The church in America is led by scholars. Essentially, the church is a robust school system created around a framework of lectures and discussions and study. We assume this is the way its supposed to be because this is all we have ever known. I think the scholars have done a good job, but they’ve also recreated the church in their own image. Churches are essentially schools. They look like schools with lecture halls, classrooms, cafeterias and each new church program is basically a teaching program.
The first disciples were not teachers, they were fishermen, tax collectors and at least one was a Zealot. We don’t know the occupation of the others, but Jesus did not charge educators with the great commission, he chose laborers. And those laborers took the gospel and created Christian communities that worked, that did things and met in homes and were active. They made speeches, for sure, but so do businessmen and politicians and leaders in any number of other professions. Educators make speeches and do little else, except study for their next lecture. I wonder what the first disciples would think if they could see our system of schools, our million lectures, our billion sub lectures, our curriculums and our lesson plans. I think they’d be impressed, to be honest, but I also think they’d recognize a downside.
Church divisions are almost exclusively academic divisions. The reason I don’t understand my Lutheran neighbor is because a couple academics got into a fight hundreds of years ago. And the rest of the church followed them because, well, they were our leaders. So now we are divided under divisions caused by arguments a laboring leadership might never have noticed of cared about. Practitioners care about what works, what gets things done. They have to agree because there are projects on the line. Educators don’t have to agree at all. They can fight and debate and write papers against each other because, well, the product they are churning out is just thought, not action.
So why are we led by teachers? After all, the church and the school system are the only institutions in our culture led purely by academics. Well, the reason is the printing press. The government once controlled the church, but that ended when the printing press was invented and people could read the Bible for themselves. And the scholars were the only people who could read, so they got the job of church leadership by default. So church leadership went from fishermen, to government workers, to scholars. I wonder who’s next? I’ve got money on music executives, if only because they’re all looking for work.
Because we’ve been led by scholars for so long, we have slightly distorted ideas about Christian discipleship. If you want to grow in Christ, you should study more. Christian growth, then, is an academic path. And like educators, we only advance to become higher level educators. The point of learning is always teaching which produces further learning and then more teaching. The only difference between the church and another educational institution is that nobody ever graduates from the church. We just keep going to school.
But if normal people like you lead the church, won’t the church be read by heretics? Yes, and it already is.
In the great commission, Jesus graduated his first group of students. He pushed them into the world and said, you don’t know everything, but you know enough. You’ll have a guide and that guide will be with you always. Go and teach the world to obey my commands. Because they were fishermen and tax gatherers, they went and did it. Did Jesus teach them for three years? Yes, he taught them by doing, in action, with people, by touching stuff, not by taking over a school and recruiting educators. I wonder what they would have done if they had been professional scholars? My guess is they would have talked the command into a tailspin, dissected it into a million pieces, then divided themselves into different intellectual camps, and built a bunch of schools to teach their various interpretations.
So maybe if you’re a doctor or a plumber or a carpenter, you should lead the church. Maybe the church needs some of you who don’t write and speak and teach for a living to step up and put some action to our faith. I wonder what your churches would look like? Maybe you could meet in homes, appoint some elders, pray for each other, read the Bible to each other, and then just serve your communities and each other in love. Maybe you wouldn’t need a classroom at all. Go ahead, lead. You’re qualified. You’ll have a guide. You’ve graduated.
* Whenever I write a post like this I encounter dualism, people who think I’m saying if Jesus didn’t choose educators than Bible College is wrong. We really have to stop thinking in either/or. There is no path, there is only a guide. There are a million right ways to be the church.
* Let me ask you this: Aren’t you a little tired of scholars and psudo-scholars fighting about doctrine? Is it worth it that you are divided against other denominations because scholars picked up their ball and stomped off the playground? If you are tired, then be the church. I’m not kidding, you don’t know everything but you know enough. Be the church and be united. Let the academics go to an island and fight about the things that matter to them, and we will be united based on the things that matter to us.
