In November the Assembly Council adopted a motion that asked the church to examine whether it is wise stewardship to support three colleges financially. I spoke in favour of the motion because I believe it is time to think about how our church can prepare its leaders more effectively and efficiently. This motion provides an opportunity to do just that.
I also happen to think that we probably need only one theological institution, perhaps with multiple sites. But if the Assembly Council’s motion simply becomes an exercise in cost-cutting and institutional downsizing, we’ll have lost an important opportunity. Whether we have three colleges, two colleges, or one college is not the main point.
It is far more important that we consider the future of theological education in terms of the mission of the church. If we give priority to the reimagining and renewal of congregations as we said we should at last year’s General Assembly, there will be implications for the way we educate and equip people for ordained ministry and Christian leadership.
So we should be asking: What kind of church is God calling us to become? What kind of leaders do we need? What kind of preparation will those ministers and leaders require? And what institutional structures and programs do we need to educate and equip them?
As I’ve been travelling the church this year, these are the questions I’ve been asking ministers, elders, congregations, young people, presbyteries, national staff and seminary leaders. And this is what I’m hearing.
First, there is a deep commitment in our church to an educated leadership. The challenge of articulating the meaning of the gospel in secular post-Christian Canada will require more learning, not less.
Secondly, almost everyone agrees that we need to educate people in a missional model of congregational ministry. Congregations exist to bear witness to Jesus Christ in word and deed in local communities and to participate in the mission of God in the world. As one of my colleagues says, “We need ministers of mission, not ministers of maintenance, and certainly not ministers of mischief.”
Thirdly, many people pointed out that our seminaries cannot do this alone. The theological schools must work with congregations and presbyteries and forge new partnerships with other centres of learning. Seminary professors should be congregational practitioners as well as scholars. The skills required to minister in local congregations today are best acquired and developed in local congregations.
In this regard, there is an emerging consensus that a three-year seminary program on its own cannot get the job done. In order to develop and sustain the practice of ministry a serious, disciplined program of post-seminary training is required. I was told it should be mandatory for all ministers for at least the first five years out. It was suggested that we might designate one of our existing seminaries to focus almost exclusively on this task, and create an institute for congregational life and renewal. Other centres of excellence might be housed in local flourishing congregations across the country where ministers and elders could share the best practices of ministry today.
I heard other suggestions as well: the need for more regional accessibility; the need for specialized courses in conflict management, new church development, and youth ministry; the need to consolidate our theological resources; the need for fewer but more gifted and better educated clergy. I heard a lot of anxiety and frustration to be sure.
But what I heard most often was a deep passion for the mission of the church, a deep longing for congregational revitalization, and a deep hope that the structures for theological education in the Presbyterian Church in Canada will increasingly reflect that passion and longing. For my money, that’s a good place to begin a conversation about wise stewardship in theological education for the future.
