THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEADERS FOR THE CHURCH FROM ANCIENT ISRAEL TO THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
| Format: Ms Word | 1-5 Chapters | Table of Content|
INSTANT PROJECT MATERIAL DOWNLOAD
Study Level: BTech, BSc, BEng, BA, HND, ND or NCE
Amount: ₦3,000.00
CHAPTER ONE
1.0. INTRODUCTION
The emergence of the church on the day of Pentecost as recorded in the book of Acts chapter two could be traced back in time to the last chapters of the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke (Matt. 28:16-20; Mk. 16: 14-20; Luke. 24: 44-53), in those records lies the Great Commission that Jesus gave before his ascension. Inherent in these biblical accounts is the specific instruction to the believers of being sent to “make disciples … and teach…”
It is instructive to note that Jesus sent those he had trained and prepared (Mk. 3:13-19; Luke. 6:12-16) and here lies the unassailable fact: for there to be a fulfilment of the mission of the church,, the church must be at all times involved in the training, discipling, and teaching of all believers. This is the essence of theological training and Christian education in particular.
1.1. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
Growing up as a son of a Pastor-Theologian exposed the researcher at a tender age to the age-long unresolved conflict between theological training and actual pastoral work; the researcher recalled questioning his father after reading through Wilmington’s Guide to the Bible if the content of the book accurately summarizes what is being taught at the seminary. The father’s answer in the affirmative never prepared him for the next question, “then why are most of the graduates not teaching and living these truths?”
This question still bothers the researcher’s heart as the researcher grew and observes in detail the difference between what pastors professes and practices; why is it that what is taught in the Seminary does not accurately depict the realities in the church? Today, as an emerging educator, theologian and pastor, that question has become the researcher’s personal quest to seek for answers that will bridge the gap between what is known and done; what is taught and lived, and find exactly what is the missing link that will make us truly say like the Apostle Paul, “pattern yourselves after me [follow my example], as I imitate and follow Christ (the Messiah).”[1]
The problem of leadership development in Christianity is as old as Christianity itself, and in responding to this great task several models have been developed through the ages to accomplish the task of providing quality, relevant, timely, and effective Theological Education to the body of Christ, especially at the leadership or ministerial cadre. As A.W. Tozer states, “The rewards of godly leadership are so great and the responsibility of the leaders so heavy that no one can afford to take the matter lightly.” (Emphasis mine.)
Dave Buckert writing in CCBT Newsletter asserted: “There is little doubt that one of most urgent issues facing the church in these critical times of doubt and confusion is the need for godly leaders. The church, indeed the whole world, desperately needs men and women who know God intimately, who look like Jesus Christ in their daily lives and who know how to help others to become mature disciples of Jesus.”[2]
“In many areas of the world—Asia, Africa and South America—the church is growing at a phenomenal rate. With this growth comes a commensurate need for mature, well-trained leaders. Over the past century the church has relied heavily on formal Theological Education for developing pastoral leadership. Although theological schools have adopted new strategies for reaching more students, such as Theological Education by Extension, satellite campuses, correspondence and later on-line classes, this mode of education cannot meet the increasing demand for pastors, teachers and missionaries. Local churches around the world need more trained leaders than these institutions will ever be able to produce.”[3]
But beyond the need for more trained leaders, equally important is the question, “What kind of theological training will give a solid and foundational basis for future Christian leaders to work in the contemporary world? What kind of Theological Education will impact society as a whole and address the individuals who are growing increasingly distant from God and His kingdom? To answer this question thoroughly, we need to realize that “for at least the last millennium of Christian history, if ever there were examples of the confusion of cultural values overwhelming truly Christian values it is in the area of training for ministry.”[4]
The importance of training for ministry is so critical when we realize that:
“From the inception of Christianity education has played a major role in enabling the tradition of the Christian faith to be remembered and celebrated. As Christianity emerged as a new faith within the Judeo-Palestinian tradition and had to survive amidst the Greco-Roman milieu, it embarked on appropriate education to ensure that its faithful were soundly rooted in their faith and prepared to defend it when challenged by adversaries.
