In a recent
blog entitled “Low Wages, Student Debt, and 'The Call:' Financing Seminary
Education,” LeAnn Snow Flesher put
this entire ongoing discussion in context.
Flesher is not an outsider to theological education but serves as Academic Dean/CAO and Professor of Old
Testament at American Baptist Seminary of the West at The Graduate Theological
Union in Berkeley, Calif.
I agree with Flesher that at the core
of the issue is the changing concept of “church” and what people expect from a
faith community. From my perspective, this
has not happened overnight and is the result of several factors.
First, since the 1960s traditional
forms of authority have been questioned.
Initially, politicians came under fire (often for good cause—think Richard
Nixon), then it was corporations, and then religious leaders (plenty of
scandals to go around here).
Second, the church growth
emphasis helped to build a consumer mentality so that people became more
concerned about “religious goods and services” than spiritual devotion and
formation. Consumers go where their needs
of met, and they decide what their needs are.
Today, it is not unusual for a person to state that he or she is a
member of a particular denominational church but attends another faith
community on a regular basis—a megachurch, a house church, or a community Bible
study group.
Third, the idea of what a church
is began to change. Megachurches
provided well-executed and planned worship experiences, preaching focused on personal
growth, and dynamic leadership. People
began to discover “the church in the home” and similar organic structures. Young adults found that spiritual truth cut
across denominational lines as well and time and space, so they created the “emerging
church” movement. During this time of
revolution, most denominations tried to do the same old thing but put more
energy into it with declining results.
Fourth, the leaders of these new
forms of church were often self-taught or mentored by other leaders with little
or not formal theological education.
They favored “just in time” learning and studied under business and communication
leaders as well as experienced ministers. Results were the primary concern and
theological depth was sometimes sacrificed for enthusiasm.
Fifth, social service agencies
and social entrepreneurs began tackling problems that the churches once
addressed and often did this work in a more effective way. These creative persons combined business
expertise and compassion in order to meet human need. And they did it outside denominational and
congregational structures.
Flesher says, “[T]he church is in
trouble; theological education is in trouble.”
She readily admits that this can also be said about U.S. education in
general but this is outside the scope of her blog. She suggests, “It’s time for some entrepreneurial
ministerial work! This work cannot be done by one group, but must come from the
collect. It must flow out of the grassroots movements if it is going to speak
to and meet the needs of the population.”
The conversation is underway and
it is one that must include not only academics and denominational leaders but
laity, local clergy leaders, and potential students as well. Welcome to the conversation!
Comments