It is often hard for us to understand that others in our congregations can have a theological grid that is different than ours. And we hold our theological convictions very closely so when others have significant differences it is difficult for many individuals to graciously respect those views.
I am not talking about views that are outside the definitions of orthodoxy as expressed by the historic creeds of the church. Evangelicals are generally bound by those orthodox beliefs and I am assuming that in these comments.
The truth is, however, that within the bounds of orthodoxy there is a great deal of latitude for differences in theology. This is seen in the reformed vs the non-reformed as an example. Or in covenant theology vs. dispensational theology. And within each camp are those who are more strident than others. So, within the reformed camp there are individuals whose theology is moderately reformed, very reformed and ultra reformed.
When these views are held with humility it does not bring division to God's people. After all, if even the great scholars of theology cannot agree on these matters why should we assume that our version is the truth and that others are untrue? The study of theology ought to engender great humility as it is not possible to plumb the depths of God - we will be doing that for all eternity. Humility understands that we see through a glass darkly this side of eternity and that while some matters are crystal clear many nuances of our theology are not and must be held with humility.
It is theological arrogance that creates division in the church. It is holding so hard to positions that are not central to the faith but are part of our theological grid which we believe and expect others to believe as well. Most people do not understand how their views on many theological issues are determined by their own theological grid that assumes certain matters. Is it possible that none of our grids are completely right as they are simply human attempts to systematize theology. Thus if my grid is rigidly dispensational I may not believe that all the gifts of the Holy Spirit are available today. If my grid is otherwise I won't understand why people don't see them as operative today. Very much is dependent on our presuppositions and the grids we were raised with or have adopted.
One of the great needs among believers is to spend more time studying the Scriptures than reading about the Scriptures. The more I am immersed in His Word, the less I am captive to a theological grid about the Word. We have our theological gurus who are a gift to the church but if their truth supersedes my own study of the Scriptures I have made a grave error. Equally when I take shots at those whose interpretation is different than mine on minor issues of theology I have made a grave error. Theological arrogance is a sad commentary for believers as none of will find that we understood perfectly when we see Jesus.
All of us should be clear on the key issues of orthodoxy because the Scriptures are clear on them. The church has historically guarded these fences very well. On the non essentials of orthodoxy the Scriptures are less definitive which is why believers differ. Here our posture needs to be one of humility and gracious respect. And certainly these should not be divisive within local churches.
All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence, are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.
Showing posts with label theological arrogance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theological arrogance. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Monday, February 18, 2013
What I didn't learn in seminary and why it matters
I very much enjoyed seminary. I went to one of the best and soaked up great theology and learned how to properly 'divide the word of God,' all of which I am deeply thankful for. But the transition from seminary to ministry was a rude one. There were some important lessons that were not taught in seminary that were bottom line reality in the 'real world of ministry.' My observation is that seminaries are still not 'getting it' in addressing these issues.
In seminary 80% of my time was spent exegeting Greek, Hebrew and theology. In ministry, 80% of my time was spent in exegeting people and negotiating relationships.
Aside from understanding God's word, the ability to understand, get along with, work with and lead people is the number one skill needed in ministry. Ministry is about people, before it is about the fine nuances of Greek word tense or Hebrew root words (and I love Hebrew). I wish that those who train God's workers would spend more time helping them exegete and understand people.
Seminary did not tell me leadership was important, or place any emphasis on the leadership component of ministry.
As I work with churches, and church leaders, by far the number one challenge they face is that of how to lead boards, staff and congregations as churches grow. Seminaries today are still teaching a classical ministry model that assumes its pastors are serving the small church where leadership 'takes care of itself.' They are not teaching pastors how to develop vision, strategy and work with their leaders to establish a compelling vision for the future.
Seminary did not teach me how to lead a staff.
Instead, the important issue was knowing how to understand theology and preach. I get that. But as churches grow, pastors are increasingly leaders of others, whether of full time staff or volunteers. Because this is not seen as a value in our training, many pastors view the leadership of staff either as a distraction, or they simply lack the necessary skills.
