I am on study leave at the moment—a lovely privilege of being a lecturer at Moore College—‘time out’ from the normal routine in order to enable all kinds of extra thought and reflection, which is always refreshing and productive. I talk to friends who don’t have such a privilege, and they are immediately envious and immediately see the value of it.
But even though I am permitted to let all ‘duties’ go, I couldn’t miss the college graduation. It is always a wonderful time to celebrate the achievements of a generation of students that are about to be launched on the world.
And it really is ‘the world’. Every year our graduates seem to find a new corner of this huge globe to take the gospel to. Mission. Mission. Mission. Mission is such a feature of Moore College. Always has been; always will be. And knowing that we are sending such a fine group of new ministers into the Lord’s harvest field is always a real buzz—well-taught, thoughtful, personally changed by the experience of college, and fired up for their new venture in the Lord’s work.
And there’s such a range of people and results—the immense flexibility that is possible in the college programme: one year, three, four; diplomas (Youth, Mission, Ministry) or degrees (BTh, BD). And this is even before we talk about the internal flexibility once you start: help for those who struggle, a push to those who don’t, electives at the right time in the programme, and so on. Flexibility. But still, the same good product. Our graduates are well-taught, thoughtful, personally changed by the experience of college, and fired up for their new venture in the Lord’s work.
And such testimony from the interviews at Graduation! Such personal engagement with God’s word. This isn’t easy because God’s word keeps shaping you, and that ain’t easy. But it’s something to thank God for. The constant exposure of God’s word through being able to take time out for sustained reflection; God’s word hits you in those kind of circumstances.
Full-time study. Or, for those for whom a full-time load is best done half-time, a half-time full-time load, if you know what I mean. But there is something about being full-time—taking the time out to be confronted by, exposed to, deeply immersed in the sustained, constant, ever-present word of God through classes and interaction with peers and faculty. This is powerful medicine with powerful effects. And the results are clear: graduates who are well-taught, thoughtful, personally changed by the experience of college, and fired up for their new venture in the Lord’s work.
If you think about it, it is clear and obvious. I am provided study leave to allow greater thought and reflection. But part-time study is always, well, part-time. Shortcuts are always shortcuts. How could we possibly hope to get the best kind of ministers of the gospel that we can if we are not prepared to give them ‘time out’—to have the devastating grace of constant ever-present exposure to God’s word?
I have been alarmed at recent suggestions from certain visitors from overseas that ministers either don’t need theological training (leave that one to another day!) or that they can get their theological training ‘on the run’, so to speak. All kinds of things are said to justify this claim, but none of them are worth listening to.
But (they respond) they have such an important ministry! (What, God can’t do without them??). And they are only young once! (What, and God can only use the young—and ignorant?). But they need to keep anchored in the church! (What, and that doesn’t happen during theological training where they are exposed to the life of the church across the centuries, and they mix with hundreds of other Christians all day every day, from every kind and size of church you could imagine?). But they can’t readjust their life to go full-time to theological college! (What, they want to avoid the sustained, provocative shaping that constant full-time exposure to God’s word demonstrably has on people, allowing their so important ‘ministry’ to distract them from this work of God in their life?). And on it goes.
Probably the worst objection is the claim that full-time theological education is a thing of the past, not the present. You can detect the smell of sulphur all over that one! This idolatry of the new has been around since the 60s, at least, but surely that is ‘so yesterday’. Haven’t we grown up a bit since then?
Ah, graduation! A high point of my year. What a wonderful thing it is to listen to these young men and women who know the benefits firsthand of a flexible, mission-centred, full-time theological education—young men and women who are being launched into the world, well-taught, thoughtful, personally changed by the experience of college, and fired up for their new venture in the Lord’s work!
Why would you want to change that wonderful inheritance from the Lord that has worked well in the past, that is still working well and that will certainly keep on working well into the future? You would have to be brain dead, perhaps? But that is probably a rude thing to say, so I withdraw the remark. Certainly, better reasons than I have heard will need to be advanced before I am convinced that full-time theological education needs to be ditched from ministerial training.