From the very beginning Christianity was a learning and teaching religion, as the sources of Christian faith were not just inner emotional feelings of the individual but a complex tradition transmitted in narratives, in hymns, in liturgy and later in creeds common to a majority of Christians at different places which could be memorized and had to be re-appropriated anew in each generation.
… Seen from such a historic perspective the commitment to education therefore is not a prerogative of Western Christianity or a late discovery within the missionary movement of the 19th century. The concern for Christian education and more specifically for Theological Education is an essential feature and inner vocation of Christian faith from its early beginnings.”[5]
Therefore, for us to faithfully preserve what has been handed over to us, and successful ensure its relevance it is the researcher’s assertion in this study that the current dominant model of Theological Education for church leadership development or ministerial training is incompatible with the stark realities of the Twenty-First Century and would not develop the type of leaders needed by the church to accomplish its mission in this Twenty-First Century world. Consequently, it is imperative for all stakeholders in the leadership development process of the church to consider other viable models of delivering quality Theological Education to the people of God, especially that of Church-Based Theological Training. This is a task we cannot afford to shirk.
What exactly are the obvious characteristic of the Twenty-First Century church that necessitates an evaluation of the church’s model of leadership development? Peter F. Drucker, a leading analyst in economics and societal patterns wrote in his book Post Capitalist Society that:
“Every few hundred years in Western history there occurs a sharp transformation…Within a few short decades, society rearranges itself – its worldview; its basic values; its social and political structure; its arts; its key institutions. Fifty years later, there is a new world. And people born then cannot even imagine the world in which their grandparents lived and into which their own parents were born. We are currently living through just such a transformation.”[6]
This assertion could not be truer, according to Jeff Reed in an article on Church-Based Theology,
“It is absolutely essential, at this point in history, for the church to understand the times in which it is living. Major shifts of a paradigmatic nature are taking place in almost every sphere of life. Business, education and government are all going through major “reengineering”. The technological age is rapidly reshaping how we work, learn, train our kids and go about all sorts of service and ministry… Communications systems are redefining our concept of everything from office complexes to libraries to international trade. We are entering a new era.”
He summarized by writing, “This era, with its potential for great confusion and destruction, holds for the church, I believe, almost unparalleled opportunity.”[7]
If the church will arise to maximize the opportunity that this era presents and minimize the threat that it portends then it is imperative that the training of its ministers especially in the context of Seminary education be given more attention. Viable alternatives such as Church-Based Theological Education model should be given more a cursory glance. This is the focus of this study.
There is an apparent mismatch of problems and solution in the prevailing method of providing Theological Education for church leadership, the source of which did not arise as an overnight problem in this present generation, rather it was a carry-over from other period of church history for which the Seminary-Based Model of ministerial training was better suited.
Tracing the historical development of the Seminary training for church leadership shows that the Seminary Model of ministerial development arose out of the need faced by the proprietors and people who established the first seminary; according to antiquity, they were in search of a well-endowed school that had more than one faculty member and a good library, a situation which had prevailed in the log cabin tradition up till then. This need led the Congregationalist in New England to establish Andover Theological Seminary in Connecticut in 1808; this Seminary is America’s oldest graduate Seminary and the nation’s first graduate institution of any kind. It created the educational model used by almost all Protestant seminaries today and pioneered many training programs for prospective clergy, including Field Education. The new Seminary was the first to formalize graduate study for clergymen with a resident student body and resident faculty. The program was for three years of study in four subjects: the Bible, church history, doctrinal theology and the practical arts of ministry.[8]
Prior to this time, clergy had been trained in the university environment as far back as pre-reformation era. For a new nation that was rapidly expanding and in need of large number of missionary pastors to the frontiers who would preach a consistent doctrinal message, the Seminary arrangement was almost perfect, but time has changed and there are current needs that urgently asks for a review of this model which has served and is almost outliving its usefulness to the Twenty-First Century church.
