Institute for Christian
Teaching
Education Department of
Seventh-day Adventists
SEVENTH-DAY
ADVENTIST MINISTERIAL TRAINING:
TOWARD
AN INTEGRATED WHOLE
By
Enrique Becerra
Education Department
General Conference
Silver Spring, Maryland
Prepared for the
International Faith and
Learning Seminar
held at
Union College, Lincoln,
Nebraska, U.S.A.
June 1993
121-93
Institute for Christian Teaching
12501
Old Columbia Pike
Silver
Spring, MD 20904, USA
INTRODUCTION
The study of integration of
faith and learning could appear necessary in almost every field of education
with the exception of theology. Theology includes faith; theology analyzes and
teaches faith. Why should we worry about integrating faith in theological
education?
But Gaebelein says it well:
"To declare allegiance to an educational point of view is one thing to
integrate a school or college in all its parts…with that point of view is
another thing."1 Visiting Seventh-day
Adventist colleges and universities, we have found, in the ministerial training
program, a frequent tension between a good academic level and the practical
aspects of pastoral formation. Theological education needs both elements to
accomplish its task. How to keep the balance? How to work in theological
education on the 'whole person' that is being prepared for the 'whole
ministry'? This is the problem we would like to address in this study.
This paper will deal first
with the historical framework related to theological education in America. This
context, we think, is a good help in understanding the Adventist background for
the problem we face today. The second section deals with the concept of
integrated theological education. We are looking to the seminary as the
institution to train ministers, and we would oppose it to what we call 'the
university model.' We refer by the latter to the school of religion or graduate
theological university education, with different objectives from the training of
ministers, particularly in the setting of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
This study will end with a
suggestive list of recommendations for the church and some specific leaders to
implement, in the context or the circumstances and characteristics of the area
of the world where the serve.
I. A BRIEF HISTORY
Christian formal theological
education began with the catechetical schools of Alexandria (late second
century) and Antioch. These centers declined after the eastern Mediterranean
area became part of Islamic culture, but by then theological enterprises had
begun in Europe. First this happened in the monasteries (fifth century on) and
then in schools connected with the large cathedrals (starting in the eight
century). These were succeeded by the universities, beginning with the Sorbonne
in Paris in 1257, which offered the liberal arts and sciences in addition to
biblical and theological studies.
In the American colonies,
Harvard College was established in 1636 to help prepare a literate ministry.
The chair of divinity there was established in 1721. Yale College followed in
1756. But it was in 1808 that the first residential theological seminary began
offering an advance three-year education program beyond college. We refer to
Andover, followed by Princeton in 1812, Harvard Theological School in 1819,
Yale in 1822, etc. At that time "evidence of conversion, high moral
character and membership in a congregation were the requirements for admission…
Great emphasis was placed on the way students reasoned and argued about the
theological controversies that shaped the particular seminary. However, piety
was always coordinated with learning, and two were joined together so as to
educate a minister who could command the respect of head and heart."2
In the nineteenth century,
American theological education received a strong influence from German
University schools of theology. Many gifted members of seminary faculties,
visiting and working in schools like Halle and Berlin, saw that research rather
than ministerial experience was emphasized in making faculty appointments.
Another profound difference with American seminaries was the use of the method
of 'higher criticism,' or the study of Scripture as a historical set of
documents. The research ideal finally modified the earlier seminary ideal.
"The university ideal divided the intellectual from the spiritual task and
only took full responsibility for the former. This assumption was stated in a
landmark conference of leaders convened by the Evangelical Alliance in 1893.
Francis Brown of union (N.Y.) said, 'The theological seminary is not a church,
and was not intended for the spiritual training of future ministers, but for
their intellectual training.' A century of seminary leaders, back to Andover,
would have strongly disagreed."3
The Moody revival and the
missionary movement of the late nineteenth century led to founding of
missionary training schools, Bible colleges, and subsequently several seminaries
that provided an evangelical alternative to the liberal seminaries that
stressed higher criticism. We pass over the rich period of evaluation, debate,
and ferment of American seminaries in the first half of the twentieth century,
to take a look at what happened in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Starting about 1870, the
leaders of the Adventist Church gave increased attention to the preparation of
licensed ministers. At first the practice was to give them some formal
instruction, then put the candidate to a test of working, especially in new
fields, to grant him finally a license. At that time the instructional courses
were mainly short intensive courses given in the local conferences. Uriah Smith
was very often the principal instructor.
