What Can We Do About It? (a.k.a Seminary…Part Three)
Over the past month or so a variety of posts have explored concerns addressing the proper preparation for professional ministry. The conversation has consistently returned to the question Is a seminary education the best preparation for a person to serve in pastoral ministry.? I began the conversation and Bill responded with an excellent post. The conversation that has emerged is fascinating (at least to me).
In a recent post, the following was written by the current Professor of Spiritual Formation & Pastoral Theology at Winebrenner Seminary who also serves as Vice President of Academic Advancement and Director of Master of Divinity program:
“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). “
This provides a consistent agenda with what we’ve been discussing on this blog. He goes on to write,
“We are constantly exploring curriculum revisions, I would appreciate dialogue with a cluster of concerned CGGC bloggers to share your insights, concerns, and visions.”
I thought it may be interesting to refocus the discussion on these particular items. So…who would like to begin? It may be helpful to begin some posts with your own role in the local church (pastor, elder, teacher, etc.) along with your level of academic training (current student, hold M.Div., etc.). While the goal is not to promote or tear apart a specific school, it may be helpful to include whether or not you found your training (whatever that may be) to be helpful to your service in ministry.
The post concluded with, “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.”
Let’s continue the conversation. This is a great opportunity to be “heard” by the only seminary sponsored by the CGGC.
posted by Brent C Sleasman at 11:17 AM
54 Comments:
Brent,
Good idea to refocus our conversation around Dr. Nissley’s specific suggestions. I’ll be glad to join in, but I’ll warn y’all up front that my views on this issue are extreme, probably even for a forward-thinking CGGC blog.
As you request, Brent, I’ll give the low down on my role in the local church. I am serving Faith Community Church of God in Denver, PA in role of “Pastor“ and have been in this role for the last ten years. I have also been a member of the Eastern Region’s Commission on Church Renewal since it was formed seven years ago.
As you quote him, Brent, Dr. Nissley says,
We need…
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)
On this point, my greatest concern is with the suggestion that our focus should be on the “advanced” level.
It seems to me that many of us--I do say us, myself included--are not in need of more advanced level theological education. What I believe I need more of is refreshing at the remedial and basic level, not more and more and more on the advanced level. The men and women in ministry with whom I spend time in fellowship and whom I encounter in my work with the Commission on Church Renewal need to be brought back again and again to the basics of the New Testament model of ministry. They don’t need another Master’s degree or a D. Min or, God help us all, a Ph. D.. They need 101 level instruction.
In the days of my own theological education, men and women came out of seminaries better prepared to engage Karl Barth or Jurgen Moltmann [I am old, after all] or Luther or Calvin or Arminius or Aquinas or Augustine and less able to engage the needs of the aging adults, young parents and their children to whom they were called to minister.
Many of us who succeeded in remaining in ministry beyond the proverbial seventh year burn out barrier were people who realized they needed to unlearn a lot of what their theological education taught them.
Now, gang, I’m a geezer. I sat in my last seminary class in 1980. Undoubtedly things are better today than they were then. But, not that much better. And, from what I can see from the recent seminary grads I encounter, they still come to their churches with a lot to unlearn and oodles of real life stuff to learn.
Do we need more on the advanced level? I very seriously doubt that. It seems to me that the more advanced the level, the more we enter the ivory tower; the more we detach ourselves from the problems and concerns of the people we encounter in the hospital room or the funeral parlor.
Train me in the same class room as the guy who can only read at a fourth grade level and who works at a job with guys who wear hats with the number 8 on them and whose goal is to find the new number 88 hats, who wish Jr. was still pushing beer and not some energy drink. (How many academics even know what that last sentence means?) Or with the 30 year old woman who got knocked up when she was 18 and is still struggling to survive. Let me listen to the questions they ask about God and the answers they give about God. Then, I’ll have more of what I need to be ready to offer ministry.
Based on my experience, any sentence that has the words “advanced theological education” and “practical” is an oxymoron.
Dr. Nissley proposes:
“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.”
I’m all in favor of life-long training. My question is if an academic institution is an appropriate institution to provide this training. Nearly everything I am learning after all these years is almost entirely unconnected to what academics think about. And, I question whether an academic employed by a seminary knows half as much as I do about ministry related issues at the life-long training level.
In fact, the lessons of the last century of the history of theological education tell me that the last place for us to be seeking life-long training is the academy. Generally speaking, seminaries have disconnected their students from the real world.
So, while I embrace the need that Dr. Nissley describes, the last place I would go to meet the need is a seminary.
I believe that the need for life-long training is probably best met in the CGGC by the Conferences and the General Conference through an increased number of Continuing Ed opportunities. It would probably best be provided by someone who was in the pulpit and in a hospital room or a counseling setting the week before the learning event occurred and will be hopping in his car to rush home (driving an older car at the speed limit) to get back to ministry as soon as the learning event has concluded.
And, finally, Dr. Nissley suggests,
“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). “”
Good enough idea, but I have a different twist on this than do our academicians. I’m all for the partnership, if the academy wants input from the church. I’d turn this suggestion upside down. Rather than the academy seeing itself as being a resource to serve the church, I suspect the time has come for the academy to look for help it can receive from the church. I was involved with PTI in an earlier incarnation. It’s the seminary’s version of the old Conference Course. It’s our Region outsourcing the education of pastors unable to attend college and seminary. As far as I can tell, the program’s primary benefit to the Conference is on an administrative level.
As I’ve made very clear, I embrace Winebrenner’s holistic vision which acknowledges the need encounter the person preparing for ministry on the level of being, becoming and doing. However, I have trouble seeing how putting someone through college then whisking him/her off for a minimum of three years of involvement in a graduate level academic community for advanced theological education is the best way to achieve those outcomes.
I am convinced that the era of modernism was a dark day for Christ’s church in the West. Based on the explosion of the gospel these days in China and Africa and Central and South America, it’s hard to imagine what the face of Christianity will be in a century or two. But, it is not hard for me to imagine that what has happened in the Euro-American church in the last 150 years will some day be seen as a dark chapter on par with what happened in the medieval era.
The seminary and theological education--advanced theological education--and the ivory tower are sons and daughters of modernism. They have taken us to where we in the Western Church are now.
That ain’t a good thing.
Now, gang, I’m the first to admit that my views are waaaaaaaaaay out there. I’ll be surprised to see any responses in even partial agreement. My posts, at the very least, have the effect of stirring up thinking. So, there you go.
I am, as I’ve explained several times here, a Restorationist. The New Testament is everything to me. I want to bring the New Testament Church to life in our place and time. The discipling of people called to ministry in an academic setting is about as far from the New Testament pattern of disciplining leaders as I can imagine.
I believe that we will benefit by abandoning the current academic model and recapturing the most ancient and pure Christian model.
Bill,
As I come to terms with the implications of living in a postmodern moment (or what I like to call an “age of absurdity”), the more I value Paul’s interpretation of God’s interactions with Abraham in Romans 4: in verse 18, he uses the phrase “…just as it had been said to him…” and in verse 21 “…God had the power to do what he had promised.” God can be trusted because he did what he said he would do. God made a specific commitment to Abraham and demonstrated Himself trustworthy by following through on his promise. I think these verses have much to teach us about how to navigate through a time of uncertainty like our own.
I agree with your suggestion that the modern project failed. And I also agree that there is not one correct way to “do” seminary. So, where does that leave us?
First, I think we need to take a look at what commitments Winebrenner is making to its students. According to Dr. Nissley, WTS is committed to “a holistic vision of knowing (academy), being (abbey), and doing (apostolate).” Are incoming students aware that this is what they will encounter? How can WTS more effectively communicate these commitments? What does it mean to be a graduate of Winebrenner Seminary? And most importantly, does Winebrenner deliver on its promise to students? If so, it can be considered trustworthy. These are the questions that serve as a starting point. [As a side note, I think this serves as a starting point for churches as well.] I think we too often jump over this step and move right into the following concerns.
Now, I think we can move into whether these commitments are in the best interest of the students that WTS is seeking to serve.
Following my own suggestion:
I am currently serving as a full-time professor at the university level where I teach communication courses to undergraduates. Prior to this position, I served five years in various full-time ministry positions, including time as a youth pastor, church planter, and solo pastor of a small church involved in a regionally-sponsored renewal effort. Also, I’ve served on the regional Church & Ministry Development Commission.
I'll follow your framework and use Dr. Nissley's three suggestions.
#1 - Advanced Theological Training
If John can be interpreted as saying to students “At Winebrenner we seek to offer opportunities for advanced theological training…” then I can buy into what he says. The issue of whether the CGGC recommends WTS as the primary vehicle for further education is a completely different issue [and perhaps one worth discussing on the blog]. While WTS and the CGGC are deeply connected, they are independent institutions. Winebrenner needs to be the best Winebrenner it can be. The CGGC needs to recommend the best training available. Hopefully the two are connected. But they may not be. If there is something that would serve our denominational pastors better, that needs to be taken up by the Regions and the General Conference. Going back to my first point, Winebrenner needs to be blunt about who they are and follow through on that commitment. The CGGC has a responsibility to the churches and those called to ministry to recommend the best resources for training and discipleship. If that turns out not to be WTS, then it becomes Winebrenner’s choice (and major concern) about whether anything will, or even should, change.
#2 – Lifelong learning
I completely agree with you that the seminary may not be the best place for this type of education to occur. But, I do wonder if you are overstating the significance of experience. Are you suggesting that only those who have gone through (or are currently going through) certain experiences are worthy coaches or teachers? I wholeheartedly agree that there is a disconnect between the academic and the local church environments. I’ve written elsewhere that I had a few seminary professors who made me wonder if they even liked the church.
I also agree that many need to unlearn what they were taught in seminary - but what about those who need to unlearn some things that they were taught in their church growing up? Seminary (or any academic involvement) is a socialization process where people unlearn and learn. While moving away to a seminary is not a model that works for many (Fran’s earlier examples are wonderful) for some, it may the best option available.
Again, Winebrenner Seminary is what it is. Unlike the Apostle Paul, it can’t be all things to all people. It needs to be clear about its commitments and follow through on what it promises. If WTS doesn’t meet the needs of the denomination, perhaps it is time for Regions to step up and offer competing opportunities. At first this may be viewed as negative, but over time it can only improve all those involved.
#3 Churches Serving the Seminary
Right on, brother. In order to remain connected to the “real world” the seminary has to stay deeply intertwined with local churches. But I think that the two can continue to serve each other. As I think you stated elsewhere, churches have turned over to seminaries the training up of leaders. Many churches have turned over to trained professionals the “work of the church.”
