What is the Purpose of Theological Education?

Abraham Folayan (CTE 1)

Theological Education (TE) is in a state of crisis in many parts of the world. The

interrelated question of means and ends as well as aims and purposes continue to be

raised. Issues of resources and governance, of priorities and faculty development seem to

dominate the debates. According to Banks, only intermittently and in a limited way did

discussion revolve around the aims and purposes of theological education – whether

TE institution is attaining its primary goal? Does it need to strike a better balance

between spiritual formation, professional development, and academic excellence?1

There is a worldwide call for renewal of TE, an appeal that theological questions be

raised about the aims and purposes of TE. In the Third World, some have observed that

the prevailing paradigm of theological education, and even current proposals for its

reform, exist within a Western frame of reference that is fundamentally flawed.2

Cheesman points out that “Two Thirds world Christians are radically rethinking the

structure and context of theological education as they have received it at the hands of the

missionary enterprise.”3 This received structure, helpful as it is, has become a heavy

financial burden and questions about its very existence have become a compelling

imperative. If we understand clearly the purpose for its existence, then we might be in a

better position to think creatively about the way we organize it.

1 Banks, Robert, Reenvisioning Theological Education: Exploring a Missional Alternative to Current Models, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999, p.9f. Other interrelated questions being asked about TE are: Is it relating properly and realistically to its contemporary context, especially its immediate local and wider church setting? Is it creating the proper ethos for its members, an experience of community that is Spirit controlled? Is it providing an appropriate curriculum that integrates theory and practice and relates to contemporary issues facing the church? See also Kelsey, D., To Understand God Truly: What’s Theological About A Theological School, Louisville, John Knox Press, 1992, (who poses similar questions and explains that these signify real difficulties and deep ones, which if not addressed will result in the schools’ future being seriously compromised). 2 Ibid., p.103 Cheesman, G., “Competing Paradigms in Theological Education Today” in Evangelical Review of Theology, October 1993, p.484

1

Noelliste believes that “essential to the renewal of theological education is the retrieval

and the maintaining of its uniqueness and distinctiveness … Theologically understood

then, theological education consists in the formation of the people of God in the truth and

wisdom of God for the purpose of personal renewal and meaningful participation in the

fulfilment of the purpose of God in the Church and the world.”4 On this view, theological

education is the process of formation that leads to the transformation of the world through

the individual and the collective participation of God’s people in God’s mission.

Why do we have a theological school in the first place and what is it there to do? When

this goal is clear, other dimensions of the theological education task can be structured

appropriately. Yet, an appropriate goal in one context may be inappropriate in another. A

goal is a statement of intention and may sometimes sound idealistic when compared with

realities. It was Farley who once observed that “any essay on the nature and purposes of

theological education is inescapably a contribution to utopian literature.”5 Nevertheless,

we must decide, no matter how tentatively, why we have a theological institution. TE

must be purposive because it concerns a God with a mission for his Church to fulfil in

His world. The Seminary should recognize that “the educational goals lay the necessary

foundation for integration of all the institution’s educational processes, integration which

leads to fulfilment of the Mission Statement.”6

The purpose of TE should share something of the purpose of education. So, exploring

the purpose of education might inform our expectation about the purpose of theological

education. According to the educational tradition of pre- Christian Africa, character

formation and learning of specific skills are inseparably related. The relevance of

education arises from societal need, the sharing and transmission of collective spiritual

and moral values, and the close relation of education to work.7 This system is closer to

the Christian educational ideal than today’s secular education. In America, for instance,

4 Noelliste, Diememe, “Towards a Theology of Theological Education” in Evangelical Review of Theology, Vol.19:3, July, 1995, p.2995 Quoted in Kelsey, D., To Understand God Truly: What’s Theological About A Theological School, Louisville, John Knox Press, 1992, p.15 6 Ford, L., A Curriculum Design Manual for Theological Education : A Learning Outcome Focus, Eugene, Wipf and Stock, 1999, p.3437 Bromiley, G. W. & Barrett, D. B., (ed- English), The Encyclopaedia of Christianity, Vol.2, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2001, p.65

2

Puritans established schools intended to equip citizens with knowledge and skills to be a

happy, useful member of society and a committed servant of God. This was replaced late

19th, early 20th centuries by Dewey’s ‘value-free’ secular education. Dewey believes man

is fundamentally good, that evil is product of environment and that application of the

scientific method could solve all social ills and that careful consideration of consequences

is the only proper foundation for ethics.8

According to Dewey:

Human problem situations are part of the evolutionary adjustment process ...

Questions about a highest good are ill-conceived. There is neither unchanging

natural order nor divine purpose to which appeal can be made, and no ground for

the hopes religion stirs other than the intelligence humans have for resolving all

their problems.”9

This atheistic and humanistic position stands in contrast to the Christian belief of

Creation – Fall – Redemption, and the need of divine help for inner transformation.

