Secular universities are not guided by the light of the Bible. Increasingly they are guided by anti-Christian political correctness. Anglican theological colleges, especially evangelical ones, should be confident in the supreme authority of Holy Scripture in the governance of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, which includes the way in which its ministers of the Word are trained.
Why do we need secular universities to help us to train future ministers to teach the Bible and to proclaim and defend the biblical gospel? As regards the other intellectual disciplines needed for a well-rounded minister, such as pastoral counselling, church history, apologetics and philosophy, do we not trust that God has poured out the necessary gifts on his own people in these areas? Why are secular academics needed to monitor the intellectual training our ordinands are receiving?
Cranmer's Curate considers that Paul's teaching in 2 Corinthians has bearing on the desire of those responsible for theological training in the Church of England to involve secular universities in the formation of future minsters of Christ:
Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye (the Church) are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you (2 Corinthians 6v14-17 - Authorised Version).What of real spiritual value would be lost to ministerial training if the altar to secular academe were torn down in our theological colleges?
It's about accreditation of academic success. And, probably government policies. I'm not sure that the Church could afford to run the various institutions without support or partnerships with the Universities.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with your standpoint, but believe that the Church has no real choice in it any more.
"Secular universities are not guided by the light of the Bible. Increasingly they are guided by anti-Christian political correctness."
ReplyDeleteAs someone who works in a Russell Group uni, this is just rubbish, Revd Mann. What you really mean is that Christianity isn't afforded an unearned place of social privilege; which isn’t quite the same thing is it? Although my own place of work – as with many Russell Group Universities – only receives a minority of its income from the state, the vast majority of Britain’s universities and colleges are dependent on the state for their income; the vast majority of Britons aren’t practicing Christians, so why should Christianity receive a privileged position in institutions largely funded by the non-church attending taxpayer?
However, in the main, I think you are wholly correct here, what would spur the Anglican Church on, is financial and academic independence. Indeed, each individual parish should be responsible for funding prospective ordinands and these in turn should be trained at independent theological colleges. This would work out well for your own flavour of Christianity, as, in the main, Evangelical churches have more buying power than Anglo-Catholic churches.
Personally I think the artificial place of Christianity in society, buoyed up by investment income and social and symbolical capital is what has made many complacent within the Church. A little bit of grist to the mill is the kind of thing that will help rather than hinder the continuation of Christianity in Britain. Disestablishment and financial and academic independence is the only way the Church can survive as a real and living force in society, rather than an archaic relic, preserved in the social aspic of tradition (as has happened with the monarchy and other British traditions and history).
Anonymous, I am not sure if you write from the perspective of a believer, but, speaking as a Bible believing Christian, I think you have correctly identified the core problem of the Anglican church.
DeleteEngland has a lot of historical baggage that is of no value to God nor Man. We have got rid of some of it, such as bear baiting. We are in the process of disposing of other parts of it, e.g. hereditary peers. Surely the established Church of England must be next on the list? And while we are about it, why not dump the incompetent, unelected, pompous self-regarding hierarchy of bishops, archdeacons and so on?
Putting that last rant to one side, I think it depends on what you have to give up in order to get accreditation.
ReplyDeleteIf it purely a matter of objective academic standards, then sure, why not? But if the secular accreditation is going to involve imposing values on the college which are opposed to Christian values, then the college has to walk away.
Moore Theological College in Sydney recently gained Higher Education accreditation under the HES Act. But lack of that accreditation in the past did not stop Moore qualifying over 100 graduates each year. Those graduates are sought-after, not just in Sydney and not just by evangelical Anglican churches. The first priority has to be turning out ministers who are well-equipped for ministry. Everything else comes second to that, including secular accreditation.
Julian, I agree with the whole thrust of your article, and your closing question put the issue well:
ReplyDelete"What of real spiritual value would be lost to ministerial training if the altar to secular academe were torn down in our theological colleges? "
I believe the answer to the question of what would be lost is: nothing essential of spiritual value.
Leaving aside the original reasons for the church seeking such accreditation, the further question you raise is a fundamental one, namely is the Bible sufficient in and of itself to proclaim and defend the biblical gospel? The answer must surely be 'yes' to that.
To seek accreditation from secular universities is akin to a declaration that the Bible is insufficient, or deficient in some key areas.
For many centuries, and for all sorts of reason which no longer apply, it was the church which was the centre of learning, of education, of spiritual nurture and many other things - the cultivation of the arts and later exploration of science. How ironic that now that the church feels comepelled to search for endorsement of its own doctrines in the universities of the world, when Scripture describes the church as being "the pillar and ground of the truth "!
A further question: If Scripture is informative and correct on every matter it addresses, if it discloses knowledge about the nature of God, humanity, salvation, ethics, history and eschatology, why should this not be sufficient now, as it was for our Christian forbears?
Also crucial to the issue is your further question, and one that should be asked in every theological college and department, namely "do we not trust that God has poured out the necessary gifts on his own people in these areas?" Indeed so.
Passages such as Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 12-14 speak so clearly on the gifting by God for the necessary equipping of his church for all ministry. Are we then to assume that these are of mere academic interest, or are they authoritative and sufficient for the church today? I believe the latter and the church needs to re-learn how to apply these scriptures in todays church.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI may have got this wrong, but when I did my BA in Theology, I'm pretty sure the C of E Ministry division paid 100% of it and I paid for my own ThM.