Finally, I’ll have to disagree with you on the issue of who is waaaaaaaaaay out there. My guess is that many who read this blog are going to agree with a larger portion of your comments than mine. Maybe you could shed some insight into the obstacles you’ve encountered when sharing your views (and who, exactly, you believe will disagree). My comments may be interpreted as defending the status quo – but they are anything but. Of all things that could accurately be said about me, one that can’t stick is that I am modernist.
Hopefully others will join in the conversation as well. But until then, let’s keep talking…
Brent
Brent,
Good, evocative reply.
I have way too much life going on between now and Wednesday, capped off with a funeral where nearly everyone present will be unbelieving. A wonderful opportunity, but an immense challenge. I'll return to this conversation later.
bill
The last thing I wanted to do when I went to Seminary was become a religious professional. My desire in the months leading up to applying was to know the Bible better. I was either going to join a commune or go to seminary. I went to seminary. Even after graduating I wasn't looking to become a pastor but when God called me I had some of the tools I needed to get started. I can thank my professors for that start but it was just a start. Seminary didn't prepare me for many ministry situations--and maybe that is not the role of seminary. That is why this discussion is so important. What is the role of seminary? (By the way I don't know much about WTS so my thoughts are about seminary in general. I have experience with three other seminaries.)
I am wondering if the thread about discipleship and the thread about seminaries should be combined because they really are related issues--maybe subsumed under the title of discipleship.
Lou said, "Even after graduating I wasn't looking to become a pastor but when God called me I had some of the tools I needed to get started."
That is the way I felt. It seems like a 3 year program (or 5 the way I did it) should leave you ready to be fruitful. I wasn't. I just had a few tools. I was able to maintain the church.
I feel like 14 years later, I'm just starting to get fruitful. There could a lot of reasons for this.
Lew & Brian,
I think you both raise a good question, what is the role of a seminary and will it change in the future?
From my perspective, I think that a seminary needs to hold to its academic foundation. Of course, it is firmly situated within the Christian story, but it is an academic institution. It then becomes the job of the particular regions to decide what degree (if any) is necessary for a particular credential.
Is it the job of Winebrenner Seminary to produce ready-made pastors? Probably not.
Winebrenner needs to be the best Winebrenner it can be. The denomination has a responsibility to make sure it is training, recruiting, and retaining the best pastors.
There are at least two sides to this conversation.
Brent,
You are correct that Lew and Brian raise a useful question. It’s one that we need not only ask but give some serious and careful thought to answering.
What is the role of a seminary?
As one who wants to bring New Testament Christianity to life in my place and time, I have to say that I don't really have an answer to the question. I do have more questions.
You say, "From my perspective, I think that a seminary needs to hold to its academic foundation."
And, I have to ask, what, from a biblical perspective, is the purpose of the "academic?" I also have to wonder, if you take away all the modern trappings, if there is any legitimacy to the notion that the academy has a role in serving the community of the called.
Truth was crucial to the early believers. Jesus claimed to be it. As I've quoted Paul previously here, purity in belief was so crucial to him that he said,
"Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including us or even an angel from heaven, who preaches a different kind of Good News than the one we preached to you. I say again what we have said before: If anyone preaches any other Good News than the one you welcomed, let that person be cursed." (Galatians 1:8-9 NLT)
Purity in truth is crucial to who we are and what we do. But, academics? I honestly dunno where they fit in. I don't know what purpose academics serve.
When a Timothy or a Silas of today--a (probably young) person who senses a calling to ministry--comes to the body and asserts that s/he is called to ministry, what is our response?
Go to college.
Get the B.A. or the B.S.. Four years at a minimum. Many, many thousands of dollars of debt.
Then tack on to college an advanced academic degree. What‘s that? 90 more credits? 96 in my day.
How much more debt?
And, to what end? Based on what our friends Brian and Lew say, to have only some of the tools they needed to get started. Fourteen years out of seminary Brian claims only now to be starting to be fruitful. Tell me that his money and time and passion could not have been better invested.
Brent and y'all, I know Brian and Lew. They are among the sharpest knives in the drawer. I was at WTS when Brian was still there. I can tell you that his calling and his gifts are real.
So, I ask, what is the role of academics in assisting people in their calling? And, why have we concluded that advanced academic training for our brothers and sisters with a call has value?
I believe that we are wasting tons of the financial resources of the people of Christ by academically preparing our people who are called to ministry.
Wasting it.
I believe that we are wasting the years and the passion of called people in a pursuit of academic training that, at best, is unproductive and, for many of us has proved to be counter-productive.
I've said that I had to unlearn much of what my seminary taught me. Lew and Brian claim to have been given only a few tools. Brian needed 14 years after seminary to start to be fruitful--and, I believe, that we need to add to that his 5 years of seminary.
Friends,
I believe that it's long past time for us to create a new model for discipling people who are called. It's time to find another purpose for that money. It's time to find a way to give people like Brian more years to be fruitful.
There has to be a better, more biblical way.
I've enjoyed reading your comments and responses to Dr. Nissley. I have just a few vignettes to throw into the mix:
1. I remember protesting to my mother (when I was 18) that the disciples didn't need three years in seminary to change the world. She pointed out they had three years with Jesus, which was far more intense than any seminary can provide. Seminary -- at least when I enrolled in 1990 -- provided that separation from "normal" life. Obviously we've abandoned the cloister, and -- with it -- the intensive study Jesus provided to His disciples.
2. I heard it said somewhere that in the ancient Church, catechumens received years of training before baptism, and thus-trained Christians could be ordained in a matter of days when called. Nowadays it's the other way around. Seminary provides remedial theological education that once was provided to baptism candidates. When I ask candidates to memorize the 10 Commandments, the 23rd Psalm, the Lord's Prayer and the Apostles' Creed, they look at me as though I were changing the gospel.
3. WTS gave me, as others have said, some tools for parish ministry. I'm glad to know that students today are required to have ongoing "practical" ministry throughout their education, not just one summer's internship.
4. Regarding "advanced levels of theological education": I agree with Bill only insofar that the Enlightenment has done so much damage to theological studies and epistemology in general, and hence some of our academic subjects are a waste of time and mind. HOWEVER, I'm humbled by the fact that a lot of the "ordinary" people Bill mentioned have a lot of complex theological questions and ideas. Just because someone's a single mother doesn't mean she has no interest in (and need to know about) the Trinity (for example). When we reduce theology to "how do I make it through today," we limit human understanding to the mundane. What about "Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things" (Col. 3:1)? I'm not advocating an ivory tower approach that avoids life issues. But I do believe pastors need the spiritual depth and vision to shepherd God's people in spiritual directions, and "advanced levels" are necessary for that.
A quick response to Ben. Ben said, "HOWEVER, I'm humbled by the fact that a lot of the "ordinary" people Bill mentioned have a lot of complex theological questions and ideas. Just because someone's a single mother doesn't mean she has no interest in (and need to know about) the Trinity (for example). When we reduce theology to "how do I make it through today,"..."
I looked to see who you were quoting at the end. You were quoting no one. Fruitfulness for me doesn't mean total practicality. Far from it! It means helping the "ordinary" person be a disciple and not assuming that an advanced degree sets me apart. It means you don't have to have an advanced degree to understand the trinity.
Brian,
You're correct: I wasn't quoting anyone, but it seems to me that most of what I see in popular Christian books can be boiled down to that question, e.g. "Be a Better You" and "Purpose-Driven Life."
Of course we don't need an advanced degree to understand complex subjects, and we certainly shouldn't use it as a means of being set apart from the laity. My emphasis isn't on having an advanced degree per se, but on having the academic training needed to teach others.
I refuse to consider my schooling and training as rubbish. Was it perfect? No. Was it complete? No. Was it adequate? No. Was it worth the cost and the effort? Yes. I admit it: I have always been academically inclined and I enjoy the classroom experience. That doesn't guarantee that I'll be fruitful in ministry, but neither does it damage me in some way. It depends on what I do with it.
I suppose I'm reacting this negatively because of some encounters I've had in my area with people who have a basic contempt for theological training. One man I know has an advanced degree in education, and yet he openly criticizes theological training. In his mind, anyone with a seminary degree is automatically a "liberal" who upholds such radical ideas like the KJV isn't the only, or best, English translation. I was invited to a Bible study he was conducting and I (tactfully) challenged one of his ideas. I wasn't invited back.
Why is it that we respect advanced training in other areas, but not in theology?
Ben,
Re: HOWEVER, I'm humbled by the fact that a lot of the "ordinary" people Bill mentioned have a lot of complex theological questions and ideas. Just because someone's a single mother doesn't mean she has no interest in (and need to know about) the Trinity (for example). When we reduce theology to "how do I make it through today," we limit human understanding to the mundane. What about "Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things" (Col. 3:1)? I'm not advocating an ivory tower approach that avoids life issues. But I do believe pastors need the spiritual depth and vision to shepherd God's people in spiritual directions, and "advanced levels" are necessary for that.
I’m not sure what the “HOWEVER” is.
The congregation that I serve has existed for only 17 years. I am only its second ‘pastor.’ I’ve been here for over 10 years. The congregation is filled with your so-called ordinary people. Many of our women fit the profile of the teen who got knocked up. Their children are now 8 or 10 or 14. Many of our guys wear a number 8 or a 24 or a 12 or a 48 or a 3 on their caps and tee shirts. Virtually all of them were never affiliated with a congregation before they began attending ours. Some of them didn’t finish high school and more than a few read at an elementary level--if at all. Some of them regularly celebrate the length of their sobriety.
And, their thinking is anything BUT mundane.
They do, indeed, raise complex theological and philosophical questions and they find answers that are not drawn from Sunday School material. And, I’d rather learn in community with them than in any academy.
In fact, I can say that I’ve heard more freshly formed, important theological questions and heard more exciting and original reflection on them about issues such as the nature of God and the question of evil than I did in my seminaries or grad school.
And, to the point, these people engage those questions in the real world. For them, your question, "How do I make it through today?" is naturally integrated with your complex theological questions. The refreshing part of my experience of the last ten years is that these folks understand, as Jesus did, that complex theological questions such as the one about the nature of God and the so-called ‘mundane’ questions related to making it through are best answered in reference to the everyday.
These folks understand the mundane nature of the subject matter of the parables better than I ever had. And, they have taught me. They practice Colossians 3:1 at least as well as anyone I’ve ever met in an educational institution. These men and women could not make it through the work day as men and women of faith without practicing Colossians 3:1.
You want to prepare a young person for ministry? Don’t send him or her to college for academic training and seminary for advanced academic training. Send him or her to me and to the people I minister with. Let their questions and answers form him or her to live out God’s calling.
