I sometimes hear pastors say that they don’t have systematic theology; they have pastoral theology.
As a pastor myself, I used to nod my head in agreement. I too am concerned with the way some theologians seemed too caught up with dotting every theological “i” while neglecting the task of serving others.
However, in recent years, I have come to develop some reservations about the whole “pastoral theology” concept.
Not Pastoral Theology
In the minds of some today, the pastor who claims to have a pastoral theology is often just saying that his theology is not fixed and consistent. Instead, they adjust their theological views to fit the pastoral concern being faced. This approach often leads to contradictions in theology. Like the situational ethics of the 70s, many pastors have a different theology depending on the situation they find themselves in.
Pastoral theology might be better to call it situational theology.
A Conversation with a Pastoral Leader
This was brought to my attention through a recent conversation I had with another pastor. He and I did not see eye to eye on certain issues of soteriology, and it was not long before he expressed some some serious logical contradictions. When I pointed these out to him, he said that he lived with these contradictions because he had “pastoral theology,” not systematic theology.
When pressed to explain the difference, he relayed the following story which he said actually happened to him:
I was in my office and a man came in who was a serial adulterer. He shared that although he is married, for the past seven years he slept with at least one different woman every month. I asked him if he thought he was a Christian, and the man said, “Yes, I accepted Christ as my personal Savior when I was in high school. They told me I was secure forever, and so I know that even though I’m sinning, I’m still going to heaven.”
Personally, I would have stopped and asked the man for further clarification on what he thought he had done in high school. Why did he say, “They told me I was secure forever”? Why didn’t the man point to Jesus’ promise of eternal life? What did he mean when he said, “I accepted Christ as my personal Savior”? Until these questions are answered, it is still uncertain whether or not he has believed in Jesus Christ alone for eternal life. But this particular pastor thought that the man’s statement was fine, and so his story continued:
In such a case, my pastoral heart tells me to put the fear of hell into the man. I told the man that if he was ever saved, he certainly wasn’t saved now. Such adultery was a serious pattern of sin. Unless he repented of his sin, and returned to a monogamous lifestyle, he would not enter heaven.
This is classic Arminian loss-of-salvation theology. It was a little surprising for me to hear these words coming from this man who claimed to be a Calvinist. But he continued his story:
Later that day a different man came into my office. He too admitted to being an adulterer. He was married for seven years, and in that time frequently looked at pornography and had committed adultery twice. He sat in my office with tears streaming down his face, worried that he had lost his salvation and that God would never forgive him.
But I saw that this man had a repentant heart, and he knew that what he had done was sinful. He was a genuine Christian, not in need of chastisement and the fear of hell, but in need of love and forgiveness. I told him that God still loved him, and that Christ had died for all of his sins—past, present, and future—and that there was nothing which could separate him from God. He was secure in the hand of God. Of course, I warned him that he needed to turn from his sin, or else it may prove he was never saved in the first place.
So in one day, this man’s pastoral theology led him to espouse Arminian theology to one person and Calvinistic theology to another. The two systems are contradictory, but he didn’t care, for his theology was “pastoral.” He admitted the two views were contradictory, but only if viewed apart from the individual situations. He molded his theology to fit what he thought the person in front of him needed to hear. This was his pastoral theology.
Inconsistent Pastoral Theology Helps No One
I do not believe such an approach helps anybody. Such contradictions only lead to confusion. This sort of situational pastoral theology does more damage than good, because it allows love for people to drown out the truth of God’s Word. And when truth gets neglected in the name of love, love dies too. It is not loving to tell a lie in a kind way, even if we think the lie is what a person needs. It is far better to “speak the truth in love” (Eph 4:15). It is also far better to be Biblical, rather than pastoral.
Consider the first man. Not only was he not given the clear message about how to receive eternal life, he was also given a false message. If this man was indeed unregenerate, he went away with a message in his head that would make it harder for him to be born again. He was told that to enter heaven, he needed to be monogamous. While there certainly are practical benefits and blessings for monogamy, the Bible nowhere lists monogamy as a condition for going to heaven.
So although this pastor thought he was telling this man what was necessary to get him to change his lifestyle, the message he gave was wrong. How practical, how pastoral was that? Doesn’t God know best?
And what about the second man? He also was given a false message. He may have gone away feeling better, but if he wasn’t already born again, he left this encounter more confused than ever. For although he might have been temporarily encouraged, he too was told to refrain from pornography and adultery if he wanted to go to heaven. Once again, the Bible never says this.
