In Praise of the Generalist II: The Possibility and the Imperative
September 10, 2010
In thinking about the importance of being a generalist, the first thing to understand is that it is, indeed, a possibility. This might seem to be something of a stretch in the current climate of hyper-specialisation and oceans of information that no man can possibly navigate, but I do believe that it is indeed possible to be a generalist.
First, I am of course talking about generalism in a fairly narrow sense, i.e., that which is useful in the minister, the elder, and anyone in any kind of position of responsibility in the church. Thus, despite certain claims to the effect that it is important for Christians to, say, be able to offer a Christian perspective on the movies of Martin Scorsese, the paintings of Miro, or the musical contribution of Miley Cyrus, I am not thinking of this kind of generalism, even though I would concede it is important for pastors and elders to have some knowledge of contemporary culture in order to anticipate the kind of questions which might arise in certain contexts (evolution being an obvious flavour of the month). Rather, my focus is on what we might call the catechetical aspects of the Faith or perhaps less pompously: the basics of Christianity. In my experience, questions that touch on, say, how to understand the Bible relative to guidance, suffering etc. are always more common than questions on Scorsese. That narrows the field of appropriate generalism considerably; and, indeed, obtaining a simple catechism (the Westminster Shorter Catechism, the Heidelberg, either of Luther's) will give you a good guide to the kind of things of which I am thinking. Considered in these terms, the possibility of being a generalist does not seem quite so far-fetched.
Second, I am assuming the truth of a number of basic confessional points. a. The Bible is perspicuous or clear, so that, while it may contain many obscure passages, and is also profound in a way that no finite mind can ever full comprehend its content, its basic message, the Gospel, is not rocket science and can be grasped by a small child; b. the Bible, for all of its diversity of genres, emphases, manners of expression, and human authorial viewpoints, ultimately has a single divine author who gives its overall message unity and coherence; c. reasonably accurate translation is possible, such that one who reads a good English Bible can get the guts of what is being said therein. I know that all three of these are highly contested in the wider world, but I am assuming at this point that I am not talking to the wider world but to those in the church who have accepted their basic validity. That the Bible's message is clear, coherent, and accessible even to those who do not have facility in Hebrew and Greek opens the possibility for being a generalist in the way I wish to commend. Reject any of these three, and the power of specialist scholarly guilds becomes, in effect, unchallengeable.
If these two points (the narrowness of focus and the nature of God's revelation) make generalism a possibility, I believe the New Testament also makes it an imperative. Titus 1:8, for example, says that an elder should `hold fast to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.' it is important to note, of course, that this is only one quality noted by Paul at this point: the others are all moral qualities, something of which we should not lose sight and which, if you like, indicate that the elder is to be that greatest of generalists in the broadest sense -- `an all round good bloke,' as the English would say.
This single doctrinal qualification, however, carries within it the demands for intellectual, theological breadth: the elder needs to know the word he has been taught. That implies a good knowledge of the biblical text and the tradition of interpretation of the text -- in turn implying a knowledge of history and how that word has come down to us. Then, the reference to sound doctrine implies a knowledge of the same and, one assumes, the ability to relate textual exegesis with doctrinal synthesis to contemporary application. A radical separation of the three, or exclusive specialisation in only one of them is not what is envisaged here. Rather it is a matter of a healthy generalism, a knowledge of the truth in its broadest sense, from biblical text to current pastoral context.
Such competence might be intimidating to the average elder. It should certainly be a challenge and something to be taken with the utmost seriousness, as with every other one of the qualities required in an elder; but as in such qualities, it is not beyond the realm of possibility. What is being demanded is not absolute perfection of knowledge, any more than the requirement not to be greedy for gain implies that the elder must be sinless or immediately resign if he is ever tempted think a covetous thought; what is required is a credible, public competence in this area. How one might go about developing such will be the subject of the third, and final, post in this series.
First, I am of course talking about generalism in a fairly narrow sense, i.e., that which is useful in the minister, the elder, and anyone in any kind of position of responsibility in the church. Thus, despite certain claims to the effect that it is important for Christians to, say, be able to offer a Christian perspective on the movies of Martin Scorsese, the paintings of Miro, or the musical contribution of Miley Cyrus, I am not thinking of this kind of generalism, even though I would concede it is important for pastors and elders to have some knowledge of contemporary culture in order to anticipate the kind of questions which might arise in certain contexts (evolution being an obvious flavour of the month). Rather, my focus is on what we might call the catechetical aspects of the Faith or perhaps less pompously: the basics of Christianity. In my experience, questions that touch on, say, how to understand the Bible relative to guidance, suffering etc. are always more common than questions on Scorsese. That narrows the field of appropriate generalism considerably; and, indeed, obtaining a simple catechism (the Westminster Shorter Catechism, the Heidelberg, either of Luther's) will give you a good guide to the kind of things of which I am thinking. Considered in these terms, the possibility of being a generalist does not seem quite so far-fetched.
Second, I am assuming the truth of a number of basic confessional points. a. The Bible is perspicuous or clear, so that, while it may contain many obscure passages, and is also profound in a way that no finite mind can ever full comprehend its content, its basic message, the Gospel, is not rocket science and can be grasped by a small child; b. the Bible, for all of its diversity of genres, emphases, manners of expression, and human authorial viewpoints, ultimately has a single divine author who gives its overall message unity and coherence; c. reasonably accurate translation is possible, such that one who reads a good English Bible can get the guts of what is being said therein. I know that all three of these are highly contested in the wider world, but I am assuming at this point that I am not talking to the wider world but to those in the church who have accepted their basic validity. That the Bible's message is clear, coherent, and accessible even to those who do not have facility in Hebrew and Greek opens the possibility for being a generalist in the way I wish to commend. Reject any of these three, and the power of specialist scholarly guilds becomes, in effect, unchallengeable.
If these two points (the narrowness of focus and the nature of God's revelation) make generalism a possibility, I believe the New Testament also makes it an imperative. Titus 1:8, for example, says that an elder should `hold fast to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.' it is important to note, of course, that this is only one quality noted by Paul at this point: the others are all moral qualities, something of which we should not lose sight and which, if you like, indicate that the elder is to be that greatest of generalists in the broadest sense -- `an all round good bloke,' as the English would say.
This single doctrinal qualification, however, carries within it the demands for intellectual, theological breadth: the elder needs to know the word he has been taught. That implies a good knowledge of the biblical text and the tradition of interpretation of the text -- in turn implying a knowledge of history and how that word has come down to us. Then, the reference to sound doctrine implies a knowledge of the same and, one assumes, the ability to relate textual exegesis with doctrinal synthesis to contemporary application. A radical separation of the three, or exclusive specialisation in only one of them is not what is envisaged here. Rather it is a matter of a healthy generalism, a knowledge of the truth in its broadest sense, from biblical text to current pastoral context.
Such competence might be intimidating to the average elder. It should certainly be a challenge and something to be taken with the utmost seriousness, as with every other one of the qualities required in an elder; but as in such qualities, it is not beyond the realm of possibility. What is being demanded is not absolute perfection of knowledge, any more than the requirement not to be greedy for gain implies that the elder must be sinless or immediately resign if he is ever tempted think a covetous thought; what is required is a credible, public competence in this area. How one might go about developing such will be the subject of the third, and final, post in this series.
