Another Paradigm for Seminary Education
Gang,
I have had a whole lot of life going on lately and so my participation in the current conversations has been minimal; but I have been reading.
I feel a degree of guilt because Brent initiated the “An Agenda for Seminary Education” conversation at my prompting and I haven’t even acknowledged the thread. Part of the reason for that is time-related. I’m overwhelmed with tasks and underwhelmed with energy these days. Another part of the reason is that my perspective on the issue is so different from what others are saying that I’m not sure where to enter the conversation.
And so, I’ve determined to enter a separate, though related, thread and hope that this post will not in any way impair the excellent conversation that Brent began.
Like our friend, Doug Molgaard, I’m a huuuuuuge devotee of the thought of Soren Kierkegaard. Because I often think in terms of Kierkegaard’s notions, I caught something at last year’s General Conference sessions that I’ve not heard anyone mention. The students and other representatives from Winebrenner Theological Seminary made several references to this phrase: “Being, Learning and Doing.“
From what I gleaned, based on those several comments, at WTS these days students are trained for, uh, “Pastoral” ministry with the understanding that they begin at the level of who they are, i.e., the level of being; they progress, beginning presumably with their Seminary education, with the process of learning and only then focus on the level of doing. For Kierkegaard the terms were being, BECOMING and doing.
The discussion that Brent began has focused on learning or becoming. And, as far as I can tell, WTS sees itself engaging students in that phase of life. And, that’s where I have trouble fitting myself in with the conversation Brent began. It is also my concern about the state of theological education for the last couple of centuries, not only with our own seminary today.
I believe that it is long past time that we give serious thought to the issue of being in ministry. As I read Scripture, ministry calling is an issue of being, not an issue of doing.
Near the end of 1 Corinthians 12, Paul lists seven questions about the gifts of the Spirit. In doing so, he sets apart ministry giftedness as a matter of being--a matter of who a person is, not what a person does. He asks, “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?” Then he goes on to consider gifts that are a matter of doing, such as working miracles, having gifts of healing, speaking in tongues and interpreting tongues.
In Ephesians 4:11, Paul deals more comprehensively with the issue of leadership gifts in the Body of Christ. He says, “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers….” (NIV)
(Are you aware that this verse is the only place in the NIV in which the word “pastor” appears? And, even here, using the word is a poor translation of the Greek. The Greek word is, simply, shepherd.)
I believe that the New Testament describes ministry calling, not as a work of the Spirit directing certain people to do pastoral tasks but as a work of the Spirit in which certain individuals are transformed at the level of being. And, I believe that the New Testament teaches that there are four distinct callings--four distinct ways in which the Spirit transforms people at the level of being to call them to be in ministry. As Paul said, Jesus gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists and some to be pastors and teachers.
My problem with the way we train people for ministry is that we ignore the biblical teachings regarding calling and being and we impose a notion that is based more on what came from Constantine than what came from Christ. It reflects Christendom--not Christianity. What we do is prepare everyone who is called to be “pastors.” Admittedly, today’s notion of a pastor is not biblical. It is not a New Testament notion of a spiritual shepherd. It is much more like Christendom’s notion of the parish priest.
Brent wants the seminary to be more focused on preparing people in ministry to be scholars. Well, I agree and disagree. Brent, I suspect that your calling probably is not the calling to be a shepherd and teacher. From what I know of you, your calling is real. I believe you have been genuinely transformed at the level of being and called to serve and lead in the Body of Christ. But, I doubt that your transformation has made you to be a shepherd and teacher. My guess is that you have been transformed to be either an apostle or a prophet. And, if I bet, I’d put my money on prophet. Being discipled as a “scholar” is crucial to the development of someone called to serve in the Body as a prophet.
So, using Brent as an example, if a seminary seriously considered addressing the level of a person’s being, it would allow for the fact that a person like Brent, who has been transformed to be a prophet, to become a prophet and do the work of a prophet, it would allow that person opportunities to develop as a scholar. (And, perhaps when WTS talks about being, learning and doing, it actually does take into account the nature of a person’s transformation and acknowledges that on the level of being one may be transformed to be an apostle or a prophet or an evangleist. I have no reason to think that because I only ever hear the people of WTS talk about training “pastors.”)
