Title: --- Is the Seminary the servant of the Church?

Author----Jackson Ntulume-Kyeswa

Date-----October 2006

Word count: 4,166

This is an essay seeking to establish the relationship between two important

institutions, that is, the Church and the Seminary. Understanding those calls for a

definition of each. The evangelical dictionary of Biblical Theology defines the

Church as a Community of God’s people who are ‘called out ’.1 Seminary, in this

paper is defined as ‘an intellectual center of the church’s life.’2 Servant here will be

used in a sense of ‘men and women with a specific ministry for the Lord.’ In the Old

Testament, the term was used to mean a slave (Gen. 9:25) with a social position lower

in society (Gen. 19:2). The term also means a worshipper of God (1Sam.3:9) or a

messenger of God (Josh.:2). In the New Testament, the term means a follower of

Christ. Baker’s Dictionary of theology, shades more light on this by saying, “As

applied to men serving God in a particular capacity, the word denotes (1) Submission

and (2) the honor of being chosen for service.3

1 Pate, C Marvin 1996.in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology , 95.2 Niebuhr, H. Richard, 1997 p 1073 Hodgman, Charles A 1960, in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology,480

Task of a theological institution

The task of a seminary is to train or educate men and women for Christian service. As

Niebuhr puts it , the people trained in theological schools, ‘ work as pastors, preachers

and priests, teachers, and scholars, evangelists and missionaries, writers and editors,

administrators of denominational, educational, social service and reform agencies, as

chaplains in prisons, hospitals and military establishments’44 Traditionally, that is

what the theological school was created for. It is a creation of the church and the

church was to give it direction.

Niebuhr rightly says; ‘the schools work in context of the church even though they do

not frequently mention that fact. They may not be as conscious of the church as they

are of its objectives, yet when they serve the latter they participate in the life of the

whole church and are moved out of the confines of sectarianism’ 5 The courses offered

in these schools were meant to meet the needs of the church as it served the

community. It is good to note here that there are three categories of theological

schools;

i. Those that are run by denominations

ii. Those that are created by more than a single church or denomination

iii. Independent ones.

Some people contend that there is a fourth one, and it is the one run by a single

church, also known as bible institutes. (In my view, this particular one has similar

4 Hough, J. C & Cobb.1985 pVII5 Ibid.., p 4

characteristics with the first one). For the theological school to fulfill its task, a lot of

challenges are encountered and at times receives a lot of pressure from the church,

and some of its graduates (Alumni).

Relevancy

The need to stay relevant is the greatest challenge that the theological school faces. In

most cases, it has been criticized (at times rightly so) for remaining traditional and

failing to cope up with the changing times. Hough observes that “The church will be

far better served if its seminaries realize that there are many urgent questions being

posed to the church in our time and that we need faculty who will reflect on the

questions as Christians”6 In an attempt to answer this call, the theological schools in

United States and Canada in the last two or three decades sought to improve on their

curricula by adding a number of short courses to the traditional ones, which range

from sociology, psychology, public speaking, church administration etc all these

serving as indicators that they need to find a middle ground between the

traditional(old) and the contemporary situation. 7

It is only sad that the list of courses added are all taught as different disciplines

without any coherent thread knitting them together to form a unifying centre. In this

effort to serve the church, within the theological schools arises another tension

between those advocating for ‘academic’ courses visa avis those for ‘practical’

training. Advocates from each side will be trying to win students to their side.

6 Hough, J. C. & Cobb, J.B., 1985 p 1067 Niebuhr, H. Richard, 1977 p98

Relationship

Developing this idea of relationship further, we realize that the causes of the

theological school and those of the church are identical; both share the same

motivation, that is, “ the love of God and neighbor implanted in human nature in

creation, redeemed, redirected and invigorated by the acceptance of the good news of

God’s love for the world.”8

The church begat the theological school especially in the case of denominational

colleges and those I categorized as number two above. However as both grow, an

autonomous relationship begins to develop and soon each end up independent from

the other; if this is not checked, this begins the tensions and that is why there is a great

need to work together.

Studies done in North America regarding the relationship between the seminary and

the church (the priest and congregation) in the last 20-30 years are revealing a need

for the two institutions to continue having a mutual working relationship for the

smooth service of the community.

