I’m rounding off my little series of articles on the health of theological training by coming back to the article that prompted them. In the article in Evangelicals Now, James Robson made three statements that I think need a little bit of response from practitioners in the local church.
The key related quotes are:
“Not everyone believes in the importance of theological colleges and seminaries.”
“Over the years, there have always been challenges to face and issues to think through. Recent issues of en have highlighted some. Most notable, perhaps, is the question around the future of seminaries in the digital age. With world-class theological content now available instantly, what role should they play?”
Then his conclusion:
“There are many wonderful institutions grappling with this as we seek to help form and shape the next generation of men and women in ministry. It’s an exciting, yet challenging time, to be thinking about how we innovate rightly – not when it comes to the gospel or even the right emphasis of learning together in community – but in terms of our methods of delivery and adaptability to societal changes.”
I want to respond to these because James is new in post at Oak Hill and perhaps there is an opportunity to renew a conversation that unfortunately has gone nowhere during past attempts. In fact, it is perhaps fair to say that many that were involved in attempts to have this conversation in the past have given up on attempting it. I can hear the voices of several of hem right now
“Dave you are wasting your time. Quit, not so much whilst you are ahead but whilst there isn’t even a race.”
You see, my concern is that James’ reflections misunderstand where many of us are coming from and where many who are critical of seminary provision are coming from. This is reflected in his focus on the big problem for theological colleges being that people don’t need/want what they have to offer because they think that they can access “world-class theological content” through the internet.
Well, as in my original article, I must answer with a “yes” and a “no.” It is true of course that we can now access theological content much more easily through the internet, though go back 20 years to when I was considering theological training and much of that content was readily available through books and throughout the fact that the digital age was already upon us. However, the problem is not that theological education is easily accessible so that people think they can bypass seminaries. Rather, it’s that it simply isn’t accessible for many. It’s not that we don’t care about training, that we don’t think it is necessary. It’s that for the vast majority of people who could be in full time Gospel ministry, theological education is not accessible.
There are a number of reasons for this. I’ve covered them many times on this blog but they key factors are that:
They do not have the finances to support them through training. It cost me £40,000 on fees alone to go through Oak Hill. There were living costs on top of that. I was able to do this because I’d saved up over a ten year period, because my wife was working and we did not have children and because my local church and others supported us generously.
They are already engaged in coal-face Gospel ministry because the work needs to be done and the labourers are few. They may well be bi-vocational, many have planted the church themselves, may be in a church context where there isn’t a paid full time pastor etc.
For many, theological education is simply not accessible because of the culture, primarily the academic culture. This can be as basic in some contexts as not having the prerequisite foundational qualifications and even if they do, the academic approach simply is not how their brains are wired. It’s not that they lack the capability to grasp and communicate truth, it’s that they come at it differently.
It is the last point that is crucial. My own views on this have been formed by my experience in secular work of leading a team that included graduates and apprentices/former apprentices. It’s been shaped by my experience of seeking to raise up church leaders and planters. Theere are from what I have observed, too many people who get overlooked for ministry because they don’t fit our assumptions and don’t fit into our pipelines.
This is important too because when we talk about those amazing theological resources readily available online, these are still utterly inaccessible to those we should be training and equipping. This is not just about what happens online. One of my concerns about what has been offered at conventions and conferences over the past twenty years is that it too often feels decoupled from the practicalities of church life. Even if there is an attempt to make a connection, it is often on the academic’s terms not the church’s terms. For example, one seminary are touring the country hawking a workshop on “concupisence.” Now, why on earth would anyone be interested in going to a day’s workshop about a fancy, Latinate theological term? Well, we are told that we should be because this will inform how we think about and deal with issues of sin and temptation pastorally. So, why not start with the question of sin and temptation and then work back to help pastors think about how to disciple people? The answer, I fear is that like a lot of theological education, it seems to start from the presenter’s interest. They have a PHD in X and s they want to share the fruit of their studies.
As I said, some of us attempted to begin a conversation with theological training institutions, including those who were at the bleeding edge of technology in responding to the digital age. This was now several years ago in pre-pandemic times. Sadly, the conversation went nowhere. Sometimes warm words were uttered, sometimes follow ups were promised but there just wasn’t’ time or money and other priorities for which there was time and money came first. So, to be honest, what we’ve got on with doing is as much as we can in a small way where we are. This is being replicated up and down the country.
I don’t agree with James that theological colleges are the source of the church and its culture. If anything, as one theological trainer put it in a comment back to me, it’s the other way round. If institutions trying to think through their own challenges don’t start by listening o the local church then they are not going to solve any problems any time soon.
So, the question is whether or not those involved in providing traditional theological training are now willing to have that conversation. I must admit that my hopes have not been boosted that much by some of the interactions I have had following my initial article in this mini series.
One academic took the time to write on my face book page to tell me that my argument was based purely on anecdotal observation and that I was entirely mistaken. When I asked them to explain what they thought I had got wrong, telling me that this (Facebook) wasn’t the place for such a conversation. They suggested that should we ever meet up in person, then they would be happy to tell me then why I was completely mistaken.
Now, I must admit that an invitation to meet someone to be told how wrong I am doesn’t sound that appealing. Unfortunately, it chimes with the experience too that a number of my peers reported at interviews and open days at theological colleges (not Oak Hill) where they were told that the institution would break down everything they believed in order to rebuild correctly. In other words “Come here and we will tell you why you are entirely mistaken.”
So, we are not off to the best of starts in this latest attempt at a conversation but maybe things will improve. I am genuinely still concerned to find ways that we can do better at training and equipping for Gospel ministry. If you are either a pastor with a commitment to seeing others trained or someone involved in training already whether through traditional or new means then please get in touch.
Faithroots 