This is an extract from "The Gospel Coalition Blog" where they asked some key professors of American Seminaries the question "What one thing you would change about seminary".
"I was recently in China, talking with the president of a house church network of more than 1 million people. He asked me for advice on preparing the next generation of pastors. I looked at him and said, “The only thing I know is what you should not do.” He smiled and asked, “What’s that?” My reply surprised him. “You should not do what we have done in the West. The results of that approach have become clear.”
The agenda of evangelical seminaries is set primarily by scholars. Professors decide how students will spend their time; they determine students’ priorities; they set the pace. And guess what. Scholars’ agenda seldom match the needs of the church.
Can you imagine what kind of soldiers our nation would have if basic training amounted to reading books, listening to lectures, writing papers, and taking exams? We’d have dead soldiers. The first time a bullet wizzed past their heads on the battlefield, they’d panic. The first explosion they saw would send them running. So, what is basic training for the military? Recruits learn the information they need to know, but this is a relatively small part of their preparation. Most of basic training is devoted to supervised battle simulation. Recruits are put through harrowing emotional and physical stress. They crawl under live bullet fire. They practice hand to hand combat.
If I could wave a magic scepter and change seminary today, I’d turn it into a grueling physical and spiritual experience. I’d find ways to reach academic goals more quickly and effectively and then devote most of the curriculum to supervised battle simulation. I’d put students through endless hours of hands-on service to the sick and dying, physically dangerous evangelism, frequent preaching and teaching the Scriptures, and days on end of fasting and prayer. Seminary would either make them or break them.
Do you know what would happen? Very few young men would want to attend. Only those who had been called by God would subject themselves to this kind of seminary. Yet they would be recruits for kingdom service, not mere students. They would be ready for the battle of gospel ministry."
Richard Pratt, founder and president, Third Millennium Ministries; former chair of Old Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary:
Before They Reached Bangkok: Gutzlaff, Tomlin, and Psalm 106
-
อ่านบทความนี้เป็นภาษาไทย
On August 23, 1828, the first two Protestant missionaries arrived in
Thailand, Karl Gutzlaff and Jacob Tomlin. Gutzlaff was Germ...
4 days ago
2 comments:
Hi Rich,
That is an interesting comment. I agree with the problem, although I'm not entirely convinced by his solution (or at least by the extremity of it). This is something I've been talking about with a few people around Moore College the past couple of years and I think there is a mixed response. Some think that the academic rigour is good preparation, or at least a good foundation, and then you learn the practical side on the job.
Personally I think I would go for a more balanced approach if I was setting up a college tomorrow. I'm grateful for the things I have learned these past 4 years but I think there is scope for greater practical component. I would be keen to think about spending a day a week at the church I am working for doing a range of ministry. That is my thought as someone preparing to work for a church in Sydney.
Do you think that you personally could have been better prepared to go overseas while you were at college or would that have been an impossibility while at home?
Nathan
Dear Nathan,
Thanks for your comments. I agree that the solution is quite extreme and probably unrealistic to implement in the west anyway. The main point of the post was point to the problem that Bible colleges “are not preparing the kinds of leaders that evangelical churches in North America [and I would say Australia too] need”.
I was given the advice myself before I head off to college to “learn as much Bible as you can” and the rest you can learn later. I thought that was good advice at the time. But now I’m not so convinced. Academic rigour is great, but there is a big difference between knowing the truth and being ability to teach it well to others. The emphasis on the academics at places like Moore can lead to intellectual pride and snobbery (which I’ve unfortunately experience on a number of occasions).
Nathan, I think the problem is deeper than just adding more practical components or 1 days of ministry experience at a church. The whole culture of the Bible college has to change.
Yes, I think that I could have been better prepared to go overseas while I was at college. Instead of just 1 overseas mission for 3 weeks (which I chose to go on), I would have benefit from going on more for extended periods. There could have been so much more I could have learnt from lectures on church planting apart from the 1 or two subjects I had. If you go to the comments sections of my friend’s blog entry dealing with theological training for the mission field (http://www.dahlfred.com/en/blogs/gleanings-from-the-field/366-do-you-need-a-bible-degree-to-be-a-long-term-missionary) you’ll see my thoughts of the matter. I won’t repeat them here. The thing that stands out for many SMBC graduates (definitely for me) was the weekly “ministry matters” sessions where missionaries, ministers and people in ministry would come and they would share about particular ministry issues. I don’t think that you have that at Moore (or on such a regular basis as they do at SMBC). I learnt so much from the “ministry matters” sessions.
Rich
Post a Comment