So this situational approach to theology is neither loving, nor pastoral.
When pastoral theology becomes situational theology, it helps no one, and only confused those who hear it. If our goal in pastoral theology is to help those who are in our care to understand God and live according to His Word, wouldn’t it be best to have a theology that is consistent and which doesn’t shift with each new counseling session?
If we want to have true pastoral theology, we would be wise to give people what God said! For example, Jesus gives everlasting life to anyone who believes in Him (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; etc.), and a life of obedient discipleship is important for fellowship and rewards. That is an encouraging, loving, and pastoral message. Best of all, it’s true.
Want to learn more about the gospel? Take my new course, "The Gospel According to Scripture."
The entire course is free for those who join my online Discipleship group here on RedeemingGod.com. I can't wait to see you inside the course!
There has developed in recent years this strange idea that “pastoral” and “systematic” are theological opposites. Quite the opposite: a systematic theological understanding–and a consistent articulation thereof–is a pastoral virtue, if not a necessity. I speak from my vocation as a teaching professional (I teach New Testament in a university Religious Studies Department), rather than as a pastor per se. However, the pastor and the teacher are not that far apart, in their vocations. The good pastor is teacher, just as the good teacher is pastor (insofar as a good teacher loves his or her students, and is concerned just as much as the good pastor with the well-being of their whole person, not just their minds). As a teacher, I would be quite ineffective if on Monday I said that X and Y are true, then on Tuesday said that X and Y are NOT true. On the most basic level, the students would have no idea what to write on a test. The bigger picture, however, is that my own inconsistency would constitute a barrier to a serious engagement with the material–and such engagement is the only way that they will not only expand their knowledge base but also grow as human beings. Moreover, as a teacher, I must present this material in a systematic fashion, lest the students have no idea how to even begin their own engagements.
At the end of your blog, you mention “love.” That is what is lacking in the quotations cited by the pastor in the blog. His response to both men shows that he only loves those of whom he approves. He says up front that the second man was in need of “love and forgiveness,” not “chastisement and the fear of hell” (as was the case with the first man). Thus, he himself admits that his action towards the first man was not an action of love. Why does the second man merit love? Quite simply, because he had earned it by repentance. If it is earned, it is not grace (if we believe Paul, that is). He approaches neither man with grace, but in each case asks what he deserves. That is not pastoral practice motivated by love, which is to say that it is not pastoral practice at all! The problem, as you suggested in your blog, is that your fellow pastor did not sit back and think through systematically not just what he believes, but also whether he even loves his parishioners. His lack of systematic thinking makes him not only inconsistent, but also undermines his own claims to being “pastoral”! He is no more pastoral than my cat, although at least my cat makes no pretenses to being a pastor.
Jonathan,
Thanks for the input. Your comments are on track. It does seem that pastors who decide which theology to tell a person are really almost setting themselves up as God by determining what “truth” the people need to hear.
I know this pastor quite well, and he is very loving and kind. He has some issues with pride and control, but who of us doesn’t!? I know I do.
That is in a way all we can have isn’t it? Because with the life’s situations we reach new understandings of the Bible. So the situations make us interpret the Bible (hopefully as God walks with us and in our hearts) more and more as it should be. No?
I wrote this post five years ago, and so lots of my theology has changed. I do want to be consistent, and not change my beliefs based on who I am talking to, but a lot less of my theology is as cut and dried as it was five years ago.
Well, if it actually is situational, then it might not be the exact opposite. For example, police might need to use violence in a situation when violence is the only way to stop a particular mass murderer. But we can also say that we should avoid violence as much as possible. Some might claim that is hypocrisy, but I disagree.
That’s true. Police operate according to the “Use of Force” model, which responds to the type of force they encounter.
I use a similar model in preaching and teaching, but always try to be consistent with the message I am sharing, no matter who I am sharing it with or what issues they are facing.
I certainly agree with your general assertion Jeremy. And how critically true your statement is that — “when truth gets neglected in the name of love, love dies too” !! Truth and love cannot be separated or prioritized. A person’s “pastoral” theology should naturally come from their theology (systematized or not). There should be a coherence. Application of one’s theology can vary and that provides the flexibility necessary to adapt to each situation. But if one’s pastoral theology does not align with one’s theology it is disingenuous and dishonest. That person is living a lie.
Right. I was a little uncomfortable with my own statement about “when truth gets neglected in the name of love” for I have often seen love get neglected in the name of truth, which is also quite damaging. It is a fine balance to hold.