dissertation

231
vative evangelical seminaries, therefore, often is that of a schooling culture, which rewards
the solitary, often competitive learner. This culture risks – so to speak – imparting
a sense of “justification by religious knowledge.” 25 by overestimating the importance
of knowledge and cognitive approaches, When the modus operandi of a seminary is
based closely on a schooling paradigm, furthermore, students are inculcated with the
perception that “schooling values and principles are the key ways for the learning of
ministry, and the shaping of ministers.” 26 It is therefore likely that they will adopt it as
the “normative model for their own educating role in the church or organization.” 27
This is one reason why administrators are encouraged to map their own school cultures,
at least informally, to see if they are in line with the mission and vision of the school,
emphasize their good features, and attempt to minimize harmful ones. 28
9.2.2.1 Community
The culture of a theological school is closely related to the topic of community. This expression
partly suggests something about the desired quality of the relationships between
participants – such as accepting, altruistic, cooperative, and informal 29 – but
more is involved. Ideally, community in theological education expresses itself in “generosity
and sharing, friendship and belonging, mission and identity, freedom and risk-taking, passion
and partnership.” 30
As far back as 1965, the difference between preparing for a career and laying the
foundations for ministry was recognized. “Career-building is essentially self-centered
and disjunctive. The work of the ministry is outgoing and conjunctive. One can thrive
on individual effort; the other requires community.” 31 Several proposals for enhancing
community and providing an holistic form of education have been put forward. For
example, features of an Indian Ashram could be copied, which offers comprehensive
community living, creates a spiritual environment, provides a holistic curriculum, values
flexibility, and encourages self-evaluation. 32
25
See for this expression Paul W. Hoon, “Report of the Task Force on Spiritual Development,” Theological
Education 9, no. 1 (Autumn 1992), 42.
26
Allan G. Harkness, “De-schooling the Theological Seminary: An Appropriate Paradigm for Effective Ministerial
Formation,” Teaching Theology and Religion 4, no. 3 (2001), 145.
27
Ibid., 146.
28
Carroll et al., Being There, 271.
29
Thomas J. Sergiovanni, “Organizations or Communities? Changing the Metaphor Changes the Theory,”
Educational Administration Quarterly 30, no. 2 (May 1994), 214-226.
30
M. Riddell, as quoted in Harkness, “De-schooling the Theological Seminary,” 150.
31
Ernest T. Campbell, “The Formation of Ministers for the Late 20 th Century: Community on Campus,”
Theological Education 2, no. 1 (Autumn 1965), 6. (The theme of the Autumn 1965 issue of TE was “The
Theological School as Community.”) In 1990, the International Council of Accrediting Agencies for evangelical
theological education identified one of the most significant challenges of evangelical seminaries as
the need to build a great sense of community on their campuses. See Gordon Johnston, “Old Testament
Community and Spiritual Formation,” in Paul Petit, ed., Foundations of Spiritual Formation: A Community Approach
to Becoming Like Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2008), 86 and the sources mentioned there.
32
Kraig Klaudt, “The Ashram as a Model for Theological Education,” Theological Education 34, no. 1 (Autumn
1997), 34 and passim.