One of the perennial features of theological study and preparation for Christian ministry has been the yawning chasm between scholarship and church leadership over the last century or two. The evidence for this varies from the comment to young Christians: ‘Don’t study theology at university; you will lose your faith’, to a sense that theological study is ill-suited to preparing Christian ministers for their future ministry. I remember, when on the staff of a theological college, a well-known leader of a national church movement telling ordinands over lunch: ‘You are wasting your time with all this study—all you need is to be filled with the Spirit and get practical experience’. (I was very proud when the ordinands quickly refuted this claim!)
But there are real reasons for a sense of the gap between academic concerns and pastoral practice. A new initiative in the UK to seek to close that gap is the Kingdom Scholarship Network, a ‘community of scholars called to the church’ whose aim is ‘uniting the academy and the church‘:
We exist to call out, inspire, strengthen and connect those called to a fusion of scholarly and pastoral service for the kingdom of God. We are convinced that the health of the church depends in no small part on such men and women pressing in to their vocation and becoming all that God calls them to be.
I asked Dr Tim Murray, a founding member of the leadership team, what the Kingdom Scholarship Network is about and why this issue is important. (Full disclosure: I am a trustee!)
IP: What is the aim of the Kingdom Scholarship Network?
TM: We want to enable the flourishing of a particular vocation: those who are called both to serious intellectual labour and to the church. All Christians are to love God with their heart, mind, soul and strength, but in each generation there are some who are particularly called to a thoughtful life as part of their service in the kingdom of God—and our passion is to see such people able to fulfil their bi-vocation without having to ‘choose’ between the church and the academy.
IP: How have scholarship and ministry combined in your own calling?
TM: I have known that I was called to be a pastor since the age of 19 (!) and although I didn’t take a paid position at a church until 2017 I was largely operating as an unofficial pastor for many years before that. At the same time it became clear to me in my twenties that God had also made me to read, think and write, and that call took me eventually into doing a PhD at Nottingham University; along the way we had a series of miracles of provision that left me in no doubt that this was a door God was opening.
As soon as I finished my PhD I began working for Amblecote Community Church who have, from the outset, seen my academic engagement as part of my call and therefore always released me to do this on paid time, as well as providing budget for conferences, books, etc. In consequence I’ve been able to remain an active scholar alongside being a pastor to the mutual benefit of both, I hope! More than this, I would say that there is no way I would have been able to fulfil the pastoral vocation without the deep wells that substantial study dug (and continues to dig) in my life.
IP: Why are you concerned about the loss of connection with scholarship in pastoral ministry?
TM: The first thing I would say is that scholar-pastors used to be much more normal! Historically, theology (alongside much other intellectual labour) has had its home in the church and the emergence of a secular academy is the exception rather than the historic norm. Insofar as that separation is present and the two lose contact I think you end up with huge problems. The church becomes thinned out—intellectually weak and vulnerable to cultural capture, unable to even name the real questions, never mind provide coherent and robust answers.
Jesus said that the truth will set us free and while the truth is certainly more ‘mind’ truth it is not less. If we end up leading churches without having, for example, an adequate ecclesiology then is it any wonder that there’s a prevailing sense that we’re flying upside down trying to figure out how the exhausting treadmill of ministry we’re on relates to the gospel that we passionately want to be heralds of?
IP: Why are you concerned about the loss of a ministry perspective in scholarship?
TM: Have you ever had the experience of finishing an academic monograph, or listening to a paper, and thinking: why does that matter to anyone? I have, many times! The trouble is that universities are driven by various market forces and political decisions that have led to a crazy output culture, where more and more is being written about less and less. I don’t blame my friends in that world—it’s necessary to keep your job. But inevitably an ever-greater proportion of ‘research’ is detached from anything that really matters.
