Here is a snippet from a Stanley Hauerwas sermon:
“… that medical education is a more serious form of moral education than the training we give people going into the priesthood. After a short time in divinity school a student may say, ‘I am just not into Christology this year. I really want to help people, so I want to take more courses in Clinical Pastoral Education so that I will know better how to relate.’ In many divinity schools, … students are too often allowed to do just that. In contrast, a student in medical school might say, ‘I am not really interested in anatomy. I am really interested in relating to patients, so I would like to take more courses in psychiatry.’ The medical student would be told, ‘We are not interested in what you are interested in. Take anatomy or ship out.’
“Medical education, therefore, entails moral formation that those who teach in divinity schools can only envy. Why are those who run medical schools able to form students to be physicians in a manner we are not able to train students in divinity schools? Again I think the answer is quite simple: in this day few think that an inadequately trained minister may damage their salvation, but we do believe an inadequately trained doctor may hurt us. Accordingly we often care a great deal more who our doctor is than who our priest may be.”
(From “Only Fear Can Drive Out Fear”, in Stanley Hauerwas, A Cross-Shattered Church: Reclaiming the Theological Heart of Preaching [Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2009], pp. 89-90.)
Fancy that: an ill-educated minister - one who doesn’t know his Nicenes from his Arians, or his Chalcedonians from his Nestorians - putting our salvation at risk! Of course Hauerwas is having a go at the liberal academy, but, to be even-handed, one might make a similar critique of conservative Bible colleges where the curriculum privileges courses in the number-crunching pragmatics of church growth, while classes in historical critical scholarship are presumably an empty set.
The point is that Christian doctrine is important, because, in Ellen Charry’s phrase, it is “artegenic” (literally “conducive to virtue”), because (cf. Romans 12:2) the “development of character will not happen without knowledge.”
(Ellen Charry, By the Renewing of Your Minds: The Pastoral Function of Christian Doctrine [New York: OUP, 1997], p.19.)
Which also means that church history is important. “It is a point worth pondering,” writes Rowan Williams. “To engage the Church’s past is to see something of the Church’s future. If we relate to the past as something that settles everything for us, something whose meaning is utterly and finally plain, it is to treat the texts of the past as closing off history, putting an end to our self-awareness as historical persons involved in unpredictable growth. If we discuss the past as unintelligible, if we read its texts as closed off from us by their alien setting, we refuse to see how we have ourselves been formed in history; we pretend that history has not yet begun…. T. S. Eliot, faced with the glib modern claim that ‘we know so much more than our ancestors’, riposted, ‘Yes; and they are what we know.”
(Rowan Williams, Why Study the Past? [London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2005], p.94.)
On the other hand, one might respond, what a lot of highfalutin crap!
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
DmL 11.13.09 at 8:48 am
Yes, the persons in the soup kitchen and at the divorce proceedings will definitely be asking whether the counsellor’s background was in Christology or Church Growth.
Kim 11.13.09 at 9:11 am
No they won’t, DmL. In fact, they won’t even be asking if you’re a Christian. So let’s cut out the doctrine stuff - I mean, the Trinity is just a needless over-complication, don’t you think? - and likewise the church stuff - the eucharist, what a lot of hocus-pocus! - and just be nice guys. And you don’t even need Jesus to be a nice guy.
Tony Buglass 11.13.09 at 9:39 am
I’m currently reading Diarmaid McCulloch’s ‘History of Christianity’ (as well as watching the BBC series on iPlayer). His descripion of the early centuries, of Miaphysite, Dyophysite, and Chalcedonian Christians falling out over different hypotheses of how Jesus could be who he was, is compelling. I worked through all of that stuff at university, and had a distinct suspicion that it didn’t really make a lot of difference. I am increasingly sure that it doesn’t make a jot of difference. Doctrine has its place - partly because we need to understand our beliefs for our own sakes, and partly because we need to understand it enough to explain to others; apologetics is always important. But we are not saved by doctrine, orthodox or otherwise. We’re saved by following Jesus.
Glad about that. I wasn’t quite sure what sort of theology paper I might have to sit before St Peter let me in…
Kim 11.13.09 at 9:54 am
But we are not saved by doctrine, orthodox or otherwise. We’re saved by following Jesus.