The opening of Battle Creek
College (1874), followed by the rest of American Adventist Colleges covering
most of the North American Division territory, gave the church a period of time
when efforts to prepare the needed ministers went from short intensive courses
to a complete four-year postsecondary training leading to a Bachelor of Arts
degree. A General Conference action in September, 1918, shows the direction the
church wanted the ministerial training to follow:
. . .The Committee wanted a ministerial course that
was more distinctively practical, with emphasis on church administration and
evangelism. This was to be accomplished by making a clearer distinction between
the ministerial course and the rest of the colleges' undergraduate curricula. Ministerial
education was to be "put on a strongly laboratory basis, so that students
may have actual experiences in soul-winning during their course of
preparation."4
The first real steps toward
establishing a seminary program for the training of ministers were taken in the
early 1930s. The Autumn Council of the General Conference in 1932 voted to
establish a school of theology, but the action proved on further study to be
premature. Later, in place of an expensive graduate school, a special committee
proposed a series of summer schools to be rotated among the senior colleges.
The first of the summer sessions, called The Advanced Bible School, was held at
Pacific Union College in the summer of 1934. The rotation never happened and
the School operated successfully for three summers at PUC, until the General
Conference voted in 1936 to establish the seminary in a permanent location in
Takoma Park, Washington, D.C.
The new Seventh-day
Adventist Theological Seminary began its activities in the summer session of 1937
"in rooms prepared as classrooms and offices upstairs in the white frame
building behind the Review and Herald, which by the next year housed its
cafeteria on the first floor, a great convenience for seminary students and
faculty. The G.C. chapel served as the library of the seminary."5 The spirit among the leaders and the
objectives for this institution can be appreciated in the following words of
J.L. McElhany in 1938:
Of all the recent General Conference accomplishments
none has given me more satisfaction than the development of our theological
seminary. I have greatly rejoiced in the inception and in the development of
this school, and that is because I have had a deep and firm conviction that its
establishment comes about in answer to along-felt need. Twenty-six years ago I
first came to Washington, and back in those days I heard our leaders giving
expression to their conviction that we needed a school of this type… This is a
school not alone that it should be a place where teachers can do graduate study,
but that it shall also give advanced training to ministers, Bible workers, and
others who are already in the field of evangelism.6
It would be more than
interesting to continue remembering the extraordinary history of the seminary,
its administrators and faculty, its curriculum, etc. But that is not the
purpose of this study. We end this section by underlining the objectives
of the seminary work as stated in the Bulletin of Potamac University, 1957-58,
presenting the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary as a division as said
university:
To provide advance education and training for those
workers or prospective workers of the church whose service is to be primarily
spiritual, such as pastors, evangelists, college teachers of religion,
missionaries, chaplains, writers and editors of denominational books and
periodicals, and Bible instructors.
To offer such courses in graduate study and research
as shall contribute to the development in the worker of habits of sound scholarship
in Biblical theology, and in cognate and supporting fields in harmony with the
teachings, philosophy, and objectives of the Seventh-day Adventist
denomination;
To prepare the missionary and mission appointee for
more competent service through courses designed to acquaint him with the
characteristics and needs of the people among whom he is to labor, and also to
acquaint him with the methods of working which have proved successful; and
To provide for the in-service development of
denominational workers through short-term courses and workshop in pastoral and
evangelistic activities, administrative principles and procedures, public
relations, personnel management, institutional board responsibilities, and
related fields.7
II. INTEGRATED THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION
1. Concepts of Integration:
Aiming at excellence in SDA
theological education could lead us to hear at least two voices. One side will
stress academic excellence or a strong intellectual training of the future
minister based on scholarly work under the guidance of the best professors, and
this is evidently good. From the other side will come the voice of those who
defend, with equal merit, the practical skills that a minister will need to
face the challenges of his task in the church and in the world. Some will even
question the dangers in the development as a Christian spiritual leader of the
minister prepared under the first approach.
