Ministry Education for the Global Church

by Robert W. Ferris

The case for ministry education for the Global Church is frequently made (Greenman and Green 2014) and millions of dollars annually are poured into Bible schools, colleges, and seminaries in the West and in the Majority World, yet the envisioned effect is not realized. Perhaps it is time to revisit our assumptions and rethink our training model.

istock.com/Wavebreakmedia

FEW WOULD DENY that the Global Church’s greatest need is ministry education. The observation that the Church is “an inch deep and a mile wide” may have been used first to describe the Church in Africa, but it applies equally well in every global region, including the West.  

Syncretism is not a Majority World problem; it is a global problem. In most Western communities the lifestyles of Christians are barely distinguishable from those of their non-Christian neighbors. The visions of the 1970s and prayers of the 1980s and 1990s for church growth movements have been answered with impressive growth of the Church in many nations.  Missiologists and national church leaders, however, are awakening to the fact that we have planted churches without making disciples (McClung 2011; Hudgins 2014). Mobilization of the Global Church for completion of the Great Commission is dependent on a cadre of church leaders equipped to make disciples of Jesus.  

The case for ministry education for the Global Church is frequently made (Greenman and Green 2014) and millions of dollars annually are poured into Bible schools, colleges, and seminaries in the West and in the Majority World, yet the envisioned effect is not realized. Perhaps it is time to revisit our assumptions and rethink our training model.

Problems with the Schooling Model
The problematic nature of schooling as a model for ministry education has been recognized for decades (Ward 1974; Ferris, in press). Among the problems, however, two are fundamental.  

#1. Schooling privileges acquisition of knowledge, information, and mental constructs. If you doubt this, note how achievement is measured and how honor is assigned among both students and faculty.  

A focus on acquisition of knowledge is counterproductive on several counts. One is the limited half-life of information stored in short-term memory. Faculty members of ministry training institutions enjoy warm feelings when students score highly on examinations, but prefer to ignore evidence that information acquired only for recall (as on an examination) disappears quickly once the need has passed (Zull 2002, 181). 

Most of the content of our lectures is lost to students six weeks after class ends. (Again, if you are skeptical, think of the best teacher in your own education and try to recall half a dozen things you learned from him or her. How much is information versus skills or perspectives?) Teaching for recall yields little fruit, yet it is the primary focus of most ministry education globally.  

We treat the information we teach—truths of scripture, theological formulations, insights of history, and theories and methods of ministry disciplines—as though information has intrinsic value. It does not. In every field—the sciences and humanities, as well as in ministry education—information has instrumental value; it acquires value as it is applied in the contexts of life. 

The Great Commission is not to “make disciples of all nations… teaching them all that I have commanded you.” Rather, we are to “make disciples… teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you.” When we get to heaven, we will not have to take an exam. Neither God nor Satan cares how much we know if we never apply it. Yet, the focus of our schools is heavily biased toward acquisition of knowledge.  

#2. The schooling model has a conflict between the implicit curriculum and a school’s stated goals. Our goal statements affirm intent to develop ministers and evangelists, but we hire and reward faculty who are scholars and lecturers. It is little wonder, therefore, that students enter our schools zealous for ministry and graduate with a zeal to teach. Similarly, we affirm the oneness of Christ’s Church and the importance of collaboration in ministry, yet we discipline students for sharing information (we call it “cheating”) and foster competitive individualism rather than the values we affirm.  

Why are we surprised that the Evangelical Church in every nation is racked by schism? We teach that Christ calls us to a life of humility and service, yet our academic traditions and degrees foster elitist values. Despite all this, we wonder why alumni so rarely embody our stated goals.  

In truth, the implicit curriculum of our schools will always overpower the explicit curriculum. No matter what I tell you, you will be inclined to follow my example rather than my words. If we want our alumni to be humble servants, these qualities must dominate our practices in faculty selection and rewards. If we want alumni to work together with other Evangelical Christians for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom, we must model collaboration and employ collaborative methods in our teaching and assessment of learning.  

If we want alumni to be zealous for ministry in church and in the community, we must staff our faculties with men and women who, first of all, are ministers. In fact, faculty is the curriculum of the school. The courses we teach are simply means through which we infuse into students the values we hold. Students will learn to value scripture, honor God, love the brothers and sisters, seek the lost, serve one another, collaborate in ministry, and apply God’s truth in life and community as they see these values modeled by their teachers. If these values are not modeled, students will learn the values they observe.  

