Apparently the (or a) problem that is restricting churches growing is now the ‘inflexibility’ of the theological college. If ever we want to grow better (read ‘bigger’ or ‘more’; these words are now interchangeable) churches then we need to have a ‘flexible’ theological college.
I think there are lessons to be learned here from Sydney’s public transport system. We all know how frustrating it is when you want to get from point A to point B, and there is only one darned bus to take. And then, once you hop on the bus, it keeps on stopping to pick up passengers. How ridiculous; that just slows me down. How will I ever get to point B if the bus goes so slow? (Don’t they understand how important my job is??) Then the Transport bods introduced the solution: the express bus. So I take that one, and sure, it seems faster at first. But then it does the unthinkable: IT STOPS TO PICK UP PASSENGERS! What are they thinking? How can an express bus get me to point B if it stops to pick up passengers? The logic of the express bus should be inevitable. (Why can’t they see it?) If it really wants to be an express, it needs to move from the depot to the destination and never stop at all. That will be the quickest (and so the best) route. Imagine how much more efficient things would be then, standing at our point A and seeing the express racing past us. There is the true express; there is the transport system at its most flexible.
The parallel with ministry is perfect. We are at ‘point A’ uttering our mantra:
Woe is us: our churches too few, too small, too struggling;
(*wringing our hands*) the world too big, too hard, too changing.
It’s up to us, like never before.
We can’t do less; we must do more.
Enter ‘point B’—that glorious vision of a brand new future for our churches, multiplied, magnified, munificent.
But then there is the blockage: the theological training. For some, it slows us down. For others, it just gets in the way altogether. We need an express. And, of course, the best express is the one that never picks up any passengers at all! That way, it never slows anybody down.
I guess the principle of flexibility is only a good one when you are inflexible on the things that matter and flexible on the things that don’t matter so much. Behind any call for flexibility, operates a value system. The real question to work out is what do we value most? And I guess behind that lies some fundamental questions about the nature of ministry. How essential is the study of God (=theology) to ministry? And even if the myth of the ever-new, never-before-seen, ever-more-complex-world was true (which it is most definitely not), wouldn’t that be a reason for more theological reflection, not less? After all, this world doesn’t need any more human words. Doesn’t it need a word from God?
Hi Peter
Thanks for your article. I am picking up a theme in your posting!
I would agree that in order to engage faithfully in mission we need deep theological reflection not less. I doubt many readers here need to be convinced of the primacy of the word.
Maybe my struggles in pastoring teaching evangelism and leading a mission are an indication that I needed to spend 8 years full time at college and not 4!
I also agree it does seem a bit unfair simply to blame the college for the churches struggles. there are a multiplicity of issues.
yet for as long as I can remember I have been told that the diocese is what it is because of the college being what it is (and we can praise God for its many strengths). it is a bastion of reformed and evangelical Anglicanism that shapes the life of the diocese and beyond.
many things rise and fall on leadership, and I understand that best practice is to account up rather than account down. e.g if my bible study groups are no good it is my responsibility in training – not theirs in leading. it should force me to reassess whether I have delivered the best resource for my leaders to lead, teach pastor evangelize etc.
so I guess my question is – in what ways do you think a college like Moore can flex, and what are the absolute non negotiables?
what are the results of healthy self reflection?
it would also be good to hear you elaborate on what you in particular see the nature of ministry to be, and specifically what you think should be valued most in relation to preparing servants of the gospel. this may help inform wrong assumptions.
and this may in turn help to progress us along from flexible/ inflexible impasse that seems to be developing.
every blessing
Shane
Just commenting so I can see further comments
Hi Peter, what are you arguing we shouldn’t be flexible on? Are you arguing that there shouldn’t be flexibility in the subjects studied? Or that we shouldn’t be flexible on study as a pre-requisite for pastoral ministry? Or that we shouldn’t be flexible when it comes to studying full-time (i.e. we shouldn’t flex to allow part-time study)?
Peter,
Good article. I’ve been in Bible colleges where theological study is a necessary evil before you can do the real training of “how to be a mega-pastor in ten easy steps”! That soon leads to the view of abandoning biblical study in favour of an entirely pragmatic curicullum of how to lead a small group, how to manage a church, how to lead weddings and funderals, how to .. etc. It is a great recipe for creating an industry of biblically illiterate marriage councilers.
Thanks for these classic Boltian thoughts, Pete.
Steve’s question is the obvious one: What are the essentials that a theological college should not be flexible about? And what are secondaries that can vary?
