Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Guest Commentary: "Goodbye, Theologians"
The column you are about to read may make you cheer--or it might make you spitting mad. In either case, we're offering you a chance to participate in interactive journalism: read Dr. Wagner's column, post your most well-thought-out response on our blog and look for your name and response in print in a future issue of Ministry Today. Keep in mind, posts of 100 words or fewer will be more likely to be considered for publication. C. Peter Wagner is a leader in the New Apostolic Reformation and the founder of Wagner Leadership Institute. Without further chatter, here's his proposal:Let's do away with the term “theologian." Why? The idea that certain members of the body of Christ are theologians while the rest are non-theologians is traditional thinking embedded in the old wineskins of the church.
First, those called to lead the church and to equip the saints for the work of ministry are called apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (see Eph. 4:11). Theologians are not on the list. In fact, the word “theologian” isn't even in the concordance.
Yet, the church has a long tradition of recognizing, and even honoring, theologians as a rather elite category of leaders. This is related to the unfortunate habit of separating clergy from laity or the idea that those who are employed by the church are “in ministry,” while believers in the workplace do something on a lower spiritual level. While many scold us for this antiquated terminology, few are raising the related question as to whether the category of “theologian” fits the new wineskin. I, for one, don’t think it does.
I recently found myself in the loop of what I would regard as a high-level, intelligent discussion of certain important issues related to prophetic ministry. What exactly the issues were does not relate to the point I am making at the moment. However, two respected prophets were going head-to-head in a fairly cordial but notably animated email dialog. Both were accusing the other of teaching something that had not been cleared by “the theologians.”
As I read this, I had to ask myself who these “theologians” really were
Who Are “Theologians?”
What gives meright to comment on this? For starters, I have four graduate degrees in religion, three of them from institutions called “theological seminaries.” Those on the faculties of such institutions include professional theologians. I have enrolled in and passed courses taught by many of them. I know theologians well.
I taught in one of these theological seminaries for more than 30 years. My seminary was different from some others, however, in that it has three schools, a School of Theology, a School of Psychology, and a School of World Mission (now Intercultural Studies). I, along with thirteen others, was a member of the missions faculty. Although we each had specialties, our broad field was missiology. The School of Theology faculty never tired of reminding us missionaries (It was required that each faculty member have field missionary experience.) that, whatever we were, we were not theologians. In fact, each candidate for a new faculty position in missions was required to pass a theological examination administered by the School of Theology. The theologians turned away more than one potential faculty appointment because of a theological disagreement.
If nothing else, we were forced to recognize the difference between theologians and non-theologians. The theologians saw themselves as the elite guardians of the truth. Their assignment was to make sure that the doctrines espoused by the seminary remained pure and uncontaminated. In their minds, we missionaries did not have the skills which the theologians had developed, and consequently we were regarded as mere practitioners, not serious thinkers.
For example, an alumnus of the seminary told me he happened to quote Jack Hayford in a research paper. There is little question that if readers of Ministry Today were asked to submit names of the more theologically astute among us, Jack Hayford’s name would be near the top. However, when my friend’s term paper was returned, Hayford’s quote was crossed out. The professor wrote, “Not a theological source!”
The Office of Theologian
The habit of placing theologians on a spiritual pedestal developed before the Protestant Reformation and the Reformation changed it but little. The Catholic Church has a recognized office of theologian. The Protestant church does not have an office of theologian as such, but the same function was entrusted to professors of theology in the universities and later in theological seminaries. In the Catholic Church and in the old-line Protestant churches, the notion of referring a controversial matter to the theologians was normal procedure. Everyone knew who the theologians were.
Such is not true, however, among the churches moving in the stream of the New Apostolic Reformation. We do not have an ecclesiastical office of theologian nor do we have recognized functional equivalents. We do not agree that an elite group of individuals who happen to have advanced academic degrees in theology should be recognized as our doctrinal police force. Take the typical vertical apostolic network for an example. In an apostolic network the person in charge of maintaining the DNA of the network is the lead apostle, who consults with those he or she chooses, and no one else.
When I was teaching in seminary, I was coerced by the institution to refer certain matters to the theologians, which I of course did, but much to my personal grief. I began teaching signs and wonders and students began getting healed and delivered right in class. The theologians declared that it was inappropriate to heal the sick and cast out demons in a seminary classroom. They forced me to cancel the class for a time. Then I began teaching about territorial spirits and strategic-level spiritual warfare. This time I was called before the Faculty Senate to undergo a heresy trial. Fortunately for me I had been granted academic tenure years ago, and the theologians finally had to back down on the grounds of violating my academic freedom.
Theologians Disagree
A danger of referring things to the theologians resides in the fact that theologians more frequently than not disagree with each other. They make their living by critically picking apart what other theologians write and writing things that hopefully other theologians will criticize. I know a whole denomination that had its theologians discuss demons and issue a definitive doctrinal paper that Christian believers could not be demonized. Some respected theologians have declared that the dead cannot be raised. A theological paper was issued not long go by theologians who concluded that the offices of apostle and prophet are not for the church today. One theologian became very popular when he advocated contemporary prophetic ministry, then lost popularity when he taught that women should not be in leadership in the church.
My point is that mature, distinguished professional theologians can, and often will, quench the Hoy Spirit if the Holy Spirit happens to pull them out of their comfort zones.
When I suggest that we say good bye to theologians, I am not saying that we should do away with theology. What is theology? Theology is, pure and simple, a human attempt to explain God’s word and God’s works in a reasonable and systematic way. On a broader level, every active believer can explain God’s works and God’s word, whether a logos word from Scripture or a rhema word from direct revelation, However, on a higher level such as the points that were being debated by the two prophets I mentioned earlier, God will choose and assign certain leaders to clarify the issues theologically.
Apostle-Teacher
If we go back to Ephesians 4:11, the two offices that will most likely be God’s choice in resolving complex theological issues will be teachers and apostles. The teachers have the ability to research, study, analyze, and systematize the issues. The apostles have the ability to weigh the matters, to judge, to refine, and to sense the proper timing for speaking out. God has given some individuals both the gift of teacher and the gift of apostle, and in many cases the body of Christ has recognized the gifts and has awarded them the dual office of apostle-teacher. I am familiar with this gift mix because for years I have functioned both as a teacher and as an apostle.
Knowing this, I am able to understand the reasoning of some people who refer to me as a “theologian,” despite the fact that no professional theologian, either Catholic or Protestant, would regard me as a peer. Charisma magazine did a story on me which they titled, “Theologian of the Spirit.” A recent news report referred to me as “theologian C. Peter Wagner.” I sincerely appreciated both of these because I know it was the journalists’ way of commending me and recognizing that God has revealed to me certain useful theological insights. But I still wish we didn’t have to use the old wineskin terminology “theologian.”
Back to the debate on nuances of prophetic ministry. I was brought into the loop because of the hope that I could provide theological clarity. To be honest, however, when I started reading the emails I found the prophets using terminology that I had never heard and discussing issues that had never entered my mind. I was in no position to make mature, informed judgments. I might have been able to if I decided to spend hours and hours and days and days in researching the subject. But I didn’t sense an assignment from God to do that. I said, “If you’re debating the biblical government of the church, count me in. But if you’re trying to figure out what prophets should see or should not see in the invisible world, someone else is going to have to help you.” The upshot is that another apostle who has specialized in the matters being discussed and who is respected by both sides is now handling it. But let’s not call him a “theologian.” He is an apostle-teacher.
Those of us attempting to receive the new wine in new wineskins will be better off if we say good bye to theologians.
C. Peter Wagner
Wagner Leadership Institute
Colorado Springs, Colorado
# posted by Matt Green : 9:16 AM
Comments:
As a biblical studies major, I say that theologians are essential to help explain the problems of Scripture. Part of my job is to study the author's intent. As I study the context of Scripture, I notice contextual problems to orthodox doctrines (i.e.; the doctrine of the deity of Jesus or the virgin birth).
When I see these problems, I need a theologian to notice these problems and explain why these orthodox doctrines are true. If theologians were not around, the biblical studies department would be left without shepherd, to guide them to the Truth.
When I see these problems, I need a theologian to notice these problems and explain why these orthodox doctrines are true. If theologians were not around, the biblical studies department would be left without shepherd, to guide them to the Truth.
# posted by 
: 12:30 PM
: 12:30 PM
I mostly agree with Dr Wagner. The modern day theologian is more like the pharisees and saducees in the time of Jesus. They have a head knowledge of God but are far from really knowing, walking with and experiencing Him (There are exceptions). The example of Nicodemus (a well know Jewish theologian) is a good example. Jesus told him "You need to be born again... for that which is born of the flesh, is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit". That is the core of the matter. Is the "DNA" carnal or spiritual?
However, I have a few disagreements with Dr Wagner's Apostolic reformation (I respect and honor him for his input into the global prayer movement). I consider it unbiblical for him to appoint teritorial apostles. I believe that only God can appoint an apostle.
We all need to return to the simplicity of the Gospel. We all need to humble ourselves before God and plead for His grace, forgiveness and revival. We all need Him. It's all about HIM.
However, I have a few disagreements with Dr Wagner's Apostolic reformation (I respect and honor him for his input into the global prayer movement). I consider it unbiblical for him to appoint teritorial apostles. I believe that only God can appoint an apostle.
We all need to return to the simplicity of the Gospel. We all need to humble ourselves before God and plead for His grace, forgiveness and revival. We all need Him. It's all about HIM.
I agree with most of the posts here. Although the term "Theologian" in its modern sense is not in the bible, I believe that Jesus referred to certain "Doctors of the Law" in the Gospel accounts which seem to be fit the bill. These Doctors of the Law" at times had difficulty agreeing with each other as to certain points of the Torah or Law.
The term "theologian" in it's original sense can also be defined as man's intensive and disciplined study of the scriptures, coupled with a certain ability to explain it to others. In that sense all Christians and Jews who study the Word of God in a systematic manner may consider themselves as true theologians. Of course some will have more knowledge than others.
The term "theologian" in it's original sense can also be defined as man's intensive and disciplined study of the scriptures, coupled with a certain ability to explain it to others. In that sense all Christians and Jews who study the Word of God in a systematic manner may consider themselves as true theologians. Of course some will have more knowledge than others.