Like you, Ben, “I (also) believe pastors need the spiritual depth and vision to shepherd God's people in spiritual directions….” You’d be surprised how much depth real-world people armed with the Word and a committed heart can achieve.
The people I’ve encountered who have the best tools for forming that depth and casting that vision in me are people who are working out their salvation in the same settings as those that formed the parables: these days it’s on the construction site, on the assembly line in the factory, behind the meat counter at the grocery store, during the sales call and in kitchen homeschooling the kids.
And, I’ve never, ever had to unlearn anything they’ve taught me. All the tools for ministry they’ve given me are eminently useful.
Ben, you are embracing a dichotomy that I no longer believe exists. Sorry if there’s an edge to what I’ve written. I know you well and love you as a brother and deeply respect you. But, I’m picking up a little touch of what seems like elitism. I’m sure it’s not that, but that’s what it seems like.
The folks I meet every day, have taught me that there’s no place for elitism in Christ’s Church.
Ben,
Re: I refuse to consider my schooling and training as rubbish.
Yikes, man! I hope you don’t think that I’m saying it was.
My own seminary years were among the happiest in my life. I learned tons. I made good friends, some of whom are still friends 30 years after I was in seminary. My days at WTS were when I met Brian and Brent and George and you--all of whom I’m admire, respect and consider friends. Nevertheless, I still doubt that advanced academic training is the appropriate way to prepare people who are called to ministry. I see no rationale for it in Scripture. If you can provide me with one, I’ll be overwhelmed with joy to receive it.
Elitist? For being grateful for a decent seminary education and wanting to use it for God's glory and as a blessing to His Church? That hurts.
What dichotomy am I embracing? I assume you're talking about laity vs. clergy. Or maybe it's seminary training vs. base ecclesial community training that you've described. Isn't there room for both? Clearly, your picture of learning alongside your congregation is wonderful and attractive. I also learn from my brothers and sisters in my community. I grieve with them and laugh with them. God forbid that I should ever treat them as my inferiors.
But should I scold them for counting on me to share from my knowledge and training? Should I apologize for knowing Greek and employing my knowledge of church history? Obviously I have holes in my knowledge. They know that, and they certainly don't look at me as their spiritual guru. But they do see me as their pastor. They have expectations of me that sometimes are hard to meet. I try never to think of my role as superior, but instead as servant. This is what God has called me to, and I hope to hear Him say, "Well done."
Bill,
Here is a short list of my questions about your post. I’ll address the seminary-specific items in a separate post a little later on - time is short right now.
1) Are you suggesting that the New Testament model for discipleship be re-implemented with no regard for the past 2000 years of tradition? While I agree that we should seek to build a community of faith based upon the New Testament, are you suggesting we discard the post-NT years in an effort to recover a “true” Christian community?
2) You are academically trained and at one point, I assume, committed to serving in a seminary setting as a faculty member. What changed?
3) What about those who believe they are genuinely called to serve in the seminary setting? I think your line of reasoning runs the risk of saying their role is a wasteful way to using limited Christian resources, both in terms of people and finances. I am not trying to put words into your mouth, but I’m not sure you can have it both ways.
Just for the record, I am not serving in a seminary setting and do not see myself in that role anytime soon (if ever). So, this is not a defense of my own position. I know, and am confident of, my own role.
Ben,
By your responses, I assumed you were dialoguing with us. But we are certainly not the "Purpose Driven Life" or "Be a Better You" crowd. I've been a proponent of deeper theological thinking among the pastors as well as the congregations. So I'm not sure exactly how to dialogue with you here.
You said, "I refuse to consider my schooling and training as rubbish." By saying this, I assume (and that is dangerous) that you think some of us would consider our schooling rubbish. Not at all! A need for a change doesn't indicate all is rubbish.
You asked, "Why is it that we respect advanced training in other areas, but not in theology?" I think this is apples and oranges. Sometimes I see the doctor. Sometimes I see the Physicians Assistant. Sometimes the nurse calls in a prescription over the phone. Sometimes I talk to my mother-in-law who worked at a doctor's office for many years. It depends on my need.
We are not experiencing what China is experiencing but if we held the pastors in China to having advanced degrees, we would be ruining what is occuring there because there wouldn't be enough pastors. Does someone there need to be highly trained? I would think.
Ben, my good friend, how can I engage in conversation with you?
Brian,
This is why I don't do well on blogs. I thought that Bill in particular was dismissing the need for seminary education. I wasn't responding to you.
As for "Be a Better You" and "Purpose-Driven Life," I was talking about popular Christian books, not my fellow pastors. The fact that these -- especially the first -- are best-sellers troubles me, and that's why I brought it up.
How can you have a conversation with me? Sheesh, I didn't realize it was that difficult. This is the first time I've written anything on this blog for a long time, and I'm simply sharing my opinion. Maybe I missed some rules on etiquette. Maybe I'm a new KEN!!
Forgive me for overstating things or misrepresenting the facts. I didn't mean to accuse anyone of being theologically shallow. I just don't agree with what I'm hearing Bill say.
Your comparison with the medical field is a good one. There are lots of times people don't need "expert" advice or teaching, but sometimes they do. And that's where advanced training is helpful, in my opinion.
Of course Chinese pastors shouldn't be expected to have seminary training, but it's interesting to me how pastors in developing nations hunger for more training in general. I think what this discussion has become is a debate about the best delivery system for that training.
Two weeks ago I was in Kenya visiting with a few churches interested in affiliating with the CGGC. None of the pastors has had formal theological training, and none of them receives any pay for ministry. Believe me, that humbled me more than anything. They all expressed a desire to receive more training, and it probably will take the form of TEE. It's highly unlikely they would ever be able to enroll in a full-time program, nor should we expect them too.
Obviously if we don't expect Kenyan pastors to go to seminary, perhaps it's not fair to expect it of Americans. So how do we measure what IS expected for pastoral training? I know in Allegheny we're trying to develop a better system precisely so that more who are called can serve without having to disrupt their lives and move away. But intentional training and education needs to be there. I think we all agree about that.
Just my thoughts and opinions.
Brent,
Good and fair questions all.
Re: 1) Are you suggesting that the New Testament model for discipleship be re-implemented with no regard for the past 2000 years of tradition? While I agree that we should seek to build a community of faith based upon the New Testament, are you suggesting we discard the post-NT years in an effort to recover a “true” Christian community?
No.
I am arguing that the current model for developing people in their calling is, in view of 2,000 years of tradition, very, very recent and very, very Western. It is far from the biblical model. And, comparing the vitality of the Western church that uses this model to the vitality of the church in Asia and Africa and Central and South America, it should be clear by now that our model is woefully ineffective.
Re: 2) You are academically trained and at one point, I assume, committed to serving in a seminary setting as a faculty member. What changed?
I do not lament my graduate training. I paid for it myself and I pursued it on my terms. And, I certainly am not anti-intellectual. Anyone who wants to learn more, I say, "Please, go for it!" My Ph. D. studies didn’t only teach me the information I learned from the courses and other learning activities, they taught me how to learn--a discipline that I will always benefit from. But, they didn’t equip me to fulfill my calling.
There was a time when I was committed to serving in a seminary setting as a faculty member. And, I learned a lot. Some of what I learned has led me to the conclusions that I’m articulating now, i.e., that we need to find a better way.
More than that, as a long time student of the history of revival, some years after my WTS experience was behind me, I began to look at the world beyond the end of my nose. I’ve known about the revivals in China and Central America for decades. More recently, I’ve become aware of how much vitality there is in the African Church. Amazing isn’t it that wealthy, historic, conservative Episcopal congregations in the U. S. are abandoning liberal American leadership and aligning themselves with African Bishops.
My Ph. D. is from a Methodist school, the one which houses the Methodist Archives. They take pride in Methodist history there. The chair of my dissertation committee ran the archives. One day I began to realize that movements like Methodism were exploding until they started to create colleges and began to decline when they started to get serious about creating seminaries. Now, I’m thinking about Findlay College in the 1880s and WTS in what, the 1940s (1950s?). As Mark Twain said, history doesn’t repeat itself but it does rhyme.
So, what changed is that I began to yearn to be a part of a church that’s thriving like the one in China. And, everything I know tells me that advanced academic training is preventing the Western church from being revived.
Re: 3) What about those who believe they are genuinely called to serve in the seminary setting? I think your line of reasoning runs the risk of saying their role is a wasteful way to using limited Christian resources, both in terms of people and finances. I am not trying to put words into your mouth, but I’m not sure you can have it both ways.
First, they are not evil. Most are men and women of good character, sincere intentions and genuine faith. But, you are reading me correctly. From a macro perspective, I can not see that what they are producing is worth the investment that is put into their efforts.
How did Findlay College ultimately build up the church in it’s glory days as a church institution? Seems to me we did far better in fulfilling our mission in the days before its doors opened.
The year that WTS was first opened as a Grad School of religion at Findlay College is about the same year that the communists expelled the missionaries from China where there were a mere 2 million believers who were deprived of their leadership. Since then, the CGGC has propelled itself forward with Laodicean enthusiasm while the number of believers in China had increased about 40-fold under extreme persecution.
It seems that we need more of what China has and less of what we’ve been cultivating.
Before any of this sounds like a rant or whine about preparation or lack thereof, let me state once again the situation that frames ALL of my concerns for the church.
In the United States, not one county has more Christians than 10 years ago. (If this statistic is wrong, I would like to know).
This means that no one, not Rick Warren, not Hybels, not even smilin' Joel Osteen is affecting their county for Christ in a way that is turning the tide of decline.
And my concerns have been "What are we doing as a denomination to turn that tide?" If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you always got.
If we're not careful, seminary prepares us best to pastor the "big" church. Maybe not on purpose, but in an institutional structure, the "big" church and the denominational jobs become the top rung of the ladder. And I am not at all opposed to big churches or denominational leaders, but to grow the Kingdom of God, you have to know what to measure, and that isn't it.
As a church planter, I'm on the edge of the Kingdom, desperately trying to push, pull, or woo people in. Honestly, I've not been that fruitful. Wooing people into the Kingdom is a completely different task than maintaining a long established church.
Church people want who check out your church want to know what kind of music you sing, what do you have to insure my kids will become Christians, and will we be done by 11:00.
Non-church people who check out your church are in desperate straits. It is the only reason they would come. They want a change in their life, but they are so much more stuck than they could ever know.
Christianity is shrinking in every last county in the United States. Established church or church plant, we have to question everything we're doing.
I also feel it important to say that there is no one I know who wants revival to take place in the United States more than Dave Draper, President of Winebrenner Seminary.