Education in today’s secular state is basically anthropocentric with a humanistic purpose

while theological education is theocentric with a God –centred purpose.

Martin Luther King Jr. on the Purpose of Education says “Education has a two-fold

function to perform in the life of man and in society: the one is utility and the other is

culture.”10

For Whitehead, “education is the acquisition of the art of the utilization of knowledge.”11

Theoretical ideas should always find important applications so that knowledge is kept

alive and prevents us from becoming “inert”12, a major danger for all education. For the

Universities, Whitehead describes them as schools of education and schools of research.

But the primary reason for their existence is neither the mere knowledge conveyed nor

the mere opportunities for research. Rather the justification for a University is that it

8 Hoffecker, W. A., (ed), Building a Christian World View Vol. 2, Phillipsburg, Presbyterian & Reformed Publication , 1988, pp.275 – 279 (277)9 Holmes, A. F., Fact, Value and God, Leicester, Apollos, 1997, pp.158f10 http://www.toptags.com/aama/voices/speeches/puffed.htm , November, 2005 .Luther went on to say: “Education equips a person to become more efficient, to achieve with increasing facility the legitimate goals of his life. It must also train one for quick, resolute and effective thinking, an ability to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false. Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education”11 Whitehead, A. N., The Aims of Education, London, Ernest Benn, 1932, p.612 Ibid., p.7

3

preserves the connection between knowledge and the zest of life,13 the imaginative

acquisition of knowledge.14 Education should aim at bringing quality and fulfilment to

human life. Ainley refers to “the new trinity of Vocational, Education and Training aimed

at preparing the entire workforce for a flexible future of rapid and unpredictable change.15

Vocational education does not pursue purely disinterested knowledge.

Common to the above description of education are two main purposes which converge in

the peculiar nature of man and his environment. Peters is right when he says: “human

beings inhabit a personal as well as a public world, they are circumscribed by a Nature

that has to be accepted as well as transformed, that should be an object of enjoyment, of

wonder and of awe as well as material to be mastered for human purposes.”16 The

purpose of education concerns personal formation and functional formation (utility).

Theological education as education should share these concerns in its purpose. The

distinction lies, however, in the word ‘theology’. What is theological about theological

education? According to Edgar, the obvious answer is the content ... it is education that is

about theology, about God. Not only the content, the purpose is definitive of what makes

something theological education.17 Cunningham believes: “it is theological because its

philosophical underpinnings and its goals are theocentric in addition to its content.”18 The

greatest challenge for theologians and theological educators according to Volf, is to keep

God at the centre of what we do. If we succeed here, we’ll succeed, even if our efforts get

stifled by lack of funds, obstructed by inadequate pedagogy or lack of sensitivity to

context, and marred by faulty institutions and warped institutional cultures. If we fail

here, we’ll fail utterly, no matter how brilliantly we do as fund-raisers, institution-

builders, cultural analysts, and teachers.19 For Volf, God is the triune God - creator and

redeemer.20 Theological education must not be robbed of this nuclear centre and purpose. 13 Ibid., p.13914 Ibid., p.14515 Ainley, P., Vocational Education and Training, London, Cassell, 1990, pp.5f16 Peters, R. S., Essays on Educators , London, George Allen and Unwin, 1981, p.87 17 Edgar, B., “The Theology of Theological Education,” Evangelical Review of Theology, Vol.29:3, July, 2005, p.20818 Cunningham, S., “Who is a Theological Educator?” Africa Journal of Evangelical Theology, Vol.16:2, 1997, p.8019 Volf, M., “Dancing for God: Challenges facing Theological Education Today” in Evangelical Review of Theology, Vol.29:3, July, 2005, p. 200f20 Ibid., pp 205ff

4

“The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. And the main thing for

theology is God.”21 Sadly, theology has become fragmented scientific disciplines

sometimes existing without the love and experience of God.22 This is neither Christianity

nor theology.

A fundamental question of the purpose of TE concerns the very basis of its existence. “A

purpose is a statement of the primary reason for being for an institution, a program, or a

department in theological education. It tells who, does what, and for whom.”23 This

question of purpose is a constant one on the agenda of evangelicals. Mouw believes there

are some good instincts among those who question the value of theological education.

