Is theological training inherently anti-God? Do religious leaders need certificates and degrees before they lead churches? Is spirituality anti-intellect? Does the Spirit of God replace proper theological training?
As I watched NTV’s Sunday discussion about the proposed law by the Government of Uganda to have Religious leaders receive mandated theological training, I mused on these questions.
This proposed law follows fast after the heels of a similar requirement from the Government of Rwanda which closed over 700 churches and necessitated the clergy to obtain at least a bachelor’s degree and ‘a valid certificate in religious studies’ before preaching in churches or mosques.
As expected, the denomination that would be vastly affected by this law is the Pentecostal Movement, because by and large, there has always been an aversion to theological education within this strand of Christianity.
Theology is vastly an unwelcome word within the African Pentecostal Movement. It is seen as dead matter, an enemy of the move of the Spirit. Doctrine, they say, is for the dead. It kills. Accordingly, living by the Spirit means spontaneity. To theologically train is to ‘quench the Spirit.’
Here, the greatest separation of head from heart and affections from convictions is tangible, as unintelligibility is prized.
Which is why as I watched the discussion on NTV between Mr. Simon Ssenyonga and Mr. Siraji, I was appalled by Mr. Ssenyonga’s lack of depth, courtesy, and civility.
The Muslim, on the other hand, spoke more consistently and with understanding. The points he raised, by and large, were valid.
In this article, I desire to consider the common assumption that Jesus and His disciples were theologically untrained and that theological training is against the ‘move of the Spirit.’
A Synopsis of the Jewish History of Theological Literacy
The perception that Jesus and His disciples had no form of theological training is so pervasive within the Ugandan Pentecostal Movement that it needs a response, albeit a short one.
In answering this question, we need to step back into the 1st century Jewish way of life and away from the 21st century Ugandan way of life. After all, Peter and John and Luke are not 21st century Ugandans.
We begin by remembering that at the heart of what it meant to be a Jew was the knowledge and obedience to the Torah and the Prophets.
Jesus considered the imperative of Deut. 6:5 to be the greatest commandment. ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.’
We must, however, realize that the Hebrew word translated here as ‘heart’ (לֵב) really means heart, mind, will. From the very inception of the Jewish nation, it was imperative for the Jews to never separate the heart from the head in their devotion to God. Thus, one word is used to mean both heart and mind.
This is why it was so necessary that Jesus by quoting Deuteronomy 6:5 in Matthew 22:37 brought back the heart (καρδία) and mind (διάνοια) together in the Greatest Commandment since the Greeks had separate words for both.
The word dianonia, translated as ‘mind’ in Matthew 22:37 refers to ‘the faculty of thinking, comprehending, and reasoning, understanding, (and) intelligence’ (BDAG).
We thus need to note that it was every Jew’s duty to exercise their reason and intelligence in their worship. Judaism was not anti-intellect but pro-intellect. And as we see in Matthew 22:37, Christ insists that Christians must exercise their intellect in their devotion to God.
To walk in the Spirit, therefore, is to use your intellect, will, emotion, logic, and strength for God. But to be against theological engagement is to be anti-God since it is God who created the mind.
To this effect, the verses that follow the Greatest Commandment in Deut. 6 insists that home-based training, teaching, and instruction must be maintained at all costs (v6-9).
Learning was to be the identity-marker for the people of God. But also, the instruction in verse 9 ‘You shall write (my Laws) on the doorposts of your house and on your gates’ insists that God’s people must be literate.
Thus, the King had to be erudite in the handling of the Law as the leader of God’s people (Deut. 17:18-20). We are told in Ezra 7:10 that ‘Ezra had devoted himself to the study and observance of the Law of the Lord, and to teaching its decrees and laws in Israel.’
Ezra was a seasoned theologian. He was ‘the priest, a teacher of the Law, a man learned in matters concerning the commands and decrees of the Lord for Israel’ (Ezra 7:11) who saw the duty of spiritual Shepherds as instructors of God’s people (Nehemiah 8:1-18).
