If I were to propose an over-arching theme for this year’s issue about adult theological education, it would be about having the courage to ask hard questions. This issue comes out at a time of global crisis when many hard questions are being asked of us whether we like it or not. While the immediate catalyst for these questions is the COVID-19 pandemic, some of the questions – about action for climate change, growing disparities in our communities and the reality of global interdependence – have been doggedly pursued by many long before the pandemic. But it is as if the universally shared and palpable realities of the pandemic have given them new impetus and force.
While none of the papers here refer to these matters – they were written before the pandemic took hold – they do raise important questions with a new force that faith communities and theological education communities would do well to pay attention to.
What do we expect of Christian ministers and how does this reflect on the shape of theological education that is on offer? And how does this compare with the content and framework within which ministers are trained? How important, for example, is it to achieve an academic qualification? According to Bryce’s research among free churches in the USA, Bible knowledge far outstrips all other expectations, including ‘knowing God’ or pastoral skills.
If that is so, then Moxon’s investigation into the familiar challenge of forming ministers for whom critical approaches to the Bible are more of a stumbling block to faith than an open door to new and deeper understanding and faithfulness becomes very relevant. This might be particularly so at a time when everything seems to be changing and so taking refuge in ‘certainties’ might be an understandable, if not effective, response among congregation members as well as their ministers. Moxon offers the beginnings of a practical solution in the form of a final year module that models a non-confrontational pedagogy that honours students’ felt piety and vocational identity while introducing critical approaches to Scripture from within their tradition.
It is fascinating, then, to read Hussey’s study of three Australian churches – Anglican, Pentecostal and Presbyterian – with high levels of small group participation. All three named ‘hearing other people’s perspectives on the Bible’ among the three most valuable aspects of belonging to a small group. What is more, a ‘desire to learn more about the Bible’ and ‘growth in Bible knowledge’ also featured among the top three motivators and benefits, respectively, of belonging to a small group in all three churches. Perhaps ministers underestimate their congregation’s capacity and desire to engage with critical approaches to the Bible.
Samushonga’s work on theological education for bivocational ministry in the UK takes Bryce’s question and turns it around. What do people whose calling is specifically to bivocational ministry need from theological education, and do they get it? Surely this is worth paying attention to, especially in those established churches where bivocational ministry is still a minority pursuit. In his reflections to the Church of England’s informal virtual meeting of the General Synod, the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke of a time of ‘stripping down’ of the Church – a pruning for greater fruitfulness. This stripping down was already a reality facing churches with declining attendance and income even before the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the many ‘hard’ questions it raises is about churches’ capacity to employ full-time ministers, bringing the idea of bivocational ministry to the fore. Perhaps shaping ministerial education for bivocational ministers is a more urgent question than we might have thought?
And in case we are tempted to think that bivocational models of ministry might be a ‘second-best’ to the traditional model of a full-time minister for every local church, Taylor’s work about the location and context for ministerial education suggests otherwise. Drawing on the Māori concept of ako which grounds teaching and learning in a framework of reciprocity, Taylor provides theological arguments and empirical evidence for championing ministerial education that is embedded in local communities. Taylor challenges the ‘trickle down’ approach of educating and forming the laity by training the clergy in academia to become the church’s educators. Instead, he argues, by embracing the reciprocity of teachers and learners through communally located training, formation of the whole community takes place. This, in turn, enables the whole community to embrace practices for living differently.
It could be argued that the suite of Common Awards adopted by the Church of England for ministerial education has the potential to offer both the pedagogical values and practical flexibility to respond to some of these challenges. Context- and communally-oriented learning, for example, can be accommodated within its framework. One of the ways in which the Common Awards aspire to formation that shapes ‘intellect, spirit, affections, relationships and bodily life’ is by ensuring all learners are equipped with the skills and dispositions necessary to reflect theologically. Ross-McCabe sets out to test this. Although the results are inconclusive, her study is a welcome incentive to continue to ask these questions about whether ministerial formation is actually achieving what it sets out to do – and what might be some of the challenges that these questions pose for current models of theological education.
These questions bring us to the final paper in this collection. Brunsdon, too, wants to know whether transformational higher education is on track – this time in South Africa. He suggests that more work needs to be done, especially in relation to making education and formation more genuinely African in its contextual character. He also sees the need to embrace a more collaborative approach that takes student agency seriously. Brunsdon concludes that education in practical theology that steps out into the realm of public practical theology has the potential to speak to transformational learning in higher education in South Africa more generally.
Some of the questions that have been posed in these papers are of the ‘emperor’s clothes’ kind: they invite us to revisit or even potentially subvert some of the presuppositions with which we clothe our approaches to theological education and formation. All of the papers open up further avenues, not just for research among ‘academics’ but also for active conversations in theological education institutions and, most importantly, among the whole people of God.
In today’s challenging context for the church and for theological education, are we prepared to see this season of being ‘stripped down’ as a sign of hope to be grasped and embraced? Taking the time to discover, explore and honour the longings, potential and agency of our congregations; approaching people’s different convictions with empathy and gentleness; doing theological education together with and among the people of God; being prepared to blur the boundaries of ministry and let go of its professional status. These are seeds of hope for the church and the world it is called to serve.