Calvin on Scholarship and Ministry

By -
"None will ever be a good minister of the word of God, unless he is first of all a scholar." -- John Calvin

From a sermon on Deuteronomy 5.23-7, as quoted in Ronald Wallace, Calvin's Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament, 120.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The problem "in context" is that we have a lot of ministers i.e. "administrators" who are not scholars. Exegesis for them rests more on culture hermeneutics than theology; at least the theology that Calvin was doing in Geneva. (That is not to say that Calvin was unaware of his context.) Scholarship should be aware of her/his context, but not blinded by it. Administrators, "ministers" have an obligation to take theology more seriously than what their community wants. It could be that what the community needs is a minister that thinks and takes theology more seriously than their communal programs.

Andrew Hagee.
hageea@uni.edu
February 24, 2011 7:05 PM
Anonymous said…
So again, where does the synthesis lie between, "dogmatic theology" and "pratical theology"? What must we do to allow the "dailectic" to unfold? That is to say, how do we allow the dialectic to become an actualized real reality?

Andrew
February 25, 2011 11:35 AM
W. Travis McMaken said…
For myself - and I admit to being unsophisticated on these matters - the relation between dogmatic theology and practical theology is analogous to that found in the New Testament between faith and works.
February 26, 2011 2:57 PM
David W. Congdon said…
The faith-works binary might work as an analogy if it's properly understood. Specifically, if we take the Gal. 5:6 passage as normative: "faith working through love." Faith and love (i.e., works) coincide as a single event, dialectically structured. There is a paradoxical identity of faith and love: faith takes place in and through love (of God and neighbor), and love takes place only as an act of faith. It's not as if there is faith first, and only later does love appear as a consequence. We could also use the relation between faith and witness/proclamation as an equivalent analogy.

Understood this way, the relation of dogmatic and practical theology becomes clear. Dogmatic explication coincides always with practical interpretation. When we encounter the Word of God, dogmatic theology and practical theology are the dialectical offspring. The former, we might say, concerns the relation between humanity and God, while the latter concerns the relation between human and human. The "vertical" and the "horizontal," our being and our act, are inseparable and dialectically identical.

Something along those lines is how I would want to construe the dogmatic-practical relationship. And so I agree with Travis about the faith-works ordering, so long as it's rightly understood.
February 26, 2011 3:39 PM
Post a Comment

Popular Posts

So You Want to Read….Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

By -
Image
"I fear that Christians who stand with only one leg upon earth also stand with only one leg in heaven." "The exclusion of the weak and insignificant, the seemingly useless people, from everyday Christian life in community…may actually mean the exclusion of Christ; for in the poor sister or brother, Christ is knocking at the door." "Since ethical thinking in terms of realms is overcome by faith in the revelation of the ultimate reality in Jesus Christ . . . there is no real Christian existence outside the reality of the world." "People who reject their bodies reject their existence before God the Creator." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer Prelude Andreas Steinhoff [Attribution], via Wikimedia Commons I envisioned having a lot of time for blogging this summer, but that simply has not been the case - the last month has been a crazy one, to say the least. For two weeks, I was working at a theology summer camp of sorts, the Duke Youth Academy, and s...
Keep reading

So, You Want To Read Karl Barth?

By -
Image
Every now and then I am asked for advice about studying Karl Barth. So, I thought that I would share some of my standard advice here. But, before I do that, let me just say that I am by no means a Barth expert as compared to the people whose books I will mention below. I would be thrilled to find myself in their league one day, but as of yet that remains a distant dream. Still, I have been reading Barth for long enough, and under the supervision of a number of the scholars that I will mention below, that I think I can provide a decent orientation. I have never read Karl Barth before. Which of his books should I read first? Barth’s most famous work is the monumental 13-volume Church Dogmatics . Reading the CD with understanding is not an easy thing, so you definitely do NOT want to start here. Luckily, there are two smaller works by Barth that serve as helpful introductions to his work. Evangelical Theology: An Introduction - Based on the lectures that Barth delivered duri...
Keep reading

2010 KBBC: Week 1, Day 5

By -
“You Wonder Where the Spirit Went”: Jenson and Barth on the Hiddenness of God By Peter Kline I am entering into a conversation that Jenson has already begun with Barth. In a constructive essay on the hiddenness of God (Jenson 2000), Jenson considers Barth’s position on the matter only to find it lacking. I want to explore why Jenson has problems with Barth on this issue, as well think critically about his constructive alternative. I will suggest that Jenson is only partly right in his diagnosis of Barth; he in fact overlooks the heart of Barth’s teaching on divine hiddenness. The reason is that he looks in the wrong place for Barth’s pneumatology. Jenson can’t find the Spirit in Barth not because the Spirit isn’t there, but because the Spirit is hidden . These considerations will open out into a comparison of Barth and Jenson on the logic of revelation. By “logic” I mean: what is discourse about God’s revealedness and hiddenness supposed to accomplish? Part I Jenson focuses his a...
Keep reading

Wild Ideas about Pannenberg's 'Supposed' Hegelianism

By -
This could be unique to me, but at some point between informal conversations, research, and classes I've gotten the impression that when it comes to Pannenberg, there is a ton of interest in how his work relates to Hegel. For example, it seems that people want an answer to the question “to what degree is Pannenberg’s system ‘Hegelian’?” In one of my courses a couple years ago my professor spent some time on Pannenberg, discussing sections of his Systematic Theology and the reasons for / the rationale behind Theology and the Philosophy of Science . He also took special care to note that while Pannenberg resisted being seen as a disciple of Hegel, the footnotes may have told a different story. In the light of this interest, below is a lengthy quote from an interview with Pannenberg that I have not seen referenced elsewhere. Maybe later I can make an argument, but for now, here is part of his answer to the question put to Pannenberg: “What aspects of your thought do theologians c...
Keep reading

2010 KBBC: Week 3, Day 1

By -
On the Monstrosity of Christ : Karl Barth in Conversation with Slavoj Žižek & John Milbank By Paul Dafydd Jones For a while, I hoped to frame this conversation in terms of a dramatic interchange – something along the lines of “A Slovenian philosopher, a British theologian, and a Swiss dogmatician walk into a bar…” Alongside an eye-wateringly hip assemblage of cinematic references, literary allusions, and comedic scenes – my early favorites being when Barth imagines a young adult novel, entitled Are you there God? It’s me, Žižek , and when Milbank waxes poetic about the Twilight movies – I wanted to engage some topics that would likely receive attention, were the authors to meet for drinks. Primarily, I envisioned an intense discussion of the logos asarkos and the logos ensarkos , with Milbank talking up the former category, Barth emphasizing the latter, and Žižek asking whether recent debates are but symptoms of secret puzzle, embedded in the Church Dogmatics – a puzzle that...
Keep reading