My good friend Anonymous' (probably a more creative screen name needed) comment on the One-Stop Shopping post got me thinking about the changes that are coming to how we train the next generation of Christian leaders. This is of particular interest to me, as a professor of a "classic" Bible College -- but hopefully I'm more concerned about the growth/expansion of the Kingdom of God rather than my own job security.
The preacher-training schools got started because the church wasn't doing it's job. That's the truth of every parachurch organization. It is the job of the church to train up it's own in the study of the Word (2 Tim 2:2) and in the service of the Kingdom. Paul doesn't recommend that Timothy start an accredited school with different degree offerings, he's more interested in a mentor-disciple model (which makes sense given Paul's Jewish heritage).
We at the college where I teach are starting to worry about our relationship with our brotherhood's larger churches -- that the megachurches are no longer sending their brightest ministry candidates to the bible colleges but instead training them on their own.
Why aren't we applauding this instead? Isn't this what the church is supposed to do?
The problem, as I understand from my collegues (and agree with to a certain extent), is that the depth of study of the Word in the megachurch isn't at the level of the bible college. Okay, granted -- they're not learning Greek or church history. In addition, ministry training in these larger churches is mostly about learning the mechanisms already in place in the church rather than developing real pastoral skills. Will those who have come up "through the ranks" in the megachurches be able to adapt once the mechanisms of the church are forced to change with the culture?
The time has come for some real creative thinking between our "training institutions" and the churches. With the internet, virtual/video classrooms, and networking potential, a student could stay at home, be mentored in ministry by his/her elders and church staff, all the while taking excellent classes in the study of Scripture, church history, apologetics, and theology. Why not also have professors "making the rounds" to some areas with a number of churches for intensive week-long and weekend classes?
It's time to think "out of the box" about how we train future Christian leaders. The kingdom is just too vast to be contained by the campuses of a few bible colleges/seminaries. Let's think less about protecting our "territory" and more about unleashing the incredible potential the body of Christ has on the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I really enjoyed your thoughts here. Maybe this is a parallel process to what God is communicating to many people about Body life. Many are hearing that it is time to move away from an attraction model and embrace more of a mission model.
Anon (or would you prefer "Nonny"?),
Excellent points -- here's how I would respond:
1. Training institutions should continue to train 18-25 year-olds (I'm including seminaries here), but primarily for "evangelist" type of activities (see Timothy): church planting, missions work, campus ministry, student ministries, etc. The more "pastoral" training should come within the confines of the local church (from a mature body of elders).
2. Get involved in pastoral training for lay-elders. Providing Church/Restoration history materials, Biblical interpretation classes, evangelistic, pastoral counseling, leadership skills, this type of thing.
If our training institutions were to be committed to both sides of this, then the pressure for a 22-year-old to be the primary "pastor" and leader would be substantially lessened. And, he would be free to do more "evangelist" type of activities (preaching, teaching, starting new outreach efforts, etc.)
Then, as this young evangelist matures in ministry, develops pastoral and leadership abilities (from a mentoring eldership), has a family which he leads well, he may then be considered an elder "worthy of double honor."
One of the problems, as I see it, is that most churches have an either/or stance when it comes to vocational ministry -- either he's the prime elder or he's a hireling for us to boss/bully around. Neither are healthy.
I myself was not qualified to be an elder when I was 26 (and am still not), and yet I was asked to do things that only elders should do (and no elder except me would do).
Post a Comment