Short thread.
I both agree w/ this sentiment & have minor quibbles on some details. I have benefited from Vanhoozer, Moo, Bates, McKnight, etc. But I don't want to give the impression that academic scholarship is a substitute for pastoral training.
1/5 https://www.christianitytoday.com/scot-mcknight/2021/february/plea-and-warning-for-evangelicalism.html

Wright and Warren, on the other hand, have a history of pastoral experience. Similarly, I'm not a Piper follower (not necessarily a dissenter either), but the guy does have a Ph.D. in biblical studies. The solution is not to be an academician per se, but to be widely/well-read.2/

Analogy: There are 2 models for clinical psyc: 1) the researcher-scholar model which focuses on research, and 2) the practitioner-scholar model which synthesizes research & puts it to practice. We need both "types" in the church, but pastorates are more similar to the latter.
3/

I'm closer to the author's affinity for Wright, Bird, Vanhoozer, Moo, Warren, McCaulley, etc. (altho I also have benefited from Sproul), but again: the solution is to be widely read and well-read, not necessarily to be an academician. And also not to fall into tribalism.
4/

So go ahead: you have permission to read Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, etc. But also read Wright, Bird, McKnight, Bates, Warren, McCaulley, Vanhoozer, Moo etc. The more you read, the more well-rounded you will become, and the more nuanced and balanced you will be.
#revangelical
5/5