Far from rubbish, my seminary days were heavily influenced by Dr Draper, Dr Stulman, Dr Crutsinger, and Dr Resseguie. Every day these men continue to influence my every task because of their early investment.
In order to help make better sense of my posts, it may be helpful to highlight a few ways in which my understanding of postmodernity informs my thinking. I’ve found that the best way I can describe our postmodern moment is one in which there is no longer any publicly agreed upon metanarrative guiding action and decision making. No longer does a faith in Science, Progress, or even Religion, guide our daily activities. While this metanarrative decline is understandably troublesome to many, it does provide an opening for many new and original ways to interpret life to come to the forefront. How one can navigate through diversity is a key virtue in the 21st century.
Within this multiplicity of ideas, I work from a constructive standpoint. I believe our best option is to make the best of what we’ve been handed at this particular moment in history. While I may wish things were different, that particular historical or political actions never took place, I cannot go back and change anything. Therefore, my intentional choice is to make the best of what we’ve been given. This counters a deconstructive approach that was highly explored throughout the latter 20th century in philosophical and theological circles.
What does this have to do with seminary education? At this moment in time, seminaries exist. Their mere existence does not suggest that they have a worthwhile purpose or that they should continue to exist. But, right now, they are here and we should figure out how to make them the most effective they can be.
Many weeks ago I started the conversation on seminary education (at Bill’s suggestion). My initial intent was to propose some challenges to the current model followed by most seminaries. Somewhere along the way it seems as though I’ve lost that focus and found myself defending the current approaches taken by many schools. Bill has offered a very different perspective which has richly added to the conversation.
The title of this thread is “What can we do about it?” We can continue to answer this by talking in our regions about the best training available. Why is the M.Div. the standard in some regions? Who is at fault – the seminary for granting the degree or the regions for emphasizing it? Can a seminary do the type of ministry suggested by Bill if it seeks accreditation?
One other note about Bill’s post – You suggest that “I can not see that what they [seminary professors] are producing is worth the investment that is put into their efforts.” I’ll try to be nice with my response. Can you share some of your omniscience with me? To use the imagery of the Apostle Paul, you cut the ground out of under these servants. Let me make sure I understand: you are suggesting that when Jesus says “Well done good and faithful servants” he will also say “Gee, I wish you would have served as a pastor instead?” Okay, so I am not being nice. But really? Who on earth (or beyond) besides God himself can make such a claim? I can say more, but I think this is uncharacteristic of you. Sorry for the bluntness.
Perhaps I am also elitist for some of my posts. But, if that is the case, I’ll wear that badge proudly
Brent,
You reference me this way:
"One other note about Bill’s post – You suggest that “I can not see that what they [seminary professors] are producing is worth the investment that is put into their efforts.”"
I can't find that sentence, though I recall making it.
Perhaps I spoke unclearly and if I did, I apologize with the greatest humility.
In that sentence I had hoped that the antecedent of "they" would be understood to be seminaries, not seminary PROFESSORS.
I'm preparing a post in which I will explain that I have the most profound respect for all of my own seminary professors and the ones with whom I worked at WTS. (I'll probably polish that post up for Monday.)
My problem is not with the individuals who work within the system. It is with the system itself.
So, again, if my syntax led to a correct reading of my sentence that suggests that I was impugning the people who teach at seminaries, I apologize for my sloppy writing and most humbly apologize to every instructor at any seminary--but particularly at WINEBRENNER seminary.
I hold you in the highest esteem.
bill
Bill,
Thanks for the reply. I value your opinion. One of the limitations of this forum is that we can't see each other's sincerity. Thanks for not taking my comments personally.
Your suggestion that the system is in error is one with which I can greatly agree. I am looking forward to your next post.
Brent
I think the most important thing that's been said in this entire conversation is what Brian said about how the entire church in western culture is in decline (no county with more Christians than 10 years ago). We are not impacting the culture, and the question is "What are we (you me, our church communities, our denomination) going to do about it?"
I think we've seen that the rise of the seeker movement, the megachurch, and "church growth principles", while each has taught us some good things, are not making the needed change. And I think many of us sense that we need a new something, but we haven't quite figured it out. We know it has something to do with:
1) A deeper version of the Gospel
2) A better take on being disciples of Jesus
3) A better take on making real disciples (deep hearts and missional lifestyles?)
... and probably a much greater ability to grasp how our culture perceives the various Christian narratives floating around out there, and how to speak a better and intelligible word.
If we've learned anything from this conversation, I hope it is that the question of how to train good pastors must emerge from our answers to questions about the nature of the Gospel, and what it means to be the church of Jesus in this time and this place. If we don't know what we're after, we can't prepare good leaders.
I don't think the issue is seminary or no seminary. I think all who care about training leaders must ask these hard questions about Gospel, church, and culture that we are searching for answers to, and then let the answers we are convinced of shape whatever training program we are carrying out. Winebrenner Seminary should be wrestling hard with these questions, and Fran Leeman trying to home-grow pastors and planters should be wrestling with these questions.
I find I am actually more interested in those questions for which we have not found good enough answers than I am in trying to architect the perfect pastoral training, because I think the answers to those questions will give us clarity about the training questions.
Friends,
I believe it’s important that I make myself clear about my seminary rants.
My seminary years were the finest years of my life. The guy who was my best friend in seminary is still my best friend today--30 years later. Some of the believers whom I respect most are people who were my seminary professors. The President of my seminary is one of the people after whom I model my own walk. He was confoundingly brilliant, yet among the most gentle and humble men I’ve ever met. I was far from a model seminary student. Even in the moments I exasperated him, he only showed me love.
Many of my years at WTS were good years.
The best of many good memories of those years is of the students. Some who post here are friends I made while I was on the staff at WTS: Brian, Ben, Brent, Dan, George. Others whom I met at WTS in their seminary days are other among the people I admire most: Kevin Richardson, Dwight Lefever, Mike Leonzo, Randy Callaway, Lance Finley and many, many others. Some still on the WTS campus are people I still keep in touch with. I make it a point to walk through the offices of the seminary to greet people whom I love whenever I’m in the Holy City. Other faculty members from my days there are friends. I still keep track of some who have been gone for many years. They are all good men and women.
The remarks that I’ve made that bother some of you should not be read as criticism of the seminary that trained me. And, I think I need to be especially clear that they are not intended to cast aspersions on Winebrenner Seminary.
My thoughts are the biggest of big picture thoughts. My criticism is of our belief that academic training equips men and women who are called to serve in ministry. And, it is disparagement of the notion that we can send people off as students to be educated theologically and then presume they return to us prepared to serve the church.
How ridiculous is it that we send called people away to an institution which is tasked with preparing them for ministry so that they develop relationships with a faculty and staff and then, on the day they receive their diploma, cut them loose from the community that formed them? How foolish is it that we send them away to be trained and, except for the Commission that will give them their ordination exams, lose contact with them while they are being formed for ministry?
How silly is it for us in the CGGC to look back over the more than six decades of the history of WTS, in which we have been entrusting WTS to form the leaders of our future, and not realize that the seminary experience has been something less than a success for us as a denomination? These six decades have been a struggle in the CGGC. It would not be a stretch to question if they have been our worst six decades.
Why have they been bad decades?
Because Presidents Jackson and Weaver and Draper were/are men of poor character and inferior intellect? Because we have staffed our seminary with mediocre instructors? Because the students who graduated from the seminary were just plain stupid?
Of course not.
The problem is not Dave Draper or the faculty or the students. The problem is the entire system we employ to disciple people called into ministry.
In his pre-Gaither days, Mark Lowry did a song called First Class, Wrong Flight, in which he describes a time he dashed on to his plane bound for Nashville at the last minute only to discover that his seat was assigned to someone else. He was moved to First Class and was having the time of his life until, after take off; the captain welcomed him to the flight to Omaha.
There’s a line in the song that I love:
“It’s not important where I go, I’m going there in style.“
That’s a fair characterization of what I think about the way we have been preparing men and women for ministry in America for the last few generations. It is, indeed, first class. Everyone who steps inside the new WTS building has to be impressed.
Gang, from what I see, the men and women who teach in most American seminaries today are the best of the best. They pour out their hearts for their students and are serving the Lord and the Body of Christ with the greatest of commitment. And, with all of that…
…as Brian has pointed out, the number of followers of Jesus is declining is every county in the U. S.. Every last county. And that, while the government in China is beside itself trying to keep the church in check, watching it expand forty fold in the same six decades that WTS has been training our pastors; while the number of believers in Africa is about to surpass the number of even nominal Christians in Europe and while Protestantism is exploding in the southern regions of our hemisphere.
I loved my seminary experiences.
But, looking at this from the biggest of the big pictures, I simply conclude that we have a serious problem with our whole approach to forming called people to ministry.
Thanks Bill.
I’ve discovered that the best way in which I can interact in constructive dialogue is to announce my own bias and then engage in the conversation. Inspired by Bill’s clarification about his seminary days, I want to offer my assumptions as the conversation proceeds. Some of the following items were clear to me before the posts on this blog, others have come across more clearly through your comments.
First, the age of Christendom is over. Perhaps saying “we live in an age of metanarrative decline” as I suggested earlier isn’t honest enough. We live in an age of competing narratives – every day we have to fight just to justify why anyone should listen to the Gospel. The dominance of a “Christian America” (if it ever existed) vanished many moons ago.
Second, the Christian Church in the U.S. is woefully inadequate at connecting people with Jesus. I share Fran and Brian’s concerns about the decline in Christian growth.
Third, the seminary (as it is currently structured) is designed to prepare people to run an institution, not lead a revolutionary movement. We are not called to lead an institution.
Fourth, with Fran, I believe that we must return to fundamental questions about Gospel, church, and culture.
Fifth, a seminary is certainly not the only and may not even be the best place to train people for ministry.
OK, in light of these items, seminaries will continue to exist and people will pay to attend them. My concern is that what they encounter when they are there is as helpful to them as possible. Unless we launch a full-scale revolution we are going to have to be satisfied with reforming the existing institutions. Perhaps we are finding that a revolution is in order…
I believe that new and better models of training should arise from within the CGGC.
But until that happens, I am interested in seeking how we can better equip those attending a seminary.
As I read these posts I feel like a midget among giants. You have a passion that puts me to shame. I hope that anyone reading these posts sees the issues raised here come from that passion for the Kingdom. I am honored to call you my colleagues.
I would like to think my concerns are fueled by that same passion but, in the interest of full disclosure, I may just be a curmudgeon.
Also in the interest of full disclosure, I needed the discipline of seminary. I had been out of college for five years and had two terrible experiences in ministry and seminary provided that safe place for me to grow and heal.