The tension between a good
academic level and the practical aspects of pastoral formation appears to us a
compartmentalized way of looking at theological education. SDA seminaries
should not view their task as a tension between theological academic
requirements and applied theology. It is not a matter of either-or. Integrated
theological education is academic, is practical, and is spiritual at the same
time. If rightly applied, it will be simultaneously a learning by precepts and
learning by experience. The students will be trained to be like Christ, while
studying seriously the Word of God and learning how to do the work of the
ministry.
2. The university model:
To avoid unbalance toward a
scholarly study of religion in the seminary it is necessary to take a look at
the university model or the academic study of religion. The historical
background already presented showed us that American seminaries in the
nineteenth century received the influence of European universities with a
different focus in theological education. "The tradition of theological
education in Europe that is firmly maintained by some of the most vigorous
schools here as a central purpose continued research in and additions to the
science of theology. In this respect theological education stands among the
disciplines of the university pursuing its task of constantly validating and
adding to its field of knowledge.8
The objectives of these
religious studies and the ministerial training in seminaries are different. The
problem arises when these objectives get mixed, especially in the seminary
setting. Talking about the identity of religious studies, Claude Welch states
that historically these studies have been bound up with the propagation of
faith and apologetics.9
"Increasingly, however, except in the religiously conservative
institutions, such purposes are being rapidly abandoned in favor of quite
different understandings of the role of religious studies… Confession claims on
either faculty or students have been more and more abandoned."10
Of course, studies of
religion have their place in the universities. For many, religion is a sociological
phenomenon rooted in humanity's need to explain its own existence. It cannot be
ignored in human studies. Welch says that, since World War II, "religion
has emerged vigorously as a field of studies distinct from theological training
in a seminary or divinity school"11
The problem arises when a seminary or some faculty meld this graduate education
with the professional education in their mind. They are two kinds of education
with different objectives."… A professional school that is a graduate
school is always being tempted into the pursuit scholarship to the neglect of
the practical needs of the profession it was established to serve; and it
rationalizes the neglect by insisting that the profession it serves must be a
learned profession. So a question remains as to the proper nature of a graduate
profession school, that widely admired and needed hybrid which is required to
be two things at once and is continuously in danger of being neither."12
But our study focuses on
Adventist theological education. Do we face the danger just expressed? It seems
so, and actions have been taken not only in the Adventist Theological Seminary
located in Berrien Springs, but in other Adventist colleges and universities
around the world as well. This is how a critic of these efforts sees them:
"In August 1986 the Board of Trustees of Andrews University set up a
seminary executive board. That action culminated a series of distinct changes
in faculty and curriculum that has profoundly transformed the SDA Theological
Seminary from an academic to a professional school. Instead of a community of
exploration it has become an instrument of conservation."13 It is evident that the Board was making
clear that the church wanted to have a professional school in the seminary. The
author just quoted states it well when he later says: "The seminary
faculty has the primary responsibility of educating ministers of the
Seventh-day Adventist church. Although most of the faculty are trained as
scholars in such fields as languages, Biblical studies, and theology, church
leaders have increasingly sought to make the seminary more practical and less
theoretical. As a result, the seminary has experienced throughout its recent
history a tension between academic and professional concerns."14 We think that this tension is not
necessary, if we advance toward an integrated whole in SDA theological
education.
3. An integrated whole:
A holistic integrated
approach to theological education will show a concern not only for the
academic, but also for the spiritual and practical aspects of ministry and
leadership training. Dealing with Adventist ministerial training, excellence in
this education will mean the development of the whole person into being a
servant to his church and his community. This student will be trained to be
like Christ, to know the Word of God and to do the work of the ministry. The
seminary devoted to this task should be different from schools of religious
studies patterned after the university model.
