From where I sit, academic theology is theology written to the wider academic community, set within an academic context, and driven by academic concerns and presuppositions. Ecclesial theology, on the other hand, is theological reflection written to the believing community, for the good of the church catholic, and born out of pastoral/ecclesial concerns.

Throughout much of the history of the church, theological discourse was largely an in-house project. A broad house to be sure, but even during the upheaval and turmoil of the Reformation, both sides agreed with the basic tenants of historic Trinitarian Christianity. Scripture was viewed as authoritative. Miracles were possible. God was transcendent and worthy of worship. In short, the God of the Bible existed. These starting assumptions guided theological reflection–both East and West–for much of the Christian tradition. Even theologians as diverse as Augustine and Pelagius, Athanasius and Arius, and Luther and Erasmus, all worked within the same bibliocentric framework. Whether pastor (Augustine) or professor (Aquinas), theological reflection was, by its very nature, ecclesial. Even the heretics presumed to write in service to the church.

But the European enlightenment brought with it a fundamental shift in the theological landscape. The old assumptions were challenged, and the intellectual grip that Christianity held on the Western world began to weaken. The secular/non-orthodox theologian began to emerge in greater numbers. To be sure, modernity wasn’t the first age to birth unorthodox theologians. But it was the first age (since the third century, anyway) to produce an entire generation of scholars and theologians whose primary intellectual pursuit involved consciously deconstructing the apostolic faith.

And of course, such thinkers did not seek professional occupation in the churches. Instead, they moved toward the academy. Likewise, as the academy in the West became the dominant center of intellectual life, orthodox theologians also shifted increasingly from the churches to the academy. Speaking broadly, the net effect was a divide between academic theologians who worked within the boundaries of historic Christianity, and academic theologians who did not. Intellectual warfare ensued. Orthodox Christianity, while not routed completely, certainly did not ascend to a place of supremacy. The dominant worldview in the wider academic community became increasingly hostile to the historic faith. Set back on their heels, orthodox theologians found themselves responding to an agenda set by secular/liberal theologians. Ours became a defensive posture, and it has largely remained so to this day.

Consequently, believing academic theologians now live and move in a theological environment dominated by agendas and presuppositions that are consciously contra orthodox Christianity. To be sure, the deconstructive aspects of enlightenment and post-enlightenment thought demanded an appropriate response from those in the orthodox fold. But one wonders if orthodox theology as a whole has become too preoccupied defending against, and responding to, an agenda that is not directly related to the mission and glory of Christ. Orthodox theology, given its academic context, has taken on an apologetic bent not seen since the first centuries of the early church.

Ecclesial Theology, Academic Theology

This is not to say that orthodox theologians have completely neglected ecclesial concerns. Not at all. Many today, particularly those in the evangelical tradition, write with explicit concern for the church. But broadly speaking, a division between ecclesial theology and academic theology has emerged. From where I sit, academic theology is theology written to the wider academic community, set within an academic context, and driven by academic concerns and presuppositions. Ecclesial theology, on the other hand, is theological reflection written to the believing community, for the good of the church catholic, and born out of pastoral/ecclesial concerns.

Perhaps a compare and contrast will help flesh out this distinction in greater detail. Speaking in perhaps over-exaggerated terms, ecclesial theology differs from academic theology in the following ways:

• The depth of academic scholarship is often measured by its interaction with secondary literature. The depth of ecclesial scholarship is measured by its interaction with primary literature.
• Academic scholarship is written to the wider academic community, much of which lacks any commitment to historic orthodoxy. Ecclesial scholarship is written to the believing community, and builds upon and assumes–rather than defends–the basic commitments of historic orthodoxy.
• The success of academic scholarship is measured by its acceptance and influence in the academic community. The success of ecclesial scholarship is measured by its ability to renew the church.
• Academic scholarship is informative. Ecclesial scholarship is informative and prophetic (i.e., it makes moral assertions and calls the church to action).
• The power of academic theology arises out of the success of the academic-scholar as a scholar. The power of ecclesial theology arises–in large measure–out of the success of the pastor-theologian as a pastor. In other words, the influence of a pastor-theologian as a theologian is related to his success as a pastor.

Read More