Talk:Theologian

From Theopedia

Trying to describe a theologian

Well, how are we going to describe a theologian? By degree? By experience? Will we distinguish laymen who "do theology" from those who "were trained to do theology"? Lets come to a consensus and then write something up. JordanBarrett 17:48, 13 January 2006 (EST)

I guess I can see where Gomarus is coming from in wanting to say that people need formal education or training; I think I disagree. I would want to say that all Christians should be, in at least one sense of the word, theologians.

If we were to insist on formal training, what kind? Do we want doctorates, or will an MDiv do? What about bachelors' degrees? An A-Level? Sorry, I'll try to be serious. I think the issue of formal education is rather less important than Gomarus does. I think the furthest I'm willing to go down that road is to say that theologians read theology, discuss their own theological views and engage with those of others. Wooster (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2006 (EST)

I think (and I could be wrong) Gomarus is saying this - you can't say your a doctor just because you can fix a scraped knee, or a cut on your arm with a bandaid just as you can't say you're a "theologian" just because you wrote a 5 page paper on the Trinity, can clarify a biblical passage, or have taken a class on theology. True, and to some degree, all Christians are and should be theologians, or even apologists. But I don't look at any one of us and think "he's an apologist" because none of you have formally studied apologetics or received a degree in it. I personally don't think an MDiv warrants being a theologian. Just because you can read Greek and Hebrew and can (hopefully) speak well doesn't make you a theologian.

I think it boils down to this: Are we going to define "theologian" as a profession (e.g. as you would a Doctor or Biologist), or are we going to define it as "one who thinks about their Christian faith and it's implications" (e.g. as you could say all who defend their faith are "apologists")? Both are understandable, yet look through different lenses. Maybe we clarify both in the article. JordanBarrett 19:55, 13 January 2006 (EST)

Yes, we should all (as Christians) be theologians in a sense. I'm simply talking about who we "categorize" as a "Theologian" in Theopedia -- which is supposed to be encyclopedic in nature. He should be "recognized" as a theologian. We have categories for pastors and authors who are not technically "theologians". Just my $0.02 for now. Gomarus 21:31, 13 January 2006 (EST)

Jordan: Okay, I understand; I still disagree. I don't deny that formal education is a sufficient condition for classification as a theologian; I merely deny that it is a necessary one. There are astronomers who contribute useful work to the field without ever having had formal education -- because astronomy is one of those fields where that can easily happen. So, I believe, is theology. Wooster (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2006 (EST)

PS. To show that this isn't simply a theoretical concern, I'll give an example of someone who I think counts as a theologian, but to my knowledge has no formal theological training, Rose Dowsett. She teaches courses in missiology, has published books and papers and speaks at conferences. I'd say she has contributed massively to the field of missions theology and that that makes her a theologian.

I think I disagree, Wooster. I "googled" her name and found no description of her as a "theologian." She may be a wonderful Christian author, but she is not a theologian. Gomarus 09:51, 14 January 2006 (EST)

How about this then? The Evangelical Times described Rose as a "missiologist and theologian".  : D Wooster (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2006 (EST)

That makes more sense, and maybe I'm playing a semantics game, but I wouldn't call her a theologian although I would call her a missiologist. Now if there was a person who was teaching theology at a seminary or even undergrad university I would be much more likely to consider them a theologian even if all they had was a B.A. (which would never happen these days). Experience can allow someone to be considered a "theologian", and the same is in momst other professions, however, and again, I don't think that would ever happen these days. But again, lets integrate the two ideas into the article and clarify what we mean by them, yeah? JordanBarrett 13:11, 14 January 2006 (EST)

I think we can distinguish professional theologians from theologians who hold other professions. That is to say, a psychiatrist may very well have interesting theological insights related to the human mind or a philosopher, because of their own peculiarities; missionaries certainly have interesting theological insights because of and related to their work. But people who are paid to do theology *are* a distinct class. Are they the ones we're trying to hit? Wooster (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2006 (EST)

Maybe "paid" is one way of looking at it, and perhaps "professional" is the better way of saying that. An exact definition for our "category" escapes me at the moment. But I tend to want one which has in view "theologians" throughout church history -- which is what we are including in our category list. Perhaps it is "one whose primary endeavor is theology and one who is primarily known for his work in theology." In any case, what is currently in place from Wooster may suffice for the time being. We can let it simmer on the back burner for a while. Peace. Gomarus 09:07, 15 January 2006 (EST)