).
In analysis, I’ll offer a few critiques. First, the book is at times a little repetitive. While the writers often helpfully restate their thesis and previous arguments, the net effect is often a deja vu-like experience. Secondly, I almost found chapters four and five as unnecessary. I suppose that they are needed from the standpoint of filling out the argument of the book, but they seem almost too blatantly obvious for most readers. In other words, many readers need absolutely no argument to prove to them that the church is, on the whole, theologically anemic and that the seminary is largely unaware of the pressures of church ministry. Finally, one may wish to see greater strides toward putting skin on the ecclesial theologian. The three case studies do help pastors envision how a pastor theologian can function in a smaller or less affluent ministry. The handful of representative research and writing projects in the final chapter provide a glimpse into what ecclesial theologians can produce. But to some extent, whether good or bad, the writers leave pastors to write this part of the book.
I absolutely view this book as a worthy investment for all pastors, academic theologians, theology students, and next generation leaders in the church. The paradigm is at least worthy of consideration and at most, a necessary and vital step for the health of the church. As one who has acutely felt the tension between the pulpit and the lectern, the pressure to adopt the status quo, and a growing sense of distance from the church during my academic career, I greatly admire the tenacity, vision, and risk that the writers have undertaken in this volume. I hope that the next generation of theologians finds the road clearer as a result of this pioneering work.
November 14, 2021
2.5/5
I agree with the authors assessment of the problem: theology and the church have been divorced. And, further, I agree that this is a negative development. And I also agree that something ought to be done.
But I disagree that the way to solve this problem is by getting a PhD. I don't think PhDs are inherently wrong, but I am not convinced that it necessarily forms pastor-theologians. I don't think presenting at SBL or getting Crossway to publish your random pet project makes one a theologian. Simply because the academic/Christian-publishing industrial complex churns out you and your writings doesn't mean that your a good theologian or one at all. I'm just not convinced that the academy is a particularly good thing right now. And I think there is a whole set of unquestioned assumptions about the academy, publishing, and global metaphors about ideas/culture/interplay that ought to be addressed but aren't.
I agree with the authors assessment of the problem: theology and the church have been divorced. And, further, I agree that this is a negative development. And I also agree that something ought to be done.
But I disagree that the way to solve this problem is by getting a PhD. I don't think PhDs are inherently wrong, but I am not convinced that it necessarily forms pastor-theologians. I don't think presenting at SBL or getting Crossway to publish your random pet project makes one a theologian. Simply because the academic/Christian-publishing industrial complex churns out you and your writings doesn't mean that your a good theologian or one at all. I'm just not convinced that the academy is a particularly good thing right now. And I think there is a whole set of unquestioned assumptions about the academy, publishing, and global metaphors about ideas/culture/interplay that ought to be addressed but aren't.
December 9, 2021
A must read for all pastors and aspiring ministers.
January 18, 2024
1.5 stars.
Could have been an email.
Could have been an email.
March 4, 2025
This books gives excellent, historical and practical information on the life of a pastoral theologian. It highlights how you can be someone who is rigorous in theology study but also be a pastor. You can be theologically informed and also be a shepherd of God’s people. The pastoral theologian can use what he learns to better inform his pastoral ministry.
November 18, 2020
The Pastor Theologian by Geral Hiestand and Todd Wilson is a book that relays to me that theology matters. Theology matters in the pulpit, just as much as it does in the university. I found the book helpful in challenging my conceptions of theology related to the pastorate. The book gave needed advice on how to schedule a time in a busy schedule to write theology. Hiestand and Wilson provided me with an inspiring and powerful book as to why theology must not be separated from the pastorate. The purpose of theology was never to be done in a way that did not serve the church. Separating theology from the pastorate was a massive blunder for the church. After reading this book, I have been enlightened and see that theology is for all people. Theology can and should be done in the pastorate, along with in the academy. Not separate, but completing complementary tasks for the glory of Christ and his people.
March 21, 2016
This is a great book and a great reminder. Theology is not a secondary task for the pastor that he may get to after he finishes his primary pastoral tasks. Theology is a primary part of his pastoral calling.
This book serves as a clarion call to bring theology back into matters of the church and church back into matters of theology.
The practical section at the end contains helpful suggestions for implementation.
This book serves as a clarion call to bring theology back into matters of the church and church back into matters of theology.
The practical section at the end contains helpful suggestions for implementation.
September 24, 2015
“Both academic theologians and pastors work with the assumption that those with exceptional intellectual gifting ought to pursue a career in the academy, while those with pastoral gifting ought to pursue a calling in the church. This assumption must be dragged into the street and bludgeoned to death.” (124, emphasis mine)
So end Gerald Hiestand and Todd Wilson in their new book The Pastor Theologian: Resurrecting an Ancient Vision (Zondervan, 2015). Both men are pastors at Calvary Memorial Church in Oak Park, IL. Both men are well educated: Hiestand is a PhD candidate, University of Kent, Canterbury and Wilson earned his PhD from the University of Cambridge. Both have authored books. Finally, both men have co-founded the Center for Pastor Theologians which is “an organization dedicated to assisting pastors in the study and written production of biblical and theological scholarship, for the ecclesial renewal of theology and the theological renewal of the church.” (10) If you can see what makes these men what they are then you can see that Heistand and Wilson both embody what this book is about.
These young authors winsomely, and yet pointedly, argue that there is a divide between the academy and the church that they want to see torn down to the ground. Yes, the ivory towers of academia still exist. This divide sees the handling of theological leadership in the hands of the academy and that of practical matters in the hands of the pastorate (16). To borrow from Plantinga, this is not how things ought to be and it is not how things always were.
For centuries the pastorate was one of the most respected and sought after fields of study by the intellectuals of society. Intellectual and theological scholars like Augustine, Basil, Edwards, Luther, Calvin, and Bavinck all “worked in ecclesial contexts and carried shepherding responsibilities for congregations and parishes.” (23) This was the norm. The pastor was a theologian and theologians were pastors. They were one in the same. The academy, as we know it, was not born yet. Rather, it existed, in a way that it does not now, to serve the church and the pastor.
How Did We Get Here?
What happened that birthed this great divide? The separate contexts of North America and Europe both changed the landscape of the pastor theologian, thus dividing the pastor theologians dual duties of theological and spiritual provider to the church. This resulted in the pastorate, by in large, keeping its role as spiritual adviser, while the job of theological leader was shipped out to the new academy.
In Europe this divide was caused by the scientific discoveries of men like Galileo and Newton. Their scientific discoveries brought upon the church “devastating and sustained critiques by the French philosophies such as Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Denis Diderot.” (43) Gradually, the universities, which once served the church, eventually became tools of the state. In the hands of liberal German scholarship, people’s trust in the Bible died in the academy.
The situation in North America had similar results. Within the context of the American Revolution, which produced “the urbanization and secularization of American culture”, and the aftermath of the Second Great Awakening, which saw the growth of “a myriad of Christian sects and denominations”, “the pastor theologian in North America had been replaced by the professor theologian.” (49) The authority and revere of the office of the pastorate was questioned and it crumbled under the weight of cultural doubt.
In both continents, the place of intellectual prestige moved from the pastor to the secular university. The great divide between the church and the academy was born, took root, and has been in place ever since. The pastor, as the authors say, has now become a “broker” of theology to the church. As right as it is for a pastor to preach and teach theology to the church, “The identity of pastors as brokers does not involve pastors actually constructing theology themselves.” (61) When the academy is not a ministry of the church then it no longer serves the churches needs. Reflecting on their own theological education in the academy the authors write:
"The foci of theology in the academy often did not address the very real and pressing theological needs of our congregations. How many scholarly and theological works have you seen on premarital sexual boundaries? Or on parenting? Or on doubt, idolatry, discipleship, or marriage?…..The way theologians and scholars are taught to do theology in the academy runs counter to the needs of pastoral ministry." (70, emphasis mine)
It is this divide that the authors want to see torn down and the role of pastor and theologian to be wedded together again; for the betterment of the academy and the health of the Church.
