Friction for Faith: The Case for Theological Education
Why seminaries matter
My Ph.D. alma mater, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS) recently made the stunning announcement they were selling their campus in Deerfield, IL in order to merge with a Bible school in Canada with an undergraduate program. This comes after shutting down their undergraduate program a few years ago. (https://baptistnews.com/article/trinity-evangelical-divinity-school-will-merge-into-canadian-school/) As an alum, I found out via email from the President. TEDS has enjoyed the reputation of being one of the most academically rigorous and prestigious evangelical programs in the world. Many are asking what this means, particularly as seminaries everywhere have been in deep trouble for the last several years. Most of the trouble is due to a confluence of cultural and organizational events.
I’ll discuss none of those cultural forces here. Others have done so extensively.
My purpose here is to take a hard look at the purpose of seminaries and theological education. I’m going to ask and answer, “Do seminaries matter?”
Here are the greatest arguments (and argued vehemently) against seminaries:
Seminaries are a remnant of a long-outdated modernic approach to theological training. This is reflective of a larger challenge to educational institutions in general. One may easily also ask, “What’s the purpose of colleges/universities?
The belief that if we simply train within the church, then there would be no need for theological education. Some believe it is the local church’s role to train for theology, and that, orthodoxy1 may not be as important as orthopraxy.2
The “model” of a seminary education (i.e., “go there and learn”) is too tied to location with big budgets to keep up classrooms, hallways, books, etc. We live in a digital, interconnected age. Most overhead is bloated overhead and wasted capital.
The age of education by extension (which used to be “snail mail extension” and is now “online education”) already demonstrates that seminaries do not need to be centralized to exist.
What matters is curation: knowing which books, videos, articles, or resources to access by which (read: whom) trusted resource. Seminaries are, for many, a clearing house.
Seminaries are a vocational training institution that are too theoretical and don’t produce enough genuinely effective pastors. Most churches hire and train from within as a result.
Historically, too much reliance on “experts.” Sheep simply became more “sheepish” in their reading of Scripture. He who had the degrees made the rules.
Each of the above is argued with great vigor by their proponents. Each makes a good point. Namely:
Seminaries detached from mission reflect systems valued within the world, often detached from the kinds of questions and concerns mission raises naturally.
The local church has historically focused on proclamation and programs rather than proclamation and spiritual maturity. It tends to warn more than equip. Those that do equip view equipping as the integration of TED-talk points reflecting good life principles.
Seminaries became about building campuses to rival other universities. In their effort to create a “campus experience” the overhead did become bloated.
Online and extension models do add value to the recipient.
In a post-truth world inundated with information, seminaries have stressed the lecture and dissemination of information. Their competition (including competition in a world where the average opinion carries as much weight as the expert for many) has gone up 100-1000x and they’ve struggle to respond.
Few worship pastors speak or read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Teaching pastors that quote those languages sound pretentious, and the audience is often left wondering what is or isn’t true. Throw in the proliferation of online resources and commentaries, and most don’t need the languages. Theological understanding or challenges can also create divisions within churches. Some even “think” themselves out of “faith” creating more confusion in congregations. Many churches have also simply decided that as long as anyone believes in their theological statements, they don’t necessarily need to know why those statements exist. To put a twist on an old business quote, “Culture eats theology for breakfast.”3
Some of those with degrees truly are unbelievably snobbish. We tend to forget they are sinners too.
Given all of the above, why do I think seminaries are both helpful and necessary?
For me, the first question is, “Why did seminaries emerge?” What challenges existed that they were there to address? As I read church history, my answer is two-fold:
First, praxis within the local church moved away from “ortho.”4 Practices and standards were being challenges by teachers who sounded impressive, but who were guided by the conviction of their opinion rather than discernment based on Scripture. This was true in the early church (reflected in New Testament letters), but also grew over time as more matters grew into discussion and debate.
Second, churches needed a cadre of scholars and pastors who could not only discuss orthodoxy, but also its orthopraxy abroad. Someone needed to know the original languages, lest everyone make up interpretations based on their own cultural biases (one popular contemporary example: Scofield Bible). Pre-formed theological frameworks began to reframe Scripture in their own image. Theological systematic (and systemic) frameworks began justifying various orthopraxies, even if those orthopraxies were in conflict with Scripture. That Someone could either be a Christian or non-Christian. Given the radically different posture of the Christian to Jesus as Lord, it made eminent sense that Christians do the difficult work of learning and addressing Scriptural and archeological concerns or viewpoints. From early on, Christians understood that we could not have one individual (i.e., a pope) making theological declarations. Rather, a consortium came together to discuss and debate. Training meant that debate could happen from various vantage points.
Yes, the reality is much, much messier. Eliminating seminaries does not mean those historical challenges go away. Without something to address them, they simply reemerge. And that is some of what we’re seeing today. Everyone is rehashing discussions that have been “hashed.” That’s not always a bad thing. (Viewing again with a critical eye can be healthy and good). But it is often a distraction from what’s coming/happening culturally, in ecclesiology (i.e., within churches), and those theological challenges that can severely undermine effectiveness (here I could cite any number of denominations that, in the name of love, abdicated (and then reinterpreted) Scriptural standards).
I would assert that seminaries are at their best (and most needed) when they do three things really well:
Exposure of the student to the process of why somethings are a) true, b) not true, c) deliberately nuanced. Exposure does mean “information curation.” At some point, we all have to decide who to trust and why simply because none of us have the time or energy to read and process everything everywhere. A toddler learns to walk and trusts the parent when they put them on their feet and encourage them to take steps they’ve never before attempted. Seminaries do the same regarding orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
Friction for debate. If you’re just looking for information, go watch or read something. The only person to process that will be you. Seminaries create a space where things can be debated: between the instructor and the student, and between the students themselves. Debate is a form of friction. Friction creates traction. It also prepares the student for challenges to come. Those who enjoyed their seminary education (my Master of Divinity was at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary and Ph.D. at Trinity) universally talk about how they appreciated being able to discuss & debate some of the more nuanced theological points they had questions about (and knew would come from laity eventually).
Framing for mission. Helping frame and explain a theological position (yes, no, nuanced) for currently cultural context is incredibly helpful for pastors and leaders everywhere. Bioethics, human engineering, worship approaches, teaching styles (and the pros/cons thereof), etc. are all specific to the pastor and require helpful input from those who have the time/expertise to study them. There’s a role for “experts” in fields. We should not abandon them.
Do I believe only seminaries produce the best pastors? No. There are plenty of people who went to seminary because they loved to study, but are socially awkward. Post-study, many try to figure out how they can “keep going” and not all love to teach. The result is pastors who are academically qualified, but not much else. That’s a detriment to pastoral ministry. But to me that’s not the fault of the seminary. Most don’t claim to produce “the best pastors in the world.” The challenge of the seminary is that many churches are looking for the “best pastors” and assume that “best = educated.” As a result of trying to respond to “market needs” seminaries diluted their core differential.
To lose one’s differential is fatal. Competition is based on differential.
In the past, differential was found by denomination or association. But that siloed world is largely gone. (Denominational and association differentials still matter, but not as completely siloed systems).
Do seminaries matter? Yes. Will they re-emerge as important? Probably. But not in the same forms as in the past. In some ways, they are breaking down (merging, restructuring, reforming, redefining, shrinking, etc.) in order to discover their differentials to build back up. The ones who shut down permanently will be those who are too general to break through the noise that surrounds them.
Do I want a future where there are no seminaries?
No. Neither should you.