That is certainly true, Tony. And it is also true that orthodoxy can become a desiccated intellectualism: no orthodoxy without orthopraxis. However the whole point of sound church doctrine is to identify the Jesus we are invited to follow, so that we do not hearken to the voice of another. As those who struggled confessionally against the Reichkirche and and the pro-apartheid church in South Africa discovered, heresy may have catastrophic ethical implications.
Richard 11.13.09 at 10:16 am
No, we’re not saved by good doctrine. The only one who saves is Jesus. But what will we do with that salvation? How we follow will be shaped by who we think we’re following, and that’s what makes doctrine important. (I know, that’s what Kim said. I just wanted to shove in my two penn’orth) The crucial question Jesus asked his followers was “Who do you say I am?” It still is. Peter managed to get the answer both gloriously right and disastrously wrong at the same time: I suspect we still do.
Tony Buglass 11.13.09 at 11:56 am
I agree - which is why I said doctrine has its place. The issue is defining its place. I have on occasions been consigned to outer darkness by certain brethren because I have refused to accept a given version of the Bible as dictated by God, or because I have been reluctant to accept that certain events are in fulfilment of prophecy, or because I have refused to condemn certain beliefs and church traditions as unscriptural, etc, etc. I am as concerned as the next person to get my thinking right, and as capable as the next theologically-educated person in arguing my case and explaining why the other person must be wrong. However, what troubles me is the relationship that some have between very specific doctrinal positions and salvation.
As to the Glaubensbewegung Deutsche Christen and associated heresies - well, if following Jesus means loving your neighbour as yourself, it rules out such unethical behaviour whatever the Christology.
Richard 11.13.09 at 12:09 pm
I knew we were on the same page, really.
It comes back to Wesley’s ‘Catholic Spirit’ for me: we need to be secure in our beliefs, but retain the humility to recognize that we’re wrong about some of our certainties. If only we knew which ones! (I don’t find it any easier to practise than Wesley did, but it is still a good principle)
And yes, “love of neighbour” is going to be the acid test of any belief.
Kim 11.13.09 at 2:04 pm
However, what troubles me is the relationship that some have between very specific doctrinal positions and salvation.
Like - for example - biblical inerrancy and penal substitution, Tony? Tell Richard and me about it!
I knew we were on the same page, really.
Yup, I think we are.
Bob Cornwall 11.13.09 at 2:10 pm
Thanks Kim — good stuff. The people in the soup kitchen may not ask us about our Christology, but I would think that how we respond to the one in the soup kitchen is influenced by our Christology!
I’ve posted a bit on this at my place! http://pastorbobcornwall.blogspot.com/2009/11/ministerial-formation.html
Tim Chesterton 11.13.09 at 2:52 pm
I think the problem starts way before theology school. It starts with the general acceptance in the Christian world of the idea that you can stop learning when you finish confirmation classes - just a ten-minute sermonette each Sunday will do you after that (nothing too intellectually challenging, please), and you can give your real attention to the stuff you need to know to have a profitable career.
What does it mean to form a Christian mind? I think we need to get that right in the general life of our congregations, and if we did, I think it would go a long way toward addressing the issue that Hauerwas is raising.
PamBG 11.13.09 at 3:15 pm
Wow, I think this is a tricky area that’s pushing all sorts of buttons for me. What Tony says about being consigned to outer darkness for “wrong theology” resonates with a huge part of my personal Christian experience where I did grow up in a tradition of “saved by doctrine”. Also, it strikes me that John Piper would make the same arguments about doctrine; and he’s also more or less called Tom Wright a heretic and false teacher.
On the other hand, I’ve seen all sorts of ignorance expressed by fellow Christians. From the friend with terminal cancer who got told by a twenty-something minister of a free evangelical church that if she was really saved her cancer would have been cured in response to prayer to the woman who told me that all sin is caused by demons (and, yes, she was a Methodist!) This kind of stuff makes you want to scream out for good education. How could that minister read Job, for instance, and tell my friend that? And also the feeling that if my friend had had deeper education herself that she would not have been so emotionally rocked by that assertion.