How Do We Leave Here?
It is easy to critique a situation like this but it can he harder to run against the grain of how the church and academia have related for so long and offer an attainable vision for change. How can the place of theological education and direction of the church be brought back to the church? How do we get from the pastor as a “broker” of theology to a pastor as “constructor” and director of theology? How do we get the church to serve the church when it comes to its theology?
While recognizing that every pastor is a local theologian (one who constructs theology for their local church) and some are popular theologians (one who constructs theology beyond their local church to other Christians), the authors hone in on the ecclesial theologian. This theologian constructs theology for pastors and theologians.
"An ecclesial theologian is a theologian who bears shepherding responsibilities for a congregation and who is thus situated in the native social location that theology is chiefly called to serve; and the ecclesial theologian is a pastor who writes theological scholarship in conversation with other theologians, with an eye to the needs of ecclesial community." (85)
No doubt, getting the church to move back to its historical roots in this regard will not be easy. But, as these young pastor theologians argue, it is necessary for the future of the church.
So what practical steps can be implemented in charting this new course for the ecclesial theologian? The course to recovery Hiestand and Wilson chart out is primarily rooted in the ecclesial community itself. These theologians must be in local churches themselves attending to pastoral responsibilities. They must preach and teach theology as to the laity and not the academy. They must see themselves as serving the church and not the academy. Because the pastor is by necessity a generalist, they must broaden their continued educational interests beyond the scope of their educational background. Further, once an ecclesial theologian steps from the academy into a local church they must develop daily habits within their schedule and the life of their church in order to foster a church culture that will enable them to grow as an ecclesial theologian. All of these things are covered in chapters seven and eight.
Conclusion
“There was a day when there was no gap between the academy and the church precisely because there was no academy. And when the academy emerged in the twelfth century, it functioned as a formal extension of the church’s mission.” (125) The academy is here, and it is here to stay. But for the health and future of the church it must return to its servant role to the church – the body of Christ.
The Pastor Theologian is an impassioned call for the church to reclaim its role as the voice for and constructor of the faith once delivered to the saints. This is a road that will be hard to travel but hopefully more and more pastors will begin to walk it. Hopefully the church will support those who seek to walk it. It will only be for its own benefit. This is a book that everyone in the academy and church leadership needs to read. Even if you as a pastor do not become an ecclesial theologian, you can play a part in supporting those who do. The beginning of the end of the divide has come.
I received this book for free from Zondervan for this review. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
So end Gerald Hiestand and Todd Wilson in their new book The Pastor Theologian: Resurrecting an Ancient Vision (Zondervan, 2015). Both men are pastors at Calvary Memorial Church in Oak Park, IL. Both men are well educated: Hiestand is a PhD candidate, University of Kent, Canterbury and Wilson earned his PhD from the University of Cambridge. Both have authored books. Finally, both men have co-founded the Center for Pastor Theologians which is “an organization dedicated to assisting pastors in the study and written production of biblical and theological scholarship, for the ecclesial renewal of theology and the theological renewal of the church.” (10) If you can see what makes these men what they are then you can see that Heistand and Wilson both embody what this book is about.
These young authors winsomely, and yet pointedly, argue that there is a divide between the academy and the church that they want to see torn down to the ground. Yes, the ivory towers of academia still exist. This divide sees the handling of theological leadership in the hands of the academy and that of practical matters in the hands of the pastorate (16). To borrow from Plantinga, this is not how things ought to be and it is not how things always were.
For centuries the pastorate was one of the most respected and sought after fields of study by the intellectuals of society. Intellectual and theological scholars like Augustine, Basil, Edwards, Luther, Calvin, and Bavinck all “worked in ecclesial contexts and carried shepherding responsibilities for congregations and parishes.” (23) This was the norm. The pastor was a theologian and theologians were pastors. They were one in the same. The academy, as we know it, was not born yet. Rather, it existed, in a way that it does not now, to serve the church and the pastor.
How Did We Get Here?
What happened that birthed this great divide? The separate contexts of North America and Europe both changed the landscape of the pastor theologian, thus dividing the pastor theologians dual duties of theological and spiritual provider to the church. This resulted in the pastorate, by in large, keeping its role as spiritual adviser, while the job of theological leader was shipped out to the new academy.
In Europe this divide was caused by the scientific discoveries of men like Galileo and Newton. Their scientific discoveries brought upon the church “devastating and sustained critiques by the French philosophies such as Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Denis Diderot.” (43) Gradually, the universities, which once served the church, eventually became tools of the state. In the hands of liberal German scholarship, people’s trust in the Bible died in the academy.
The situation in North America had similar results. Within the context of the American Revolution, which produced “the urbanization and secularization of American culture”, and the aftermath of the Second Great Awakening, which saw the growth of “a myriad of Christian sects and denominations”, “the pastor theologian in North America had been replaced by the professor theologian.” (49) The authority and revere of the office of the pastorate was questioned and it crumbled under the weight of cultural doubt.
In both continents, the place of intellectual prestige moved from the pastor to the secular university. The great divide between the church and the academy was born, took root, and has been in place ever since. The pastor, as the authors say, has now become a “broker” of theology to the church. As right as it is for a pastor to preach and teach theology to the church, “The identity of pastors as brokers does not involve pastors actually constructing theology themselves.” (61) When the academy is not a ministry of the church then it no longer serves the churches needs. Reflecting on their own theological education in the academy the authors write:
"The foci of theology in the academy often did not address the very real and pressing theological needs of our congregations. How many scholarly and theological works have you seen on premarital sexual boundaries? Or on parenting? Or on doubt, idolatry, discipleship, or marriage?…..The way theologians and scholars are taught to do theology in the academy runs counter to the needs of pastoral ministry." (70, emphasis mine)
It is this divide that the authors want to see torn down and the role of pastor and theologian to be wedded together again; for the betterment of the academy and the health of the Church.
How Do We Leave Here?
It is easy to critique a situation like this but it can he harder to run against the grain of how the church and academia have related for so long and offer an attainable vision for change. How can the place of theological education and direction of the church be brought back to the church? How do we get from the pastor as a “broker” of theology to a pastor as “constructor” and director of theology? How do we get the church to serve the church when it comes to its theology?
While recognizing that every pastor is a local theologian (one who constructs theology for their local church) and some are popular theologians (one who constructs theology beyond their local church to other Christians), the authors hone in on the ecclesial theologian. This theologian constructs theology for pastors and theologians.
"An ecclesial theologian is a theologian who bears shepherding responsibilities for a congregation and who is thus situated in the native social location that theology is chiefly called to serve; and the ecclesial theologian is a pastor who writes theological scholarship in conversation with other theologians, with an eye to the needs of ecclesial community." (85)
No doubt, getting the church to move back to its historical roots in this regard will not be easy. But, as these young pastor theologians argue, it is necessary for the future of the church.
So what practical steps can be implemented in charting this new course for the ecclesial theologian? The course to recovery Hiestand and Wilson chart out is primarily rooted in the ecclesial community itself. These theologians must be in local churches themselves attending to pastoral responsibilities. They must preach and teach theology as to the laity and not the academy. They must see themselves as serving the church and not the academy. Because the pastor is by necessity a generalist, they must broaden their continued educational interests beyond the scope of their educational background. Further, once an ecclesial theologian steps from the academy into a local church they must develop daily habits within their schedule and the life of their church in order to foster a church culture that will enable them to grow as an ecclesial theologian. All of these things are covered in chapters seven and eight.
