01.12.2024 / Volker Glissmann
Recently, I attended an online global theological discussion. The topic was about holiness, Missio Dei in 1 Peter and how the church embodies the mission of God (Missio Dei is Latin for the “Mission of God”). The presentation was followed by small group discussions. Our group had a doctor in mission (missiology) from a well-known Christian university. During our lively conversation, we moved from 1 Peter to the theme of holiness and Missio Dei in other parts of the Bible. Eventually, we asked ourselves what this means for the church’s overall mission in different global contexts. During our discussion, the mission professor says, “I don’t have much to contribute to the discussion because my biblical knowledge is limited, it does not go beyond that of an average layperson, nor do I have anything to say about the church’s practical mission in the world today.” The above is just one example of why many are often not always fully satisfied with theological education because it overemphasises academics and undertrains on practical theology/church practice, and it breaks theology into often unrelated sub-fields that don’t engage with each other.
In a previous blog called “TEE as Theological Education“, we mentioned some of the general criticisms of theological education. In this blog, we want to break down and give examples for those who are new to the ongoing conversation of renewing, reforming, or revising theological education and some specific shortcomings identified. The desire to renew theological education has a long tradition in the church, and many theological educators have criticised varying aspects of theological education over the years. The criticism is from church leaders and church members but also theological educators themselves. The dissatisfaction is often related to a perceived gap between the knowledge/skills of graduates and the ministry they are expected to do.
Here in the post, we will focus on the criticisms raised against ministerial theological education because it has thus far received the most scrutiny. Ministerial theological education trains individuals for a pastoral or full-time ministry in a church. One key remedy for improving theological education is strengthening the curriculum by integrating individual courses, extracurriculars, and placements in the curriculum.
Theological education has become increasingly fragmented over the last hundred years. The fragmentation is most clearly visible in the theological curriculum because the curriculum design shapes the graduates’ skills. The curriculum, not individual courses, is the most important factor influencing the overall graduate profile. The classic academic theological curriculum has a four-fold division: biblical theology, dogmatics or systematic theology, historical theology (church history) and practical theology. Practical theology was envisioned as the subject that unifies the other three streams into a unified purpose (ministerial formation). Unfortunately, the increased exclusive reliance on the academic model (which focuses on intellectual formation) undermined the idea of spiritual, character and practical formation of theological graduates.
What does fragmentation look like?
Specialisation and silofication of the curriculum
Another example of fragmentation is that biblical subjects are taught in specialised silos or compartments. There is a specialised silo of Old Testament studies that is separated from New Testament studies. This is why a student can cover, for example, the topic of the afterlife in the Old Testament. Yet, such a topic will remain solemnly focussed on the Old Testament without mentioning the New Testament or its application to pastoral theology or church practice. The same specialisation can even occur within the New Testament when the topic is exclusively looking at the afterlife in Paul’s or John’s literature. The topic of the afterlife is important in itself. Still, the true value of such a topic is when it is part of a broad theological conversation about the afterlife in Christian faith and practice, or in other words if the topic is taught integrated.
Specialisation/Silofication (often combined with academicisation) leads to an increase in thematic or methodological specialisation, and the different theological specialised topics lose the ability to engage with each other comprehensively. An example would be hermeneutics or ethics, often treated as independent academic intellectual topics and stand-alone courses that do not integrate into the curriculum and/or extracurricular activities (like chapel). Students will simply deduct the importance of a topic, method, or theology by its curricular reoccurrence and integration.
Academicisation and “de-churching” of curriculum
Many theological curricula follow an academic (or higher educational) model that emphasises intellectual (not spiritual, character or practical) formation. The focus of the academic model meant a curricular disconnect of theology from church practice. The disconnect between church and academia is a curricular choice whereby the academic neutrality of higher education is the opposite of a religious (and sometimes faith or denominational) Christian worldview. Such curricula foster fragmentation as they don’t help students integrate learning into a holistic theology. The curricular partition of theology from faith and church practice is a key source of theological fragmentation, especially as it emphasises theology as an intellectual subject rather than a vocational one. Yet, the natural employees of theological graduates are the church/para-church organisations (and not academia). The church/para-church organisations generally emphasise vocational skills in graduates.
A retired friend recently asked me if we teach pastors not to do pastoral home visits at all nowadays. Her church had employed a few new graduates over the last decade in different roles, but none of them did home visits and some even justified why they thought home visits were not part of the pastoral ministry. One reason why church members might be dissatisfied with theological education is that church members generally expect theologically trained individuals to have deep biblical and theological knowledge, wide-ranging answers to life’s profound questions, compassionate pastoral skills, communication skills and a pastoral heart. A few years ago, I was driving to a Theological College for a curriculum consultation and picked up a police officer who needed a lift. We talked about his work and my work. When we reached the bus stop opposite the college, he said, “I know this place. This is where you teach pastors to pray!” I paused for a micro-second, contemplating telling him that prayer and assessment of prayer are not part of our curriculum. These conversations highlight the disconnect between theological education and church life.
The way forward
Theological education has increasingly embraced the academic model as its common pedagogical nominator. This is why theological education these days faces similar challenges that all predominantly academic forms of education face: questions of employability, which is a question about how well the academic curriculum prepares graduates for employment (especially employment in the church). These are questions that higher education is asked about its often predominantly theoretical, abstract, theory-driven curriculum versus a more vocational-driven focused form of education. The question is whether the balance between academic theology and church practises and beliefs is right in many educational contexts. It is equally a question between purely intellectual endeavours and the vocational employability of graduates in the church. In the end, it is a question: is the theological curriculum fit for purpose? The call on theological educators is to work towards an integrated, not fragmented, curriculum.