Christian scholars need to find a way to resist this zeitgeist and turn their labours to meaningful service. I’m not advocating for a simplistic claim that everything has to have obvious practical pay-out, but rather for a return to a vision of scholarship where it serves a greater purpose than hitting output targets for career progression. I hope that doesn’t sound too harsh… the problem is only made worse when the church agrees that serious scholarly work should be reserved for the academy, so such people feel that university jobs are there only viable vocational option.
IP: What would you say to those who see scholarship as a distraction—possibly something that even undermines pastoral ministry?
It can be. It can be used to avoid the pain of pastoral ministry as much as anything else. But when pursued with integrity scholarship enriches pastoral work:
a. It digs deeper personal wells from which we draw in all our teaching, preaching and work with people. I know I’m a worse pastor when I have had six months starved of time to read and engage at that deeper level.
b. It serves the wider church. Not everything we do has to have direct pay-off for our local congregation, or for the immediate demands in front of us. We have to have a bigger vision that avoids the short-termism or localism that says “if it’s not relevant for here and now it’s not of value” (of course, no-one would say this out loud, but when the budget is tight you can ‘feel’ this even if it isn’t articulated).
c. Pastors are those with responsibility for shaping the life of communities of Christians. Do we really think we are sufficient to do that on our own without recourse both to our tradition and the wisdom of our peers? Scholarship is not something separate from that, but is a deliberate engagement in the wisdom that we do not yet have. If we don’t want to go there, one has to wonder what we’re hiding from.
IP: It seems that, in every tradition, the demands of ministry have grown, and pastors are as busy as ever. Can pastors and church leaders really find the time and space to engage in academic study? What needs to happen to allow for this? How has it worked for you?
TM: The truth is that the majority of them can’t find the time and space. It’s no mystery that there’s a general crisis in pastoral identity, both in pastors themselves and in the churches they seek to serve. Eugene Peterson has been writing about this for decades! (other authors are available…). My brief summary of some key factors would be:
- Pastors need to reclaim the core of their calling and resist being pressed out of shape by the various pressures of culture, their church, insecurities, and so on. That is easy to say, but very difficult to do—which is why the key aim of the KSN is to help support and facilitate this kind of identity-reclamation project! Therefore, churches and pastors together need to recast how they see their pastors/ministers—not as church managers, or community therapists, or volunteer co-ordinators, or one of the other options.
- Some other things need to be sacrificed, and both pastors and churches need to accept this. The urgent is always trumping the important; but the vulnerable choice to leave gaps, not meet certain needs and allow some things to fail is unavoidable to recover and protect the things that are more important in the long run.
The key thing for me has been working within a leadership that:
a. considers employment to be primarily about releasing people to live into the call of God on their lives rather than about getting people to do a check-list of pre-determined jobs and tasks. Of course, there are plenty of tasks I do that I’d rather not, but the emphasis is on being obedient to the call, and accepting the real consequences of that. And
b. takes seriously the priority of kingdom over empire. By that I mean that the leadership I serve in is quite happy to sacrifice in our own church for the sake of investing in the wider church. This is manifest in many ways, but one of them is allowing me to pursue the academic call. Really practically, it means having a ‘rule-of-thumb’ understanding that I’m going to spend a day a week on academic-related stuff as well as various conferences and study periods, and maintaining a workload at church that makes that realistic. There’s no point telling your pastor they can study, but that they also have to do 50 hours of other work each week that is non-negotiable.
IP: How difficult have you found it hold scholarship and ministry together?
TM: Very difficult! Even though I’ve found them mutually enriching, the pressures of life and work mean that most of the time the experience is feeling like you’re not doing either particularly well. I’ve also found it quite a lonely path—most of my ministerial colleagues are not engaged in academic labour, and most of my academic friends don’t serve on church leadership!
I’ve been fortunate to have a couple of good friends who share the bi-vocational call, but they are not local. Without company, it’s so easy to check out of your scholarly responsibilities, or to use that as an escape from the demands of pastoral work. The KSN is born out of these kind of experiences that are not just mine, but crop up with regularity in those with a bi-vocational call.