Truth is I would love to teach in seminary someday but I wouldn't approach it the way I experienced seminary.
I am working on a new model--one teacher for every twelve students and they spend the next three years together, learning, living, eating together.
Good observations, Brent and worthy of comment.
First, the age of Christendom is over. Perhaps saying “we live in an age of metanarrative decline” as I suggested earlier isn’t honest enough. We live in an age of competing narratives – every day we have to fight just to justify why anyone should listen to the Gospel. The dominance of a “Christian America” (if it ever existed) vanished many moons ago.
I agree.
I would add that we are experiencing metanarrative decline AND are in an age of competing narrative. The point of that observation is that we have negative momentum and can expect to continue to lose ground until significant changes are made by us.
(Perhaps, though, it might be a good idea for you to put those comments into English for some of the people who read our posts but aren’t philosophy Ph. Ds.. Since you brought it up, I‘ll ask you to do that.)
The death of Christendom is a reality that we need to come to grips with and get it done yesterday.
Second, the Christian Church in the U.S. is woefully inadequate at connecting people with Jesus. I share Fran and Brian’s concerns about the decline in Christian growth.
As do I.
Third, the seminary (as it is currently structured) is designed to prepare people to run an institution, not lead a revolutionary movement. We are not called to lead an institution.
Preach it, bro. The question this statement causes me to ask is this: Is the institution of the seminary capable to empowering a revolution? I have trouble believing it is.
Fourth, with Fran, I believe that we must return to fundamental questions about Gospel, church, and culture.
Amen! Amen! Amen! Amen! Amen! Amen! Amen!
Fifth, a seminary is certainly not the only and may not even be the best place to train people for ministry.
For me, perhaps the most objectionable aspect of using the seminary as a tool in preparing called people for ministry is the needless assumption that a person needs a whole degree or certificate or diploma from a seminary in order to be welcomed into ministry.
It seems to me that these days the church exists to justify the existence of the seminary, not that the seminary exists to serve the church.
These days, a man or woman who is called needs to receive from the seminary a credential into order to seek a credential from the church. In English, that means that my Region of the CGGC, for instance, won’t even consider giving a called person an ordination exam until the seminary attests that he or she has completed a course of study and received a Master’s degree, etc..
Why should a seminary degree be necessary? Why isn’t it simply necessary that a person who claims to be called demonstrate competence in the areas of ministry that are examined? If such a person has been a passionate student of the Bible for many years, why should it be necessary that s/he take the seminary courses that are required for a degree if those courses aren’t necessary? If s/he wants Brent or me to disciple them and tutor them in history or theology, why should the region care, so long as our people in ministry are competent in those areas of knowledge and can pass a fair examination?
Am I wrong? Is the tail wagging the dog? Is the institution of the church justifying the existence of the seminary?
OK, in light of these items, seminaries will continue to exist and people will pay to attend them.
They will continue to exist. But then, so will the moon. No reason that we need to spend excessive amounts of money to go to either.
Sorry for the academic-ese. In the midst of writing for other projects I don't always shift gears when posting here. In order to respond to Bill's request to "put my comments into English" I've copied a post I made on this blog in October 2006. It is entitled "Describing Postmodern" and lays out my understanding. Some of you may have read this when it originally appeared, but I like what it says and think can still provide insight into how I think and use some terms.
One other note: I didn't edit the post I made a year and a half ago. Some of the comments in the original post were connected to some ongoing conversations from that time. You can still access the responses through the Archive link.
---
Describing Postmodern
Since this blog was set up to create a space for “emerging/postmodern conversation in the CGGC” it is important to consider what we mean when using words like “emerging” and “postmodern”. Although it is difficult to provide a definition for the phrase “emerging church”, many of the conversations that have taken place here have helped illustrate how that idea is understood. While equally difficult to define, we have not talked as much about what is meant when we use the term “postmodern”.
To help get this conversation started, I want to provide a few coordinates that are helpful to me as I think about what is meant by the word postmodern. Since a complete analysis is beyond the scope of this post, there are many items I have overlooked. Questions/answers, discussion, and subsequent posts can provide additional ways for understanding our current historical moment.
Seeking a Definition
Over the past few months there have been several conversations about anonymous posting on this blog. As these conversations took place, it became evident there was not agreement about the appropriateness of posting anonymously on this site. Some responded to these posts based upon the assumption that it was common sense that people should not post anonymously. Others responded based upon the assumption that anonymous posts were okay. This disagreement, while very minor in the context of items like the recent posts on “Evangelicals for Darfur”, provides a basic illustration of one way to understand our current postmodern moment in which there is not universal agreement about what is appropriate in a given context.
Taking this example a step further, the conversation about anonymous posting can be connected to the wider use of the term “common sense”. When we say something is “common sense” we are suggesting that what is understood without explanation in one particular narrative (informed by different geographic locations, one’s education, family traditions, political/religious traditions, etc.) can be transferred to another and be readily understood. While this may have been true in a Modern era that was driven by universal understanding it is no longer the case in a postmodern context.
In his book The Postmodern Condition, Jean-Francois Lyotard provides the philosophical backing for an understanding of the postmodern era that highlights the loss of universals in the public arena. Understanding “postmodern” as a loss of a metanarrative (or all encompassing story that unifies each person’s existence) also suggests that we live in a time of competing narratives. Lyotard writes that “the grand narrative has lost its credibility.” In other words, we currently lack an agreed upon metanarrative that guides public life. Based upon Lyotard, this means that our public life is no longer dominated by a trust in the progress of Science, Religion, etc. This creates a context in which there is a multiplicity of competing narratives that strive for our attention within public life.
Several years ago someone introduced a distinction that has been helpful to me and may be of use to others as well. It is possible to distinguish between the terms postmodernity and postmodernism. Postmodernity can be used to describe our current historical moment while postmodernism can used to describe the philosophical theories of Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Richard Rorty, and others. Therefore, it is possible to say that we live in a postmodern moment (postmodernity) without accepting the whole of postmodern theory (postmodernism).
One side note. Although there is no universal agreement about what is meant by “truth”, the rise of postmodernism did not end the importance or the pursuit of truth. We can simply read Pilate’s question directed at Jesus (“What is truth?”) to see that there has not been a universal acceptance of truth for over 2000 years. Some of the same debates that go on today regarding who controls the truth, etc., took place several hundred years between Greek philosophers before Pilate asked this question. I have encountered many, both in personal conversations and through their writings, who suggest that postmodernity equals the “death of truth.” I do not believe that is an accurate assessment of our current historical moment.
Cultural Factors
Many events took place throughout the 20th century that shattered the sense of Scientific Progress leading to the decline of a metanarrative (both World Wars, the use of the Atomic Bomb, the Holocaust, etc.). Much has been written about the decline of the Christian culture in the United States since the middle of century. Other cultural events such as the Civil Rights Movement, the Great Depression, the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., also helped many recognize that the Modern world dominated by routine, technique, and progress was slowly fading.
Why Clarity Matters
Imagine an open field. A sign has been posted that simply says “Come and play.” Some people make the assumption that the game to be played is football, so they bring the appropriate equipment and attitude necessary to play the game. Others read the same sign and assume they will be playing baseball. Others rugby. Still others come prepared for lacrosse, volleyball, and even a friendly game of tag. A few remember the good old days when the field was used as a running track. Some come ready to play competitively while others come for the simple enjoyment. Others come, not ready to play, but simply to watch.
When the group assembles, no rules are provided, no boundaries given. Chaos breaks out when those hitting the volleyball around are run over by a person trying to catch a football. Arguments erupt because everyone feels they have the right to be there because they have come to play – just like the original sign invited.
Even as the spectators notice the growing conflicts, no one wants to offer any guidance because “everyone has a right to play the game of their choice.” “Who am I to say that football shouldn’t be allowed here?” is asked by others.
Eventually, frustrations over the lack of guidelines cause most people to leave. Of course there will be a few diehards who love to play anything who will stick around until no one else is there. But ultimately, no meaningful games will be played and many people will never again respond to a sign that has the simple invitation “Come and play.”
Wrap-Up
When working from an understanding of postmodernity defined by competing narratives and metanarrative decline, this brief story illustrates what can happen if clear boundaries are not drawn. Whether a church, a non-profit organization, a blog such as this one, or any other context in our current moment, guidelines must be given in order to help people make a decision about their participation.
This is only one person’s views on the topic of postmodernity. Hopefully this will provide the starting point for a helpful conversation for those who are interested.
---
This is me again, in 2008. How this relates to the ongoing seminary conversation can be picked up in another post.
Thank you, everyone, for your ideas and comments I've read here. It seems to me that we've approached some broad areas of agreement. This is how I would summarize them; please correct me if I'm mistaken -- for my sake, if not for the forum.
1. There should be a multi-pronged approach for pastoral training. There will still be a need for seminaries, but an advanced degree that requires full-time residence should not be required. Local training opportunities, apprenticeship, and TEE should be part of the mix. (I apologize for my thick-headedness in thinking that Bill was against all training. I should have known better.)
2. It's clear something has gone terribly wrong in the Western hemisphere and in our denomination, when it comes to expansion and transformation. Fran's words about reforming our understanding of the Gospel, discipleship, and mission are important here. There is certainly a tension, though, when we consider the areas of the world where rapid growth is happening. Much, if not most of it, is Pentecostal in theology and often features health-and-wealth emphases imported from Copeland et al. In Africa we're seeing a repeat of what happened in early 19th-cent. America: explosive church growth, and the rise of indigenous denominations (e.g. the CGGC) and radical cults (e.g. Mormons and Adventists). Older denominations view the "new measures" with trepidation and scorn, and new Winebrenners clash with the Establishment over them. (I remember Winebrenner's debate with the theologian at Mechanicsburg -- I forget his name.) So how should we handle the thorny issues that seem to accompany growth? Going back to the issue at hand -- theological training -- is it possible to avoid theological extremes but still promote growth?
Some might say we shouldn't worry about the extremes, that God will sort things out in the long run and we should go full steam ahead. But we need to hear what the Kenyan pastors said. They shared their concerns about the health-and-wealth teaching and the long-term effects of disillusionment that inevitably will come. If someone gives all their money to some quasi-evangelist in order to buy a miracle, what will they think when it doesn't come true? What will happen to the Christian movement in general? The Kenyan pastors I met believe that better pastoral training would prevent such bad theology, or at least could serve as the antidote.
Without becoming elitist, can seminary training serve the needs of Kenya and other areas of explosive growth AND kick start the stagnant churches as well?