Teachers, scholars, brilliant, not so brilliant…just as long as they hand over Christ for the forgiveness of sins and stay off the ‘Christian progression’ track.
Thanks.
Don,
The protestant reformation was purely academic? The issues had no “practical significance,” for the ordinary believer? Seriously?
Ross,
He was referring to the split within Protestant, Lutheran theology… not the Reformation.
[...] don’t think that Don Miller’s controversial post about eggheads really clicked for me until I read Micah Bales’ post on embodied tradition. They’re [...]
Donald Miller’s post reminds me of folks who say that you don’t need any education at all to teach or preach from the Bible, given that the apostles didn’t go to seminary. That’s true. They didn’t. The disciples, however, had attributes that no one living today naturally has.
1. They could speak in at least two and possibly more languages, including Greek, Aramaic, and perhaps Hebrew and a little Latin. How many ancient languages do you know?
2. They were total experts at the cultural and social values of the Greco-Roman world and the Judaism that they lived in. How much do you know about the world in which the NT authors and their audiences lived? Epaphras could say more about the church in Colossae and about daily life in Colossae than any academic ever has or ever will be able to say.
3. They understood what Judaism taught and were more than a little knowledgeable in the Scriptures of Israel. Can you just quote a text from Isaiah that is applicable to a Christian topic?
Those are only three of the things that these laborers knew. No one in our day can hold a candle to what they knew by heart, with little or no training. Until you can go toe to toe with Paul on biblical interpretation in both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint, speak and read fluently in first-century Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew, and talk at length about all the cultural and social issues behind what we find in the NT documents, you need to study–hard. It is unrealistic to say they were laborers, not scholars, because today scholars have to study to know 10% of what they knew because they lived it. Those fishermen knew Aramaic better than any living person today does. How do you propose to understand the Bible without any study?? Oh, I forgot. Emergent folk don’t care about the Bible. They just want relationships.
Bob
Actually, Bob, the book of Acts records the surprise the Jews felt as they listened to John and Peter because they were “uneducated” men. What they had was the Holy Spirit.
You’re right Don, but I think you’re overlooking his point. They WERE uneducated, but an uneducated disciple in their time is not necessarily equal to an uneducated follower today. There is a significant amount of knowledge relevant to the story of Christ’s time on Earth and his teachings that was almost a part of their collective unconsciousness but which would take some study for us to understand.
Still though, your point is valid. I think a lot of times knowledge can become an idol and become the focus of our lives, and our churches certainly reflect that at times. You do NOT have to be some astute biblical scholar to win people to Christ; that’s all the Holy Spirit
. But what knowledge can do for you, I think, is strengthen your personal relationship with Christ, which is absolutely a worthwhile pursuit.
Cheers,
Chris
Bob, While I suspect I share many of your theological convictions (and think that you make some good, solid point here) I gotta say we should watch our manner and tone brother. A few reasons:
a)people we seek to challenge will prob find it difficult to actually hear what we say if we say it with agression.
b) How we say stuff is just as important as what we say. If we don’t have love arn’t we just noisy symbols making it difficult for outsiders to discern that we follow Jesus? Also it’s an indication of how much our knowledge of the word has pierced our hearts.
c)People will make their minds up about what Jesus is like based on how we act.
Don’s wider point about how Christianity can actually be rather academic is not only fair but also interesting and worth thinking about. I don’t think I’d come to all the conclusions he does (or perhaps those that ppl who refer to themselves as emergent might) – because as you say we live in a differen time and we need scholars to help us be rigorously careful – but they need us to be reminded following Christ isn’t spiritualized academia… it actually is a relationship.
I’d have thought all evangelicals want to be interested in a relationship with God. I guess we’d simply stress that the quality of our relationship with God will be better if we know Him better… and yes that is hard in this life – but our hope is face to face with Him one day. That’s gonna be great
As for the disciples being educated or not… I wonder if Mark Driscol is a good example to compare characters with – he’s a gifted preacher who isn’t super academic – he’s just a working bloke who’s gifted at preaching… Educated guys like Piper and Carson, I guess, would echo Paul’s more educated style and character.