This mismatch of model and period has produced and is producing a church leadership formation that is defined as one in which “cognitive theological development is often removed from the context of the community of faith. This un-harnessing of church leadership formation from its missional context compromises the formative process and consequently no mid-course adjustment will succeed in moving it in the right direction.” [9]
In this new era, churches are demanding for training options which are relational, meaningful, contextual and nurturing. Seminaries which are geared to answer the questions of yester-year, in the rnanner of yester-year, will be by-passed for these more relevant options. The emerging realities within the market place of Theological Education explains why Church-Based models are making more and more sense than ‘leave-home and read books about the past’ models of seminary.[10]
This mismatch has produced a predicament in which church leadership educators have of forming church leaders away from the context and life of the church. It is obvious to all concerned stakeholders that the task of raising leaders for the church cannot be successfully done in the hallowed halls of theological learning and tradition resident on our universities and seminaries, like all truly successful endeavour and vocation such as medicine, it ought to be done in the trenches of church life and in the wilderness of true mission work.
Most of the products of our seminaries suffer from questionable confidence, competence and credibility when confronted with the realities of church life. In the Wesleyan working document, detailing the Methodist church worldwide vision for Theological Education in the Twenty-First Century, it clearly stated another dimension of this problem as:
“Our failure to produce more “real Christians”, which is reflected in a lack of ongoing catechesis for all Christians, a failure to claim the power of Christian conversion, the absence of covenantal community within the church-among laity, among clergy, and between laity and clergy–our willingness to let economic or market issues triumph over mission, and the dearth of theological reflection and critique in both the church and society.”
“Moreover, the continued prevalence of immoral personal and corporate conduct, racism, sexism, violence, terrorism, poverty, religiously inspired hatred, needless suffering, and premature death points to a failure in evangelization and mission by the church. The decline in church membership, the loss of an emphasis on personal conversion, and the failure of the church to be an alternative community shaped by the gospel of Jesus Christ testify to the leadership crisis among the people called United Methodists and represent a call to action as we enter the Twenty-First Century.”
Continuing in the same vein:
“E
evidence abounds that congregations and leaders lack basic knowledge of the Bible, Christian doctrine, and history. Yet such knowledge is crucial; it is both formative and transformative. Without a firm grounding in the Bible, Christian doctrine, and tradition, the church is unable to engage the culture critically and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.”[11]
According to Laurie D. Bailey[12] the requirement for Seminary students to leave their homes and ministries for extended period of times has the unfavourable repercussion of most of them not returning to their communities to serve, and even if they do go back, they often feel out of place and have difficulty relating to their former congregations, this is because, “their education has not prepared them to address the realities of life in their communities and congregations such as poverty, injustice, tribalism, Islam and traditional religions, and the breakdown of traditional social values. (Emphasis mine) The researcher asserts that this would not have been so profound if their training had been done in the context of church and community of faith.
Returning back to Dave Burkett, “…the best method of developing mature disciples and godly leaders today is truly the oldest method—restoring the church to the centre of leadership development—God’s strategy all along! The local church is, by God’s design, the most effective incubator of spiritual leaders on the planet.”[13]
This problem covers not just the scope of the personal development of leaders, but it also affects the future development of the church, because there is more than a modicum of truth in the saying that, “as the Seminary goes, so goes the church.” If the church must fulfil the tenet of the great commission in Matthew 28:18, 19, we should reconsider our methods and means of training the leaders of the church who will train others up in the household of faith.
In conclusion, this study is not an indictment of the Seminary-Model of preparing church leadership, neither is it an appeal to obliterate Seminary education in its entirety. That in itself will be a great injustice and a disservice to the body of Christ, rather this is an encouragement to all stakeholders in the task of developing church leadership to carefully consider the times we live in; our models or vehicles of effecting leadership transformation and preparation; our unchanged mission to evangelize and disciple the world implicit in the great commission and obey the commandment of Jesus to put new wine into new wineskin so that we can fulfil the biblical purposes of the church and the commission from our Lord.
And for those who will disregard this needful change, “a new breed of seminarians are rising who are prepared to innovate on approaches to serious ministry by considering training beyond the bounds of the formal Seminary establishment; they are poised to offer and are already offering a model of contextual leadership development that should be of interest to religious leadership educators.”[14]
What these new breed do should be of interest to the established seminaries because “that which functions so well within the Church-Based model, by contrast, represents what seminaries work hard at, but do not always achieve; emerging Church-Based formation options represent market shifts that evidence a preference for low-cost, in-context, just-in time training over and against expensive, residential or delayed implementation models; and the inability or deliberate misunderstanding of this trend will cause them to miss the “disruptive technology” lessons learned by many conventional corporate institutions when they misread or were unwilling to shift focus and method to accommodate innovation.”[15] These lessons sadly include: loss of relevance, loss of impact, and ultimately the threat of extinction.
