A discussion document on the essential elements of good training for the Ministry


As the title says, this is a document that discusses what I believe to be essential and necessary elements for training ministers for service and significance.

Here is a document that I started writing some weeks ago. It documents my thoughts on the necessary, and essential, elements in good Theological Education for ministry. It is fairly easy reading. The first section of the document deals with some of the changes and challenges that arise from shifts in South African Educational Policy. The second section of the document outlines some of the philosophical elements of training for ministry that I value, and have observed, within training for the ministry in the Methodist Church of Southern Africa.

The Document is in MS Word format. Please feel free to pass on comments, suggestions and questions.

Understanding training 18 July 2004.doc



Understanding training for the Ministry of Word and Sacrament in the Methodist Church of Southern Africa

By
Rev Dion Forster (Dean of Students, John Wesley College)


1. The reason for writing this paper.

2. What are the desired, and perceived, outcomes that our training aims to achieve?

1. The reason for writing this paper.

Theological Education in Southern Africa is undergoing some massive, and for many, unsettling, changes. As I write this introduction in June 2004 many colleges, seminaries and private Theological training institutions face a great deal of uncertainty about their future.

I must preface this document with a clear disclaimer. Firstly, this document is in no way an official document, either of the bodies that I am attached to (the Methodist Church of Southern Africa, John Wesley College, the Joint Board for Theology, or the Theology and Ministry Standards Generating Body). Secondly, I am in no way an expert either in Education or Theology. I am first and foremost a Minister of the Gospel who has a passion for forming and equipping people to be able to exercise a ministry of love and grace in the real world. I am still learning many things about ministry and education. The thoughts below are my own feelings, understandings, and perceptions of the crisis and opportunities that we face in Theological Education in South Africa. I’m sure that more skilled and qualified persons would be able to do a much better job at a document of this nature than I am able to do. I hope that any mistakes and inaccuracies in this document will be corrected by others, and that this humble submission would merely form a basis from which thought and discussion could take place.

It is my hope that the pages that follow will provide some insight into both the methods, and the underlying rationale, for the current system of training and formation for ministry in the Methodist Church of Southern Africa. The Church, and its educational arm, the Education for Ministry and Mission Unit (EMMU), have many excellent documents that outline both the processes and necessary elements of each phase or training. I would encourage any serious enquirer to make contact with the Unit directly to get copies of such documents, or to discuss the policies and procedures related to training for the ministry. I personally welcome any and all suggestions that could lead to a refinement of these thoughts, and more particularly any insights that could enhance the process of forming people to service Christ in the world.

The structure of this document is fairly simple. I will begin with some explanation of the bodies that regulate and generate Theological Qualifications in South Africa. Then I will point the discussion a little more and examine some of the pertinent philosophical precepts and underpin training for the Ordained Ministry in the Methodist Church of Southern Africa. It was my hope to complete this document with a descriptive section which outlines the purpose and desired outcomes of each of the three Phases of training for Ordained Ministry in the Methodist Church of Southern Africa. However, I was unable to find the necessary time to complete this task adequately and so removed those early drafts from this version of the document. I felt it was far more important to circulate some form of rationale for competency based training than to hold back on releasing this document until the description of the three Phase training system had been documented. I do intend to add this last section at a later stage.

In the section that follows I discuss what I perceive to be two of the major challenges that Theological Education and Theological Educators currently face.

I have deliberately chosen to use the word challenge since I believe that it expresses quite clearly the point that these two issues contain both the notion of threat and possibility. Isn’t it often the case that great threats produce great opportunities? In the midst of struggle and searching there is always the possibility of growth and refinement. I do pray that the two challenges that I identify below will lead to just such a refinement, a bettering of Theological education and training for ministry.

Let me move onto a discussion of the first of these challenges.

a. Government policy, the South African Qualifications framework, National Standards Bodies, Standards Generating Bodies, and private Theological Education providers.


The primary reason for the abovementioned uncertainty among independent Theological Educators is the change in the South African government’s policies on education. In short, government decided that all educational providers should seek registration and that the educational programmes providers offer should be registered on a matrix with the National Qualifications Framework.

Thus, if an educational provider, such as the Methodist Church of Southern Africa’s (MCSA) seminary, John Wesley College (JWC), does not get registered as an educational provider, and have it’s programme registered, it will not be allowed to legally continue teaching and forming people for ministry. Note that I use the term legally. Of course the Church could continue to form people for ministry. However, it cannot purport to offer any form of qualification and the institution of learning with not be regarded as having any legal status as an educational provider.

The process of becoming registered and having one’s programme recognised is a rather intricate and involved process. There are two forms of registration that are required.

