Theology was traditionally called the “Queen of the Sciences”. It is arguably the most challenging of the degree disciplines in a university. The argument is that it is a broad subject with many disparate skills and knowledge-bases (unlike other degrees). A theologian might specialize in one of many areas in the subject, but a generalist will require expertise in ancient languages, linguistics, grammar, text and manuscript evaluation, historical methodology and history, theology narrowly conceived as the development of doctrine, philosophy, sociology of religion, literary theory and exegesis, homiletics, and a myriad of other subject areas such as missiology and mission, social and pastoral care in the community, archaeology of the Near East, anthropology and comparative religion, psychology of religion, and so on. Quite a few of these areas and others not mentioned will be advertised as available modules in Theology degrees; a generalist is likely to be a jack of all trades and a master of none.
Minds are good at some things and not others. A person who has a talent for languages, say, may not be too hot with history, and the person who is good at mission, pastoral care or homiletics, may not be good at philosophy, and so on. Minds can usually have a go at most things with differing qualitative outcomes, but a mind that is good at one thing may be reluctant to acknowledge weakness in another area. This reluctance is a manifestation of the pride of life, and it is a particular problem for those who are actually very good in some things. In 1 Corinthians this point comes out in the “body has many parts” simile. The wisdom here is to accept what we can do well and accept what others can do better and be content with the complementary nature of human society. But is there anything wrong in having those who may be less able at something actually taking on the task?
The society in view here is comprised of believers in an ecclesia and/or in the ecclesias as a whole. John the Baptist illustrated the Christian virtue when, as a great prophet, he said of Jesus, “He must increase, and I must decrease”. The point here is not that Jesus was the lesser but that John was happy to be the lesser even though he was great. Those who look to have the upper hand in all things, and who may be multi-talented, have not learnt the greater value of “deferring to one another” and letting the other person do the doing. This is a different failure of not acknowledging the complementary nature of the ecclesia and the ecclesias. There is beauty of character in letting the lesser do what is needful rather than keeping the task to yourself because you are the greater at the time. When only the few are doing a job in the ecclesia or in the ecclesias, there is a two-way failure[1] in giving and in the building up the body as a “one another” body.
These two failures think of the ecclesia and the ecclesias in different ways. In the model of the ecclesia as a body, the parts have their distinct roles and if you are good at something, then that is your part in the body. If you want to be another part in the body, you cannot, and those who are that part will say (in effect) that they have no need of you. In the model of the ecclesia as a family, those who are the older son or daughter (or father or mother) bring on the younger sons and daughters (i.e. they give way to the lesser). Insofar as the ecclesia or the ecclesias is/are a spiritual family, believers can (and ought to) be giving way to one another. The two models are in tension, but the question is: Which one is dominant in the community and is she in need of a different balance?
[1] Two-way because there are not only are those who keep the jobs, others are too passive and allow the others to do the jobs.
Analysis of the eschatology in 1 Thess 4:13-5:11 and 2 Thess 1:5-2:12