An Agenda for Seminary Education
When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus (Acts 4:13).
I am beginning with this verse because I firmly believe that God can call and use those who have never heard the word “seminary” let alone ever registered for a class. But, understanding that we are not all gifted with the ability of a Peter or John, I think a seminary education in the 21st century is a good topic for conversation. While completing a seminary education does not mean a person will be a quality pastor, I firmly believe that it still serves a necessary purpose within the contemporary moment.
As I started typing my thoughts I realized that it would be too long to expand upon every point. What appears below is more vague than I would like, but hopefully through subsequent discussion I can clarify my thoughts. Therefore, I am simply giving a series of statements that I will be happy to add to as the conversation develops. I have broken my thoughts down into three categories: General observations about seminary education; general observations about the primary seminary for the CGGC; and finally, implications for pastors.
General Observations about Seminary Education
- Seminaries are institutions of higher education (not churches or counseling centers)
- Seminaries should work to make academic preparation for ministry more rigorous, not less
- Seminaries should focus on the “whys” of ministry more than the “hows”
How this relates to the CGGC
- Winebrenner Theological Seminary (WTS) should seek to actively cultivate the next (first?) generation of CGGC scholars
- WTS should provide academically oriented continuing education opportunities
- WTS should strengthen the denominational connection through the hiring of more faculty with CGGC credentials
How this relates to Pastors
- Recognize seminary education for what it is – a quality preparation for ministry. I’ve heard many pastors with 20+ years of experience complain because seminary classes didn’t prepare them for something they encountered long after the classes ceased. Of course it didn’t. I’ve heard that an education will carry you to about five years past graduation.
This doesn't necessarily address the comments I made earlier, and commented upon by Bill and Lew, but at least it's a start to the conversation.
posted by Brent C Sleasman at 9:18 AM
18 Comments:
What's the difference between a D.Min. and a Ph.D.?
SHould this factor into hiring decisions at the seminary level?
J. Edwards
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hey... didn't Johnny Edwards used to be a dj at a Findlay, OH radio station?
Indeed he was. As I recall, he had one of the sweetest sounding voices in all of radio. I wonder what he is doing now? Perhaps he'll be appearing somewhere on "Where are they now?"
Let me say welcome to J Edwards instead of talking about him like he's not in the room.
Welcome J
If I understand correctly, a DMin is more of a practical degree that is a bit less rigorous than the academic degree of a PHD. If you are hiring at an Academic institution, you will find DMin professors, but a PHD is usually considered more heavily.
Thank you Brent for your initial comments on seminary education. It is important to note these comments come from someone with an education. When I was growing up I often heard, from the uneducated, "Paul didn't go to Seminary". My response has become, "If you spend three years in the desert with the Holy Spirit you can bypass seminary".
I know it is possible to die by degrees but pastors need training that most will not or can not do on thier own. Personally, I think John Winebrenner was on to something when he got specialized on the job training.
It was exciting to read the suggestion that Winebrenner Seminary should seek to actively cultivate the next generation of CGGC scholars, especially in light of the recent discussion on emergent theology. Can we imagine where that might take us? (I know there are some who don't even want to go down that road.)
Let's keep this conversation going.
Just another strange thought--can a pastor with practical degree rather than an academic degree be DMin possessed?
Lew wrote:
"It was exciting to read the suggestion that Winebrenner Seminary should seek to actively cultivate the next generation of CGGC scholars, especially in light of the recent discussion on emergent theology. Can we imagine where that might take us? (I know there are some who don't even want to go down that road.)"
I make the intentional suggestion
that the cultivation of future scholars rests solely on Winebrenner Seminary and not on the denonomination. If we wait for the CGGC leadership to take initiative on this, it will never happen. There are many ways that this can occur. Perhaps it is already being thought about; but my fear is that it isn't.
I've been a part of the debate about whose job it is to screen ministry candidates - the seminary's or the local region's. The conclusion that I've come to is that it is the job of the seminary to educate the students according to the necessary academic standards and it is the job of the local region to make sure a particular person is qualified for ministry. Just because a person is a graduate of a particular school does not automatically make them qualified to serve as a pastor.
I think I've been duped. I should have watched the "Where are they now?" before I commented. I never considered commenting on my own posts anonymously.
I think everyone on this blog probably agrees that good academic preparation is only a plus for those who are called to pastoral ministry. Yet so far this discussion seems to assume that seminaries in western culture are pretty much doing what we need them to do. But I'm not so sure. Or I might say that they are doing pretty well within the niche of preparing pastors for established churches.
