On one of our threads, we came to be discussing “internal” theological training - that is training that is conducted by a church for the benefit of its members.  As one who has undergone some theological training for my own development, I don’t profess a lot of direct knowledge of the inner workings of “internal” theological colleges, but I do nonetheless have a number of general concerns about such systems.  I made this comment:

Foundation, I too have limited information about the inner workings of Hillsong college. However, I would own up to a real question mark about churches which create entirely internal systems for ministry training, ministry, mission etc and insulate themselves effectively from any external input or scrutiny.

This comes at least partly from my own experience at theological college which was formative for me precisely because it prompted me to critically re-evaluate the assumptions and inherited understanding of theology to see whether I really did actually believe all of those things I was taught over many years. Some of them I did, some of them I decided I would have to come up with more complex or nuanced understanding and some of them I determined were no longer things that I believed. I question the ability of an internal system to be able to take theological students through this process. Not that it can’t, simply that it would need to work hard to be able to impart this skill.

My second concern would be that such internal circular systems seem structurally to be prone to developing or supporting a particular set of doctrine/theological ideas/ways of thinking that everyone in the organisation must agree with. This is not in and of itself problematic, but it depends on every aspect of the system working well so that weaknesses (in doctrine, thought or motivation) do not become ingrained.

Foundation responded:

Dan, I’m not familiar with some of the terms you’re using actually.
“My second concern would be that such internal circular systems seem structurally to be prone to developing or supporting a particular set of doctrine/theological ideas/ways of thinking that everyone in the organisation must agree with.”

Could you expand on that idea for me? I like what you’re saying.

I started to respond in the comments thread, but it got too long, so I have elevated it to a post here.

The terms I am using don’t have a particular meaning, but I will try to expand.  I believe that having input from a diversity of positions on political, theological and moral issues is healthy for a faith community, because otherwise particular viewpoints and approaches can become entrenched.  So the model goes like this - an interpretation or a viewpoint comes from the pastor or leader which the church member (who has come to faith there, or grown up there) accepts the authority and superior knowledge/training of the leader and agrees with it.  As the church member becomes more and more involved, he or she decides to get further study and investigate issues more thoroughly, so he or she decides to go off to theological college.

If you go to an external training institution, even if the viewpoints are largely the same, they will be presented from a different point of view, or with a different emphasis, or chances are you will hear about some different viewpoints that are outside the culture and narrative of your faith community.  Your lecturers and teachers have an authority which is independent from your church leaders - so you need to decide whose authority you respect more.

If you go to an internal theological college which is also under the ultimate leadership of the principal pastor or leader, then the theological college is going to present the same viewpoints and ideas as the principal leader.  So rather than theological college being a process by which you are equipped to evaluate the things you hear at church, in community and in conversation, it merely becomes a reinforcement of what you have already been taught in your church community, with the added imprimatur of being stamped with a theological degree.

This is not unacceptable per se, but is risky.  Because say some undesirable doctrine or theology becomes adopted or infiltrated into the system (for the sake of argument, let’s say prosperity theology).  It gets taught in church, and then reinforced in theological college, and nobody is giving independent critical analysis of whether they agree with what is being preached and taught.  So suddenly everyone in nameless church adopts this theology and those that are theoretically more authoritative (those who have done extra study) are even more likely to agree with this, because the people giving the extra study are under the authority of the people that have originally preached the objectionable doctrine.

The advantages to closed systems is obvious.  It means that you can truly instill in people the ethos and heart of your faith community, what we have sometimes referred to as missional DNA (adopting Alan Hirsch’s language).  However, I get back to the fact that one of the greatest benefits of theological study to me was developing my ability to critically evaluate my own views and the beliefs of others so that I no longer rested on my assumptions or an argument as simplistic as “the bible says so”.

So for others that have experienced theological study - what are your thoughts?  What was the biggest benefit to you?  What was the biggest weakness?

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 15th, 2006 at 10:49 am by dan and is filed under theologically speaking. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.