Conclusion
“There was a day when there was no gap between the academy and the church precisely because there was no academy. And when the academy emerged in the twelfth century, it functioned as a formal extension of the church’s mission.” (125) The academy is here, and it is here to stay. But for the health and future of the church it must return to its servant role to the church – the body of Christ.
The Pastor Theologian is an impassioned call for the church to reclaim its role as the voice for and constructor of the faith once delivered to the saints. This is a road that will be hard to travel but hopefully more and more pastors will begin to walk it. Hopefully the church will support those who seek to walk it. It will only be for its own benefit. This is a book that everyone in the academy and church leadership needs to read. Even if you as a pastor do not become an ecclesial theologian, you can play a part in supporting those who do. The beginning of the end of the divide has come.
I received this book for free from Zondervan for this review. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
September 28, 2016
Книгата на Джералд Хайстенд и Тод Уилсън е една от най-интересните, които съм чел през тази година.
Тяхната основна теза е, че местният пастир трябва да функционира и като богослов, а не единствено като мениджър, добър говорител, събирач на средства и духовен наставник. Исторически погледната това не е нещо ново (оттам идва подзаглавито на книгата). Някои от най-големите богослови в историята на църквата са били пастири. Такива са Августин, Ириней, Василий Велики, Григорий Назиански, Григорий Нисийски, Калвин или Н. Т. Райт. Дори през 18-19 век пастирите често са били едни от най-образованите хора в населеното място, на което служат.
Когато през 12 век се появява институцията на университета тя отначало действа до голяма степен като продължение на църквата в полза на последната. През 18-19 обаче тази роля се променя. Не само че университетите (вкл. семинариите) стават напълно самостоятелни и откъснати от църковния живот, но и те налагат стандарти на научно изследване, които до голяма степен не носят полза на вярващата общност. Цялостният процес е сложен и до известна степен воден от различни фактори в Европа и Северна Америка, но крайният резултат е едновременно излизане на църковния живот от университета и излизане на научното изследване от църквата. В днешно време голяма част от вярващите, които притежават способности и желание да се занимават с научна работа, но в същото време и сърце, което иска да служи на вярващата общност се чувстват принудени да избират между научна работа и пастирско служение защото се счита, че двете неща не могат да съществуват едновременно.
Хайстенд и Уилсън виждат това положение като истинско бедствие за християнството. Те са достатъчно мъдри да оценят ползите от сериозно, академично, научно, богословско изследване. Но те посочват, че в повечето случаи богословските въпроси, с които се занимава академията просто не са тези, с които се бори обикновеният, редови църковен член в своето ежедневно следване на Христос. С други думи научното изследване е повече или по-малко лишено от църковен контекст. От друга страна пастирите са виждани до голяма степен като мениджъри, съветници, проповедници, набирачи на средства, но не и като сериозни богослови.
Разбира се, на много места днес пастирската работа изисква притежаването на опреден ценз изразяващ се в завършването на някакъв вид богословско образование. На теория академията трябва да снабдява пастирите с богословско познание, а след това те на свой ред да действуват като негови „пренасители” на едно междинно ниво – между академията и църквата. За съжаление практиката показва, че нещата не действат по този начин. Една от причините е, че (както казахме) богословските въпроси в академията и в църквата се различават – понякога съществено. Академичното богословие често трябва да бъде сериозно „преработено,” преди да влезе в пастирска употреба. А понякога се налага проблемите и въпросите да бъдат формулирани и развити повече или по-малко самостоятелно. Това по своята същност е чисто богословско занимание – дейност, която изисква сериозно четене, мислене, отделено време и систематизиране. То няма да бъде свършено от академиците, които оперират в различна среда и с различни въпроси. То трябва да бъде свършено от пастирите, които функционират като богослови – не по-малко сериозни и интелектуални от своите академични колеги, но виждащи нещата по различен начин и затова задаващи различни въпроси и търсещи различни отговори (Това, разбира се, не означава, че пастирите богослови измислят и пренаписват историческата вяра на църквата – те просто се вглеждат в различни нейни страни от тези, които ангажират вниманието на академиците.).
Подобна богословска и интелектуална ангажираност обаче просто не е характерна за по-голямата част от днешните църкви. Негласно, но твърдо налагани, водещите изисквания за добър пастир са чисто практически – да е привлекателна личност, добър комуникатор и мениджър, да успява да привлича достатъчно средства, за да изгради внушителна сграда и да финансира църковните активности, да говори убедително пред хора и да е в състояние да увеличи членската маса. Във всичко това, разбира се, няма нищо лошо. Всъщност това са съвсем реални изисквания за пастирското призвание поставени от времето, в което живеем (а аз подозирам, че са били реалност и за всяко друго време). Но излизането на преден план на чисто прагматични и активистки изисквания, понякога за сметка на чисто духовните – вкл. богословска компетентност, може да донесе нежелани резултати. Духовната повърхностност и популизмът, да спомена само две, са едни от първите неща, които идват на ум.
Истината е, че без значение дали желае това или не, пастирът функционира като основният (често и като единственият) богослов за християнската общност. Християните се обръщат основно към него, а не към академията, за своите богословски разбирания – както теоретични така и практични. Това е факт, който няма да се промени. Друг факт е, че духовното и богословското ниво на една църковна общност няма да надхвърли това на своя пастир. С други думи важно е не просто пастирът да започне да функционира като богослов – той неминуемо функционира като такъв. За да бъде една църква богословски стабилна (което означава много повече от доктринално просветена) е необходимо пастирът да започне да функционира като добър богослов.
Хайстенд и Уилсън дефинират пастирът богослов по следния начин: „За мнозина, терминът се отнася до хората, чийто кабинети са пълни с научни книги. За други той означава пастир, който списва богословски блог или публикува проповеди. За трети това е пастир защитил докторат или който има определен вид проповедническо служение (т.е. богословско). И за мнозина той просто означава наистина умен пастир. Тези настоящи концепции за пастира богослов – колкото и легитимни да са – не са достатъчни за вида църковно и богословско възстановяване, което ние имаме предвид. Необходимо е ново виждане. За тази цел ние предлагаме едно връщане към древното виждане за пастира богослов – пастир богослов, който не само се занимава с богословие като цел сама по себе си, но които конструират и разпространяват богословието в по-широката църковна общност.”
Авторите са наясно, че хората имат различни дарби. Поради това те разграничават 3 вида пастири богослови – пастирът като местен богослов, пастирът като популярен богослов и пастирът като църковен богослов.
„Местният богослов е пастир, който създава богословие за миряните в своята собствена общност. Популярният богослов е пастир богослов, който два богословско водачество на християните отвъд своята собствена общност. И църковният богослов е пастир богослов, който създава богословие за други християнски богослови и пастири.”
Лично аз намирам тезата на авторите за много правилна и удачна макар да ми е трудно да кажа какво и как трябва да се промени дори в моя собствен български (а и по-тесен) контекст. В същото време съм убеден, че ако повече пастири заделят една по-голяма част от своето работно време за четене на сериозна богословска литература (древна така както и съвременна), богословски размисъл, осмисляне и свеждането на богословски идеи до пастирските нужди и (защо не) дори писане това ще окаже въздействие върху тяхната пастирска работа – вкл. дълбочина и качество на проповядването, пастирско съветване, виждане за служението и ученичество. Такова време със сигурност няма да се появи от небето – повечето хора днес са достатъчно претоварени – то трябва да бъде съзнателно отделено като нещо важно и необходимо.