Thanks Peter. Speaking as somebody who has experienced both full-time and part-time theological study, I heartily endorse your comments about full-time study. I’m immensely grateful to my church and senior minister who have made (and continue to make) big sacrifices to enable me “time out” from “church work” each week to study. Even so, the constant switching between sustained theological reflection and the nitty-gritty of proclaiming the gospel in the everyday lives of people whom you love remains a challenge. A good challenge, mind you, and one with benefits. But I wouldn’t give up the privilege of sustained theological reflection during my full-time degree for the world.
Thanks for the post, Peter. Great call. I think the arguments you raise are compelling.
A couple of comments I’m interested to hear others’ thoughts on:
1. What about the problems of an ex-pat studying in an overseas college, learning the church history and theological debates of concern to Western church, rather than their home country?
2. Surely we can affirm the massive benefits of full-time theological training without swinging the pendulum too fiercely back the other way? It is possible for a non-campus/non-full-time education to be great… and for someone to waste their time at MTC too!
3. What’s your perception of the ‘way of the future’ argument from your persepctive on theological colleges? Is this an ill-informed comment?
As someone who is committed to the need for full-time theological education this is going to be a bit half-hearted, but I’ll take up the gauntlet:
1. The Teaching of the NT – that guy Paul especially. He was always banging on about the need to set up theological colleges. Jesus and the other letters concur – the key to mission is full-time formal theological education. It is commanded on every page.
2. Training gospel ministers – Paul does it again here. The long list in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 fits hand in glove with formal theological education. As Paul says, what an Overseer most needs is to be able to write essays and to conjugate verbs. All that character stuff can be squeezed in elsewhere.
(Okay, so I exaggerate! As I said, I’m actually committed to college based theological training. Churches should be working on the character stuff all the time and not just leave it up to college. However, I do think the NT raises big questions about what we think theological training is all about. And I’m not convinced that we’re currently doing such a good job that we have nothing to learn.)
Peter,
I found your post hard to read, not because I don’t agree with you regarding the necessity of theological education for ministers, but it comes across rather harsh.
I am not sure if you being deliberate, but the tone of this piece is rather defensive and…well…not very edifying.
I don’t recall a certain overseas visitor saying that Full Time Theological education was a bad thing, nor that theological education is not needed. Did not the overseas visitor you are clearly referring to say something to the effect of “Moore college is a phenomenal place”?
Everyone has a context and there are seasons in people’s lives. Some may have legitimate reasons for not studying full time at a particular moment in time. But suggesting that people “want to avoid the sustained, provocative shaping that constant full-time exposure to God’s word demonstrably has on people, allowing their so important ‘ministry’ to distract them from this work of God in their life” may be an unhelpful generalisation and rather careless.
Don’t get me wrong, Full time theological ministry is brilliant. I loved my three years and I would encourage anyone who has the calling,the desire and the means to go. (Though I think that if God calls, he will give them the desire and the means – for another thread).
Hi Peter, thanks for your post.
I too heard the overseas visitor to whom you are referring. The context in which I remember the comments about part time study was to do with young men and their energy levels, and church planting. The argument I heard was that church planting is exhausting and best done by young men who have the energy to do it. Those men could then do their study of theology in the context of ministry, which then would shape their questions and concerns by cold hard experience, rather than by abstract academic concerns. That is the argument as I remember it – my memory could be faulty of course, but I didn’t see a response to that argument in your post (though granted, I may have heard the person in a different context to you, saying things in slightly different ways). I would be interested in your thoughts on that perspective.
I too am in favour of full time theological education, having experienced it myself and reaped its benefits. Though, I was ‘distracted’ by student ministry commitments of preaching and leading bible studies and other church ministries (not quite to the part time level), so it wasn’t quite like study leave.