Other reasons necessitating this change is as a result of new technologies, the easy availability of educational resources, and the dramatic growth in educational alternatives, seminaries no longer corner the market on Theological Education…. In certain respects the momentum has shifted from school-based to Church-Based Theological Education. While seminaries have the decided edge in the academic study of Scripture and tradition, many church leaders have concluded that there are better alternatives for the training of effective church leaders”[16]
1.2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
What the church needs is reformation and not mere renovation, a reformation of the whole philosophy and structure of Theological Education in order for it to be relevant to the needs of the church in the two-third worlds. This was the heartfelt cry of Jonathan Chao, a great theological educator, writing a rejoinder as an expansion to the Lausanne Covenant in 1974.[17] Today, more than ever we need to realize that his cry has become more insistent as we see not only churches in the two third world in dire need, but also churches in the West that “…are declining for lack of well-formed people-leaders and labourers.”[18]
As Jonathan Chao said then:
“It is not possible to ‘improve Theological Education’ as suggested by the covenant, in isolation from its ministerial context….it has to be rebuilt on a functional structure of service as found in the New Testament….this will enable us see the release of a spiritual dynamic in the churches that could produce a great awakening for world evangelisation.’’[19]
In similar vein, Jeff Reed writing about this issue observed:
Over the last three decades, almost all the creative attempts of Western formal educational institutions to extend their training…have, in one form or another, been an extension of the formal Theological Education paradigm and its enterprises. And…almost all the attempts by churches to assume major responsibility for training their own leaders have been dominated or overshadowed by this formal Theological Education paradigm Which…is an inadequate paradigm to contain the “entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques and so on,” contained in the biblical truths, images, and models to be imitated throughout the scriptures.”
It is my contention in this study to show that the predominant Seminary based Theological Education model for church leadership development is incompatible with Twenty-First Century realities confronting the church, and it will not produce the type of leadership the church needs. Therefore, this study investigated the Church-Based Theological Education model as viable biblical alternative.
This has become imperative in the wake of so many studies on effectiveness of Seminary graduates as ministers after their Seminary education.
“In the early ’90s, the Murdock Charitable Trust funded a major study of Seminary effectiveness; a study focused on Theological Education in the Pacific Northwest but in time had implication for the North American Seminary establishment. The study discovered that graduates who became pastors “found that 70 – 80% of their Seminary education did not apply” to their duties in church ministry and that “48% of the students believed that Seminary education had impacted their personal life and values to a significant degree” (Murdock Report).[20], [21]
Christianity Today introduced another dimension to the debate, allowing Seminary institutions to realise they were not excused from the demands of a consumer public conducted a survey asking Seminary professors and lay members of churches to list ‘the five most important characteristics of an ideal pastor.’ The church, according to the lay population of the study, just was not getting ‘the product’ that missional norm demanded.Ranking
Lay People
Pastors
Professors First
Spirituality
Relational Skills
Theological Knowledge Second
Relational Skills
Management Skills
Character Third
Character
Communication skills
Leadership Skills Fourth
Communication Skills
Spirituality
Communication Skills Fifth
Theological knowledge
Theological Knowledge
Counselling Skills
[22]
Jon Ruthven in “Between two worlds…” posited that
there is a continuing unease that traditional Seminary education somehow fails to deliver on its promise of producing effective Christian workers−that the Seminary experience contributes little to the effectiveness its graduates. This is due in a large part to the fact that Theological Education has largely adopted the traditional academic model for training clergy. Its way of knowing is pagan, not biblical.
This way of knowing promotes a detached, uncommitted, “objective” relationship to its subject matter. It has institutionalized competition, pride and dependence on the praise of men—these days we call it “accreditation.”Typically, it holds out as an ideal to emulate an institution of “higher learning” that has devastated the faith of millions…. In the pressure for self-promotion and the fame game in seminaries, the practical ministry department, including missions, tends to be at the low end of the totem pole, even though their subject area is central, in most cases, to the published raison d’être for the seminary’s existence!