Докато старото поколение пастири малко по малко си отива и дава място на новото, дошло след промените и притежаващо много повече възможности, ще ми е интересно да наблюдавам доколко това виждане ще намери почва у нас. Макар да не съм голям оптимист все пак ми се струва, че забелязвам и няколко бели лястовички.
Тяхната основна теза е, че местният пастир трябва да функционира и като богослов, а не единствено като мениджър, добър говорител, събирач на средства и духовен наставник. Исторически погледната това не е нещо ново (оттам идва подзаглавито на книгата). Някои от най-големите богослови в историята на църквата са били пастири. Такива са Августин, Ириней, Василий Велики, Григорий Назиански, Григорий Нисийски, Калвин или Н. Т. Райт. Дори през 18-19 век пастирите често са били едни от най-образованите хора в населеното място, на което служат.
Когато през 12 век се появява институцията на университета тя отначало действа до голяма степен като продължение на църквата в полза на последната. През 18-19 обаче тази роля се променя. Не само че университетите (вкл. семинариите) стават напълно самостоятелни и откъснати от църковния живот, но и те налагат стандарти на научно изследване, които до голяма степен не носят полза на вярващата общност. Цялостният процес е сложен и до известна степен воден от различни фактори в Европа и Северна Америка, но крайният резултат е едновременно излизане на църковния живот от университета и излизане на научното изследване от църквата. В днешно време голяма част от вярващите, които притежават способности и желание да се занимават с научна работа, но в същото време и сърце, което иска да служи на вярващата общност се чувстват принудени да избират между научна работа и пастирско служение защото се счита, че двете неща не могат да съществуват едновременно.
Хайстенд и Уилсън виждат това положение като истинско бедствие за християнството. Те са достатъчно мъдри да оценят ползите от сериозно, академично, научно, богословско изследване. Но те посочват, че в повечето случаи богословските въпроси, с които се занимава академията просто не са тези, с които се бори обикновеният, редови църковен член в своето ежедневно следване на Христос. С други думи научното изследване е повече или по-малко лишено от църковен контекст. От друга страна пастирите са виждани до голяма степен като мениджъри, съветници, проповедници, набирачи на средства, но не и като сериозни богослови.
Разбира се, на много места днес пастирската работа изисква притежаването на опреден ценз изразяващ се в завършването на някакъв вид богословско образование. На теория академията трябва да снабдява пастирите с богословско познание, а след това те на свой ред да действуват като негови „пренасители” на едно междинно ниво – между академията и църквата. За съжаление практиката показва, че нещата не действат по този начин. Една от причините е, че (както казахме) богословските въпроси в академията и в църквата се различават – понякога съществено. Академичното богословие често трябва да бъде сериозно „преработено,” преди да влезе в пастирска употреба. А понякога се налага проблемите и въпросите да бъдат формулирани и развити повече или по-малко самостоятелно. Това по своята същност е чисто богословско занимание – дейност, която изисква сериозно четене, мислене, отделено време и систематизиране. То няма да бъде свършено от академиците, които оперират в различна среда и с различни въпроси. То трябва да бъде свършено от пастирите, които функционират като богослови – не по-малко сериозни и интелектуални от своите академични колеги, но виждащи нещата по различен начин и затова задаващи различни въпроси и търсещи различни отговори (Това, разбира се, не означава, че пастирите богослови измислят и пренаписват историческата вяра на църквата – те просто се вглеждат в различни нейни страни от тези, които ангажират вниманието на академиците.).
Подобна богословска и интелектуална ангажираност обаче просто не е характерна за по-голямата част от днешните църкви. Негласно, но твърдо налагани, водещите изисквания за добър пастир са чисто практически – да е привлекателна личност, добър комуникатор и мениджър, да успява да привлича достатъчно средства, за да изгради внушителна сграда и да финансира църковните активности, да говори убедително пред хора и да е в състояние да увеличи членската маса. Във всичко това, разбира се, няма нищо лошо. Всъщност това са съвсем реални изисквания за пастирското призвание поставени от времето, в което живеем (а аз подозирам, че са били реалност и за всяко друго време). Но излизането на преден план на чисто прагматични и активистки изисквания, понякога за сметка на чисто духовните – вкл. богословска компетентност, може да донесе нежелани резултати. Духовната повърхностност и популизмът, да спомена само две, са едни от първите неща, които идват на ум.
Истината е, че без значение дали желае това или не, пастирът функционира като основният (често и като единственият) богослов за християнската общност. Християните се обръщат основно към него, а не към академията, за своите богословски разбирания – както теоретични така и практични. Това е факт, който няма да се промени. Друг факт е, че духовното и богословското ниво на една църковна общност няма да надхвърли това на своя пастир. С други думи важно е не просто пастирът да започне да функционира като богослов – той неминуемо функционира като такъв. За да бъде една църква богословски стабилна (което означава много повече от доктринално просветена) е необходимо пастирът да започне да функционира като добър богослов.
Хайстенд и Уилсън дефинират пастирът богослов по следния начин: „За мнозина, терминът се отнася до хората, чийто кабинети са пълни с научни книги. За други той означава пастир, който списва богословски блог или публикува проповеди. За трети това е пастир защитил докторат или който има определен вид проповедническо служение (т.е. богословско). И за мнозина той просто означава наистина умен пастир. Тези настоящи концепции за пастира богослов – колкото и легитимни да са – не са достатъчни за вида църковно и богословско възстановяване, което ние имаме предвид. Необходимо е ново виждане. За тази цел ние предлагаме едно връщане към древното виждане за пастира богослов – пастир богослов, който не само се занимава с богословие като цел сама по себе си, но които конструират и разпространяват богословието в по-широката църковна общност.”
Авторите са наясно, че хората имат различни дарби. Поради това те разграничават 3 вида пастири богослови – пастирът като местен богослов, пастирът като популярен богослов и пастирът като църковен богослов.
„Местният богослов е пастир, който създава богословие за миряните в своята собствена общност. Популярният богослов е пастир богослов, който два богословско водачество на християните отвъд своята собствена общност. И църковният богослов е пастир богослов, който създава богословие за други християнски богослови и пастири.”
Лично аз намирам тезата на авторите за много правилна и удачна макар да ми е трудно да кажа какво и как трябва да се промени дори в моя собствен български (а и по-тесен) контекст. В същото време съм убеден, че ако повече пастири заделят една по-голяма част от своето работно време за четене на сериозна богословска литература (древна така както и съвременна), богословски размисъл, осмисляне и свеждането на богословски идеи до пастирските нужди и (защо не) дори писане това ще окаже въздействие върху тяхната пастирска работа – вкл. дълбочина и качество на проповядването, пастирско съветване, виждане за служението и ученичество. Такова време със сигурност няма да се появи от небето – повечето хора днес са достатъчно претоварени – то трябва да бъде съзнателно отделено като нещо важно и необходимо.
Докато старото поколение пастири малко по малко си отива и дава място на новото, дошло след промените и притежаващо много повече възможности, ще ми е интересно да наблюдавам доколко това виждане ще намери почва у нас. Макар да не съм голям оптимист все пак ми се струва, че забелязвам и няколко бели лястовички.
July 8, 2025
(From Facebook) In early 2016, when I was seriously starting to look at PhD programs, I had two different conversations. One, a PhD student in Systematic Theology, asked me what my main goal was, to which I responded, “I want to pastor.” He devalued the idea that I would pursue a PhD in ST, saying that’s not valuable to the pastorate.