IP: How might scholars reading this better engage with the concerns of pastoral ministry? How might those in pastoral ministry reading this better engage with issues of scholarship?
TM: Does this come down to vision and time? From whichever side you start, we need a vision that reclaims the interconnection between scholarship and ministry, or academy and church, or intellectual labour and pastoral care, or however you want to put it. That’s surely the key thing. Once that’s in place there has to be the deliberate choice to occupy both spaces in the variety of different ways that can happen.
IP: How can people find out more about Kingdom Scholarship Network? How can they participate?
TM: Of course the easiest first step is to visit the website, where you can find out more about the network and the various different ways of getting involved. But as a relational network perhaps the best thing is to reach out for a conversation! The easiest way to do that is to email [email protected], and we can take it from there…
IP: Thanks Tim. I feel very excited to be a part of this important project. Thank you for the energy and vision that you have put into it.
Dr Tim Murray received his PhD in New Testament from Nottingham University before joining Amblecote Community Church where he serves as one of the pastors. He is released to pursue ongoing academic research and writing as part of his role.
Buy me a Coffee
Thanks….I regard myself as a scholar-pastor, and have reposted this on the FB page for UK officers of The Salvation Army.
I had no idea there was a disconnect between the two.
Wouldn’t this be how Heresy and False teachers can worm their way in?
Who is doing the scriptural checks and balances in the C of E if academic scholarship isn’t front and centre?
I studied Theology (hons) for one year quite recently at University aged 60 ish. I was among the last studying it there before it stopped being offered. I was the only one taking Theology and was lumped together with the Philosophy, Ethics and Religion cohorts.
The lectures were invariably atheistic. Awful!
Every essay I wrote had to tediously defend the very existence of God. We never got past that and onto the actual things of God. It was very annoying and I switched courses and uni’s after the first year as a result. If I’d wanted to study clueless philosophers who were never sure about God then I would have studied philosophy. Secular Theology courses deserve to die! ha ha!
Please start with a definition. What is a scholar? Someone who can can define the category?
I recall listening to a recorded talk between Tim Keller and Don Carson, where Keller described himself, not as a theologian, but as a practitioner, and Carson as a theologian. Scholar wasn’t mentioned.
Well when I was sudying Theology at uni I was a Theologian as in I was studying Theology.
A Theological Scholar is surely someone who is a subject matter expert…a Theologian who has studied the subject very deeply indeed.
That’s my threepenny guesstimate. What is your definition, Geoff?
We are all theologians- a view about God (JI Packer). I was a solicitor, having studied and practiced law. Never been too sure about scholars, though, other than in the dim past when someone classified theologians of old as being in a school of scholastism. It was clearly meant as a derogative term, bearing no correspondence with Christian life.
I’m really not too sure why I don’t come across the use of the term scholar, outside Christianity; in fact outside our host’s blog.
Having said that I grew up in a time when all children attending school were referred to as scholars.
“Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up” – Ephesians 4:11-12.
So it needs to be borne in mind that evangelists are not the same as pastors; it needs to be reconsidered whether Paul’s “some are pastors and teachers” means “some are pastors and some are teachers” rather than “some are pastor-teachers”; and above all the assumption that ‘pastor’ means one man who leads a congregation needs to be revisited in light of the leadership of NT congregations by a council of male elders/overseers.
I suggest that an apostle is someone who preaches regularly to non-Christians; an evangelist means somebody who is good at striking up one-to-one conversations with people he (or she, indeed) doesn’t know and interesting them in Christ; and a pastor is someone inside a congregation who is gifted at helping new recruits to grow spiritually.
If Tim Murray can do the lot then he is a gifted man, but he is likely to burn out! A division of labour within the church is vital.