• A registration with the Department of Education. In essence this process requires that the College, or seminary, be assessed in order to establish whether it’s facilities (class rooms, library, computer rooms), staff (both academic and support, i.e. administrative control as well as academic competency and qualifications) and method of training is up to the Government’s required standards for the level at which the college wishes to teach.
• A registration with the Council for Higher Education. This registration is the one in which the provider registers the educational programmes that it will teach, or facilitate, in the institution (e.g. a level 6, 360 credit degree or some such qualification).

In order to manage the process of regulating, and registering, qualifications and institutions, Government has established a body called SAQA (the South African Qualifications Authority). SAQA is the body that is tasked with designing and regulating all qualifications that will be recognised in South Africa. The actual work is controlled by a body called the NSB (National Standards Body). The NSB receives, critiques, and finally passes on qualifications to SAQA. The NSB has a number of Standards Generating Bodies (SGB’s) which, as the names suggests, is the actual body that generates the qualifications that will be passed on to the NSB.

Theology and Ministry falls into NSB 7 and has a SGB that is tasked exclusively with designing and critiquing Theological and Ministry based qualifications. The SGB has the task of drafting a number of Generic Qualifications (a certificate, diploma, bachelors degree and so forth). These generic qualifications spell out the Exit Level Outcomes that a candidate will have to achieve in order to be awarded the qualification. The ELO’s are effectively a list of competencies in the area of knowledge, skill, and values that will have to be achieved in order for one to be found competent for the qualification. This makes sense. Once you achieve the outcome (i.e. once you are competent to know, do and appropriately apply something) you can be awarded some form of certification to state and prove that you have been assessed and found competent in that particular area (or the particular areas in the case of whole qualification).

Educational providers can then take a generic qualification (for example a Level 6, 360 credit degree that has already been designed and accepted) and design a ‘programme’ that learners would follow in order to achieve the ELO’s (please see the proposed Bachelor of Theology qualification, and it’s ELO’s, as an example of a generic qualification). Once the educational provider has designed a programme to suit their training needs, the provider will send it to be registered and placed on the SAQA qualifications grid within the National Qualifications Framework.

A separate registration that will need to take place is the registration of the educational or training provider. The reasoning behind this separate registration has to do with control of standards. In order to maintain acceptable standards throughout education providing institutions, government would need to establish whether the educational provider which wishes to provide a programme is capable of facilitating the learning and growth that is necessary to achieve the ELO’s of the desired qualification. For example, it would not be possible for a college to offer a course in microbiology if it had no suitable laboratories, or suitably trained microbiologists. Thus, an educational provider, in the Theological field, would need to be able to show that it has adequate teaching facilities (if the institution is a full time, in attendance, college). Of equal importance is the presence of a well stocked Theological Library (since a large proportion of Theological learning comes in the form of ideas and concepts that are communicated through written works) and suitably trained staff to facilitate and manage the learning programme. It is fairly easy for the site visitors to check whether the library and buildings are suitable for learning. The manner in which staff members are assessed is fairly consistent with how it has been done in the past. Firstly, staff must possess appropriate academic qualifications (preferably senior degrees, such as Master’s or Doctoral degrees, in the areas in which they will be teaching). Secondly, it seems to be quite important that the staff show that they are actively engaged in research, in which case proof of staff publications would be an essential component.

Thus, if an institution can show that it is capable of facilitating the learning necessary to achieve the competencies that are required for the qualification it wishes to offer, it is a long way down the road towards being able to offer that qualification. I do believe that there are other components that may be required before the registration is finalised (such as showing financial viability, registration as a legal personage or entity (e.g. a Section 21 company – which is going to prove a very difficult task for most Church based institutions)).

Taking the above into account one could understand why many colleges are feeling quite insecure about their ability to qualify to offer the qualifications that their churches may require.

The capacity that is necessary for a college to complete the registration process is quite sizeable. I doubt that a college that only has part time staff will have the means to complete such a registration without employing the services of an expert in such matters. We have a number of full time staff in our institution, and we have found it quite a daunting task to gather all of the information required for the two forms of registration.

Of course, Universities are having to undergo similar processes of transformation in order to match their facilities, programmes and staff to the new requirements set in place by the South African Government. They too have expressed some uncertainty, mainly to do with the regulation of programmes that will be offered and the manner in which standards will be maintained. I also imagine that Universities may be concerned that a plethora of institutions will soon be allowed to offer Diplomas and Degrees, which in the past only Universities where able to offer. No doubt the future of many University Theological Faculties and Departments will be of grave concern to them as their educational ‘market’, for lack of a better term, is encroached upon by a number of private and specialised Theological institutions. Both fears are fairly well founded. I do see standards maintenance being a huge task, which Government has not thought through completely yet. It will require an army of regulators to police and maintain standards in the many educational institutions that will be registered across the country. Secondly, I do not doubt that private, specialised, Theological institutions, which are far more flexible and able to adapt to the needs of particular denomination or a particular societal need, will impact significantly on the scope of Theological Education providers.

b. A lack of understanding, among Church leaders and decision makers, of the changing landscape of Theological Education and Government Educational policy.