A better conversation, however, was the one I had with my pastor, Mitch Chase. I told him that I was wondering how the two fit together (pursuing theological scholarship as well as the pastoral ministry). It was a dumb question because I had seen him doing it so ably for several years at that point, and I had several professors who exemplified it. He told me not to look at them as competitive, but as part of one overall ministry to Christ’s church. This fit well with what I had noticed and appreciated about the fact that all the Nicene fathers, the Reformers, and my key “dead mentors,” the Puritans, pursued deep theology in the context of the church.
While I have used the language of “pastor theologian,” and I have had this book on my shelf, I hadn’t read it until now. It is very good. I’ve shared a page that summarizes the thrust of the book.
The vision is certainly the heartbeat of what’s being promoted at @irbs1689, where our hunger to study is an expression of our hunger to pursue the living God above all, and where students are being trained to serve churches that hunger after the truth.
I’ve served in three churches, the first two valuing this kind of labor and several in the third valuing it as well, and it is a blessing to continue to Christians thriving on the reality that the pastorate is primarily a didactic office, and therefore a theological one. I do pray the Lord will continue to raise up many more “pastor theologians,” men who know their primary calling is to the Word and prayer.
A better conversation, however, was the one I had with my pastor, Mitch Chase. I told him that I was wondering how the two fit together (pursuing theological scholarship as well as the pastoral ministry). It was a dumb question because I had seen him doing it so ably for several years at that point, and I had several professors who exemplified it. He told me not to look at them as competitive, but as part of one overall ministry to Christ’s church. This fit well with what I had noticed and appreciated about the fact that all the Nicene fathers, the Reformers, and my key “dead mentors,” the Puritans, pursued deep theology in the context of the church.
While I have used the language of “pastor theologian,” and I have had this book on my shelf, I hadn’t read it until now. It is very good. I’ve shared a page that summarizes the thrust of the book.
The vision is certainly the heartbeat of what’s being promoted at @irbs1689, where our hunger to study is an expression of our hunger to pursue the living God above all, and where students are being trained to serve churches that hunger after the truth.
I’ve served in three churches, the first two valuing this kind of labor and several in the third valuing it as well, and it is a blessing to continue to Christians thriving on the reality that the pastorate is primarily a didactic office, and therefore a theological one. I do pray the Lord will continue to raise up many more “pastor theologians,” men who know their primary calling is to the Word and prayer.
June 10, 2018
I found that some of this book was more of a statement of, "I wish there were more people like Jonathan Edwards," than an argument as to why we need more "ecclesial theologians." The first few chapters especially leaned towards a negative view of both the American pulpit and the American academy, and provided at times a tough review of them. Their look back through history could've been an individual book in itself and seemed far too brief to really provide a sound defense of how the ancient pastorate model ought to be followed today. I think that taking a little more time to define the purpose of the pastorate, the academy, and theology as a whole would've lended itself to a stronger argument. While the last few chapters do look at what the authors believe are the purposes of these roles, noting them towards the beginning would've helped me, at least, better identify with where they were coming from.
The last several chapters, on the other hand, left me -- a college student training to become a pastor who also has a deep heart for theology -- challenged to the core. I loved the argument that was made for the ecclesial theologian so much that I immediately sent the title out to a few of my college friends, urging them to read the last 3 chapters. It's apparent that Hiestand and Wilson feel very strongly about the need for ecclesial theology to make a resurgence. I would highly recommend the book, especially the back-half, to any pastors, Christian professors, and students to read and reflect upon.
The last several chapters, on the other hand, left me -- a college student training to become a pastor who also has a deep heart for theology -- challenged to the core. I loved the argument that was made for the ecclesial theologian so much that I immediately sent the title out to a few of my college friends, urging them to read the last 3 chapters. It's apparent that Hiestand and Wilson feel very strongly about the need for ecclesial theology to make a resurgence. I would highly recommend the book, especially the back-half, to any pastors, Christian professors, and students to read and reflect upon.
December 1, 2024
I loved this book, but I will acknowledge that this may have a lot to do with my life-and-career season. I'm a pastor in a small church, who is five years into the job (after working 8 years in campus ministry), and have wrestled a lot with clarity in my calling. I'm someone who is drawn significantly into academic matters, and have considering moving into the teaching/professorship route because it's been difficult to, at times, find ways to integrate my love of learning into my job. On the other hand, I've resisted moving into the academy because: 1) I love where I live and feel called to stay there; 2) I also don't want to "lose touch" with people who are living their lives outside academics. I don't want to get cloistered away, and I want my thinking/learning to always be deeply relevant to normal life.
I share all that to give context to my reaction to this book, because it speaks PRECISELY to the tension I've experienced for years. It gives language for it, and provides an historically-rooted argument for pastors like me to step right into that "gap." It provides practical encouragement and advice for how to do so, and some inspirational/visionary writing to encourage persistence in this area. I put the book down feeling seen and understood, and deeply motivated to embrace the role of "pastor theologian." Honestly, this short book renewed my own sense of calling and energy for the work ahead of me, and it's hard to put a price tag on that.
So, yeah, I loved this a lot. But there are some personal/specific/idiosyncratic reasons for that.
I share all that to give context to my reaction to this book, because it speaks PRECISELY to the tension I've experienced for years. It gives language for it, and provides an historically-rooted argument for pastors like me to step right into that "gap." It provides practical encouragement and advice for how to do so, and some inspirational/visionary writing to encourage persistence in this area. I put the book down feeling seen and understood, and deeply motivated to embrace the role of "pastor theologian." Honestly, this short book renewed my own sense of calling and energy for the work ahead of me, and it's hard to put a price tag on that.
So, yeah, I loved this a lot. But there are some personal/specific/idiosyncratic reasons for that.
January 6, 2023
Going to try and actually update Goodreads this year!
Read this for a Western Seminary reading group in connection with the Center for Pastor Theologians. The authors do a decent job describing the broader evangelical landscape by highlighting that the church is theologically anemic and the academy is ecclesially anemic, attributing it to historical movements, modern pressures, and pragmatic expectations. They define pastor theologian using three subcategories - the local theologian, the popular theologian, and the ecclesial theologian. The local theologian constructs theology for his local church and the popular theologian provides theological leadership to people in other congregations. Much of their emphasis is put on the last one by encouraging pastors to produce robust academic work from an ecclesial spatial location for the sake of other theologians and the academy - an ambitious call! We had a good discussion about the possibility of the pastor theologian, and I left grateful that I've had a chance to watch and now participate in faithful work captured in much of this book.
Read this for a Western Seminary reading group in connection with the Center for Pastor Theologians. The authors do a decent job describing the broader evangelical landscape by highlighting that the church is theologically anemic and the academy is ecclesially anemic, attributing it to historical movements, modern pressures, and pragmatic expectations. They define pastor theologian using three subcategories - the local theologian, the popular theologian, and the ecclesial theologian. The local theologian constructs theology for his local church and the popular theologian provides theological leadership to people in other congregations. Much of their emphasis is put on the last one by encouraging pastors to produce robust academic work from an ecclesial spatial location for the sake of other theologians and the academy - an ambitious call! We had a good discussion about the possibility of the pastor theologian, and I left grateful that I've had a chance to watch and now participate in faithful work captured in much of this book.
February 25, 2016
The Pastor-Theologian: Resurrecting An Ancient Vision is a book that engages the question of identity but in special regards to the office of pastoral ministry. Gerald Hiestand and Todd Wilson, self-identified pastor-theologians and writers of the book, are seeking to engage the question that tends to haunt the mind of all new pastors fresh out of seminary: who am I and what am I supposed to really be doing?
