Hi all,

I've written a new blog post highlighting the differences between "Comprehensive" and "Traditional" Theological Education - as best as I currently understand them:

Keys to the CTE

I'd love to hear your reactions and suggestions!

-- Ernie P.
"If we are out of our minds, it is for Christ" -- II Cor 5:13

I need to take more time to respond, but my initial reaction is that you've created your post in an "A vs B" format. If CTE is really comprehensive shouldn't it be "and" instead of "vs."

This approach will be less reactive and more inclusive.

That's a fair point. However, it isn't simply an "AND". It is something like "Not Merely", or "More Than." That is, there is a fundamental distinction that needs to be drawn -- but I agree that I need to avoid over-reaction.

-- Ernie P.
"If we are out of our minds, it is for Christ" -- II Cor 5:13

Ernie, thank you for your thoughtful introduction of the comparison of Academic Theological Education and Comprehensive Theological Education. I accept your offer to dialog!

I will draw from your post a couple of points from which to form a supposition, I will present some background to enable us to think more together about this area, then I will suggest some directions for further thought and discussion.

Here are three statements from Ernie’s piece that I want to key off of:

“The purpose of Academic Theological Education [ATE] is to indoctrinate students into an intellectual understanding of, and belief in, the central truths of their religious tradition.”

“… the concept of ATE is useful in that it does reflect a distinct tendency within Western Christianity to treat faith as primarily a virtue of the mind, rather than the heart. And in fact, I suspect there are more than a few theologians who sincerely believe that ATE is identical to (and sufficient for!) CTE — that is, intellectual equipping is all we really need.”

“The solution is not to abandon or deny the value of Academic Theological Education, but rather bring it into healthy submission under a broader understanding of Comprehensive Theological Education.”

My Supposition

I’ve had a couple days to think about Ernie’s post and what has come to mind is the diverse expressions among the Christian community about how to “live the Christian life” and how to educate young believers for that life. Christian bible colleges and ministerial training institutes are formed to serve the next generation of leaders. Yet, each school has its own flavor and emphasis to its curriculum. At some point in each institution’s formation, a group of directors must define the details of the course of study, and that is where distinctions must be made regarding the emphasis of that specific school.

Background Thoughts

Think for a minute with me about the primary emphases of churches in the twentieth century. They can be broadly segmented into four areas, with a few additional pockets of emphasis. I present this list here to provide a “lay of the land” so we can think together about the Problem of designing a Comprehensive Theological Education.

• Abstention – LEGALISM – emphasis on VOLITIONAL, negative will (“don’t smoke, don’t chew, don’t run with girls who do”)
• Biblioatry – INTELLECTUALISM – emphasis on INTELLECTUAL, biblical knowledge
• Charismatic Experience – EMOTIONALISM – emphasis on EMOTIONAL, enthusiastic involvement
• Dogmatic Sacramentarian – RITUALISM – emphasis on PHYSICAL, bodily participation

Other emphases:
• Rationalism – reliance on reason
• Socialism – social service
• Mysticism – mystical experience
• Pietism – disciplinary effort
• Aceticism - withdrawal

I have had personal experience within two of the primary areas of emphases listed above and the comparison should be useful for our consideration. I grew up attending Catholic Church and received my grammar school education at a Catholic school. My parents were devoted members of the local congregations where we lived in San Jose and Gilroy. I remember my parents participating in the events of the church community there: school fund raising bazaars, cleaning the church on Saturdays, visiting other church members to raise money for the new cathedral in San Francisco. My parents made friends with the nuns and priests. I was in relationship with my parents and the other adults and aspired to assimilate their values. During my seventh and eighth grade summers my twin brother and I attended a boys’ summer camp in Watsonville that was associated with a high school seminary. A boy in the grammar school class ahead of me decided to go to the seminary to be a priest. I knew another young man, four years older than me, who had also gone to that seminary and was already in novitiate. When I reached eighth grade, I decided I wanted to follow their path. Both my twin brother and I attended the first two years of high school at St. Francis Seminary in Watsonville and enjoyed probably the most idyllic two years of boyhood a kid could dream up. There was a lake, a gym, a shop, a music room with band instruments to play, a farm with tractors and jeeps to drive, a movie projector booth, pool tables, ping pong tables, theater productions, and lots of other guys around all the time to play with. We even had a minibike the second year! But one thing there was not – girls. My perspective on a lifelong commitment to celibacy underwent a dramatic change during those first two years in high school. I learned “there is more to life than just football.” But those two years did afford me a closeup look at the lives of a group of men, priests, whom I saw daily during classes and during activities. I simply couldn’t see enough going on in that situation to counterbalance my imaginative ideas of what I was missing.