With the grant from Lilly Endowment, in 1999 Wartbug Theological Seminary in

America ventured in a study that would help it to assess their MDiv curriculum; its

focus was in two areas;

i. On campus reunions of three year graduates, and

8 Niebuhr, H. Richard, 1977 p.98

ii. Structured visits by members of the faculty to graduates and their

congregations.

The grant flowed from the confluence of three major streams, one of which was, the

desire to create clear feedback loops as a form of assessment for the seminary

curriculum.9 The findings of this report showed that both graduates and students

observed that their learning was enhanced when courses were taught over a more

extended period of time other than the four or eight weeks as before.

Interdisciplinary teaching has been developed, and because of the feedback from the

graduates, the faculty has learn’t that to remain operating within the classical

theological structures will limit the effectiveness of what needs to be learn’t in the

challenges of pastoral ministry. Several courses have been revised as a result of the

faculty meeting the congregations and the graduates at their places of ministry. These

findings help us to see what kind of relationship should exist between the church and

the theological school; for Wartbug, this helped the school in keeping their curriculum

updated, thus contextualizing it; and helping to bridge the gap between the church and

the faculty.

Another school of theology, Garret Evangelical Theological Seminary, conducted a

study to address and increase its ability to fulfill the purpose of leadership education

in relation to connecting to congregational leaders. This particular school is a product

of major mergers (Garret Biblical Institute and Chicago Training school in 1934 and

9 Peluso, Gary et al in Theological Education Vol. 40, Supplement 2005 P4

Garret Theological Seminary in 1974), and is a freestanding seminary of The United

Methodist Church.10

The researchers even before they conducted this research, realized that; “The ecology

of education for ministry was and is changing, as were the realities of ministry in a

mainline denominations. In the tasks of identifying, nurturing, and equipping leaders

for the church, the seminary and the rest of the church were doing too much

separately”11 For this reason, when Lily Endowment sent out a call for proposals for

the Capacity Grant Program, which was received with enthusiasm. The group used a

“critical moment” method to reflect on the implementation of a church relation

council, which was a selected group of the clergy that met with the faculty twice a

year for two years to talk about interests in the school’s interests in the degree

program curricula, especially regarding the development of spiritual leaders.

Before the conclusion of their study, a number of questions emerged in their

meetings; and for the purpose of this paper, I will only mention two:

A. How shall we attune our educational efforts to partnership with church leaders?

B. To what extent, do we in the seminary want to listen to the congregations and

judicatory leaders as real partners in our education enterprise?

Answers to these and other questions will help us in bridging the gap between the two

institutions and hence a better working relationship will ensure for mutual benefit.

Accreditation

10 Peluso, Gary et al in Theological Education Vol. 40, Supplement 2005. p.5311 Ibid

Jeremiah McCarthy, writing from the perspective of The Association of Theological

Schools in the United States and Canada(ATS) ( He is the Director, Accreditation and

Institutional Evaluation), offers some reflections about the relationship between the

church and theological school. He notes that there has been a big shift from what the

standards were in1918 when ATS was first formed, the question then was; “does the

institution have a library, classrooms, and faculty?”12 He states however, that another

moment in the Association’s history is underway; it hasn’t dropped its earlier

concerns/emphases but on top of these, it accentuates the importance of

demonstrating the educational effectiveness of theological education. This shift is

asking the institutions, to evaluate their accomplishment in terms of their syllabi and

this emanates from “a governmental interest to protect the public from abuses in

proprietary, for-profit, educational enterprises.”13 This evolution of accrediting

standards is instructive for it illustrates the dynamic quality of theological schools as

they respond to situation that arise in the church and the community it serves. It is

generally accepted now, that all theology is contextual and is always incarnated in

particular times and places; and because of this, there is a ‘tension’ between the

‘producers’ and; recipients’ of these ’skilled’ practitioners serving in diverse

ministries.