One instinct is embedded in a deep commitment to effective ministry. Evangelicals are

shaped by pietist and populist passions, and we know that study in a Seminary has often

had the effect of dampening spiritual ardour and fostering clerical elitism.24 When

evangelicals have questioned the need for formal theological education, it has often been

out of a devotion to a high, rather than a low, view of the ministerial calling.”25 At pivotal

moments in evangelical history, theological institutions were established for the purpose

of sustaining evangelical identity. Yet, the importance of theological education to

evangelicalism has often been slighted, if not ignored, because of evangelical convictions

about the priority of heart over head knowledge and it was felt that existing schools were

neglecting essential elements of Christian faith and witness.26 Mouw identified two major

historical struggles that have affected evangelical theological education. The first was the

reaction of many of the early post-Reformation pietist groups against what they perceived

as the “dead orthodoxy” of scholastic Protestantism which promoted a religion of the

head and not of the heart. Secondly, when the “dead orthodoxy” was replaced, it was by

the “live heterodoxy” of the Enlightenment modernism – a rationalism that glorified a

secularizing anthropocentrism. This produced among evangelicals, painful struggle

21 Volf, M. op. cit., p. 19922 Cheesman, G., op. cit., p.484f23 Ford, L., op. cit., p. 29624 Mouw, R. J., “Challenge of Evangelical Theological Education” in Hart, D. G. & Mohler, A.R. Jr., (eds) Theological Education in the Evangelical Tradition, Grand Rapids, Baker, 1996, p.286 25 Ibid., p. 28626 Ibid., p. 12

5

against the mindset of the academic.27 It was felt that short-term training sessions in

outreach discipleship was all that was needed for successful ministry.28 Although this

mindset is still abroad today in some quarters, evangelicals on the whole have moved

significantly forward in its appreciation and commitment to theological education. It is

the charismatic churches, at least in Africa, who for different reasons now pay less than

adequate attention to theological education. Both they and few evangelicals rightly point

to successful ministries led by those with little or no theological education. The editors of

AJET once argued for the importance of theological education by asking the rhetorical

question: “Theological Education: can we do without it?29

According to the Manifesto on the Renewal of Theological Education, TE concerns the

formation of leadership for the Church of Christ in its biblical mission. This formation

combines spiritual and practical with academic objectives in one holistic integrated

educational approach,30 that serves the essential purpose of theological education. When

Cobb was asked by Ban,” what are we doing when we do theological education?” His

terse answer was ‘Formation’.31 Ban then identifies formation of Christian identity as the

desired goal of theological education and this requires Christology as the basis of

integration of its task. Indeed, “Christology deserves to provide the foundation for all

Church education, especially the preparation of theological students for Christian

ministry.32

Historically, the purpose of TE has largely been related to church ministerial training. A

group of NE Asia theologians defined the purpose of theological education as “an

intensive and structured preparation of men and women of the church for participation in

the ministry of Christ in the world.”33 Lienemann-Perrin describes it as “education for 27 Mouw, R. J., “Challenge of Evangelical Theological Education” in Hart, D. G. & Mohler, A.R. Jr., (eds) Theological Education in the Evangelical Tradition, Grand Rapids, Baker, 1996, p.284 28 Ibid., p.28629 The Africa Journal of Evangelical Theology, Vol. 16:2, 1997, p.7730 “Manifesto on the Renewal of Evangelical Theological Education”, in Evangelical Review of Theology, Vol.19:3, July, 1995, p.308, 31231 Ban, J. D., “Christological Foundations of Theological Education” in Ban, J. D., (ed) The Christological Foundation for Contemporary Theological Education, Macon, Mercer University Press, 1988, p.1832 Ibid., p.2333 Hopewell, J. F., “Theological Education” in Concise Dictionary of the Christian World Missions, London, Lutterworth, 1971, p.591

6

church service … taking place under church auspices.”34 Robinson identifies a two-level

purpose for theological education: “in a broader sense it is for preparing the people of

God for doing God’s will in this world; and in a narrower sense it is for preparing

candidates for doing the ministry of the Church.”35 In Robinson’s Indian context,

theological education should seek to liberate the oppressed and downtrodden. The point

is: purpose must be related to the contextual location of the Church. In several African

countries for instance, where tribalism, corruption and bad governance are normative,

theological education must prepare church leaders that are challenged to lead churches

that are exemplary – churches that will be light and salt to the nation. Sadly, many

churches and leaders have compromised their prophetic role and become partakers in the

ills of society. An exemplary lifestyle must begin in the Bible College Community

through praxis – reflection ministerial training.