I think it can, but we need to rethink apostolicity and polity. Our Directors should be like St. Patrick, a missionary bishop who didn't sit in a cathedral but who instead was on the road planting churches and creating Christian communities. Churches need to see themselves as warships and fishing boats rather than cruise-liners. (I forget where that metaphor comes from, but I like it.) And seminaries need to take missions to a new level: seminarians should receive the tools necessary to plant and pastor church-planting churches. To whom much is given, much is expected.
One final thought: we're in this together, and the blessing of being in a denomination is that -- hopefully -- we share a common identity and a common direction. I'm thankful to be part of this conversation.
I apologize for my thick-headedness in thinking that Bill was against all training. I should have known better.
No apology necessary.
Much, if not most of it, is Pentecostal in theology and often features health-and-wealth emphases imported from Copeland et al. In Africa we're seeing a repeat of what happened in early 19th-cent. America: explosive church growth, and the rise of indigenous denominations (e.g. the CGGC) and radical cults (e.g. Mormons and Adventists).
Good point. I’m not out to romanticize what’s going on elsewhere and I know that there are concerns. But, honestly, there have always been those concerns. While I don’t want to minimize them, in the 18th century, people were saying the same things about the extremes of John Wesley and George Whitefield and in the early 19th century, they were saying the same things about John Winebrenner. In the late 19th century they were saying the same things about D. S. Warner and the Nazarenes and the CMAs.
Yes. Times of growth are times of chaos. Times of order are times of decline. The CGGC has never known so much order.
I, for one, would be glad to have to deal with a little chaos.
Without becoming elitist, can seminary training serve the needs of Kenya and other areas of explosive growth AND kick start the stagnant churches as well?
If the institution of the seminary didn’t already exist, would you invent it to enhance the training of leaders in Kenya? I wouldn’t.
Thank you for your response, Bill.
This is perhaps a tangential question: In your opinion, was the Church wrong for coming together at Nicea in 325 to deal with the Arian threat? This of course started the conciliar ball rolling, and resulted in extremely complex and nuanced theological language (e.g. homo-ousios vs. homoi-ousios). And it provided an authoritative Creed that outlined historic Christian beliefs.
I ask this because the early Church leaders apparently considered it necessary to convene (at the request of Constantine) and deal with the internal theological turmoil of the day. And, following Acts 15, they believed that all the bishops and clergy in session had the authority to establish orthodox boundaries.
I appreciate Thomas Oden's preference for unified Church (i.e. pre-1054 A.D.) theology, and then later on I enjoyed Bob Webber's Ancient-Future series. I use the Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds as summary statements of basic Christian beliefs. That way I don't have to recreate the wheel, and I'm in line with what the Church Fathers of the early centuries taught.
And the Creeds aren't just for us westerners. There is an African theologian named Tite Tienou (at TEDS) who proclaimed "Chalcedon belongs to me [as an African] just as much as it belongs to the West!" He clearly sees himself and the African Church as heirs of the early Church and its theological foundations. As a result, I think we already have the framework that could serve to prevent unnecessary theological chaos.
Bill stated: "If the institution of the seminary didn’t already exist, would you invent it to enhance the training of leaders in Kenya? I wouldn’t." I would, if the seminary institution in Kenya were different than it is here in the U.S. What I envision is a "seminary-on-wheels": where teams of professors could travel throughout a region and meet with pastors and lay leaders to provide ongoing training and education.
The reason I would a develop such a seminary is because I've witnessed the hunger for training and education among these pastors, not only in Kenya but in other countries as well. Why would they feel this way? I don't think it's because some westerner has told them they're inadequate, but because they have the same hunger to learn that I still have. The difference is that I have virtually unlimited access to resources; they do not. The seminary I would build would not focus on brick and mortar, but on getting needed and relevant resources into the hands and minds of the pastors who will put them into use.
Ben asked, "This is perhaps a tangential question: In your opinion, was the Church wrong for coming together at Nicea in 325 to deal with the Arian threat? "
The question is are we in a time of doctrinal threat or are we in a time like Luther in need of revolution? In Luther's time, there was for the most part one church, but in our diverse time, the answer to the question is probably yes, we are in both times, a time of threat and a time for revolution. It certainly makes it difficult to navigate.
Also, are we in need of traveling professors in Kenya or bishops/apostles with abilities to teach/train as well as lead? (I do not know the answer to this question. Please let me know.)
It is not my desire for chaos. It is my desire to be fruitful, which would imply growth as opposed to decline. So, I would assume at this point, the balance should go toward less control, less institution. Note I didn't say no control, no institution.
Brian, Ben, & Bill,
Your ongoing conversation is really insightful. You are each bringing your experiences into this forum - we can all benefit.
Bill made a valid point that just because seminaries exist doesn't mean we need to send people to them. But let's assume that someone may be reading this who is asking, "How do I take a practical step towards incorporating these ideas into my classroom?" What would you offer as practical (incremental?) steps that can be taken. My earlier post is by no means the best, although I think the format works. While many of these ideas have been refuted and debated here, I am asking each of you to consider offering your suggestions for concrete action.
Just to jar your memory, here is what I proposed…
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.
Brent
Ben,
In your opinion, was the Church wrong for coming together at Nicea in 325 to deal with the Arian threat?
As Isaiah said as he stood in the temple, “Oivey.”
What a question.
Talk about big picture!
Let me be clear here. My training is in the history of the church in the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe and America. I’m not much better informed on early church history than anyone who took church history in seminary.
My understanding of the Council of Nicea is that it was called by Constantine as much for political reasons as out of concern for doctrinal purity. When the political winds shifted later in the century, theological winds also changed. Athanasius went into and out of exile numerous times until he died about 50 years later.
Was the church wrong? I think the church was wrong for doing the bidding of the Emperor, though I doubt I would have that insight if I was alive in those days.
The Creeds are a reality and they are an important benchmark for us. Acts 15 highlights for us the importance of defending and defining correct belief. Remember that I’m the guy who keeps citing Galatians 1:8 & 9 here.
I appreciate Brian’s remark about threat and revolution. There is a threat and we have always to be concerned about the purity of what we believe. I also think that it’s time for a revolutionary recapturing of a Bible-based, pre-Christendom doctrine of the church.
Brent,
I love you and I respect you but couldn’t disagree with you more on most of what you say.
- Seminaries are institutions of higher education (not churches or counseling centers)
Well, I do actually agree with that.
- Seminaries should work to make academic preparation for ministry more rigorous, not less
To me, this is a non-issue. But, if you ask me, is the typical seminary grad an adequate Bible scholar and theologian, I say that s/he is. In fact, most of them are far too egg headed for the people in the congregation and far less prepared to meet the every day needs of the people to whom they are called to minister. Especially in the blue collar and rural congregations of the CGGC.
- Seminaries should focus on the “whys” of ministry more than the “hows”
In my day, seminary education was predominantly based on the whys. Seminary grad of my day were launched into ministry as theoreticians with few ministry skills. In my opinion, we don’t need to go back to that place.
- Winebrenner Theological Seminary (WTS) should seek to actively cultivate the next (first?) generation of CGGC scholars
It is not possible for me to disagree with this statement more. In my opinion, it needs to form men and women who do what Paul advised in Galatians 5:16, i. e., “walk in the Spirit….”
- WTS should provide academically oriented continuing education opportunities
Fine. But, that’s not going to turn around the spiritual malaise among our pastors and our congregations.
- WTS should strengthen the denominational connection through the hiring of more faculty with CGGC credentials
I think that ship sailed a long time ago.
As far as I can tell, WTS is an evangelical theological graduate school that serves the northwest Ohio region and is glad to take all the students that the CGGC sends it. That’s free money. When was the last time the seminary was proactive is serving the CGGC in any way that did ultimately serve WTS? I’m old enough to remember the days when the seminary actually served the denomination. I can tell the difference.
I’m glad for WTS. But, I believe the CGGC needs to accept it for what it is.
How this relates to Pastors
- Recognize seminary education for what it is – a quality preparation for ministry
I don’t agree. It’s not preparation for ministry.
Bill,
As always, thanks for the honest answers. One of the strong points about this conversation is that it has highlighted the background concerns against which theological education exists (the "whys" as I called it). But I am not sure we've addressed the "hows" as much. We've done a lot of tearing down but not as much building up.
To live in an age of transition means that we have to separate ourselves from the past while simultaneously building a foundation for a vibrant future.
What would your wish list look like? If given the opportunity, how would you structure one's preparation process? I know we've hit these things here and there, but having a list in one place is helpful.
If given the opportunity, how would you structure one's preparation process?
Brent,
One remarkable characteristic of your contributions to the blog is that you ask as good a question as anyone I know. Few people understand that the thing that makes a scholar a scholar is not the answers s/he can give. It is the questions that s/he asks. You, my friend, are a first rate scholar and you display that in every one of your posts.
The best picture I know of of what the best kind of preparation looks like is the picture we have of how the earliest Christians approached discipleship. There’s a book for someone to write here, which I’ll never write, but I’ll put together some thoughts for y’alls.
Here’s some of what I see in Acts 1-6.
The first and most important element of that preparation is in the area of one’s spirituality.
The foundation of the early church’s ministry is in the fact that its earliest leaders were profoundly spiritual people. According to Acts, Jesus’ last command was for His few followers to wait until they were baptized with the Holy Spirit. It’s how the early believers waited that tells us most of what we need to know about how to prepare people for ministry. The first thing the believers did after Jesus’ ascension, was to pray--TOGETHER. “They all joined together constantly in prayer…” (Acts 1:14)
CONTINUING PRAYER in COMMUNITY.
Here’s the thing. I’ve been familiar with Acts 1 for many years. I’ve known this. I’ve wanted to be a person who lives out what he sees in Acts 1 for many years. And, for years, I wasn’t that person. I didn’t pray as much or as well as I thought I should. I couldn’t figure out how to pray more or better. Why? There are many reasons. One of them, though, is that I was not in a church culture that empowered me to devote myself to much and passionate prayer. My guess is that few of the pastors in the American church pray more than I did.
From what I can tell, Jesus created a culture of intense spirituality among the disciples so that it was natural for them to respond to His command to wait by praying. And we do just the opposite.
To comment on this in terms of the way we prepare men and women for ministry today, it seems to me that tearing people away from the faith community that gave birth to their awareness of calling only to send them away into an academic environment is at odds with the way the early believers empowered people who are called. More likely than not, it disrupts the development of their spiritual lives. Then, at the end of their education, to rip them away from the new community in which they were formed for ministry disrupts their spirituality again. Is it any wonder that our spirituality pales in comparison to that of the early believers?