From the one side educational institutions and educators face a threat from Government policy, which I believe is well intended, but still requires some amendment and tightening up. The second challenge that I feel educational institutions, such as ours, face is a challenge that comes from within the Church. It is not a unique challenge. As I listen to independent educational institutions in many other fields I hear many similar fears and complaints.

I call institutions such as ours ‘independent’, in the sense that we were initiated by independent interest groups, such as Churches, denominations and likeminded Theological groupings. This is a great blessing, since it allows us to stylise and develop programmes that will meet the particular requirements and needs of our Churches and denominations. That is the blessing. However, there is also a threat.

Since we were birthed and initiated by bodies that are larger and more powerful than ourselves we are often at the mercy of their decisions. I have no doubt that Bishops, Councils and Executive committees have the sincere interests of their Churches or Denominations at heart. Of course, they have a much larger concern than just education. Training forms just one part, I would say a very crucial part, of the overall task of the Church. The problem is though, that many of the persons who make decisions are no longer at the cutting edge of training and education. My experience is that often people in power seek to recreate the blessings and joys of their own educational experiences whilst trying to avoid and legislate against the things that caused them frustration and hurt. I do this all the time. Sometimes knowingly, at other times sub consciously.

Since the educational landscape in South Africa is changing at such a rapid rate, and there is such a great deal of insecurity, it would be natural for a strong leader (or leadership group) to reach for the familiar. The challenge is that most of our leaders (as with most of our educators) were educated within a very different theological and educational paradigm.

My own training was very content based. I went to University for a few years, gained as much knowledge and insight as was possible, which was meant to prepare me for the task of ministry. At the end of the day when I left University I had a very impressive body of knowledge. One could say that I was very ‘knowledgeable’, however, because the knowledge had been acquired apart from skill, and acquired in a very different context from the one in which I would minister, it took me a long time to acquire the necessary skills to compliment my large body of knowledge.

As I now come to teach, I realise that knowledge, for a Minister of Religion, is not worth much if it cannot translate into competency for ministry. I ask myself daily, what would I rather have, highly knowledgeable students, or very competent ministers? I personally believe that God would much rather have many people who are able to transform society and communities, than hordes of people who can only understand the underlying causes and motivators of struggle and brokenness.

I understand that many criticise competency based methods of Theological training as lacking any significant knowledge and values based component. I agree to an extent, that any qualification that does not offer sufficient information and knowledge to facilitate a critical appraisal of values and development of necessary skills is a wasted qualification! However, I do feel that many such commentators do not fully understand either the ethos or method of learning that is involved in achieving necessary competency (in the areas of knowledge, skill and values).

A second significant critique that I hear from senior leaders in churches regarding competency based qualifications is that they produce practitioners rather than thinkers, and that as society changes (which is happening with ever increasing frequency) practitioners are not adequately equipped with knowledge that will enable them to adjust and amend their skills. As such one either has to completely retrain the skills base of the practitioners in order to cope with the new context, or facilitate the acquiring of a knowledge base that will allow such persons to make independent, self directed, changes and amendments to their skills in future. Once again, this is a valid criticism, to a point. Of course any institution that puts all its eggs in one skills based basket will soon find that it needs to encourage some persons to develop their knowledge and content base in order to further develop the boundaries of ministry and theology. I believe that, as with the previous criticism, this criticism is based, to some extent, on a poor understanding of both the paradigm and ethos of competency based education. Firstly, the competency based qualifications that we are currently developing (both as institutions and within the SGB) have to meet the same Exit Level Outcomes as any other qualification at the same level. Colleges and Seminaries will have to ensure that they have ability to facilitate the acquisition of the necessary content in order for them award the qualification. On the other hand, Universities, will have to facilitate some skills development within their qualifications in order to award the same Exit Level Outcomes in the Generic SAQA qualifications.

