Reform, as a grass roots movement, envisages action coming from members who have thought, studied, discussed and agreed. Discussion papers such as this one are written by individual members for the council of Reform and the wider church. The author alone is responsible for the paper. This paper may be copied freely.

A little knowledge: the need for reform in theological education

John Richardson

A New Perspective

One of the advantages of leaving your own culture for another is that you see things more clearly when you return home. For me this has been particularly true in relation to theological education in the UK. After ten months study leave at Moore College, the centre for Anglican training in the Diocese of Sydney, Australia, my ideas have been changed more deeply than I could have imagined only a couple of years previously.

Some time ago, I had begun to feel very dissatisfied with the education I had received as an ordinand in the UK in the early 1970s. To a certain extent, the weakness of this education was my own fault. To begin with, I had just completed an arduous degree course at Keele University and had no great desire to embark on another. ("BA" looked good after my name, "BA, BA" I wasn't so sure about.) So when I chose to go to St. John's, Nottingham, it was partly because they offered the Licentiate of Theology as "a non-degree course suitable for post-graduates" (a description given to me by George Carey, as I remember!)

In the event, this description turned out not to be wholly accurate - at least it didn't suit this post-graduate. One problem was that the course was actually too easy, being both repetitive and unimaginative in the work it required. (Assignments like drawing a map of Palestine did not, I still feel, make full use of my abilities.) Its biggest failing, however, was that it did not enthuse me with the study of either the Bible in particular or theology in general. I would not want to sound ungrateful to my tutors, who were no doubt trying their best with one who was neither an easy nor an enthusiastic student, but I am not aware that any of us in those days developed much motivation for the study which was intended to prepare us for a lifetime of ministry.

I left College, therefore, with a bare minimum of understanding, though still committed to the Bible and evangelism. And for several years the gaps in my training seemed not to matter. This was at least in part because the model of ministry we had absorbed in College was not teaching-centred but "worship" and counselling centred. Our idea of how to change the church was to change the style of Sunday Services (starting with the hymnbook, to the annoyance of all our congregations!) and our idea of how to change individuals was through in-depth counselling - in which we had actually been reasonably well taught.

This model, and my commitment at that time to the Charismatic Movement, stayed with me until the mid 1980s, but around then a number of factors combined to show me how inadequate was my understanding. It is probably significant that up til then I hadn't bought a single Bible Commentary since I'd left College. At the same time as I realized my ignorance, I also began to discover the value of good theological reading. However, self-education is a slow and sometimes unreliable process and eventually I felt frustrated by my own limitations.

Discovering Australia

In the meantime, I had come across speakers and books from Sydney in general and Moore College in particular, initially through the work of the Proclamation Trust in London. What struck me repeatedly was their ability to take a familiar Bible passage and bring out its meaning and significance in a way that was both compelling and self-evident once you had seen it. One morning over breakfast I was reading The End of the Beginning by Dr. Bill Dumbrell and asking once again "How do they get it so right so often?" when suddenly the thought occured to me that it would be much easier to discover the answer in Australia than in East London.

As a result, after nearly 18 months of planning, I found myself in February 1993 arriving at Moore for the post-graduate Diploma of Arts in Theology. Yet even at this stage, though I was aware of my own inadequacies, my opinion was that theological education for parish clergy did not have to be particularly intensive. Of course, I reasoned, the parish clergyman was to be the interpreter between the ivory tower and the pew, but he need not himself be an "academic". The clergyman needed to be conversant with the basics, but "academic theology" (by which I meant anything really hard) could be left to the minority of experts.

Rarely have my ideas been turned round so quickly and so comprehensively! What I found at Moore was a Christian community committed to the pursuit of intellectual excellence by every student, where it was assumed that the ordinary parish clergyman both should and could be conversant with the most "academic" of theological thinking. I soon realized that in this country we have been setting our sights far too low. We are locked into a downward spiral of a poor experience of theological education leading to an ever-poorer expectation of such education amongst those preparing for ministry. By contrast, the general dedication to the task of theology at Moore was extraordinary to someone like myself who is used to students taking a "minimalist" approach to study. (Indeed, if I have a criticism of the College it is that the number of hours people spend in work inhibits social interaction to a noticeable degree. Basically, very little time is spent sitting around chatting and drinking coffee - a great deal of time is spent shut in one's room reading!)

