Reimagining Nimble Ways of Preparing Persons for Church Leadership—2 of 2

Let’s clarify the challeges for preparing persons for Church leadership:

The world needs the church to be better at being the church.

Global crises are erupting around issues of poverty, environmental degradation, economic injustice, alienation of persons, refugees and immigration challenges, human trafficking and violence, to name just a few urgent issues. The list is long and complex. The world needs the church to be better at being the church in ways that bear witness to God’s promise for the flourishing of the world.

The church needs theological education institutions to be better at theologically educating leaders.

We must improve educating both lay and ordained leaders who are equipped and willing to think in more creative ways of how to bear witness to the living God. Leaders must be educated in ways that cultivate biblically astute, pastorally wise, theologically lively persons who are also intelligible to a larger public than only those who may attend one’s own place of worship.

Grave Consequences

The consequences for failure are grave.

“Theological education is vital for the future of World Christianity … Theological education has the potential to be the seedbed for the renewal of churches, their ministries, mission, and commitment to Christian unity. If theological education is neglected by church leaders … the consequences are far reaching; they might not be visible immediately, but they will certainly become manifest over time in the theological competence of church leadership, the holistic nature of mission, and the capacities for ecumenical and interfaith dialogue and the interaction between church and society.” (Handbook of Theological Education in World Christianity: Theological Perspectives, Ecumenical Trends, Regional Surveys, p. xxv)

This introduction in the 2010 publication marking 100 years since the Edinburgh Ecumenical Conference sets out what is at stake for all who are invested in educating persons for leadership in the church. It is clear that there are rich possibilities for reimagining the work of educating leaders for a church that is changing. The statement argues for robust theological education and notes the consequences of inattention at this critical juncture in the life of the church.

Reimagining

Reimagining what it means to be the church influences how we reimagine preparing leaders with and for the church.

What do the global crises and emerging mission needs of the church require of its leadership? The challenges of preparing leaders for a rapidly changing religious landscape are enormous. These issues and questions are driven primarily by mission and brought into sharp relief in part because of economic realities. In a time of economic challenge the tendency might be for us each to head for cover and garner our own resources to serve our own needs and constituencies. Then I am reminded of the Widow of Zarephath (1 Kings 17:8-16). God’s abundance always trumps human scarcity. The possibilities for reimagined theological education, broadly shared development and delivery are compelling.

What is already unfolding in reimagining theological education?

The time needed to complete the degree is reducing.

Many schools are in the process of some form of curriculum review. During the summer of 2012 the Association of Theological Schools (ATS) adopted new standards for the Master of Divinity Degree and defined that a minimum of 72 hours is required for the degree.

One challenge to reducing the time to degree is that some congregations whom we survey are not suggesting that their pastor in her first call is over prepared or has too much knowledge.

As schools may reduce requirements for a theological degree, how do we maintain quality in order to insure the caliber of leaders needed for a church that needs to better fulfill its mission? While no amount of schooling may address complaints like “he doesn’t connect with folks” or “she won’t visit people,” it is important to recognize that developing ministerial ‘habits of the heart’ simply requires substantial time.

Delivery methods are expanding.

The University of Phoenix got everyone’s attention. They led the way in early adoption online teaching and learning. Many in theological education sat back arguing that formation could not take place in such an environment. Now, there is a rapid increase in the number of schools who are approved for fully online courses. Though at this time, I don’t know of a school that has an ATS approved online Master of Divinity, there are programs with as much as two thirds of the program in an online format. An online program provides greater flexibility for the learner and for the faculty. Not only can the student sit in his own living room, but so can the instructor.

There is an increase in hybrid courses. A hybrid may have 51% of the class time in a face to face setting with the rest online. Another variation is to do some online work then meet in an intensive 3-5 day format with all day intensive teaching. This is particularly helpful for those whose full time employment or family situation preclude relocating to a seminary campus. There are challenges to sitting in a class for such an intensive experience but students report a strong camaraderie through such a shared experience. We will need to review the data in five years to explore how much of this learning is retained and useful down the road.

Faculty members are fewer.

The number of full time, tenure track faculty positions has declined. Schools are slow in replacing retired faculty opting instead for cost saving approaches including using a larger cadre of part-time or adjunct faculty. This strategy leaves a larger load of administrative work for the full time faculty who remain. I wonder what it might look like to also reimagine the way an institution uses the teaching resources of active parish pastors who have terminal degrees in relevant academic fields.

Regulatory environment is increasing.

The escalating cost of theological education has pushed students to borrow more federal student loans in greater amounts. Many students already bring substantial more undergraduate indebtedness to their graduate study. With increased federal funds comes increased federal scrutiny on quality and public accountability. This scrutiny and accountability is not necessarily a bad thing, it just increases a layer of work in already stretched institutions.

Accreditation standards have functioned not primarily as compliance standards, ensuring uniformity or else. Rather, the standards functioned more as peer review in a membership organization which sought to help schools live into their own mission in stronger and more sustainable ways. My sense is that as schools try to find creative ways to be sustainable, they are looking for brighter lines on what constitutes compliance with a more clearly defined list of minimum expectations.

The content of the courses is changing. 

Is reimagined content, delivery methods, faculty and accelerated time to degree exhaustive of the creative possibilities for how theological schools can be better at being theological schools?

In my follow-up post I will present my idea on how we might imagine theological education which may turn this all upside down.

Add to favorites