Someone once said to me, “the problem with how we train our ministers now is that we are training a lot of mechanics. They can fix cars and do a good job at it. But, do we still want to be driving the same cars in 20 years time? Surely we should also be training some Engineers who will completely redesign the car from time to time as it needs it?” I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. We do need some ‘engineers’, some people who are able to go further in their studies and do ground breaking research so that the work of ministry and the content of theology remains up to date. However, the assumption that one cannot do this from the basis of a competency based qualification is simply not true! In my opinion the best Engineer is the person who understands how what she or he is designing operates. What could be better than having a person who understands the practical constraints and struggles of ministry working on groundbreaking concepts and theories to enrich thought and action in Christian life? The second thing that needs to be kept in mind is that both Seminaries and Universities will be working from the same generic qualification designs. Also, for a qualification to be recognised it needs to be able to articulate (the fancy SAQA word meaning to move from one qualification to another) to higher qualifications. For example, a Bachelor of Theology Degree from John Wesley College has to be able to move into an Honours Degree in Theology at any other University, otherwise it will not be recognised as a programme of the generic qualification that SAQA recognises.

So, in short, I do believe that some of the struggle and criticism that I hear from some senior leaders in varying Churches and Denominations, with regard to competency based Theological Education, is not all that well founded. To some extent these leaders make ill informed decisions (based at times on their own experiences of training and education, and at other times on the ill informed decisions that they gain from persons who move in their circles of influence who may not be as up to date on current educational and theological paradigms). My request would simply be, as our leaders make the decisions about institutions and programmes, which is their responsibility to do, that they draw input and advise from as wide a group as possible. At the end of the day, I do believe that most Bishops would rather have good ministers, who are able to do the work of the Gospel in Churches, than just knowledgeable academics who lack the skills and contextual training to perform the real tasks of ministry. From among that group of well trained, sufficiently knowledgeable, ministers with competency based education, some persons will emerge who can use their qualification to ‘articulate’ to more advanced study and research that will enrich the Church and further the development of creative and groundbreaking ministry. Perhaps the two most notable examples of such articulation in the MCSA of late are Rev Dr Leon Klein (who went on to complete a Doctorate at the University of Pretoria after graduating from John Wesley College with a Diploma in Theology) and Rev Phidian Matsepe who is currently completing a Doctorate in Old Testament through the University of Natal.

2. What are the desired, and perceived, outcomes that our training aims to achieve?

In this section I aim to clarify how the elements of our training (that is, training for Ministry in the Methodist Church of Southern Africa) match some of the stated and perceived requirements of the Church.

It is my hope that when I get to writing the sections that follow this section I will go into some detail on the outcomes and methods for each stage of the three phase training process that make up the training for ministry in the Methodist Church of Southern Africa. Thus, I hope not to go into too much explicit detail in this section. Rather, I want to discuss some of the more important philosophical notions that underpin theological education in the MCSA.

In my opinion the most significant difference between the way in which ministers have been trained over the last 10 years compared to previous years has to do with the balance between content and skills development in the training process.

a. A brief synopsis of how training was conducted in the past, and the developments that lead to the current form of training.

Traditionally training for ministry in the MCSA has had two very clear components.

The first has been some form of Academic Theological qualification. Over the years the MCSA has chosen a number of institutions to do this. These have included Universities such as University of Southern Africa, Rhodes University, University of Natal PMB and most recently University of Pretoria, and overseas institutions like Queens College University of Birmingham, Wesley House, Cambridge, Duke University Divinity School and others with whom we have had official relationships. Many learners have completed both undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications at these Universities and others (such as Fort Hare, Potchefstroom, Vista, and a myriad of international institutions). Then there are a whole score of learners who have received their theological qualifications from such prestigious institutions as the Federal Theological Seminary and of course John Wesley College (I had to add the word prestigious in the same sentence as our college, since this is how I feel about it!)

In my understanding of almost all of the curricula of the abovementioned academic institutions, the emphasis has been heavily weighted towards theological content. This has had the wonderful outcome of producing very many well informed and theologically competent ministers, many of whom have gone on to have formidable careers in the Academy.

The second component of training was some form of vocational formation, or practical skills development, and training. As far as I can establish there has been a longstanding recognition that the work of ministry requires more than just a good theological qualification. In addition to such a qualification persons need to gain certain skills and competencies in order to perform the task of a minister within the church and society. Thus, the Church required that some period of time be spent before, or after, the academic training in a process of in service training. This in service training has taken on many different forms, almost always being done in a Church, and always under some form of supervision by a group or person in ministry.

It was soon recognised just how important this second component of training was to the formation and preparation of persons for the work of ministry. Hence, more and more refined and developed models of in service training and supervision began to appear as part of the training process leading up to ordination.