The Diploma I was doing forms the fourth year of training for Sydney ordination candidates, the other three consisting of a Bachelor of Theology degree. However, although it is a self-contained course, the Diploma builds on what has been covered in previous years. And here I had another shock, for the level of understanding amongst third-year students was far ahead of anything I have come across in this country. I was frequently embarrassed to compare the little I knew with the knowledge and breadth of reading of students in the year below me.

The Academic Challenge

Moore has a deserved reputation for being fiercely conservative in its Evangelicalism. However, it is by no means narrow in its approach. Students are encouraged to read as widely as possible and will frequently find their own favourites amongst the less-conservative authors. For my own part, I found myself reading Moltmann, Auln and feminist theologians as well as Luther, Augustine and the Puritans. I discovered the value of journals and the joy of a large library, as well as ranging in my thinking more widely than ever before. In fact, caught up in the general enthusiasm for study, I found that in the space of four terms I listed over 200 books and articles referred to in whole or in part! Yet even this did not seem to be exceptional when compared with other students.

The academic standard at Moore was also well above what I was used to from studying in the UK. All the New Testament work in the fourth year is done in Greek and students attend a residential Greek summer school before they start their first year. Fortunately for me, though my grammar is rusty, I can "busk" my way through a passage in Greek (and considerably better now after a year of using Nestlé-Aland) but it was also fortunate that the Old Testament course had an English option since my Hebrew is almost non-existent whereas most students at Moore have done at least some Hebrew classes.

Though I was constantly struck by the level of commitment to study amongst ordinary students, their enthusiasm for the Gospel and evangelism seemed to grow rather than diminish as they went through College - something which is not always true for the more academic student in the UK. Of course there were problems as well as joys. Moore is not paradise and it has its own faults and failings. But it demonstrated to me what could be achieved by a College which is committed simultaneously to academic excellence and to the Gospel.

Four Factors

"Biblical Theology"

It seems to me in retrospect that four things in particular made this possible. One is the unique "Biblical Theological" approach developed chiefly in the 1960s by the future Archbishop of Sydney, Donald Robinson (though apparently stimulated by an article written by our own Jim Packer). This now forms the basis of the teaching at Moore. We would recognize this approach more by the name of "Salvation-Historical", but it is an holistic approach to the Bible and to history which seems to be lacking in the Anglo-American theological scene. It differs from our own approach in particular in its confidence that the Bible is one book with one message. Those who are unfamiliar with this approach should at least read Gospel and Kingdom by Graeme Goldsworthy as well as the book by Bill Dumbrell mentioned earlier.

Staff Qualities

The second contributing factor is the qualities of the lecturers. Unlike in the UK, they are not recruited by general advertisement but are selected and groomed from amongst those who are felt to be promising material. Peter Jensen, the Principal (and brother to Phillip), is extremely careful about those he appoints. A man may be good in his subject and a good communicator, but if he is not completely trustworthy in his personal theology he simply does not get on the faculty. The staff chosen are not merely enthusiasts for their subjects but for the Gospel. Moreover, they are also expected to have a proven track-record in parish ministry - there is no room here for the old saying that "those who can, do; those who can't, teach". Furthermore, the staff are expected to develop academically and so there is a "rolling programme" to send junior staff abroad (often to the UK) to study for higher degrees. This may seem to us an over-complicated procedure, but the resulting quality of the staff leads to respect, accompanied by enthusiasm and a commitment to study, amongst the students.