To take one detail—as someone who studied at Moore both part-time (first year over two and a bit years), and then full-time for the rest, I think I’d be plugging for the full-time study to be in the ‘largely inflexible’ category. There are always exceptions and hard cases, and these should be accommodated, but there is no substitute for sustained, collegial learning. It was brilliant.
TP
Just following on from Tony’s reflection that full-time college study was brilliant.
I wonder how much that reflects what Bible college is like, and how much that reflects what Tony is like?
I went to uni part-time, and worked full-time. Whilst this was hard work, this was a great arrangement for me. I enjoyed the theory, but also the opportunity to put it into practice.
Different people learn in different ways. Some people love to get into the books – they could lock themselves away in their study for days on end and just read and reflect. Is that the kind of person we want in Bible college? Yes, as well as the people who want to study and work at the same time. Can’t Bible college be flexible enough to do both, and open to see that there are advantages in encouraging both types of people? I don’t see a Biblical mandate for full-time theological education.
It’d be great to get Peter on to answer some of these comments and questions …
You’re not giving up on this topic, are you Peter
Still, I’m with you all the way here. Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day; teach him how to fish and he’ll eat for the rest of his life. Often people want to be given fish rather than taught how to think … er, mean taught to fish … for men … or something like that.
Great insight, Steve.
I agree with you, Peter. Isn’t that why in Sydney, we have different options for different purposes and to cater for the different types? We have the full-time ‘hard core’ study option at MTC, but if that doesn’t suit someone, then they can go to SMBC where they can study part-time, and it’s a little less rigorous, and within those colleges there’s a variety of options. Or there’s correspondence courses and Matthias Media courses for those who don’t suit those other categories. We already have good options for different people in Sydney. I don’t think our theological colleges need to be more flexible; can’t we just have different degrees and colleges for different purposes (which I think we have)?
Thoughts?
It would be good to know the answer to Steve’s question, “What are you arguing we shouldn’t be flexible on?”
On the P/T & F/T flexibility point: as someone who was studying full-time at Moore last year and went to doing second year and beyond part-time to enable me to pursue ministry opportunities, I find the analogy “Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day; teach him how to fish and he’ll eat for the rest of his life” offensive.
Why does the flexibility of studying part-time mean I won’t be able to ‘fish’ in coming years?
Furthermore, I wonder what this says about those saints who never go to college. Is it fair to say that people who don’t do full-time theological training don’t reflect theologically?
And am I guilty of being a lazy thinker for only doing college part-time? Or does the fact that I will be sticking around for another four years to finish the degree part-time count as ‘sustained collegial learning’?
Great observation from Tim—no surprise with that surname! We already have different colleges (add Youthworks College to your list) and different qualifications (diploma, 3 and 4-year Bachelors, etc.) and full and part-time options.
Use the flexibility already available!
But also understand that certain responsibilities will typically only be given to those who have studied to a certain level. And directing a large ministry unit, in our context and probably in most contexts, requires the best theological education possible in the circumstances.
I do think we need Peter to clarify what he thinks we need flexibility on. Also, I think it’s only fair that the person who started the debate is here to engage with the people who are debating his opinions on this important topic.
That said, I don’t agree with Sandy. Why is the greatest number of years studying (i.e. 4 years at Moore), the necessary qualification to pastor a church? If a Bible college came out with a 6 year degree, should that be the necessary length of study in order to pastor a church? Length of time studying is a poor indicator of suitability.
There seems to be a prevailing attitude that “4 years full-time study at Moore Theological College” is the only acceptable pathway into pastoral ministry.
Why is that? What is the Biblical framework for understanding that this is the only acceptable pathway into pastoral ministry?
Hi All,
Peter’s responses follow. He emailed them to me Thursday but I have been out of the office since Wednesday night. Sorry for any confusion. Thus, these comments will only refer to things said before about 9:30 Thursday morning.
Grimmo.
1. Bolt’s long-winded response to some things said so far.
Glad you are picking up a thread, Shane – there is still more to come! Good too to notice the ‘flexible/inflexible impasse’, which is, in fact, what I am trying to critique. The terms of the discussion have come from what is being said ‘out there’, and, quite frankly, lapsing into abstract slogans (swear words?) is not the way to have the discussion in the end. It is a beautiful piece of political rhetoric, of course < Like the equally empty rhetoric of being ‘open’ (to the Spirit, to homosexuality< write your own story). When such an ‘impasse’ is set up, the dice are heavily loaded against one end. So, back to our thread, now Steve wants me to argue for being ‘inflexible’! Okay, I walked into that one!