Back to Brent: The “Apostle” Paul is also called a “Prophet” in Scripture. (Acts 13:1) Have you ever noticed how conversant he was with the philosophers of his day? He engaged the philosophical world in his calling as a Prophet. Brent, I believe you do the same thing. And, I believe what you see lacking in seminary education is what it lacked for you at the level of who you are.
But, should a man or woman transformed by the Spirit on the level of being and called to be a shepherd and teacher or even an evangelist be turned into a scholar? In my opinion, no. At the level of “becoming” other concerns are of greater import because at the level of “doing” they will function in a different way in the Body of Christ. Scholarship is not essential to what a shepherd and teacher does.
Fran, I really, really admire what you are doing.
While you have not, as far as I know, intentionally addressed the issue of being, your four categories:
1. Biblical & Historical Studies
2. Soul Studies (heart issues/questions)
3. Theological/Cultural Questions
4. Practical Ministry (preaching, counseling, leading missional enterprises, etc.)
Are far more consistent with what I see in the New Testament regarding the nature of calling to ministry than what I see being done at the typical seminary these days. I’ve got a young guy here at Faith who is articulating a call to ministry and, if there were no issues of credentialing to address, I’d much rather send him to you than a Liberal Arts college for four years and a Seminary for three. You are on to something! And, I thank God for it.
Well, gang, that’s it.
One thing I like about the transition from modernism to whatever will succeed it is that I’m convinced that it will accept the validity of questions of being much better than modernism did. Modernism was far too focused on issues of doing.
So, gang, feel free to rip each and every word of this to shreds at your pleasure.
If you read this in time, I wish you all a blessed celebration of our Lord’s resurrection.
bill
posted by bill Sloat at 10:57 AM
16 Comments:
Bill, what you and Brent and Fran have written deserves more than conversation on a blog. Although perhaps it is a good starting place what's a next step?
Celebrating the empty tomb with a filled life, Lew
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lew,
Where do we go from here?
Perhaps a formal invitation should be given to some in leadership at Winebrenner Seminary and the CGGC to join this particular conversation. They would be in the best position to provide how their respective organizations can participate in the next step.
Although, there is nothing preventing those interested in the topic from taking some next steps as well.
Any thoughts?
This is a great conversation.
I am finishing an MDiv at another seminary and they are trying to constantly review what they are doing to make it better, offering more degrees and 'tracks' to accomodate different callings and the curriculum is somewhat different depending on the track.
I doubt that this fully accommodates the various callings discussed above, but perhaps it's a start.
I guess like the church, we need to be constantly reforming and not get stuck. I tend to think that seminaries need to adapt rather than go away, but I could be wrong.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bill,
I’ve read your post several times. I see what you mean about coming to this conversation from a different perspective. I think you make some great points. I don't care where the comments are posted - under my thread or yours. The main goal here is to discuss a very interesting, and necessary, topic. Since my name was used throughout the post, I thought it may be helpful to clarify a few items regarding my own spiritual journey.
First, I don't want anyone to leave the conversation with the impression that I had a negative experience as a student at Winebrenner Seminary. Each and every faculty member was supportive as I shared my struggles with whether I should seek a pastoral position or continue my academic training. I found the environment to be academically stimulating (some classes more than others...) as it provided a solid foundation for my own future education. Also, I’ve taught several classes at Winebrenner, both undergraduate and graduate. I’ve experienced the context from both perspectives and can honestly say (from my experiences) that it is a positive environment. Having said that, I still believe there is much room for improvement.