Academic Rigour

A third factor is the insistence on academic rigour. Moore College students do not hide intellectually behind the Evangelical label. On the contrary, they are expected to engage with, and respond to, all the ideas in the theological "market-place". The result is a familiarity with non-evangelical authors and a confidence about the intellectual viability of their faith which is somewhat awe-inspiring to one like myself from a less rigorous background. Symptomatic of this is the fact that all the B.Th. teaching at Moore is done within the College. Unlike what would happen in the UK, students are not sent to the next-door Sydney University to be taught "real" theology by the secular faculty. Indeed, Moore is able to teach students to Master of Arts and Master of Theology standard and now has its own four-year Bachelor of Divinity course. All this should be set against what was written recently about the situation in the UK by our own Hugh Montefiore:-

"It is the great weakness of Anglicanism that the actual teaching of theology is confined to theological colleges where the staff, however conscientious and informed, are seldom of the calibre of university lecturers, and where theology is only one subject in a crowded syllabus. Nor do we have a monastic tradition of theology like the great Jesuit, Dominican and Benedictine orders of the Roman Catholic Church. Our British universities have been profoundly affected by the Enlightenment, with its key concepts of the supremacy of reason and the idea of emancipated autonomous individuals. In such an atmosphere it is safer to engage with ancient texts or with philosophical concepts: the very idea of divine revelation become suspect. [...] This defect in theological formation has led to a dearth of Anglican systematic theology, to its great impoverishment when compared with Roman Catholic, Lutheran and reformed traditions. It is above all necessary today that Anglicans should be able to give a rounded account of their faith. [...] Compared with [the tradition of the Scottish Universities] Anglicans often seem amateurs." ("Rigour in Theology", Church Times, 7th January 1994 p.10)

It should be emphasised, however, that Moore offers a wider variety of courses than just Degrees for ordination candidates and beyond. There are one year courses and Diplomas for people interested in going on to do missionary work or simply in extending their own theological understanding. There is an excellent "Extension Studies" Department offering self-taught courses (also available in this country) and an evening lecture-based Diploma for lay people (which Moore are hoping may eventually be established over here). Furthermore, the ordination training is not "merely academic". Although I only experienced the fourth year aspect of it, there is a continual programme of training in practical ministry, including counselling, (though I couldn't help noting that the vacation course in the latter was referred to rather disparagingly by some students as "Touchy-Feely Week"). As in many Colleges in the UK, once a year the whole of Moore empties out into local parishes for "Mission Week". But in addition, many students are involved in evangelism on the Sydney University campus or through local churches. Practical experience is also gained through the "Catechist" system whereby students are employed for a day a week in a local church. This gives them regular practise in preaching and allows them to see close-up the realities of parish life over an extended period. They get to know the rector concerned, and are regarded by the congregation as part of the staff team. In my own opinion, this placement is made more realistic by merit of being (reasonably generously) paid. As a result, the student sees himself as being part of the "real" staff and not merely along to observe.

Student Qualities

The fourth factor is the quality of the students. Many of them have a previous degree, though this is not a general requirement. (It is a requirement for the Dip. Arts course, which is why I very nearly didn't get on it!) However, the students are by no means all "high flyers". Indeed, as one used to the rather "effete" nature of English clergy, I admit to being slightly shocked by my first sight of Moore students. Ear-rings were common amongst the men, and sports were played with enthusiasm and vigour. (Watching the games of backyard cricket in the tea breaks, I began to understand exactly why we were being thrashed in the Test series while I was there.) Nor were the students all "clones" (though a substantial number of them do come through the work of Phillip Jensen and St. Matthias church). Not unnaturally, "Conservative Evangelicalism" is the order of the day, but there were many disagreements with lecturers' "cherished positions" and several students evidently saw themselves in the rôle of "college rebel".

Reflections on the UK

All this combined to revise my opinion about theological education. I saw that it was possible, with the right combination of staff and an atmosphere of intellectual commitment, to push people far beyond where they thought they could go and to enthuse them for an academic study of theology which in no way compromised their commitment to the truth of the Bible or the need for the Gospel. It also made me deeply critical about the situation in the UK, and on this I would want to make a number of points.