Problem is if you were to hold fire and wait for the C of E to release you into anything then you’s mostly wait a whole lifetime. The C of E let me be on three PCC’s and that’s about all.For example- Outside of that, God himself appointed me as a Watchman which is really interesting and prophetic type work. I also still do lone street work; handing out tracts, John’s gospels and Palm crosses etc and witness to strangers a fair bit in the market square. I’ve spent decades talking to people in cults and founded a homelessness charity outreach with 50 volunteers 35 yrs back which still goes today- to be fair the C of E quite liked that and hopped on board for ownership of it- ha ha. I’ve operated miracles and healed the sick etc. It’s a shame all that has been done outside of Churches though. The C of E wouldn’t ordain me even though I was called for it and was a member of the MOW in the 80’s. There does seem to be a disconnect in more than the way Ian mentions….and it’s good if we can look at joining some of the stuff up more. It’s a real shame not to people with gifting and skills that can surely be assets to the Church. I’m sure many others who were not ordained also feel a bit redundant in their church communities.
Apologies to the academics for not proof reading that last one…I know it’s a crime.
I agree; I felt called to give sermons and then found out that becoming a lay reader took longer than getting ordained in the Church of England’s sclerotic systems. And I was on a PCC with a dozen elderly ladies who had no concept of spiritual leadership and two men who did but were were virulent church liberals. In a free church I was once in, the Elders were interested in who had what spiritual gifts but when I actually used mine – long-range radar warning of persecution, and sermons that explained fairly complex theology in terms that anybody interested could understand, I got fobbed off. I now take a congregationalist (small-c) view of the church of Jesus Christ and am in a Church of England congregation in which the vicar knows how to grow a congregation by preaching the gospel without compromise. But I have no loyalty to the Anlgican system or its bishops and neither does he.
Jeannie
How can I put this kindly and gently – you should never say you have ‘operated miracles and healed the sick’, you should always be careful to use language to say that God has done it through you. I know that’s what you really mean, and you think I’m being fussy and pedantic with words, but it really is one area where we must be very careful – however unintentionally – not to seem take the glory to ourselves, but give the glory only to Him. I know exactly what you mean, but I do advise you to be careful in this area.
Shalom
Sorry – I should have said “we should” not “you should”. Apologies.
There is a story from about 30-40 years ago, which I can well believe, of an Anglo-Catholic ordinand writing an essay in an exam, which he wrote in accordance with his lectures and prescribed reading; but he felt obliged to add at the end of it, “I have to state as a matter of conscience that I do not actually believe one word of what I have written in this essay.” He still got a good mark for it! (and, I believe, was still ordained.) I understand that this would be much less likely now!
Dr. James Denny once wrote, “If our preachers were our theologians and our theologians were our preachers we would at least be nearer the ideal church.” He was speaking I believe of what these posts are saying/lamenting.
We might start with something simple I hope all can agree with. Whatever else it means, being a scholar must mean mastering subject matter sufficiently to be able to present it in a clear, direct, and understandable way, much as Richard Feynman was able to do in nothing less than theoretical physics. Thus, for example, we might avoid redundant and opaque sentences such as “we exist to call out” those “called to a fusion of scholarly and pastoral service for the kingdom of God.” If they are already called, why are we calling them out? What does it even mean to “call out” someone, which sounds slightly ominous? What does it mean to say that “the health of the church depends in no small part on such men and women pressing in to their vocation”? I suspect there is a proper verb that can substitute for “pressing in” but I haven’t the scholarly background to attempt a translation into plain English. Just a thought.
Was Solomon the first Scholar/Pastor?
Was he not wiser than a mere scholar, Steve? Though he is hardly an exemplar.
Jesus was a scholar beyond compare, was he not, but did he keep it up-to-date during his ministry?
Saul/Paul also was a tent maker, a watered down scholar, perhaps, with split affinities, though he was keen to have his books with him.
Hi Geoff,
And what became of his academic studies of nature and God? He wrote too many papers on academic subjects and spent too little time on governing his kingdom.
Perhaps St. Paul should have anointed/cast his mantle to Timothy and thrown himself into theology. Then we could have had a N.T. five times the size. He led by example.
