Most pastoral theologies that are readily available for ministerial training in the West begin with or are largely confined to tracing the historical development of the pastoral office in the Western Church, with scant exegesis of the salient biblical texts. This methodological error results in works that are for the most part historical surveys and commentaries on church tradition. The net result are works that derive their theological considerations from two sources; observation of the development of pastoral duties over the centuries and unwarranted emphasis on the importance of tradition. This is not to say that history and tradition may not contribute to the discussion of pastoral theology, merely that they are at best a secondary source of theological consideration.
The basic problem with this method of deriving one’s pastoral theology is that those being studied themselves failed to do the basic work of exegesis and biblical theology.
By way of example, the puritans were trained to be diagnosticians of the soul which was a serious misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of the pastoral office. In dealing with parishioners who were concerned for their spiritual state before God, puritan pastors delved deeply into the human state of mind and passions. For example, Thomas Foxcroft, minister of First Church in Boston (1717-1736), averred that the pastor is to “discern the true state of the person distressed—his natural temper, the nature, cause, degree, symptom, and prognostice of the spiritual disease labour’d under.”
This introspective process, which was a development of German Lutheran pietism, which Richard Baxter introduced to the British Calvinists. The ensuing debates in New England between the Old Lights and New Lights, which broke out in the wake of the revival introduced by Whitfield, led to deep, prolonged, and heated discussions about the nature and constitution of human personality.
Once again, pastoral theology was separated from its anchor in theological discipline and biblical exegesis. In this case, pastoral theology collapsed into pastoral care with specific emphasis on discerning the mental states of one’s parishioners.
These twin emphases in pastoral theology, the survey of history and tradition approach and the study of human psyche, have cut pastoral theology and the practice thereof from its moorings in the text. By turning to the study of history and psychology, a subtle pragmatism seeps into what should be a theological discipline. This has made it easy for us to turn to research in business leadership and effective management models to shape our view of pastoral theology and the minister’s vocation.
As a result, we now struggle under the crippling burden of a seriously flawed view of pastoral ministry. Today’s pastor is seen as one who nurtures self-fulfillment and personal well-being in the congregation, and offers little more than therapeutic moralistic deism.
This is one of the many plagues troubling the American church today.
More of the same cannot provide a way of escape and recovery. Further study of natural phenomena in this world—be they business leadership models, a return to historical traditions, or greater insight into the human psyche—will yield nothing to help us escape the cul-de-sac into which pastoral theology has been driven.
It is time for a fresh look at and careful study of the salient biblical texts that are the basis of the theology that should inform why and how pastors go about fulfilling their Christ-given responsibilities.