I guess we could ask (Steve) where is the biblical mandate for part-time too, and end up doing nothing (or both!). But perhaps we need to notice that, despite the ‘all things to all people-ity’ that is to operate in the very well defined context of personal flexing of non-essentials for the sake of getting a gospel hearing, where is the biblical mandate for ‘flexibility’?? Arguably, there is more in the New Testament about being steadfast and firm, immoveable, not drifting with every wind of doctrine, but firmly standing on the truth etc. Now, there is of course a jump to be made here to apply this to full-time theological education, but the point is: we need to be talking about what will produce well-rooted, well-grounded, well-anchored, not flighty, not shifting, not moveable, (not flexible?), ministers to provide the stability that is the only firm platform for long-term growth towards maturity of persons and congregations in Christ.
Shane’s observation about the college shaping the diocese is also a very good argument for the college to remain firm, despite ‘market forces’. A theological college (and, by the way, that is not the same as ‘a bible college’) needs to deliver the best quality theological education it can, otherwise (in Shane’s context) it is following the whims of the diocese, and then who is shaping whom? There is a long history, unfortunately, of evangelical organisations going off the rails because the urgency of the needs of the moment overshadow the need for solid foundations. Theological colleges must continue, therefore, to set the lead here and do what is really needed, even if this is not perceived to be needed. (and, of course, if this mis-match exists, then work has to be done to repair it).
Instead of lapsing into rhetorical sloganeering, isn’t it better to clearly state what the problem is that we are trying to solve, and then find the best solution? The (supposed) problem I have been hearing is that ‘it takes too long to train a minister’. This is often because a church, or a diocesan official, wants a ‘good guy’ now, now, now! And they can’t be flexible enough (whoops, sorry) to wait. The suggested solution is to cut down, or cut out, full-time theological education. I am saying: no, don’t tinker with this (and especially for those who will end up being pastors of congregations).
As for blaming the college for the problems in the graduates, the question has to be asked, firstly, are the graduates doing what they have been trained to do? If so, blame the college. If not, the problem is somewhere else. That, I guess, raises the question of the nature of ministry.
Now if ‘ministry’ is not the delivery of the word of God (which is the only power for salvation), in the context of love for people, bathed in prayer for God to do his work, then it is not Christian ministry. With this in view, theological education is not picking up bits of information about God (which, like any other form of education, you can do part-time, full-time, or never!), it is being slowly and systematically being exposed to the Word of God (at core – there are many ways that this core is got at) over undistracted time, so that your mind is systematically undone from ‘thinking human thoughts’ and systematically rebuilt to ‘think God’s thoughts’, and this, being done as part of a community-being-built-over-slow-and-sustained time brings a serious shaping of character in the context of the prayers of that community.
In any theological college (and at Moore, which I know best) there are a great number of Otracks’ that can be taken: 1 year course(s), three year courses, four year courses, post-graduate courses. In each of those courses you can take out a pass, honours 2, or honours 1 (hardly anyone fails a course at Moore, so no need to put that option in – although some do take the ‘scenic route’ with a subject or two). There are half-time (and even part-time) options for the shorter courses, not intending to train graduates for pastoral ministry, but the closer you get to the theological education proper, that is, the BD, then the more necessary it is to be immersed in it full-time. (Even here, however, it is possible to find adjustments that have been made to ‘full-time’, even at Moore—and we have now flushed Tony Payne out as a ‘victim’ of this!). And there is certainly plenty of room for ‘healthy self-reflection’ and change within these courses and in their teaching, always with the improvement of the quality of the graduate in view.
But when full-time theological education has proved to be so valuable in shaping Christian ministers; when there are colleges who have moved to part-time (usually to attract more students, so a marketing move, not an educational one – and is this really serving the students best interest, or just using them?) with a consequential diminishing of the quality of their ‘products’; and when those in countries with tough economic circumstances who are forced to do part-time still long for and make sacrifices towards full-time experience; my question is: where is the good argument for fixing something that really isn’t broken?
It’s also worth mentioning here that Peter has written again on flexibility – http://solapanel.org/article/flexibility_and_where_to_apply_it/
Hi Peter, I’m not sure what you mean when you say “rhetorical sloganeering”. Could you please explain what you mean?
I agree that we need to be steadfast and firm, immoveable, not drifting with every wind of doctrine. But am I more likely to be moved, less steadfast and and prone to drifting if I don’t go to college for 4 years full-time? Is there any reason why part-time, with a greater support structure post-college, wouldn’t work just as effectively?
