(e)mergent Voyageurs

1 - I believe what needs to change is the way seminary is done. I don't believe in classes, or schools. I believe in discipleship. I believe that those who have "been there, done that" need to take up the steps and take their place as a mentor. The Bible tells us that the old men need to show the young men what to do, and the old women need to show the young women what to do. It's a matter of discipleship. I think we should do away with seminary as it is. Sure you get "taught" things of the Bible, but just because someone can tell you "this means this, and this means that" doesn't mean that they understand anything. Theologians can spend their entire life studying and not learn a thing about the Bible and God. (Comment this)

2 - Hey Jezreel,

Glad to see you are visiting here regularly. I have to disagree with you on this one, as it is a view that fails to recognize and honour the generations of Biblical scholarship that has gone on for century, upon which the beliefs, systems, values, etc. that we live out our faith are built. We cannot "stand on the shoulders of giants", then reject them as unnecessary.

Further, God has called us to love Him with our minds. The anti-intellectualism that is rampant in the Evangelical world is not, as some would suggest, inherent to the faith, but a result of socio-historical factors that I believe the enemy is exploiting.

Discipleship (or as I have come to articulate it, spiritual and missional formation) is crucial, in that it acknowledges that the mind should neither be alone or central in our emphasis. As I think you are saying, there is a greater need for deep, relational modelling and apprenticeship, as opposed to the modern scholastic approach.

I will add this as well: I believe the men should be teaching the women, as well as the women teaching the men. Jez, I suspect we disagree on this one, but I would like you to keep an open mind on this one.

Again, thanks for commenting. Miss ya!

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

3 - I need to start by saying that I think seminaries can function well the way they are. I only have direct experience with one and peripheral with a few others. I would also make a distinction between seminary and bible college that may well be a simple generalization, but does operate in my thinking. Seminary is about pushing boundaries, understanding deep theological implications and preparing teachers; Bible College is about entrenching worldviews, teaching practical skills and preparing preachers. I think both have a role, but there are some things about my experience of Bible Colleges that leave me less than satisfied.

I think Seminaries can be much more impactful if they find ways to spill out onto the communities around them. They are an incredible resource, and not just books. The people who go to seminary are often very committed to understanding this thing we call faith. The ideas that are spun there are revolutionary. I think was Brian McClaren who said the Emerging church reads the same theologians, but believes that what they say is possible. These theologians come from the seminaries (for the most part).

When I say spill out, I am envisioning something quite messy. I think there are two barriers. 1) Fear: pastors and leaders get entrenched in modes of thinking that the politics of church so seminary is kept at an arms length. Why not invite a local prof. to do a seminar on basic bible interpretation? Why not invite them to talk about social action? 2) Institution: I think even in the seminaries there is an idea that this is a whole other world than the Church. Until that idea breaks down we will still have a rift between seminary and church. I think some of the criticisms that each institution has for the other is simply fostered by the rift.

So what there needs to be are bridge builders. Folks who can keep a foot in both worlds and try to pull them together. (Comment this)

4 - Hey Frank,

Thanks for adding your voice. As I mentioned in the post, critiquing current Seminaries was not my original intent, but a result of insights from comments. Having never been to Seminary, I have limited input to offer. I appreciate your perspective.

My one concern is that accessibility of a Seminary education is too limited, with most (not all) people receiving them ending up in middle to upper class church contexts- important, but (IMHO) not consistant with the need for this kind of formation for those ministering on the margins. I have seen the trend to consistantly around the continent (and the globe).

I really appreciate the distinction you have made between Bible College & Seminary (I would add Christian Colleges as another option). However, I am not sure the distinction/division between boundary pushing, deep theological understanding and teaching practical skill (not to mention missional/experiential participation as a part of formation), is always a healthy one.

I think what I most appreciate about your comments was the idea of Seminaries spilling over the boundaries into the surrounding communities. This idea desperately needs to happen- but even further (ie. rural/urban; inter-congregational/denominational; inter-cultural; "churches"/"parachurches"; etc.). How can we make this happen? How can we see the urgency- or rather, the promise behind this move?

It is interesting that you used the phrase "bridge builders", as that is one of the defining concepts of our ministry here in Winnipeg. Again and again, everything we find God leading us into seems to be about building these bridges.

Again, thanks so much, Frank. Very wise and helpful words.