One last thing – I am a bit wary of associating something ‘new’ with the ‘smell of sulphur’ – I recall one MTC lecturer/bishop’s remark to our church leadership that the seven last words of the church were ‘we’ve never done it that way before’. Just a thought.
God bless for your study leave – I look forward to the fruit!
Peter, I do see the value in full-time education, but I would also like to say that if theological education is “tertiary” education, which I think it is, then the overwhelming trend at universities is that people are going part-time. I think that there needs to be room for people to go part-time, though every effort should be made by those who go and those who support them to help them to go full-time. The reality is that isn’t always possible.
And secondly, frankly, I’ve had a lot, a LOT of negative comments about Moore college and it’s inflexibility. I don’t know if it’s true, and it’s certainly only hearsay, but I don’t think it’s wise to seem like you believe that Moore has got nothing to improve on. Every tertiary education provider does. And I’m sure every theological educational provider also does. It did feel to me, from your tone, that it was a “Hooray, isn’t Moore the greatest”, rather than celebrating that it does many things well. Sorry, but that’s my opinion.
Thanks Peter for a great post. I have been thinking lots about full time / part time theological education – as I’m involved in one step ‘beyond’ part time, that is theological education by distance.
From what I’ve learnt as I’ve talked to students and ‘faculty’ involved in distance education, I heartily concur with what you have said. There is no substitute for full time. However, for some people – especially here in Latin America, that is just not a possibility (mainly due to $$) and so we need to make the best of what we can. Interestingly, one of the things that we are trying to do with distance education is to mimic where possible some of the advantages of full time study!
From a personal point of view full time theological education was fantastic for me. One of the, if not the greatest benefit of full time study is the fellowship you develop with your classmates. Its now 10 years since my year group got together and the fellowship, advice, support and wisdom we can share with each other is fantastic. As a group we meet for 3 days each year, and our wives get together more regularly than that. These are critical times for support, ‘debriefing’, sharing highlights etc. I think that this fellowship is a direct result of our intense 3-4 years together, and would not exist if we had been in a more part-time situation.
Hi All,
Thanks for your interest in this discussion. I have a couple more posts coming along in the same direction that may further pick up on some of the points raised. But here are a couple of my responses to yours.
As for my tone, mmm – always hard to spot from a piece of writing and hard to differentiate if it is something in the author or reader, but I admit my use of hyperbole at points is probably capable of being ‘tone-laden’, so please forgive! Also, I am sure that in the warm afterglow of the Moore College Graduation if a sense of ‘Moore College is the Greatest’ came through, I could also be forgiven for that. (or was it that movie about the boxer that I had watched recently ….?)
Thanks, John, for the playful-toned response. Of course, hard work on Greek is required to actually find out what Paul did or did not say; and I have noticed that having to do such hard work on conjugations and essays on God’s word is a delightful challenge to notice things about yourself, and others, that provides sustained opportunity for character formation. Sustained Greek study also helps to shatter what you thought you knew amongst those pre-conceived ideas, by forcing you to slow down (sometimes enormously!) and so to think over the NT text in way you have not done before. More character shaping there.
Theological education is not just another tertiary-level education (amazing how the old italics also adds a ‘tone’), and there are a lot of bad habits in the tertiary sector that we shouldn’t take on board (and, by the way, the proliferation of part-time options is not sitting that happily in the secular educational environment either). Yes, it is possible to waste a full-time theological education too—and, sadly, it happens, often because people don’t understand what it is they have entered into. Unfortunately, those who do a university degree in our current environment will have all kinds of things in their ‘framework’ that they will have to resist applying when they think about theological education. In fact, if pre-theological education tertiary courses are increasingly only running interference, then this is a good reason to consider chopping them out all together for those who are going to be congregational ministers, and starting that full-time theological education earlier.