Well that’s my 2 cents anyway!!
should have left my full name sorry!!
Bob, there is a lot of validity to your response, though you were a bit pompous. However, Don is right in the fact that we are going about church the wrong way. The Apostles learned by doing. But in the church today, we expect people to become like Christ by sitting in a worship service on Sunday morning, going through a 101, 201, 301, and 401 class, sitting in a Sunday school class, and sitting in a small group study. We have stopped “going” anywhere. We rarely “do” anything. We just learn and learn and learn, and our mind’s grow a little but our hearts remain unchanged.
I am a minister to students, and I do have to dig in to Scripture some to explain certain things to these teenagers, but what they learn, and what they remember comes not from what they hear on Sunday mornings or Sunday nights. They change and grow every time we serve, whenever we act out the love of God in our communities, feeding the poor, clothing the naked, visiting the elderly, whatever. You don’t need a Bible college degree (though I’m still paying for mine), or a knowledge of every Biblical language, or even an IQ over 100, to understand Christ’s call to love God and love people. To spread the Good News by living out the Gospel here and there, and everywhere.
Like Don has stated, you just need the Holy Spirit. Jesus said to his disciples that it was good he was leaving them, because he would send us His Spirit. We can experience God the same way they did. We just have to get out of the classroom and onto the streets, into the world, and live out the freaking Gospel the way God intended us to!
Oh, I forgot. Scholarly folk don’t care about people. They just want to debate in the blogosphere.
Perhaps a little balance to some valid observations: Arguable, the two churches with the greatest impact in Acts were in Jerusalem and Ephesus. The Jerusalem church devoted themselves to the apostles teaching (Acts 2:42). The apostles taught daily in the temple courts and from house to house (Acts 5:42).
Paul spoke boldly in the synagogue in Ephesus for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom (Acts 19:8) and then for two years had daily discussions in the lecture hall of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9, 10). Paul says he taught them thoroughly in public and from house to house (Acts 20:20, 27.)
I suggest that it would be accurate to say public and private teaching were a core part of the early church, but not the only vital element of church life.
I’m also hoping our church can look more like what I understand the church in Acts to be.
Bob, what you are saying is somewhat true. However, let me point out that Paul was a very educated man, the disciple of a famous rabbi, a man who knew the law as well as any man alive, and then cried out for grace, so Paul is not your best example. Of course those men, we would probably consider them boys today, of course they knew those things because they were immersed in those things, but the study of the Bible is more than a history lesson, more than ancient language class. Its about God, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it IS understandable to “uneducated” people. The message is simple. I guess this makes me an “Emergent” person, but it IS about a relationship with God. That book has no saving power of itself, it is simply the compass that points to God.
Yes, I know, heresy in the eyes of some.
Heresy that the book has no saving power in itself? Whoever finds that heresy doesn’t in fact know the scripture. The Bible points us to Christ and His saving work, it does not point to itself. Jesus said to the Pharisees that they studied the scriptures because they thought that would give them life. But the scriptures pointed to Him and they refused to come to Him to have life.
Don’s point is so on target that people who don’t get this are in fact the modern day Pharisees. I have been one of them, so I know. Jesus calls us to make disciples, but today we see disciples are “learners” in the sense of sitting down and learning a text. That isn’t what it meant. A disciple is a student in the sense of being an apprentice. An apprentice learns to do everyhting the teacher does ,ostly by doing it, not by reading about it, although obviously that has value or the Lord would not have left us a book that is “useful for teaching…so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” It says useful, not solely adequate. Thanks, Don, for putting out an important idea that we must wrestle to implement as the church.
Scholars and scholarship are important today simply because the church is being destroyed by men and women who take scripture out of context and form pseudo-cults from them. Unfortunately, scholars often do the same thing in the name of scholarship. I’m not sure if there is a real answer.