Fast forward two years to the end of my senior year when I responded to an altar call at a youth event I accidentally attended (my brother and sister and I were waiting in the auditorium, staying out of the rain, while waiting for my dad to pick us up after a day-long marching band trip). My renewed commitment found expression by attending bible college the next year at a nearby Assemblies of God (charismatic) college for two years. During that time I was privileged to travel with a couple music ensembles and heard many different preachers at churches and during summer camp meetings.

I can tell you from experience that if you were to ask the prefect (the head priest at the seminary) and the president at the bible college what course of study they would prescribe to properly prepare one of their students for Christian life and ministry, you would receive significantly different answers!

Some Directions for Further Thought and Discussion

Here is a quote from an article that ran in Christianity Today in October 1980 by Dallas Willard:

“In place of Christ’s plan (to make disciples), historical drift has substituted “Make converts (to a particular faith and practice) and baptize them into church membership.” This causes two great omissions from the Great Commission to stand out. Most important, we start by omitting the making of disciples or enrolling people as Christ’s students; we let all else wait for that. We also omit the step of taking our converts through training that will bring them ever increasingly to do what Jesus directed (earlier in the article he specified “to treasure and keep all things whatsoever I have commanded you”). Dallas Willard, From “Discipleship: For Super-Christians Only?”, Christianity Today, October 1980

The challenge of any Theological Education is that the attention to epistemology overshadows the absolute necessity of receptive ontology: (the following three paragraphs by James A. Fowler)

“Epistemological understanding is inadequate to comprehend the divine reality that is the essence of Christianity. The objective of the Christian message is not to encourage people to receive and accumulate and assent to information, but rather to receive the very Being of God into themselves (John 1:12) and allow Jesus Christ to be their life (Col. 3:4)".

"Christianity is not essentially assent to or belief in tenets of truth, but rather receptivity to and participation in the activity of the Being of the One who is Truth (John 14:6). Jesus did not say, "I came that you might have orthodox beliefs and defend them apologetically." He said, "I came that you might have life (the very Being of God) and have such more abundantly (in the abundant expression of God's character in our behavior)". (John 10:10)

"The religion of "natural man" inevitably slides toward epistemological knowledge, towards knowledge of external data formulated in propositional truth statements. These "articles of faith" are defended most adamantly as essential doctrines of Christian catechism.” From “Christianity is NOT Epistemology”, James A. Fowler 1998

Dallas Willard articulated a riveting question in the closing paragraphs of his article: “By what actions of the heart, what desires and intentions, do we find access to life in Christ?” As we gather our discussion around the consideration of Theological Education, let’s hold of paramount value and look with avid scrutiny to find the indwelling life of God.

As areas of further exploration, here are a couple ideas:
• What historical events and dynamics have influenced our current structure of theological education?
• How did the apostolic admonition to “train faithful men who will teach other faithful men” take on a largely didactic model?
• Within our current cultural situation, what changes can be realistically considered to move us toward a more effective Theological Education format?
• What other points of focus might be entry points into creating some other perspectives for creating other models?