# posted by : 2:15 AM
: 2:15 AM
Thank you, Dr. Wagner, for your unashamed, unintimidated commentary on what will surely be considered the first "great debate" of 21st-century Christianity.
I am a simple man; and, a minister of the Gospel. I grew up in denominational fundamentalism, and "released" myself from that dogma around 10 years ago.
I believe that the terminology is the issue that most "folks" are going to have a problem with. The term, "theologian", as you point out, has become and archaic term in many ways; and, is going to create for the "next generation" (21st-century) believer a mine-field of questions that simply cloud the issue at hand for our day ... PREACH THE GOSPEL.
It really does not take much more than about an 8th-grade education (in America), along with the compelling power of the Holy Spirit and prayers of the righteous, to get the "meat" out of Scripture.
Beyond that "awakening" of the soul, the primary purpose of the local church is to offer five-fold "equipping" of the saints.
The Ephesians 4:11-13 "model" of church "order" is certainly one of the most debated, at least in the circles of ministers that I encounter.
For sure, in the "deep South, Bible belt" culture where I was raised, you just did not question the "givens" in the political matrix of seminary professors and theologians. Alas, a NEW DAY is dawning!
Continue with your "apostolic reformation" message. Some of us are "getting" it. And, it's refreshing to the soul.
I'm certain that the generation of church leaders that are coming behind us will fully embrace this "third day" awakening which so aptly fulfills prophetic and apostolic scripture.
I am a simple man; and, a minister of the Gospel. I grew up in denominational fundamentalism, and "released" myself from that dogma around 10 years ago.
I believe that the terminology is the issue that most "folks" are going to have a problem with. The term, "theologian", as you point out, has become and archaic term in many ways; and, is going to create for the "next generation" (21st-century) believer a mine-field of questions that simply cloud the issue at hand for our day ... PREACH THE GOSPEL.
It really does not take much more than about an 8th-grade education (in America), along with the compelling power of the Holy Spirit and prayers of the righteous, to get the "meat" out of Scripture.
Beyond that "awakening" of the soul, the primary purpose of the local church is to offer five-fold "equipping" of the saints.
The Ephesians 4:11-13 "model" of church "order" is certainly one of the most debated, at least in the circles of ministers that I encounter.
For sure, in the "deep South, Bible belt" culture where I was raised, you just did not question the "givens" in the political matrix of seminary professors and theologians. Alas, a NEW DAY is dawning!
Continue with your "apostolic reformation" message. Some of us are "getting" it. And, it's refreshing to the soul.
I'm certain that the generation of church leaders that are coming behind us will fully embrace this "third day" awakening which so aptly fulfills prophetic and apostolic scripture.
This was a very thought provoking column. I've never heard anyone in the church world question the Biblical validity of
'Theologians'. I think Peter is absolutley right. Don't do away with theology but the high esteem given to the position of Theologian. I think we should also think about who prepares our future church leaders. Are they 'Academics' or are they gifted-experienced Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, Evangelists, and Pastors. Seminary and Bible College instructors will tend to produce students like themselves (like fruit). I beleive many schools are simply producing more academically oriented ministers rather than ministry oriented ministers.
Jim Johnson
Pastor/Missionary
PS. While signing this blog as a 'missionary' I realized maybe we need to also look at that term a little closer too. I've served God over 15 years outside of the USA - but does that change me from being a Pastor (or Prophet, etc.) to the people I'm working with?
'Theologians'. I think Peter is absolutley right. Don't do away with theology but the high esteem given to the position of Theologian. I think we should also think about who prepares our future church leaders. Are they 'Academics' or are they gifted-experienced Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, Evangelists, and Pastors. Seminary and Bible College instructors will tend to produce students like themselves (like fruit). I beleive many schools are simply producing more academically oriented ministers rather than ministry oriented ministers.
Jim Johnson
Pastor/Missionary
PS. While signing this blog as a 'missionary' I realized maybe we need to also look at that term a little closer too. I've served God over 15 years outside of the USA - but does that change me from being a Pastor (or Prophet, etc.) to the people I'm working with?
Sorry, I am not smart enough to respond in 100 words or fewer. But here goes anyway! It seems like by "theologians" Pete means ivory-tower, abstract-thinking, cold-hearted, letter-of-the-law, blind-to-the-Spirit academics who see themselves as "the elite guardians of the truth." This is a bit of a straw man (or woman) -- although such types undoubtedly exist. (In fact, I've met them -- and I've probably even been one from time to time!)
But what of theologians who are lovers and students of God? Many of the great leaders of the church have been both pastor and theologian (Augustine, Calvin, Wesley, John Stott, to name a short list) -- combining a pastor's heart with a theologian's mind. Dallas Willard combines a pastor's heart with a piercingly insightful philosopher/theologian's mind.
Gilson summarized this as "a love for learning and a desire for God" -- I find that a winsome, appealing combo.
The professor from Pete's seminary (and my alma mater) who crossed off Hayford's name and said “Not a theological source!" was, in my thinking, a bit short-sighted . . . for, to paraphrase Arthur Holmes, truth is truth, regardless of its source. Having said that, Hayford, who possess a keen theological acumen combined with prophetic insight, does not write in the mode most academic theologians write, and it is not clear from Pete's comments what "source" the student was quoting from. (For example, in an exegetical research paper students would generally be discouraged from citing a homiletic/sermonic source written for a popular audience, because they are being trained to utilize the tools of academic research, just as in medical school there are proper sources that are to be referenced and a student would be challenged if he or she merely offered anecdotal evidence or examples from home remedies -- even if these might be accurate or efficacious.)
Pete is concerned about the existence of a "doctrinal police force," and tells war stories of how theologians have been mean to him. Well, yes, I know there are mean theologians.
As I read his account I wondered, however, whether Pete just doesn't like theologians who disagree with him. (I don't either. It can be tiresome and time-consuming to have to deal with views other than one's own!)
Is this just more of the old-time fundamentalist anti-intellectualism? Aren't we past that yet? Can't we evangelicals and charismatics develop a love for learning to "think Christianly," as C.S. Lewis’ protege Harry Blamires put it?
But what of Pete’s alternative? "Take the typical vertical apostolic network for an example. In an apostolic network the person in charge of maintaining the DNA of the network is the lead apostle, who consults with those he or she chooses, and no one else." Does that sound rather unilateral to anyone else . . . and even a bit cultic, for that matter?
He suggests that we should do away with theologians because "theologians disagree." Well, yes; and prophets disagree, and apostles disagree. People disagree. Isn't the more important issue to determine criteria for resolving theological disagreements, and to model Christian charity in the midst of theological disagreement, and to exhibit godly humility in the process?
A theologian (ideally) is someone who helps the church know God more clearly and love God more fully. So Pete would prefer to call them "teachers"? Fine. But his comments are simplistic and circular: "When I suggest that we say good bye to theologians, I am not saying that we should do away with theology." If we have theology, we will have theologians. The question is, will they be good ones or bad ones?
Probably the same concerns we would have about a teacher or an apostle, eh?
I think Paul's prescription for for discerning of prophecies can be admirably adapted to assessing theological assertions:
Do not treat prophecies with contempt
but test them all;
hold on to what is good,
reject whatever is harmful.
And we do this so that in everything we
Do not put out the Spirit’s fire."
(1 Thess. 5:20-22, 19)
Pete sometime sounds as if he wants new wine -- who doesn't? -- but really wishes that he didn't have to bother with wineskins at all. Couldn't that turn into a rather messy situation?
But what of theologians who are lovers and students of God? Many of the great leaders of the church have been both pastor and theologian (Augustine, Calvin, Wesley, John Stott, to name a short list) -- combining a pastor's heart with a theologian's mind. Dallas Willard combines a pastor's heart with a piercingly insightful philosopher/theologian's mind.
Gilson summarized this as "a love for learning and a desire for God" -- I find that a winsome, appealing combo.
The professor from Pete's seminary (and my alma mater) who crossed off Hayford's name and said “Not a theological source!" was, in my thinking, a bit short-sighted . . . for, to paraphrase Arthur Holmes, truth is truth, regardless of its source. Having said that, Hayford, who possess a keen theological acumen combined with prophetic insight, does not write in the mode most academic theologians write, and it is not clear from Pete's comments what "source" the student was quoting from. (For example, in an exegetical research paper students would generally be discouraged from citing a homiletic/sermonic source written for a popular audience, because they are being trained to utilize the tools of academic research, just as in medical school there are proper sources that are to be referenced and a student would be challenged if he or she merely offered anecdotal evidence or examples from home remedies -- even if these might be accurate or efficacious.)
Pete is concerned about the existence of a "doctrinal police force," and tells war stories of how theologians have been mean to him. Well, yes, I know there are mean theologians.
As I read his account I wondered, however, whether Pete just doesn't like theologians who disagree with him. (I don't either. It can be tiresome and time-consuming to have to deal with views other than one's own!)
Is this just more of the old-time fundamentalist anti-intellectualism? Aren't we past that yet? Can't we evangelicals and charismatics develop a love for learning to "think Christianly," as C.S. Lewis’ protege Harry Blamires put it?
But what of Pete’s alternative? "Take the typical vertical apostolic network for an example. In an apostolic network the person in charge of maintaining the DNA of the network is the lead apostle, who consults with those he or she chooses, and no one else." Does that sound rather unilateral to anyone else . . . and even a bit cultic, for that matter?
He suggests that we should do away with theologians because "theologians disagree." Well, yes; and prophets disagree, and apostles disagree. People disagree. Isn't the more important issue to determine criteria for resolving theological disagreements, and to model Christian charity in the midst of theological disagreement, and to exhibit godly humility in the process?
A theologian (ideally) is someone who helps the church know God more clearly and love God more fully. So Pete would prefer to call them "teachers"? Fine. But his comments are simplistic and circular: "When I suggest that we say good bye to theologians, I am not saying that we should do away with theology." If we have theology, we will have theologians. The question is, will they be good ones or bad ones?
Probably the same concerns we would have about a teacher or an apostle, eh?
