In chapter 10 of Pagan Christianity, Viola argues against the idea that only 'formal Christian education qualifies a person to do the Lord's work.' He claims this is the mindset of most Christians. He comes out against 'academic' (instead of 'hands-on') training. He says 'every church' was a 'seminary.' Viola is against Aquinas's main thesis that God is known through human reason. We have made Christianity mostly about the head when it is supposed to be about the heart (he later phrases it that we are more interested in the tree of knowledge than the tree of life). He describes the pagan origin of seminaries, bible-colleges, sunday-school, and even the position of 'youth' pastor. All of these are organizational and have the ability to cut-off the headship of Jesus Christ in Christian gatherings and/or the unity of the church.
Reaction: I, personally, don't know many preachers or teachers who don't preach and teach the priesthood of all believers from within institutional churches. I don't know many educational institutions that aren't moving towards a more 'hands-on' approach to ministerial preparation. I don't know many churches that don't highlight the idea that head-knowledge, alone, is of no spiritual value. I don't know of many Wesleyan churches that would keep a highly degreed but spiritually unqualified pastor around for long. Because of my ignorances in these realms, this chapter seemed, again, like over-statement in my context.
6 comments:
I would love to hear his Aquinas quotes. Would you mind referencing the Aquinas passages he quotes??
Hey Aaron :) I think you will be disappointed. He makes a lot of sweeping statements and usually uses the footnotes to declare that this book is not the place to build those arguments. I will quote the paragraph about Aquinas and the footnote attached...
Concerning the seminary, we might say that Peter Abelard laid the egg and Thomas Aquinas hatched it. Aquinas had the greatest influence on contemporary theological training. In 1879, his work was endorsed by a papal bull as an authentic expression of doctrine to be studied by all students of theology. Aquinas's main thesis was that God is known through human reason. He 'preferred the intellect to the heart as an organ for arriving at the truth.' (41). Thus the more highly trained people's reason and intellect, the better they will know God. Aquinas borrowed this idea from Aristotle. And that is the underlying assumption of many- if not most- contemporary seminaries." (new paragraph) "The teaching of the NT is that God is Spirit, and as such, He is known by revelation to one's human spirit."
(41) Durant, Age of Faith, 964
So he doesn't actually quote Aquinas, but only Durant commenting on Aquinas. I have not read Aquinas, so I do not know the accuracy of this summary.
Thanks. That was a lot of typing!
I mean, you have schools of theological thought in different forms--leaving home to study with individuals--since before the 1st century.
But it was before 1879 that you had people studying the work of other people. Anglican priests studied and preached the sermons of Thomas Cramner, and John Wesley had his followers preach his sermons, too.
But to say that God is best known through the intellect does not make reason "human." The Logos (Word) makes the world logikos (reasonable). This does not negate revelation, but employs one of the faculties God uses for it. If spirit is the main faculty (?) by which humans receive revelation, then why do we have Scripture...which utilizes reason to be read and utilized reason to be written, apparently without conflict between the writer's spiritual and mental abilities.
So, I'm not sure that Viola is connecting with me on this one! :)
Any time I hear someone giving a "reasoned" argument against reason I laugh. I would agree there is significant room to move forward on how we train leaders for the church but as you state there are definite signs of progress already.
Matt, I am curious as to what you've seen in Viola that would reflect a theology of history. In other words, what do you think Viola thinks God is doing in and through history? (I ask because implicit in this idea of education by heart and not reason is a theology of revelation that I don't think I'm comfortable with, although I can't be sure.)
If you don't have schooling you had better be very VERY smart to try to deal with Bible Study in a pastoral position. I've heard to many stupid sermons and theologies to be against ministry training.
On the other hand I've heard really stupid sermons from very educated pastors to- maybe we should just have a minimum IQ requirement ;)
Post a Comment