After reading Ernie's list, the first thing that came to my mind is personal discipleship by someone who is spirit filled, discerning and educated. Spirit filled and discerning are probably the only real necessities for most situations but if we're talking comprehensive than I think education is a necessity.

After seeing Dave's comments:
I've read quite a bit of Willard because of his Biola connections but I know he is definately a proponent of discipleship. (Not the discipleship movement stuff but more of what you see between Jesus and his disciples.)
Regarding Fowler, I think I might disagree with his title "Christianity is not Epistemology". I agree that Christianity is more than epistemology but it can't be totally apart from it. Epistemology isn't just intellectual knowledge, it is all kinds of knowledge including encountering the living Jesus and the filling of the Holy Spirit.
Fowler wrote, "Jesus did not say, 'I came that you might have orthodox beliefs and defend them apologetically.' He said, 'I came that you might have life (the very Being of God) and have such more abundantly (in the abundant expression of God's character in our behavior)'. (John 10:10)
I feel like this quote sets up a dichotomy between knowledge and experience that isn't really there.
Anne Delke
PS. Thanks for the invite, Andrew.

It seems that the true sign of wisdom it to take something extremely complicated and make it simple. Intellectual men/women at times seem to complicate simple things to the point of total confusion. My thought is that it is their pride and feeling that they are better or smarter than the next person, is the reason they do it. I love being in the company of deep thinkers that offer me some sort of intellectual challenge. But more than that I love to be in the company of loving wise men/women that literally radiate Christ. This can not be learned in seminary it is a gift from God and no man can claim it to be his own.
I would have to lean more to the CTE side than the ATE side, not that ATE is bad but is seems to lack the "Heart" and "Soul" or maybe even "the mind of Christ".

I'm not so sure you need to redefine the concept of theology; rather perhaps reassign its place in a Christian's life. Ernie, in your blog you wrote something like "Comprehensive Transformation" -- I like that better than Comprehensive Theology. Let theology be concerned with, as Anne said, epistemology (be transformed by the renewing of your mind), but put it in a context of discipleship, worship, service, etc.

This is a rhetorical question (no, I am NOT a summa cum laude) that came to mind this week as I was thinking about the developing conversation on this thread. I want to use it to refocus our discussion on the comparison of an “Academic Theological Education” with a “Comprehensive Theological Education”.

First, a friendly aside to my colleague, Ralph Raabe (rrtr) who posted above: “I love being in the company of deep thinkers that offer me some sort of intellectual challenge” – stick around, Bro! ;>) I will also humbly ask that the Holy Spirit fulfill your other request, “to be in the company of loving wise men/women that literally radiate Christ.”

When I mention here “refocus our discussion”, I want to speak for a moment about the use of the straw man technique of argument. Ernie’s originating article on this thread contained a mouse-over pop-up window describing that term. I wasn’t sure exactly what a straw man was and the definition from Wikipedia was helpful:
“A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position). Oversimplify an opponent's argument, then attack the simplified version.”
The objective we are pursuing in this thread is to think together about the factors that could possibly produce a comprehensive training (quoting Ernie…) “to equip leaders for a lifelong journey of bringing their “whole selves” (heart, soul, mind & strength) and “whole worlds” (family, church, community & marketplace) into ever-increasing alignment with God’s purpose (redemption, kingdom & glory).”

The exercise of contrasting the straw man concept of Academic Theological Education with Ernie’s definition of Comprehensive Theological Education was developed in a later thread on Ernie’s blog page where he offered some excellent specific examples of contrasts. The idea of the straw man exercise is to consider the opposite extremes being compared in order to develop an understanding of the elements. Then, when the issues are surfaced, it is much easier to think about how to form a model that “works” in the real world.

Back to my title question, “How can I come like a little child when I’m a cumma sum laude?” I am drawing from the similar verses in Mark 10:15 and Luke 18:17
(Mar 10:15 NET Bible) “I tell you the truth, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it." My working thesis here is that values related to the Kingdom are “caught, not taught” and that catching comes from being in a receptive relationship with a teacher/mentor/discipler. The main content that gets “caught” are values, not facts and creedal truth statements.

