Three challenges to traditional education--a residential, classroom-centred teaching for a well-defined constituency--come from the skyrocketing costs of education, the increasing age of the student population, and the development of technology. Behind these practical changes or challenges are paedagogical considerations in theological education.
One approach in the current context of changes in denominations and theological education has been to double down on what the seminary offers, even if it means a small student body. Seminaries tending to weather some of the storms of theological, ethical, cultural, and financial change are those who provide what is needed for their particular tradition, whether the Westerminster Presbyterianism of a Reformed Theological Seminary or the Anglo-Catholic education with an intensely communal life and clearly defined spiritual formation of Nashotah House. This approach still raises questions of the cost and the availability of theological education to an older population seeking ministerial preparation. RTS has answered this challenge with multiple campuses, some simply offering classes and others providing more community. The older the student body, the more likely a spouse will have a job in a different region, aging parents will need help in a certain location, and children's lives will need to be considered, including their education. Older students may already be in a job or ministry and would need to step away from it during theological studies. This model, however praiseworthy, is not for everyone.
Over against this is the attempt of broad seminaries to attract and serve as many students as possible. Seminaries like Gordon-Conwell, Fuller, and Trinity Evangelical have attempted to attract a broad student population from many denominations, and all three have been struggling with a decreasing student body and with financial challenges for a number of years. Their pursuit of a broad spectrum of students is partly financial, being driven by the need for more students to contribute to the budget, especially as educational costs rise annually. In seminaries that embraced multi-denominationalism decades ago, when Evangelicalism was strong, multiple denominations within a broadly defined tradition worked rather well. Subsequently, these communities have become increasingly non-denominational and without a clearly defined tradition, since Evangelicalism itself is uncertain, disunited, and without a clear mission. The failure of purpose and the sky-rocketing costs a seminary education have led to lower student enrollments and to seminaries scrambling to get students from anywhere--from overseas, in non-theological programmes like counselling, or in low-cost programmes like the D.Min. degree, certificates, and several options in MA degrees.
In order to address the need for paying students, another driving force in the broad seminaries is the often uncritical embrace of technology. The thought has been that technology will reach more students, increase the size of the seminary, and thereby lower costs to the seminary (not so much the student). If students pay the same amount for courses loaded online and administered by tutors and adjuncts, the seminary can save money on a lower, full-time faculty. If a seminary does not offer residency, especially in hot or cold climates, it can save costs. Sometimes this reasoning is expressed in missional terms that the seminary wants to reach more people and train for more ministries than pastoral ministry, but it seems that the budget is the main factor driving paedogogy.
There are multiple other factors involved in any seminary's discussion of its mission, use of technology, and finances. As I understand things, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, for example, is being led by its administration and a significant number of faculty to embrace: (1) an increasingly progressive version of Evangelicalism, which, among other things, assumes that multiculturalism is a virtue; (2) an eagerness for international engagement thought to enrich ministerial training on the grounds that diversity is a virtue (not so much in the interest of old-fashioned missionary work): (3) a celebration of denominational and non-denominational multiplicity among students and faculty, which is thought to provide a richness to the classroom and whatever other community is possible in non-residential education (the seminary is trying to sell its residential campus), and (4) a privileging of minorities on the grounds that the West's secular virtues of diversity, equity, and inclusion provide a social justice that is also Christian. This is what happens when a broad seminary cannot keep its identity in the face of cultural winds, becomes theologically and missionally confused, and encounters hard, financial realities. It inevitably sees its hope in increasing its diminishing student numbers and turns hopefully to technology to save it, even as it seeks to sell its residential campus.
Technology can enhance education, including theological education. An online library greatly improves library access, and electronic research speeds research up such that students may consult a greater number of resources. When lectures can be viewed asynchronously, students can repeat a lecture or part of a lecture, work it into their schedule, study part-time, and more students can access the lectures. Using Zoom for interaction with fellow students or with professors also has benefits, though some people benefit more from in-person interaction. Technology is not the issue; use of technology is, especially when paedogogy is discussed more from a financial perspective than anything else. As seminary administrators think about using technology to cut costs, they wrestle away course material produced by professors, making it their material to administer year upon year at less cost to the seminary.
Some issues with technology are that it has democratised lecture input (there are great lectures available online), library access (even apart from paid library subscriptions, a tremendous amount of primary source and quality material is now available online), and academic dialogue (especially as postmodernity places more value in discussion over lectures). This raises the question, 'Do people need to pay for a seminary education with these resources?' The answer is, 'No,' if one continues to consider the seminary as a place to go to get quality lectures and have access to a good library. I would suggest, however, that technology has potentially changed the value of the seminary from 'lecture-learning' to academic tutoring, ministerial mentoring, and spiritual formation. If so, the answer is, 'Yes, people need the seminary.'
Academic tutoring is possible using Zoom, and moving the classroom lecture to the online lecture allows the professor to focus more on tutoring small groups of students, shaping them intellectually. The use of technology by placing lectures online for asynchronous access allows professors to focus more on academic formation, somewhat similar to the old Oxford and Cambridge approach to undergraduate education, where students may or may not attend lectures but must show up for tutorials in the professor's office. Instead of the 'content dump' of a lecture (and that is a good thing so far as it goes), academic study also includes learning to analyse, critique, and articulate material. That is better done in tutorials.