This clerical approach to defining the purpose of theological education has been related

in part to the idea of profession. The formal characteristics of a profession are given by

Cheesman,36 but in day to day usage, ‘professional’ might mean no more than

competence in a task. The idea of Christian service as profession had its roots in the

American context and especially when Schleiemarcher used it in his argument to secure a

place for theology in the secular universities of the Enlightenment era. Neibuhr employed

this model describing theological schools as professional schools like medical and law

schools.37 Kelsey however believes that defining the purpose of theological education in

professional terms “distorts and finally destroys theology.”38 And in any case, the

34 Lienemann-Perrin, C., “Theological Education” in Muller, Sundermeier and Bevans (eds) Dictionary of Missions, Theology, History, Perspectives, Maryknoll, Orbis, 1987, p.42735 Robinson, G., Theological Education in India: The Journey Continues, Chennai, The Christian Literature Society, 2000, p.32 Products of TE must be able to articulate and practice the Christian faith in the Church as clergy, they must also be able to address social issues intelligently and theologically as church leaders. Denominational leaders in parts of Africa today are often called upon to comment on thorny national issues and clerical preparation must equip them36 Cheesman, G., “Is ‘Professional’ a suitable Adjective for Theological Education?” http://www.theologicaleducation.org/resources.php , November 2005, p.2 : a body of specialist knowledge learnt over some years; membership of a self-regulating group that controls entry by examination and discipline members when necessary; competence in a field of service to the public, a sense of vocation and altruistic service; and a high status in society.37Neibuhr, H., The Purpose of the Church and its Ministry, NY, Harper and Row, 1956, p.4 38 Kelsey, D., To Understand God Truly: What’s Theological About a Theological School, Louisville, John Knox, 1992, p.131

7

professional model cannot be regarded as normative for all churches. According to

Carroll, “that model would be dysfunctional for many settings such as Africa, for

example, where churches are undergoing explosive growth in membership and where

there is a severe shortage of seminary trained leadership.”39 But if ‘professional’ means

doing a job to the high standard society expects, then theological education should seek

to produce that kind of professional. “The idea that standards of competence in church

work can be less than those in society must be rejected” so Cheesman, who also rejects

the use of ‘professional’ as implying special status in society.40 The craze for status

among Church leadership in some countries is seen in the ‘Rev. Dr’ syndrome and there

seems to be no shortage of back street shops and Colleges ready to award for a fee or free

these bogus ‘doctorate’ degrees that have very little relationship with professional clerical

competence.

Carroll has given three dimensions of expertise that are required of ministers and which

should be cultivated right from theological colleges:

as ‘definer of meaning’ especially in their roles of preacher, teacher,

counsellor, bringing the Word of God to meet the needs of their situation.

as ‘builders of community’, bringing theological insight into the nature of the

Christian community and assisting them to be built up into maturity as

Christians.

as ‘mediators’ in the “church–social context interface” mediating not only

between individuals and God but between individuals and society.41

This kind of ‘professional’ clergy is urgently needed for the churches of Africa. A more

urgent need, according to Fletcher, is for ‘religious authenticity’ based on an assured

sense of divine call rather than on membership of a religious caste. Rather than arguing

against a professional model of ministry, Fletcher’s findings argue for the importance of

39 Carroll, J., “The Professional Model of Ministry: Is It Worth Saving?” in Theological Education, Spring, 1985, Vol. 21:2, p.2840 Cheesman, G., “Is ‘Professional’ a suitable Adjective for Theological Education?”, op. cit., p.6 41 Carroll, J., op. cit., pp.35 - 37

8

keeping together the authority of expertise and the authority from divine call.42 Calling

and professionalism must go together.

Cheesman cautions that in the rush to respectability, it would be easy to lose the positive

Bible College ideals of humble service in an ordinary capacity without seeking the public

admiration of society.43

Bible College teachers whose attitude focuses on the perks of professional status would

reproduce similar discontent detrimental to their students’ future service. It is suggested

then, that “the professional, or vocation, of church leadership must remain a by-product,

as it were, not the raison d’etre”44 of theological education.

The purpose of theological education as church leadership preparation involves the

academic dimension of the triadic objectives. How far should the purpose of theological

education be defined in terms of academic formation? Here, our discussion is not

primarily about the relationship of theological education to the university or the

academia. Rather, it is whether there is a valid cognitive component in theological

education and how far this component constitutes the goal of theological education.

Fitzmier’s rightly states that “loving God with the mind is one of the great ends we seek

in theological education.”45 The command to holistically love God and neighbour builds

theology and theological education on biblical grounds. According to educational

psychologists, our cognitive abilities include knowledge, comprehension, application,

analysis, synthesis and evaluation. If so, there are different dimensions and levels of

doing theology and a wide scope for using our mind in theological education. We are

given minds that can enquire. There is divine confirmation of this when God told his

people: “in the future, when your son ask you, ‘what is the meaning of the stipulations,

42 Fletcher, J., in Carroll, J., op. cit., p. 4143 Cheesman, G., “Is ‘Professional’ a suitable Adjective…” op. cit., p.6 “ the Bible Colleges need a public repudiation of the status side of professionalism and this has to have a twofold application: it should inform the attitudes to Christian service which are inculcated into the students: and it should determine the attitudes of tutors to their own jobs”44 Johnson, R. K., “Becoming Theologically Matured: The Task of Theological Education Today for American Evangelical Seminaries” in Ministerial Formation, 73, April 1996, p. 4345 Fitzmeir, J., “The Aims and Purposes Literature: Notes from the Field” from “Resources for American Christianity” http://www.resourcingchristianity.org , November 2005 This is from Jesus’ injunction in Luke 10 which is an echo of the OT in Deut 6.