Solomon’s wisdom is legendary. However, not only did he not govern his kingdom well, he failed himself in following wisdom’s call. He failed to lead is son in the way he should go. He failed to follow the Law of the King (Deut 17:14-20).
The only example of his wisdom in the book of Kings is the puzzling story of the two women and the baby. Stephen Cook has an interesting view of that episode:https://stephencook.com.au/2021/10/26/how-wise-was-solomon/
I found that article quite puzzling. He is basically wanting us to read the whole narrative *against* the grain of the text. All the references to Solomon’s wisdom are sarcastic…?
Yes Ian, I think the main thrust of Kings narrative regarding Solomon is deeply ironic. The visit of Sheba is a classic example of ironic inversion. The narrator’s main view of Solomon is a wise fool, who wasted his God given gift.
There is a great deal of irony in Hebrew narrative which is missed by Western readership, where both liberals and evangelicals wrongly assume a false literalism in texts which are actually dripping with Jewish irony.
My MA work in Kings first alerted me to the extent to which we must look for irony in such texts. Later I touched on the Solomon narrative in slightly more detail in my paper “Idiom & Irony – Reading between the lines in Hebrew narrative” (Olive Press Research Paper #42 – CMJ 2020)
Which comes first the chicken or the egg?
Theological foundation or biblical literacy
If one has not read the Bible through, how can one
comment on a book one has barely read or understood?
How does one choose one’s go to Theologians?
How is that Theologian to be appraised?
Paul the theologian was estimated by the Bereans
after “searching the Scriptures [OT] To see if “these things”
were kosher.
Beware the Leven of the theologians [who influences you]
The Jews of the time of Jesus set great store by their
Commentators [Theologians] and their commentaries and
hence completely missed The Christ.
As Jesus said to them “search the for in them you think
You have eternal life” .
The Rich young ruler had a very sound theology and praxes’
but he missed the prize.
Nicodemus was a theologian who was ignorant of eternal realities.
God has armed his warriors with a sword to engage in a warfare
against an implacable enemy.
King David said in Psalm 18
“18:28 For thou wilt light my candle: the LORD my God will enlighten my darkness.
18:29 For by thee I have run through a troop; and by my God have I leaped over a wall.
18:30 As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.
18:31 For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?
18:32 It is God that girdeth me with strength, and maketh my way perfect.
18:33 He maketh my feet like hinds’ feet, and setteth me upon my high places.
18:34 He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.
18:35 Thou hast also given me the shield of thy salvation: and thy right hand hath holden me up, and thy gentleness hath made me great.
And of course, we cannot forget Psalm 119 and the lauding of God’s word.
Beware putting the cart before the Horse.
Exegesis is a useful tool as we can see from our many bible translations which depend on which aspect of a Gk/Heb.
Word one plumps for, perhaps according to one’s theological perspective?
St John told his disciples 1 John 2:27 “But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
I think it was Luther who said that “ the theologians were answering questions that no one was asking.”
In the Apostles day the theological battle was against the Gnostics and concision.
Later the battle was against the influential Arians etc.
Later still it was against erroneous theology of Rome etc.
Today perhaps the conflict is against the Theosophical Humanist Doctrine and Emerging Church theology endemic in our Churches
We need to be patient as John on Patmos, remain seated with Christ until His Enemies are made His footstool.
History is replete with such victories.
Keep the Faith, fight the good fight of Faith,defend the Gospel whatever the cost. Recognize the nature of the Battle and the overcoming power of faith.
Which comes first the chicken or the egg?
Theological foundation or biblical literacy
If one has not read the Bible through, how can one
comment on a book one has barely read or understood?
A generation ago, at least, the Roman Catholic church required ordinands to do many months of philosophical study before they began to study the Bible. That is 180 degrees wrong.
I’ve just begun reading the work of a 17th-century Dutch Reformed author whose systematic theology is rigorously connected to the task of preaching and counseling in the church.
—————
Mastricht, Petrus van. _Theoretical and Practical Theology_. Edited by Joel R. Beeke. Translated by Todd M. Rester. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2018.
