"What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?"
- Tertullian
Let me begin by saying that I am not altogether attacking Christian education, seminaries or Bible colleges. I am not wholly against them. I do have some personal issues and opinions about the education they provide, and I specifically chose not to attend a Bible college or seminary because of those issues (though I did attend a Christian college). BUT, that doesn't mean that they are unilaterally irrelevant or pointless.
In short, my problem with them lies in the theoretical and intellectual approach that they take in the ways they administer leadership development and equipping young people for ministry. First-century training was hands-on, rather than academic. It was a matter of apprenticeship, rather than of intellectual learning. It was aimed at the spirit, rather than at the frontal lobe. In the first century, those called to the Lord's work were trained in two ways: 1) They learned the essential lessons of Christian ministry by living a shared life with a group of Christians. They were trained by experiencing church life as non-leaders. 2) They learned the Lord's work under the tutelage of an older, more experienced worker.
R. Paul Stevens states, "The best structure for equipping every Christian is already in place. It predates the seminary and the weekend seminar and will outlast both. In the New Testament no other nurturing or equipping is offered than the local church. In the New Testament church, as in the ministry of Jesus, people learned in the furnace of life, in a relational, living, working and ministering context."
Modern theological teaching is essentially data-transfer education. It moves from notebook to notebook. In the process, the theology never gets below the neck. Theological knowledge, however, does not prepare a person for ministry.
The words of an anonymous pastor sum it up pretty clearly:
"I came through the whole system with the best education Evangelicalism had to offer - yet I didn't really receive the training that I needed... seven years of higher education in top-rated evangelical schools didn't prepare me to 1) do ministry and 2) be a leader... I had to ask myself why this great knowledge I was presenting wasn't moving from peoples' heads to their hearts and their lives. And I began to realize that the breakdown in the church was actually based on what we learned in Bible college and seminary. We were taught that if we just give people information, that was enough."
Why am I writing about this? What's my point? My interest was piqued when I recently came across the Faith Community Today (FACT) study released by Hartford Seminary in Connecticut. The study revealed that Bible college and seminary graduates and clergymen who had advanced degrees scored lower in both dealing with conflict and having a "clear sense of purpose" than non-Bible college and seminary graduates.
The survey showed that ministers with no ministerial education or formal certificate program scored the highest on tests that revealed how well one deals with conflict and stress. Bible college and seminary graduates scored the lowest!
In his book, Pagan Christianity (of which I will review very soon), Frank Viola comments, "All of this indicates that a person who matriculates from the theory-laden seminary or Bible college has been given no hands-on experience in the crucible of ministry life. In this way, the seminary/Bible college is stultifying on some pretty basic levels... Still worse is the elitism that system feeds on. The approach taken by seminaries and Bible colleges is self-referential. It sets it's own criteria for who gets to play and on what terms."
Herein lies some of my personal issues with Christian education, which is NOT why I wrote this, by the way. Maybe I'm more wrapped up in education than I should be. Personally, I don't see my Westmont education as a particularly important identifying quality about myself, though I have always been proud of it. I think my beef with Christian education, and more specifically Bible college and seminary education, has always been what Viola said about their approach. They set the standard. They decide what qualifies as a degree or a masters degree. That they have even built a system around the Platonic idea that knowledge and spirituality are the same has always troubled me.
A fairly well-known president of a fairly well-known missions organization (who will remain unnamed since he told me that if I ever quoted him he'd deny it) had this to say about the issue: "The only thing wrong with Bible colleges and seminaries is you've got the wrong people teaching there and the wrong people attending." I asked what he meant by that and he qualified the statement by saying that, basically, there are people who have never pastored a church, nor served in cross-cultural missions that are teaching and training the next generation of pastors and missionaries. Kind of a bad formula, don'tcha think?
In spite of all of this, I'm certainly not saying that I'm anti-Christian education in its entirety. This does not mean that the knowledge of the world, church history, theology, philosophy, and the Scriptures is without value. It's just not central. Theological moxie and a high octane intellect do not qualify a person to serve on the God squad. They may help... but they may hurt, too.
So again... why do I write this? Why do I write any of my blogs for that matter? I pretty much blog for two reasons: passion and intrigue. Sure there are the occasional comedic entries and informative diatribes, but for the most part I blog about what I'm passionate about or what sparks my interest/curiosity. The FACT study caught my eye and got me thinking. Maybe it's stirred something in your minds too?