Needed Correctives
Some have recognized the problems intrinsic in schooling and have concluded that schools must be abandoned. While pursuing alternative models is important in every context, and abandoning schools may be attractive at some level, the conclusion itself is irresponsible. So much of the Global Church’s resources—both material and human—are invested in schooling that to abandon those schools is unthinkable. We must steward the resources of our schools, not abandon them.  

Instead of abandoning its theological schools, the Church must take steps to reform them. I offer four specific steps that can be required by any church or taken by any faculty.

#1. Minimize the power-distance factor in the classroom. Why do we expect students to address us as doctor, professor, or pastor when Jesus said, “You are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers” (Matt. 23:8)? Power-distance is diminished when we invite students to join us as fellow learners in search of the meaning of biblical truth for their contexts. 

Participative and interactive learning designs teach students that they can learn from one another as well as from us as teachers. “Flipping the classroom” (Educause 2012) entails moving information acquisition out of the classroom and employing class time to help students learn to process and use the information gained. Thus, students may be assigned to read a chapter or article or to listen to a cassette or video lecture in preparation for class. 

In class, the teacher will provide discussion questions or application tasks that require students to use the information they have acquired. What was previously ‘homework’ becomes the occupation of the class, with the teacher able to foster engagement with truth, encourage reflection, and correct misunderstandings, as appropriate. This kind of teaching is more demanding, but it also can minimize the power-distance factor in our classrooms.  

#2. Aim for application of truth taught, rather than only for recall. Most teachers recognize the value of stating specific learning objectives for each course and each lesson. (In truth, more recognize this than do it, but that’s another problem.) How often are our teaching objectives limited to students’ understanding or recall, rather than to the application of the truth we teach?  

Since we expect students to apply the truth we teach in their lives and ministries, we should state our learning expectations explicitly and invest time in helping students make those connections. What difference does the doctrine of the Trinity make in the way we relate to a non-Christian neighbor? (e.g., We may suggest that it teaches us to value relationship with the other, since we understand that interpersonal relationships are eternal.) And, what does that imply for my specific relationships on and off campus this week? What challenges may I encounter if I seek to live this way? How might I prepare myself to avoid being overcome by these challenges? Why is this important, anyway? True learning occurs as we avoid purely theoretical discussions and explicitly explore and witness to implications of the truth we teach for life and ministry.  

#3. Emphasize reflection on application of truth. When students simply demonstrate recall of truths, then learning has little relationship to life. When students are required to reflect on the meaning and implications of those truths, however, the probability of life change is significantly
enhanced. 

Several years ago, I developed an assignment which I use often. Students are assigned to read an article or a chapter from a book and to review the selection read. The review is limited to two pages. On the first half page students are asked to summarize the article in a way the author would endorse. On the second half page they are asked to critique the article, exposing its strengths and weaknesses. On the second page they are instructed to reflect on the article: How does it confirm or conflict with their own beliefs? How has it changed their minds as a result of reading this article? What do they need to do differently because they read this article? This is a challenging assignment and the students typically find the second page the most difficult. Many cannot fill a page with reflective interaction because, too often, we have not developed this habit. 

We must be intentional in requiring students to reflect deeply, as well as modeling deep reflection in our interactions with them. As a rule of thumb, we may want to agree as a faculty to ask students to devote approximately half of every written assignment to reflection and application.  

#4. Model application of truth in life and ministry. How unfortunate when the lives of faculty members undercut the truths they teach! The way we handle God’s word, relate to one another, relate to our students, relate to Christ’s Church, relate to the lost world—these are the ways we will mark the lives of students with lasting effect. Indeed, the faculty is the curriculum of the school.  

Impediments to Educational Reform
Although problems with the incumbent schooling model are clear and steps toward renewal of theological education are available, change will not come easily. Jesus speaks of those who recognize the value of “forcing their way into [the kingdom]” (Luke 16:16). Reform of ministry education will also demand effort, but when the value of teaching for transformation of life and ministry is recognized, we can pray that there will be a rush to embrace it, as well. In the meantime, reasons given for resisting change are all too abundant. Some of the most common include:

Objection #1. “Interactive teaching takes too much time; I can’t cover the required material.” It is true that interactive teaching takes time, both in preparation and in class. Since theological schools in the Majority World (and many in the West) are understaffed, this problem is exacerbated. Finding time to redesign a course may seem impossible, much less redesigning all the courses one teaches. 

