dissertation

229
goes on in the school.” 7 Forty years later, the importance of formulating a clear purpose,
or mission was again voiced. 8 Mission statements, in Michael Jinkins’ estimation, “can
provide an indispensable focus of a school’s purpose that can help its leadership avoid
‘mission creep,’ the perennial temptation to abandon the essential for the sake of the
important.” 9 An additional reason for asking about the purpose of theological education
is the insight that, currently, the cultural “pace of change is so rapid that schools run
the danger of preparing students for a ministry that no longer meets the needs of the
church.” 10 Due to these circumstances, “possibly the biggest issue facing theological
schools is the question of their own mission,” according to Timothy Weber. “To use the
language of the marketplace: what business are theological schools in?” 11
As to the suggested content of the purpose of theological education, Weber wishes that
traditional theological education would act with determination and innovative vision to
enable ministers of the future to “know how to move beyond the mindset and practices
of ‘Christendom’ in order to think and act like cross-cultural missionaries.” 12 Weber’s
assessment concurs with that of other authoritative commentators. 13 The South-African
theologian Desmond P. van der Water, for instance, thinks that the purpose of theological
education should be “the preparation of persons who engage themselves and who
enable others to be engaged in the missio Dei.” 14 And Michael Herbst observes from his
German context that “students are trained to be scholars but they have to act as leaders
and managers in their churches” and that they “are trained for Christendom but they
have to develop a life in a mission context.” 15 The goal of theological education, in his
7
Editorial Introduction, “The Role of Purpose,” Theological Education 2, no. 2 (Winter 1966), 61-62.
8
It has been noted, for example, that “the rationale of theological education in the Church of England has
never been made fully explicit.” It is therefore likely that “the academic paradigm has been adopted by
default, by university-educated church leaders who assumed that this was the only possible or desirable
approach.” Gary Wilton, “From ACCM22 to Hind via Athens and Berlin: A Critical Analysis of Key Documents
Shaping Contemporary Church of England Theological Education with Reference to the Work of
David Kelsey,” Journal of Adult Theological Education 4, no. 1 (2007), 43.
9
Michael Jinkins, “Mission Possible: Making Use of the School’s Mission Statement in Curriculum Review,”
Theological Education 43, no. 1 (2007), 18.
10
Faith E. Rohrbough and Laura Mendenhall, “Recommendations of the Task Force of the Theological
Schools and the Church Project,” Theological Education 44, no. 1 (2008), 94.
11
Timothy Weber, “The Seminaries and the Churches: Looking for New Relationships,” Theological Education
44, no. 1 (2008), 85.
12
Weber, “The Seminaries and the Churches,” 85.
13
See also the contributions on the website “The Future of Theological Education”, http://thefutureoftheologicaleducation.com/,
and those on the website of the World Council of Churches, http://www.oikoumene.
Org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/education-and-ecumenicalformation/ecumenical-theological
education-ete/edinburgh-2010-international-study-group-on-theological-education.html (both last accessed
December 17, 2011).
14
Desmond P. van der Water, “Transforming Theological Education and Ministerial Formation,” International
Review of Mission 94, no. 373 (April 2005), 208. The author refers to C. Duraisingh, “Ministerial Formation
for Mission: Implications for Theological Education,” International Review of Mission 81, no. 321 (January
1992), 38.
15
Michael Herbst, “Evangelism in Theological Education,” International Review of Mission 96, nos. 382 and
383 (July/October 2007), 267-268.