It is due to this ‘tension’ that Daniel Aleshire, Executive Director of ATS has

identified several issues affecting the relationship. He highlights some of the stresses

that have strained the relationship in recent years; these include “ shifts in the

understanding of the meaning of the ‘theological’ character of ‘theological education’,

12 McCarthy, Jeremiah, 2004 in Journal of Adult Theological Education, Vol. 1, No. 2, p17713Ibid

with particular significance for understanding the increasing allegiance of faculties to

the professional, academic guilds, and, correlatively, a diminished role for the nature

of ecclesial ministry as the normative context for theological education; and the

emergence of new ‘Para church’ congregational bodies(especially in mainline

Protestant and Evangelical traditions) as centers of education for ministry14 For a

deepened and renewed relationship between churches and theological schools, Daniel

sees recruitment as a crucial matter; for seminaries depend on churches to identifying

likely candidates for training, and far and large, the churches employ the largest

number of the graduates of the seminary, and this calls for a continued dialogue

between the two institutions.

The East African Perspective

What we have looked at so far is happening in the Western World. In Africa the

situation is not static as well; due to globalization, and an upward trend in the socio-

economic conditions of most parts of the continent, we are seeing a rapid change in

the perception of the role and relationship between the Church and Seminary. Lang’at

has argued that the evangelicals in East Africa in the latter part of the nineteenth

century were defined as those who scorned secular education and other innovations

which were believed to be not in line with their Christian faith. He continues to say

that; “Studies show that between 1900 and 1914, of the 218 missionaries who were

sent to Africa only three had attended universities and the rest attended religious

institutions. The Bible institutes offered education which can be described today as

14 Ibid., 179

narrow training.”15 The two-year programme had a strong emphasis on theological

doctrine, and its design was to prepare men and women as Christian workers, Bible

teachers, gospel singers and evangelists. Lang’at says that it this kind of education the

missionaries carried to their field of work.

In a similar trend among the Anglicans in Uganda, in the early part of the twentieth

century, Sundkler wrote about Bishop Lesslie Brown: “comparing his education with

that of the impressive new generation of catholic priests and their theological

preparation felt that he was not sufficiently prepared for a new era with urbanization,

politicization and secularization”16

Whereas Uganda’s Anglican theological training school in Mukono had a teaching

staff of quality, the aim was at producing not so much a stiff and heavy uniform as a

liberating process, leading the student to the sources in Holy Scriptures and related to

the values of drama, African Art and culture. Sundkler states that “The academic

attainment of the new generation of Anglican clergy was the first priority.”17 The

recruitment of church workers consisted mainly of young men, who had failed to

acquire secondly education; these turned to the church for guidance and work.

The situation has by far changed today; a number of brilliant young men and women

are being recruited in this theological school which has gained the status of a

university.

15 Lang’at, Robert K, 2001 in Evangelical Review of Theolgy Vol. 25, No 2. p18316 Sundkler, Bengt. And Christopher Steed., 2000 Ahistory of the Church in Africa.. p.85617 Ibid.,p856

Among the Pentecostals in Uganda, I will point out The Full Gospel Churches of

Uganda which began in 1960. The founders of this Church were Canadian

missionaries. These like those in Kenya were from a humble bible institute, who came

and founded a bible school at Makerere in Kampala whose curriculum was very basic.

Doctrine, Pastoral care, homiletics, and Sunday school organization were the key

subjects, and again, these were not pursued with great depth. There was too little time

for advanced study during a course that took only three months or at most, one year.

Again the main criterion for recruiting was identifying ‘one with a call to serve.’ This

school has also grown and has an affiliation with another Pentecostal College in

Kenya to cover its Bachelor’s program. A number of changes are taking place in this

school, for example, originally the school was meant to serve the denomination that

founded it; but now it has opened its doors to other churches of similar faith. Some

University modules have been introduced which ideally are meant to stretch ones

mind so as to meet the needs in the present context. A section of the church sees this

as a positive development, yet there are some conservative ones who see it as a

digression from the original founders ‘mission.’ In the two cases that have been cited,

the changes in the literacy levels of the population are also being reflected in the

recruitment of these institutions. The Church today is looking for well balanced men

and women to take the challenge of the growing elite society; and it is the theological

school that will answer this call.

The way forward

There is a general concern today that theological education is not addressing the needs

of the church. In some cases some churches have ‘over reacted’ and have opted to

going it alone. In one incident, a pastor from one congregation in my city stopped one

of my students form attending our school, because in his own estimate, we were not

relevant. He instead told him to join their ‘school of ministry’. Ironically two of the

teachers in this school were graduates of our school who had trained with us way back

before the ‘school of ministry’ had been started!!

