|
Societal Change and the Exploration of Emerging
Learning Theory for Ministry Preparation
by Major Daryl Crowden
Gregory Morgan (Major) is Dean of Studies/Assistant
Training Principal The Salvation Army Officer Training College
- Australia Southern Territory
(An excerpt [Chapter Five] from the research project “Emerging
models of training for Officership in the Salvation Army” by
Gregory Morgan – for further information please contact
gregory.morgan@aus.salvationarmy.org)
It is always tempting for the church to try to
live in a vacuum; to view culture as irrelevant, or inherently
evil, and therefore worthy only of our contempt or perhaps
active denial. For the church to deny the relevance of culture
is as realistic as a fish denying the relevance of water; we
swim within culture, it carries us in various directions
sometimes wilfully, at other times against our will. It
provides life and energy and potentially if the church fails
to grapple with the reality of culture it leads to death. For
this reason it is important for us to consider something of
the cultural context in which today we seek to engage in
mission and ministry. Societal change and challenge is a key
part of the data we need to embrace as we seek emerging models
of training.
In particular let us consider two issues of societal change
currently confronting the church. Following on from that we
will consider recent theory and research in relation to
education for mission and ministry.
The End of the World as We Know It?
Post-Christendom is not the same as postmodernity. The most
familiar ‘post-’ words in descriptions of contemporary culture
are postmodernism (a philosophical stance) and postmodernity
(a cultural shift). But post-Christendom should not be
confused with postmodernism or postmodernity. There are
significant connections between these concepts, but they are
different. (Murray 2004: 12)
At this point in time the Christian church faces a strategic
turning point of double dimensions as it grapples with
postmodernity and post-Christendom. The intersection of these
two phenomena of societal change mark this as a time of
transition far more profound than simply a passing from one
generation to a subsequent generation. This is a point where
slightly adjusting “how we do church” or simply working harder
and better at what worked yesterday will no longer offer
significant results. We cannot afford to do that anymore. The
transition from modernity to postmodernity represents a
paradigm shift on a scale not seen in 300 years (since the
beginning of the modern or Enlightenment era); this transition
is intersecting with a second paradigm shift, the ending of
approximately 1700 years of Christendom for the Western world
(since the edict of Milan in 313AD). Indeed for the church it
is the end of the world as we know it!
Postmodernity is a somewhat nebulous and difficult concept to
understand. Much of this is related to the fact that
postmodernity, at least at this point in time, is a
deconstructionist movement. It is defined according to what it
is reacting against or evolving from, this being the three
centuries of the modern era since the Enlightenment. Sweet,
McLaren and Haselmayer summarise this concept well:
Rather than anti- or pre- or non-, “post-” means “coming
through and coming after”. For us it makes most sense to try
to understand the key themes of modernity and then imagine
what a culture does and where it goes after having marinated
in these themes for several centuries.
This approach leads us to describe postmodern culture in terms
like these:
Post-conquest = emphasizing conservation and conversation.
Post- mechanisitic = emphasizing living social and organic
systems rather than mechanical ones.
Post-analytical = emphasizing holism rather than dissection
and reductionism.
Post-organizational = emphasizing networks and “chaords”
(which combine chaos and order).
Post-objective = emphasizing communal intersubjectivity
rather than individual objectivity or subjectivity.
Post-critical = becoming collaborative and assimilationist
rather than polemic.
Post-secular/scientific = becoming spiritual/scientific.
(2003: 241f)
The deconstructive elements mentioned here represent a
challenge to the Christian church, including The Salvation
Army. Some are less confronting, however concepts such as
post-conquest and post-organizational offer particular areas
of tension for a quasi-military movement. If we are to rise to
the occasion it will be of particular importance for our
training environments to grapple with, and equip people in a
way relevant to postmodernity.
The cultural shift of postmodernity finds its earliest
expression in an architectural movement first evident in the
mid twentieth century. This approach was defined by a tendency
to reach into the past and bring together various images and
styles from different times or schools into the one design. An
approach best understood by the concept of “collage”; picking
and choosing and bringing together what is of relevance to the
individual. Murray comments on the fact that postmodernity
enhances the process of de-secularisation with a renewed
interest in spirituality whilst it “regards all
meta-narratives (overarching explanations and truth claims) as
inherently oppressive” (2004: 13).