Seminary did not teach me how to work with church leaders.
Too many pastors come out of seminary thinking they are God's gift to the church and they are the 'experts.' There is a rude awakening that they need to work with elected leaders in the church who have their own ideas as to what church is and how it should be run. Successful pastors are able to appreciate shared leadership and work with elected leaders to develop healthy ministry. Because there is so little emphasis on this in their training, it often takes many years for pastors to figure this out.
Seminary did not train me in healthy governance
The local church suffers from five common dysfunctions: bureaucracy, control, mistrust, professional ministry and ambiguity over direction. All of these are leadership and governance issues. They deeply hinder effective ministry. Yet, these are not topics of concern in most seminaries. All the knowledge of theology will not overcome these kinds of challenges in the local church.
Seminary did not teach me how to deal with conflict
And there is plenty of conflict, or potential conflict in the church. The ability to negotiate through that conflict and seek to find win/win solutions is absolutely critical to healthy ministry. Instead, many pastors find themselves 'demonizing' those who disagree with them when some training in conflict resolution would help avoid those bad habits and help foster a healthy environment.
Seminary did not teach me how to develop a team of specialists as the church grows
Seminaries are good at teaching pastors how to be generalists but as churches grow they increasingly need specialists with a leader at the head. This means that those leaders must have the ability to hire specialists, keep them focused and build a healthy team. Generalists work in small churches, specialists are needed as the church grows.
Seminary did not teach me to "develop, empower and release" people into meaningful ministry
Seminary taught me how to do ministry. Yet the function of church leaders is that of 'raising up, equipping and releasing' others into meaningful ministry in accordance with their gifts (Ephesians 4:12).
Thus we perpetuate the notion that the professionals do the real ministry while the 'lay people,' (I really, really dislike that term) do the lesser ministry. Because we do not release the majority of our people into effective ministry, the church has only a fraction of the influence it could have in its community.
Seminary did not model the kind of humble, servant leaders that are needed in the church today
In my experience, there was a great deal of hubris: theological, spiritual and personal among many of my most proficient professors. They vied for position, engaged in power struggles, put down others who didn't fit their paradigms and engaged in politics that would make Washington today look tame. Yet, these were people who were training those who are to lead like Jesus, cooperate on healthy teams, lead from a posture of service and humility. I found there to be a huge disconnect between the posture of some (fortunately not all) of my professors and the content of what they taught.
If typical seminary politics were to be the norm in the church (and it often is) the church is in deep trouble. Poor modeling among those who teach pastors can be held responsible for much dysfunction in church governance, especially among pastors. They learned from the best in many instances.
Do I have a prescription for what seminary didn't teach me? I have three suggestions. One, that seminaries pay more attention to what ministry looks like in the real world. Two, that we move seminary education out of the cloister of the residential model and through distance or cohort learning provide theological education in the context of full time ministry where theology and real life ministry can intersect throughout the process. Third, that those who teach the next generation of pastors model the humility of Jesus rather than the arrogance of knowledge.
I personally believe that the schools that will survive and thrive in the future are ones that will modify their age old practices to train practitioners who are working and ministering in the real world. The disconnect between what happens in a full time seminary setting and the actual world of ministry is immense and growing. Unless schools are willing to bridge that divide they will increasingly become irrelevant to the local church which can and will and does train many of its own staff today.
What I do know is that the current model will not do the job in today's world.
In seminary 80% of my time was spent exegeting Greek, Hebrew and theology. In ministry, 80% of my time was spent in exegeting people and negotiating relationships.
Aside from understanding God's word, the ability to understand, get along with, work with and lead people is the number one skill needed in ministry. Ministry is about people, before it is about the fine nuances of Greek word tense or Hebrew root words (and I love Hebrew). I wish that those who train God's workers would spend more time helping them exegete and understand people.
Seminary did not tell me leadership was important, or place any emphasis on the leadership component of ministry.
As I work with churches, and church leaders, by far the number one challenge they face is that of how to lead boards, staff and congregations as churches grow. Seminaries today are still teaching a classical ministry model that assumes its pastors are serving the small church where leadership 'takes care of itself.' They are not teaching pastors how to develop vision, strategy and work with their leaders to establish a compelling vision for the future.