I think Paul's prescription for for discerning of prophecies can be admirably adapted to assessing theological assertions:
Do not treat prophecies with contempt
but test them all;
hold on to what is good,
reject whatever is harmful.
And we do this so that in everything we
Do not put out the Spirit’s fire."
(1 Thess. 5:20-22, 19)
Pete sometime sounds as if he wants new wine -- who doesn't? -- but really wishes that he didn't have to bother with wineskins at all. Couldn't that turn into a rather messy situation?
# posted by : 4:16 AM
: 4:16 AM
There he goes again...Peter Wagner has been at the forefront of many of the changes occuring in the church today and possesses the inquisitive mind of a much younger man with the wisdom that can only be garnered through the scars of experience. I applaud his stance and for the most part, agree with his points.
Church history took a decided turn when spiritual gifts were determined to be the sole purview of those of the clergy after the first century of the Christian church. No doubt that the position of theologian was a part of the overall change that took place at that time and is nothing more than an offshoot of the whole issue of the separation of clergy and laity which is a much larger issue to be dealt with in the church.
No doubt that there have been some great theologians who have been diligent in their study of the work of God and have made some positive contributions and have developed some expertise in certain areas, but the last time I looked, the Holy Spirit was still our teacher (and available to all within the church) and that revelation from the Holy Spirit was the foundation upon which the church is built and sustained...not some ivory tower theologian's view of the way it should be.
Too often, theologians fall into the habit of examining an issue until all of the meat has fallen off the bones and nothing is left but the bones, without any life, reminding us of the Pharisees and Sadducees of old who have their modern day counterparts in the office of the theologian. The life and vitality of the church has never been determined by these people and will never be determined by doctrinal purity they often wish and hope for, but upon those who have received the life of Christ and simply share it.
Let them continue to study, if they will, but let us hear what those who are seeing the kingdom of God established in the earth have to say about what they have seen! They know what they are talking about because they have studied it and done it.
Church history took a decided turn when spiritual gifts were determined to be the sole purview of those of the clergy after the first century of the Christian church. No doubt that the position of theologian was a part of the overall change that took place at that time and is nothing more than an offshoot of the whole issue of the separation of clergy and laity which is a much larger issue to be dealt with in the church.
No doubt that there have been some great theologians who have been diligent in their study of the work of God and have made some positive contributions and have developed some expertise in certain areas, but the last time I looked, the Holy Spirit was still our teacher (and available to all within the church) and that revelation from the Holy Spirit was the foundation upon which the church is built and sustained...not some ivory tower theologian's view of the way it should be.
Too often, theologians fall into the habit of examining an issue until all of the meat has fallen off the bones and nothing is left but the bones, without any life, reminding us of the Pharisees and Sadducees of old who have their modern day counterparts in the office of the theologian. The life and vitality of the church has never been determined by these people and will never be determined by doctrinal purity they often wish and hope for, but upon those who have received the life of Christ and simply share it.
Let them continue to study, if they will, but let us hear what those who are seeing the kingdom of God established in the earth have to say about what they have seen! They know what they are talking about because they have studied it and done it.
# posted by : 4:30 AM
: 4:30 AM
I think a more accurate name for a theologian is scholar. Mr. Wagner is right that we tend to deify theologians above biblically-established offices of apostle, prophet and teacher. I also believe that's the responsibility of the believer to educate themselves about their faith, the historical foundations etc. Lazy Christianity has bred this so-called office of theologian.
# posted by : 8:05 AM
: 8:05 AM
If any of us truly understood the doctrine of the Kingdom, the Messianic Matrix, and the life of the apostle, the "church" would win more than we lose! We are hemorrhaging and the old wineskin tells us it is supposed to happen that way. Rubbish!!! Apart from the fullness of the Spirit we all know nothing!!!
# posted by : 8:13 AM
: 8:13 AM
The role of theologian should be to explain the difficult to understand doctrines of the church,but to intellectually try to understand these teachings is miss the whole point. As we know the Bible is impossible to understand aside from the revelation of the Holy Spirit. To teach it without revelation is simply to reduce it to a history book.That's where God anointed men and women who are in the office of teacher come in.
# posted by : 8:16 AM
: 8:16 AM
There is and always has been a need for someone(s) to serve as guardians of truth in the church and to protect us from doctrinal heresy. Even at the first Jerusalem Council, the devilish doctrine of legalism threatened to abort the infant church before it had a chance to fulfil its destiny in the world. Thanks to the "theologians" of the day, an answer was found that maintained the integrity of the church, yet accommodated the cultural "wineskins" of the day. Just because the word "theologian" does not exist in the New Testament does not mean that the function was not there. Dr. Wagner contends so loudly for the roles of apostles and prophets in the church; why can't he be equally tolerant of the role of the "theologians" as guardians of orthodoxy?
I agree with Wagner's assertions. I think we have as much theology as we can stomach. We are involved in a very unBiblical Christianity, if you study the life of its Founder. Our lives do not mimic Jesus' hardly at all. We don't hang out with prostitutes and criminals. We don't eat kosher or worship on Sabbath. We don't honor Torah as a revelation from God. Our identity comes from Roman Catholic & early Protestant interpretations that aren't necessarily accurate or "biblical." Get back to the basics! We need to quit acting like we're God's gift to the laity & put the ministry in the hands of the comman person.
# posted by : 8:59 AM
: 8:59 AM
Where would the church be today without "theologians" such as Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Finney, etc. If we follow Wagner's proposal we will have do away with his "theology" of apostolic church structure. Certainly there is no "office" of theologian in Scripture but neither is there an "office" of apostle in Scripture. The apostle, teacher, etc. are gifts and callings
given to individuals by the risen Lord. If a person is called to be a leader of God's people (particularly a teacher) I would hope that he or she would prepare themselves by diligently studying the doctrinal/theological issues that have plagued the church for 2000 years.
given to individuals by the risen Lord. If a person is called to be a leader of God's people (particularly a teacher) I would hope that he or she would prepare themselves by diligently studying the doctrinal/theological issues that have plagued the church for 2000 years.
Here in England, love of labels goes with our class system, and if you think theology seminaries went overboard, you should try working in media or advertising. It's true that in Academia, the right references are necessary if you want to get your Masters (no original thinking warned an educationalist chum). Theology without insight is a dead duck, and the Good Samaritan remains an object lesson of a humble fellow with odd ideas who showed more faith than the experts in religion.
# posted by : 9:20 AM
: 9:20 AM
I think here we are back to the Balaam /donkey story. In the wilderness journey,God called out the Israelites so that they would learn to worship Him and to hear His voice. This has been the call for every Christian down through the ages, but somehow, the seminaries, the pastors, the churches etc right down to the people in the pew have somehow missed that fact and are scared poff evn by real worship.... We live in a power tripping/'I/Me generation, in which people need to have a title which says, unfortunately "I am better than you/ holier than thou and, of course, I hear from God'. However, the world, society and so the church is made up of alot of donkeys --they have special jobs --one carried Jesus into the Jerusalem. They are used by farmers and shepherds amongst their flocks to warn about wolves... In this end time, the denominations will fall away as the Bride of Christ is formed, and the ones who will survive anywhere the best are the ones who hear from God. If a person happens to be a theologian and hears God's voice loud and clear, I will admire, respect and look to that person to mentor me, but woe betide anyone in these last days who calls out His name who has no relationship with Him, no faith walk and no discernment --no matter who they are... Jesus Himself will say He doesn't know them --
Any missionary must first learn the language and customs of their target culture to better communicate the Gospel. Conversely, “theologians” and biblical scholars learn the language and culture of the authors of Scripture to communicate the Gospel accurately to modern culture. Most Christians rarely have the time or ability to learn these languages (Greek & Hebrew) or discern ancient Mediterranean culture. The church is indebted to godly theologian-scholars who have translated the “old, old story” for modern ears. It is foolhardy to reject this gift to the church. While the term “theologian” may not be “biblical,” many, if not most, theologians are gifted teachers with a commitment to communicating biblical truth.
Finally! A breath of fresh air on a larger scale.
Dr. Wagner's comments will be much helpful to the apostolic movement. As James (Jesus' brother) and other apostles got together to resolve an issue, so too, I see the same happening again in the real body of Christ.
Such is a better model than one in which we would defer to a lone Seniour Apostle. In such matters there is always the possibility for spiritual abuse(never mind the cults just look at how many pseudo-christian groups there have been in the past and those that are presently helmed by a single, solitary, and authoritve figure).
For too long protesant churches have been apeing the RCC. This is a dangerous slippery slope. One example is that we have for many years refering to those RCC church Father's as if they were our own (as one former RCC priest said, "They all have one thing in common, they disagree with each other). We even quote and refer to some of them in our term papers in Bible Seminary and College. Quoting the Bible alone, or even giving of ones own understanding of a said passage was not good enough. We had to quote an authoritive theologian as a source.
I thought going to Bible College was about learning how to read, understand, teach & preach the word; along with other lessons in how to be a good Pastor. NOT! They in no way were close to the Ephesian 4 model for training Christians and future church leaders.
If anything I have learned that my own reasoning and deductions may not fully be trusted. So one had to ALWAYS check with the theologians (both living and dead) to see if our doctrine is correct. Heck, one of those dead theologians (I'll let you guess who) seriously contemplated and wrote a discussion paper on the topic, "How Many Angels Can Dance on the Top of a Pin."
I have read many of Dr. Wagner's books over the years and have seen him make mistakes too. But he always impressed me as a person who is willing to be corrected and guided by the Holy Spirit.
On a final note I wish to quote my theology professor. This advice alone is worth the money and years spent in Bible College, "Never have your theology set. Then even God cannot correct you."
Dr. Wagner's comments will be much helpful to the apostolic movement. As James (Jesus' brother) and other apostles got together to resolve an issue, so too, I see the same happening again in the real body of Christ.
Such is a better model than one in which we would defer to a lone Seniour Apostle. In such matters there is always the possibility for spiritual abuse(never mind the cults just look at how many pseudo-christian groups there have been in the past and those that are presently helmed by a single, solitary, and authoritve figure).