To provide some perspective to this verse in the gospel of Mark, think with me about little children and how God has designed their formation process. Babies and toddlers depend completely upon the adults in their lives for their sustenance. They depend on adults for the necessities at the base of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (which include air, food, water, warmth) up through safety needs to love, belonging, and social needs. Near the top of the pyramid are the esteem needs, defined briefly here from that entry in Wikipedia: “People need to engage themselves to gain recognition and have an activity or activities that give the person a sense of contribution, to feel accepted and self-valued, be it in a profession or hobby.”

For most children, this feeling of love and belonging is delivered through their family. Biologically, the human child is created to bond with its caregivers (the same way as familiar examples of animal babies who bond with their mothers or surrogates who are present at the crucial bonding phase). And across that bond come values and mores that the child assimilates subconsciously. Think about how our children mimic our words and our motions. As as they grow, they “catch” our values related to life. I am thinking that the biological and relational bonding that takes place between parents and children is God’s good way for values to be easily assimilated by growing children. They need what their parents provide for them, they are connected in a dependent relationship, and the channel is opened for the children to receptively assimilate values.

I know from my experience working with orphans who have been institutionalized without close parental relationships that breakdowns in the process of bonding result in “attachment disorders” that leave the children unable to connect effectively with others. Children with this kind of exposure in early childhood are more difficult to parent because they are not connected and bonded with their parents in a way that enables values to be as readily received and assimilated. Their response to training can be unpredictable and their reaction to discipline is abnormal because they don’t function with the normal innate need to please their parents.

Take this image of a normal child’s posture of assimilation and see how it might apply to the condition stated in the verse for “receiving the Kingdom”. What kinds of humility and openness and submission would seem applicable to the discipling process? Then think about someone who is a “summa cum laude” caliber adult. Think about the societal system that has produced a person whose identity is largely formed around their intellectual, rational capacities. Think about how academic institutions measure intelligence, grade students’ work, and reward scholastic excellence with scholarships and recognition. Then think about how those same high-achieving students matriculate into seminaries and bible colleges. I wager you it is a precious few who can withstand being swept into a milieu that lifts up the values of academic achievement, advanced educational degrees, and scholarly publication. Then those very same students graduate and compete for positions on church staffs. I don’t have personal experience on this point, but I wonder how applicants without advanced degrees would fare against applicants with those degrees? What kind or amount of “experience” would be necessary to overcome the delta perceived in two applicants where one had an advanced degree and the other did not? Market forces being what they are, readily measurable criteria are used to identify preferable candidates for limited leadership positions. Yes, there is a screening process, but the people without degrees don’t even make it to the first cut.

Let’s stay focused in our consideration here. I am not describing the way that our Salt and Light stream may identify and train their next generation leaders. But the straw man that we are looking at can illuminate some things we can consider more closely in our own situation that may not be immediately evident.

For those forum participants here who did attend bible college or seminary, what kind of emphasis and value was ascribed to academic achievement? What part did mentoring play in your personal course of study? Was any kind of grade given or credit assigned to the mentoring component of your training? Did you feel that appropriate criteria were used to make a valid assessment of your participation in the mentoring component?

Anne mentioned in her post on Monday, 3-10, “After reading Ernie's list, the first thing that came to my mind is personal discipleship by someone who is spirit filled, discerning and educated.” That is a valid observation! Now, academic institutions are structured to identify and train for the “educated” part. What practices are generally in place at academic institutions to identify “someone who is spirit filled and discerning”? Do you think Dallas Theological Seminary uses the same guidelines as The Master’s Institute? Ernie made a list on March 9 on his blog that includes a concise point applicable here. “Missional over Historical - Focused on achieving God’s purpose in the future, not (merely) ensuring continuity with the past.” The balance of the two emphases here is hugely consequential and near the heart of my initial point that academic institutions are largely established to maintain continuity of a particular theological perspective and tradition. Think of the courage it takes for an institution to de-emphasize sustaining their own doctrinal positions and instead to equip young leaders to explore and find their own answers and to be discipled by the Holy Spirit! Is it even possible? Friends, stayed plugged in here and, together, we might forge some ideas that could be presented to Salt and Light’s leadership team for consideration! I believe if we ask good questions and humbly seek wisdom from the Holy Spirit, we won’t be disappointed in what we come to see (even if a formal presentation is never made).