Part II
Glad to hear so many personal testimonies to the immense benefits of full-time theological study – it is something you cannot really appreciate fully before the event, and only really appreciate fully after the event, so more of these stories need to be circulating. Perhaps we could get a blog, ‘why full-time theological education is the greatest’ (?). And, by the way, those who have gone through the process properly (not wasting it) will also know that there is nothing ‘abstract’ about deeply engaging with God’s word.
And the comparative (or, John, more correctly, the superlative) is important. There are those in existence who have gone through theological education with some part-time component, and survived – and even profited (and, if you look hard enough, you will even find those who did /do part-time at Moore). The facts of life etc, do make it occasionally necessary – and perhaps even for a great number of people, as in Pete Sholl’s arena. Even in such countries where funding is a problem it is interesting to see how the full-time experience is actually desired, worked for, and sacrificed for – for the value of the process is seen in the quality of the products.
But what must be resisted tooth and nail is to ever think that part-time study is the ideal, and who needs to be resisted are those who wish to make part-time study the norm for those who are going to be congregational ministers. This may be denominational officials, eager to get more workers; it may be those who pay the bills at the local level, who don’t want to lose an enthusiastic person who is doing great stuff; it may be an ‘inner voice’ inside the person themselves. But, whatever the source, it needs to be resisted. There are plenty of other categories of Christian workers, and part-time theological education may well be sufficient here; but congregations must resist (and fiercely, with all the attendant tone problems that might bring) any attempt for having ministers thrust upon them who are not properly (read: full-time) trained theologically.
And as for the young, vigorous, untiring, energy-ridden church –planter, we need to avoid age-ism here. What age do you lose your zeal for Christ and his gospel? What age do you lose energy for mission work? When do you stop evangelising? And isn’t church planting basically evangelism – or am I missing something here (this would be another good topic for discussion). Is age really the issue (tell that to the apostle Paul, John!), or are there other issues at stake, such as the desire for security in a system, etc?? If the value of proper (read: full-time) theological education for congregational pastors (NB) is held onto, then every one of these church-planters-in-short-pants needs to factor in the moment that they will leave their growing congregation (suitably cared for by those they have trained up ready for the moment) to take the time out they need for serious theological reflection in a (full-time) community of other learners, before taking up the saddle again – with a lot more to give over the years of long-haul ahead. All kinds of other good things will come out of this too.
This reply is in danger of being longer than the original post! As for the Lynch question about the way of the future, ‘time’ is often the category we Westerners think in (and it is what my post picked up on), but it is probably not the right category. If congregational teachers are to be judged with a higher standard (James 3), then their theological training becomes immensely significant when set against the judgment day. Instead of time, we ought to be thinking of quality. I hope to have another post coming on this.
<cite>And as for the young, vigorous, untiring, energy-ridden church –planter, we need to avoid age-ism here. What age do you lose your zeal for Christ and his gospel? What age do you lose energy for mission work? When do you stop evangelising? And isn’t church planting basically evangelism – or am I missing something here (this would be another good topic for discussion). Is age really the issue (tell that to the apostle Paul, John!), or are there other issues at stake, such as the desire for security in a system, etc??<cite>
Thanks for your response Peter. I will be interested to read your further posts.
Forgive me for saying it, but I’m not sure the point I raised was really engaged, other than in charicature. I am speaking way out of my knowledge zone here, but I am not personally a church planter. But I’m not sure that ‘church planting is <em>simply<em> evangelism’. Of course, it is evangelism – at least, the church planting that the visiting speaker was talking about (ie. not ‘repotting’, or tranplanting congregations to attract transfer growth). The church planting that was talked about in the address that I heard was the sort where you start from nothing, and you need to raise money from scratch to support yourself, as well as source buildings, raise up leaders in fledgling churches, preach week in week out, vist your new congregation members, help them work out the implications of the gospel as they take their baby steps of faith etc. All of this takes time and energy. And the simple observation is that, the way God has designed our bodies, we have more energy to put into this sort of multi-faceted, infrastructure-creating tyoe evangelistic work when we are young. Nothing really to do with the question of, ‘at what age do we have the most zeal’.