The changing nature of the seminary also allows everyone to rethink pastoral theology or 'practical theology' (a confusing concept if ever there were one). One of the most bizarre aspects of theological education in seminaries has been the study of ministry in a classroom. This ought to be done as reflective learning or work integrated learning. Students ought to learn ministry on ministry teams guided by a stellar mentor. Reading, planning, practicing, mentoring, and reflecting can all be part of this educational process. If denominations took back this training from the seminaries or worked hand-in-hand with them, this would reduce the costs of the degree, the need for ministry professors cutting into the budget, and the disconnect between the seminary and actual ministry.
A significant problem in seminaries is spiritual formation, which is very difficult to define the more one opens up seminary training to a broad spectrum of students. The use of technology only creates greater challenges along these lines. How can spiritual formation take place through online learning and whatever community is formed by online interaction? Also, a seminary of any sort that tries to hold chapel services for a broad student body ends up with a very generic, bland service along the lines of 3 songs and a sermon Evangelicalism. In fact, chapel services may well undermine spiritual formation in the seminary. If Progressive Evangelicalism has a hand in the matter, 'desiring God' is replaced with lectures from public theology activists. Add to these challenges 'online worship,' and the problem of spiritual formation through chapels is only worsened. This is only one area of spiritual formation, to be sure, but it is a significant area traditionally for residential seminaries.
My own view is that the seminary has a significant role to play in ministerial training. It can and should embrace technology, but use it wisely. The seminary should pare down what it offers to a classical curriculum of Bible (including Biblical languages), Church History, Theology (preferably historical theology), and Ethics. It is very difficult to offer these courses in any other context than a seminary. However, technology can be used in a variety of ways, including locating quality lectures on learning servers for asynchronous acquisition of information, just as with the reading. The new piece ought to be small tutorials with the professor, whether on Zoom or in person.
Second, denominations ought to define ministry sites for students, as doctors plan rotations for their medical students. Students should contribute to ministry while learning to do ministry, and this should take place either outside the ministry curriculum of the seminary altogether or with a significant role given to the denomination.
Third, spiritual formation needs to be approached within the denomination or tradition of the student rather than outside it, which is why broad seminaries typically provide very poor spiritual formation. As with ministry training, spiritual formation would best be conducted by the denomination. My concern here is that a certain type of personality, not always one to be commended, tends to gravitate towards such a role, and so the denomination needs to take care that it has thought through what spiritual formation actually means and how to provide this well. It should not simply entrust this to an individual. What is certain, however, is that online spiritual formation can only achieve certain things and will be inadequate for what is really needed. Some spiritual disciplines are developed outside community, while others require community. The community does not have to be a seminary community. The denomination needs to define this clearly for its ministers. It may develop communal, spiritual formation through camps and conferences, even with online education for the rest of the curriculum. It can form other spiritual communities, such as Bible study, prayer, encouragement, etc.
This conversation could be greatly expanded. The primary suggestion offered here is that, whether a broad, residential seminary or an online degree programme, there are problems for ministerial and spiritual formation. Technology is not a way to put what traditional theological education has been online. The value of the seminary's contribution to ministerial training needs to change somewhat, such as the focus on the classroom changing to the professor's tutorial sessions, ministry classes changing to ministry sites and reflective learning, and spiritual formation changing because the denomination takes this over. (This is one of serval reasons that the non-denominational church movement is so problematic. It is understandable that churches are left standing alone after the debacle of the mainline denominations, but the mission of the Church cannot be accomplished without greater unity and participation in ministry.) However seminaries proceed in these times of increasing financial challenges and with developing technology, the true value of the seminary will be in greater personal engagement and formation than even what has been offered on most residential campuses. The sad state of the mainline denominations after many years of residential education and that of Evangelicalism attest to the need to rethink what the seminary contributes and what the denomination contributes to forming ministers. Simply duplicating the seminary of yesterday online is not the solution, especially when it reduces ministerial and spiritual formation.
1 comment:
Overall, this is a wise perspective on what ails theological education in our day and time. The author is right in arguing that the ongoing collapse of evangelicalism has harmed those theological schools who have tied their fortunes to the movement (and I am an appreciative graduate of two of those schools). In my view, the problem is that over the long haul these schools have defined their constituency in overly broad terms. Schools like Asbury, RTS, Dallas, and Denver understand the constituencies they serve and their programs, whether residential or online, prepare students to serve those constituencies.
The author also that the growing number of independent and non-denominational congregations is problematic for effective congregational life and ministry (and training for ministry). This is not the place to debate that, only to say that over a quarter of "evangelical" churches now fit that category, and the number continues to grow as most church planting develops independent congregations, and the number of denominational churches continues to decline. It would not surprise me if that number reaches half by 2050. I concur that this raises a host of theological and missiological problems. Yet, given the nature of human depravity, I wonder what we would face if the trends had gone the other way. The author is right to point out the harm caused by the gains of liberal theology in both church and seminary. One-hundred years after the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversies were at their peak, we live with the consequences in the same way that American and European society lives with the consequences of World War I.
Post a Comment