(a four-part mini series – part 1)
01.10.2025 / Volker Glissmann
At the heart of the development of TEE in the 1960s were initially a few simple questions. Simple yet profound questions that fundamentally determine the theological educational vision of TEE. The same questions still drive many TEE practitioners to choose a specific and distinct form of theological education today – theological extension education. The answers to these questions directly shaped the vision of theological education that emerged within TEE. Overall, it was a quest for relevant and qualitative theological education that drove the experiment behind TEE, not only to answer questions but also to implement their risky (and then untested) ideas and visions. The initial excitement that TEE was met with showed that many other theological educators recognised some (not all) of the challenges and questions, and asked similar questions about how to renew theological education. TEE is part of that theological educational renewal movement.
At the early conceptualisation stage in the 1960s, TEE was still very different from how it is often perceived and practised today. TEE was founded in response to ministerial theological educational needs, and the initial idea was simply to extend the ministerial education from the seminary to off-campus learners. This extension later led to the seminary opting to focus exclusively on extension education, resulting in the closure of the residential seminary. Years later, the residential seminary was reopened because a majority felt that theological education should be residential.
In the 1970s and 1980s, TEE was implemented globally in a theological educational landscape that was significantly different from today, where residential theological institutions and programmes are widespread. The questions asked about the essence of theological education within the extension movement varied depending on the local context and training needs. Yet, TEE, both as a method and a vision, was well-suited to cover geographical and ecclesial areas where seminaries were less prevalent – including grassroots/lay empowerment, as well as extension centres in remote locations. The fundamental essence of TEE is well expressed within its own self-description: theological extension education. These are the overall historical questions:
- What is ministry? Is ministry limited to the service of the minister/pastor, or is it broader than ministerial theological education, encompassing the grassroots who minister in their local congregation?
- Who are the right leaders for the church? Are they the young graduates with their Secondary School Leaving Certificates or the older, mature, and experienced individuals who are recognised as community leaders, even though their formal schooling is limited?
- How can all the people of God be empowered through their participation in theological education?
- What happens if international mission funding dries up? How can we continue training for the ministry in such a situation? What form of theological education can we afford? Can we afford to pay for full-time ministers in all urban as well as in the majority of our rural congregations?
The first question, which is perhaps the most far-reaching (and also a rediscovered historical theological question of the priesthood of all believers), is: who participates in Christian ministry? Is Christian ministry by all God’s people, or only by the professional few? If the answer is by all God’s people, then theological education must be broad to include everyone-everywhere who needs theological education, from grassroots to ministerial training.
The second question is, are we equipping those leaders for ministry whom God has called, or are we selecting based on our own admission criteria, such as geographical location, language and language skills, residenctial attendance, prior schooling, financial ability, etc.? If God calls individuals, then the church and theological education providers need to reach out to those who are called and equip them.
The third question concerns the training needs of the entire church and how theological education addresses these needs. The training needs of the church are diverse, encompassing catechetical discipleship, church-based ministry training, and practical and academic theological education.
The fourth question is an important one about how theological education is funded.
These four questions helped one denomination in a small Latin American country to decentralise its theological education. Yet, the Presbyterian Church of Guatemala faced a few unique challenges at that time, including the fact that few of those trained in ministerial theological education actually stayed and served the church after completing their studies, as well as other internal and external challenges.
This context explains the question that the church and the seminary asked themselves. Some of the questions asked have a universal appeal and fit in the broader context of the missiological awakening to emphasise the participation of all of God’s people in ministry. Some of the questions asked 60 years ago remain relevant today, keeping seminary and church leaders up at night – how can we sustainably fund theological education exclusively with funds generated not only in-country but also within our church or denomination? Many of the questions that the Presbyterian Church of Guatemala asked itself are still relevant today, but that does not mean that the answers churches and theological schools provide are the same as those that led to the vision behind TEE. There are specific alternatives available to the complete decentralisation that TEE’s visionaries in Guatemala envisioned. This is especially the case with larger and more well-established denominations, which do not follow the 1960s Guatemalan model completely but instead opt for a geographical hybrid between a stationary seminary and complete congregational decentralisation. There is not a single “right” model and both models can still successfully address the challenges to a comprehensive and contextual theological education for today.