Theological education is fundamentally important for a number of reasons; Cheesman

notes that “firstly, usually the leaders of the churches go through theological

education so it has an immense impact on the church. The backbone of the church and

its future direction usually rests upon the leaders who have been trained in the

theological education schools and programmes”18 He also gives another reason which

in my estimate is very important as far as society is concerned; “Theological

education is often the location for the church’s relationship with the intellectual

project of society. It is in the colleges that the church understands, participates in and

influences what happens in the life of ideas in society, or it is so. Often obscurantism

in the church and the colleges make it difficult for this to happen but when the

thinking is done properly as to how to relate to society, it is usually done in

colleges”19 .

I have observed quite a number of students who have gone back to transform their

societies. When they are in bible school they gain the exposure, acquire more

18 Cheesman, Graham. 2006 The Philosophy of Theological Education Lecture1 19 Ibid..,

leadership skills, interact with people from different backgrounds, and are mentored,

and gain self esteem; when such go back, they influence their communities. We have

had some go to rural areas to begin adult literacy programmes to help their people

learn to read and write, some have moved on to plant churches in urban centers, and

others moved on to higher places in leadership both in church and in their

communities.

Another factor we shouldn’t overlook is the fact that when a student is in bible

college, he/she is growing. There is a mental, spiritual, and physical growth taking

place; it is up to the theological educator to tap this potential and nurture the student

in the right direction. I feel there is need for the church and theological school to re-

define their understanding of Ministry. There is a growing number of people being

trained in theological schools with no desire of serving as full time ministers in the

church or even in Para-church organizations. Yet, with the knowledge they acquire,

they serve their communities very effectively. I have two examples; one was a brother

with whom I trained at graduate level, his desire was as he put it, “gaining the skills to

communicate the gospel to his fellow businessmen in an effective way”. He has

continued doing business as a real estate developer among others, and the men in his

church have elected him in some place of leadership. A second one is also a lady who

graduated from our bible school who has also continued doing her business as an

architect and building site manager after graduating from Bible College.

Turning to the traditional ministry that the church easily recognizes, there is a lot the

church elsewhere could learn from the Church of England. This church has laid down

some principles to scrutinize and validate the educational programmes of the

institutions which prepare its Candidates for ordination. The ACCM 22 framework

for theological education is a report by Education for the church’s ministry (1987)

which restructured the relationship between the centre and the institutions which offer

training. Rather than the centre setting a syllabus and examination, and the institutions

being asked to teach that syllabus in the way they thought fit, they were instead given

the initiative to reflect on the theological and educational issues involved and, in light

of those reflections, make proposals for integrated programmes which would equip

men and women for ordained and accredited lay ministry. The proposals would then

be subject to central scrutiny and critique, and when the appropriate body was

satisfied would be validated for a five-year period. This body (ACCM 22) has now

attracted other churches to come on board, that is, The Methodist Church, and The

United Reformed Church20.

The institution that train the people who are to be ordained, had to answer some three

questions; In essence, they were invited to submit their curricula, and initially these

were the three questions:

i. What ordained ministry does the Church of England require?

ii. What is the shape of the educational programme best suited for equipping

people to exercise this ministry?

iii. What are the appropriate means of assessing suitability per ordination to

exercise this ministry?

20 Mission and Ministry 2nd Ed, 2003, P.1

A critical analysis of the questions will reveal that the first one is calling upon

theological institution to give a theological, as well as a pragmatic rationale for their

educational programmes, and the rest, call for an educational and assessment rationale

for the programmes.21 Basing on the answers to these questions, the church would

determine whether an institution was qualified to train its ordinands.

On the principles and methods in education for the church’s ministry, the party that

produced the ACCM 22 report, worked against the background of fragmented

programme of theological education and training. This report identified several key

problems, which are true even today; namely:

i. Lack of explicit awareness about the qualities and competencies most desirable

in a minister, or what constitutes an adequate level in either for one to be ordained.

ii. The impression of most syllabuses that only academic matters are considered

important in the formation of an ordinand

iii. The lack of balance in the overall programme which resulted in frenetic activity

on the part of staff and students alike.

iv. The fragmentation of the programme into disciplines with a resulting lack of

coherence and rationale in course structure

v. The continued pressure for yet more or issues to be added

vi. Lack of attention to educational method22

21 Ibid22 Ibid.., p19

It is against this report that theological educators were asked to go back to the first

principles; For example, revising question no.1(what ordained ministry does the

Church of England require?), it revealed that that it requires a sustained enquiry into

the Church’s task, which is understood as “serving the mission of God in the world”.