Theological education should aim at training
students to become servants of the Lord in His Church and equipping them to
serve effectively in the Church. As it involves both 'being' and 'doing'
aspects, theological training should be people-centered and task-oriented.
Excellence in theological training should be
measured in terms of the servanthood quality which the student possesses and
the effectiveness of the ministry which he performed.15
The leaders of the SDA
Church are right when they struggle to have a professional school to prepare
the future ministers in the seminary. All other Boards around the world should
do the same in their colleges and universities. But this effort must be
accompanied by a clear idea of what integrated theological education should be.
4. The whole person:
The whole person needs to be
trained and developed. The mind should be thoroughly nurtured with the best
intellectual education. The spirit also must be deeply nourished and the
spiritually or relationship with Jesus Christ considered a priority in this
training. The body will also be cared for, developing the skills to use it as
its best in support of the ministry. This development will avoid unnecessary
compartmentalization. Integration is not an attempt to maintain a balance
between the academic, the spiritual and the practical as separated aspects.
Integration means bringing them together into a whole, and doing them at the
same time. The presence of one aspect never implies the absence of the other.
Integrated theological education is academic, is spiritual, and is
practical. Each aspect necessarily presupposes, implies, or contains the
others.
This holistic development
gives the future minister a balanced training that will include a well-desired
capacity. As Ellen White puts it: "It is the work of true education to
develop this power, to train the youth to be thinkers, and not mere reflectors
of others men's thoughts."16 Frequently
the institutions trying to prepare a 'learned professional' resources and to
become an independent, lifelong inquirer, growing constantly while he is
engaged in the work of the ministry. Pusey points to the results of a good
training saying "Long after graduation, when the minister looks back to
his alma mater in grateful remembrance, the teachers whom he values most highly
are not the men who supplied him with some pat answers to difficult theological
questions. They are the men who taught him to think.17
This is the concept of an
integrated theological education we need for the training of ministers today.
To reach this integrated whole it will require, not only church leaders with a
clear vision but also a faculty committed to this Task.
5. A whole ministry:
We need to insist on the idea of a balanced training
for the future ministers of the church. Ellen White presents the three aspects
we are analyzing;
With the great work before us of enlightening the
world, we who believe the truth should feel the necessity of through education
in the practical branches of knowledge, and especially our need of an
education in the truths of the Scripture.18
The words of the living God are the highest of all education. Those who minister
to the people need to eat the bread of life. This will give them spiritual
strength; then they will be prepared to minister to all classes of people.19
An integrated ministry
requires from the minister an excellent preparation in the "practical
branches of knowledge," a thorough study of the "words of the living
God," and as a result of all this training, the possession of
"spiritual strength." We are not dealing here with the idea of
putting the academic aspect of the work in the seminary behind the practical
and spiritual aspects. We agree wholeheartedly with Feilding when he comments:
I have asked many graduates where in seminary they
learned most about the work of the ministry. Their answers are various, but a
surprising number look back to a professor on the academic side as the
important image in the development of their own practice… The present system of
teaching theory and practice is haphazard. There is a wide-spread tendency for
academic departments (of Bible, history, or theology) to talk about books,
doctrines, movements and characters of the past, and for practical departments
to talk about books, doctrines, movements and people of today, adding, perhaps,
the sciences which help us to understand them…20
An academic subject, taught
by an academic professor who understands integrated theological education, will
be useful for the minister in the practice of his profession. As one student
told us recently: "I would like to study Old Testament Prophets not for
the sake of themselves, but to understand the Old Testament message and to
preach it faithfully."
What every theology
professor should avoid by any means is what was happening to Wellhausen while
serving as Professor of Theology in Greifswald (1872-1882). We even admire the
courage of the man who made such an impact on higher criticism, for presenting
his resignation with the following declaration:
I became a theologian, because I was interested in
the scientific treatment of the Bible. It only gradually dawned on me that a
Professor of Theology has also the practical responsibility to prepare his
students for service in the evangelical church. I, however, am not qualified
for this task, because I have made my students unfit for their service, in
spite of all restrain which I have exercised.21
Seventh-day Adventist
theological education has the principle objective of preparing to pastors to
work as ministers, leaders, and even as religion teachers. In this work, under
the seminary model, everyone involved should do all possible way, to be helpful
for the practice of ministry, building at the same time a strong spiritual life
in the student. The applied theological studies should be offered based in good
research and study of the theological concepts involved. And every subject and
activity of the ministerial training program should develop the faith and the
personal relationship of the student with God. Only in this way will the
ministerial training of our future pastors be a complete success and the
mission of the church is fulfilled.