For too long protesant churches have been apeing the RCC. This is a dangerous slippery slope. One example is that we have for many years refering to those RCC church Father's as if they were our own (as one former RCC priest said, "They all have one thing in common, they disagree with each other). We even quote and refer to some of them in our term papers in Bible Seminary and College. Quoting the Bible alone, or even giving of ones own understanding of a said passage was not good enough. We had to quote an authoritive theologian as a source.
I thought going to Bible College was about learning how to read, understand, teach & preach the word; along with other lessons in how to be a good Pastor. NOT! They in no way were close to the Ephesian 4 model for training Christians and future church leaders.
If anything I have learned that my own reasoning and deductions may not fully be trusted. So one had to ALWAYS check with the theologians (both living and dead) to see if our doctrine is correct. Heck, one of those dead theologians (I'll let you guess who) seriously contemplated and wrote a discussion paper on the topic, "How Many Angels Can Dance on the Top of a Pin."
I have read many of Dr. Wagner's books over the years and have seen him make mistakes too. But he always impressed me as a person who is willing to be corrected and guided by the Holy Spirit.
On a final note I wish to quote my theology professor. This advice alone is worth the money and years spent in Bible College, "Never have your theology set. Then even God cannot correct you."
there is a difference in being spirit led instead of being purpose driven. Whose message are we trying to deliver. Many today are more in love with their message than they are God's message. Today people have left the Altar, they've left the blood of Jesus, they've left the cross, so therefore they have departed from the Word. God is saying to whoever will hear, that we must not leave the foundation of Jesus Christ in our preaching, and in our living, if we are going to be ready to meet Him.
# posted by : 10:34 AM
: 10:34 AM
As you know from our conversations on this topic, Dr. Wagner, I disagree. You owe your ability to articulate this argument so effectively to the years you spent in a rigorous theological environment. However, this is something which a majority of those in the apostolic movement will never enjoy because of the movement's aversion to traditional academic pursuit and engagement with the broader theological community. The result? You are probably the only leader in your movement who could have made this argument so effectively. Doesn't that concern you? Like every movement, the apostolic needs theologians--not to rule as ecclesiastical watchdogs, but to apply themselves to the disciplines of theology, biblical languages and church history to contribute to the teaching of the saints, so that they may effectively articulate their faith in the increasingly pluralistic environment of postmodern society.
Another silly controversy. As Christians, we need to focus on topics of substance like sharing the love of Christ with people and helping those in need.
It is particularly ironic that Dr Wagner, a well-known theologian, would be at the center of the issue.
It is particularly ironic that Dr Wagner, a well-known theologian, would be at the center of the issue.
# posted by : 10:51 AM
: 10:51 AM
It’s not just theologians. Thirty-three years ago, my failure to study the Bible for myself caused a great tragedy. I believed what other men taught about faith, and irrationally acted in a way that caused the death of my eleven-year-old son. That disaster caused me to search the Bible as nothing else could. I found I was taught some things based on assumptions rather than scripture. I decided to set aside my denominational teachings, and read the Bible with an unbiased mind. Looking to the Holy Spirit to guide me, I uncovered surprising results about traditional subjects in the Bible.
# posted by : 11:11 AM
: 11:11 AM
It's difficult to discern exactly who Peter Wagner may be referring to in differentiating between "theologians" and "apostolic teachers" since some of these terms might be used interchangeably. Jack Hayford is an "apostolic teacher" to the body of Christ, and particularly to the charismatic world, and many would also describe him and others (like C.Peter Wagner) as 'theologians'.
While I agree that we need to do away with the arrogant elements of sophisticated academia, we are indebted to those whose function as a gift-ministry teacher, equips us with sound doctrine, and a postive and sure Biblical/New Creation foundation for what we believe, and how we administer such.
In the Antioch Church (the new wineskin Church of it's day), there were prominent offices of both "Prophet" and "Teacher". This Church was capable of launching ministry into a whole new venue (the Gentile world), which then enabled the ongoing fulfillment of the Great Commission,and the long term viablility of the Church worldwide.
I believe that the function of the Prophets, while not necessarily requireing the approval of some sophisticated and uninvolved academia, does require a positive and and accountable connection to the "Teacher" and the "Apostle", indeed, all of the other gift offices, in order to stay productive and most beneficial in the body of Christ.
While I agree that we need to do away with the arrogant elements of sophisticated academia, we are indebted to those whose function as a gift-ministry teacher, equips us with sound doctrine, and a postive and sure Biblical/New Creation foundation for what we believe, and how we administer such.
In the Antioch Church (the new wineskin Church of it's day), there were prominent offices of both "Prophet" and "Teacher". This Church was capable of launching ministry into a whole new venue (the Gentile world), which then enabled the ongoing fulfillment of the Great Commission,and the long term viablility of the Church worldwide.
I believe that the function of the Prophets, while not necessarily requireing the approval of some sophisticated and uninvolved academia, does require a positive and and accountable connection to the "Teacher" and the "Apostle", indeed, all of the other gift offices, in order to stay productive and most beneficial in the body of Christ.
# posted by : 11:18 AM
: 11:18 AM
The modern theologians fit in the same category as the post-reconstruction Pharisees, scribes and Sadduccees that Jesus called "whited tombs" and snakes. These theologians do not major on scriptural antidotes for doctrinal questions, but upon the writings of previous theologians just as those in Jesus' day. The teachings of Paul focussed on practitional ministry. The only need for theological study came after the Roman Church raped the Body of Christ of the Word of God and established their twisted doctrines. An orthodox New Testament teaching had to be re-established starting with the Reformation, but today, that need is over. Now, theologians face the same problem as the Pharisees and Sadduccees--They are no longer needed.
I agree with the poster who stated that the term "theologian" may be replaced with "scholar." The five-fold ministry gifts are given as decided by the Head of the Church. (see Gal. 1:15). In my own studies, I have relied upon certain scholars for assistance in Greek, Jewish history, etc. I consider those to be in the ministry of helps. It is for the five-fold ministry gifts, however, to maintain sound doctrine.
I appreciate Pete Wagner. He has been a valued gift to the church in many areas: the discovery of principles that can help churches grow, the encouragement of prayer, and so on. I deeply respected the commitment he shared publicly a number of years ago when he sensed God speaking to him: "From now on, Pete: No More Polemics!" From then on, he said, he wanted to focus on making positive, constructive contributions to the life of the church.
(But Pete: This recent proposal of yours seems just the slightest bit polemical, doesn't it?)
But he has clearly put his finger on a nerve. There is a definite divide on either side of the line he has drawn in the sand, to judge from the responses to his proposal.
On the one hand, respondents like John Griffin agree with Pete. John grudgingly admits that "No doubt that there have been some great theologians who have been diligent in their study of the work of God and have made some positive contributions and have developed some expertise in certain areas," but then qualifies that admission with "but the last time I looked, the Holy Spirit was still our teacher (and available to all within the church) and that revelation from the Holy Spirit was the foundation upon which the church is built and sustained...not some ivory tower theologian's view of the way it should be."
I suspect the majority of readers would affirm that the Holy Spirit can indeed teach "all of us within the church" - but it is not clear why the Holy Spirit could not also teach a theologian who is also within the church? All theologians are not "ivory tower theologians," are they John? Could not a theologian see himself or herself functioning in partnership with, and in service to, and indeed even under the authority of the church?
Yes, John, I would agree that "Too often, theologians fall into the habit of examining an issue until all of the meat has fallen off the bones and nothing is left but the bones, without any life, reminding us of the Pharisees and Sadducees of old..." - but when you add "...who have their modern day counterparts in the office of the theologian," you go too far. Of course, the same error of dissecting Scripture until it no longer breathes has been committed by quite a few well-meaning preachers, teachers and lay people as well, has it not? I've heard a few sermons where the text was beaten to within an inch of its life . . . I've probably preached a few of them, myself!
But John, do you actually think that theologians are, by definition, incapable of understanding both the word of God and the power of God? I think it is profoundly instructive to this entire discussion that Jesus responded to the Pharisees and Sadducees with brilliant theological debate and questioning? The difference was not that he was not "theological" - but that "he taught with authority, and not as the scribes and Pharisees."
John suggests, "Let them continue to study, if they will, but let us hear what those who are seeing the kingdom of God established in the earth have to say about what they have seen! They know what they are talking about because they have studied it and done it."
If I read John fairly, his conclusion seems to be that "experience trumps study."
Now, I would agree that experience informs study. Charles Hummel once wrote, wisely: "experience can be a window into truth." But why should we set experience and study in opposition to each other? This is one of several false "either/or" dilemmas that I see in the theological arguments of the supporters of Pete. Aren't Christ-followers interested in both experience and study, in both the Spirit and the intellect, in both ministry fruitfulness and academic integrity?
There is a tone of anti-intellectualism in this argument which is insulting to the Creator who lovingly hand-crafted our brains, to the Savior who reminded us of the importance of "loving the Lord our God with all our minds" (along with our other faculties), and to the Spirit who came to illumine and guide us into all the truth. And it too often renders us tragically irrelevant to the hearts and minds of the lost children of God that we are trying to reach with the good news of Jesus.
On the other hand, The Editor suggests that theologians can be a valued part of the body of Christ. "Like every movement, the apostolic needs theologians--not to rule as ecclesiastical watchdogs, but to apply themselves to the disciplines of theology, biblical languages and church history to contribute to the teaching of the saints, so that they may effectively articulate their faith in the increasingly pluralistic environment of postmodern society."
And jdarlack concurs, pointing out that "Any missionary must first learn the language and customs of their target culture to better communicate the Gospel. Conversely, 'theologians' and biblical scholars learn the language and culture of the authors of Scripture to communicate the Gospel accurately to modern culture. Most Christians rarely have the time or ability to learn these languages (Greek & Hebrew) or discern ancient Mediterranean culture. The church is indebted to godly theologian-scholars who have translated the 'old, old story' for modern ears. It is foolhardy to reject this gift to the church."
Haven't we had enough of the false either/or dichotomies such as Pete is proposing? Isn't the church - and the world, for that matter - desperately in need of people who are both Spirit-filled and clear-thinking, both warm-hearted and sober-minded, passionate for God's wisdom and God's power and God's love, students of God's heart and students of God's Word and students of God's ways - whether they be called theologians, teachers, preachers, prophets, apostles, students, or just plain Christians?
