|
The Rev. Howard Peskett, former Dean of the Discipleship Training Centre, Singapore, discussed the epidemic search for doctorates in America.1 Peskett also mentioned a proposal that combined the appetite for degrees with the search for equality: to award doctorates to everyone at birth!
The above sentiments are not entirely frivolous as theological educators and students are all too aware that many theological courses need to be improved, re-written and re-packaged. Such a crisis has in turn produced an epidemic search for credentials and degrees, if not for ‘paper qualifications’, or some form of training that is relevant and immediately useful to a pragmatically purpose-driven church.
Such a scenario reflects the misunderstanding of the purpose and function of theological education among church leaders, as well as the shortcomings of many theological institutions themselves. This is especially true when they become more ‘market driven’ to produce more graduates to serve the churches and to upgrade their programmes the way some businesses ‘upgrade’ their brands!
We need not here trace the rise and decline of theological and education institutions from the early church monastic movements through the medieval cathedral schools and universities that made theology the queen of the sciences. We also do not need to trace the developments that the terms “theologian” and “theology” underwent from initially in the early monastic tradition – respectively as “a man who prays and walks with God” and “a personal experiential knowledge of God and His Word” – to the bad press and negative images that these two terms have acquired in modern times in too many circles. It is sufficient to know that, as in all disciplines and professions, we can seek to “reclaim theology from the theologians” by our integrity and passion for God and the truth, and for our present context.
What has been happening in Afghanistan, the Middle East and elsewhere since the infamous Sept 11 bombing seems to have further hardened the perception that - whether in Christendom or in Islam – “theologians” (especially of the fundamentalist variety) are dangerous or irrelevant.
In actual fact, such events could be used to demonstrate the opposite claim: the very failure to critically reflect and theologise properly, leading to the possibility of not only ultra-fundamental Islamic groups like the Talibans or Al-Qaeda, but also the ultra-right wing, Bible-thumping “evangelicals” who have been nicknamed “Christian Talibans”. At another level, without theological reflection, we can also see that if there are some Muslims who are blindly pro-Arab and all things Arab, there are also some Christians who are blindly pro-Israel and all things Jewish.
We should note that there is more unity or tolerance among churches now, as among the major seminaries, but there are continuing tensions between Church and Seminary. This is tragic, although it is paralleled by the tensions between the State and the University (“Town and Gown”). The two respective pairs of entities ought to work together. Instead, the Church (or State) accuses the Seminary (or university) for producing “unemployable graduates”. But for the seminary/university to follow the dictates of the Church/State uncritically is to forfeit its intellectual and prophetic witness to the sanctity and unity of all truth. Yet not to relate closely to the Church makes the Seminary an irrelevant ivory tower without a pastoral base. Such confusions and tensions are reflected in the three areas below:
- The current pastoral theology and practices, church leadership and management.
- The well-intentioned but somewhat indiscriminate proliferation of independent or local church-based and Christian NGO-sponsored theological or Bible schools and institutes. Too many of these are not accredited by any credible national or international education or theological body.
- The epidemic quest for diplomas, bachelor’s, masters and doctoral degrees.
Degrees are not necessarily indicative of quality training. Hence the joke among many is that the church can “die by degrees”, or that Jesus (or the prophets, the 12 disciples, or John the Baptist) never had a degree. Two decades ago, a Christian NGO leader boasted that the only degree needed was “P.E.” – Personal Experience or otherwise “P.H.D.” – Preaching, Healing and Deliverance.
Today, Malaysian Christian leaders, including those from the independent churches, are more conscious of the need for more than just “P.E.”. Their issues with regards theological training are with relevance, duration, stream (evangelical or charismatic – today both words need qualification) and etc.
Many can see or sense that since the Reformation, not only has the Word of God gone back to the laity, but also the Ministry of the Word such as preaching and teaching in the Church – as well as the Sacraments, including the marrying and the burying of the dead in non-denominational, independent churches – in line with their view of the priesthood of believers.
Besides being the new clergy in church, they are also multi-gifted high-income professionals or corporate figures in the marketplace.
In the past, “ordinary” males go into church work, and the “cleverer” ones, if they love the Lord, dominate in the larger “Kingdom work” outside the church in Christian and secular NGOs and volunteer social concern ministries.
Today, these gifted articulate market-place leaders and professionals dominate in the church and are the church board or council members, especially in the non-denominational, newer independent or “emerging” churches. Some are lay-pastors themselves.
Many can even be suspicious of traditional seminary-trained or ordained ministers. This is natural but unfortunate, coming as they often do from the corporate world. This situation can lead to the corporatisation of the church.
While some leaders still place emphasis on their “P.E.”, including their achievements and networks, they can also be seduced by such advertisements as “experience is important, but degrees do help” (to open further doors? to gain further credibility, especially in the target circle or field of service, such as in church and Christian work local or overseas? and hopefully not just to go on an ego trip!).
 With the above factors and influences combined, we can see why there is such a variety of degrees and awards offered by a variety of theological institutions, initiatives and consortiums in a variety of ways. These include sometimes, as an over-generous transfer of credits and other provisions to customise programmes and courses to fit the prospective candidate’s past experience and achievements, in order to grant them advanced or mature standing that they may be the more speedily accredited or equipped for the church. Such a desire to produce results in the guise of producing qualified or certified church workers have made some church schools do away with exams and written assignments. In other instances, students are seldom failed.
God’s work done in God’s way – like Elijah’s or Samuel’s Schools of prophets of old – will never be irrelevant.
The Church belongs to Him. Theological education and its future are for the Church and the advancement of His Kingdom. Even if the above confusion and tensions amount to a crisis, each crisis carries an opportunity and challenge – even in the context of our multi-cultural, multi-religious society with Islam as the official and dominant religion, rampant materialism, modern and post-modern challenges.
We may not always be able to respond to the external socio-political challenges, but we can certainly try to manage two categorical, internal or institutional, challenges within our Church-seminary Christian community.
This extract is contributed by the NECF Malaysia Research Commission. Read the full article in the Watchmen Forum V book entitled “A Spiritual Healthcheck of the Church in Malaysia”, available from NECF at RM12 per copy. Click here for more information.
Endnotes
1 Howard Peskett, “Tweedle D. D./Tweedle D. Dum” in Eternity magazine, June 1978 issue.
|