Postmodernity presents the church with several challenges. Our
claims for absolute truth and a dominant metanarrative, our
reliance upon analytical approaches and our hierarchical
models and metaphors based upon conquest all can appear
problematic to the postmodern mind. However the possibilities
should not be overlooked, in particular we note a renewed
sense of the spiritual and the communal aspects of life.
Before considering some of the ways forward in this let us
consider the issue of post-Christendom.
The commencement of Christendom can be dated to the year 312AD
when Constantine became the sole emperor of the Roman Empire.
He granted complete freedom of worship to Christians, leading
to a situation where Christianity was the favoured and state
endorsed religion. This impacted Christian faith in many ways,
most significantly in the fact that it moved from being a
marginalized and subversive movement to a central position of
power and authority as an institution within society (Frost
and Hirsch 2003: 8). This position of influence and power for
the church in Western society endured for well over a
millennium and has come to define the way in which the
Christian church understands itself, it’s structures and it’s
practice of authority within society. As Frost and Hirsch
note:
Taken as a sociopolitical reality, Christendom has been in
decline for the last 250 years, so much so that contemporary
Western culture has been called by many historians (secular
and Christian) as the post-Christendom culture… While in
reality we are in a post-Christendom context the Western
church still operates for most part in a Christendom mode.
Constantine, it seems, is still the emperor of our
imaginations. (2003: 9)
The slow decline of Christendom and the new reality of our
place as Christians in a post-Christendom world needs to be
grasped. A faith which conceived itself as being central to
society, as being able to wield moral and political power, as
being worthy of respect and led by professionals who are
pillars of the community, will approach training for mission
and ministry in a vastly different way to that required by a
movement which is marginal, lacking respect and that exists as
one version of truth in a pluralist world of competing truths.
It is time for a significant re-appraisal of the place and
influence of the church in society which will therefore lead
to a significant reappraisal of our structures, educational
approaches and modes of mission and ministry.
As attractive as it would be to offer the message that we
simply need to be faithful to historic methods and outlast
both postmodernity and post-Christendom, it simply would not
be true. Society has, and continues to undergo, massive change
and we must beware of wedding ourselves to another aspect of
culture that will simply pass. As Webber states:
We now live in a transitional time in which the modern
worldview of the Enlightenment is crumbling and a new
worldview is beginning to take shape. Some leaders will insist
on preserving the Christian faith in its modern form; others
will rush headlong into the sweeping changes that accommodate
Christianity to postmodern forms; and a third group will
carefully and cautiously seek to interface historic Christian
truths into the dawning of a new era. (1999: 14)
The church, and in many respects The Salvation Army, function
from a Christendom model of ministry in a post-Christendom
world and hold to a modernist structure in a society
increasingly shaped by postmodernity. Society has moved on and
the church now exists on the margins, sometimes actively
shunned but often seen as largely irrelevant. The difficulty
is that the church still thinks it resides at the centre of
society, and needs to relinquish these failed modes. What
might that look like? It will appear as a church that
“understands its role as an underground movement, subversive,
celebratory, passionate, and communal. Mission is not merely
an activity of the church. It is the very heartbeat and work
of God… It is a going church, a movement of God through his
people, sent to bring healing to a broken world” (Frost &
Hirsch 2003: 18).
There is a body of literature that has emerged over recent
years concerning the issue of how the church might grapple
with the new reality of society. Much of this surrounds the
new phenomenon referred to as the Emerging Missional Church
(EMC). Frost and Hirsch (2003: 30) articulate three modes for
the emerging missional church: incarnational, leaving its own
culture and religious world to truly infiltrate and transform
society; messianic spirituality, no longer dualistic but a
spirituality of engagement with culture and the world;
apostolic leadership, an entrepreneurial creative mode of
leadership rather than the existing hierarchical models of
church leadership and governance.
In our thinking about training we must note clearly the need
for a missional church that is incarnational, engaged with
society and pursuing creative and flexible expressions for the
future. Let us carry these concepts forward as we explore
learning theory to aid us in formulating emerging models of
training for officership.
Emerging Learning Theory for Ministry Preparation
Culture is reality in our lives; its influences cannot be
denied. Instead of attempting to mitigate the impact of
culture on students, we must recognize its effects in order to
minister to students at the beginning of the 21st century. We
have to understand the environment from which they come.
(McKinney 2003: 147)
There has been considerable debate over the last decade in
regard to the validity of current approaches, and possible new
approaches, to theological study in general and preparation of
people for mission and ministry in particular. Much of this
debate is inspired by the reality of the societal change we
have just considered, however let us take time to review some
of the literature and consider possible directions. In
particular there are five key themes to highlight in regard to
education for mission and ministry. Education needs to be
marked by: missional grounding; life-long learning;
decentralised delivery; incarnational engagment; holistic
journey.