Traditionally and by calling, education is part of the Jewish and Christian heritage. The primary purpose of spiritual leaders is to train those they lead in proper textual interpretation and obedience.
New Testament Times
The 1st century Jew was intimately aware of his Jewish heritage. He read or listened to the scriptures daily since he could understand a word. He sat weekly under the teaching of scribes (scholars of the law).
Thus, Peter, John, and Luke as Jews were trained both in the handling of and obedience to the scriptures. Peter’s address in Acts 2 did not magically appear. He had studied Joel and the Prophets over and over.
His intricate handling of Isaiah’s suffering servant narratives in 1 Peter can only be from a man deeply acquainted with the text that he could cite the Greek translation of the Old Testament as he pens his first epistle.
John’s excellent interplay of Ezekiel and Daniel’s apocalyptic literature as he weaves Revelation reveals sophistry about which even the schooled can only dream.
Luke was a Doctor and physician by profession (Col 4:14).
Paul was so schooled under the greatest Rabbi of his day (Acts 22:3) and discoursed with such grace and wisdom that governor Festus concluded that his learning was driving him mad (Acts 26:24).
This Paul, even when freezing in a prison cell could think of few things as significant as reading (2 Timothy 4:13), while instructing Timothy to give attention to reading and doctrine (1 Timothy 4:13). He reminds Timothy that it was this reading and study from childhood that made him wise unto salvation (2 Timothy 3:15).
Thus, the view that Jesus or Paul or Peter had no theological training is misguided and can be quickly corrected by taking time to sit and understand the very Jewish heritage as revealed in the Bible.
Indeed, Paul insists that Timothy must ‘study’ to show himself a workman approved and who ‘correctly handles the word of truth’ (2 Timothy 2:15). He clearly states that proper preaching cannot exist apart from proper study, insisting that this training can only exist when those better skilled in handling scripture teach others who also teach others (2 Timothy 2:2).
In other words, this training was not ‘I heard the Holy Spirit say something to me as I was walking.’ It instead is to be taught by those who are proven as faithful handlers of scripture and in a community. The Holy Spirit grants teachers to the Church and for the Church.
The significance of proper training is seen in this also; that even with a rich background of home-based textually-oriented discipleship, the disciples still sat under the Incarnate Son of God for three years before being sent to do ministry on their own.
Indeed the Pharisees marvel at the disciples’ wisdom (Acts 3:13) because their physical one-on-one training encounter with Jesus made a huge difference.
And if these men with a rich heritage needed three years of Seminary training, what happens to us now without it? How much need do we have of being sharpened by those skilled in exegesis, church history, ethics, biblical languages, etc?
Conclusion
Theology is not inherently anti-God. It is appropriate thinking about God. He who does not think rightly about God does not know God as he thinks he does. Religious leaders may not need certificates and degrees before they lead churches, but they do need the training that the certificates represent. Certificates are not an end in themselves.
Spirituality is not anti-intellect. The Spirit of God must not be seen as a replacement for proper theological training, for He purposefully created the mind, and ensured that His word is written down.
Writing and reading are impossible for the illiterate, and proper interpretation of any text requires adequate study and understanding of linguistics, cultural and historical considerations at play. No text exists in a vacuum. To misinterpret the Bible is to misrepresent God.
The mindset that looks down on loving God with our minds while claiming to ‘know all things’ is typical of pseudo-intellectualism and pseudo-spirituality that knows nothing of what is claimed to be understood.
God commands us to love Him with all our intellect, so much that He made it the greatest commandment. And to disobey the Greatest Commandment is to commit the greatest sin.
And a very helpful reminder is in order: without theology, you and I would not be having the Bible we read in any language. We would need to study Greek and Hebrew (itself a theological endeavor), gather, study, compare and compile various manuscripts (itself a theological task) before even having our morning devotion.
Bible translation is a tedious and incredible theological task. The next time we are tempted to look down on theological training, we ought to remember that it is the reason we have a Bible in our laps.