(a four-part mini series – part 4)
01.02.2026 / Volker Glissmann
In part 1 of this mini-series (The original questions that shape TEE), we looked at the original questions that shape TEE: who is called to participate in Christian ministry, and who are the right leaders to be equipped. In both cases, TEE practitioners recognise that, over time, restrictions (or barriers) on who was invited to participate in theological education had increased to the point that individuals who, for the sake of the ministry of the church, should have been trained were not receiving theological education. The vision behind TEE is for everyone-everywhere to participate fully in theological education. TEE is about extending open access and removing barriers to theological education for the sake of the church, faith, and ministry. The third original question concerns how all people of God can be empowered through their participation in theological education, or in other words, how can theological education be extended? In part 2 (Implementation of the original questions that shape TEE), we looked at how the early TEE practitioners wrestled with these questions and what solutions they identified. In part 3 (Contemporary reflections on the questions that shape TEE), we looked at the question that contemporary TEE practitioners are asking.
The final part of this mini-series is about the fourth set of questions that shaped the original TEE practitioners. The set of questions concerns the continuation of funding for the ministry, both short- and long-term. The original questions were: 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?
The funding of theological education (and here TEE practitioners have an inclusive vision of theological education that emphasises that theological education is for everyone-everywhere [link blog 2] is globally a crucial issue. On the one hand, the global church, especially in the developing world, sees a growth in the establishment of theological training institutions; yet, founding does not always mean flourishing or subsequent growth and development. In other places, theological training institutions have merged or have been closed altogether. At the same time, many theological training institutions seek to continue their ministry by becoming accredited institutions of higher learning (which often involves adding non-theological faculties). Conversations around the funding of theological and, specifically, theological distance education/TEE are difficult because TEE operates across very diverse global contexts and offers programmes ranging from non-accredited grassroots training to accredited university programmes, either as independent institutions or as part of a theological College or church department. TEE’s diversity makes generalisation on funding very difficult.
Education is the key to a flourishing life
It is widely recognised in human society that good education is a key to a flourishing life and that a relevant, holistic education that is concerned with the whole human being is vital for building striving, harmonious societies. This is why education is addressed in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.”[1]
[1] [https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights]
Education in one form or another has been part of the self-understanding of most churches throughout history. Comprehensive theological education is vital to the well-being of the church, and church-based theological education should be treated as an equal foundational Christian right. Theological education is a service that the church provides for its members.
Faith building is the church’s core mission
Some ministries of the church are indispensable and part of the church’s core mission, and necessitate the financial support from within the church so they can be offered freely, such as pastor visits, catechism classes, and Sunday services. Open access to Christian formation is also vital for faith building and maintenance and should also be offered to members freely. However, we increasingly see specialised teaching ministries monetising access to their learning materials and thus add a paywall to exclude those who are unable or unwilling to pay for faith development.
Funding is undeniably a key part of and concern in theological education; without adequate funding, theological education will not be able to deliver on its potential and promises. But theological education is only one of several key church ministries, and thus, within every church/denomination, there will be robust discussions about budget allocation. Theological education, especially in its broad definition, is a vital core church ministry needed for building healthy church communities.
Sustainability and self-sustainability
One buzzword that occasionally makes the rounds and is sometimes applied rightly or wrongly to theological education is “self-sustainability.” Self-sustainability basically means that, in the long term, one covers operational expenses with income generated internally rather than external funding. Self-sustainability differs from sustainability. Sustainability means that, in the long term, one covers one’s operational costs through a diverse mix of income (including external funding). Sustainability is important in all areas of Christian ministry, but more so in theological education.
The two funding models
There are basically only two funding models for theological education, plus a variety of hybrid forms on a continuum between the two. Either the costs of theological education are fully covered by the learners (through tuition fees) or by the TEE program with help from outside (through grants). Traditionally, theological education as part of ordination training is often, at least in the historical mainline denominations, supported, at least in part, through grants for tuition and living expenses. Church funding can either mean local or global church/parachurch grants, or to church members, both locally and internationally. Ultimately, theological education is needed and must be adequately funded to fulfil its purpose. Partnerships are vital here between the church and theological educational providers and amongst providers.
Funding models shape programmes
Funding models in theological education shape institutional vision and realities as well as the future ministry of graduates. The grant funding model puts pressure on the TEE program to provide sufficient funds to cover institutional maintenance expenses, staff salaries, and the upkeep costs of learners. At the same time, the TEE program can carefully set entrance requirements to admit the right candidates for the ministry.
The tuition-fee model puts pressure on students to find the funds to study, thus excluding many students who cannot afford the fees. Institutions are more likely to allow all tuition-fee-paying students to enrol, regardless of qualification for the ministry. If students borrow money to fund their studies, either through a government loan scheme or from family, then their graduate job in theology needs to pay well enough to repay the loan, thereby increasing financial stress on individuals after graduation.
Student-funded education means either students with disposable income or, if available, students paying for education through loans for tuition and upkeep, ending up with a significant loan that may keep growing after graduation due to added interest. This also creates the necessity for well-paying graduate jobs that would repay the student’s (and his family’s) investment, and this can create a rift between what is good for indebted graduates and the ministry needs of the church. Not surprisingly, globally, education funded through loans has received significant scrutiny and backlash over the last number of years.
All TEE programs must cover their costs. With self-sustainability being out of reach for most programs due to the low fees students are able to pay, most programs look to bridge the funding gap through support from their denomination, partner school, fundraising, or education grants. We will look at specific examples in our next blog of TEE programs that bridge this gap in different ways, showing how creative solutions can be found to bring theological education to everyone-everywhere.