Acts 2:42 gives a clear picture of what the priorities of the early church were. “They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” What you see there is this same culture of spirituality that guided the early believers before Pentecost. As far as I can tell, the ‘breaking of bread’ that Luke mentions is a reference to the taking of the Lord’s Supper, which the early believers celebrated regularly. (We can discuss that separately, if you like.) And, curiously, Luke makes the word ‘prayer’ plural in verse 42.
So, if you were a new believer, how was the church preparing to live within your calling? It was drawing you into it’s culture of intense spirituality in which people were immersed in the word, the fellowship or the koinonia--the living out of the commonality of their thinking--the regular celebration of the Lord’s Supper and the praying of prayers. All of this in COMMUNITY.
How is it that we so easily forget that Acts 2:47 says, “and the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved?” He does what’s not being done in and through the American church. He does what is being done in and through our fellow believers in China and Africa and in the more southern parts of our hemisphere.
I’d begin by addressing the issue of our feeble prayer lives, the blasé attitudes we have toward the acts of worship that Jesus commanded: our lack of intense spirituality.
There are two noteworthy components of the story of the selection of the first “deacons” in Acts 6. One of them is that the Apostles refused to get involved in the very real problem that some Christian widows were going hungry. The other is what they set out as their priority--so great a priority that it would permit them to allow widows to starve. They said literally, “and to prayer and the ministry of the word we will give ourselves continually.” (6:4) And, they did just that.
So, how would I structure the preparation process?
I’d throw out the whole book that we are using now. I’d begin with our lack of spirituality. I’d build spirituality in community. I’d do my utmost to create the same kind of culture of intense spirituality that characterized the early church. Everything else that we think is important would be secondary to the relationship that people have with their lord and the community of faith. I’d start with the issue of Who. Then, long after that was well settled, I’d work on the whys and the hows. Those things are far less important than the nature of a believer’s passionate walk with the Lord.
I hesitate to interrupt the conversation at this time but these past two days I have been really annoyed by a lurking need to ask you all a question. It stems from this point: “WTS should provide academically oriented continuing education opportunities”.
Whether you agree with this idea or not I would like to know what kind of “academically oriented continuing education opportunities” you all would attend – what are your needs in this area?
I was amazed by the lack of attendance at the past Ritz lectures by CGGC folks. This tells me that people were either not interested in hearing a pretty well known author speak (Scot McKnight), they were unaware of the Ritz lectures, it was offered at an inconvenient time of year, it cost too much, the location isn’t accommodating, etc… – could be a combination of these.
I’m just the faculty secretary at WTS but it struck a nerve with me that people are under the impression that we don’t attempt to offer academically oriented continuing education opportunities. On the 30th of this month we’re offering a marriage counseling seminar and May 13th is our next Summit in which we’ll be talking about conversion from a missional perspective – are these not educational opportunities?
I can’t know what types of events to suggest if I don’t know your wants and needs. I figure this would be as good of a way as any to at least get some ideas from people who it seems to matter to. Please email me at academicdept@winebrenner.edu with some suggestions/ideas.
Carrie
Bill,
If you view this conversation as a journey, you have at least caused me to wonder if I have my map upside down (and therefore, could be headed in the wrong direction).
I’m putting my own suggestions on hold for a few moments while I think through the implications of your ideas. Sorting through your comments will probably require that I contradict a few of my other posts. Your comments deserve more attention so I am willing to look silly for the sake of good ideas. So, for the time being, I’m going to assume that I agree with you and see what happens.
The best way I can describe what you are suggesting is that the preparation cycle is a process of being socialized into the world of “professional ministry” (I know all the baggage that comes with that term, but my mind isn’t producing a better phrase at the moment). In my reading about how one is socialized into an organization there are a few helpful insights. For starters it means that a person has to be interacting with others who can model and mentor the type of activity that is expected in the future. While there are many psychological reasons given why children follow the ways of their parents, one simple explanation is that it just makes sense to do it that way. This unreflective parenting is a product of their own socialization process – they act out in ways they witnessed as a child (both positively and negatively).
Being socialized into an organization helps one better know how to navigate the day to day elements of that particular position, in this case pastoral ministry. Does watching a faculty member lecture prepare you to preach? No. Does watching a faculty member advise students prepare you to provide spiritual direction? No. Does watching a faculty member pray before class and in chapel challenge one’s spirituality? Probably not. The list goes on (and on and on…).
Watching a pastor struggle over a text, research the ideas, and finally stand before the congregation to preach gives insight into preaching. Watching someone provide spiritual direction that connects biblical principles to real-life situations gives insight into that process. Watching a pastor pray through a stressful situation, either personal or church related, gives insight into that experience. This shouldn’t be confused with “on the job” training since this is more than just a skills based exercise. The daily routine matters and introduces a person to the virtues of that particular calling.
Seminaries socialize students into an academic setting, which is NOT the same thing as a church.
How do we know into which organizations we have been socialized? When encountering an unknown task, who comes to mind? Questions like “I wonder how so and so would handle this” is an indication. Should I participate in the local ministerium? Perhaps the lecture of a faculty member may be insightful, but the first hand observation from an internship or apprenticeship will probably have more influence.
This is much deeper than an internship. I like that word, apprenticeship. I can say more about the socialization concept if necessary, but now I want to move to the implementation stage.
How could this approach be put into practice?
I think that it would require a very good match between pastor, church, and candidate. There has to be some kind of accountability and credibility to the process. Perhaps sponsoring churches could undergo some kind of accreditation process where the seminary or CGGC recognizes the role that location can serve. Perhaps the seminary could serve as a training facility for pastors who are interested in serving as mentors. Candidates would have to be screened by someone, of course (this is still an imperfect plan so who would do that is obviously an important item to discuss).
Yes, this would still uproot some people. Although regional training centers could be utilized thus lessening the need to relocate. Who pays for this? What does this do to WTS? What churches qualify? Many questions remain, but this serves as a start.
Brian pointed out how church planters should spend time with church planters. I completely agree. This model would allow potential planters to be a part of a planting situation before going on his or her own.
Like I said, I am still sorting through your ideas. But I think I am beginning to better understand what your suggestions could look like.
Brent
P.S. Thanks for the kind words about the questions.
Carrie,
Your comments are not an interruption at all - they fit right in with the conversation. We could benefit from more "interruptions" like this.
Since I am the one who made that initial post, I'll take responsibility and respond here.
I was not at all suggesting that WTS does not offer any quality continuing education opportunities. I was simply providing a list of items that either need to occur or should continue to take place. I'll probably email you something more specific.
Thanks again for posting. I apologize for raising your annoyance level.
Carrie,
Like, Brent I agree that this is not an interuption. It's a welcome question. You raise an important issue.
Your dad's been silent here lately. Has there been a rapture that the rest of us missed out on that I don't know about?
As to your questions about the continuing ed opportunities WTS provides and the lack of participation by CGGC people: As you know, I attended the summit and enjoyed it. And, as you probably recall, I encouraged other bloggers to attend--with little success.
The comments I'll offer are mine and mine alone. I don't purport to speak for anyone else (though I have good reason to suspect that other agree with me.
It seems to me that the relationship between the seminary and the church has deteriorated significantly in the last twenty years or so. My sense is that there is significantly less loyalty in both directions than there was.
Brent's belief that the seminary should be bringing more CGGC people on its faculty is one that many in the denomination have been articulating for a long time. And, the seminary has consistently turned a stone ear to such comments.
There are people all over the General Conference whom I consider friends and to whom I am loyal. Sadly, not one of those people are affiliated with WTS these days. There is no one who is the face of WTS or signifies to me the heart of WTS with whom I am personally familiar and whom I'd go out of my way to see at a seminary event.
Until there is a Brent Sleasman or two on campus who personalize WTS for us, I doubt things'll change much. I have a closer geographical and spiritual connection to my own seminary here in Pennsylvania than I do to WTS. I'll drive the 25 miles to take advantage of its CE opportunities before I'll drive 500 miles to WTS. WTS gives me no reason to do otherwise these days.
I believe that if you guys want more participation from the denomination, you are going to have to initiate that process by taking the first step and participating in it yourselves.
Brent,
To use your language, I believe that the whole Euro-American church has had the map upside down since the Puritans decided the way to prepare it next generation of leaders was to create Harvard.
I truly appreciate your initial comments. Having read me less than 24 hours before you responded, you articulated what I’ve been thinking better than I have. Thanks for your own contribution to my own thinking. You have proposed good answers to the questions of why and how.
One request: Please never use the term ‘professional ministry’ again. Gives me the willies.
Your insights about socialization into one’s calling are extremely valuable.
Our own John Winebrenner was trained into the ministry in a way similar to what you describe. He was, indeed, an apprentice,
“Watching a pastor struggle over a text, research the ideas, and finally stand before the congregation.... Watching someone provide spiritual direction that connects biblical principles to real-life situations.... Watching a pastor pray through a stressful situation, either personal or church related....”
How vastly superior to the way I was discipled into living out my calling in an academic institution!
I like your word "apprenticeship." It’s a western word that is a fairly accurate description of what Jesus did with the Twelve, what Barnabas did with Paul and what Paul did with Timothy and Silas. Based on the results, it worked rather well in the first century of Christian history, eh?
Would this require a full and complete separation of the church from WTS and graduate level seminary education in general? No. But, I think it destroys the conventional wisdom that a graduate level academic degree is necessary for a person to live out a calling to ministry.
Both of us have mentioned several times that we are living in an era in which paradigms are shifting. I believe it is past time for us to begin to think outside of the modern box that asserts that seminary is the only way to go in preparing people to live out calling to ministry.
I discovered a while ago that the best way not to watch a TV show was to record it. Apparently the same thing must be true of notes placed under the glass on my desk. For a couple of years I have had a list of five essential questions under the glass on my desk. As I ran across them the the other day they seemed to have some relevance to the discussion of seminary.
They were written down by Roger Jenks but he credits Lloyd John Ogilvie. Five essential questions for congregational wellness:
(It is imperative to start with #1 or the others don't matter.)
1. What kind of people does God wants us to produce in this body of believers?
2. What kinds of experiences do we need in order to become these kinds of people?
3. What kinds of leaders are needed to provide those kinds of experiences?
4. What kind of pastor is needed to train those kind of leaders?
5. What kind of experiences does the pastor need to have in order to be that kind of pastor?
I wonder if these questions can help in continuing this discussion.
Also a note about Continuing Ed at WTS. I would welcome the opportunity but WTS is a long way from here (so is everything else)
I tend to take opportunites that are closer to home and closer to my needs at the time (i.e. Living with Grief, most recent CE program)
I would welcome a WTS sponsored event within 2-3 hours of travel.
Lew,
Five useful and evocative questions.