Slipping Standards

First, I think we have allowed our academic standards to slip. Working as a Chaplain in a "New University" (for which, read "Old Polytechnic") I am very conscious of what Allan Bloom has called "degree inflation"[1]- the phenomenon whereby last year's A-level becomes this year's Degree. We have been rightly concerned in the UK to ensure that the office of ministry is not confined to people from traditional "academic" backgrounds, but we have overlooked what people are capable of when motivated (after all, ten years ago I would hardly have believed I would find myself back in a Theological College voluntarily). Moreover, we have stopped calling a spade a spade and have accepted a gradual decline in academic standards whilst still awarding the same qualifications. My evidence for this is simply the quality of modern ordinands (as well as modern graduates from other disciplines). Whilst I was astonished by the learning of some of the people at Moore, I have been little more than slightly worried by the understanding of many students leaving our own Colleges.

Abandoned Disciplines

Second, linked to the first point, we have abandoned certain specific disciplines to our cost. We frankly never had a "Biblical Theological" framework from which to teach. Instead, we have accepted the argument that the Old Testament has to be interpreted "on its own terms" rather than Biblically in the light of the New. Thus the Old Testament remains the "great unknown" when it comes to preaching today and the Bible is taught in a piecemeal and hesitant way. But we have also abandoned Systematic Theology, Philosophy and the study of the Biblical Languages. By contrast, Moore students are required to read the whole of Calvin's Institutes before the end of their course, in addition to having lectures on Reformation theology. Furthermore, there is a commitment to teaching Philosophy from the very start of the B.Th. so that students understand the world of ideas - not only their own, but those of the past when Biblical and Christian thought was first evolving. There is also, as mentioned, an emphasis on (at times it felt like an obsession with) Greek. Students are expected to be able to engage both with the New Testament text and with Commentaries in the original language. Of course, learning languages is hard and a very small number of people find it virtually impossible. But our own tendency to make Greek "optional" has signalled a declining expectation both of what people should know and of what they are capable given the motivation.

A Fragmented Bible

Third, linked to the lack of a Biblical-theological approach, there is in our Colleges a hesistancy in treating the Bible as a whole as the whole word of God. One of the reasons for this seems to be an excessive deference to the more sceptical conclusions of an earlier generation of source critics. Yet whilst we are right to acknowledge the value of all forms of Biblical criticism (and at Moore I discovered a few I'd never even heard of) we must at some stage be willing to affirm, as a matter of faith, that the Bible we have is the Bible God intended us to have. We must be confident in affirming that behind all the sources and authors lies the one Holy Spirit directing its inspiration and the one God effecting the salvation of which is tells. One of my chief reasons for going to Moore was quite simply that time and again they made more sense of the Bible than anyone I'd heard in this country.

Education on the Cheap

Fourth, and catastrophically, we are trying to do theological education on the cheap. One of our biggest problems in the church at the moment is that we are becoming "cost driven" (in common, incidentally, with education and medicine). Of course we must be "cost conscious" - money is limited and in the end we can only have what we can pay for. But to economize on training for the ministry now is to invite disaster in the future. The commonest economy is the part-time course offered to older men and women. Yet these are the last people capable of studying effectively in this way. How many of us in ministry can cope with reading theology at the end of a working day? How many of us are studying for a part-time qualification? The sort of people who are likely to be enrolled on part-time courses are those who are already deeply involved in their own professions. They are frankly too exhausted in the evenings to study properly. And where are they going to find the library facilities, the modern journals and the variety of books essential to proper study, let alone the stimulus of lectures, seminars and other students? The result must be that academic standards are compromised. It wouldn't be so bad if we were honest and admitted these people are being rushed through to cope with a crisis. But instead euphemisms are used to describe what is happening as "training in the context in which people are to minister". The impression given is that their training is better for being done "on the hoof" rather than in a residential College - when in fact they are only half-trained intellectually and will, of course, be able only to half-teach their congregations in the future.

The Down-grading of Doctrine

Fifthly, we have lost sight of the importance of understanding our faith and its place in the world around us. We no longer place doctrine, and the imparting of it, at the heart of the pastoral ministry. Partly I do believe this is a result of the intellectual climate of the Sixties and of the Charismatic Movement. However, I have recently been looking at the Statement from the Keele Congress in 1967 and have been shocked by some of the theological weaknesses it contains.[2] We cannot blame all the problems of the present on the Charismatics! The intellectual flaws in modern English Evangelicalism have deep historical roots. Most of us have no Systematic theology worth the name, nor would we see the need to acquire one. And so Semi-Pelagianism overshadows the English Evangelical scene without a voice raised in protest[3], sacramentalism is the order of the day in our churches, our grasp on the Bible as a whole is tenuous, and the Christian book scene is dominated by the spectacular and the biographical. (Scripture Union, I am told, cannot even sell anything that looks like a Commentary any more.)