The report further reveals that the task has a twofold dimension; ‘to proclaim the

creative activity of God by which the world is constituted in its proper nature by

God, affirming the world so far as it reflects its proper nature’ and secondly; ‘to

proclaim the redemptive activity of God by which the world is once again given

its proper being, thereby to be fulfilled according to God’s purposes’23

With these checks and balances, and revisiting the process every after five years, there

will be a very strong consolidation in the working relationship between the Church

and the Theological institutions. I see theological education taking its right place,

which is, serving the church to fulfill its call.

Conclusion

God works in diverse ways to empower the Church. In some cases, formal education

seems unnecessary, The Holy Spirit blesses a leader with charismatic gifts that are

necessary for a particular moment; yet in other incidences the church is called upon to

teach members for the task of leading. It would be proper to say that those God has

‘called,’ theological education enables them to be more effective in their calling. It in

this line that Zikmund makes this observation; “...there is ongoing pressure within our

society, upon the churches, and from individuals who feel certain that God has tapped

23 Mission and Ministry ….p19

them for ministry, to compromise educational excellence and “dumb down” the

intellectual work required for a theological degree. I appreciate the capacity of the

Holy Spirit to bless leaders when our human judgments falter. At the same time, I

believe that education for church leadership requires basic exposure to biblical,

historical, theological, ethical, liturgical, and pastoral disciplines. In a society where

more and more people have basic college and graduate degrees, quality church

leadership education should involve the most demanding academic work, as well as

rigorous vocational formation experiences”24

Today a number of students are joining bible schools without the simple basics of

bible knowledge, and the history of the church and the theological legacies of their

communities of faith. These in most cases fail to see the need to do intellectual work.

Compromising on the part of the educators will erode the theological aspect, which is

a necessary ingredient in shaping/exercising the mind and spirit.

What the brethren in England are doing, should be emulated, so as to bridge the gap

between these two noble institutions. I also propose that where the church has failed

to take an initiative; Let the Theological institutions do so, by going to the Church.

Begin by soliciting some ways of improving on their curricula. Ask questions like;

what can we do jointly in the training of church ministers? What are the areas that you

think we can improve on in our training program? What challenges have you met as a

minister in the day today running of your ministry? How can we be relevant in our

training? et cetera. The ideas collected from such questions, can be then used by the

seminary to develop or improve on their curricula. As the seminary, seeks this kind of

24 Zikmund, Barbra Brown, in Theological Education Vol.36 No.2 Spring 2000. p.27

dialogue, it should also stay focused so as meet its other obligation to the Word,

World and Reality. It should always endeavor to balance the three reasons for its

existence, that is, Minister to the mind, Spirit, and teaching of Practical ministry.

Graduates with these three dimensions will not only be informed, but will be formed

and useful to the body of Christ.

When this is done, indeed the seminary will take its rightful place of serving the

Church, and the Communty.

Bibliography

Hodgman, Charles A. “Servant” Baker’s Dictionary of Theology. Ed. Everett. F.

Harrison. Grand Rapids Michigan, Baker Book House, 1960

Hough, J.C. & Cobb, J.B., Christian Identity and Theological Education, Chico,

California, Scholars Press, 1985.

Lang’at, Robert. K. “Christian Missions and the Development of Higher Education in

East Africa” in Evangelical Review of Theology, Vol. 25, No. 2, April 2001

McCarthy, Jeremiah, “Deepening connections between the Church and the

Theological School: Implications for Theological Education” in Journal of Adult

Theological Education, Vol. 1, No.2, December2004,

Mission and Ministry 2nd Ed, 2003, The Church’s Validation Framework for

Theological Education.

Niebuhr, H. Richard, The Purpose of the Church and its ministry, N.Y., Harper &

Row, 1977.

Pate, C. Martin. “Church” Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Ed.Walter. A.

Elwell. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1996

Sundkler, Bengt & Christopher Steed, A History of the Church in Africa, Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press 2000

Zikmund, Barbra Brown, “Reflections on My Twenty-Five Years in Theological

Education” in Theological Education, Vol.36, No. 2, Spring 2000