Again, I am in favour of full-time theological education, and the community nature of such. I’m just interested to see the arguments of the visiting speaker addressed fairly, rather than defensively, with a fair hearing and representation, and feeling the weight of those arguments. Like I was urged to do when writing essays during my full time theological education.
I look forward to your further posts, brother. Grace and peace.
Hi Peter,
I do love your thoughtfulness and belief in the value of full-time theological education, and personally I think it is a shame that any form of initial tertiary education is part-time. Even though some of us (probably just me on this comment stream) who haven’t experienced theological education can certainly testify to the value of full-time secular tertiary education. And definitely for the full-time gospel worker. But there always needs to be flexibility and grace about this.
I don’t understand what it is like to work in a theological education provider, but I do understand what it is like at a secular education provider and I bring 10 years experience to that. Can I say that generally speaking, many 18-19 year olds are not ready for tertiary education, let alone the more demanding and more personally challenging and life changing theological education?
That doesn’t mean that some are, but my personal perception of undergraduate students, and I work in orientation and transition support and have for a while now, is that give them a few years of something else, whether it be work or study, before they go to theological college.
That doesn’t mean that there aren’t many who could’ve gone straight in to MTS and then Moore College, it’s just a general perception of the majority.
Which of course raises another point about whether Moore is there for the majority or the minority… but that’s a whole other kettle of fish.
Oh and another kettle of fish is whether they need real-life work experience before they become a full-time minister of the gospel. Which my opinion is almost always if they’re going to minister to people who are in full-time secular work. There’s something very rarified about someone who’s never worked in a secular profession or secular job. Again, another kettle!
There is no doubt that most of the students who participate in theological education by distance in Latin America would give their right arm to be able to study full time. And in many cases – they all but give their right arm to be able to do it.
Does this raise the question along the lines of ‘Is part time study sometimes seen as a desirable option because it allows the student a bit of a life line?’
Just flying a kite to see if it gets shot down…..
Thank you Peter for your helpful and lengthy reply to everyone – even to my facetious comments!
Actually I wasn’t arguing necessarily for part-time study but for the reform of full-time study.
Likewise I think you are onto something with the issue of risk and security. Although I should point out that it cuts both ways – are theological colleges there to provide lecturers with jobs or to nurture gospel ministers?
(Provocative again – sorry, I can’t help myself!?)
Dear Peter,
Thanks very much for your post. You raise many excellent points, and I’m another one who thinks the four years I spent studying full-time at Moore College were as well spent as they could possibly have been.
Like others, I don’t write to take issue with the substance of the article. I write because I am concerned about the tone in which this post was written.
Can’t we do better than to refer to Mark Driscoll as having the ‘smell of sulphur’, and as being ‘brain dead’? Is this really an appropriate way to refer to a Christian brother? What’s more, to then ‘withdraw’ a comment but to actually leave it in print only puts the boot in further, doesn’t it?
Peter, I’m sure everyone who read the post will forgive (as you asked in your comment). How can we not, since I’m sure we all say things we regret. But to whom is an apology really owed in this case?
Please excuse my bluntness, but this is something that I think is pretty important and I do feel strongly about it.
Thanks again for all responses and critiques.
Keith’s comments about what a church planter is are helpful. I think the vocabulary seems to have changed over the years, where we used to speak of evangelism (including all the things Keith mentions in the package), now it is all about church planting. Being a little confused about the change, I checked it out with two of those promoting Church Planting and was assured it was basically evangelism (in the full sense), so took comfort in that. This is all worth further discussion, just what are we talking about with this church planting thing?
Also, it raises interesting questions about the old mono-versus-team ministry thing, Do we have to conceive of ‘church planters’ as go-it-alone types, who therefore need the vigour etc that the Lord bestows especially upon the youthful bodies? There are a lot of assumptions here, that is all.