This recognition was an important factor in informing the development of an independent seminary, after 1994, that would marry theological learning with practical learning in a managed and intentional manner. A further factor that lead the Church to sending more and more people to seminaries, such as ours, is the fact that the Church is able to directly feed into the curriculum of the programmes being taught, and have a good measure of control over how people are trained for ministry. Lastly, I am lead to believe that the cost of a full time residential training, at a University, was prohibitive to preparing large numbers of people to meet the growing missional needs of the Church. Since the Church controls the seminary, it can decide who comes to seminary, at what stage of their training they come, and how long they remain at the seminary before going to a Church. University Theology departments and faculties, which are mostly at the mercy of higher bodies such as senates, do not have this same flexibility and most often require attendance for a number of years in a row which could be less cost effective than having a person do a portion of their training in residence (where the person is fully funded) and a portion of their training in a Church (where the Church in which they serve covers most of the person, or family’s, living costs).

Of course I realise that the shift towards the current form of training was a far more complex and involved process than the simplistic synopsis I have provided above. However, in my opinion, as with most decisions in the Church, there was both an ideological and a practical component that informed this shift. In terms of ideology we wanted people trained in the way that the Church needed, with particular skills and knowledge to match our needs and desires. In terms of practise, we need people to staff our Churches, and couldn’t necessarily afford to have every person in training spend years at a University where all of the expenses of their training and living would have to be funded by the denomination.

b. The most important philosophical principles that underpin the current training system in the MCSA.

My understanding, as mentioned above, is that some years ago it was recognised that in order to grow the work of the Church and achieve the missional aims it had in transforming individuals and communities, the Church needed to training highly skilled and effective ministers. In order to achieve this the shape that ministerial training would have to take would need to be intentionally shaped with a bias towards formation for ministry.

As I think about the philosophical principles that underpin the current three phase training process I can identify three major areas in which formation takes place. I will attempt to discuss each one separately, and in brief.

i. Knowledge.

I will start with knowledge as the first component in this discussion, not because it has any greater importance than the other two components, but simply because it is an aspect of learning that is familiar to most.

Knowledge is that part of the learning that facilitates the acquisition of, and grappling with, information and concepts. Simplistically, knowledge can be defined as something that is known by a person. There are two basic types of knowledge, simple and complex knowledge. Simple knowledge is most often based upon experience, whereas complex knowledge requires a more rigorous interrogation of abstract and complex theoretical concepts leading to the formation of an acceptable statement or belief.

Let me use an example to differentiate between simple and complex knowledge. I could quite easily describe what an aeroplane looks like. I have seen one, in fact I have even had the good fortune to fly in one. This experience gives me some simple understanding of an aeroplane, what it looks like, what it sounds like, and what it does. However, if I were asked to explain how an object of the size weight and sound of an aeroplane manages to remain airborne, it would require a much higher level of knowledge to adequately answer the question. The complexities of aerodynamics, in relation to the earth’s gravitational pull, require a much higher level of cognitive ability than just recalling a picture or experience of an aeroplane from my memory. I would have to be able to conceptualise things that I may not necessary have seen, such as gravity, in relation to things that I may not have fully understood, the upward thrust of a wing as it moves through static air. Such knowledge is complex. It is fairly unlikely that knowledge of this sort could be attained simply by experience, since some of the elements of this type of knowledge are not perceivable through the human senses. Its acquisition would require exposure to concepts and principles that are abstract in nature. In my own experience I have found that such acquisition is best brokered through insights the insights of others (received both from people themselves and other from sources that communicate their insights and discoveries in an accessible manner. These sources include things such as text, audio and video presentations).

In Theology the complex knowledge component spans across all of the disciplines (Biblical Studies, Theology, History, Pastoral Theology etc.). In fact the traditional classification of the disciplines has been along content, or knowledge of content, based lines. For example, if one were communicating historical facts about the Church or the Christian faith one would be said to be doing History of Christianity. If one were gaining complex knowledge about the Bible one would be doing Biblical Studies.

The critical question however, is this: for what reason does one acquire such knowledge?

This question is critical since it will determine not only what knowledge is necessarily required, but also how much is required to meet the stated aim effectively. For example, if I were needing to prepare a Sunday school lesson on the feeding of the five thousand (Matthew 14:15-21) it would be necessary to gain sufficient knowledge in a variety of areas in order to have an engaging and worthwhile lesson to connect with the class.