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

5 - I think one of the primary failings that I found in the seminary model was the fact that it is in fact designed more around being taught by others, rather than about learning. Just because several people look at the same faith and believe the same thing doesn't mean that there relationship with God is the same. Obviously it isn't. Two people are going to have a different relationship because they are in fact two different people. I have found a tendency towards pressing seminarians to have the same relationship their mentors have. This is easier for the teacher. This is also a reason why many leave the seminary.

The one advantage I see in the discipleship model is that allowing the student the freedom to work out their own relationship with God, with minimal guidance, and with correction only when made necessary by a belief that truly contradicts the church, is easier in this one on one format. The more cooks in the kitchen, the more difficult it becomes.

Perhaps then we incorporate the spilling out thought process. A series of mentors along the way. Some for hours some for months as it works out and as we are called to lend ourselves to the task. Bring in the professors and clergy, laymen and philosophers. Give the seminarian a turn at them all. Then critique whether the journey has truly been undertaken, more than where it has taken them. (Comment this)

6 - i just (well as of december) graduated from seminary and i actually left early so i could pursue practical ministry. you see the biggest problem i have is location and requirements.

with location in our denomination if you want to go to our seminary you have to leave what you are doing and separate yourself from the world for 2-3 years. now i appreaciate where my seminary has gone, since we now offer an online degree, but for that to become the norm it will be a long time.

in terms of requirements, our degree has way more acedemic requirements than practical ones. i do one semester of internship and 6 semesters of school.

now with that let me make two quick observations. i loved my schooling and to throw the whole thing out is nonsense. small changes need to be made, but that does not involve getting rid of the whole thing.

secondly, lets not blame the "christian" culture entirely for our method of schooling. to me its economic and secular, in that for accredidation purposes seminaries have to look and provide certain things. and to support what the secular society needs, economically the seminaries need viable options.

my point is that it can't "just happen" it will take time. cheers (Comment this)

7 - Wanderer my experience of seminary doesn't match what you describe. I am in a relatively small university (St. Paul in Ottawa) so you would think it would happen like that here if anywhere. It could be that I am doing undergrad work, but even still there are a few profs that I have gravitated towards and I find that they are looking for us to interact with material (usually chosen from a fairly good range) and bring that back to the classrooms and papers. I find it quite healthy. Maybe I just got blessed coming here. Maybe it is because I am a pastor in a denomination that is outside of their experience. But I have built quite good relationships with many of the profs here. I think a couple of them would love to see me take up their areas of specialty, but none have tried to sway me (well one did tell me I should take a paper I wrote and use it as the basis for some graduate work, but that same guy seemed more interested in hearing about our little emerging group than trying to change my worldview). (Comment this)

8 - within our [UC] system it would be a shorter post to try to think of things worth keeping in the seminary system. . . one of my main gripes tho is that we fail to equip pastors with skills/training in leading groups throuh the dynamics of change. [one of the best primers on this is still Gil Rendle's 'Leading Change in the Congregation' (Alban)]. Practical skills in leading change. Ethics / power issues in leading change. Theological models of leading change. etc. Then we get surprised that that church doesn't change. [time for an over-used but still apt 'duh']. (Comment this)

9 - within our [UC] system it would be a shorter post to try to think of things worth keeping in the seminary system. . . one of my main gripes tho is that we fail to equip pastors with skills/training in leading groups throuh the dynamics of change. [one of the best primers on this is still Gil Rendle's 'Leading Change in the Congregation' (Alban)]. Practical skills in leading change. Ethics / power issues in leading change. Theological models of leading change. etc. Then we get surprised that that church doesn't change. [time for an over-used but still apt 'duh']. (Comment this)

10 - I find it encouraging -- it's a start, at least -- that numerous Bible colleges and Seminaries are recognizing the need for a more hands-on approach to learning, and several have formed partnerships with local ministries where students can have hands-on experience and get credits for it.

Tyndale College & Seminary (Toronto) -- Canadian Baptist Ministries

Full Gospel Bible Institute (Eston SK) -- Street Invaders (short term) and Light Force (one year or longer)

Providence College & Seminary (Winnipeg) -- YWAM Winnipeg (hey... that's you!) (Comment this)

11 - Along with the great discussion going on here about the "seminary makeover," I'd like to add that the current interest in the seminarians' character formation is a great encouragement. I graduated from seminary in 1975 (and I liked the experience and thank God for the training) and it was pretty heady stuff (brain oriented). Yet, I have seminary notes that I've not touched since I put them in my file (lugging them around for the last 30 years). Why? Semesters of stuff basically useless. The addition of requirements for "practical ministry field work" is good, but focus on the relational life of the seminarian is crucial. Most grads bail from ministry over relational issues, not doctrinal ones. The concept of "praxis" means a lot to me now: every behavior is an expression of theological belief. Our decisions in life, not our gradepoint average, is the barometer of success with God and others in terms of "ministry." I'd like to keep the intellectual challenge and add to it practical ministry experience and authentic training in character development. (Comment this)

