Again, the Anabaptists provide a good model for us to consider. For them, the Body of Christ was the practical extension of the incarnation of its Head by every individual member, educated or uneducated. By contrast, Luther and Calvin saw the solidarity between Jesus and his followers in the offices of the church rather than in the lives of every member. The true church, for them, is one where the Word is correctly preached and the sacraments properly administered. These assumptions I find nowhere in the New Testament. Theology is a practical discipline to be engaged in not only by academic professionals but by all true disciples. Paul’s vision of church life, as we have noted already, entails Christians being involved with each other in mutual service, help, and support. Passivity and spectatorism are simply never envisioned by the apostle. According to Matthew 28:19-20, the first concern of theological education is to be mission at the local church level and mission that affects obedience to all of Jesus’ commands. Otherwise, theology will remain a square peg in a round hole. The type of contextualized theology that I am speaking of does not permit a split between academy and church, between thought and action, between truth and practice. Missions lies at the heart of the theological endeavor. Yet our theological curriculum, ostensibly designed to teach us to minister as Jesus and his apostles did, tends to ignore this vital dimension. It is perhaps unfortunate that “missions” has become firmly established as a theological specialization in our seminaries. Dealing with missions is a “must” in every theological curriculum.

David Alan Black, The Jesus Paradigm, p. 25