- Tertullian
Let me begin by saying that I am not altogether attacking Christian education, seminaries or Bible colleges. I am not wholly against them. I do have some personal issues and opinions about the education they provide, and I specifically chose not to attend a Bible college or seminary because of those issues (though I did attend a Christian college). BUT, that doesn't mean that they are unilaterally irrelevant or pointless.In short, my problem with them lies in the theoretical and intellectual approach that they take in the ways they administer leadership development and equipping young people for ministry. First-century training was hands-on, rather than academic. It was a matter of apprenticeship, rather than of intellectual learning. It was aimed at the spirit, rather than at the frontal lobe. In the first century, those called to the Lord's work were trained in two ways: 1) They learned the essential lessons of Christian ministry by living a shared life with a group of Christians. They were trained by experiencing church life as non-leaders. 2) They learned the Lord's work under the tutelage of an older, more experienced worker.
R. Paul Stevens states, "The best structure for equipping every Christian is already in place. It predates the seminary and the weekend seminar and will outlast both. In the New Testament no other nurturing or equipping is offered than the local church. In the New Testament church, as in the ministry of Jesus, people learned in the furnace of life, in a relational, living, working and ministering context."
Modern theological teaching is essentially data-transfer education. It moves from notebook to notebook. In the process, the theology never gets below the neck. Theological knowledge, however, does not prepare a person for ministry.
The words of an anonymous pastor sum it up pretty clearly:
"I came through the whole system with the best education Evangelicalism had to offer - yet I didn't really receive the training that I needed... seven years of higher education in top-rated evangelical schools didn't prepare me to 1) do ministry and 2) be a leader... I had to ask myself why this great knowledge I was presenting wasn't moving from peoples' heads to their hearts and their lives. And I began to realize that the breakdown in the church was actually based on what we learned in Bible college and seminary. We were taught that if we just give people information, that was enough."
Why am I writing about this? What's my point? My interest was piqued when I recently came across the Faith Community Today (FACT) study released by Hartford Seminary in Connecticut. The study revealed that Bible college and seminary graduates and clergymen who had advanced degrees scored lower in both dealing with conflict and having a "clear sense of purpose" than non-Bible college and seminary graduates.
The survey showed that ministers with no ministerial education or formal certificate program scored the highest on tests that revealed how well one deals with conflict and stress. Bible college and seminary graduates scored the lowest!
In his book, Pagan Christianity (of which I will review very soon), Frank Viola comments, "All of this indicates that a person who matriculates from the theory-laden seminary or Bible college has been given no hands-on experience in the crucible of ministry life. In this way, the seminary/Bible college is stultifying on some pretty basic levels... Still worse is the elitism that system feeds on. The approach taken by seminaries and Bible colleges is self-referential. It sets it's own criteria for who gets to play and on what terms."
Herein lies some of my personal issues with Christian education, which is NOT why I wrote this, by the way. Maybe I'm more wrapped up in education than I should be. Personally, I don't see my Westmont education as a particularly important identifying quality about myself, though I have always been proud of it. I think my beef with Christian education, and more specifically Bible college and seminary education, has always been what Viola said about their approach. They set the standard. They decide what qualifies as a degree or a masters degree. That they have even built a system around the Platonic idea that knowledge and spirituality are the same has always troubled me.
A fairly well-known president of a fairly well-known missions organization (who will remain unnamed since he told me that if I ever quoted him he'd deny it) had this to say about the issue: "The only thing wrong with Bible colleges and seminaries is you've got the wrong people teaching there and the wrong people attending." I asked what he meant by that and he qualified the statement by saying that, basically, there are people who have never pastored a church, nor served in cross-cultural missions that are teaching and training the next generation of pastors and missionaries. Kind of a bad formula, don'tcha think?
In spite of all of this, I'm certainly not saying that I'm anti-Christian education in its entirety. This does not mean that the knowledge of the world, church history, theology, philosophy, and the Scriptures is without value. It's just not central. Theological moxie and a high octane intellect do not qualify a person to serve on the God squad. They may help... but they may hurt, too.
So again... why do I write this? Why do I write any of my blogs for that matter? I pretty much blog for two reasons: passion and intrigue. Sure there are the occasional comedic entries and informative diatribes, but for the most part I blog about what I'm passionate about or what sparks my interest/curiosity. The FACT study caught my eye and got me thinking. Maybe it's stirred something in your minds too?
1 comment:
Does the general public understand what is meant by "Viola" (9th paragraph)...? Good blog; good thoughts.
I'm coming into contact on an increasing level with folks who are serious about their faith, and (actually) seeking out to live in communities in major cities around the world. Know a guy in Kent who is doing this, and is training others in leadership etc. along this vein. He's got a real good thing, and has a SOLID biblical foundation (more on this in a private email if you're interested) - hitting the important stuff.
Hope the weekend was good. KIT and have a bitchin' summer.
Post a Comment