Is it possible that there are two sides of what we call “the gift of knowledge”; two forms that this gift can take? Don't we, in our Christian lives and in our churches, value both the spontaneous immediacy of a revelatory word received from the Spirit and how God can speak through the disciplined craftsmanship of a student/teacher/preacher/Christian who has diligently “studied to show themselves approved by God because they handle God's Word with accuracy and insight”? Knowledge is knowledge, whether spontaneously received or painstakingly acquired, is it not?
(Of course, I can't help but note that it is interesting, and ironic, that this discussion about whether or not the church still needs theologians has been a profoundly . . . theological discussion.)
I suggest that the question should instead be whether the church needs good theologians or bad ones, and that we should consider the characteristics that comprise each.
We might all then agree that "bad" theologians are those theologians who are narrow-minded, ivory-towered, disconnected from the life of God, "cut off from the Head" (Colossians 2:19), disinterested in Scripture, uninvolved in ministry, not led by the Spirit, not focused on the Cross of Jesus, and so on.
One of my mentors, a godly, wise Old Testament scholar named Bruce Waltke, once said something like this: "I believe that all my academic research should be an act of worship . . . and that all my devotional reading of Scripture should have academic integrity." He embodies, I suggest, a "good" theologian: one who is passionately committed to both the life of God ("all my academic research should be an act of worship") and the truth of God ("all my devotional reading of Scripture should have academic integrity").
For many years I have prayed, in all of my preaching and teaching, and in the “theologizing” that goes into my preaching and teaching, that it might be said of me what was said of Paul: that “our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction” (1 Thessalonians 1:5). May it be so of us, as well, Lord.
(But Pete: This recent proposal of yours seems just the slightest bit polemical, doesn't it?)
But he has clearly put his finger on a nerve. There is a definite divide on either side of the line he has drawn in the sand, to judge from the responses to his proposal.
On the one hand, respondents like John Griffin agree with Pete. John grudgingly admits that "No doubt that there have been some great theologians who have been diligent in their study of the work of God and have made some positive contributions and have developed some expertise in certain areas," but then qualifies that admission with "but the last time I looked, the Holy Spirit was still our teacher (and available to all within the church) and that revelation from the Holy Spirit was the foundation upon which the church is built and sustained...not some ivory tower theologian's view of the way it should be."
I suspect the majority of readers would affirm that the Holy Spirit can indeed teach "all of us within the church" - but it is not clear why the Holy Spirit could not also teach a theologian who is also within the church? All theologians are not "ivory tower theologians," are they John? Could not a theologian see himself or herself functioning in partnership with, and in service to, and indeed even under the authority of the church?
Yes, John, I would agree that "Too often, theologians fall into the habit of examining an issue until all of the meat has fallen off the bones and nothing is left but the bones, without any life, reminding us of the Pharisees and Sadducees of old..." - but when you add "...who have their modern day counterparts in the office of the theologian," you go too far. Of course, the same error of dissecting Scripture until it no longer breathes has been committed by quite a few well-meaning preachers, teachers and lay people as well, has it not? I've heard a few sermons where the text was beaten to within an inch of its life . . . I've probably preached a few of them, myself!
But John, do you actually think that theologians are, by definition, incapable of understanding both the word of God and the power of God? I think it is profoundly instructive to this entire discussion that Jesus responded to the Pharisees and Sadducees with brilliant theological debate and questioning? The difference was not that he was not "theological" - but that "he taught with authority, and not as the scribes and Pharisees."
John suggests, "Let them continue to study, if they will, but let us hear what those who are seeing the kingdom of God established in the earth have to say about what they have seen! They know what they are talking about because they have studied it and done it."
If I read John fairly, his conclusion seems to be that "experience trumps study."
Now, I would agree that experience informs study. Charles Hummel once wrote, wisely: "experience can be a window into truth." But why should we set experience and study in opposition to each other? This is one of several false "either/or" dilemmas that I see in the theological arguments of the supporters of Pete. Aren't Christ-followers interested in both experience and study, in both the Spirit and the intellect, in both ministry fruitfulness and academic integrity?
There is a tone of anti-intellectualism in this argument which is insulting to the Creator who lovingly hand-crafted our brains, to the Savior who reminded us of the importance of "loving the Lord our God with all our minds" (along with our other faculties), and to the Spirit who came to illumine and guide us into all the truth. And it too often renders us tragically irrelevant to the hearts and minds of the lost children of God that we are trying to reach with the good news of Jesus.
On the other hand, The Editor suggests that theologians can be a valued part of the body of Christ. "Like every movement, the apostolic needs theologians--not to rule as ecclesiastical watchdogs, but to apply themselves to the disciplines of theology, biblical languages and church history to contribute to the teaching of the saints, so that they may effectively articulate their faith in the increasingly pluralistic environment of postmodern society."
And jdarlack concurs, pointing out that "Any missionary must first learn the language and customs of their target culture to better communicate the Gospel. Conversely, 'theologians' and biblical scholars learn the language and culture of the authors of Scripture to communicate the Gospel accurately to modern culture. Most Christians rarely have the time or ability to learn these languages (Greek & Hebrew) or discern ancient Mediterranean culture. The church is indebted to godly theologian-scholars who have translated the 'old, old story' for modern ears. It is foolhardy to reject this gift to the church."
Haven't we had enough of the false either/or dichotomies such as Pete is proposing? Isn't the church - and the world, for that matter - desperately in need of people who are both Spirit-filled and clear-thinking, both warm-hearted and sober-minded, passionate for God's wisdom and God's power and God's love, students of God's heart and students of God's Word and students of God's ways - whether they be called theologians, teachers, preachers, prophets, apostles, students, or just plain Christians?
Is it possible that there are two sides of what we call “the gift of knowledge”; two forms that this gift can take? Don't we, in our Christian lives and in our churches, value both the spontaneous immediacy of a revelatory word received from the Spirit and how God can speak through the disciplined craftsmanship of a student/teacher/preacher/Christian who has diligently “studied to show themselves approved by God because they handle God's Word with accuracy and insight”? Knowledge is knowledge, whether spontaneously received or painstakingly acquired, is it not?
(Of course, I can't help but note that it is interesting, and ironic, that this discussion about whether or not the church still needs theologians has been a profoundly . . . theological discussion.)
I suggest that the question should instead be whether the church needs good theologians or bad ones, and that we should consider the characteristics that comprise each.
We might all then agree that "bad" theologians are those theologians who are narrow-minded, ivory-towered, disconnected from the life of God, "cut off from the Head" (Colossians 2:19), disinterested in Scripture, uninvolved in ministry, not led by the Spirit, not focused on the Cross of Jesus, and so on.
One of my mentors, a godly, wise Old Testament scholar named Bruce Waltke, once said something like this: "I believe that all my academic research should be an act of worship . . . and that all my devotional reading of Scripture should have academic integrity." He embodies, I suggest, a "good" theologian: one who is passionately committed to both the life of God ("all my academic research should be an act of worship") and the truth of God ("all my devotional reading of Scripture should have academic integrity").
For many years I have prayed, in all of my preaching and teaching, and in the “theologizing” that goes into my preaching and teaching, that it might be said of me what was said of Paul: that “our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction” (1 Thessalonians 1:5). May it be so of us, as well, Lord.
# posted by : 2:36 PM
: 2:36 PM
I do not believe that i am the best source for doing away with anything
Knowledge though necessary can be both our friend and our enemy...study though necessary can also become the very thing that "gives us the permission" to disallow or misjudge both people and moves of the spirit...
Mnay things I formerly believed to be true I no longer believe to be true...is that a sign of maturity...are they necessarily untrue even though i no longer believe in them...
Luther brought a necessary change of face to Goda church...with some unnecessary facets also...
I believe that Doug Wilson said what I mostly believe to be true in a much more professional manner than I could ever hope to but for some reason here I am writing anyway.
Jesus said "By no other name shall man be saved...and that inludes my name, no man shall be saved...or not...by my name...or yours
But...
Without studious students of Gods word we would not even have the opportunity to have our "Holy Bibles" to study personally.
Were these people of old the final word in interpretation and study...or...will it be that until God says quit and all of you come to heaven that he has allowed in his wisdom to allow us the right to study...or not to study.
Much of what I am able to do in ministry is because of the relentless study of those whom have gone before me...though I am not nor ever will be a theologian they have historically proven to be of worth...and hindrance.
We're just people...no one man is the see all know all...wisdom is found in a multitude of counsel...and sometimes that wisdom is of God for us...and sometimes...it allows us to know that though the people around us believed in what they tried to teach us...that in the situation in which we sought consel that our wisdom was that we had heard from God himself and that those around us helped confirm that when their opinion found itself overshadowed by Gods Voice
Remeber people we are all different from one another...we all are infallible...God is not...and He is our ultimate source!
So to all you theologians...keep up the hard work...study to show yourself approved...and remember...even you sometimes are wrong!
Knowledge though necessary can be both our friend and our enemy...study though necessary can also become the very thing that "gives us the permission" to disallow or misjudge both people and moves of the spirit...
Mnay things I formerly believed to be true I no longer believe to be true...is that a sign of maturity...are they necessarily untrue even though i no longer believe in them...
Luther brought a necessary change of face to Goda church...with some unnecessary facets also...
I believe that Doug Wilson said what I mostly believe to be true in a much more professional manner than I could ever hope to but for some reason here I am writing anyway.
Jesus said "By no other name shall man be saved...and that inludes my name, no man shall be saved...or not...by my name...or yours
But...
Without studious students of Gods word we would not even have the opportunity to have our "Holy Bibles" to study personally.
Were these people of old the final word in interpretation and study...or...will it be that until God says quit and all of you come to heaven that he has allowed in his wisdom to allow us the right to study...or not to study.
Much of what I am able to do in ministry is because of the relentless study of those whom have gone before me...though I am not nor ever will be a theologian they have historically proven to be of worth...and hindrance.
We're just people...no one man is the see all know all...wisdom is found in a multitude of counsel...and sometimes that wisdom is of God for us...and sometimes...it allows us to know that though the people around us believed in what they tried to teach us...that in the situation in which we sought consel that our wisdom was that we had heard from God himself and that those around us helped confirm that when their opinion found itself overshadowed by Gods Voice
Remeber people we are all different from one another...we all are infallible...God is not...and He is our ultimate source!