Traditionally, if one were to ask “What area of training should a person turn to in order to prepare such a lesson?” The answer may come back “Biblical Studies”, or perhaps more pointedly “the New Testament”, or even more precisely “the Gospel of Matthew”. These answers are all partly true. But, as is the case with knowledge based learning, one often gains knowledge that makes one knowledgeable, but the knowledge is not useful for the completion of the required task. As a minister I would not expect my Sunday School teacher to know too much about hermeneutics, the synoptic problem, New Testament ecclesiology, stereotyped summary transitions between discourse material and narrative in Matthew, and a host of other facts that are pertinent to a thorough study of Matthew’s Gospel within the context of a study of the New Testament in Biblical Studies. No, I would rather have my teacher gain more pertinent knowledge, like, what types of learning the age group in that particular class would best respond to (developmentally), what social, spiritual and psychological issues that age group are facing, what the children’s home context is like, how the Church can best facilitate their growth in maturity and faith development through the use of appropriate methods of learning. Very little of this knowledge is related to Biblical Studies, in fact, the Biblical aspect would be just one component of the acquisition of knowledge that is necessary to fully engage the young people in order to affect significant and meaningful transformation.

However, if one would want to teach a New Testament 2 class at University Level one would need to gain different appropriate complex knowledge in order to facilitate a meaningful and useful class at that level.

The point that I wish to make is this, the value of a body of knowledge is not measured solely by its complexity, as has often been the tool of measurement in the past, rather it derives its value from its appropriateness to a particular context or task. Let me make one last illustration, simpler than above, to articulate this point.

As I pointed out, the critical question is: for what reason does one acquire knowledge?

If you were to meet an aunt flying in from another country, which person would you rather take with you to help you in this task? Would you take a person with fairly simple, but appropriate knowledge to the task, i.e. someone who knows where the airport is (not a highly abstract conceptual issue) and a person who is a cousin that knows what your aunt looks like? Or, would you rather take a person who has a Doctorate in aeronautics and cartography (highly abstract conceptual knowledge)? The one person will be able to help you complete your task with ease. The other person may be fascinating and well informed, but is not likely to help you complete your task with ease.

Thus, I would present that knowledge, simply for the sake of knowing, can be a stimulating and selfish pursuit. It can even be entertaining and awe inspiring to others. However, most of us would agree that knowledge on its own, without any real reason for knowing, any purpose for understanding, is worth a lot less than knowledge which is appropriate and facilitates actual processes.

In this regard I believe that all training in the MCSA should be scrutinised asking the critical question I proposed earlier. For what reason do we want our learners, or those preparing for ordained ministry, to gain knowledge? If we can answer that question honestly we may find that the best type of training to offer is a form of training that will both facilitate the acquisition of necessary knowledge (the question of how much should they learn) and appropriate knowledge (what should they learn). Furthermore, since we don’t have the luxury of unending funding to facilitate the acquisition of appropriate knowledge, it is not only good, but in fact proper (good stewardship), to ensure that we honestly answer this question in order to train our people well with the resources we have available for that task.

In my experience, knowledge is a fairly accessible commodity. Most of what I know, except for those few private and personal things, is recorded somewhere, in books, on the internet, in the lives of others etc. With a little bit of work one can find out quite a bit of information about most things. The age of ‘learned people’ is quickly drawing to a close. Knowledge is no longer centralised in the minds of a few people, through technologies such as computers, telephones, and even televisions, knowledge is much closer to hand. Of course one just needs to know where and how to get it! This leads to the next important philosophical element in the educational paradigm that we currently have in the MCSA – the issue of skill.

Before moving on to that element let me briefly sketch how knowledge acquisition is facilitated as part of the training process in the MCSA. Once again, just to mention that in the section on the three phases of training I hope to write soon, I will discuss these concepts in much greater depth. At this stage, however, I need only mention some brief examples of how persons preparing for ordination gather bodies of knowledge that aid them in becoming competent for ministry.

Of course our training regime has some of the traditional means of knowledge acquisition. These include residential and distance learning with elements such as lectures, seminars, reading assignments, group work, self study, guided and independent research, contextual exposure and a host of other activities. The current expectation is that a person needs to have completed at least a Diploma in Theology through a college or seminary affiliated to the Joint Board for the Diploma in Theology, or some equivalent to it. The current Diploma is a level 5, 300 credit diploma that is subject based, including the 4 wide ranges of knowledge mentioned earlier (Biblical, Doctrinal, Pastoral and Historical).

In every instance the course lecturers, or facilitators, are required to match knowledge acquisition to the needs of training people who are competent for the work of ministry. Hence, curricula and syllabi are tempered with the overarching question of what knowledge is necessary, and how much is necessary, to train competent, well informed, ministers for the Church. Thus, I would suggest that the knowledge which is acquired by our learners is valuable, not because it makes them knowledgeable, but because it empowers them to be able to minister.

ii. Skill.

As mentioned above, the next critical element of the learning philosophy that underpins training for the ordained ministry in the MCSA is skill. If knowledge asks the question of appropriate knowledge, i.e. “what should a person know in order to be a good minister?” then, skill asks the question “what should a person be able to do in order to be a good minister?”