But if we begin to evaluate not just institutions that educate people for ministry, but the western church overall, then we will discover that the western church is gasping for air. By all measurements, the western church is shrinking fast. Recent studies show that our big churches are mostly enticing and absorbing the sheep from our smaller churches, rather than reaching significant numbers of people with the message of the Gospel. This was not the story in the early church, nor is it the story in places like China, Africa, parts of Asia, or Latin America today. In those places we have seen "Christian movements", where the Gospel spreads rapidly from heart to heart, and where churches come into existence faster than any institutions could ever prepare pastors for them.
So my question is this: What good is it asking how well our seminaries are doing at preparing leaders for the church when the church is gasping for breath in the west? Perhaps we should be asking what it will take for the church here to be a vibrant grass roots movement like the one Jesus started, and then what it would look like to prepare leaders for such a movement. On second thought, the more immediate question might be how to prepare leaders right now who begin to think deeply about the issues at the heart of the western church's weakness.
Bob Roberts has said that if we had a church planting movement in the U.S. (which we do not), and the church began to multiply rapidly, we would have to see pastors raised up and trained within our local church communites just to keep up. I kind of long for that day. We have started training pastors in our church here at LifeSpring, including good academics, and so far I'm encouraged by the results. But I'll save thoughts on thta for if the conversation should go that direction.
Fran,
Thanks for your comments. We met at a CMTC Boot Camp in Lancaster, PA, in 2001. Here are my reactions to a few items you posted.
You wrote: “so far this discussion seems to assume that seminaries in western culture are pretty much doing what we need them to do.” As far as I am concerned, I think that seminaries still serve a necessary purpose but could be doing a much more effective job. That is why I made the initial post.
You wrote: “What good is it asking how well our seminaries are doing at preparing leaders for the church when the church is gasping for breath in the west?” Don’t you think there is room for both conversations? I am not at all suggesting that we should focus on academic preparation at the expense of your question. But I do believe that the question of seminaries is an important one.
You wrote: “We have started training pastors in our church here at LifeSpring, including good academics, and so far I'm encouraged by the results. But I'll save thoughts on that for if the conversation should go that direction.” Please share your thoughts and church’s experiences. Honestly, most on this blog are ultimately concerned about local church matters and not academic concerns. The long-term impact of this conversation may rest in how ideas like yours are incorporated into the local church.
Yes, I now reside in an academic environment (but not a seminary). But I am not arrogant enough to believe that the only place that can adequately train pastors is in an academic environment.
There are many people, like myself, who love people, love Jesus, and are passionate about the Church's mission - we just simply aren't called to serve as pastors of local churches (although I've served that role in the past). I'm genuinely called to teach at the University level. So this is a very personal topic for me. I may or may not teach in a seminary one day, but I am concerned about the state of both the local church and the academic training of pastors.
Thank you for the experiences you bring to the conversation.
Brent... I've been wondering if you were the Brent I met long ago at that planters boot camp-- hey, great to reconnect with you! This is a fun topic when you're coming from academia and I'm a planter. Kind of cool.
In answer to your first question, yes I think that there is room for both the conversation about how well seminaries are preparing people and the conversation about the state of the church in the west. Perhaps what I'm saying is really that the two conversations need to be inextricably linked... more than they currently seem to be.
As for what we are doing in our church, I created a curriculum for any leaders who feel called to some form of greater ministry. There are five people doing the curriculum, one who has finished and been credentialed in the CGGC, and several other leaders who just attend the class/group as a place to think and grow. We gather once a week to discuss what we are reading, which last year ranged from a Brian McLaren book to the very weighty "The Pentateuch as Narrative" (John Sailhamer). To give you a snapshot, the folks in my Pentateuch study were a pilot, a structural engineer, the owner of a printing company, a factory foreman, a semi truck driver, two homemakers, a college student, and a photographer. We don't test, but they occasionally have to make presentations to the rest of the group. The grade is pass/fail based on reading and class discussion. Three of these guys now regularly preach in our church. None have gone out to plant a church yet, but two play significant leadership roles in very missional enterprises out of our church. The curriculum includes studies in the prophets, Gospels, and Epistles as well. Last year I decided that no one can get their diploma from our "Emmaus School" unless they have A) Successfully gathered people into a small group (or house church or church plant), and B) Participated in a short-term trip to another country (we take a lot of people to Haiti).