So to all you theologians...keep up the hard work...study to show yourself approved...and remember...even you sometimes are wrong!
Once in prayer I saw a picture of a horse hobbled on three legs. There were men in suits standing around the horse, scratching their heads wondering why the horse couldn't run. I realized instantly that the three hobbled legs represented three issues that hobble the church. Race, gender and clergy/laity divides. We are like the men in suits scratching our heads at the obvious. We say you have to be a particular race, you have to be a particular gender, you have to have particular degrees, or you aren't qualified to run.
BUMMER! I just completed my MATS degree! I hope I know the Word better. We should not get hung up on titles, but our calling.
Does it matter if we call Gordon Fee a theologian or an Ascension Gift Teacher? Craig Keener? Wayne Grudem? Peter Davids? Larry Hurtado? Veli-Matti Karkkainen? Ben Witherington? Larry Hart? Howard Ervin? J. Rodman Williams?
Not to me, it doesn't. You can call these men, and others with similiar ability and gifting, whatever you like. Their words should be considered because they often have things of significance --- great significance --- to say to the Body of Christ.
And surely, in a more reflective moment, Peter Wagner must realize he is really preaching to the choir on this one. The Charismatic/Pentecostal movement isn't in danger of drowning under a downpour of too much theology, but starving from a famine of too little or too poor theology.
Don't believe that? Watch Christian television most any evening. With the exception of Jack Hayford and a very few others, you will be begging for the TV preachers you view to fall under the influence of the aforementioned theologians ... scholars ... teachers ... or, whatever you feel comfortable calling them.
Or, how about getting a pastor to have ONE serious theology class on the church menu --- say, a Christology class taught utilizing the insights of Hurtado and Witherington. That shouldn't be asking too much, right, what with Christology being dead center in the middle of our faith? Yet how many Pentecostal/Charismatic churches have such a thing?
No, Peter Wagner, you don't have to go around stamping out the 'wildfire' of theology in the Pentecostal/Charismatic camp. I rather think we have the opposite problem --- too little serious theological reflection. Rick Nanez confirms that opinion in his Zondervan book, "Full Gospel, Fractured Minds."
Just being honest: the writer above who suggested that Peter Wagner's problem might more specifically be theologians who disagree with him, made sense to me.
Not to me, it doesn't. You can call these men, and others with similiar ability and gifting, whatever you like. Their words should be considered because they often have things of significance --- great significance --- to say to the Body of Christ.
And surely, in a more reflective moment, Peter Wagner must realize he is really preaching to the choir on this one. The Charismatic/Pentecostal movement isn't in danger of drowning under a downpour of too much theology, but starving from a famine of too little or too poor theology.
Don't believe that? Watch Christian television most any evening. With the exception of Jack Hayford and a very few others, you will be begging for the TV preachers you view to fall under the influence of the aforementioned theologians ... scholars ... teachers ... or, whatever you feel comfortable calling them.
Or, how about getting a pastor to have ONE serious theology class on the church menu --- say, a Christology class taught utilizing the insights of Hurtado and Witherington. That shouldn't be asking too much, right, what with Christology being dead center in the middle of our faith? Yet how many Pentecostal/Charismatic churches have such a thing?
No, Peter Wagner, you don't have to go around stamping out the 'wildfire' of theology in the Pentecostal/Charismatic camp. I rather think we have the opposite problem --- too little serious theological reflection. Rick Nanez confirms that opinion in his Zondervan book, "Full Gospel, Fractured Minds."
Just being honest: the writer above who suggested that Peter Wagner's problem might more specifically be theologians who disagree with him, made sense to me.
POSTSCRIPT: While Peter Wagner is tidying up terminology and titles, maybe he'll have time to take a glance at the multitude of pulpit ministers who have taken to calling themselves, Doctor.
Oh yes, I know, they slapped down a check and jumped through the hoops of some unaccredited diploma mill (I take no issue with the doctors of accredited institutions).
But, really, is this kind of thing necessary? Is it not somewhat of an embarrassment? Aren't the ones parading these ersatz doctorates of more concern than bona fide theologians like Hart, Williams, Grudem, Karkkainen, and Ervin, or legitimate scholars like Fee, Davids, Hurtado, Keener, and Witherington?
Oh yes, I know, they slapped down a check and jumped through the hoops of some unaccredited diploma mill (I take no issue with the doctors of accredited institutions).
But, really, is this kind of thing necessary? Is it not somewhat of an embarrassment? Aren't the ones parading these ersatz doctorates of more concern than bona fide theologians like Hart, Williams, Grudem, Karkkainen, and Ervin, or legitimate scholars like Fee, Davids, Hurtado, Keener, and Witherington?
Our best hope at coming to a proper-and united- understanding of scripture is to submit all our studies to the Holy Spirit. One of the reasons He has been given is to "lead us into all truth", and He is able to do so much better than any man (theologians included). Without the Holy Spirit guiding us, our studies of the scriptures can become an endless pursuit of knowledge without ever discovering how much life there is in the Word. Therefore, we should recognize someone's understanding of the scriptures by how much they are lead of the Holy Spirit instead of which, or how many, theologians have "verified" them. Anyone who has studied the scriptures but has not put them to work in life has limited their ability to come to a full and proper understanding of the life of the Word. If the unlearned disciples of Jesus' day could become well versed in the Word of God, then it is possible for anyone to do the same today no matter what their background is. Psalm 119;99 says, "I have more insight than all my teachers,for Your testimonies are my meditation".
# posted by : 4:30 AM
: 4:30 AM
What a covert way by C. Peter Wagner in an attempt to discredit, demean, and to 'de-authorize' the influence of the many Godly men who stand up for truth and accuracy of the scriptures. This isn't 'goodbye theologians', this is really 'goodbye enemies' of the New Apostolic Reformation.
If I read Peter correctly he does not want to do away with academia. He only wants to change the way we label it and its place of prestige in the body of Christ. We can liken the whole issue to the use of our computers. Who among us would want to do without them? We constantly consult them and have become completely dependent on them. However, They are just computers. They are tools. As any good craftsman, we should take care of them and we should always be on the cutting edge looking for the newest and most technologically advanced tools we can find. At the end of each day we can stand back and look at our computers and sigh with satisfaction and thankfulness for all the productivity they have allowed us. Then we turn the lights out and close the door to the shop
# posted by : 10:13 AM
: 10:13 AM
Isn't a theologian anyone who studies and talks to others about theology? Kind of like a teacher. Maybe a theologian, in the positive sense of the word, is a person, male or female (not to start another controversey ... (:>) who learns about God in order to teach and train others. The gift of teaching. Or, if you prefer, the office of teacher.
Maybe those who are actually relational as well as propositional can be called pastor-teacher ...
Phil Miglioratti
http://www.nppnblog.blgospot.com
Maybe those who are actually relational as well as propositional can be called pastor-teacher ...
Phil Miglioratti
http://www.nppnblog.blgospot.com
I just finished reading Goodbye Theologians, I am truley love the heady stuff that Theologians put out. But when I was dieing of a drug overdose and heading to hell, it was the very simple but complex prayer of a man who didn't want me to die that brought me back to life and my new life in Christ. Sometimes I like a littel foam on the top of my ice cold coke but if I don't feel like passing throught it to get the drink I just simply blow it off.
Thank you for the work that is done at the top but I still like the real thing, The Holy Spirit - Lord Jesus - My Father.
Rev James J. Zimmer
Thank you for the work that is done at the top but I still like the real thing, The Holy Spirit - Lord Jesus - My Father.
Rev James J. Zimmer
LET'S DO AWAY WITH ALL THE THEOLOGIANS AND ALL THOSE SO-CALLED 5-FOLD MINISTERS WHO ARE NOT INVOLVED IN LOCAL CHURCH LIFE!
It is in the context of the local congregation (in real time) that one can see the effects of his or her influence, thus bringing more purity to ministry. Making this a requirement would help create less of the distractions that far too often plague the American Church and all those she influences.
It is in the context of the local congregation (in real time) that one can see the effects of his or her influence, thus bringing more purity to ministry. Making this a requirement would help create less of the distractions that far too often plague the American Church and all those she influences.
LET'S DO AWAY WITH ALL THE THEOLOGIANS AND ALL THOSE SO-CALLED 5-FOLD MINISTERS WHO ARE NOT INVOLVED IN LOCAL CHURCH LIFE!
It is in the context of the local congregation (in real time) that one can see the effects of his or her influence, thus bringing more purity to ministry. Making this a requirement would help create less of the distractions that far too often plague the American Church and all those she influences.
It is in the context of the local congregation (in real time) that one can see the effects of his or her influence, thus bringing more purity to ministry. Making this a requirement would help create less of the distractions that far too often plague the American Church and all those she influences.
It seems to me that everybody is going to do what they believe is right, so why all the flap? The essence of our faith is to believe in the One the Father sent. This is not mental assent. It is an authentic relationship with a living and present Jesus. Let’s love one another, walk in intimacy with Jesus and go for it.
Why do we have to have permission givers in Christendom?
In the eyes of some people there will always be others who are wrong. I realize this will aggravate some religious scholars, “But Jesus said, Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side.” (Mark 9:39-40, NKJV)
Why do we have to have permission givers in Christendom?
In the eyes of some people there will always be others who are wrong. I realize this will aggravate some religious scholars, “But Jesus said, Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side.” (Mark 9:39-40, NKJV)
# posted by : 4:11 PM
: 4:11 PM
If you say any word of more than three syllables frequently enough in one sentence, paragraph, or essay, you, too, will grow tired of it.
"Theologian, theologian, theologian! Theo thinks theologically by the theathore!"
Okay, now that's out of my system...
Wagner's chief gripe is not really about theologians it's academicians who trouble him. Who cares whether "theology" is a word from the text of Holy Writ? What matters is that the task of thinking carefully about God does not belong to the province of PhDs.
We need more theologians preaching the word, more theologians studying their Bibles, more theologians experiencing and encountering the Divine. We need more good thinking about godly things, not less. If Wagner wants to call this theophily, or philotheism, or some other made-up word, fine. But leave the academicians to battle turf wars in their ivory towers and let's let God's people think.
