The Role of Theological Education:
Theological Education ought, in partnership with the Church, to train leaders through holistic formation, critical instruction, and competent enhancement, and to disseminate those leaders into the church with the intent to engage the world with the truth of Christ.
Being overly simplistic, three general schools of thought have existed concerning the role of theological education (theological education refers to the theological institutions separate from the body of the church), however before each is investigated it must be understood that within these three schools of thought lay very different assumptions concerning the nature of theological education. This is particularly important for it must be admitted that ones view of the nature of theological education will directly effect how that person views the role of theological education.
The first school views the nature of theological education as formative to the learner both mentally and spiritually in learning to understand God more truly. This has generally be referred to as paideia, thus this school views its role as the forming of the whole person to function as responsible clergy or lay individuals within the social construct of the church. The second views the nature of theological education as research-oriented so that its role is to train the learner in the critical principle, that is, in the words of Diderot, “Everything must be examined, without exception and without circumspection.” The third school views the nature of theological education as skill-set development so that the “professional” school sees its role as producing competent leaders who seek success and growth as is defined by its social context.
The truth is, there are quandary opinions concerning the role of theological education as Kelsey so aptly observes, “Some have seen a theological school to be a Christian congregation; some have seen a theological school as a distinct from but interrelated with congregations in ways analogous to the relation in the Reformed tradition between the congregation and its clergy; others have seen a theological school as related, not to congregations, but to a cadre of active clergy for whom it provides “in-service” or “extension” education.”
While demonstrating strengths and shortcomings, each system offers significant value to the Church though each understands the nature and thus the role of theological education differently. Because the model of paideia has at its very root the forming of individuals to function responsibly in a social role it views itself as existing for the formation of the community in which it exists. Its strengths are demonstrated by developing “deeply formed” Christians who are able to live wisely. Its weaknesses stem from an overly idealistic assumption of the nature of the learner i.e. the student will be formed if he or she simply encounters the presented material. Also it is essentially individualistic though its view is toward the broader community.
On the other hand, because the University-oriented system sees its role as providing an environment for the development of critical thinkers who are able to do “critical research that is orderly and disciplined,” it views its role as existing for the development of the mind through rationality and reason which will make for an objective pursuit of truth. A fundamental flaw to the assumption of this school of thought is the idea that the individual, in its given form, is able to, without hindrance, objectively and rationally understand spiritual truth through research, criticism, and validation of the phenominal. Secondly, as it gets lost in the minutia of details tends more so than other views of theological education to be removed from the overall purpose of the church and ultimately the mission of God in the world. Lastly, the Professional school sees as its role the development of competent professionals who are able to integrate skills within the desired professional role. This model is to be commended for its desire to produce professional, able-bodied individuals. However its shortcoming is seen in that it may confuse the gospel and parish ministry with a commodity. Individuals can be trained to do a specific task however and individual cannot be trained to do tasks being motivated by love for the gospel and the missio dei.
Having encountered the tension between differing views of the role of theological education, it must be admitted that there is not one dynamic set which is significantly better than the other, each has its place and to favor one instead of the other is similar to pulling oneself out of a ditch only to stumble into another ditch on the other side of the road. It seems that this discomfort arises when institutions struggle to cope with the “tension between pastoral calling and professional credentialing on the one hand, and theological integrity and academic freedom on the other.” This tension need not be so, rather it is our view that:
Theological Education ought, in partnership with the Church, to train leaders through holistic formation, critical instruction, and competent enhancement, with the intent to disseminate those leaders into the church with the intent to engage the world with the truth of Christ.
Though extremely idealistic in scope, theological education ought to provide an atmosphere where each of the three schools of thought coexist peacefully, where its role is the training of leaders with the intent of spreading the student throughout the Church with a commitment to engage the world. The Institution neither exists solely for benefit of itself nor for the edification of the church, rather the institution exists for, that is, on behalf of the lost world.
Our contention stands theologically based primarily upon the missional purpose of God in the world, thus we seek to establish the role of theological education under the umbrella of the missio dei. We believe that the scriptures plainly demonstrate a dynamic meta-narrative of world mission as is first seen in the covenant promises to Abraham where he would be “a blessing” to the world and “his seed” would be as the “stars of the heavens.” The meta-narrative continues with the ministry of the earthly Christ who came to the people of Israel, but ultimately to “save that which was lost” which includes “all people groups.” Thus with this understanding, Paul sought to persuade the lost world concerning Christ as is seen in his dealing with the Athenians in Acts 17 and his several missionary journeys throughout the ancient world. Theological education’s role must be motivated by the mission of God to engage the world with the truth of Christ or theological education has lost its sense of real purpose.
Second, we contend theologically that a fundamental role of theological institutions is to partner with the Church (es) so that those students, upon confirmation of degrees, are able to integrate with the mission of God in the local assemblies. The New Testament principle of the Church as the body of Christ demands that believers, as members of Christ’s body, participate in and cooperate with the divinely ordained institution of the church, thus it would follow that theological education, as an extension of those members, cannot be separate from the Church in its role for it neglects the end to which theological education exists. The necessity of this partnership finds ultimate fulfillment in the collaboration together for the gospel of Christ.
Thirdly, it is our contention that the role of theological education, for the sake of the missio dei, is to train leaders with attention to the forming of persons, to the critical modes of thought, and to the development of competent professionals. Though one is hard-pressed to integrate these schools of thought as the tension between each competes for prominence, an attempt should be made so that, in taking into consideration the ethos of tensions between ideologies, each dynamic understands its role as only partial in the training of leaders to engage a lost world. One will find little biblical support for the integration of particular methodologies, however, theologically, one can make the case that sound theological education, must pursue truth from all angles of human realities. To concede to one paradigm of education is to commit educational suicide.
In an attempt to justify the role of theological education we first support it with theological principles which stem from inferences based upon revelation, and now we move to justify the role of theological education from educational principles.
If the role of theological education is to train leaders through formation, criticism, and competency, then it would follow that the theological education, as institutions, has the right to exist in order to fulfill these necessary functions, thus the organized institution. The educational principle stems from the need of Christians, young and old, to be trained in a formal setting so that they may intelligently engage a lost world.
Theological education exists in partnership with the church so that the church, as well as those in the institution, understand that each believer does not exist in his own right for his own mission and purpose, but that each exists for each other so that there may be a cooperative effort on the part of the church and theological institutions toward the missio dei. It is the wish of this partnership to seek to avoid the idea that “every man’s hat [is] his own church.” With the plethora of theologies and individual interpretations it is the presence of the authority of the church and the standards of theological education to minimalize potentially damaging ideologies. This cooperation, though when out of fellowship accomplishes little, has the potential of training leaders who are able through deep formation, intelligent criticism, and competent leadership to radically engage its contexts of mission.
Lastly, the educational justification stems from the necessity to powerfully network believers in the matrix of a world context. In bringing individuals together for forming communities of faith which pursue Christ deeply, educational justification is in developing networks where productive dialogue can take place under the guide of intense communitarian awareness. Because the missio dei must be pursued as a joint-venture of both individuals and communities of both churches and institutions, the contended role of theological education is justified.
Bibliography
Farley, Edward. The Fragility of Knowledge: Theological Education in the Church & the University. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1988.
Farley, Edward. Theologia: The Fragmentation and Unity of Theological Education. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1983.
Hart, D.G. and R. Albert Mohler. Theological Education n the Evangelical Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996.
Kelsey, David. To Understand God Truly: What’s Theological about a Theological School. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1992.