Second, if I have any frustrations looking back I would have to say they come from my own upbringing in my home church and home conference. A "call to ministry" in my upbringing meant the following: I would become a pastor; I would attend Winebrenner Seminary; I would receive an M.Div.; I would return to my home conference to pastor a church. It was always understood by me as an issue of what I would do, or what job I would fulfill – I never recall being challenged about the type of person I would become. There was never any room (even when I probed my own journey with various leaders) to consider seeking a different degree or conversation about whether I would serve as a pastor or teacher. This greatly limited my own understanding of the call as well as how I viewed my own future. When this understanding was shattered, I quite literally had a crisis of faith. It occurred while I was a student at Winebrenner. Again, I found that environment to be a spiritually supportive environment that helped me on the path to "becoming" who God was calling me to be. [Of course, it took three stints as a pastor and five more years of education to finally understand this completely - but that is another story for another day.]
Now, upon rereading your post, I think I understand better the point you are trying to make. In light of that, I want to respond to one statement before moving on to other comments. It’s not my goal to have the “seminary to be more focused on preparing people in ministry to be scholars." While I don’t think that producing smarter students is ever a problem, I think that trying to direct each student in that direction would violate the very nature of many other calls to ministry. The best metaphor that I can use for a pastor is someone who serves as a "spiritual guide" – combining the elements of shepherd and teacher that you explored.
A few other reactions to the post:
I am not suggesting that a seminary environment is the only, or even the best, environment to be trained to serve as a pastor. Fran's examples of what his church is doing may in fact be a much more effective example of how future leaders can be effectively equipped for ministry. There is much greater freedom for Fran's church to focus on the essentials because they are not seeking any accreditation. Could the guy from your church benefit more from Fran’s church? Quite possibly. Hopefully some others who read this will be challenged to consider something similar in their own settings.
I want to return to a comment I made elsewhere - a seminary is an academic environment. The moment a seminary seeks state or regional accreditation as an academic institution, they are setting themselves on a specific course. You raise the issue of Christendom guided by Constantine's merger of the State and Christianity. Can a seminary seek formal accreditation as an institution of higher learning AND be faithful to the mission you laid out? That is a question that may be worth pursuing more. What I am suggesting is that as an accredited institution, Winebrenner Seminary (and any other seminary), is publicly announcing "We are an academic institution committed to the academic training of our students."
Now, is that academic institution the best way to prepare students to serve in full-time ministry? Again, a worthwhile question to pursue further.
You wrote: “But, should a man or woman transformed by the Spirit on the level of being and called to be a shepherd and teacher or even an evangelist be turned into a scholar? In my opinion, no. At the level of “becoming” other concerns are of greater import because at the level of “doing” they will function in a different way in the Body of Christ. Scholarship is not essential to what a shepherd and teacher does.”
Let me ask one final question. Can any seminary accomplish the kind of “education” you are suggesting? If not, are you suggesting the era that needed an academic institution has passed and something new is emerging? Is Fran’s church the wave of the future?
In a more constructive fashion, where do you suggest a/the seminary begins to address your concerns? At a curriculur level? At a hiring level?
Let’s keep the conversation going.
Lew,
I appreciate your question about the next step.
I think there needs to be one.
Perhaps we should schedule a gathering of concerned people to discuss the nature of ministry. Pick a time and a place. Invite anyone in the CGGC world to attend.
Such a gathering would not have any significance in the determining the direction the denomination or the seminary would go, but it would allow people who are asking these questions to be in conversation and community and prayer together for mutual support.
Also...
There will be Break Out sessions this year at IMPACT for people who are concerned about ministry to the emerging world, as there has been in previous years. Perhaps those who gather for those discussions could find time for discussion and prayer and mutual support.
What do you think?
Re Brent’s: Let me ask one final question. Can any seminary accomplish the kind of “education” you are suggesting? If not, are you suggesting the era that needed an academic institution has passed and something new is emerging? Is Fran’s church the wave of the future?
One question, Brent? I count three questions--all of them excellent.
I’ll address each of them.
1. Can any seminary accomplish the kind of “education” you are suggesting?
Well, there is the issue of accreditation. I can’t answer that. Perhaps in order for a seminary to be accepted by the community of seminaries it has to be what seminaries are.
That issue notwithstanding, I don’t see why what I am envisioning should be impossible. Our seminary, at least, defines itself as preparing pastors for ministry. As I understand Winebrenner’s goal, it is committed to preparing people to serve in the typical evangelical Protestant notion of a parish priest--a congregation’s “pastor.”