Perhaps what I love the most is that these guys are preparing for greater ministry while doing hands on ministry week in and week out. That weeds out theory not based in reality in a hurry. The other thing is that all of these guys have jobs, families, and mortgages. They would not leave and go off to seminary, but if seminary comes to them in their local church, they have a way to respond to the call of God in terms of preparation.
Fran,
How did you arrive at the curriculum you use in your church? Was it trial and error or did you build off of the ideas of what someone else was working with?
I would love to see seminaries, Winebrenner included, partner with churches who are creating learning environments like yours. Wouldn't it be great if there was a resource person/faculty member who could come on-site and assist in the development of a program such as yours. Perhaps he/she could even help out in the teaching on a topic that was important, but beyond the expertise of the pastor/leader. Although, perhaps in your situation this would not be helpful.
I agree that many would-be seminary students are too tied down to relocate to attend seminary. Combining the academic preparation and hands-on learning is a great model to follow.
Brent, what I've been aiming for with the curriculum (which has evolved and will continue to evolve) is a well-rounded preparation. The courses are in 4 categories:
1. Biblical & Historical Studies
2. Soul Studies (heart issues/questions)
3. Theological/Cultural Questions
4. Practical Ministry (preaching, counseling, leading missional enterprises, etc.)
One of the things we do NOT do is try to completely prepare people for what they feel called to do, because I accept that much of the best learning is "just in time learning" where our learning is in response to the questions that arise as we are doing ministry.
I think the idea of seminaries helping churches with programs like this is great. I do know that more of them (including Winebrenner) now offer courses requiring only occasional attendance on campus.
I should also be clear that this kind of program only works for self-motivated learners. I am a reader of great appetite, and those who are benefiting from this are also hungry and do much of their learning through the reading. Our discussions help us digest what we have read and find some perspective through dialogue with others.
This discussion is very interesting to process. In the various ministry contexts where I have served training leaders has been a priority. Seminary training was part of the process, and I also utilized ongoing practical training in monthly ministry team meetings. I realize that this is not the norm. Now that I have been on the seminary side of the fence for over 7 years, I am more convinced that this discussion is on the right track-->from my perspective we need more advanced levels of both (theological and practical): 1) Advanced levels of theological education for current and future leaders (many of our students are already ordained pastors who are now enrolled in graduate level theological education), 2) Life-long (just in time) training for local church leaders which is based upon assessed needs. Courses could be mentored and supplemented by resources available online for a modest fee, 3) Increased levels of partnership between the denomination (regional conferences), churches, and the seminary. The PTI in the ERC is one example.
Our program outcomes at WTS are focused upon a holistic vision of knowing (academy), being (abbey), and doing (apostolate). We are constantly exploring curriculum revisions, I would appreciate dialogue with a cluster of concerned CGGC bloggers to share your insights, concerns, and visions. My stance is not defensive of the status quo but proactive for informed change that is conducive in training effective leaders to serve in a diverse array of contexts that incorporates both Commissions.
John,
You wrote about advancing the theological training available as well as advancing the partnership between the CGGC and WTS.
This relates to my comments from the initial post. I wonder if there is enough interest in having a WTS-sponsored event that is modeled after academic conferences and conventions. In such an environment, pastors who have special interests and/or training could be a part of various panel presentations. The event could last a day or two and be filled with a variety of presentations on various elements of ministry.
I've often wondered if something like this could be connected to the Ritz Lectures. This blog has reminded me of the vast experiences that go untapped within our denomination.
At such an event, those who are presenting their ideas would serve as audience members for other presenters. Perhaps the faculty at WTS could be programmed in the midst of some of these presentations. If there is great interest, the panels could be submitted in advance and competively selected. Limited interest may lead to accepting all presentations as long as they were consistent with the purpose of the "conference".
While I like the idea of getting together in Martinsburg (or somewhere else) with those on this blog, what will be the purpose of the gathering? Conversation and idea sharing is great, but sometimes it's important to have a venue for action.
I'm not suggesting my idea is the best, but I do think it could reach a wider audience if endorsed by an institution like the seminary.
Just a few thoughts.
Brent,
"While I like the idea of getting together in Martinsburg (or somewhere else) with those on this blog, what will be the purpose of the gathering? Conversation and idea sharing is great, but sometimes it's important to have a venue for action."
I won't travel that distance just to chat for the sake of chatting. I'd only do it if there was an agenda that makes action possible.
I've talked enough.
John,
Thanks for your comments.
Welcome to the discussion.
We hope that you--and others from WTS--will continue to participate with us in our conversations.
Post a Comment
<< Home