Seminary did not teach me how to lead a staff.
Instead, the important issue was knowing how to understand theology and preach. I get that. But as churches grow, pastors are increasingly leaders of others, whether of full time staff or volunteers. Because this is not seen as a value in our training, many pastors view the leadership of staff either as a distraction, or they simply lack the necessary skills.
Seminary did not teach me how to work with church leaders.
Too many pastors come out of seminary thinking they are God's gift to the church and they are the 'experts.' There is a rude awakening that they need to work with elected leaders in the church who have their own ideas as to what church is and how it should be run. Successful pastors are able to appreciate shared leadership and work with elected leaders to develop healthy ministry. Because there is so little emphasis on this in their training, it often takes many years for pastors to figure this out.
Seminary did not train me in healthy governance
The local church suffers from five common dysfunctions: bureaucracy, control, mistrust, professional ministry and ambiguity over direction. All of these are leadership and governance issues. They deeply hinder effective ministry. Yet, these are not topics of concern in most seminaries. All the knowledge of theology will not overcome these kinds of challenges in the local church.
Seminary did not teach me how to deal with conflict
And there is plenty of conflict, or potential conflict in the church. The ability to negotiate through that conflict and seek to find win/win solutions is absolutely critical to healthy ministry. Instead, many pastors find themselves 'demonizing' those who disagree with them when some training in conflict resolution would help avoid those bad habits and help foster a healthy environment.
Seminary did not teach me how to develop a team of specialists as the church grows
Seminaries are good at teaching pastors how to be generalists but as churches grow they increasingly need specialists with a leader at the head. This means that those leaders must have the ability to hire specialists, keep them focused and build a healthy team. Generalists work in small churches, specialists are needed as the church grows.
Seminary did not teach me to "develop, empower and release" people into meaningful ministry
Seminary taught me how to do ministry. Yet the function of church leaders is that of 'raising up, equipping and releasing' others into meaningful ministry in accordance with their gifts (Ephesians 4:12).
Thus we perpetuate the notion that the professionals do the real ministry while the 'lay people,' (I really, really dislike that term) do the lesser ministry. Because we do not release the majority of our people into effective ministry, the church has only a fraction of the influence it could have in its community.
Seminary did not model the kind of humble, servant leaders that are needed in the church today
In my experience, there was a great deal of hubris: theological, spiritual and personal among many of my most proficient professors. They vied for position, engaged in power struggles, put down others who didn't fit their paradigms and engaged in politics that would make Washington today look tame. Yet, these were people who were training those who are to lead like Jesus, cooperate on healthy teams, lead from a posture of service and humility. I found there to be a huge disconnect between the posture of some (fortunately not all) of my professors and the content of what they taught.
If typical seminary politics were to be the norm in the church (and it often is) the church is in deep trouble. Poor modeling among those who teach pastors can be held responsible for much dysfunction in church governance, especially among pastors. They learned from the best in many instances.
Do I have a prescription for what seminary didn't teach me? I have three suggestions. One, that seminaries pay more attention to what ministry looks like in the real world. Two, that we move seminary education out of the cloister of the residential model and through distance or cohort learning provide theological education in the context of full time ministry where theology and real life ministry can intersect throughout the process. Third, that those who teach the next generation of pastors model the humility of Jesus rather than the arrogance of knowledge.
I personally believe that the schools that will survive and thrive in the future are ones that will modify their age old practices to train practitioners who are working and ministering in the real world. The disconnect between what happens in a full time seminary setting and the actual world of ministry is immense and growing. Unless schools are willing to bridge that divide they will increasingly become irrelevant to the local church which can and will and does train many of its own staff today.
What I do know is that the current model will not do the job in today's world.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Through a glass darkly
I am often intrigued by those who are so sure of themselves on all theological arguments and their application to our daily lives. I wish I could be one of them! However, I realize that my view of God and his ways are at best distant and fuzzy. He is so grand and His ways so far above mine that while I see, I see through a glass darkly - making out the outline but often not much more.He is wonderfully and powerfully inscrutable!