Absolutely love this, particularly in relation to where my prayers and future are at at the moment. Always good to think about and question why we do things the way we do them. Thanks Don.
I already know that the scholarly – and especially the reformed – crowd gives no quarter to the full power of the Holy Spirit. What about you Don? In saying they had the Spirit are you also willing to embrace its power as well? Or are you no different than those who deny its power and only allow a form of godliness. Are you in that same ‘this far and no farther’ crowd – just this much Holy Spirit and no more crowd? And I’m talking full on gifts of the Spirit and all that comes with Him as laid out in Acts and Corinthians.
[...] of course, I find much to like in his new post, “Should The Church Be Led By Teachers And Scholars?”. It’s caused a bit of a stir since it was posted a week ago… he’s got about 450 [...]
I’m tail end charlie on this comment thread, so it will probably not be read…however, *deep breath* Jesus sent them out to make disciples. Not converts. There is a difference. Discipleship is an “I – thou” personal relationship – like the one Jesus had with his bewildered band of followers. Discipleship means that you talk, and you listen. You laugh and cry together. It means when there is trouble you roll up your sleeves and dig in. You grieve together. Expressing doubts is OK. And change occurs, on both sides.
Somewhere along the line the church fell back into going for converts. Probably because it is too easy. You preach and teach, they say, yes, thats it. But you don’t get down in the blood and the mud and when doubts or trouble comes, the doubter and the troubles get written off. Its easy to be a scholar parsing texts when you are teaching converts. To enter into discipleship, you have to get down off the podium, and be a part of, not one step removed from. The knowledge is powerful. Ignorance is not necessarily good. But its the nature of the relationship that makes the difference. And ironically, the rejoicing of being able to read the Bible ourselves due to the printing press, has a little wrinkle. No longer, we say, must we rely on the interpretation of the priests. Well, we’re still relying on the interpretation of the scholars. The Bible was written in Greek, Chaldean, Hebrew and Aramaic. How many of us read these languages? Five minutes with a comprehensive multiple original language concordance will immediately show problems in terms of translation. We]re still one step removed, being told what to believe, filtering through translation. Thanks for the blog. I agree with you!
[...] Doug on April 16, 2011 Share Tweet Recently a blog post came out by Donald Miller (which you can read here) about some of his reflections on the detriments of the church being primarily led by scholar [...]
The church and religion is best when run by Poets, Story tellers and Artists letting academics and scientists take over religion was the on of the worst things that the church did. the Bible is first a book of story and poetry it is not a history book or fact book and was never meant to be.
Dear Friends,
(And brothers, sisters in our dear Lord Jesus Christ, Don — don’t know if you read these but to you as well,)
At the age of 53 I have been here a while. Yes, a life long “Lutheran”. What I see is God breaking into the world once again with His amazing grace to seek and to save the lost.
I am a teacher. As I write this I think of my dear sisters who will be in my class tomorrow morning as we read through the Bible together — now in Ezekiel. Thank you for discussing whether we are serving our Lord or not. My father, a German heart to the core, spoke to me with passion through his actions. He & my mother worked hard to send us through Lutheran schools, not so we would be “pharrisitical” but so that we would have the “Words of life”.
My father & mother taught me to seek God in every situation, that the words of the Bible spoke to each moment of my life. Both of them only had 8th grade educations. Scholars in this world’s eyes no, but they raised children who loved the Lord and know the Words of Scripture. Both were hard, blue collar workers, but I must tell you my father loved the church, and he was the one who encouraged me to go to a “Lutheran” college.
I follow the Lord, not a church, but I am also a teacher and I love the women whom I teach.
Let’s not throw out what we can “share” with one another. I know I am not above my students and I know the Spirit of God works through them.
I say all this just so that as Christians we all realize God has given all of us a job to do and we need to be faithful and do it. As we read 2 Corinthians 12 we know each of us have a calling.
Yes, teachers are mentioned but many others are as well, BUT I WILL SEEK THE GREATER CALLING AND THAT IS TO LOVE!!!!!!!