What would be so difficult, when Winebrenner envisions “being,” for it to begin with an understanding that, according to the Bible, there are four ways in which the Spirit transforms people on the level of being to call them to ministry? Perhaps Winebrenner could acknowledge that Christ gives some to be apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastor and teachers but that it is a small, essentially regional seminary that specializes in preparing pastors. If it does, then it should say to those in northwest Ohio and to the CGGC, “If a man or woman is transformed to be something other than a pastor and teacher, we are not focused on preparing those people for ministry.”
Perhaps the seminary universe should have schools that specialize in the various states of being in ministry that the Word describes.
Bottom line: I am convinced that it is possible for a seminary to participate in preparing people who are transformed at the level of being and called to ministry. However, I don’t think that a seminary degree is all the preparation such a person needs.
2. If not, are you suggesting the era that needed an academic institution has passed and something new is emerging?
“Needed?“ I don’t think the time has passed. I suspect that the time has never come.
Consider these facts from a purely CGGC perspective:
First, the era of our most powerful ministry was not just before the seminary was established; it was also before Findlay College opened.
Second, the great majority of our most effective leaders are not, nor have they ever been, seminary grads. Look around your regions. The guy who leads the largest congregation in my region (East) and has increased its attendance tenfold isn’t a seminary grad. That’s always been the case in my years. Most of our dynamic leaders in the past have been grads of what used to be called, “The Conference Course of Studies.”
Scripture is clear that training of leaders is crucial and necessary, but the model is on the level of rabbi/disciple. See 2 Timothy 2:2 “…the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.”
It seems to me that the seminary is a function of modernity. While the seminary was never ‘needed,’ it was reasonably appropriate for the modern age. But, that age is quickly passing away and, unless the seminary is revolutionized, I think it will be increasingly ineffective.
3. Is Fran’s church the wave of the future?
I, for one, would like it to be. However, the problem is institutional. Our regions are holding on to the idea that academic training to the level of a Master’s Degree is the preferred manner to prepare men and women for leadership. I see nothing of that in Scripture, but institutional values declare that academic training is essential in the preparing of leaders.
Until institutional values change, innovators like Fran will always be tugging on Superman’s cape, spitting into the wind, pulling the mask off the ol’ Lone Ranger and messing around with Jim.
Hey, you are all invited to Martinsburg for another step in the conversation. We are ideally situated 30 miles from everywhere in every direction.
I will try to get to IMPACT this year but I can't confirm it yet. It would be great to meet or re-meet you.
By the way did you ever notice that three years seems to be a pattern in the NT?
Lew,
Do I take the Turnpike to get to Martinsburg?
What exit? How far are you from the exit?
If we had a half dozen of us who'd actually meet, I'd travel to a central location to extend this conversation.
I will not rescind my invitation to Martinsburg but there are certainly places closer to the turnpike. I am about 30 minutes from the Breezewood exit but if there is interest in a place close to the Turnpike I can find a spot in Bedford right next to the exit. The point is, as Bill said, not just to talk but to have an agenda and walk away with some specific direction.
None of us is trying to be the lone ranger on this. But we don't want to be bumps on a blog. If this is serious enough to discuss it is serious enough to take to another level.
John, thanks for your input. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel if all need need to do is adjust the pressure.
Bill, thanks for describing me as tugging on Superman’s cape, spitting into the wind, pulling the mask off the ol’ Lone Ranger and messing around with Jim-- I loved that song as a kid. I hadn't looked at the blog lately, and was surprised to see how far this conversation has gone. I don't want anyone to think I am anti-academic or anti-intellectual, but I do think that sometimes the western model of professional education and things like accreditation that go with it lead us to "prepare for a profession" rather than radically leading the community of Jesus in the work of the Kingdom. As much as you guys have graciously admired what I am trying to do, I have been looking at Bob Roberts' model of a "church planting school" and wondering if that isn't actually what I need to morph our Emmaus program into, because so far the guys I'm training aren't going out and planting (they're staying in the nest). I believe God wants me to raise up missional leaders, so whatever the training part looks like, it has to go there. Maybe the current seminary model of academics first and then an internship isn't bad... but maybe the "internship component" has to be a lot more radical than it has been-- more demanding, more cultural involvement, more missional, maybe a global component, etc. so the interns really see the world. We need real leaders, not just guys who can preach a decent sermon and navigate the land mines of the church board.
