The problem with some higher learning is their answering of real
questions or responding to real issues, but with little regard for human history or Biblical truth and disregard for facts.

Secondly you cannot CANNOT properly interpret, apply, or teach the Word of God simply out of personal circumstances or history, or even out of strongly held idealogies.

If there is to be life change, or Godly impact on future generations, churches and leaders must:
-start standing up for Biblical truthes in the public discussions, e.g. values, education, medical research, abortion, etc...
-stop playing defense all of the time; we not only aren's ahamed of the gospel, we believe it is the only way to redeem God's creation, everything else is a bandaid
-stop waiting on government to solve probles like poverty or hunger
-quit whining about how difficult and overwhelming all of these social evils are or finding someone to blame for them and find out where we can make a difference and get busy doing it.

We need to talk about what is right, but we need to do what is right for it to be effectual and impacting to those who follow.

 

Maybe the fault lies in our sense of calling. We try to fit it into static norms (preacher, youth minister, teacher, Para-church leader, etc.). When the static norm of being a youth pastor collides with the educational world might it be a loss of the ideal of a formed calling into that of a dynamic or specific calling. You might say what does being a youth pastor have to do with a critical understanding of Luther’s view on communion. But you may also say what does being a youth pastor today have to do with the experiences you had years ago. So maybe the call to be a youth pastor is to general or to normative maybe the ideals of the specific call need to be in place before the view your supporting and educationalism can work together.

Those without educationalsim are inflicted with the antithesis of it, they quote others like themselves, others who didn’t receive job training, and they preach the sermons of pastors with larger congregations because they cannot write their own. A balance is necessary for any level of success.

 

Oh the "b" word...balance. How do we find it? How do I find it.

I fear I am definately an "educationalism" proselyte. May I never forget my true calling, my first love, and my purpose. It's a constant battle for most of us who wish to pursue higher studies.

Want to read a gem that I had never heard of and really has helped me through my "elitist" garbage? Check out Helmut Thielicke's-- A Little Exercise for Young Theologians. Eerdsmans Publishing: Grand Rapids, 1962.

 

While knowledge does have many practical uses, knowledge can also be an end in and of itself. "Philosophy" means "love of knowledge."
For example, studying the Big Bang has zero relevance for our future, but people still want to know what happened.
And education is more than simply pursuing knowledge; it's ensuring the continuity of human ideas, culture, and civilization. Those socieities that place a great value on education tend to survive and thrive through the ages, while societies that ignore it do so at their own peril.
How many Chinese factory workers put the knowledge they learned in public school to use? I'd guess very few. But the Chinese educational system teaches young chinese students to work hard, focus, and get things right - skills that make the Chinese labor force the envy of the world. That, more than any specific knowledge imparted, is the value of an educational system.
However, I'm hardly qualified to talk about the value of education with regards to religion. On that, D.M. must have the final word. :-)

 

I think you have too broadly generalized this "disease" you label as "educationalism." The irony is that while you critique those who may develop a sense of superiority due to their education, you portray your own sense of superiority at having this epiphany that others, according to you, apparently have not.

There is not necessarily a bifurcation between "idealism" and "realism." High-minded ideals may seem incredible unrealistic (and often are) but if we reject idealism because of its lack of pragmatism, then we ought to reject the Gospel in its entirety. For truly, the story, call, and demands of the Gospel are anything but realistic.

By quoting the intellectual "giants" who have gone on before (Barth, Tertullian, Bonhoeffer, Lewis, Calvin, Wesley, Bounds, Athanasius) one acknowledges that they are a very small part of the universal Church, and that by dialoguing with these great minds one not only is better informed and able to equip and lead others, but one also acknowledges the reality of the expansive nature of the Church that is not bound by time. To ignore these persons would be to ignore the catholicity of the Church and to myopically suppose that "we" are completely adequate on our own apart from their input.

You say: "What they do not know, or cannot admit, is that for every true leader they influence they raise up fifty more like themselves who cannot do and only teach- thus the system begets itself, professors of seminaries begetting professors of seminaries instead of church pastors."

This is simply arrogant and an unecessary ad hominem upon those who fit vocationally in the academy. Not all are called vocationally to serve by what you are calling action. Some are called to serve in ways you apparently see as "inactive". Apparently Paul was unwise to declare that, "It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers." (Ephesians 4:11)

Your general point is needed: do not let knowledge become the end. Knowledge ought always to be sought for the benefit of the Church, and for others in general. But your method of proving this point is anything but solid. You must be careful to not assume that if someone is called to serve in the academy that they are not "one of action, leadership, integrity, and strength."

I think your view of service to humanity and what is of true value needs to be broadened.

 

I would like to thank you for marginalizing yourself and proving my point far better than I ever could have.

 

Devin,

I thank you for your post. We have failed in education if we have not fostered and developed a love for the local church and a passion to reach the "least, the last and the lost." We have failed in educational institutions if we have fostered the idea that education is an end "in and of itself" and not a "means to an end."

God help us.

Chris Bounds

 

Devin,

I think you have some good points. I have always felt that before I go back for more schooling I need to put to use what I've learned. It doesn't mean as much and you can't keep it all in perspective if you aren't actually living in ministry.

However, if we can continue to learn more about how to effectively evangelize as we get older (via books, seminary, etc) then we can manage to keep our education in check with our actual ministry.

It's pretty simple, just apply what you learn to something REAL. If all that we learn is only used for theological discussions and blog posts then we've done nothing!