May God inspire us all to do that as well.
My brothers and sisters in Christ, LOVE for HIM!
Peace always,
Mary
Very interesting and thought provoking. I believe that we need a healthy mix of all of it – scholars, educators, tradesmen, laborers, etc – to be a vibrant, relevant, healthy Church (with a capital ‘C’). Those early disciples WERE the early “scholars and academics” by default because they “studied” under Jesus himself. I think becoming a Church leader sort of automatically pushes you to study more because you develop the desire to learn more about Him, His Word, and His Will. It’s difficult I think to be a believer and be a leader while remaining ignorant or stagnant in your fatih. This includes intellectual and spiritual growth. The Bible says my people persih from lack of knowledge not lack of spirit!
As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is a good shepherd in the eye of the lamb. If the shepherd leads into green pastures the lamb will thrive and appreciate the shepherd. I think it’s possible to take a bum off the street and if there is a natural talent to nurture, in short time that one could be “equipped” to lead a small flock. The natural talent of that one would naturally (or in this context spiritually) grow to accomodate the needs of the flock i.e. education, consecration, preparation. But I believe the flock is the only one that ultimately gives credence to the calling of the shepherd. “My sheep hear my voice.” John 10:27. We sheep need to be cautious, I think of the livestock these days that are unnaturally fed corn instead of grass these days (they have no choice). In my opinion there is a great deal of proof that many Christians are not being led into green pastures. We do have a choice. How does what your fed sit with you? Does it empower you to love your enemy or nuke’em?
Wow. You unleashed a . . . something! I’ve been mulling this over since you posted it, and in the meantime 400+ comments have appeared. I’m not going to imagine I’m saying anything that hasn’t been said already, but this is what I’ve been thinking:
First of all, the timing of this was interesting, because I think you posted it the day after I returned from a weekend at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary where I finally felt some confirmation that I’m to go study (after a year of dabbling with some of their classes online). I incline toward the less institutional form of things by conscious preference, but I think I’m actually designed to learn via books a lot. I think your observations are worth making, but I guess I’m not convinced that the problem is necessarily studying or teaching or preaching, but whether or not those students or teachers or preachers are really disciples. And I think that goes across the board with any vocation. The agnostic friends with whom I have theological discussions would probably be less inclined to listen to my points of view if I didn’t have some study and reading behind them, as they have for theirs.
Also, I kind of found this post ironic (if that’s what “irony” means–I’ve been told I don’t know) since you, who make your living writing books and blogs and speaking to people are the one who wrote it . . .
ALSO, I just got done reading a book about mission (for one of my classes) where the author suggested that seminaries should really only admit people who ALREADY have ministry/life experience under their belts, to give them a greater assurance of investing in truly spiritually gifted leaders–people who have a vocation instead of just a profession. I don’t know if that lines up more closely with what you’re thinking, while allowing a valid place for intellectual study as well. Anyway, it made a lot of sense to me.
[...] Miller asks on his blog “Should the Church be led by Teachers and Scholars“? He opens with these succinct observations: The church in America is led by scholars. [...]
I am so thankful for Don’s writing ministry and for his openness to throw his thoughts out there and allow us in on the conversation. I just wrote a book on cynicism that addresses “anti-intellectualism” in the church, so this particular past has caught my attention. I disagree with the underlying concerns, but I disagree with many of the claims. If anyone is interested, you can check out my blog post here: http://abyers.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/donald-miller-the-church-in-america-is-led-by-scholars-or-is-it-big-name-personalities-part-1/
I am so thankful for Don’s writing and for his openness to throw his thoughts out there and allow us in on the conversation. I just wrote a book on cynicism that addresses “anti-intellectualism” in the church, so this particular post has caught my attention. I agree with the underlying concerns, but I disagree with many of the claims. If anyone is interested, you can check out my blog post here: http://abyers.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/donald-miller-the-church-in-america-is-led-by-scholars-or-is-it-big-name-personalities-part-1/
[...] Miller explores this issue a bit in a recent blog: http://donmilleris.com/2011/04/05/ GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); [...]