The clash between the two worlds expresses itself most clearly in the curriculum and its form of presentation. The format is characterized by the presentation of information rather than training; the information is depersonalized—as easily learned from a video as from a live teacher; the information deals with issues rarely if ever encountered in real ministry, but rather more reflects tradition or the academic interests of the instructor; the knowledge tends to intimidate rather than edify; it can be intellectually exciting, but spiritually empty; the knowledge is powerless when facing serious spiritual need; it evokes a vaguely guilty, uncomfortable feeling in the presence of God.
… The curriculum has called for professionals of the academy, rather than professionals of the church.”[23]
All these and many more clearly articulate the problem that is the underlying reason for this study because it has been observed that every movement of churches planted by Western mission organizations, founding its leadership training paradigm upon the institutionally driven, formal education paradigm, has a desperate lack of leadership.[24]
1.3. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
As previously stated in the concluding remarks of the background to this study, the researcher’s motive is not to tear down the seminary, or to disparage the Seminary trained pastor of which he is a privileged member, rather he offers his assessment and the result of this study with an optimism that all stakeholders can come together to renew and reform Theological Education for church leadership in a way that will be more in consonance with the pattern of Jesus and the apostles, and equally as effective as theirs. Since we have been promised greater capacity by God.[25]
Therefore, the purpose of this study simply stated is to examine in detail
- The historical development of Theological Education for leadership formation
- Evaluate the contemporary trends in models of leadership development for the church
- Critically evaluate both historically and contemporarily the Church-Based Theological Education model taking as a case study the BILD model; and
- The biblical basis for Theological Education for leaders in both the Old and New Testament.
All these would be done as thoroughly as possible in this study.
1.4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The findings of this study hopefully will engage all stakeholders in a discussion that will help fine-tune and preserve the rich Theological Education and training for church leadership in a way and manner that is in sync with biblical pattern and effective in getting the message of our Lord and saviour to the Twenty-First Century world; it will also serve to re-vitalize the potency of our testimonies as leaders and members of the church.
By stakeholders, the researcher means the Theological Seminaries and all other theological faculties of Christian schools and colleges; pastors of both mega and non-mega churches; the leaders who have the call of God on their life and are desirous of getting trained and equipped for the heavenly task committed into their hands and all other people who feel it is in their best interest to know more about the task of leadership training for the Twenty-First Century church.
The researcher believes that “as leaders of Christ’s Church, we cannot do missions, education, discipleship or leadership training “as usual” and hope that it will work. With globalization and the speed of communication, new strategies are required…. The key to those new, Twenty-First Century strategies lies in the 1st century. The way Jesus taught His disciples and the method Paul used to mentor and plant churches that brought world-changing results. We must return to those examples –using all the Twenty-First Century offers – to win the world for Christ.”[26]
The goal of this dialogue is the development of true partnerships in which all those involved in calling, forming, supporting and deploying church leaders can maximize their contribution to providing and sustaining leaders for the fulfilment of the church’s mission.
1.5. DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY
In this study, the researcher explored through an extensive historical discussion, the traditional Seminary’s development, a cursory evaluation of the various models available for the delivery of Theological Education for the development of leaders for the church from ancient Israel to the Twenty-First Century, and the premise for the adoption of alternative models for the church leadership education.
The study also examines the development of both Seminary-Based Theological Education and Church-Based Theological Education for leadership development. Church-Based Theological Education model is presented; its claims are compared and critiqued in the light of the present state of the Seminary establishment. Furthermore, Church-Based Theological Education is presented as an innovative proposal around which church leadership educators in the Seminary and the church might develop conversation and partnership, with a look at the BILD model of Church-Based Theological Education. Due to the constraint of time and resources, this study was unable to carry out actual interviews with practitioners. This the researcher hopes to do in subsequent studies.
1.6. RESEARCH PROCEDURE
An historical research approach to the problem was adopted, and extensive literature review was done on the concept of theological education especially for leadership development from the period of Moses to our present day. The historical emergence of seminary based theological education and church based theological education was also sufficiently explored and the need for each was researched fully. The case study of BILD International and its associated strategy Church-Based Theological Education (CBTE) in the context of historical trends, institutional and technological innovation realities in church leadership formation was also done.