I think it’s fair to say that you are scathing of part-time study, e.g. assuming that colleges moving to part-time have done this for marketing, not educational purposes. I don’t think you can make this assertion. Nor can you assume that people wanting to study part-time are less interested in the long-term (as you did in your other post). There are good and valid reasons why people desire part-time study.
For instance, different people learn differently. For someone like me, the combination of study and practical ministry is the most effective way to learn.
“There seems to be a prevailing attitude that “4 years full-time study at Moore Theological College” is the only acceptable pathway into pastoral ministry”
is this really a true comment Steve? I guess it is when we’re talking about Anglican Ordination but paid (or then again unpaid) ministry is far greater than just this. If you are right Steve then I think we need to oppose this attitude with great vigor.
Is it perhaps our pathways (i.e. MTS, local churches, etc) rather than our theological colleges which push the 4year option as the only option available – even if indirectly?
I would hate for someone who was not suited to full time study to feel excluded from ministry. On the other hand I have a friend leading a Brethren church in Melbourne who was appointed from the congregation and laments that he had not done full time theological training prior to his appointment and now has to squeeze it in around the demands of pastoral ministry. He genuinely feels like his congregation misses out because of his theological shortcomings – though I wonder if we don’t all feel like that regardless.
Helpful comments thanks Pete.
I think Peter has been stating the case in strong language to defend against the erosion of quality and depth in theological education. Basically I agree. And yet of course, if you simply read his strong language outside its context (the rhetoric of the opinionated bloggosphere for a start), it could sound like a legalism of commanding what the Bible does not command (“Thou shalt not ordain a pastor without a 4 year theological education.”)
However, if you can read past the rhetoric, Peter has not argued that. Just that full time and lengthy theological education is one of the best – perhaps the best – form available to us in our context.
Personally I think there could probably be a few more exceptions to the rule of not ordaining parish presbyters unless they have the 4 year Moore degree or something equivalent in quality plus a bit of time at Moore. But only a few! And for exceptional people, because the role of parish oversight is so challenging it needs the greatest theological depth possible.
And as I and other have pointed out, there is already lots of flexibility – though perhaps under-used – this year I attended the ordination of Anglican deacons in our diocese, which included two from Youthworks with diplomas not degrees. And parishes are employing people from Youthworks and SMBC and elsewhere as well as from Moore, not all with 4 year degrees, and not all ordained.
In other words, Steve, you are not representing Peter or myself fairly when you said
I know of no one who is arguing that. Neither Peter nor myself have said that. This is the error of exaggerating what your opponent says to make it look ridiculous.
The 4 year Moore degree requirement is for ordination to the Presbyterate, which is now defined as suitability for parish oversight (going alongside with a practical assessment program re. suitability in other respects while a deacon).
Parish oversight – directing the overall ministry and mission of a multi-congregational unit – is generally a greater challenge than pastoring a single congregation.
And the Diocese has the right to set its standards high for this ministry (and then to make exceptions in exceptional cases).
But of course it’s not the only valid way into valid ministries of the Word, even including parish oversight.
To SANDY: I agree that “the Diocese has the right to set its standards high for this ministry (and then to make exceptions in exceptional cases)”. I think this is a good/helpful thing…
But does this mean that Moore College BDiv really only exists to serve men who will have parish oversight?
I think this is a stereotype of Moore college that many wrestle with: that is Moore college only offers one type of academic/pastoral training for one type of person/ministry… without recognizing the diversity of gifts, personalities and ministry opportunities???
To TIM: why does someone who wants to study half/part time have to study at another college… especially if they are an ‘Anglican’ and they would like to take some more academically ‘rigorous’ classes?
Hi Sandy, I certainly don’t want to misrepresent either yourself or Peter. I assumed from your earlier comment (below) that you were speaking about 4 years, because this was the next step in the levels of education you were discussing:
“But also understand that certain responsibilities will typically only be given to those who have studied to a certain level. And directing a large ministry unit, in our context and probably in most contexts, requires the best theological education possible in the circumstances.”
Is it possible to do the above (i.e. lead a large ministry unit), without 4 years at Moore?
I feel like I’m banging the same drum – I don’t mean to sound monotonous or narrow-minded. I’m just trying to explore the possibility of different models for different people, in different situations.
I’m not sure the ‘one size fits all’ method is necessarily best (and whilst I hear you Sandy that there are exceptions, the exceptions seem to be few and far between).