Hi Don!
This post has made me think and I love to think! I totally agree that everyone should have a part in leading the church. I went to seminary (not ordained, however) and I would cringe in one particular class when my professor talked OVER our heads. I can’t imagine him ever being part of a funeral service or high school mission trip.
But I did learn something in seminary: there are a lot of people in the church who do quite a bit of damage to others when they don’t “know” enough. They may or may not be educated in the ways of scholarly research but they take their distorted belief about grace, love, forgiveness, compassion, etc. and create a stumbling block for those who are seeking. Learning about god in a school helped me understand that church is NOT a school, but a living creation. I think it’s the leaders that don’t realize once you leave campus, you’re coming down from the mountain and back to the real world. I think education is important in the sense that without it, you have the potential of leading others from the way jesus intended.
Perhaps it’s organized chaos? I’ll keep doing my best to encourage all to live out their spiritual gifts, no matter what their “education” may be!
Katie
PS- My sem was pretty kick butt:) well, other than that one guy…yikes.
This is a great post. I am a teacher by profession and I still love it. I have a degree from Bible College and I still love it. I have often wondered why we sit every week and listen to a guy talk to us about the bible for 20-60 minutes. It’s really a weird phenomenon.
Thanks for the thoughts.
[...] a recent piece posted on his blog, Donald Miller wrote the following cris de coeur on the scholarly nature of the American pastorate: [...]
It is always difficult to fight the swinging of extremes. I think we really are feeling this in this area. I am not sure yet if a fully agree but I am thinking. My fear is this…
I am a 23 yr. old newly wed. My spiritual journey has been one of both sides of the extreme. I find it difficult to be around the “knowledge is ultimate” guy who annoys the crap out of me becasue he has so much knowledge and not enough heart to apply it. (I can be this guy). Yet at the same time the dude who just “loves people” but cant actually help anyone because he does not know anything annoys me as well.
There have been times in my life where un-trained people could not help me work through big questions. “Jesus loves you” did not sink in. It is a “paradox” just made me angry because he couldnt tell me how the paradox works on either side. My wife was sexually abused in high school…..without training in Biblical counseling or knowledge of theories of atonement and that Christ is “expiation” for shame…..how could I help my wife.
Long story short. Yes. Absolutely yes….and Careful. Lets not swing too far over. Both are important. God will equip us with what we need but that does not mean dont work at it and sharpen the instrument.
Hey Don,
a very Provocative post. But don’t we want people who can think carefully and deeply about theology and isnt the best way to get people like this is to get them to study in depth for a period of time?
Also maybe the church is led by people with PhDs because they are great pastor/preachers?
Also about doctrine. Why shouldn’t we divide on matters of eternal security? Granted a lot of churches divide over smaller issues but it seems to me you are talking about not dividing over anything
[...] a recent piece posted on his blog, Donald Miller wrote the following cris de coeur on the scholarly nature of the American pastorate: [...]
It may be somewhat accurate to suggest that the church is now being lead (or mislead in some cases) by the Christian “celebrities” that seem to have dramatically increased in our culture over the last couple of decades.
Just like our Hollywood celebrities, these people lead and educate many. And many of them have no business doing so… also like our Hollywood celebs!
Donald,
Love your writing. Seriously. Every book. Love it. I have a small push back to your last statement though. Nothing harsh, just something to ponder on.
The last comment on the academics fighting and the rest who are left to form a united body is pretty idealistic. The problem is, when the academics go to the island, and the people are ‘united based on the things that matter to *them’ they’ll soon discover that they don’t agree on everything and then will begin the conversation of “doctrine” or the system of beliefs which they hold. Then they’ll be the ones fighting.
Also, Four of the six major spiritual gifts involve academics. Apostleship, Leading, Preaching, Teaching. Without academics and doctrine we get watered down truth that can lead to a false gospel.