III. Some General Recommendations:
The purpose of this study
would not be accomplished only by starting what integrated SDA theological
education should be. It is necessary to look at the natural implications of
this integration. We consider this paper a first step in further study
necessary to see a basic program develop to serve the world church. Much study
needs to be done especially on the profile of the Adventist pastor and on the
appropriate curriculum to train that minister, including a complete program of
fieldwork. We include here a list of items that should be studied and developed
by the church as a whole, or at least by every institution having a ministerial
training program:
Recommendations to the College or University Board:
1.
Develop, with the help
of an ad hoc committee, a profile of the minister, and other related
professionals, as the church needs today for the specific task in the area of
influence of that college or university. This ad hoc committee should have
strong representation of the church at all levels, including the local
congregation and the laypersons who are served by the ministers to be prepared.
2.
Establish appropriate
general objectives for the seminary on the training of ministers.
3. Select carefully the Theology Department Chairman and the professors
from among successful ministers with appropriate theological training. A
regular recycling of the ministerial experience of these professors should be
practiced, to keep them up-to-date in the theory and practice of ministry.
Recommendations to the Ministerial Training Committee:
(A permanent committee at the Division or Union
level to look for the ministerial training in all its territory)
1.
Develop a balanced
curriculum built on the base of the profile, to reach every general objective
established by the Board and the specific objectives given by the church as a
whole, comprised of the Administration of the church, the Ministerial
Association, active lay leaders, and professors of theology.
Recommendations to the Seminary:
1.
Develop a complete
program for the ministerial training, working on the curriculum already
mentioned, adding all the necessary activities and complementary requisites to
produce a balanced, well prepared professional to serve the church and the
community.
2.
Outline and implement
a complete program of guidance and spiritual counseling for ministerial
students.
3.
Develop a complete
program of fieldwork with activities helping the student to practice every
aspect of the work in his future profession. This program will be prepared by
the area of the church involved and the teachers of the seminary. The
implementation of the program will be accompanied, supervised, and evaluated by
the professors and the church pastors of the area.
4. Evaluate regularly the acomplete ministerial training
program with participation of faculty, students, academic administration,
administration of the church, and lay persons, to make any needed adjustment of
change.
CONCLUSION
There is no need for tension
between a good academic level and the practical of SDA theological education.
There is need of a clear understanding of what constitutes integration of
academic theological studies, applied theological studies, and the spiritual
formation of a minister. The integrated whole will have element included. The
right curriculum will reflect this integration, and a good faculty will be
indispensable. "The best ministerial talent should be employed in teaching
the Bible in our schools. Those selected for this work need to be thorough
Bible students, and to have a deep Christian experience…22 When these elements are
present, many ministerial students will say, as did one student at the seminary
in Takoma Park: "I came here after a better knowledge… and for better methods…
but I have found that the Lord is after a better man… I have heard the voice of
God through the brethren here in this seminary."23
Every participant with a
direct or indirect responsibility in the ministerial training of workers will have
an important roll in the preparation and implementation of the right
curriculum. The administration of the church, the administration of the
seminary, the faculty, and the students should work together toward the
integrated education of the 'whole person' for the 'whole ministry.'
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Association of
Theological Schools (The). Theological Education in the 1970's. Dayton,
Ohio, 1968.
Bulletin, Potomac
University, Takoma Park, Washington, DC, 1957-58.
Chow, Wilson W. "An
Integrated Approach to Theological Education," in Evangelical
Theological Education Today. Paul Bowers, ed., Nairobi, Kenya: Evangel
Publishing House, 1982.