9

decrees and laws the LORD our God has commanded you?’”46 Making enquiries about

Christian tradition is a valid cognitive component of theological education. As long as

this enquiry is based on the truth claims of Scriptures, and is carried out by believing

members of that community it should not matter whether it is done in a village Bible

School or in the University. The negative attitude to the location of theological education

within secular academia has some of its roots in deviations from cardinal truth claims of

Scriptures as well as a neglect of the purpose of the enquiry: obedience. Cheesman made

a similar point: “the rise of the Bible College Movement from the 1870s on was partly a

protest at the questioning of the bible and the secularization of studies.”47 Prior to this,

theological education was for those with high academic qualifications. As Brereton

observes:

I think of those whom we hesitated over and at first rejected because of a want of

the qualifications which we considered of first importance. And then to see how

God has rebuked us by showing how wonderfully he could use them. … God is

building windows for the cathedral of the skies out of the rejected lives and

fragments of consecrated service for which the wisdom of the world has not

room.48

Fitzmier noted that many students coming to seminaries were not well prepared

academically. “This is not to suggest that theological education is solely an academic

enterprise, but that however one defines theology and its study – with Farley as a habitus,

with Hugh and Cobb as the formation of Christian identity, or with Wood as critical

thinking about the validity of Christian witness – the use of the mind is critical to the

enterprise. Academic rigor is a channel perhaps the chief channel, to thinking about God

in the context of theological education.”49

Commenting on what he calls the “week six syndrome” when new theology students are

frustrated, shocked and fearful about new methods of teaching

46 Deuteronomy 6:2047 Cheesman, G., “The Philosophy of Theological Education: Historical Overview”, Unpublished Centre for Theological Education Lecture Notes, September 200548 Brereton, V. L., “Training God’s Army: The American Bible School, 1880 – 1940, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1990, p.59 49 Fitzmier, J., op. cit., p.16

10

Fitzmier said:

what lies at the root of these feelings is the realization that critical thinking about

God is a very sharp two-edged blade, that it cuts in more than one direction, and

that it can both heal and wound. Unfortunately, this realization comes as a

surprise to many students. Very few come to school accustomed to thinking

critically about Christian faith, and when they begin to learn how to do so, all

manner of frightening possibilities emerge.50

Not all theological education operate at the tertiary academic level. Reflective wisdom

about God is the privilege of every believer. “The fund of knowledge is not for a few who

can achieve the critical distance, but those who can achieve the critical embrace of

love.”51 Any model of theological education that glorifies the intellect at the expense of

faith and love cannot be truly Christian. Loving the Lord with our mind is a response to

his prior redemptive love and cannot be carried out in contradiction of that love. So the

purpose of theological education cannot be detached from this cognitive love.

Sargent states: “the basic, overriding goal of evangelical theological education is

spiritual formation with a view to communicating with clarity and power the historic

faith.”52 Most theological institutions would agree. Westerhoff argues that “the major

weakness of contemporary theological education is the emphasis upon knowledge and

skills rather than upon the spiritual development of the priest and the formation of

priestly character.”53 Spiritual formation, refers to “an intentional process by which the

marks of an authentic Christian spirituality are being formed and integrated ever anew.”54

It is a life-long, open-ended process of being formed in the image of God in Christ

through each and all of our daily experiences as we submit to the divine help of the

indwelling Holy Spirit. It is a human as well as a divine process which on our part cannot

be left to chance. Perhaps the human part is what Henri Nouwen describes by his analogy

of “hospitality”- creating a safe, free and friendly space for students, not to change them

50 Ibid., p. 1751 Pobee, J., (ed), Towards Viable Theological Education, Geneva, WCC, 1997, p.14052 Sargent, Tony., “The Value of Theological Education for Ministry and Service” – an address given to the Baptist Union Assembly, Scotland, Oct. 24, 2001 (unpublished)53In Fiorenza, F. S., “Thinking Theologically About Theological Education”, Theological Education, Vol.24, Suppl. II, 1988, p.106 54 Amirtham, S., and Pryon, R., (eds)., Invitation to the Feast of Life, Geneva, WCC, n.d., p.157