In concluding, let me bring our attention to another of the comparisons Ernie made on his blog entry of March 9, then suggest a direction for us to consider together.

“Spirit over Soul - Most theological training focuses on aspects of the soul: Mind (Western) over Will (Eastern) over Emotions (Southern). But all these still lead to self-centered religion; what we need instead is to be led by the [Holy] Spirit!”

Ernie, this is a very insightful way to think about the current training emphases being designed in these broad culture groups. If these three emphases were placed on the three points of a triangle, we could all probably agree that “wisdom is somewhere in the middle”.

Looking forward in our discussion, may I suggest that we think together about what we would do with a “blank slate” with which to design a leadership training course for ourselves? Imagine that you are a young adult with a yearning to function in your spiritual gifting of leadership. What course of training would ideally prepare you? Look through Ernie’s list on his blog and think about some of the conflicting concerns and the pragmatic logistical challenges in crafting an optimized scenario. Which things would you trade off (for instance, learning in the context of your home community versus relocating to an isolated academic environment where there would be more potential teachers and mentors). What elements of emphasis hold promise of being able to be applied across cultures?

Maybe there is a way to prepare leaders by discipling them into a basic capacity for hearing the leadership of the Holy Spirit in a personal and practical way, then dispatching them to pursue educational resources as they are directed from within. That kind of vital, individual walk, yoked with the Holy Spirit really is THE fundamental criterion for being an effective leader, isn’t it?

David, thanks for your post. You did a good job of re-focusing the discussion. As I read back through the posts and some of Ernie's blogs, I couldn't help but think, "I've experienced the thing kind of CTE you guys are talking about." Or at least I've experienced something like it.

In August 2003, eight months after we got married, Briana and I went to Oxford, UK for a year-long "Bible college" experience at King's Bible College and Training Centre. (notice the fact that "Training Centre" is part of the title - notice also the spelling of "centre!") Briana and I did not know what to expect, other than the fact that we would be studying the Bible. But we were in for much more!

Following are some of the things we experienced:

• The college was made up of about 40 students, ranging in age from 17 to early 60s (which created a very "family-like" atmosphere)

• We lived in a house with 3 other students, eating meals together, cooking and cleaning, etc.

• Every day we walked to the college, had worship and devotions, a series of lectures throughout the day, then various afternoon activities.

• Throughout the year we were arranged in a wide variety of smaller groups, like tutor groups, community groups, accountability groups, church-placement groups, etc.

• Every Sunday, our church-placement group served at the same local church in Basingstoke, leading youth meetings, preaching, leading worship, and serving in other ways.

• Briana and I were asked to be the "Senior Students," which meant we were pastorally responsible for the students, which meant counseling through lots of relational/emotional issues

• The content of the courses ranged from Soteriology, Escatology, etc. to Holy Spirit Week, evangelism, leadership, and so on.

We experienced a year-long immersion into the study and practice of living a Christian life. We were discipled by the principle but also by the community as a whole. We faced real situations with real people having real problems - which certainly sharpened our ability to hear the Spirit. I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. Throughout the year, we repeated the mantra "Hearts and Minds." The whole year was about transforming our hearts and minds, and thus also the way we view God, others, and the world.

Read the About page on the KBCTC website. The principal's welcome letter speaks very clearly about the mission of the college.

So David and others, instead of engaging a "blank slate," how about considering some models that already address the issue of Comprehensive Theological Education...