I’m also conscious that what is best for one person, might not be best for another. I hear what Peter is saying – i.e. that 4 years full-time is best, but the best way for some, might not be the best way for all.
Sorry all for being tardy in posting, I have been off the air over easter weekend. Glad to see the discussion has continued – and that it appears to have raised some strong passions!
I guess this post was really critiquing a ‘hurry up let’s get it over with’ kind of attitude to theological education, which raises questions of value and quality (which, I agree, are far more important than mere ‘time spent’). The thing is, if you want best value and quality, this will require time spent too, and focused, undistracted time. Someone did once say it is a bit tricky to serve two masters, … and I am sure he had the fulltime/parttime issue at least slightly in mind, didn’t he?
Rhetorical sloganeering is the use of ‘slogans’ for rhetorical purpose. In the context of this discussion it would be the slogan ‘theological colleges are inflexible’. A slogan doesn’t say anything really (you have to ask, in what sense? what do you mean? etc for clarity). It is rhetorical, because depending on the slogan it ‘slants’ the hearer for or against it by the language, not by any concrete detail or argument (so, who wants to be ‘inflexible’ etc). That is why i have asked for more argument about what is meant, what the problem is we are trying to solve, why aren’t multiple options apparently not part of ‘flexibility’ etc etc.
Steve, your answer to these kinds of questions is that people and situations are different. True, that is why there have always been ‘exceptions’ made to the ‘norm’. But why should an exception become a norm?
And, Hayley, I take it you are amongst that group and your longer time at it will certainly be fruitful, but will have its own challenges. Every Christian is capable of theological reflection, as you note, and ought to do it, but the ones who are going to be the theological leaders of churches ought to be reflecting at the highest and deepest level possible, don’t you think?
And Steve, I think your word ‘scathing’ is a bit ‘scathing’ of my point about part time options in Colleges being market driven, rather than educationally driven—I think you will probably find that this is true if you look into it. Or, alternatively, can you point to the practitioners in theological education who argue that part time is better than full (in theological education)? Can you discount the places that have taken this step and now say it was a bad one to take?
But, Steve again, it is a bit hard to know how to reply to your point really, when you say ‘I did IT part time and that suited me—which you then extend to theological education. If I were to be cheeky I would say, isn’t this just shifting the ‘inflexibility’ (to lapse into sloganistic rhetoric) to another spot, i.e. to what you were like, are like, and ever shall be like? And wouldn’t it be possible for those who know theological education to provide an equally ‘personal’ answer by saying, ‘the best kind of theological education is full-time’. Where do we go now? neither has a biblical mandate, does it?
And, now that I have become cheeky, can I take an extra step and say that there is something rather disturbingly ‘individualistic’ about your answer. Who decides what is ‘best’? The person themself? or does what is best arise from the task that is set before them, the responsibility they will have over others, the ‘demands’ of a congregation for excellent teaching and theological direction, the judgement day? Part of the usual understanding of full time (and long-enough time) theological education in the formation of pastors of congregations (boy, these qualifications make it difficult to talk about the thing!) has been that it occurs as part of a community in which individuals are shaped together, and in the process, what I thought I was like, is actually exposed, critiqued, deconstructed, renovated, renewed, so (if it all works well) the person exiting at the end is different and better equipped to be the pastor and theological shaper of a community of God’s people.
Yes, I am saying that for those who are going to be pastor-teachers of congregations, then they ought to do full-time theological education. It will be best for them, so that they will be best for their congregations. The variety of courses and options and exceptions that are already in place enable people to flex into a track in which they can get the most. However, those who are going to be judged more severely for being teachers of God’s people (James 3), need to be equipped and shaped in the best possible way. In fact, my slogan would be that every christian needs to have as much theological education as their ability and circumstances allows. But for the pastors, this best has come from full-time theological education in a community of other learners, it is still coming from that setting, and I would hope that the congregations and the denominations and the officials that serve the congregations would continue to demand the best for their future ministers. And, if they demand this best, that they then give time, make space, find support, add encouragement etc to this enterprise.
As for being committed to a four year programme? No, I won’t be tied down to that. It is a complex world, on top of the studies that help us understand that world theologically, and on top of the content of the scriptures themselves, we have the bible’s original languages and 2000 years of Christian history and Reflection to get on top of, let alone all the personal transformation and challenge that will bring as we learn together; and, come to think of itl, we are studying GOD—I think 6 or 8 years would be better!