God knows there's just not enough thinking going on now days.
We need all three of the following legs to stand upright: right-thinking (orthodoxy), right practice (orthopraxy), and right-feeling (orthopathy). Take one away and our faith is hobbled.
We wouldn't need schools of theology and academic enclaves of right-teaching arbited by the self-appointed guardians of truth if our pulpits and Sunday schools were doing their jobs.
Aye, there's the real problem.
Regards,
Rich
BlogRodent
"Theologian, theologian, theologian! Theo thinks theologically by the theathore!"
Okay, now that's out of my system...
Wagner's chief gripe is not really about theologians it's academicians who trouble him. Who cares whether "theology" is a word from the text of Holy Writ? What matters is that the task of thinking carefully about God does not belong to the province of PhDs.
We need more theologians preaching the word, more theologians studying their Bibles, more theologians experiencing and encountering the Divine. We need more good thinking about godly things, not less. If Wagner wants to call this theophily, or philotheism, or some other made-up word, fine. But leave the academicians to battle turf wars in their ivory towers and let's let God's people think.
God knows there's just not enough thinking going on now days.
We need all three of the following legs to stand upright: right-thinking (orthodoxy), right practice (orthopraxy), and right-feeling (orthopathy). Take one away and our faith is hobbled.
We wouldn't need schools of theology and academic enclaves of right-teaching arbited by the self-appointed guardians of truth if our pulpits and Sunday schools were doing their jobs.
Aye, there's the real problem.
Regards,
Rich
BlogRodent
I agree with Dr. Wagner, quite often we are adding titles and positions in the church that has not been biblically sanctioned. The apostle does operate as the one who brings order in the body while it is the teacher who explains the deep truths. The concept of theology and sound doctrine is fitting, but the making of new positions or titles to do what others have been assigned to do is not good. God has given us ministry gifts (or men as gifts)it is His church let's let Him rule.
# posted by : 9:12 AM
: 9:12 AM
I agree with Wagner 150%, theologains have had a tendency to never want to work with the Holy Spirit,and have for years halted the Spiritual Growth of the Body of Christ all over the world. Why must we have people who are respected and given position in the Church of God who are walking by the flesh and giving advises out of their carnal mind. Remember the lead Apostle James: " It seems good to us and the Holy Spirit that Gentiles be saved without having to circumsize, theologians are the morden Pharises and Saducise of our time.
# posted by : 5:18 PM
: 5:18 PM
That's a lot of rhetoric for what really is a simple answer. i see a Theologian as someone who uses his/her own intelligence to elevate 'self' as opposed to those who depend on and use the revelation knowledge brought by the Holy Spirit.
# posted by : 12:31 AM
: 12:31 AM
Honestly, I believe there is nothing wrong whith Theologians,I just rather them be availble to teach the word from a hermanutics stand point of view. Prophetess Lagarall Bates
# posted by : 12:41 PM
: 12:41 PM
Anyone else find it ironic that after all his blather about theologians being one of the biggest ills of the church, he still goes by "Doctor C. Peter Wagner?" He says that 'doctrine divides' and that's very true. It seperates truth and error.
-Jonah
-Jonah
We need theologians to help break down the riches of Scripture, so that the teachers can teach them to the average Christian. I don't see anyone else in the church quite doing what it is they do.
Having said that, the elitist attitudes towards everyone else needs to go. That isn't limited to theologians. You'll see it anywhere you have an institution of higher learning. Is that a reason now to do away with universities? No, of course not. It is a reminder that worldliness has corrupted all corners of the church, even academia, and that we are to be in the world, not of it.
Therefore, the elitist attitude has to stop. I wonder if Dr. Wagner's fellow professors had been humble, loving men that his attitude towards their profession might be different?
Having said that, the elitist attitudes towards everyone else needs to go. That isn't limited to theologians. You'll see it anywhere you have an institution of higher learning. Is that a reason now to do away with universities? No, of course not. It is a reminder that worldliness has corrupted all corners of the church, even academia, and that we are to be in the world, not of it.
Therefore, the elitist attitude has to stop. I wonder if Dr. Wagner's fellow professors had been humble, loving men that his attitude towards their profession might be different?
Regarding some of the comments the Editor made about this issue, "The result? You are probably the only leader in your movement who could have made this argument so effectively. Doesn't that concern you? Like every movement, the apostolic needs theologians--not to rule as ecclesiastical watchdogs, but to apply themselves to the disciplines of theology, biblical languages and church history to contribute to the teaching of the saints, so that they may effectively articulate their faith in the increasingly pluralistic environment of postmodern society."
We too often defer to the Theologians which I believe is a dangerous habit. God had the Bible written in simple language for every persons to read and discern His will. The present Apostolic movement, in my opinion, is God's idea of going back to the basics. If an issue needs clarification, then the Apostles (of a given area) can have a meeting, clarify the issues, and post their comments for other Apostles and Christians to read and discern.
As far as I am concerned 1 Corinthians 8:2says it all, "Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn't really know very much."
We too often defer to the Theologians which I believe is a dangerous habit. God had the Bible written in simple language for every persons to read and discern His will. The present Apostolic movement, in my opinion, is God's idea of going back to the basics. If an issue needs clarification, then the Apostles (of a given area) can have a meeting, clarify the issues, and post their comments for other Apostles and Christians to read and discern.
As far as I am concerned 1 Corinthians 8:2says it all, "Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn't really know very much."
# posted by : 6:58 PM
: 6:58 PM
I took every course that Peter Wagner taught at Fuller when I was there and volunteered for his office down the street, and I was heavily influenced by him and his wife, Doris. But Dr. Wagner seems to continue to marginalize himself from the greater Body of Christ. Perhaps instead, as he says, he is really ten years ahead of everyone else. I don't know.
But this issue is useless. First, it apparently comes from a wounded place in regard to the arrogance of his fellow theologians in the past. Second, a theologian is simply a synonym for a teacher, which is one of the five-fold offices.
Dr. Wagner seems to be doing that of which he accuses academia. He is splitting hairs and nit-picking terminology and semantics. No, the term "theologian" is not in the Bible. Neither is "Sunday School" or "church growth" or "strategic-level spiritual warfare."
But this issue is useless. First, it apparently comes from a wounded place in regard to the arrogance of his fellow theologians in the past. Second, a theologian is simply a synonym for a teacher, which is one of the five-fold offices.
Dr. Wagner seems to be doing that of which he accuses academia. He is splitting hairs and nit-picking terminology and semantics. No, the term "theologian" is not in the Bible. Neither is "Sunday School" or "church growth" or "strategic-level spiritual warfare."
The root of this issue can be sumed up with this statement "that we demostrate the power of God's Word then just know the power of God's Word." This is the shift the Body of Christ is facing and embarking on. We need theologians that know and demostrate the supernatural power of that which they study and teach.
# posted by : 5:57 AM
: 5:57 AM
i have disagreed with Dr. Wagner's views and teachings on some occasions. For instance, i don't believe there's enough solid scriptural evidence to back up his "Strategic Level Warfare" or so. But this time, I suggest let's take a 2nd look a what he's saying although being in Asia, we don't have any problem with the term. In the first place, here, anybody who calls himself a theologian has just invited ridicule. We define theologian as ones who make the simple complicated, the ones who are difficult to understand. so if you announce in church that 'our speaker today is a theologian" you'l have a problem because they are considred the ones who fly over your head. We call them the problem people - the ones who engage in useless and senseless debates while souls are perishing. They don't have that much of a reputation here in Asia. But I believe the best way to eliminate the term from our vocabulary is to emphasize as Dr Wagner was saying the 5-fold ministry gifts. If we keep on teaching and using those terms then the title "theologians" will just fade away and then die a natural death. In Asia we don't have the same nitpicking that you have in the USA. We don't have time for neat hermeneutical debates. In the remote areas where there are no doctors, believers just stand on Jesus' promise that you "lay your hands on the sick and they will be healed..." and when they do that, the sick gets healed. The dead are being raised to life, the lame walks, the blind sees. If these people engage in theological debates, the Holy Spirit might just fly away and the sick dies before they are done yet have not resolved any issue. Yes, I agree, let's get back to the biblical terms and do away with not-in-concordance terms like theologians. Having said that I guess it is also appropriate that we study the titles that are being used by this so called advocates of New Reformation of which Dr. Wagner is a foremost leader. For instance, Dr Wagner calls himself a apostle-teacher. I don't know if that is an accurate title. In one of his books he coined a title " horizontal apostle" - something that is also not in the concordance. I could not imagine in a general meeting of leaders in the early church, Paul would introduce himself as , "hi I am Paul of Tarsus, called to be a vertical apostle." Or the moderator would announce, "all the vertical apostles please take the 2nd row seats behind the vertical apostles; the 3rd row is reserved for the vertical prophets while behind them will sit please the horizontal prophets and for those who are not sure who they are, you can sit anywhere on the sides of the hall." What do you think?
# posted by : 10:37 AM
: 10:37 AM
Self-appointed men with self-appointed minstries who control thousands of people and rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars want to do away with "theologians". They've already pretty much done away with people studying theology, so why not? While Dr. Wagner has studied theology, he doesn't want others to do so. What about Church History? Instead of doing away with "theologians", how about having everyone involved in these self-created "minstries" do a couple semesters of historical theology and church history so they can learn to spot all the regurgitated heresies?
# posted by : 8:16 AM
: 8:16 AM
Of course we know this vision of theologians is not a new vision. In fact it has been happening since the beginning of time. In politics, leadership, education and very sadly, even the family. Yes, some people are more wise, more knowledgeable or simply more intelligent than others, but what excuse does that give you to look down on another? Was there not one before us who was even more intelligent, wise, knowledgeable and powerful? Was there not one who was complete in this world like we are not complete? Or do you simply not believe that? What did he do for others? I will borrow the term from Thomas Sowell, "The Vision of the Anointed". Let us not envision ourselves as THE anointed, THE keepers of the truth, dispersing it to the masses as we, the anointed, see fit. Let it never be! May we all serve each other with what we have and may that service be done in love, humbleness, mercy and sacrifice for each other.