The issue of skills acquisition is once again linked to the appropriateness of particular skills in relation to the tasks that need performing. Up to this point I have been emphasising, perhaps overemphasising, that a person needs more than just knowledge to be a good minister. If one is able to express correct knowledge through tangible and fitting action, one is a long way down the road toward competency.

Let me illustrate the above point by drawing a comparison in a relationship. In terms of simple knowledge, I know what my wife looks like. Through a more complex and abstract process I have come to understand that she likes to receive flowers as a gift. This is complex knowledge (just to reinforce the point, and get myself into trouble with my wife for writing this) since it is not a simple task to understand why giving her a biological organism, (that flourishes and grows best in soil, and dies far more quickly when removed from that environment) gives her such joy. The complexity of the task is that I have come to understand that it is not the flowers that bring her joy, but the depth of the emotion that prompts me to give her flowers that brings her joy. I love her and care for her, so I am prompted to express that emotion in a creative manner, the chosen manner is to use the socially acceptable gift of flowers. She sees flowers (a simple knowledge process) but can see beyond the flowers to my intention in expressing my love and care for her (complex knowledge). Thus, it is the act of giving the flowers that is worthwhile here, not the flowers themselves.

Now, let’s move on to linking this with the concept of skill. Just think for a moment, if I were to give the same flowers to one of my male students it would have a profoundly different effect to giving them to my wife. So, I have appropriate knowledge. I know who my wife is (simple knowledge) and know how to elicit a loving emotion from her by giving her flowers (complex knowledge). Yet, if this knowledge is not expressed in conjunction with an appropriate skill it is wasted, perhaps even detrimental. Over years of marriage I have acquired a skill of making her happy, knowing not only who to give the flowers to (my wife as opposed to some other person), but also what flowers to give, and when to give them. Now that is a valuable skill!

From the above illustration one can deduce a number of pertinent points. Firstly, skill is a necessary partner to knowledge. There is a sense in which skill is expressive of knowledge, allowing the appropriate knowledge to gain a far deeper and richer meaning, since the knowledge (essentially an aspect of interior being, or something that exists within an individual) can find expression and validation through an appropriate action. The knowledge of my wife and the care I have for her is expressed in the skilled activity of giving flowers to her. Secondly, whilst knowledge is enriched through applying appropriate skills that express it, skill is similarly enriched by appropriate knowledge. The skill of giving flowers is enriched by knowing which flowers to give, and to whom the flowers ought to be given.

Furthermore the marriage of skill and knowledge informs both. As I do things I realise I need to know more in order to become better at the things that need doing. Conversely, the more I know the more I am able to do correctly and appropriately.

In theological language these two concepts might be equated with the notion of the dialectic between theory and praxis. We know certain things to be true, so we do them. However, in doing things we come to discover greater more, or greater, truths.

The overarching question for our training is “what should a minister be able to do?” Naturally the answer to this question is a complex one, since ministers do very many things. Unfortunately, content based training (such as that which I went through at University) only sought to give me skills in a very small area. Most of the skills that I gained related to cognitive processes, and when I got to my senior degrees included the notion of meta-cognition. I was taught how one thinks, the processes of thought, what informs and underlies the thoughts that I, and others, have, how to interrogate such thoughts, how to enrich and develop my thinking and in so doing offer something that may contribute towards the thinking of others.

However, since it was largely content, or knowledge, based training, I was not well equipped with skills to do ministry. There is a sense in which my academic training was somewhat mismatched to my Pastoral vocation. I guess one could sum it up by saying that if someone had asked “what ought Dion, as a minister, be able to do?” was not answered well. The training that I had might be better related to the question “what ought a person doing research in theology be able to do?”

Perhaps such criticism is a little harsh, but I experienced it to be true. I left University with a wealth of knowledge and a dearth or ministerial skill. I had a postgraduate qualification in Theology, but I could not conduct a funeral, or counsel the bereaved family. Sure, I knew everything about the finality of death, about the eschatological hope of life everlasting, I even knew a few things about heaven and hell! But, I could not adequately perform a simple, and necessary, task of ministry.

Skill then, is an essential aspect of preparation for ministry. Moreover, appropriate skill, informed by appropriate knowledge, is essential for effective ministry.

Thus, we have sought to deliberately build this skills acquisition element into our training for ministry. It takes place in a number of ways. Firstly, all student ministers spend a portion of their training placed in Churches performing ministry tasks under supervision. Secondly, whilst at College all students are placed in ‘field placements’, which are attachments to community and ministry organisations such as Hospices, Children’s homes, Frail care centres etc. This not only enriches their academic studies, by grounding it in a pastoral context, but it also enriches their practical learning by giving it a sound knowledge based grounding.