Cully, I. V., and K. B.
Cully, eds. Harper's Encyclopedia of Religious Education. San Francisco:
Harper and Row, 1990. Articles: "Theological Education" and
"Theology and Education".
De Jong, Arthur J. Reclaiming
a Mission: New Direction for the Church-related College. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans, 1990.
Farley, Edward. The
Fragility of Knowledge: Theological Education in the Church and the University.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
Feilding, Charles R. Education
for Ministry. Dayton, Ohio: American Association of Theological School,
1966.
Fletcher, John C. The
Futures of Protestant Seminaries. Washington, DC. Alban Institute, 1993.
Gaebelein, Frank E. The
Pattern of God's Truth. Winona Lake, Indiana: BMH Books, 1968.
Gangel, Kenneth O., ed. Toward
a Harmony of Faith and Learning. Farmington Hills, Michigan: Tyndale
College Press, 1983.
Hough, Joseph and Barbara
Wheeler. Beyond Clericalism: The Congregation as a Focus for Theological
Education. Decatur, GA: Scholars Press, 1988.
Land, Gary. "The SDA
Theological Seminary: Heading Toward Isolation?" in Spectrum. Vol.
18, no. 1 (October 1987).
Pusey, Natham M. Ministry
for Tomorrow. New York: Seabury Press, 1967.
Running, Leona G. and Mary
J. Mitchell. "From All the World, Into All the World," Andrews
University Focus, vol. 20, no. 3 (Summer 1984).
Vyhmeister, Nancy.
"Theological Education in the Writings of Ellen G. White."
Unpublished paper, School of Graduate Studies, Andrews University, February
1978.
White, Ellen G. Counsels
to Parents, Teachers and Students. Mountain View, California: Pacific Press
Publishing Assn., 1943.
__________. Education,
Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 1903.
__________. Fundamentals
of Christian Education, Nashville, Tennessee: Southern Publishing Assn.,
1923.
Winslow, Gerald.
"Educating Adventist Ministers: History and Hope." Unpublished paper
presented at the Andrews Society for Religious Studies, New Orleans, November
16, 1990.
Wood, Charles M. Vision and
Discernment: An orientation in Theological Study. Decatur, GA: Scholar Press,
1985
NOTES
1
Frank E. Gaebelein, The Pattern of God's
Truth, pp. ixx-x.
2
John C. Fletcher, The Futures of Protestant
Seminaries, p. 9.
3
.
Ibid., p. 12.
4
Gerald Winslow, "Educating Adventist
Ministers: History and Hope," p. 5
5
Leona G. Running and Mary J. Mitchell,
"From All the World, Into All the World," p. 10.
6
Ibid., p. 12.
7
Bulletin, Potomac University, Takoma Park,
Washington, D.C., 1957-58, p. 53.
8
K. B. Cully, ed. The Westminster Dictionary
of Christian Education, p. 663.
9
Claude Welch, Graduate Education in Religion,
p. 13.
10 Ibid.,
p. 14.
11 Ibid.,
p. vii.
12 Nathan
M. Pusey, Ministry for Tomorrow, p. 119.
13 Gary Land, "The SDA Theological Seminary:
Heading Toward Isolation?," Spectrum, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 38.
14 Ibid.,
p. 40.
15 Wilson
W. Chow, "An Integrated Approach to Theological Education,' p. 50.
16 Ellen
G. White, Education, p. 17.
17 Pusey,
pp. 123-24.
18 Ellen G. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 202, (emphasis supplied).
19 Ellen
G. White, Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students, p. 381, (emphasis
supplied).
20 Charles R. Feilding, Education
for Ministry, p. 13.
21 Taken from Alfred Jepsen, Wissenschaft vom Alten
Testament, Berlin, 1958, p. 7. The complete letter is in the chapter,
"Wellhausen in Greifswald," in Festschrift der Universitat
Greifswald, 1956, vol. 2, pp. 47 ff.
22 Ellen
G. White, Testimonies to the Church, vol. 6, pp. 134-35.
23 Running
and Mitchell, p. 8.