12 - I'm not sure what you mean by "training in character development." It seems to me character development is what happens in living.. as Luther said, in particular in marriage and in the church ;) So maybe all we really need to do is to ensure that people are engaging vitally in community, and that they have connection to true elders (mature fathers and mothers in faith).. and they will grow. If we can add theological reflection to that context.. the best of both worlds :)

Jamie, we are moving ahead with a theological collegium locally.. I'll post to RESONATE list today. (Comment this)

13 - Jamie,

As someone who is discerning a 'call' to do ministry in my city one of the things I am struggling with is this encultrated sense that I have to go to 'seminary' in order to fulfill the call of God. I believe that I am supposed to be a part of some learning community but logistically right now in my life I cannot see going to seminary. I feel a stronger conviction (along with others) to do something ministerially in our city. I am very much interested in how this plays out. Please keep me abreast of this concept.

Ant (Comment this)

14 - Hey Jamie et al,

Interesting conversation, and one that's close to my heart because I'm wrestling with whether to complete my MDiv. I agree with those calling for more engagement. That is often identified with ministry to the poor. How can we effectively do that when our seminaries tend to be large campuses in the suburbs or linked to other educational institutions. Do we parachute into urban areas to help "the poor" (like some demographic slice but not individuals) and what does that say about our willingness and ability to really engage? Why not link the seminary more intentionally with schools of business, law and political science faculties to challenge and empower students to integrate radical faith and learning. How might our world be impacted by entreprenuers, lawyers and politicians who see their calling as missional engagement in the world? On the other hand, why not locate a seminary satellite to operate out of the YWAM office or hospice? That would allow/force a level of engagement with issues of faith and life in ways that a classroom setting alone never can. Second, others have also identified the expectation in most programs to withdraw from the world for 2-3 years of study. I would prefer to see some expectation of continuing education with graduation delayed until after significant practical requirements are completed. (When my uncle received his journeyman papers as a carpenter his mentor told him to put them in his drawer and not claim he was a carpenter until after he had 5 years of "on the job" experience.) Finally, I still struggle with the tendancy in the church to assign ministry, and therefore relative value, based on a particular kind of education (seminary). I cringe at the elitism and class distinctions this creates in the church, the clery/lay dichotomy that is not only unhelpful, but unbiblical and often paralyzes creative ministry initiatives because it threatens turf or needs permission. 'Nuf said! (Comment this)

15 - I think that Norm is absolutely correct. The church in its current incarnation places a great deal of value on education, credentials and "titles over testimoney" as Tony Campolo would say. This goes against what the reformation was about - namely, that the Bible and the priesthood was for all believers, everywhere.

Of course, biblical scholarship is desperately important when it comes to the issue of interpretation. How can this reconcile with the priesthood of all belivers? Perhaps there must me some level of requirement for education in some areas. Not very specific, I know - but something to think about. (Comment this)

16 - Wow! A lot of great conversation has been going on when I was gone to Vancouver. Thanks for all of your input. Keep adding your voices. I am hoping to sharing some of this dialogue with some people in Seminary positions, so we will see where this goes.

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

17 - Hey just found your blog and this discussion via Urban Onramps. This issue is very close to my heart and there is a tonne I could sayabout it. To me the biggest problem with the seminaries *i have known* is that they are fundamentally suburban in their outlook. if you buy the idea that theology is doctrine applied to the questions of life, then context will shape theological formation and suburbia is not urbania.

Without going into too much biography, I chose a central city university with a strng theological heritage for my phd studies. I was alarmed to find after time that the "ethos" of the theology dept was not at all urban, despite the location. In fact the location was irrelevant.

I was quite involved in things and did some teaching and tried to suggest some more urban/pomo style course options but it was fascinating to me that every practical angle was driven byt the church needs of the faculty, ALL of whom did not live in the city. It was commuter/dormitory theology.

My guess is that an Urban Seminary would need to start from scratch, from some collective of churches, but also from creative joint ventures with non-church facilities with an interest in post-modern approaches to religion and faith (like art galleries, media outlets, film schools and so on). (Comment this)

18 - Hey Fernado,

Thanks for your comments. Keep checking back, as I have more posts planned for this topic.

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)