Missional Grounding
Existence in a post-Christendom and postmodern world
challenges the church to re-engage with mission and to once
again grasp the missio Dei as our guiding force and
motivation. Pastoral modes of practice will lead to
irrelevance and extinction when we are dealing with a society
and context which is pluralist in its faith outlook and which
has only a partial understanding and limited interest in what
Christianity seeks to offer. A pastoral mode loses its
relevance when no-one is coming to the church anymore and
people in society have little interest in what the church has
to say. A mission focus becomes imperative. As Gibbs reminds
us,
If the Western church is to develop a missional perspective,
it must recognize that it does not merely have a mission… It
represents the fruit of mission, which in turn translates into
becoming an agent of mission. Leadership training has to move
beyond the pastoral care of the flock to an equal or greater
emphasis of ministry to the world.” (2005: 180)
Robert Banks in his book Reenvisioning Theological Education:
Exploring a Missional Alternative to Current Models (1999)
clearly articulates the need for a missional emphasis to
override and direct our entire understanding of preparation
for ministry. However, along with others, Banks is careful to
communicate that this does not mean adding a “Missions
Department” or extra courses in missiology to the curriculum.
Rather a missional emphasis and context becomes foundational
to all aspects of the training program. As the church exists
for mission so ministry training exists for mission.
Bandy makes this even clearer in his contention that the whole
concept of education for church leadership is now irrelevant
and fatally connected to the dying Christendom model of the
church. He calls for mission immersion training; “Mission
immersion is different from church leadership… It is all about
learning the trade of being a Christian leader in a
cross-disciplinary, cross-cultural, cross-experiential world
that is a bubbling cauldron of spiritual ferment in which
Christianity is just one small potato” (2004: 24). It is
important for us to grasp the profound nature of the
post-Christendom shift and the need for us to educate for, and
practice, missional rather than pastoral modes of ministry.
Related to the concept of a missional undergirding to models
of training for ministry is the concept of partnerships
between colleges and key churches or ministries. No training
for ministry can be missional if it fails to clearly connect
with the real context of mission and ministry as expressed in
the world. Equally, delivery of purely church based training
can be limited and so a marriage of the two is needed;
“‘resource church models’ need to be identified so that
colleges, with their professional expertise, can help them
craft training modules while also providing them with an
academically rigorous curriculum” (Gibbs 2005: 182).
Life-long Learning
In western culture the typical approach that has been adopted
in education can be termed as front-end loading. Students are
taught the information and skills they require for a
particular profession before commencing work in the area.
Subsequently they apply the accumulated knowledge and theory
to real-life situations when they encounter them after
training. However as Foley notes, “Experienced practitioners
know that the actual world of practice does not work in this
way. Real work situations are complex and fluid: they do not
sit and wait for theories to be applied to them” (Foley 2000:
7).
Front-end loading has been typical of preparation for mission
and ministry. It leads to graduates who are perceived by
others, and perhaps by themselves, as experts when in fact in
practice they may be mere novices. Significantly it also leads
to a concept of having “arrived” when one graduates and is
ordained thus stifling further desire and initiative to
continue learning and maintain contact with ongoing
developments and new opportunities.
The book Multiple Paths to Ministry: New Models for
Theological Education outlines a variety of new approaches to
training for ministry in Canada and the United States of
America. Typically, but not exclusively, these programs are
aimed at ministry in remote locations or with indigenous
people where the completion of formal education was not
practicable. As the editors note, “Our approach is not
front-end loading, but lifelong learning… Thus the program is
not intended to be an extensive, all-inclusive training
program, but almost an orientation to the lifelong task of
learning” (Barker and Martin 2004: 8).
In Australia the Forge Mission Training Network has been in
operation for around seven years and seeks to partner with
various colleges and denominations to equip people for mission
and ministry particularly in a church-planting context. Forge
affirms an ongoing learning model:
We believe that the best educational theory confirms the fact
that people learn best when learning matches the life
experience of the learner. The idea that students are blank
slates that come to be filled with knowledge is bad theology
and even worse educational philosophy. Therefore we try to
bring the experience and the learning moment together. (Frost
and Hirsch 2003: 221)
This concept is sometimes referred to as “just-in-time”
learning, a theory that sees engagement in practice, and
reflection on that practice, as key to both effective learning
and effective practice.