The crucial question, however, is: how does one measure what is, and is not, appropriate? That leads to the next section, the issue of values.

iii. Values.

The importance of values, in education, is often overlooked. A value can be described as a principle which governs one’s life. It is usually something that is freely chosen and becomes an integral part of the life of a person who chooses it. Values must not be mistaken with norms. Norms, unlike values, are not freely chosen. A norm is a rule that is imposed by some external authority. Of course norms can be internalised so that people accept them as their own, at other times people may conform to norms because they fear punishment of some form if they don’t.

In respect of values, they are essential in that they will be a determining factor in our actions and behaviour.

For example, if loving my family is a value that I have chosen, my behaviour needs to express that value through my actions. Values are very complex things since they are not always sensible or rational. In fact, there are many instances in which a person may hold within herself, or a society itself, conflicting values. For example, I hold as a value that it is a good thing to obey the law. However, if I need to get somewhere in a hurry I have little problem in exceeding the speed limit to get there. Why? Because I have another value that says it is a good thing to be on time for appointments. In fact I may become quite agitated by other people who drive within the speed limit and stop me from getting to my appointment on time! This is a conflict of two values in action (and it often leads to high blood pressure and speeding tickets!)

More seriously for theology though, is the role that apriori, values play in both what we know, or believe, and what we do. People often do things simply because they have learnt to do them in a particular fashion. If something is simply accepted as the norm, and it becomes a value of an individual or society, it could curtail or distort both the acquisition of necessary knowledge and the development of appropriate skills.

Let’s use a painful, yet topical, example from our Southern African context. In one of the communities in which I served as a minister there was a pastor of a church who believed that HIV / AIDS was a punishment from God. He had accepted as a value that people who were HIV positive were either themselves sexually promiscuous, or were being punished for the sexual sin of family members (parents or grandparents). The outcome of this pastor’s value system was that a community of Christian believers came to share the same point of view, after all, the pastor preached and taught this precept with convincing authority, often quoting texts from the Bible to support his views. This community saw no need to understand and relieve the suffering of people in the community who were either infected with the virus, or were in a relationship with infected persons. They were not prepared to acquire the necessary knowledge and skill to fulfil the biblical injunction of caring for the suffering. They simply did not count HIV positive people as worthy of grace and care (Matthew 25:40).

Many similar cases can be cited, where values (or norms, mistaken for, or adopted as, values) have negatively affected the preparation of persons for the tasks of Christian ministry. Issues such as sexism, racism, ageism, homophobia, cultural and social values and ideologies, and a myriad of similar influences have had a negative impact upon education and learning.

As a result, a healthy interaction with value systems is an integral part of a good educative process. Persons who seek to know, and live out Christian truth, will need to examine themselves, their societies, and the world at large in order to understand their own values, and the values of others. In many ways, this is the process of spiritual growth. There is no doubt that any truly well rounded training process needs to take spirituality very seriously.

Once again, the content based training that I received did not adequately address an encounter with my own values and the values of others. Certainly, it was not intentional about any form of spiritual development. Sure, there were wonderful instances when I understood ideological and conceptual differences between what I thought and believed, and what I read and heard about the thoughts and beliefs of others, but there was never an intentional exposure to real situational struggles. My insights were once removed, they came from text books and documentaries, from papers and reports. They were interpretive and didactic in nature. What I needed was something experiential, something that would shake my being and touch me within my heart, not just something that would stimulate my mind. This is a scary thought. It requires personal investment, it cannot be done from afar.

Perhaps it is because it is so scary that we don’t quickly jump to do it. Value systems hold us together, they are the interpretive keys that regulate our actions and inform our questions. I suppose, like many, I was afraid that if my values were shown to be faulty, my whole world would be called into question. It was only when I got to know a gay Christian, rather than just know about gay Christians, that I began to understand the struggles that such persons face, and the unquestioned prejudice I had harboured within myself. I found that my values had to shift, so that I could skilfully express the truth of the love of God I knew, and so I began to study, and seek to understand, sexuality and faith. It was a value that had previously curtailed my learning. Now it was a shift in values that motivated me to learn.

As a result of an understanding of the above I have come to believe that knowledge, skills and values are three inseparable aspects of holistic learning, that are necessary to prepare and form a person to become competent for Christian ministry.
I am pleased to say that with some measure of success the current training for ministry aims to deal with all three of these necessary elements. It is my hope and desire that whatever decision we come to as a Church, with regard to the future of ministerial training, that we will not loose sight of the importance of these three equally important aspects of learning and formation.

Posted: Tue - July 20, 2004 at 04:22 PM      

©