Issues
Facing Missions Today: 38. Ministerial Formation and its Cost at a Time of Change
An interesting thing happened on the way to the 21st
century: theological education as we knew it began to change dramatically. To be sure, not everyone realizes this even
now—the process of change is still underway.
Consider several factors affecting the changes in theological education,
but the one factor that might be top of the list is the increasing cost of an
academic education.
Some Factors Leading
to Changes in Theological Education
Technological Changes
By the end of the 20th century, residential
education had a new rival: online education.
This is still an unfolding story, but it began with the use of computers
in the 1980s and powerpoint slides, e-mail, and the internet in the 1990s. Alongside these presentation developments were
research capabilities as primary and secondary sources that could be searched
online or in databases began to appear. In
1994, one could send one line of e-mail at a time. By 2005, one could search ancient sources in
Greek, Latin, or in translation on the web in a way that could rival most
theological libraries.
Theological and
Ecclesiastical Changes
Other, non-technical changes began to unfold in the second
half of the 20th century. Mainline
denominations increasingly opened themselves up to unorthodox convictions and
practices, often championed by faculty in their theological seminaries. Students increasingly came from
non-denominational churches that had no expectations regarding the curriculum—particularly
the three-year, Master of Divinity degree.
Churches began asking whether ministerial training did not involve
spiritual formation and mentoring of interns as much as in-class, academic
studies. The demise of the Bible School,
where there had been more integration (but weak academics), left seminaries to
rediscover the need for more than a primarily academic focus in the seminary.
Educational Changes
Postmodern notions about truth pressed for alternatives to
classroom lectures, as did pedagogical theories about how learning best takes
place. Accrediting agencies lagged far behind
the technological advancements that were creating new options for learning,
such as flipped classrooms and online education.
Global Changes
Internationally, other developments began to unfold. In Eastern Europe, the demise of communist
governments opened up the possibility of theological education without
persecution, even with state-supported funds if programs could be
validated. Some institutions in the
United Kingdom explored the possibility of validating degree programmes outside
the UK, although this was an uncomfortable arena for the government. At the same time, European nations
increasingly wanted to provide their own validation—formerly communist
governments and universities were trying to get their heads around validation
for theological education. Unsustainable
theological institutions proliferated, only to fade after a decade or two
because, in part, fewer and fewer students enrolled. Initially, some students saw theological
education as a way to get to the West; others saw it as a way to advance in the
Church or socially, as in any profession.
Yet the small size of Protestant churches in Eastern Europe meant that
many ministers had to be bi-vocational, and it was better to spend one’s time
and money for education on some university degree rather than for a theological
education. Many theological colleges
quickly found that the costs of residential education were prohibitive.
In parts of Asia where the Church had grown (except in
China), theological education quickly became academically competitive with
Western programs, at least at the master’s level of study. Many South Koreans valued a Western
theological education, and their willingness to pay high prices for a
non-contextual theological education helped to keep some Western theological
seminaries afloat financially. The future
‘market’ for future theological education in Asia is particularly in China,
although government policies towards Christianity have made development
difficult.
Africa, with the fastest growth of Christianity in recent
times, has a tremendous need for theological education. Over 80% of those involved in ministry lack
any theological education. Syncretism
and unorthodoxy thrive alongside a vibrant orthodoxy. There are some fairly well developed
seminaries on the continent—a continent three times the size of the United
States. Yet every country could benefit
from more and better programmes for theological education. South America has seen considerable growth of
the Protestant Church as well, although much of this growth has been in Pentecostal
Churches that traditionally do not value theological education—or that are
content with weak academic programmes.
On both continents, there is a tremendous opportunity for theological
development, but the need for stronger academic programmes could mean a
duplication of the West’s mismanagement of ministerial training if it is not
pursued carefully—and differently.
North America is seeing quite a shift in theological
education. Mainline denominations are
dying due to liberal theological agendas: who would spend all that time and money
to study Scripture when it is not considered authoritative? Who cares about a curriculum of theology and
the historical Church when it is thought to be the product of sexually
repressed authoritarians who could not celebrate diversity and creativity? In such a context, what, other than social work
(called ‘ministry’), is worth studying at a theological seminary? This situation has created a need and
opportunity in North America for new Evangelical theological seminaries and
programmes to develop alongside older ones, but this comes at the same time
that statistics suggest that Christianity is beginning to wane in the US. Moreover, population growth in the country is
largely from Hispanic immigrants, for whom master’s level theological studies
are not that appealing at this time (give it a generation—or perhaps this
opportunity is already unfolding). A
consequence of all this—and an indication of the pressures on theological
education—is that some newer Evangelical denominations are dropping the
expectation of a three year M.Div. degree and exploring alternative two year
degrees.