Whilst many are now advocating for life-long or just-in-time
learning this does not remove the need for a certain level of
theological, biblical and ministry “literacy”; “…there is a
core, and it must be learned, or the leader of the mission
movement will find himself or herself cornered by ambiguity
and unable to find that way forward” (Bandy 2004: 100).
Ongoing learning or learning in ministry must not be seen as
an excuse for poor initial preparation, or for a lack of
desire to engage at a serious level with the issues of mission
and ministry.
Decentralised Delivery
One of the disappointing aspects of many of the programs
outlined in Multiple Paths to Ministry: New Models for
Theological Education is that whilst they appear dynamic,
responsive and radical they are not recognised as being formal
education and do not lead to recognition or ordination.
Decentralisation and flexible delivery has been a key issue
that has empowered people for mission and ministry in their
local contexts but sadly is accompanied by limited formal
recognition. This lack of recognition appears based more on
traditional concepts of formal education and qualification for
ordination than on a concept of readiness for and
effectiveness in the functions of mission and ministry.
Coupled with this we find that “… recent research has
suggested that clergy trained in regional seminaries are more
related to their peers – other clergy trained in seminaries –
while clergy trained within their local or geographic
communities tend to relate more closely with their
parishioners” (Martin and Barker 2004: 178). This raises a key
point. Do we want and need people who are socialised and
identify strongly with others trained for ministry? Or do we
want and need people who are socialised to society and
identify with the community to which they are called in
mission and ministry? A Christendom model of church can
entertain the luxury of a separate class of people defined by
status, however a missional church needs leaders who
understand the genuine need for incarnational ministry. A
centralised approach to training is extractionist in its
practice of removing individuals from the local context to
undergo specialised training. It appears this can lead to
clergy who fail to connect with local community and perhaps
practice extractionist ministry themselves in a local context.
What is required is a decentralised model of training that
maintains a clear connection with the context of ministry.
Bandy outlines the importance of flexible delivery methodology
in preference to content focused and internal college
delivery. He comments that people today:
are omni-literate. Sometimes they learn in linear fashion
reading a book. Most often they learn in lateral fashion by
experiencing a data byte, or viewing a movie, or experimenting
with a new idea, or conversing… It happens in life, not in
class. It happens with a peer group, not an expert…
Traditional linear education, classroom, seminary education,
like all education in all subjects, is being outpaced by the
postmodern world… Learning today happens after failure, not
before risk. It happens in immersion, not in retreat. (Bandy
2004: 81)
The current dominant centralised models for ministry
preparation are conservative in approach and reflect a strong
tradition. But how do we balance the contention by Bandy that
learning happens after failure not before risk? A dynamic
risk-taking approach is required to deliver new possibilities
in ministry preparation. In regard to alternative models of
Salvation Army training, necessity and lack of resources has
driven innovation in some areas whilst developed world
countries maintain a conservative training approach. A
reappraisal of our conservative and safe models is required in
order to embrace flexible methodologies and delivery modes
that offer renewed dynamism.
Decentralised models of training that can be delivered
flexibly and in a manner responsive to the identified needs
and issues of the practitioner-student are valuable and
essential for effective ministry preparation today.
Incarnational Engagement
Engagement in ministry as a part of the educational process
has grown considerably in acceptance, as is demonstrated by
the rise in supervised theological field education and
clinical pastoral education units at colleges. Clearly this is
related to the missional and life-long learning concepts
already introduced. In a culture of postmodernity which values
experience, networks and community, it is also clear that
meaningful engagement in mission and ministry becomes a
foundational aspect of training for ministry. Banks rightly
states “… the “missional” model of theological education
places the main emphasis on theological mission, on hands-on
partnership in ministry based on interpreting the tradition
and reflecting on practice with a strong spiritual and
communal dimension “(Banks 1999: 144).
Classroom based, or formalised learning, is grounded and
confirmed by engagement in mission and ministry. Equally the
reverse is also true. Much energy can be expended on the
proverbial “chicken or the egg” argument in debating and
deciding which proceeds the other and which should find the
place of pre-eminence. Historically the argument has clearly
rested in favour of formalised learning but this has perhaps
resulted in overly theoretical models for mission and ministry
that fail to connect with a real world context. Engagement as
a model for training needs to be viewed not as superior or
subservient but as an equal collaborator with formalised
learning. Partnership between practice and theory then promote
life-long learning and a missional focus.