It is widely understood in the West that the most culturally prized vocations are doctors, lawyers, engineers, and the like. The office of pastoral ministry tends to be the least sexiest vocation today. Even the theologically informed will prize the thoughts of the academic theologian or philosopher of religion over the pastor. And it is because pastors are not well-known for being the most intellectual figures in the marketplace of ideas. Rightly so, since the pastor is expected to be the broker of theology rather than an engineer of theology. In other words, the pastor is the mouthpiece of the academic theologians, never the academic theologian himself.
This assumption is the target of this book. Hiestand and Wilson, by drawing from Christianity’s rich history of theologians that worked from the pulpit, are seeking to resurrect an identity of pastoral ministry that incorporates the work of the theologian. But the value of their project is not just meant for those who are inclined towards deep theological work, but the authors argue that this resurrection is vital to the health of the Church in the West in general. They write,
As theologians moved from churches to universities, theological red-blood-cell count within the pastoral community, dn within congregations, fell markedly. No longer is the pastoral community as a whole able to provide serious intellectual leadership for the crucial issues facing the church… Consequently local churches now suffer from a sort of theological anemia not representative of our past.
All in all, we have divided the labor of pastoral shepherding and theological engagement to two different vocations: the academic theologian and the pastor. We face a time, the authors argue, that the office of pastoral ministry is no longer the prized home for intellectual work, but it has become merely a space, at best, for theological middle management. Consequently, there is a theological anemia that now plagues the local Churches and, in reverse, there is an ecclesial anemia that plagues the academy.
The book spends the first three chapters reviewing the historical narrative of the church to illustrate the overwhelming presence of the pastor-theologian. The authors do not dive deep into any particular century or theological tradition, but they do provide an adequate wealth of theologians who do, in fact, resemble the pastor-theologian model. The authors, then, spend the next two chapters developing an argument that the Church’s theological anemia and the academy’s ecclesial anemia is related to the disappearance of the pastor-theologian. The remaining chapters is the main crux of the book: how to be a pastor-theologian.
The “how" in this book is tricky. Namely because they break apart of the work of the pastor-theologian in three models: the local theologian, the popular theologian, and the ecclesial theologian. To explicate the differences, they note,
The local theologian is a pastor who provides theology to a local congregation, the popular theologian offers more widely accessible theological reflection for a broader swarth of of the church; and the ecclesial theologian gives theological leadership to other theologians and scholars, all the while keeping a close eye on genuine ecclesial (as opposed to academic) concerns.
The book, however, spends a majority of its work on the ecclesial theologian rather than popular theologian or local theologian. It is important to note that the authors recognize the difficulty in this project and they even own up to the temptation to idolize theological work. I do believe that they have tried their best to craft a vision that incorporates theological work without overshadowing the work of shepherding.
Overall, I liked the book but it felt more like a Pastor-theologian 101. Nevertheless, its simplicity was actually helpful in giving me the initial building blocks that I needed in order to think about what I wanted to be as a pastor. In undergraduate, as I grew in my love of theology and philosophy, I began to feel that my desires were incompatible with the work of the pastor. This was continuously enforced by my friends and family who would often make remarks like, “I could never see you as a pastor. You don’t think like one at all. Have you ever just considered teaching instead? I feel like that is better suited for you.” After hearing these remarks for so long, I lost hope in ever being a pastor. I felt as if I were too intellectually inclined to properly execute the work of a pastor. This book, however, has created language that has helped me articulate where and how my desires can be incorporated with the vocational office of pastoring.
I do have some critiques though: (1) more resources in their footnotes, (2) the authors tended to flex their intellectual muscles by name-dropping uncommon theological language which felt like they were trying to prove themselves rather than communicate their point, (3) I ended the book wanting more. It has potential to develop but, for where it is, the book just feels like there were some undeveloped features missing. I wanted more Scripture, more thoughts from historical theologians, more robust vision of the day-to-day life of a pastor-theologian, practices to develop the particular virtues, skills, and knowledge that makeup a pastor-theologian.
Regardless, If you are remotely enticed to think about how to be a pastor-theologian, then this is worth your time. It a small enough read that what the book has to offer far exceeds what it is missing.
It is widely understood in the West that the most culturally prized vocations are doctors, lawyers, engineers, and the like. The office of pastoral ministry tends to be the least sexiest vocation today. Even the theologically informed will prize the thoughts of the academic theologian or philosopher of religion over the pastor. And it is because pastors are not well-known for being the most intellectual figures in the marketplace of ideas. Rightly so, since the pastor is expected to be the broker of theology rather than an engineer of theology. In other words, the pastor is the mouthpiece of the academic theologians, never the academic theologian himself.
This assumption is the target of this book. Hiestand and Wilson, by drawing from Christianity’s rich history of theologians that worked from the pulpit, are seeking to resurrect an identity of pastoral ministry that incorporates the work of the theologian. But the value of their project is not just meant for those who are inclined towards deep theological work, but the authors argue that this resurrection is vital to the health of the Church in the West in general. They write,
As theologians moved from churches to universities, theological red-blood-cell count within the pastoral community, dn within congregations, fell markedly. No longer is the pastoral community as a whole able to provide serious intellectual leadership for the crucial issues facing the church… Consequently local churches now suffer from a sort of theological anemia not representative of our past.
All in all, we have divided the labor of pastoral shepherding and theological engagement to two different vocations: the academic theologian and the pastor. We face a time, the authors argue, that the office of pastoral ministry is no longer the prized home for intellectual work, but it has become merely a space, at best, for theological middle management. Consequently, there is a theological anemia that now plagues the local Churches and, in reverse, there is an ecclesial anemia that plagues the academy.
The book spends the first three chapters reviewing the historical narrative of the church to illustrate the overwhelming presence of the pastor-theologian. The authors do not dive deep into any particular century or theological tradition, but they do provide an adequate wealth of theologians who do, in fact, resemble the pastor-theologian model. The authors, then, spend the next two chapters developing an argument that the Church’s theological anemia and the academy’s ecclesial anemia is related to the disappearance of the pastor-theologian. The remaining chapters is the main crux of the book: how to be a pastor-theologian.
The “how" in this book is tricky. Namely because they break apart of the work of the pastor-theologian in three models: the local theologian, the popular theologian, and the ecclesial theologian. To explicate the differences, they note,
The local theologian is a pastor who provides theology to a local congregation, the popular theologian offers more widely accessible theological reflection for a broader swarth of of the church; and the ecclesial theologian gives theological leadership to other theologians and scholars, all the while keeping a close eye on genuine ecclesial (as opposed to academic) concerns.
The book, however, spends a majority of its work on the ecclesial theologian rather than popular theologian or local theologian. It is important to note that the authors recognize the difficulty in this project and they even own up to the temptation to idolize theological work. I do believe that they have tried their best to craft a vision that incorporates theological work without overshadowing the work of shepherding.
Overall, I liked the book but it felt more like a Pastor-theologian 101. Nevertheless, its simplicity was actually helpful in giving me the initial building blocks that I needed in order to think about what I wanted to be as a pastor. In undergraduate, as I grew in my love of theology and philosophy, I began to feel that my desires were incompatible with the work of the pastor. This was continuously enforced by my friends and family who would often make remarks like, “I could never see you as a pastor. You don’t think like one at all. Have you ever just considered teaching instead? I feel like that is better suited for you.” After hearing these remarks for so long, I lost hope in ever being a pastor. I felt as if I were too intellectually inclined to properly execute the work of a pastor. This book, however, has created language that has helped me articulate where and how my desires can be incorporated with the vocational office of pastoring.