Indeed Dale, van Mastricht wrote extensively initially on the Doctrine of Scripture and it’s outworkings. bearing in mind that he laboured at a time when the theories and rising influence of Cartesians among the Reformed, which he vigorously opposed.
which required theological vigour and has always been required to counter false doctrines. He answered the questions that people were asking.
An example of which was Paul’s letter to the Colossians
van Mastricht along with Turretin greatly steadied the Reformation ship and went on to influence Jonathan Edwards prolific preaching ministry which was then the current
urgent requirement and of course the prolific Puritans
I am reminded of John Wesley preaching his sermons to his servant girl in order that his sermons could be understood by the common people surely the ground of theological study.
Such men are a rare blessing to the church and evidence that Christ loves the Church.
Such men are rare in our generation even given the wealth of historic knowledge.
rapid retrieval tech, pens and electric light.
What and who influences us is important if saints are to be equipped to defend the Gospel, a rare jewel today.
Might one suggest that a knowledge of at least one of the original languages of the Bible is a very great help indeed to anyone who preaches the Word. No translation is infallible, and certainly no commentary. How many colleges that prepare people for ministry teach even NT Greek these days? Learning languages is indeed hard work, but the student gains knowledge that will be of great value throughout a career in Christian ministry. Perhaps we are looking too much for quick results in ministerial training, rather than laying secure foundations.
That is a great question—and one which I have been raising for many years.
The entrance of your word gives light
Christians widely consider the translations to be good enough. You have to use a language a lot to really become fluent and for most English-speakers there just aren’t enough occasions to use Greek.
The entrance of your word gives light.
The anointing teaches you all things….
As at Pentecost – all heard in their own tongue
the wonderful works of God.
If you read the NT in Greek, you’re still at the mercy of
your own ability to read Greek.
Far, far better to have trained scholars translate the Greek
into English than hope everyone understands Greek.
With data retrieval tools one can easily become
one’s own translator, for good or evil
The Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures,
is what early Christians predominantly used since they spoke Greek.
If early Christians were fine using the Greek translation
of the Hebrew Scriptures, then modern Christians are fine
using a translation for whatever language they speak.
Some Jewish commentators are comfortable with how the Greeks
translated their Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.
Jesus didn’t teach in Greek either — he taught in Galilean Aramaic.
So Greek writers relay words that Jesus never ever used,
therefore, a Christian should not get to caught up on minutia.
My own rule of thumb is to do word studies
to see how the Spirit uses such a word in the Scriptures,
perhaps to come to a working definition.
Folks have need to understand how we use a particular word
if they are to understand our point[s] hence, we are asked for us to define the word[s] we are using.
Granted. a knowledge of biblical languages is perhaps required when translating into
Local languages and dialects as our friend in Wycliff Bible Translators might attest.
The main difficulty being translating Greek/English into locally understood idioms to aid reading and teaching the Bible.
The fallacy is that the Puritans were puritanical.
Perhaps John Owen is an example, of scholarship, Matthew Henry another.
Elsewhere, Herman Bavink might be an example.
And while we may not agree with his work, Barth may also be included to perhaps show the thinness of today’s crop of theologian/scholars.
Not that I would know.
Where are the women trustees? Or those who aren’t white? There are good folk who could do this.
Seriously? Aren’t we a little weary of all that now?
There is a very clear page on their website for contacting them to become involved at a couple of different levels.
Why do we need to have more women away from their children and elder caring and jobs and housework for this as well? Can’t the people who are interested just do it, whoever they are?
Can black people not email them? Can women not email them?
No one cares anymore.
It is exhausting.
It is a very small group, and in the UK in biblical studies white men vastly outnumber both women and non-whites. In projects I am involved with, I repeatedly ask this question—and very often find that those folks have more requests than they can cope with for this reason.
Do feel free to suggest names.
See webpage Center for Pastor Theologians in the USA. A valuable resource
https://www.pastortheologians.com/