In regard to engagement credit is due to the training methods
employed by The Salvation Army over many years. The practice
of mission and ministry and a skills focus was apparent from
the start of training initiatives and remains evident today.
Currently engagement appears a junior partner when clearly an
equal focus is required. Equal partnership for engagement in
mission and ministry then delivers added dynamism and
relevance to the classroom based partner. Even though
engagement has been a priority, meaningful reflection upon
practice has often been limited or absent. Partnership
involves exchange and interplay, therefore action requires
subsequent theological reflection and theological thinking
requires subsequent action.
Calian helpfully summarises the debate and introduces the
theological concept of incarnation to our understanding of the
value of engagement:
Banks and others who share this view want the learning
community of theological schools extended beyond the campus
gates so that students, faculty, and administrators might
experience their ministry in the context of God’s classroom –
the world. Access to this world-oriented classroom would occur
not after one’s degree is earned, but during the process of
one’s education. The spirit behind this missional approach to
theological education is found in the text of John 3:16… The
context for theological education is not restricted to the
classroom, but encourages us to be in the world at the same
time. (2002: 54)
Holistic Journey
Harkness offers a critique of the current school based model
of ministry preparation with its Greek educational roots and
calls for a re-examination of a Hebraic educational focus
through the lens of what he offers as a Jesus model for
ministry formation based on discipleship. He calls for a
de-schooling option which offers a more holistic approach to
formation; “… the curriculum will be shaped more by a
praxiological agenda, the issues and concerns arising in and
from ministry involvement of learner and teacher alike, so
that, for example, theology is taught pastorally and
missiologically, and biblical studies both drive and are
driven by the pastoral and missiological” (2001:152). In this
way the student, the teacher and the context of ministry are
all partners in the journey of formation.
The place of supervisors, lecturers and mentors has a key
function in holistic models of ministry preparation. In order
for a model to be responsive and engage holistically with the
diversity of formation issues for the individual the role of
faculty moves far beyond the delivery of learning material or
facilitation of a placement. The role of faculty is more that
of companion and guide on a shared journey of care and
discovery with the student. Gibbs introduces also the organic
dynamic of this facet; “Our thinking concerning the education
and training for church leadership needs to move from
mechanistic models to organic ones. A good gardener uses a
combination of theoretical knowledge, an understanding of
local soil and weather conditions and an instinctive and
uncanny sense of timing, all of which lead to taking a
calculated risk” (2005: 187). Learning decisions are not
totally in the hands of teachers, students are active learners
in a holistic model and have clear input into the direction
and formulation of their learning needs and experience.
Ultimately formation for mission and ministry is about far
more than the accumulation of set knowledge, the acquisition
of field experience and an adherence to a certain code of
conduct:
True education forms character, wisdom, spiritual sensitivity,
and servanthood leadership. True education is not only
knowledge but knowledge embodied and lived out individually
and in community. The mission of the church in education is
not to provide factual information that is memorized but
wisdom that forms character and is embodied in a life. (Webber
2002: 171)
Holistic ministry preparation is about a life lived in which
we see validated the power and importance of mentors
journeying and learning with their students. This journey
takes them into mission and ministry engagement together, and
takes them to new depths of understanding together.
Conclusions
The context of society around us has changed substantially and
this represents a significant challenge to adequate models of
preparation for mission and ministry. Postmodernity and
post-Christendom remove a comfortable sense of existence and
predictability but offer new opportunities and a key strategic
shift the likes of which has not occurred in centuries. This
necessitates a rediscovery of the missional nature of the
church and training that equips leaders for this context.
Theological educators have been caused to re-examine the
effectiveness and validity of approaches to mission and
ministry education. This has resulted in five key themes: the
need for a missional grounding in formation for ministry
within a pluralist world; a commitment to life-long and
just-in-time learning whilst engaged in ministry practice;
decentralised models of learning that offer flexible delivery;
emphasis upon incarnational engagement as a key partner to
formalised learning; and a reaffirmation of the need for
ministry formation to be approached as a holistic journey
shared between mentor, learner and mission context.
What can we do to raise our level of commitment to the rest of
the world? This is the paramount question facing theological
education. Are we willing to become church leaders who will
make a difference? Are we willing to be more demanding of
ourselves, working as diligently as our rhetoric claims? Are
we willing to learn our theology in the midst of God’s
classroom – the world? This is what a missional approach to
theological education invites us to do. Are we willing to
understand our churches and theological schools as missional
in nature? (Calian 2002: 56)
|