Towards the Future

As we look around, two further features should cause concern. First, there is little sign of an emerging generation of intellectually competent English Evangelicals who are going to write the Commentaries and theological works of tomorrow. This should be ringing alarm bells about the present levels of training, as well as our current attitudes towards theology. Second, the centre of academic excellence is still perceived to be properly in the Universities, not in the Theological Colleges. (Indeed, the hope of modern reports seems to be that the Universities will do the real work of theological training for us, with the Colleges merely adding the "finishing touches' required to produce clergy.) Increasingly, it is only the "high flyers" who will be thoroughly trained academically. The average minister will receive enough to satisfy a minimal standard and then rushed into parish work where he will be little more than a "Mass priest" - albeit an evangelical one. No wonder if some of our future preachers will be better off reading from the Book of Homilies than writing their own sermons!

It is, of course, encouraging to see a number of Evangelical initiatives taking place but they are not enough. At St. Helen's Bishopsgate, the Cornhill scheme for example will produce better preachers, but it is hardly likely in itself (and is not, I believe, designed) to revitalize Evangelical intellectualism in the long term. Evangelical thinking has become like English cricket - it needs a complete overhaul which will take several years before we can field a decent team again. We need, first, to grasp the idea that a Theological College can and should be the intellectual power house for a re-energized Evangelicalism. Secondly, we need to see that the production of Evangelical ministers requires an Evangelical training within an Evangelical context. It is one thing to explore the deep waters of theological speculation, as Moore College students do, after receiving due training. It is quite another to be thrown in at the deep end and expected to sink or swim. If Evangelical ministers are trained by non-evangelicals they will either learn nothing or they will learn what they are being taught - namely liberalism! Either way is disastrous. Thirdly, we need to start planning to produce Evangelical theologians of a higher calibre year by year. This requires selection and encouragement at an early stage and a stable environment in which they can develop.

If we do nothing then the future will simply hold more of the same. We will continue to see a decline in intellectual standards amongst English Evangelicals. Since each generation will know less than the generation preceding, the result will be self-delusion, fooling ourselves into believing that we understand the word of God when we have really scarcely scratched the surface. Evangelicalism will continue to live in the shadow of Liberal scholarship. (Indeed, it is surely no coincidence that the word "scholarship" is currently synonymous with "Liberalism".) At the same time, Evangelicals who discover the academic enterprise will continue the frequent slide into Liberalism. Meanwhile, there will be ever more confusion in our churches. Already it is astonishing how many young Christians are "blown about by every wind of doctrine". Whether it is demonology or Arminianism, doctrinal confusions are rife.

It is said that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". In the case of Evangelicalism in this country this is certainly proving to be the case. It is time we woke up to what is happening, but in an atmosphere of general decline in academic standards and disappointment with the theological enterprise it is hard for us to do this unless we step outside our own context. The Church of England.was founded on an intellectual basis. Its reform depends on that basis being reestablished and the key to that is our theological training. The late Canon Harry Sutton said that we should "fight to the death" for one decent Theological College. The time to start the fight is surely now!

Notes

  1. A. Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education has failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987)
  2. P. Crowe (Ed) Keele '67: The National Evangelical Anglican Congress Statement (London: Falcon Books, 1967) For example, our "Response" to the Gospel (Section 11) includes the statement that "not all men accept [God's] grace". This passes without comment on the possibility of "irresistible grace" whereas on the "gifts of the Spirit" it is stated, "we have no united opinion" (Section 14). Other weaknesses include an incipient sacramentalism (Section 65), a confused ecclesiology (passim) and a tendency to smuggle in an agenda of social reform alongside evangelism (Section 38)
  3. Roger Forster, for example, is an avowed anti-Augustinian and anti-Calvinist who rejects the concept of "original sin".

John Richardson, 1993