Tim makes a good point too: that ongoing spiritual formation isn’t part of our expectations as Christians. I guess in some traditions, the idea that education stops with confirmation. In the Methodist tradition, it does manifest itself as a kind of anti-intellectualism. Although less so than some other traditions, Methodism is somewhat subject to the attitude of “the minister might not be a Christian because s/he has gone to theology college and had her faith destroyed by thinking about theology”. A colleague at theology college actually had an entire group of people praying that he would fail so that he would remain a Christian!
Richard 11.13.09 at 5:05 pm
As Kim said, he and I have extensive experience of being cast into darkness for lack of being ’sound’. Kim isn’t going to be doing that — he’s a universalist, after all. If I’ve read him right, Kim’s gaze is fixed on that brand of ministerial education that sacrifices a rigorous examination of theology in favour of more ‘practical’ subjects.
Kim 11.13.09 at 5:58 pm
Theology is a practical art/science - that’s for sure, and that’s the point. At least good theology is. In By the Renewing of Your Minds Charry offers some close readings of Athanasius, Basil, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, and Calvin to substantiate her thesis about the character-forming function of doctrine. She could certainly have added Wesley to the list.
The long and short of it is Anselm’s fides quaerens intellectum: faith seeks understanding, seeks to tease out the sense of what we believe, the sense of who God is in Jesus (which is not obvious, which has to be discovered and learned - and re-discovered and re-learned), and of who the church is as the body of Christ, attentively and critically checking out the story so far in obedience to the fifth commandment and in respect for the communion of saints, so that we can faithfully and imaginatively and courageously work together on the next chapter.
So stated, there is surley nothing controversial or objectionable here. Surely only a cowboy could think otherwise.
PamBG 11.13.09 at 7:38 pm
As Kim said, he and I have extensive experience of being cast into darkness for lack of being ’sound’. Kim isn’t going to be doing that — he’s a universalist, after all. If I’ve read him right, Kim’s gaze is fixed on that brand of ministerial education that sacrifices a rigorous examination of theology in favour of more ‘practical’ subjects.
My remark wasn’t really directed at Kim. There are other voices calling for more emphasis on doctrine that would not use doctrine in such a benign way.
I’m wondering what kind of education other people are getting? I don’t think my formation was all that practical and *I* did a degree in pastoral theology. Ironically, I said a few things about people being uneducated in doctrine during my candidating processes and the result was that I got told to study pastoral theology. As if: a) thinking that doctrine matters makes a personal non-pastoral and b) studying pastoral issues - as opposed to doing pastoral work - will make a person pastoral.
What I actually could have used was a LOT more hands-on experience in training. What I would have *liked* to study was more “academic” theology and I might have followed through to a master’s thesis. (As it was, I really couldn’t be bothered learning sociological survey and measurement techniques just to write a thesis.)
That’s from someone who was trained relatively recently. Although I did full-time college training rather than a part-time course of study which, perhaps, is different.
CEM 11.15.09 at 1:24 am
Hauerwas understands moral education as taking place in a community. The problem is the student decides what is or isn’t important or needed for ministry before ever being a minister.
PamBG 11.15.09 at 8:44 pm
The problem is the student decides what is or isn’t important or needed for ministry before ever being a minister.
That’s not really the case in the British Methodist Church. The Church decides what the students are going to study and what college or course they are going to attend. And you go there and study what you’re told whether you want to or not. And the church does seem to have a habit of trying to put people in places where they are not comfortable.
Bob Gilston 11.17.09 at 5:11 pm
“We’re saved by following Jesus.” - Tony
“However the whole point of sound church doctrine is to identify the Jesus we are invited to follow, so that we do not hearken to the voice of another.” - Kim
I like this piece written by Rev Danoval Johnson from Costa Rica:
I am not “it”,
“it” is not me.
I am not them,
they are not me.
Whatever or whoever
you follow,
neither are substitutes
for following me.
What and who I am
nothing and
no one else is.
I did not tell you
follow yourself, or
follow somebody, or
follow anybody,
I said.. “FOLLOW ME”
I did not say
follow those who
follow me,
I said.. “FOLLOW ME”.
I did not say
follow those who
are like me,
I said.. “FOLLOW ME”
If they are like me
it is because
they “FOLLOW ME”
If you want to be like them,
don’t follow them
“FOLLOW ME”
If you follow them,
you will miss your way;
they are not the way,
I am the way
“FOLLOW ME”