Education
Why counsel students to avoid becoming educators
01/02/11 19:32
One should only go into theological education if one is absolutely sure that God has called you, for otherwise you are heading into financial loss and a heavy workload without the assurance that there is One who will reward you. If one lacks that assurance, he or she is likely to crash or end up bitter. Read More...
The tension of church and university
28/11/10 18:36
I have always tried to be involved both in the church and in the academy, for I have felt that it is part of my calling. Sometimes that meant unpaid involvement in the church, such as my leading the service in the chapel at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Ambridge PA that developed into a church plant, sometimes this has meant being mostly paid by the church, such as my work for Austin Avenue Chapel (1984 - 1989), sometimes this has meant doing theological education from a basis in the church, such as my work for Langley Vineyard (1991 - 1995), and often this has involved being an honorary assistant, which in at least once case meant preaching every other week. During my latest “incarnation” I have twice served as interim pastor and often as supply.
The result is a tension. The academy requires focus: energy spent on developing as a teacher and far more energy spent on keeping up with the literature in one’s field and contributing to that literature oneself. There are conferences that one really must attend in order to keep in touch (such as Society of Biblical Literature, which I attended this past week) and a significant amount of reading to do, not to mention the investment in books. The church requires another set of conferences and a focus on the people in the church. There are relationships to build, services to attend, if not to lead oneself, and activities in which one needs to be involved. The people in the church do not know about the academic world, nor do they care - they may even be suspicious of it. The people in the academic world are at least sometimes suspicious of involvement in the church, for it would appear to deny that one has the necessary “objectivity” (in the academic sense, for no one now thinks that one can actually be objective). The two compete with one another for time, energy, and money, and each competes with one’s family.
This is sad, because the two need each other. The academy can lose its grip on human life by forgetting that the writers of the New Testament were all pastors involved in churches. While modern churches are very different than ancient churches, people are still people and the same family systems dynamics are involved. The church meanwhile, if loses contact with the academy, can lose track of the meaning of scripture and get caught up in its own mythology about what the biblical authors were trying to communicate. The church becomes pragmatic rather than theological, and keeps repeating its own tradition thinking that it is biblical, having lost contact with the Bible.
The real question is, How long can a person do both? How long can he or she live in the tension until their finances are stretched too thin or their health is compromised? How long can one burn the candle at both ends? There comes a time when something has to give, and sometimes it is not either the church or the academy, but the person who is stretched thin trying to be involved in both.
Interestingly enough, three months after writing the above I received this link to a N. T. Wright interview in which he discusses some of the same issues as I note above:
The result is a tension. The academy requires focus: energy spent on developing as a teacher and far more energy spent on keeping up with the literature in one’s field and contributing to that literature oneself. There are conferences that one really must attend in order to keep in touch (such as Society of Biblical Literature, which I attended this past week) and a significant amount of reading to do, not to mention the investment in books. The church requires another set of conferences and a focus on the people in the church. There are relationships to build, services to attend, if not to lead oneself, and activities in which one needs to be involved. The people in the church do not know about the academic world, nor do they care - they may even be suspicious of it. The people in the academic world are at least sometimes suspicious of involvement in the church, for it would appear to deny that one has the necessary “objectivity” (in the academic sense, for no one now thinks that one can actually be objective). The two compete with one another for time, energy, and money, and each competes with one’s family.
This is sad, because the two need each other. The academy can lose its grip on human life by forgetting that the writers of the New Testament were all pastors involved in churches. While modern churches are very different than ancient churches, people are still people and the same family systems dynamics are involved. The church meanwhile, if loses contact with the academy, can lose track of the meaning of scripture and get caught up in its own mythology about what the biblical authors were trying to communicate. The church becomes pragmatic rather than theological, and keeps repeating its own tradition thinking that it is biblical, having lost contact with the Bible.
The real question is, How long can a person do both? How long can he or she live in the tension until their finances are stretched too thin or their health is compromised? How long can one burn the candle at both ends? There comes a time when something has to give, and sometimes it is not either the church or the academy, but the person who is stretched thin trying to be involved in both.
Interestingly enough, three months after writing the above I received this link to a N. T. Wright interview in which he discusses some of the same issues as I note above:
What is theological education?
23/08/10 15:24
Theological education has alternatively been viewed as the training of religious technicians (ministry skills) and the formation of religious leaders (ministerial character). This bifurcation is unfortunate. Those engaged in various types of ministry need three different sets of formation: (1) a biblical and theological basis that gives them deep understanding to draw from, (2) a spiritual formation that enables them to be and to continue to develop as the type of person who can minister long-term and is appropriate for others to follow and emulate, and (3) a set of ministry skills that makes the person effective at serving others in ministry. If any of these three elements is missing, the curriculum is lacking and the outcome is a poorly equipped, perhaps unequipped person, who is liable to fail in fulfilling their calling.