As Job argued with his "friends" (who wants friends like he had), he thought that he had a pretty good idea of what God should be doing with his situation. Yet even after God demolished the "wisdom" of his friends, he too, endured the rebuke of God, for his views too, were deficient.
As the opening salvo of God to Job cogently said, "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?" (Job 38).
After four chapters of rebuke, Job replies to the Lord in chapter 42, "Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things to wonderful for me to know."
Nothing develops true humility faster than trying to understand the awesome, holy, transcendent God! What we think we know, we know only in part. What we think we understand is understood through a glass darkly. One day when it is clear the landscape will be so amazing we will never get over it. Today we live by simple faith, in humble relationship with our wonderful God.
Monday, February 4, 2013
theological arrogance and humility
The study of theology is an interesting discipline: it can breed either great humility or arrogance - even massive arrogance.
What makes the difference? It is whether we put ourselves under the authority of that which we study, or inversely above it because of our expertise in our ability to slice and dice fine points of theology and exegete Greek, Hebrew and theological systems.
The study of theology ought to force ourselves toward humility. No matter how much we know, there is so very much more that we don't fully understand and grasp. The study of God is a limitless study and the more we understand the more we realize we don't understand.
Just try to grasp a God with no beginning, who exists three in one, who is all knowing, all holy, all powerful and all loving. God is infinite so how do infinite minds believe they can fully understand the infinite or be proud of what they know? As Solomon said, "of books and learning there is no end." Indeed! We will spend an eternity seeking to understand the infinitely and majestically holy God. Eternity has no end!
What I don't understand are brilliant theologians who also have great arrogance: They know all the answers, are always right, glory in their knowledge and allow no grey in theological discussions. Rather than being humbled by the immensity of our God and the glory of His character, their pride actually places themselves above the Word they study and the God they serve.
Arrogance and God's word and character are incompatible. Unfortunately there are those who fit this description who actually teach those who will pastor churches, a sad commentary on seminary education in some quarters.
Whenever I develop pride about my Biblical knowledge, ability to exegete the Word, or perceived expertise about God, I am moving from living under the Word and its Author to living over the Word and its Author.
Each of us chooses one stance or another. Pride is incompatible with Jesus and the Word. Those who study a majestic God with a heart that is open cannot help but to bow their hearts, lives and intellect before Him. If they don't do that now, they will one day when He returns when every knee will bow before Him.
What makes the difference? It is whether we put ourselves under the authority of that which we study, or inversely above it because of our expertise in our ability to slice and dice fine points of theology and exegete Greek, Hebrew and theological systems.
The study of theology ought to force ourselves toward humility. No matter how much we know, there is so very much more that we don't fully understand and grasp. The study of God is a limitless study and the more we understand the more we realize we don't understand.
Just try to grasp a God with no beginning, who exists three in one, who is all knowing, all holy, all powerful and all loving. God is infinite so how do infinite minds believe they can fully understand the infinite or be proud of what they know? As Solomon said, "of books and learning there is no end." Indeed! We will spend an eternity seeking to understand the infinitely and majestically holy God. Eternity has no end!
What I don't understand are brilliant theologians who also have great arrogance: They know all the answers, are always right, glory in their knowledge and allow no grey in theological discussions. Rather than being humbled by the immensity of our God and the glory of His character, their pride actually places themselves above the Word they study and the God they serve.
Arrogance and God's word and character are incompatible. Unfortunately there are those who fit this description who actually teach those who will pastor churches, a sad commentary on seminary education in some quarters.
Whenever I develop pride about my Biblical knowledge, ability to exegete the Word, or perceived expertise about God, I am moving from living under the Word and its Author to living over the Word and its Author.
Each of us chooses one stance or another. Pride is incompatible with Jesus and the Word. Those who study a majestic God with a heart that is open cannot help but to bow their hearts, lives and intellect before Him. If they don't do that now, they will one day when He returns when every knee will bow before Him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)