Josh Moody writes with a US Evangelical perspective in mind about the relocation of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School to Canada in Evangelicals Now. He observed that the relocation has provoked a significant discussion about theological training. It might be helpful for him to know that such a conversation has been going on, at least at the level of local church ministry in the UK for some time. I’ve been part of such a conversation for about 10 years now. He comments:
“It is interesting, and important no doubt too, to step back from some of the current changing dynamics and ask the question: what is the best way to position entrusting the truth to reliable men who will also be able to teach others (2 Timothy 2:2) in the 21st century?”
He then observes:
“I would be fascinated to discourse with others on this topic, but I was grateful that the Lord impressed on me a key principle for my own training: get as deep a theological training as you can, while at the same time getting as much practical experience as you can. The one (practical experience) informs the other (theological training) and vice versa.”
Well, that’s certainly what I (and a few others) have been arguing in contrast to two extremes, the one which suggests no training is necessary at all and the other which pushes for full time seminary training as the only acceptable model. So, I would love to have that conversation with Josh. In my case, it comes from a context where whilst I had the opportunity to train full time and saw some benefits, I have worked with people since who would benefit from and desire some form of training but for various reasons would not be able to access seminary training due to cost, academic background, culture and time. We are talking about people who love God’s word, are mentally sharp, evangelistically passionate and pastorally warm but may not have completed secondary, let alone higher education and don’t come with deep pockets or from churches with deep pockets. These are the very people who are keen to get on with the task of planting churches, indeed I know some people who have found themselves with congregations without really looking for them! They could not simply drop that responsibility and move away for 3-4 year.
Additionally, whilst I think there were benefits from my own training at Oak Hill, space to step back a bit and have time to think some things through, learning the Biblical languages over 4 years and some top notch lectures from gifted teachers, I see some draw backs. I would sum up the main hole in my own training as follows.
I realised when I got into ministry at a local church that I had been trained for maintenance mode. In other words, I was equipped to serve a stable and tidy church that would see a steady flow of converts and baptisms primarily through the children of existing church members coming to faith. I was not prepared for a community of people who were spiritually hungry but also turning up with all of the mess and chaos of their lives.
I also wonder now how much those benefits I mentioned were important strengths. Yes, some of the lecturers were good but I love reading and probably would have happily read much of the stuff for myself. I primarily needed the help of institutional discipline for language study. And yes, I grew to love Greek and Hebrew. The primary benefits were that reading and working in the original languages slowed me down and helped me in my observational skills with exegesis. I also think that the more you know about Greek and Hebrew, the more cautious you are and the more alert you are to the fallacious dropping in of statements about what the Greek and the Hebrew say and mean. That might help us guard from silly errors leading to serious heresy perhaps. However, looking back, I wonder how many of my sermons in reality have really turned on my understanding of the Biblical languages? I suspect very few if any.
Which brings me to the challenge I have for Josh. He writes:
“The trick (if I may put it like that) is how to have sufficiently intellectual training while also practical experience, and relational mentoring. That’s the secret sauce of training a pastor – knowledge of the Bible and theology at a high enough academic level to be able to do expository preaching and apologetics in an ever-changing world; character formation through life-on-life mentoring; and practical tools of ministry leadership.”
I think there is much to agree with in his article but I do struggle with his talk of “intellectual” and “academic” level training. Is that really what our future pastors need. Is “academic” the same as “deep”? Are academic apologetics course that fill your head with Aquinas and Van Til really what our evangelists need to answer the heart questions of people, especially in working class communities? Or are we preparing people to answer questions that outside of Uinversity CU missions, no-one is answering.
So, yes, we need to think creatively about training in context. We need training that goes deep in terms of grasp of God’s word and in terms of practical experience but that won’t come through simply sticking the same material that in the past we heard at seminary online.
Faithroots 