It seems as though this conversation is now covering (at least) two major topics:
The first topic addresses the question Are seminaries fulfilling their purpose in our current era? A subsequent question is whether or not this purpose is still necessary. This is the topic that generated my intial post on this blog (as well as Bill's discussion starter).
The second topic addresses the question What is the best preparation for a person to serve as a pastor?
While connected, the two concerns are very different. I think Fran's comments highlight some of the differences between the two ideas.
The first topic should address academics, accreditation, and other related concerns. The second topic should address ordination, pastoral preparation, mentoring, and others related items.
How about lunch at the annual conference? This may only be possible for the ERC but it's a place to start. My participation on the blog may be limited since I am temporarily homeless but I will be at the conference. Let's continue the conversation over coffee (I may even drink the real stuff.)
Hey, just a thought here, guys... Have any of you read The Forgotten Ways by Alan Hirsch? The book essentially asks the question of why we don't really have the kind of vibrant, multiplying, grass-roots movements the early church had, and that places like China and and parts of Central America and Africa have. I am convinced Hirsch does a phenomenal job of identifying what makes such viral movements possible. This book gets down to the core stuff-- no techniques, no catchy promises about how it's going to change YOUR church overnight... it is a diagnosis of times and places the church has spread virally, and then a holding of the contemporary western church up against that to ask what's missing.
Something Bill wrote made me think of Hirsch's book. Bill asked the question, "Is Fran's church the wave of the future?" Then he wrote, "I, for one, would like it to be. However, the problem is institutional. Our regions are holding on to the idea that academic training to the level of a Master’s Degree is the preferred manner to prepare men and women for leadership. I see nothing of that in Scripture, but institutional values declare that academic training is essential in the preparing of leaders." I think Bill's comments were insightful, and for me it raises the question of whether the right course is to bow to the institution.
Hirsch says that when we created SEPARATE institutions (seminaries) and gave them the job of preparing leaders, the church inadvertently let go of it's responsibility for questions about leadership, training, and church multiplication. For example, how many congregations in contemporary western culture feel it is THEIR responsibility to multiply the church by birthing other new congregations? Answer: almost none. Won't someone in the denomination or over at the seminary take care of that? Does anybody else think something is wrong with that?
Anyway... go read Hirsch, because if he's right about what the western church needs, it calls for an entirely different framework for thinking about leadership in general, led alone how those leaders get educated and trained.
And far from wanting to "dumb-down" ministry training by seeing it done in the local church setting, I wonder if the real question is why more of our pastors with Master's degrees are incapable of discipling leaders into the very things they know and do as pastors. If our insistence on high-level academic qualifications for ministry had really succeeded, wouldn't we see more fruit, including those academically trained pastors multiplying themselves?
Fran,
When I wrote that, I was reading (and still am) Hirsch's book. At the same time, I'm read his earlier book, cowritten with Michael Frost, The Shaping of Things to Come. What I wrote, I wrote with their insights in mind.
I believe Frost and Hirsch are right on in what they're saying and that we need to pay attention.
The Gospel is turning some part of the world on its ear these days. I just heard a new report last week that indicated that within a generation there will be more people who identify themselves as Christians in Africa than in Europe.
Sixty years ago when the Communists expelled the missionaries from China there were 2 million Chinese Christians and people thought the Gospel was dead in China. Hirsch points out that now there are 80 million Christians in China. And, as Hirsch also mentions, the Gospel is also going forth with power in Central America.
The day is probably coming when revival will come to the U. S. when our brothers and sisters in Asia, Africa and other parts of the Americas transform us with THEIR missionaries. Unless we remember the forgotten ways and forget the new ways.
Post a Comment
<< Home