Financial Increases
Financial pressures more than anything else seem to be
driving the discussion of the need for change in theological education. The cost of education inflated phenomenally
after the 1980s. Students entering
master’s level theological programmes in the US came with huge debts from their
four-year bachelor’s degrees. The
American model of a four year liberal arts degree followed by a three year
Master of Divinity meant seven years of training for pastoral ministry—a luxury
that could really only make sense in a fairly wealthy economic context with
young persons starting their preparation for ministry early. It especially worked well in the US in the 20th
century (although Archbishop Cranmer was able to take eight years at Cambridge
University in the 16th century).
It makes no sense in Africa, even today.
If a residential programme is more costly than online education, if
foreign students help pay the bills, if a two year degree is financially much
more affordable than a three year degree, then seminaries are opting for
changes. Change seems to be coming more
for financial reasons than any desire for greater academic quality or better
ways to prepare people for ministry.
It may well be that some online courses are better than
classroom courses (I believe so), and it may be that a two year, academic study
of Scripture and theology could be better than a three year degree. This change, however, must come with a much
greater focus on discipleship and spiritual formation and on practical
experience and mentoring in ministry.
Yet the current discussion seems to be dominated particularly by
financial concerns. This is a very sad
situation, since there is good reason to make major changes in theological
education.
Planning For the
Future
Where entirely new ministerial training is being developed
outside the West, the opportunity to do this well presents itself. The problem is that the ‘standard’ seems to
be the approach that was developed over centuries in Europe and North
America. Among the various things that
could be said—a book-length discussion would only begin to engage the issues—a
few things might be suggested here.
We should understand ministerial training to involve
academic study, spiritual formation, and mentoring in ministry. Academic study should involve classroom and
online study. Spiritual formation should
involve the local church, internships, retreats, and discipleship under a
spiritually mature believer. Mentoring
in ministry should involve actual engagement and supervision in various
ministries. Imagine ministries that are
largely run by ‘students’ but under the guidance of capable ministers—children’s
ministries, Bible studies, church planting, and so forth.
Academic study should cover areas of Biblical studies,
Church history, theology, and ethics in particular. Training in ministry should be conceived as a
life-long learning programme, even if one obtains certificates along the
way. Spiritual formation is the most
difficult training to plan as it involves the heart of an individual. Some focus could be given to internships of
various lengths and to retreats, but perhaps the most important thing would be
to spend time with mature believers engaged in ministry who can disciple people
in the faith. For each of these foci in
ministerial training, different kinds of validation or certification would need
to be developed.
We have some precedent in all of these suggestions in what
has come before—this is not entirely new.
But there is a lot of room to reconfigure what has been done. We need to move away from the university
model for training people for ministry—but without dumbing down our academic
training. We need much more involvement
of ministers, churches, and ministries in theological education. Such changes to ministerial training would
improve the present training offered by Western theological seminaries.
There would also be financial changes. Seminary training might be reduced to two
years and the plethora of degrees that have come into existence to address an
ever-widening understanding of ministry could be limited to perhaps two degrees,
or one degree with two foci: one in Bible and one in Christian Thought
(theology, Church history, ethics).
Denominations or networks of orthodoxy serving various ministries would
be the constituencies for theological colleges, rather than the Western
approach of offering theological education for interested individuals, who may
or may not know where they want to serve in the Church after their theological
studies. These groups of churches would
also be expected to develop robust mentoring in ministry programmes leading to
certification in various types of ministry.
Also, they should validate programmes that they or others develop for spiritual
formation. Thus there need to be three
different programmes: academic study, spiritual formation, and training in
ministry.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Church is facing tremendous change for a
variety of reasons, and this includes challenges facing theological education
around the world. These changes offer an
opportunity to rethink how we go about ministry training. The danger is that we will let financial
issues drive the discussion. Financial
issues should be addressed, and they can be addressed in creative ways, but we
must first rethink how to do ministry training.
The suggestion offered here is to stream-line what theological
colleges and seminaries offer, focusing study on Bible and Christian
thought. This does not mean reducing the
focus on other areas of ministry training; it rather means rethinking how this
is done. Opportunities for spiritual
formation and certified programmes in ministry that are supervised by mentors—apart
from the seminary and directed by denominations or other groupings of churches—could
be developed apart from the seminary.
This should not, however, lead to a purely academic focus in the
seminary—that would be disastrous.
Rather, courses in the seminary should still focus on spiritual
formation and preparation for ministry.
The courses covered in formal theological education, however, would be
ones that teach Biblical languages and translation, methods for study in Bible
and theology, Church history, Christian ethics, and the like. Finally, the suggestion has been given that
life-long learning, offered by both churches and the seminary, should be a part
of the life of the minister—over against the notion that one only studies to
prepare for ministry. (There should be
no such thing as ‘alumni/ae’).
As all this rethinking of ministerial training takes place,
it will also reform financial structures.
One result should be that no individual student enters seminary on his
or her own and pays for the education.
This should rather be a responsibility of the sponsoring churches or
denomination. Faculty, for that matter,
should be funded by their churches and denominations as well. This will free the student from debt, tie
students and faculty to the churches they serve, and free the Church from depending on a financial
loan system (offered in some countries) that makes it beholden to the agenda of
the government.
Comments