# posted by : 6:13 AM
: 6:13 AM
I am grieved that a prominent Christian leader such as Dr. Wagner feels compelled to attack the profession of those who spend their lives studying the things of God. Why assume that the study of God causes spiritual aridity? Is it not the neglect of meditation on God's Word that results in such aridity? It seems that a leader of Dr. Wagner's influence would better spend his time exhorting Christians to mediate on the law of God day and night as the Psalmist did. And wouldn't it be more profitable to exhort busy pastors and missionaries to gladly and humbly consult those who have devoted themselves to the study of Scriptures?
Admittedly, some theologians, even as some apostles and teachers, may exalt their own positions, taking pride in their degrees. It is a reflection of fallen human nature. But the errors of some do not negate the contributions of the many who have offered so many years of their lives to the greatest of all possible studies: the study of God Himself.
Admittedly, some theologians, even as some apostles and teachers, may exalt their own positions, taking pride in their degrees. It is a reflection of fallen human nature. But the errors of some do not negate the contributions of the many who have offered so many years of their lives to the greatest of all possible studies: the study of God Himself.
Theologian brings to my mind the Nicolatans, those who overcome and suppress the laity (Jesus said He hates that!). I attend a simple house church where no one has even been to Bible college and there's no "them" and "us" status among the leadership. Is our "theology" sound" Don't know, don't really care. We love one another, we esteem the other higher than ourselves and we do the works of Jesus, healing the sick, raising the (spiritually) dead, etc. Our doctrine may not be "perfect" but the greatest is LOVE and we do that really well.
# posted by : 12:33 AM
: 12:33 AM
Blessings!
Eph 4:11 And (kai) HE (autos) gave (didomi)...
What Christ gave HE did not give to take back...
HE gave to provide a means to prepare for work and for edification...but also a means to put together what was disjointed...and what may be today disjointed (that is not our desire though it may be prevalent today)...so that every part supplies...every part...that means health! That means the Blood of Christ flows...a most awesome thing...Christ's Blood flowing...
The life is in the Blood...and there are Three that bear witness...the Water...the Blood...and the Spirit...they agree...
God did not give theologians for the purpose of Blood Flow...HE start by giving gifts...HE did give all believers the will to have a passion for the WORD of GOD...the Logos...(by the way…water also flowed from HIS side…not just the precious Blood)…
It's says clearly that the Apostles and Prophets are the foundation (the skeletal structure of the Body, and that Jesus HIMSELF is the Head...the Chief...the Cornerstone that sets the order and growth not only of the rest of the bodily foundation, but of the muscles and tendons and organs...all of them necessary to HEALTH...all of them)...
The parts of the Body of Christ have never been separate from the Body...Never...but the Apostle Paul points to disjointedness and a need for growth and an expectation for growth...mature growth...and not just one part of the body outgrowing another...so "big headed", "big mouthed", "big handed", "Big bellied" theologians make for a "monster"...not a healthy Body...the Bride that Jesus will present to HIMSELF healthy and grown up into Maturity...those theologians need the Blood flow and in which the Spirit of God will not separate Himself from…
Every joint supplying...
Supplying what? The Blood of Christ! So that the Body stays functional...no atrophy...healed...and sober to Abba Father, and HIS will...not just HIS will for times past in the earlier growth of the Body of Christ...but HIS will for the Body of Christ "Present Day"...ready for tomorrow’s growth pains…
Christ's physical body was disjointed on the Cross...not only for the individual...but for the Church...HIS Body...it was prophetic…
A healthy theologian is not a gift given by Christ at HIS ascension...though they maybe an asset to the Body of Christ…(I don't like the word as it's used today either...and maybe "healthy" should not have been used in conjunction with "theologian"...most who call themselves theologians, the ones I know at least personally, dine on Twinkies...smiles...and don't eat their vegetables like their more wise mommies told them to…my wife and I personally like “little Debbie” cupcakes cold from the frig)...
Jesus explained the scriptures as a young child...or as pointed out...some time around His Bar Mitzvah...and the teachers and lawmakers of that day were astonished...and it seems...some still rebelled...and some are still astonished today…
Thanks Peter! Love you brother!
Dr. D L Brooks, Marbologist
Mohave Valley Ministries
Mohave Valley, AZ
Eph 4:11 And (kai) HE (autos) gave (didomi)...
What Christ gave HE did not give to take back...
HE gave to provide a means to prepare for work and for edification...but also a means to put together what was disjointed...and what may be today disjointed (that is not our desire though it may be prevalent today)...so that every part supplies...every part...that means health! That means the Blood of Christ flows...a most awesome thing...Christ's Blood flowing...
The life is in the Blood...and there are Three that bear witness...the Water...the Blood...and the Spirit...they agree...
God did not give theologians for the purpose of Blood Flow...HE start by giving gifts...HE did give all believers the will to have a passion for the WORD of GOD...the Logos...(by the way…water also flowed from HIS side…not just the precious Blood)…
It's says clearly that the Apostles and Prophets are the foundation (the skeletal structure of the Body, and that Jesus HIMSELF is the Head...the Chief...the Cornerstone that sets the order and growth not only of the rest of the bodily foundation, but of the muscles and tendons and organs...all of them necessary to HEALTH...all of them)...
The parts of the Body of Christ have never been separate from the Body...Never...but the Apostle Paul points to disjointedness and a need for growth and an expectation for growth...mature growth...and not just one part of the body outgrowing another...so "big headed", "big mouthed", "big handed", "Big bellied" theologians make for a "monster"...not a healthy Body...the Bride that Jesus will present to HIMSELF healthy and grown up into Maturity...those theologians need the Blood flow and in which the Spirit of God will not separate Himself from…
Every joint supplying...
Supplying what? The Blood of Christ! So that the Body stays functional...no atrophy...healed...and sober to Abba Father, and HIS will...not just HIS will for times past in the earlier growth of the Body of Christ...but HIS will for the Body of Christ "Present Day"...ready for tomorrow’s growth pains…
Christ's physical body was disjointed on the Cross...not only for the individual...but for the Church...HIS Body...it was prophetic…
A healthy theologian is not a gift given by Christ at HIS ascension...though they maybe an asset to the Body of Christ…(I don't like the word as it's used today either...and maybe "healthy" should not have been used in conjunction with "theologian"...most who call themselves theologians, the ones I know at least personally, dine on Twinkies...smiles...and don't eat their vegetables like their more wise mommies told them to…my wife and I personally like “little Debbie” cupcakes cold from the frig)...
Jesus explained the scriptures as a young child...or as pointed out...some time around His Bar Mitzvah...and the teachers and lawmakers of that day were astonished...and it seems...some still rebelled...and some are still astonished today…
Thanks Peter! Love you brother!
Dr. D L Brooks, Marbologist
Mohave Valley Ministries
Mohave Valley, AZ
# posted by : 5:19 PM
: 5:19 PM
I have always been under the impression that one of the criteria for being an "apostle" in the first place was in fact seeing the risen Christ.
The Apostle Paul is the classic example.
Before his meeting Jesus on the Damascus Road, there is no record of Saul ever seeing Jesus during His ministry.
Paul was also the greatest theologian of the early church, and his teachings were approved by none other than the Apostle Peter himself.
If C. Peter. Wagner has not met this criterion, then it is perhaps no small wonder that he apparently wishes to do away with "the old wineskins" and apparently invent a new theology.
A theology where the definitive word of scripture can be molded by what is expedient rather than by the plain teachings of the Bible.
One does not need to have a degree in order to be a theologian, one needs only be a diligent and faithful student of the Word of God.
We do well the commendation given to the Bereans in Acts 17:11.
They studied the scriptures to verify what they had been taught.
That practice is as valid today, if not more so, than it was almost 2,000 years ago.
The Apostle Paul is the classic example.
Before his meeting Jesus on the Damascus Road, there is no record of Saul ever seeing Jesus during His ministry.
Paul was also the greatest theologian of the early church, and his teachings were approved by none other than the Apostle Peter himself.
If C. Peter. Wagner has not met this criterion, then it is perhaps no small wonder that he apparently wishes to do away with "the old wineskins" and apparently invent a new theology.
A theology where the definitive word of scripture can be molded by what is expedient rather than by the plain teachings of the Bible.
One does not need to have a degree in order to be a theologian, one needs only be a diligent and faithful student of the Word of God.
We do well the commendation given to the Bereans in Acts 17:11.
They studied the scriptures to verify what they had been taught.
That practice is as valid today, if not more so, than it was almost 2,000 years ago.
# posted by : 5:36 PM
: 5:36 PM
Much of what Peter Wagner says concerns the title of "theologian." Yet I though it was interesting that he fancied himself as an expert on the government of the Church. I'm surprised that everyone assumes that the 5-fold ministry in Eph 4 is a list of those tasked with the government of the Church. And yet, when Paul and Peter talk about the "leaders" of the Church in the letters to Timothy, Titus, and the dispersed (1 and 2 Peter), they talk about "Overseers" "elders" and "Deacons"- no mention of the 5-fold offices. It seems to me if Paul and Peter intended the leaders of the Church to be Apostles, prophets and the like, they would have identified those offices in those letters! So, if Peter Wagner is a Church government expert, why doesn't he identify himself with the titles that Paul and Peter used?
# posted by : 5:16 PM
: 5:16 PM
This is some kind of joke, right? There are people all about us who have not heard the gospel and the best thing that we can come up with to write about and debate is, “What name do we assign to people who instruct us on God’s Word?” Get a life! How tragic it is that someone who claims to hold the same office as the apostles Peter and Paul would so universally malign a whole block of God’s children. I don’t have four graduate degrees, but with God’s wisdom I know that something’s wrong with that picture. Knowing the personality of Jesus Christ, I can only assume that he has no concern for the title given a position. As a matter of fact, he tells us in Matthew 23:8-12 not to even assign names of stature to ourselves, but rather to serve in humility. Give me more of Jesus and less acclaim and I will be a blessed man! May all glory go to God and not an ounce toward increasing my status, stature, title or notoriety. Surely the time Peter spent drafting this article and the time that we have all spent reading it and the responses, could have been utilized far more effectively, had it been devoted to prayer or service. I indict myself, as well.