11

but to offer them an appropriate habitat for change to be effected.55 The ICAA Manifesto

requires that

our educational programmes must deliberately foster the spiritual formation of

the student. We must look for a spiritual development centred in total

commitment to the lordship of Christ, progressively worked outward by the power

of the Spirit and into every department of life. We must devote as much time and

care and structural designing to facilitate this type of growth as we readily and

rightly provide for cognitive growth.56

For theological education, the Iona document makes it clear that spiritual formation

should be seen as “a responsibility which must be shared and which involves three main

elements, all of equal importance: the person in formation, the training institution, and the

wider church.”57 Theological institutions must therefore consider spiritual formation as

one of the primary tasks, involving all of the institution – the students, teachers, staff and

members governing bodies. The whole community, its life, curriculum, relationships,

everything is involved. While College intentionally designs specific programmes to

provide opportunities for spiritual formation there is a sense in which

our spirituality is not what we explicitly express, nor what we profess to believe,

but how we order our loves. That ordering may be unarticulated, even quite

unconscious, but the resultant spirituality pervades our whole life and involves

our whole person.58

And this in turn affects our College community. Furthermore, the College alone is not

able to accomplish the task of spiritual formation: the sending church and what goes on

there impact the students. While spirituality is a product of both individuality and

community, the great message of the Task Force on Spiritual Direction of the ATS as

noted by Cheesman is that: “the spiritual formation and development of seminary

students begins with and is dependent upon, the spiritual formation and development of

55 Nouwen, H., Reaching Out, Glasgow, Collins, 1976, p. 6956 “Manifesto on the Renewal of Evangelical Theological Education”, in Evangelical Review of Theology, Vol.19:3, July, 1995, p. 31257 Amirtham, S. op. cit., p.16358 Ibid., p. 151

12

the faculty”59 as a team. It can be facilitated by any events or experiences including the

critical study of theology. This is the paradox of the human and the divine in Christian

life. We are to use every intentional means and programmes of the College to enhance

spiritual formation, yet grace rather than human effort must be asserted. And for those

who feel that academic theology and spiritual theology are incompatible, it is important

to note that

“every experience of the love of God transforms our imagination and our mind

and the mind’s knowledge of God helps us to live for transcendent values. It is the

theologian who wishes to live in a purely academic cocoon, enjoying the

‘security of footnotes, bibliography and equivocation’ who is fundamentally

sick.”60

Indeed, “spiritual maturity is more important for good theology than good theology is for

spiritual maturity, and it is the spiritually mature, all other things being equal, who make

the best theologians.”61 So, there ought not to be conflict in pursuing simultaneously the

triadic objectives of theological education with formation as the overarching purpose.

If formation is so important to the purpose of theological education, the study of the

culture of seminaries may provide some insight into factors that promote this formation.

Three points were made in a study reported by Fitzmeir:

1. a school’s culture is its most powerful instrument of formation.

2. the faculty of a school is most responsible for shaping student experience of

theological education.

3. and formative theological education requires prolonged and intensive

exposure to a particular educational institution.62

59 Cheesman, G., “Spiritual Formation as a Goal of Theological Education”, http://www.theologicaleducation.org/docs/resources2 p.22, Nov.200560 Ibid., p.2661 Ibid., p.2762 Reported in Fitzmier, J., “The Aims and Purposes Literature: Notes from the Field …” op. cit., p.21.A Seminary’s culture are “those shared(publicly available) symbolic forms – worldviews and beliefs, ritual practices, ceremonies, art and architecture, language, and patterns of everyday interaction – that give meaning and direction to the life of the schools and the people who participate in them.” from Jackson Carroll, Barbara Wheeler(eds) Being There: Culture and Formation in Two Theological Schools, Oxford, OUP, 1997, p268.

13

Vatican II takes seriously the issue of formation:

spiritual formation should be closely associated with doctrinal and pastoral

formation. The students should learn to live according to the standard of the

Gospel, to be firmly established in faith, hope and charity, so that the practice of

these virtues may develop in them a spirit of prayer, may strengthen and protect

their vocation and invigorate their other virtues, intensifying their zeal for

winning all men to Christ.63

A helpful dimension of ‘human maturity’ has been added to the three-fold objectives:

a prudent system of training will therefore aim at developing in the students a

proper degree of human maturity. This will be chiefly attested by a certain

stability of character, the ability to make carefully weighed decisions, and a sound

judgement of events and people.64

Such human maturity is not provided by Christian Education alone, there is need to take

advantage of the results of sound psychology and pedagogy. You may be deeply spiritual

yet lack the ability to effectively manage human relationship or the ability to teach.

When discussing formation in theological education, important insights can be gained

from Christian traditions other than our own. Catholic theologian William Cahoy in

responding to Farley’s position cautions against assuming that “the story of mainline

Protestant theological education is … the story of theological education per se.65 For

instance, the call for the recovery of paideia and formation is not new, the call “feels like

a vindication” since these concepts to a far greater extent than for Protestants, have

remained central elements of Catholic theological education. Catholics do not also share

the laments about the “clerical paradigm.” While for Protestants, ordination may have

become functional and problematically so, it has been understood by Catholics to bring

about an ontological change in the one ordained, not only a change in his function.

