Gradualism and the pastorate

Okay, so, for those of us directed towards the pastorate, the overarching narrative of the biblical illiteracy and theological illegitimacy of many people in the local parish is supposedly going to be disarmed by biblical preaching and sound doctrine. Does this sound familiar?

Kind of jumping off of Phil's experience at the beginning of the summer, I would like to hear (for those willing to divulge) if there are any heresies, real or perceived, which they would not answer with gradualism?

If your interested in how I myself am framing this, I am thinking of as two poles Yoderian patience and Dr. King's I Have a Dream speech and what it says about gradualism. I know I have lambasted hypotheticals in the past (for good reason), but where would your foot go down and where would smile to yourself.

Also, this question by one of Stanley's patent responses. During the Youth Academy, after he gave his regular Spiel, one of the students asked how they should tell their church about this stuff. Stanley responded, kind of like how Porcupine's screw, very carefully.

Summer Project **Advertisement**

I am the blogmaster, so I can do these sorts of things.

This summer, what has grown out of a personal challenge is nearing a completion of sorts. Tentatively titled, To consume and not be filled: A theological account of diet and food, it is both a study and critique of contemporary concepts of food and diet, and a sustained account of what Scripture and tradition has to say. It is also a methodological exercise in how to do theology for the lay reader.

I have rough drafts of six chapters of which I need profuse criticism. Since I have written this with two sets of eyes, I need readers who are willing to read with two sets of eyes: one looking at the meat of the argument to see if it is sound, the other to look at the language and exposition of the argument, to see if it is too technical. Those are my main concerns.

If you are interested in helping me out, please make a comment or send me an email and I will give you the link to what I have completed so far.

The basic outline is:
Chapter One: description of the Problem
Chapter Two: Old Testament
Chapter Three: New Testament
Chapter Four: Desert Fathers, Augustine, and Gregory of Nyssa
Chapter Five: Maximus the Confessor, Thomas, and Julian of Norwich
Chapter Six: Protestant and Catholic thought up through Wesley
Chapter Seven: Barth, Niebuhr, and contemporary thinkers
Chapter Eight: Vegetarianism
Chapter Nine: Dieting and eating disorders
Chapter Ten: Eucharist, Hospitality, and reversing analogies.

I have finished the chapters in bold, and I may combine chapters six and seven because, while I feel that they are important, I am just not as interested in the time periods (i.e., all of theology from 1500 to the present).

So again, just let me know.

Credit and usury

I am curious about the silence of the church on usury when (nearly) every single building campaign is based upon this system, as is the rest of society. Can there be a Christian witness against usury (and I am broadly defining usury as all interest loans)? Oh, and then there is student loans and personal mortgages etc., credit cards, plus (to add a twist to the picture) the historic anti-antisemitism surrounding the Christian association of usury as a Jew-thing. It is not a clean-cut issue.

My overriding trouble with the system is that I feel like here is one of those situation that the contemporary Church ignores, or only talks about 'short-term' loans or 'variable-rate' loans, or some other way to make themselves feel good about defending the 'unfortunate.'

Or am I thinking to macro and need to just witness to Jesus Christ in the life of the church in any and every way possible.

re: Campbell's Quest for Paul's Gospel

I did not take Douglas Campbell’s course on Paul last year as many of you did, so I took the time to do a close reading of his “The Quest for Paul’s Gospel” on my own. It is provocative, and I see resonances in the work of Carter and Eastman. In a recent discussion, I learned that at least one brother considers Campbell heretical. My question: what do you think of Campbell’s argument in favor of the PPME model and against the “Justification by Faith” model? And, in particular, what do you make of his case study on the question of gay ordinations?

My purpose in posting this is to learn by encountering your own critical engagement of his work, since I studied it alone.  I am hopeful to read some real specific engagement on this that will help me to process it critically, rather than vague generalizations that condemn or adore without explanation.  Thanks!

Theologian as Doctor of the Church

"Doctor of the Church" is, of course, an official designation of honor and authority conferred by the Roman Catholic Church. But both Luther and Calvin (the latter especially) held a more generic sense of this as the office of the theologian. That is one charged with the duty of studyung, teaching, and explicating the doctrine of the Church. Regrettably, this office is not officially recognized by my connection (PC-USA) as an ordained office in the sense that Calvin commends. Thus, most Presbyterian theologians are not in fact ordained, and therefore not meaningfully under the authority of the Church. Put rather crudely, most contemporary theologians are freelancers of a sort.

As someone undertaking MDiv study en route to PhD study who hopes to become a Doctor of the Church in the sense held by Calvin, this concerns me. I hope that someday the situation might be different. Perhaps the PC-USA, or Protestants in general, ought to create an order of theologians akin to the Jesuits, Dominicans, etc. This came to mind recently as I've been reading through Barth's PROTESTANT THEOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY. Barth himself is a compelling example of someone whose theology, like that of the Fathers, was developed in the midst of ongoing pastoral ministry.

In general, this text has surprised me. I was expecting something more in keeping with the tone of his famous "Nein!" to Brunner. Perhaps an earlier companion volume to Milbank's THEOLOGY AND SOCIAL THEORY. But instead, the text is perceptive and nuanced. An example of close and charitable readings of theologians with whom he deeply disagreed. The chapter on Schleirmacher is particularly exemplary. Which brings us back to the issue under discussion. Consider the following description of Schleirmacher.


"And we cannot overlook the fact that he (Schleiermacher) felt himself responsible for the interest of the Christian Church in this very field of learning (theology and philosophy), in answering the question of truth which was directed also at Christian preaching...We cannot be mindful enough of the fact that Schleiermacher was not one of those theologians who are in the habit, under some pretext or other, of dissociating themselves from the most difficult and decisive theological situation, that in which the theologian, without security of any kind, must prove himself solely as a theologian. I refer to the situation of the (person) in the pulpit. Schleiermacher did not only not avoid this most exposed position, but actually sought it, throughout his life, as the place of his 'own office' (i.e. the office of the theologian, or the Doctor of the Church)."


Thus my questions for those of us who are inclined to pursue a more professorial expression of vocation: 1) Do we think this description of the theologial office and its decisive locus (the pulpit) is valid? 2) If so, does our personal practice reflect this? 3) If so, does theologial education (particularly the "academic track" MTS program) reflect this? 4) What are the implications for our future educational and professional practice?