Paradigm Shift for Theological Education: Part 1.

What kind of education is best for developing the human mind and soul, and what is an education for? These two questions are arguably the most contested and challenged in the context of not only the liberal arts, but in the elective university system of education that is at the center of higher education in the world today. The purpose of education has moved in a revolving door between the poles of intellectual and ethical development to professionalization, from serving the interests of political ideals of citizenship to serving the interests of economic success.

The question is where theological education fits within these very general trends in education. Is it to develop church leaders primarily or is it to develop free thinkers who are able to critically evaluate the significance of the Gospel in the every fluid structures of the world. I want to address this question in a couple of posts largely in response to Carl Raschke recent article in The Other Journal entitled "From Church to “Rhizone”: Reconfiguring Theological Education for the Postmodern Era".

The primary problem, Raschke argues, is that theological schools are suffering from "mission creep" which is a term referring to when an institution over-reaches its own prescribed boundaries by which it identifies its very mission and purpose. Combined with this is a growing sense of irrelevancy in certain aspects of preparing church leaders and scholars in biblical studies, theology and the like. As Raschke notes:

The relevance, or irrelevance, of theological education today has less to do with what is learned, including the methodological criteria for what might be considered appropriate knowledge. More than ever it has to do with how a limitless fund of knowledge and the skills for generating that knowledge are eventually applied in a practical or professional setting, especially when that setting seems limitless and undefined.

In addition to this move professionalization, Raschke argues that the reconfiguration of knowledge claims across distributed networks of ideas and information that usurp traditional boundaries in the institutions of Christianity only complicates the matter.

The possible resolution to this situation is that theological education "has to steep itself in its own irrelevant classical particularities in such a strategic manner that it is able to engage, critique, and transform the culture in a way that is genuinely relevant." In other words, rather than jump on the board of focusing on creating a class of church leaders who learn the ins and outs of every possible permutation of skills that are necessary to lead, dipping into the critical evaluation of what we might call the classical curriculum that you then learn to flexibly apply to your specific place of call it a more adaptable and rigorous way to educate theological students.

However, to what degree should we educate students to flexibly apply their education to the whims of the world? Is this the best strategy, and is it even a new problem? I will tackle these questions in the next post.