Priestly formation is central for Catholics and it should be central for all theological

education.

63“Decree on the Training of Priests”, Vatican II, Optatan Totius, 28, Oct. 1965, pp. 713f64 Ibid., p.71665 Fitzmier, J., op cit., p.11

14

Binding all of this together as a unifying theme for understanding the purpose of

theological education, Fitzmier proposed the notion of “Christian vocation” which has a

rich definition and therefore theologically multilingual”.66

Fitzmier believes that every Christian has the opportunity to make meaning in their lives

by the most basic Christian truth to love God and to love neighbour. This ‘vocation’ with

its applicability in all Christian traditions can provide the fundamental starting point of

Christian discipleship. The assumption of theological Colleges that most students come

through a proper process of vocational discernment and clarity is probably misplaced.

Yet Colleges conduct their training on this shaky assumption, rightly expecting positive

response to active discipleship only to be disappointed repeatedly by contradictory

lifestyle and attitude of students. Several students come to Bible College not on the basis

of vocational conviction but as reluctant substitute for the first or second choice of their

vocational ambition, coming only because they failed to secure a secular university or

polytechnic admission. Unless they see and accept this ‘failure’ as divine direction for

their lives, their motivation for formation would be low. Those who come with clear

Christian vocational conviction are the best motivated and respond most favourably to

advanced discipleship and to holistic formation which make the purpose of theological

education easier to achieve. The question is often asked: is the theological education

institution to be blamed for failure to achieve its purpose or should the blame go to the

sending churches? As Fitzmier wisely points out:

there is little to be gained by faculties complaining about the failure of the

churches to ‘send us well prepared candidates’ or by the churches bemoaning the

fact that ‘graduates are so ill-prepared for ministry.’ The churches and the

theological schools are joined at the hip; a failure to acknowledge our

interdependence and our mutual responsibility will only make things worse.67

66 Ibid., p.23 It may be defined in at least three ways: ecclesially, as a calling to a specific role within ordained ministry.personally, as a sense of individual religious destiny or meaning.globally, as service which alligns one’s deepest passions with the most pressing needs of the world67 Ibid., p.24

15

The ‘body’ principle of the New Testament demands this interdependence and mutual

responsibility68 in working towards the purpose of theological education. The individual

student also has a significant share in this responsibility.

Conclusion

Attempts to define the purpose of theological education have been influenced by the

‘unity-in-diversity nature of Christian theology. While we talk of ‘one faith, one Lord,

one baptism’, this oneness is perceived differently in different contexts. So is theological

education. Sometimes its purpose is defined by historical understanding of Christianity:

that Christianity is paideia, given by God in Jesus Christ, turning on a radical conversion

possible only by the Holy Spirit’s help, and taught only indirectly by study of divinely

inspired Scriptures in the social context of the church understood to be in some ways a

school.69 The goal will be knowledge of God – forming person’s souls to be holy. Often it

is defined by the nature, needs and mission of the Church, - preparing those who will lead

the work of the Church. At other times, the purpose of theological education is defined as

academic activity. Whether the objective is academic, spiritual or ministerial, theological

education must seek to provide the theological and educational environment that would

facilitate the formation and transformation of those with the divine call to love and serve

God in his mission to the world through the Church.

When all is said and done - and all that is appropriate must be said and done - we have to

agree with Williams that Theological Education whatever the purpose we assign to it, is

the work of the Holy Spirit. Unless we start here and commit ourselves to an education

which is this fundamental, we shall miss the mark no matter how many schemes and

theories we lay on.70 General education requires an efficient performance of tasks,

theological education in addition, requires the spirit of that performance – love to God

and neighbour. The extent to which this purpose governs all that comprises its common

68 1 Cor.12: 21 - 2669 Kelsey, D., Between Athens and Berlin: The Theological Education Debate, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1993, p.1170 Williams, M., “Theological Education and Ordination Training”, BJTE, Vol. 8, No.1, 1996, p. 22

16

life is the criteria of excellence in a theological school.71 Schner describes this purpose as