We need doctrine. We need academics. If both of those are done in the Spirit of Christ as all things should, then they shouldn’t produce dissension, but unity.
The problem isn’t doctrine or scholarship. The problem is sin.
Those scholars are in as much need of a Savior as I am. If we approach even the most arrogant scholars, the way we do drug addicts and prostitutes, maybe we can be Christ to them in a way they’ve never studied.
[...] Stumbled across the blog of an author I really enjoy. He has a mix of funny, serious, and in-between posts. Check him out at donmilleris.com and this post specifically - http://donmilleris.com/2011/04/05/unlike-todays-church-leaders-none-of-the-early-disciples-were-prof… [...]
There are 2 problems with this post:
1. It lacks definitions of key terms so we don’t know what you’re actually saying.
2. It lacks clarity on what the Church is supposed to do.
1. Vague Terms:
What do you mean by “lead” the Church? What is the laity supposed to actually do?
What do you mean by “academics”? Is the clergy included?
What do you mean when you say that “the first disciples were not teachers”? They intentionally diverted temporal responsibilities to others so that they could teach! (Acts 6:1-7)
2. What is the Church Supposed to Do?
Jesus commanded the Church’s first leaders to make disciples (Matt 28). They took this to mean a teaching ministry (already cited in Acts 6). Certainly, teaching discipleship is more than intellectual, but it definitely begins there.
The mission of the Church is not primarily to feed the hungry and clothe the naked (I think that’s where you’re going with this but it’s hard to tell – back to point 1). That’s what happens when the Church has fulfilled its purpose – glorifying God by making disciples.
[...] Miller.” His article is a response to a recent blog post by Donald Miller titled “Should the Church be Led by Teachers and Scholars?” Owen has a passion for this topic; he is currently working on a dissertation that focuses [...]
I don’t think Congregations will fair any better with a diversity in the teaching leadership. What might be in order is a “advisory element”, within churches, made up of individuals gifted in Hebraic scriptural interpretation. I personally, as a Messianic Rabbi, have advised many men and women of G_d going into various denominational ministeries. I do not seek to convert them to my faith, only to advise them in areas regarding the Torah/Law, Midrash, and Rabbinic insights, to name a few. What you can reap from plowing in the fields of Hebraic understanding is nothing short of a revolution of restoration.
[...] wait, this post on his blog seems to suggest that Christians don’t need to know about stuff. From academics. [...]
I love this article. Thanks so much for this:)
Is this blog post not teaching?
[...] Media & Theological Discourse, but since Don Miller’s controversial blog post “Should the Church Be Led by Teachers and Scholars?,” I have found myself writing a number of posts on Anti-Intellectualism in the Church. [...]
[...] are not all called to follow him into the seminary. As Donald Miller recently pointed out, neither Jesus nor his disciples were “men of the cloth”, so to speak. They were working men. Can you imagine that? God in the flesh, a working [...]
This is the best of the blogs I’ve read so far on this site. It kicks my butt, in regards to discipleship. I love it! It’s the only blog I come back to time and time again – and recommend to friends. We don’t follow a doctrine – we follow a guide. Good stuff!!!
Jer
[...] this month he posted, “Should the Church be Led by Teachers and Scholars?” In the article he questions the centuries old norm of the church being led by clergy [...]
Don, I love your writing – and the sentiment behind your writing always seems to be well-intentioned.
And I like what you’re saying here, because I’m sorta a writer, teacher, and scholar, but don’t want to be a leader in the church – and this post seems to OK that. which is nice to hear.
And anyway, the laborers, fishermen, businesspeople – they more seem to know what they believe anyway, so here’s hoping they figure things out.
An intellectual assent to the truth is not enough, we must have a relationship with Jesus. Those who make academics the central focus of their ministry produce scholars, while those who bring their thoughts into conformity to Christ teach people how to become soul-winners.