I do have some critiques though: (1) more resources in their footnotes, (2) the authors tended to flex their intellectual muscles by name-dropping uncommon theological language which felt like they were trying to prove themselves rather than communicate their point, (3) I ended the book wanting more. It has potential to develop but, for where it is, the book just feels like there were some undeveloped features missing. I wanted more Scripture, more thoughts from historical theologians, more robust vision of the day-to-day life of a pastor-theologian, practices to develop the particular virtues, skills, and knowledge that makeup a pastor-theologian.
Regardless, If you are remotely enticed to think about how to be a pastor-theologian, then this is worth your time. It a small enough read that what the book has to offer far exceeds what it is missing.
December 4, 2016
In The Pastor Theologian: Resurrecting an Ancient Vision, Hiestand and Wilson add to the ongoing argument in favor of the need for pastor-theologians, noting the unhealthy dichotomy perceived by modern Christians wherein pastors are seen as preacher-counselor-managers and theologians are seen solely as university academics. Bringing more specificity to the conversation, the authors promote what they call ecclesial theologians over local and popular theologians. They do, however, go on for six chapters before finally nailing down in the seventh exactly what they believe an ecclesial theologian is and/or ought to be, also noting that they are pilgrims on this journey and are contributing to a conversation that they hope will continue into the next generation in a hopeful resurgence of pastor-theologians.
So, what is an ecclesial theologian according to Hiestand and Wilson? Before stating what it is, they note what it is not—or, perhaps more appropriately, what it is more than. They write, “The local theologian is a pastor who provides theology to a local congregation; the popular theologian offers more widely accessible theological reflection for a broader swath of the church; and the ecclesial theologian gives theological leadership to other theologians and scholars, all the while keeping a close eye on genuine ecclesial (as opposed to academic) concerns” (17). So, the authors do not mean to say that an ecclesial theologian does not care for the local congregation, nor does he refrain from writing for a larger Christian audience or the academy; they claim that ecclesial theologians are first pastors to their local congregation and then contributors to ecclesial scholarship with a primary focus on the church and leaders therein rather than the academy. Pulling from church history, the authors bring forth Athanasius, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Calvin as examples of their ideal ecclesial pastor-theologians, citing N. T. Wright as perhaps the best example of in our time—at least for a number of years before Western Christian culture seemingly eventually forced a decision to be either an academic or a pastor, Wright prayerfully landing back in the former.
If one is so inclined, one may skip straight to the seventh chapter for the authors’ detailed explanation of what an ecclesial theologian does via the following subheadings: The Ecclesial Theologian Inhabits the Ecclesial Social Location (88), Foregrounds Ecclesial Questions (90), Aims for Clarity over Subtlety (92), Theologizes with a Preaching Voice (93), Is a Student of the Church (94), Works Across the Guilds (96), Works in Partnership with the Academic Theologian (97), and Traffics in Introspection (99). This is all encouraging and helpful. So, how does one become an ecclesial theologian? The authors’ strategies are listed in chapter 8: Strategy One: Get a PhD (104); Two: Staff to the Vision (107); Three: Get Networked (108); Four: Guard Your Study Time with a Blowtorch (110); Five: Read Ecclesial Theology (and Other Stuff) (113); Six: Refer to the Place Where You Work as “Your Study” (116); Seven: Build Studying-and-Writing Time into Your Schedule (117); Eight: Recruit a Pastor-Theologian Intern (118); Nine: Earn Buy-In from Your Church Leadership (120); and Ten: Let the Necessity of Love Trump Your Love of Truth (121). Though surely helpful for some, this, in culmination with terminology and implication found in the rest of the book, is where I want to push back on the authors and hopefully encourage the pastor-theologian conversation to move in a more holistic and biblical direction.
This book is written on behalf of “evangelicalism” for a “resurrected vision” from the past. I note three significant problems stemming from the authors’ perspective:
One: What is evangelicalism? There are a plethora of definitions, no few of which claim to be “the one” from popular pastors and scholars, but the one common denominator I have found is that all who claim this guild are “Protestant” (most nondenominational churches who claim the same title still function and promote theology from their founders’ Protestant heritages and traditions).
Two: If Protestant, then is a pre-Reformation vision desirable? This is not intended to speak from my own convictions, but rather question the foundation of the vision put forth. I’m looking for consistency here. If the authors are speaking for protestant evangelicalism (they do not include their Catholic and Orthodox contemporaries in the discussion), then they must recognize the hurdle before them in convincing Protestants that Catholic and Orthodox history and theology matter and can be helpful, as I believe they are. However, if we’re going to drop denominational labels and ties and look at our history by recognizing that from which we came, for which I am in favor, then why refer to “evangelicals” and “evangelicalism” and perpetuate an “us vs. them” mentality?
Three: The authors make two assumptions. First, they assume there was an “ancient vision” and that it wasn’t simply an organic development with cultural and societal variables, two of the most notable affecting the rise of notable “pastor theologians” being widespread illiteracy and the Constantinian shift. Second, again missing problems and difficulties with Christian culture, the authors assume churches are business establishments of hundreds to thousands of members with boards, staff, and a convoluted understanding of the term “pastor” itself. This perpetuates the problem of North American churches and their international plants that places more emphasis on a branded institution than the body of Christ.
I applaud the Heistand and Wilson for contributing to this ongoing conversation and pushing it forward in specific ways. I now pray the Spirit guides us further with a more holistic and less taxonomical view of the body of Christ.
*I received a temporary digital copy for review from Zondervan via NetGalley.
So, what is an ecclesial theologian according to Hiestand and Wilson? Before stating what it is, they note what it is not—or, perhaps more appropriately, what it is more than. They write, “The local theologian is a pastor who provides theology to a local congregation; the popular theologian offers more widely accessible theological reflection for a broader swath of the church; and the ecclesial theologian gives theological leadership to other theologians and scholars, all the while keeping a close eye on genuine ecclesial (as opposed to academic) concerns” (17). So, the authors do not mean to say that an ecclesial theologian does not care for the local congregation, nor does he refrain from writing for a larger Christian audience or the academy; they claim that ecclesial theologians are first pastors to their local congregation and then contributors to ecclesial scholarship with a primary focus on the church and leaders therein rather than the academy. Pulling from church history, the authors bring forth Athanasius, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Calvin as examples of their ideal ecclesial pastor-theologians, citing N. T. Wright as perhaps the best example of in our time—at least for a number of years before Western Christian culture seemingly eventually forced a decision to be either an academic or a pastor, Wright prayerfully landing back in the former.
If one is so inclined, one may skip straight to the seventh chapter for the authors’ detailed explanation of what an ecclesial theologian does via the following subheadings: The Ecclesial Theologian Inhabits the Ecclesial Social Location (88), Foregrounds Ecclesial Questions (90), Aims for Clarity over Subtlety (92), Theologizes with a Preaching Voice (93), Is a Student of the Church (94), Works Across the Guilds (96), Works in Partnership with the Academic Theologian (97), and Traffics in Introspection (99). This is all encouraging and helpful. So, how does one become an ecclesial theologian? The authors’ strategies are listed in chapter 8: Strategy One: Get a PhD (104); Two: Staff to the Vision (107); Three: Get Networked (108); Four: Guard Your Study Time with a Blowtorch (110); Five: Read Ecclesial Theology (and Other Stuff) (113); Six: Refer to the Place Where You Work as “Your Study” (116); Seven: Build Studying-and-Writing Time into Your Schedule (117); Eight: Recruit a Pastor-Theologian Intern (118); Nine: Earn Buy-In from Your Church Leadership (120); and Ten: Let the Necessity of Love Trump Your Love of Truth (121). Though surely helpful for some, this, in culmination with terminology and implication found in the rest of the book, is where I want to push back on the authors and hopefully encourage the pastor-theologian conversation to move in a more holistic and biblical direction.