‘formation’ – an activity which pervades the whole of the process of the institution and

recognized in each discreet part of the process.72

Bibliography1. Ainley, Patrick, Vocational Education and Training, London,Cassell, 1990,pp5f2. Amirtham, Samuel & Pyron Robin(eds) Invitation to the Feast of Life, Geneva, WCC, nd, p1573. Ban, Joseph(ed),The Christological Foundation for Contemporary Theological Education, Macon, Mercer Univ.Press, 1988, p184. Banks, Robert, Reenvisioning Theological Education:Exploring a Missional Alternative to Current Models Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999, pp9f 5. Brereton, Virginia, Training God’s Army: The American Bible School,1880-1840, Bloomington, Indiana Univ. Press, 1990,p596. Bromiley, G. W., & David B. Barrett (ed.-English), The Encyclopedia of Christianity, Vol.2, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2001, p.657. Carroll,Jackson, “The Professional Model of Ministry; is it Worth Saving?” Theological Education, 1985, Vol. 21.2,p28.8.Cheesman, Graham, “Competing Paradigms in Theological Education Today,” Evangelical Review of Theology, October, 1993, p4849. Cheesman,G. “The Philosophy of Theological Education: Historical Overview”, Unpublished CTE Lecture Notes, Belfast, Sept. 2005 10.Cheesman,G., “Is Professional” a Suitable Adjective for Theological Education? http://www.theologicaleducation.org/resources.php Unpublished Article, Nov. 2005, p. 211. Cheesman,G., “Spiritual Formation as a Goal of Theological Education”, http://www.theologicaleducation.org/docs/resources2 Unpublished Article, Nov.2005,p. 212. Cunningham, S., “Who is a Theological Educator” in AJET, Vol.16:2, 1997, p.8013. “Decree on the Training of Priests”, Vatican II, Optatan Totius, 28 Oct. 1965, pp.713f14. Edgar, B., “The Theology of Theological Education”, Evangelical Review of Theology, Vol.29:3, July2005, p.20815. Fiorenza, F. S., “Thinking Theologically About Theological Education”, Theological Education, Vol24, Supplement II, 1988, p. 10616. Fitzmeir, J., “The Aims and Purposes Literature: Notes from the Field”, (From “Resources for American Christianity”) http://www.resourcingchristianity.org Nov. 2005, CTE A 16517. Ford, L., A Curriculum Design Manual for Theological Education: A Learning Outcome Focus, Eugene, Wipf & Stock, 1999, p.34371 Kelsey, D., To Understand God Truly: What’s Theological About a Theological School, Louisville, John Knox, 1992, p.16172 Schner, G., “Formation as a Unifying Concept of Theological Education”, Theological Education, Vol.21:2, 1985, pp. 94 - 112

17

18. Hoffecker, W. A(ed), Building a Christian World View, Vol.2, Phillipsburg, Presbyterian and Reformed Publi., 1988, pp.275 279 (277)19. Holmes, A. F., Fact, Value, and God,+ Leicester, Apollos, 1997, pp.158ff20. Hopewell, J. F., “Theological Education” in Concise Dictionary of the Christian World Missions, London, Lutherworth, 1971, p.591 21. Johnson, R. K., “Becoming Theologically Mature: The Task of Theological Education Today for American Evangelical Seminaries” in Ministerial Formation, 73, April, 1996, p.4322. Kelsey, D., To Understand God Truly: What’s Theological About a Theological School, Louisville, John Knox, 1992, p.131 23. Kelsey, D., Between Athens and Berlin: The Theological Education Debate, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1993, p.1124. Lienemann-Perrin, C., “Theological Education” in Muller, Sundermeier and Bevans (eds), Dictionary of Missions, Theology, History, Perspectives, Maryknoll, Orbis, 1997, p.42725. Manifesto on the Renewal of Evangelical Theological Education, ERT, 19:3, July 1995, pp.308, 31226. Niebuhr, H., The Purpose of the Church and its Ministry, NY, Harper & Row, 1956, p.4 27. Noelliste, D., “Towards a Theology of Theological Education”, Evangelical Review of Theology, Vol.19:3, July 1995, p.299 28. Nouwen, H., Reaching Out, Glasgow, Collins, 1976, p.6929. Peters, R. S., Essays on Educators, London, George Allen & Unwin, 1981,p.8730. Pobee, J., (ed), Towards Viable Theological Education, Geneva, WCC, 1997, p.14031. Robinson, G., Theological Education in India: The Journey Continues, Chennai, The Christian Literature Society, 2000, p.3232. Sargent, T., “Then Value of Theological Education for Ministry and Service” An Address given to the Baptist Union Assembly, Scotland, Oct.24, 200133. Schner, G., “Formation as a Unifying Concept of Theological Education”, Theological Education, Vol.21:2, 1985, p.94 - 112 34. Whitehead, A. N., The Aims of Education, London, Ernest Benn, 1932, p.6 35. Williams, M., “Theological Education and Ordination Training”, BJTE, Vol8, No.1, 1996, p. 2236. Volf, M., “Dancing for God: Challenges Facing Theological Education Today”, ERT, Vol.29, No.3, July 2005, pp.200f

18