Christopher Esty
[...] Miller seems to think so (post)*. It seems that most Christians in this generation agree that knowledge and living – or [...]
advertising and *********** with Adwords. Well I?m including this RSS to my email and could look out for a lot more of your respective exciting content. Ensure that you update this again soon..
Thanks for the encouraging comments. Please realize, however, that there are a few of us out here in other countries living out what you are describing. We are not academics, but we know that unless the Holy Spirit is teaching us the Living Word, day by day, we have no hope of truly knowing the Truth Himself. We are building leaders for the Kingdom in full recognition that their daily ‘epignosis’ through intimacy with God is the foundation of the local church. We are also helping them to understand that Jesus’ Spirit, though ‘epignosis’, desires to build their ‘gnosis’ (the informational/intellectual part of the truth) as a small portion of what it takes to be the leaders God appoints to establish His glory among the nations.
We are out here, discipling, praying together with tomorrow’s leaders, living together with them, helping tomorrow’s Kingdom leaders to see that most of what the Western church is offering them (information only) is indeed a very small part of what God uses to establish Christlikeness in them for His glory. We are helping them to live intentionally to be spent for God’s purpose for giving His Spirit’s leadership giftings to the church—until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and to the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.
One thing I don’t see being discussed much here is that following Jesus is a humble and sacrificial journey, at the foundations. One who truly worships presents themselves to be spent for God’s glory among the nations. God takes what is offered Him and spends it in a way which produces, by His grace and glory, Christlike leaders. But in the process, those who are worshiping are, as is the end of most sacrifices, fully spent in the process. There are many of us out here living out the reality that information transfer has not been, by itself, a great builder of leaders for the Kingdom’s next generation of leaders. It is expensive to do so. It costs lives. That, I believe, is the primary reason why the Western church doesn’t embrace it. In the country in which I work, the Westerners show up regularly to put on two week leader trainings, forever failing to see that what they are offering is a tiny piece of what God uses to build His leaders in this present darkness.
Oh, that the church might be willing to learn what it means to worship in spirit and in truth.
“Educators make speeches and do little else, except study for their next lecture.” Except, as we’ve all experienced, the BEST educators get involved in the lives of their students, mentoring / discipling them *between* lectures.
That said: as a worship pastor with a Ph.D. in theology (or an adjunct professor who is also a worship leader, depending on who you ask), I agree with the thrust of your post, Don, and thank you for writing it and getting me thinking today about my calling, and the callings of those I’ve been called and entrusted to “lead.”
“When religious experts monopolize the ranks of leadership, pedagogy replaces holistic ministry. Preaching and teaching take precedence over caring for those with deep needs. The rhetorical replaces the practical. That is why Jesus said, “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:20). Remember it was a priest and a Levite, two religious professionals, who passed by the wounded man on the road to Jericho. The one who took pity on him was a lowly Samaritan. This passage has as much to say about the reluctance of religious leaders to get their hands dirty as it does about the humility of the Samaritan.” From ‘The Casual Christian’ by Craig Olson
http://amzn.to/uSOlr2
“I wonder what they would have done if they had been professional scholars? My guess is they would have talked the command into a tailspin, dissected it into a million pieces, then divided themselves into different intellectual camps, and built a bunch of schools to teach their various interpretations.” Adrian, you just described the Pharisees and Rabbis whom Jesus condemned for parading their spirituality in public, for laying heavy burdens on seekers, for substituting the teachings of man for the Word of God, for neglecting the heart of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness, and for making a pretense of looking good on the outside while concealing hearts full of greed and selfishness. Read Matthew 23 for Jesus’ opinion on the Teachers of the Law.
http://amzn.to/uSOlr2
Don,
I thought you would like to know that I have quoted you n my own blog. You are spot on with this article.http://bit.ly/toSGkd
[...] response to Don Miller’s blog regarding seminary [...]
[...] Donald Miller recently posted some thoughts about the church. It has caused some chatter about the purpose of the church and how/if it’s teaching model ought to be changed. Here’s my thoughts, in response to what he said. [...]