My conviction is that the changing times reveal that the best answers the Western Church provides to them are deeply enmeshed in Christendom and the centuries old notion that every parish should have a priest. Our answers are not drawn directly from the New Testament.
To be honest, questions 4 and 5 are themselves captives of Christendom and defy the pattern of leadership found in God's Word.
New Testament leadership was never centered in the role of the pastor. That's Christendom speaking.
Doesn't the Word say, "It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists and some to be(shepherds) and teachers...until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ?"
Whew! Long time no see, but as usual, you are addressing great questions...please pardon my wordiness, I'm out of practice.
Strangly enough your discussion here is mirroring a discussion we're having in our 'unintentional community.' One of the gals living with us is in the masters program at Wheaton College and trying to prepare to follow a call to the mission field. Guilt, shame and pride combine here - she doesn't want others to pay for her education and so she's decided to chance never going in order to pay her debt first.
The cost of schooling is staggering - are we are putting our leaders into positions of financial irresponsiblity? Is the question of holy living - doing the right thing, the right way - an applicable question to pose?
I've got a bunch of related ideas all jumbled in my head:
Why isn't Christianity growing today? Christianity today doesn't differentiate itself from regular culture. For example, the divorce rate is the same between Christians and non-Christians. Taken in conjunction with the number of conversations you hear in church/around the blogsphere about correct theology, and it leads me to the question: are we full of knowledge and no action? If we act no different than our culture, then how can the Kingdom of God be at hand? And how could we possibly be relevant to a culture that is looking for a way out when we're just as lost as the rest?
So if our knowledge has not informed our actions - then is our knowledge an idol? The 'be all and end all' of our Christianity?
If we have bowed to the modernistic idol of knowledge, is it a functional necessity of our institutions to be that way? If so, then yes we do need to rid ourselves of the old model and start fresh. I'm not sure that's the case though. Yes, seminary does impart immense amounts of knowledge - but a large portion of seminary is involved in building relationships too. Could seminary be a vehicle of mentoring/apprentice relationships like Brent suggested as a more useful socialization format? What if seminary functioned like a trade union, providing various levels of information paired with on the job training under a mentor or multiple mentors? And what if the continuing ed came to the pastor? What if there were floating 'apostles' (my gut reaction to that says they need a different name) who came for a while to help build up the pastor and the church? People selected for their ability to encourage, educate, support and blend in...
I have my four year degree from a bible college (bible and interdisciplinary studies majors), but I've learned more about 'church' from being a part of the Via Christus plant for the last couple of years than anything I've done before. But the experience wouldn't be what it has been without the knowledge that has informed the changes. I can see the difference in how I deal with questions because of my education. But my education did little for me before this experience...
There has got to be a better way...and I've got to go to bed...
Bill, As usual your response was insightful and pointed to a bigger picture. I was focusing on the importance of asking the right questions and skipped right over the culturally skewed outlook of the some of the questions. Once again I realize the importance of community in learning.
Maybe we can contine this conversation at Annual Conference over a meal if our commission meetings don't conflict. Any other ERC bloggers interested in finding a table together?
Lew,
"Maybe we can contine this conversation at Annual Conference over a meal if our commission meetings don't conflict. Any other ERC bloggers interested in finding a table together?"
I can't wait!
bill
At some point in this discussion Bill mentioned my silence. Just so you don't think I'm ignoring ya'll... there are several reasons I haven't been involved.
For one, I've been busy and on vacation. I also didn't know how appropriate it was for me to comment since my daughter is employed at WTS. And... I'm not the scholar that some of you are and I've barely understand some of the discussion. :)
But if I can throw in my 2 cents: as many of you know, I took a different route to seminary than most of the commenters here. Maybe that's why I have a different take. I was involved in the church, became disillusioned with it in the traditional sense, was planning to plant a church, but decided to attend seminary instead. I also didn't get an M Div, but a diploma in Pastoral Ministry (would I even be qualified in the East?). Also, I quit my job, sold our house and most of our possessions, and moved my family to Findlay for the sole purpose of attending seminary (and am still trying to make my way back to God's country - Illinois). I thought that was a natural thing to do, and was surprised to find that people thought it was odd, even irresponsible.
Anyway, there have been so many times I was glad I attended seminary before planting or pastoring. I've made my share of stupid mistakes, but I've also realized countless times how many more I would have made were it not for what I learned. And I thought one of the great things about WTS in particular was that it wasn't just academic, but they emphasized practical ministry skills too. Perhaps that was just because of the program I was in - I don't know.
It also seems we might have an unrealistic expectation if we think a seminary should prepare us for EVERYTHING. I would certainly agree that it would be nice to see WTS and the denomination work together more, but I wonder if some of the blame that's been placed on seminaries isn't more suited for denominational leadership and even local church leadership. Is it easier for us to push the seminary for hard answers than the denom? But, then, I've never really understood some of these things anyway, so perhaps I'm way off base.
At any rate, there's been some good discussion here (as always).
Peace, friends.
Dan said, "...but I wonder if some of the blame that's been placed on seminaries isn't more suited for denominational leadership and even local church leadership. Is it easier for us to push the seminary for hard answers than the denom?"
I think this is the real reason why I haven't gotten too fired up about this post. My deepest concerns and passions are with church leadership, not with academic training. Training is a piece of the puzzle. We need vision before puzzle pieces will make any sense.
As for the seminary working closely with the denom, I think we often forget how small a denomination we are. They don't come much smaller. For the seminary to thrive and grow it will have to have (major?) extensions beyond the CGGC.
I think we may have both a shortage of leaders and followers. This is dispelled with a vibrant vision.
Two thoughts...
I loved what Dan said about whether we expect too much of seminaries in the sense of preparing us for everything. I think seminaries need huge change, but no program will get you fully ready. That's why more and more organizations (religious and corporate) have moved toward models of "just in time" training... besides, you often learn best when in a situation where you have to immediately apply what you are learning. Maybe in addition to formal prep programs, we need ways to train people "as they go". This would be different from "continuing education" because just in time training has to be available when the pastor or planter hits certain crucial stages of their adventure.
Second, Brian-- you are right on with where the blame and need lie. If we have little vision, you have to ask what's going on with local church leadership-- neither the seminary nor the denomination will be able to impregnate a church with vision from the outside. The leaders of that church have to get it, and do it. Conversely, if you want better leaders and followers, you'll get them (at least partially) through a vibrant vision. Brian is right that programs for training leaders are a puzzle piece... the question is, do you have the front of the box (you know, the one with the picture on it)?
Following on what Fran said about Just in Time training, I want to point out that this isn't just practical training. As I got into practical application of ministry, questions of theology mattered much more to me than they did in seminary. Issues of the trinity, of the Gospel, of discipleship, of the divinity of Christ, of the nature of the Church, and on and on. I seem to have a much stronger sense of a need for theology ministering to a broken home, a divorce, or a lost job, than around a table with no critical application.
Fran,
Again, you make a good point.
"That's why more and more organizations (religious and corporate) have moved toward models of "just in time" training... besides, you often learn best when in a situation where you have to immediately apply what you are learning."
Earlier on, I made the point that one of my deepest concerns with the current paradigm for preparing called people to live out their calling is with the (I think) ridiculous notion that a degree is required from a seminary.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that we require the degree as a prerequisite for ministerial credentials.
The idea is that we’ll cloister someone called to ministry in an academic community until the learning is done and then think they are prepared to live out their calling.
I’ll say it again. There is some value to the body of Christ in what the seminary has to offer. But, the whole approach that the church had adopted is off base.
In this case, the tail is wagging the dog. A called person needs to complete the degree from the seminary to be credentialed to begin to live out his or her calling. And, it’s often the case that years pass between the time of learning and the actual practice of ministry.
Fran, your 'just in time' concept would make a big difference.
I came across this comment from Larry Crabb that dovetails with this discussion, even though it is written about Christian counselors:
Where is the church in this process?
When these individuals finish their degree, a state board, upon successful completion of an exam, tells society that they have enough knowledge--even though they are quite young--to competently practice psychology...But when I struggle with life I don't want a technician applying psychological principles to my life. I want a wise, seasoned spiritual saint who can peer into my soul and direct me...toward God.
Competence to care for souls and to cure them, to nuture the work of the Spirit in another's life, depends first on spiritual maturity. on the depth of the helper's communion with God. Folks who sense a call to this work need more than merely to be accepted into graduate studies by an admissions committee. They should be affirmed by a godly community who agree indeed that this person has been called.
pp179-180 Becoming a True Spirtual Community
I might add, given this criterion, I wonder if I would have been ordained 36 years ago (or should I have been?)
See, this is what I get when I don't read the blog for what, six months? This thread is very interesting.
I will say that I believe that John found his WTS training valuable and a decent foundation for ministry.
After serving what might best be referred to (lovingly) as the Jerry Springer Church of God for 10 yrs, I can say that there were definitely some aspects that seminary didn't prepare him for.
I don't think either of us were prepared for the girl who had 5 kids to 5 different men and had her tubes tied at 22. For the person who quit school in the 7th grade and can't read beyond a 3rd grade level. For families that are the 3rd or 4th generation subsisting on welfare. For the family that tied their little girl to the bedpost so she wouldn't run away. For the man who threatens others with violence during the worship service. For the woman who leaves her marriage for another woman. For a cluster of people smoking outside the front of the church.
People say to us over and over again, "we can't believe you stayed as long as you did" but that is almost insulting to us. We stayed because we believed that church needed, and deserved someone who was educated and trained and who didn't view it as some type of stepping stone. We got along with the people and dealt with things the best we could, because THOSE PEOPLE NEEDED JESUS TOO.
I believe there is an elitist view that SOME in ministry have that if one is not serving the current megachurch or planting a thriving new congregation, that one has somehow copped out. Like we haven't followed the prescribed model of, serve one church and get your feet wet, then serve a bigger one, then an even bigger one until you get to a certain level where other pastors will show you respect. Now that John is "just" an AP, he is virtually forgotten.
John never cared about being a fair haired boy and it's just as well.
So - with all of that, I think some things are lacking, but I would venture to say that it is more in the relational and familial aspects rather than academic ones.
I forgot to add - I believe that MOST ministry training focuses on ministering to the middle class and upper middle class. There is virtually nothing out there about ministering to those who can't read, who really don't care to learn because they are suspicious of education, sometimes who are rough around the edges, and some who hover at poverty level.
These people are not about to read Osteen or his ilk. They are more likely to be singing "It's five oclock somewhere," than CCM. They are not inclined to join a small group where they talk about their feelings.
Most pastors are not prepared to really relate to people like this.
That is where I think training is needed.
Post a Comment
<< Home