Georgina, I am sure your observations are right about the ‘fit’ of a lot of 18 or 19 year olds and tertiary study. The idea of the need of work experience prior to theological education has been around for a long time (and I presume that ‘a prior degree’ is classified as ‘work experience’). My point here (raised in my next post) however, is simply to ask, if it is true that ‘the system’ takes too long to get people going into ministry (and that is a bad thing), then where should the flexibility be? In the Anglican system (my own), the canonical age of ordination is 23, which assumes that any theological education takes place prior to that age, which does not leave much room for an EXTRA university degree. I am simply asking whether it would be another option to cut the time down by cutting out this prior stage, and leaving theological education intact, because of its superior value.
Pete, life-lines are good – especially if they have to grab hold of it with their left arm! However, I would hate to see this emergency situation made to be the normal situation.
And I have had more trouble with my ‘tone’ (both on-post and off). I would suggest that to defend something that is under attack doesn’t have to be labelled ‘defensive’ (in a negative sense) —or is it defensive to say this? John admits to having the talent for facetiousness (which I picked up anyway), but I obviously don’t have the same talent, just a tone problem? To be just as blunt, Geoff, my original post began as a celebration of graduation with (I hope) several paragraphs with a celebratory positive tone, before making a passing reference to some (still , by me) unnamed visitor from overseas in order to launch a particular issue for discussion, then a series of questions that seemed to generalise way beyond where the issue came from and so depersonalise it (in my mind) as well as catch myself up in the thinking about the issue process, and then (in a vain attempt to be facetious) call all of us (including me) who are now in this thought game ‘brain dead’ (a stronger form of saying the opposite is a ‘no brainer’), then pull back as a further (failed) attempt at adding a tone of playfulness to the discussion of the issue. In my mind the total thing was depersonalised, but, if it is re-personalised and names are named, then I can see the problems you wish to be blunt about. But now I am being defensive!
Perhaps I should just try for plain speech. Graduation was good. It reminded me how excellent a full-time theological education is, and how essential it is for those who will be the full-time teachers of God’s word in the capacity of those with congregational oversight. What a pity it would be to lose this. Let’s flex somewhere else.
Sorry, I know this a bit late to the discussion, but I just want to check I am not the only one who thinks this.
Surely the sufficiency of Scripture, or put another way the claims of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, would say that work experience is not <em>needed<em>.
I think we can say that it would be helpful for people to have ‘normal’ work experience before becoming set aside Gospel Ministers, but if we say it is vital don’t we just show our lack of faith in the word of God?
I think that work experience isn’t needed. But I think it’s kinder.
Why?
Well, because you want people to be ready to handle being a minister. Let’s face it: it’s one of the hardest jobs there is. Giving them a bit of life experience first may help so that they don’t burn out and leave ministry. Or not. What do you think?
Thanks Alex and Georgina, the thing is, work experience didn’t used to be a requirement. The canonical age of ordination for an Anglican minister is 23, after ‘reading’ towards a university entrance requirement, and then taking a theological degree; which doesn’t leave much space. before being made I am not sure when it came in. There are good reasons for having it, not the least of which is the personal maturity to get the most out of your theological studies. However, if we are to cut anything down (which is the suggestion I am answering in these three posts), then it could go before the theological education is axed, in my view.
Totally agree Peter, that it should be axed first.
One thing I do want to know, though, is how do people who haven’t been to uni first cope at Moore college? Does uni provide a sort of “preliminary” introduction to independent, non-secondary education?
And the other thing I wanted to say is that it’s all up to the individual too. I have known some 18 year olds who would cope going straight into theological education. Perhaps its more of a “who is this person, what are their gifts, what is their maturity” rather than a “rule”?
Peter- just found your original post and following comments when I was researching stuff for something else.
I’m so glad you wrote with such vigour and with the tone you took. Moore College is a fantastic institution for excellent theological education.(oh and with weaknesses and areas where we need constant re-calibration and modification)
Those who criticize it so strongly need a strong response in my view. The danger of not responding at all is worse!