This book is written on behalf of “evangelicalism” for a “resurrected vision” from the past. I note three significant problems stemming from the authors’ perspective:
One: What is evangelicalism? There are a plethora of definitions, no few of which claim to be “the one” from popular pastors and scholars, but the one common denominator I have found is that all who claim this guild are “Protestant” (most nondenominational churches who claim the same title still function and promote theology from their founders’ Protestant heritages and traditions).
Two: If Protestant, then is a pre-Reformation vision desirable? This is not intended to speak from my own convictions, but rather question the foundation of the vision put forth. I’m looking for consistency here. If the authors are speaking for protestant evangelicalism (they do not include their Catholic and Orthodox contemporaries in the discussion), then they must recognize the hurdle before them in convincing Protestants that Catholic and Orthodox history and theology matter and can be helpful, as I believe they are. However, if we’re going to drop denominational labels and ties and look at our history by recognizing that from which we came, for which I am in favor, then why refer to “evangelicals” and “evangelicalism” and perpetuate an “us vs. them” mentality?
Three: The authors make two assumptions. First, they assume there was an “ancient vision” and that it wasn’t simply an organic development with cultural and societal variables, two of the most notable affecting the rise of notable “pastor theologians” being widespread illiteracy and the Constantinian shift. Second, again missing problems and difficulties with Christian culture, the authors assume churches are business establishments of hundreds to thousands of members with boards, staff, and a convoluted understanding of the term “pastor” itself. This perpetuates the problem of North American churches and their international plants that places more emphasis on a branded institution than the body of Christ.
I applaud the Heistand and Wilson for contributing to this ongoing conversation and pushing it forward in specific ways. I now pray the Spirit guides us further with a more holistic and less taxonomical view of the body of Christ.
*I received a temporary digital copy for review from Zondervan via NetGalley.
March 24, 2020
I very much appreciate what the author(s) were trying to accomplish. There is perceptual gap between rigorous theology and ministerial activity. It shouldn't be there, but nonetheless it is an issue we have struggled with almost since the church started. Their classification of the "ecclesical theologian" was helpful to a degree but I don't know if it can practically be considered a category in and of itself.
There are a few issues which they touched on, but didn't delve into deeply. The first being that many times once one actually earns a Ph.D., it provides an out when ministry becomes frustrating. I have seen this happen more often than not. The academic world holds its appeal as the siren song of thoughtful students is powerful. The second issue being the role of discipleship itself. If one is working at being a disciple-maker and training others to do so, can one embrace the role of the "ecclesical theology" in the manner described by the authors? If one can't, which one should be chosen?
There are a few issues which they touched on, but didn't delve into deeply. The first being that many times once one actually earns a Ph.D., it provides an out when ministry becomes frustrating. I have seen this happen more often than not. The academic world holds its appeal as the siren song of thoughtful students is powerful. The second issue being the role of discipleship itself. If one is working at being a disciple-maker and training others to do so, can one embrace the role of the "ecclesical theology" in the manner described by the authors? If one can't, which one should be chosen?
March 25, 2017
This is a thoughtful, well reason argument for a greater participation of pastors in the work of professional theology. The authors have diagnosed the problem, namely a theologically weak church and an ecclesiastically weak academy They give historical background and practical guidelines. Still "The Pastor Theologian" is not entirely persuasive. It is a passionate plea to the church at large to help pastors with the gift of scholarship be both professional theologians and full time pastors. It is a tall order. But along the way Hiestand and Wilson remind us that pastors are the theologians of their churches and should take that responsibility seriously. They are also the translators of serious theology for lay people often writing popular books about current topics. The authors think there should be a third type of pastor theologian, a PhD who can do hard scholarship from the vantage point of the church. Both the academy and the church need it. Only time will tell if their idea takes root and grows.
November 2, 2018
A compelling vision and call for pastor theologians.
The current church is often theologically anemic. But the academy has become ecclessially anemic.
As pastors, we are already - in fact, the local theologians. And theology must serve the church. Fidelity asks us to embrace the pastoral theologian more fully.
The authors describe three types:
1. Local theologian
2. Popular theologian
3. Ecclesial theologian
The latter is what they wish to see more of - the pastor who goes theology in conversation with the academy, but from and for the church.
I’m not sure how realistic it is. But it’s pretty inspiring!
The current church is often theologically anemic. But the academy has become ecclessially anemic.
As pastors, we are already - in fact, the local theologians. And theology must serve the church. Fidelity asks us to embrace the pastoral theologian more fully.
The authors describe three types:
1. Local theologian
2. Popular theologian
3. Ecclesial theologian
The latter is what they wish to see more of - the pastor who goes theology in conversation with the academy, but from and for the church.
I’m not sure how realistic it is. But it’s pretty inspiring!
March 2, 2019
Hiestand and Wilson work to expose what is lacking in the modern Evangelical church: Ecclesial Theologians. The modern church has lost its doctrinal clarity and theological conviction, and much of this is due to the developing disconnect between the church and the academy. This book is a call to restore the academy and the pastorate, reviving the leadership of men like Edwards, Calvin, and Wesley. The church needs to restore its depth and vigor in theological study, and the change starts with us! Amazing book.
March 10, 2024
Overall, this is a very encouraging book for both the pastor and the scholar. I do have some concerns about positional epistemology (i.e. I would rather say that those situated in certain places have access to the right *questions* rather than the right *answers*), and I don't think that the ecclesial theologian can actually give 100 percent to either the pastor role or the theologian role. That being said, I think that the vision for pastors should today include a more intentional focus on developing resources for the broader church.
August 5, 2024
A fascinating and thought provoking read. I will be chewing on this one awhile. The need for pastor theologians does seem more and more evident. I think the most helpful challenge of this book is considering (lamenting?) the great divide between the academy and the church. May the Lord raise up men to help bridge that gap. Because (as both authors persuasively make the case) each are worse off without the other.
December 14, 2021
The premise of this book is notable, but most of the chapters are simply repetition—this could be condensed into a pamphlet or article, honestly. It was especially painful to note how few women and people of color were quoted or referenced, even with the number of mothers of the faith and women pastors & theologians today.
January 17, 2025
A clear call for pastors to reassume the mantle of theological leadership, not only for their own congregations (this is essential for all pastors) but for the church universal (this is necessary for some pastors). The ecclesial theologian will engage in the work of theology with a pastor’s heart and a prophet’s voice.
July 22, 2017
We need more Pastor Theologians
If you are a divinity student, professor at a divinity school, or a pastor, please take some time to read this short treatise on the need of the church for pastor theologians.
If you are a divinity student, professor at a divinity school, or a pastor, please take some time to read this short treatise on the need of the church for pastor theologians.
February 13, 2024
Wish I could give it 4.5 stars. It's well-written, important, funny at times, and has good, practical advise. The only reason it's not 5 stars is because it doesn't go on my "you HAVE to read this book" list
July 17, 2024
This book motivated me to study deeper. That's a good thing! The practical strategies in Chapter 8, "On Being an Ecclesial Theologian in the Local Church" were the highlight for me. Really helpful ideas.
October 4, 2024
The authors persuasively argue for the return of ecclesial theologians who combine faithful pastoral ministry with robust theological leadership, a vocational vision that has nearly disappeared due to the division between the academy and the church.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews