Church and Academy [1]
A Problem of Imagination
I’ve recently led a Wednesday evening Bible study on the question as to whether women can serve as elders/shepherds/overseers in the local church. I took the opportunity to be a bit meta about it, teaching some study methodology along the way, explaining how relevant translational decisions are made, and generally drawing back the curtain on the scholarly process that produces conflicting conclusions and resources.
This was entirely enjoyable since my professional obsession with interpretive theory and practice in the church found space to express itself. And it was gratifying to hear numerous statements of appreciation. But it was the other set of comments that grabbed my attention. These comments are variations on this idea: “How are we supposed to understand this technical stuff without a scholar to explain it?”
How indeed?
Last year, my essay “Mission between Theory and Practice” was published in a volume dedicated to Gailyn Van Rheenen titled Missional Life in Practice and Theory, which I co-edited. The relationship between theory and practice is obviously primary in our assessment of Gailyn’s work, and I had enough interest in that relationship to dedicate an entire chapter to it. The truth, however, is that my interest is much more far-reaching. I’ve talked about the relationship between theory and practice and, by extension, between church and academy numerous times on the podcast already. It is and will be a recurring theme.
In my life, the tension between theory and practice has been essential, irreducible, and inescapable. It never takes long before it resurfaces in some new area and I’m motivated once more to tackle it. This is, to some extent, the consequence of living in a tradition in which church and academy are alienated from one another more thoroughly than in many other corners of Christianity. Nonetheless, in both the American context and in much (most?) of the world Christian movement, there is a widespread disunion between theoretical and practical concerns, mutual distrust between church and academy, and a general inability to imagine any alternative.
Imagination is a root issue. Returning to the local question—“How are we supposed to understand this technical stuff without a scholar to explain it?”—I have to ask: How is it possible that Christians came to imagine a church life in which Christian scholars aren't explaining all sorts of things constantly, equipping the church with insight, understanding, knowledge, prudence, and discernment?! How can we possibly expect local churches to thrive without direct, regular input from the part of the body devoted to and gifted for the pursuit of understanding? Seriously, how could we imagine such a thing in the first place?
The question asked in my context is tinged with concerns about my imminent departure. It is one thing to have a healthy imagination about the church-academy relationship; it is another to have and lose a pastor-theologian in residence. I’m sensitive to the question’s animus. Still, it is an expression of the bigger problem.
To be blunt, the answer is that you are not supposed to understand this technical stuff without a scholar to explain it. Christian scholars exist for the church, or they are not Christian. That is true generally, and it is true unequivocally for Christian theologians of every stripe. Conversely, the rest of the church should imagine no other way of life but one in which she confronts difficult questions in dialogue with her scholars.