Nevertheless, the alternative is to continue to teach for recall and to
accept that one’s teaching may have little lasting impact on students. The wise teacher will redesign only one course per term, and this is demanding work!

Begin by clarifying the goal of the course and the goal of your teaching. Is it to cover material, or to equip students for life and ministry? How do you want students to be different or to do differently as a result of their time in your course? What would demonstrate that these goals have been realized? Intentional selection of a limited amount of material that is interactively and reflectively processed by students will result in increased learning. It may seem oxymoronic, but in adult education, less is more.  

Objection #2. “That’s not my job; I was trained and hired to be a scholar.” We are thankful for scholars; the Church in every culture needs Christian scholars. Nevertheless, the Church needs many, many more who are gifted and trained to “equip the saints for the work of the ministry.” So the question again comes, what is our goal? If our goal is to train ministers who can equip the Church, then we need to allow that goal to shape our curriculum and teaching methods. We also need to model how that impacts the way the truth we teach is lived out in church and community. 

That we were trained as scholars cannot be allowed to place a limitation on our teaching ministry. Instead, we must see it as a challenge to be overcome. Let our generation of teachers be the one that demonstrates that scholarship informs and guides ministry, rather than squelching it.  

Objection #3. “I’ve never seen anyone teach that way; I don’t know if I can do it.” Lack of positive models is a major factor. We teach as we were taught; our teachers lectured to us and we lecture to our students. Having recognized the limitations of traditional schooling, however, can we be satisfied to devote our lives to perpetuating those limitations? Certainly not! We must attempt to teach more effectively and to be more intentional in addressing the needs of our students and the churches they will serve. The “correctives” above afford a place to begin.  

Objection #4. “I’m not willing to present myself as a model of Christian life and ministry effectiveness.” This may be offered as an affirmation of humility, but it is misguided. In fact, every Bible school and seminary teacher is a model; your students want to be like you. The only question remains, what kind of model will you provide?

What’s at Stake?
Around the globe, millions of dollars annually are poured into forming and sustaining theological schools. Nevertheless, if information-oriented schooling yields graduates who are ill-equipped to disciple believers because the information they acquired (and largely forgot) did not change their hearts, we must do better. Two things are at stake.

1. The formation of your students. God has not entrusted them to you for you to fill their heads but leave their hearts unchanged. It is as our lives are aligned with Christ’s and poured into our students that ministry education becomes transformative.  

2. The health and witness of the Church—in your context and globally. Until the whole Church is mobilized, the world will not be reached. Until church leaders are able to teach and model God’s truth in ways that transform the lives of Christians, the Church will not be mobilized. Until church-leaders-in-training see God’s truth transforming the lives and ministries of their teachers and transforming their own lives through our teaching, they will not be equipped to replicate that transformation in their own ministries.  

Simple experiments to redress the limitations of the schooling model can have multiplying impact in the lives of students, churches, and communities. This will not happen without intentionality and effort. It is up to each teacher and faculty to examine the goals toward which they teach and the steps
required to realize their calling.  

References

Educause. 2012. “Seven Things You Should Know about Flipped Classrooms.” Accessed August 8, 2014, from net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7081.pdf.

Ferris, Robert W. 2015.  “Leadership Development in Mission Settings.” Missiology, 2nd ed.  Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Greenman, Jeff and Gene Green. 2014. “The Priority of Leadership Training in Global Mission.”  Evangelical Missions Quarterly 50(1): 44-49.

Hudgins, Thomas. 2014. Luke 6:40 and the Theme of Likeness Education in the New Testament. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock.  

McClung, Floyd.  2011. “Disciple Making and Church Planting: God’s Way to Transform Nations.” Mission Frontiers 33(5): 19-23.

Ward, Ted. 1974. “Schooling as a Defective Approach to Education.” Unpublished manuscript.  Published in Common Ground Journal 11(1): 28. Accessed September 20, 2014, from  www.commongroundjournal.org/volnum/v11n01.pdf  

Zull, James. 2002. The Art of Changing the Brain. Sterling, Va.: Stylus Publishing.  

. . . .

Robert W. Ferris is professor emeritus at Columbia International University and senior associate of global associates for Transformational Education (www.GATEglobal.org). Bob and his wife are completing forty-eight years with SEND International, initially serving in the Philippines and more recently on SEND’s U.S. and International Councils. 

EMQ, Vol. 52, No. 1 pp. 6-13. Copyright  © 2016 Billy Graham Center for Evangelism.  All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMQ editors.

Comments are closed.