This is just astonishing. Ordinands are required to reach a foundation degree standard - which is basic. That degree needs validating. What are you scared of by having it validated by a 'secular' university?
ReplyDeleteThe incarnation has ensured that the 'secular' has become sacred. At Exeter Cathedral (where the Chairman of Reform is a member of our college of Canon)we have that enshrined in our mission statement.
Andrew Godsall, Exeter
I have every confidence that the chairman of Reform recognises the distinction between a Christian individual or organisation and a non-Christian.
DeleteThanks for affirming that you think I'm good enough to be 'yoked' to the Chairman of Reform Julian. You missed the question I put to you, so let me put it again: What are you scared of by having it (a course)validated by a 'secular' university?
DeleteThe issue this post is exploring is the price tag that attaches to theological college courses being validated by secular universities. This is a particularly important questions for colleges that have a high view of the authority of the Bible such as Oak Hill and Wycliffe Hall (God willing in the future). They want and need to be intellectually rigorous but are they losing out in terms of preparing their ordinands for fruitful evangelical ministry by being associated with secular universities?
DeleteI have a very high view of the authority of the bible. It's simply a different view to your own - revisionist - position. The Fathers, like Basil and Gregory of Nyssa - Orthodox to their fingertips you would have to agree - believed that all language, including the bible, was provisional and in error when it came to describing God. Your view of the bible is therefore a revision of the Orthodox position.
DeleteTheological College courses, including those you mention, have been validated by 'secular' universities for several decades. Why are you suddenly complaining about it?
Those church fathers would be scandalised by the way in which modern liberals' view of the Bible shakes out in practice.
DeleteWhy raise the issue now? Secular society has radically de-Christianised in the past 40 years.
And what makes you think they would not be scandalised by a revisionist position such as yours?
DeleteTheir view of Scripture did not lead to their endorsing immorality and ungodliness unlike that of modern revisionists.
DeleteSpecks and logs Julian.....
DeleteAndrew: why this revisionism with church historical theology? Why do you think liberal Kirsopp Lake admitted that "the Bible and the corpus theologicum of the church are on the fundamentalist side"?
DeleteAlso I'd like some references to church fathers' belief in the "error" of Scripture!
Dan
"The Fathers, like Basil and Gregory of Nyssa - Orthodox to their fingertips you would have to agree - believed that all language, including the bible, was provisional and in error when it came to describing God."
DeleteNo Andrew, that is entirely wrong.
"Your view of the bible is therefore a revision of the Orthodox position."
If you are going to make assertions about others' views, it would be helpful if you provided some sort of reasoning or evidence in support. Inaccurate comments about the teachings of St Basil or St Gregory do not quality! :o)
Michael, Sydney
You would get regional courses as the norm where not only is the standard woeful theologically but also accademically. Accademic verification is good for Greek and Hebrew, no? Lose the Univeristy accreditation and that is in danger of getting lost.
ReplyDeleteBishop's, when they are honest, will admit that regional courses aren't as good for formation or for study- well at least the dozen or so who's private views I'm aware of.
For some clergy University is the only time they actually study the scriptures rather than read them, grapple with theology (even if it's bad) and have to come up with something more convincing than "Christianity is like a subway sandwich, and we (the clergy) are the extra relish in it"- no joke this was the entire talk the *star* member of one regional course who gave a sermon to would be ordinands. God was mentioned once in passing and of course Jesus never got a look in (he was mentioned 3 times during the whole day, twice by me and once when the DDO mentioned that it's important to mention belief in Jesus when writing about your faith to the pannel/Bishop as a lot of people forget to mention him!).
My theology degree was accredited by a university but taught entirely within the theological college I attended.
ReplyDeleteAccreditation guaranteed that university standards were adhered to in the way the course was run. This includes the processes for setting and marking exams and assessments to ensure it's done fairly and to the correct standard for a degree to be awarded.
All my lecturers were Christians with a wide variety of ministerial experience. They also had a much wider knowledge than I had of Biblical studies, Church history, theology and pastoral care.
I would have thought a basic grasp of these issues was a fairly basic expectation people might have of their ministers.
There seems to be a basic confusion between standards and content here. I'm not clear why 'secular standards' are not deemed good enough for Christians ministerial education, or somehow destructive.
And to say that we don't want or need our ministers to be theologically educated is a really extraordinary departure from tradition.
Jesus' ministry included teaching. Jesus studied at the temple and was given the title 'Rabbi' because he was educated in his faith. He expected his disciples to engage their brains as well as their emotions, much to their occasional frustration. Martha was rebuked because she felt domestic chores should override listening to Jesus' teachings.
If we didn't have accreditation all our vicars would advance arguments through the vacuous method of a series of rhetorical questions without considering the history of the subject and the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to the topic.
ReplyDelete"And to say that we don't want or need our ministers to be theologically educated is a really extraordinary departure from tradition."
ReplyDeleteWith respect Pam, that is a straw man and not the issue. No Christian in his/her right mind would make such a bizarre claim, and nobody is seeking to defend an ignorant, or intellectually lazy ministry.
The central question is about accreditation from secular universities/institutions as being necessary or even useful for engaging in Christian ministry. A good all round education at any level is undoubtedly useful, even highly desirable where possible, but in and of of itself is entirely neutral in application to ministry.
The question however remains - is such acreditation necessary for Christian ministry? I believe Julian's point therefore is central - "Secular universities are not guided by the light of the Bible.Increasingly they are guided by anti-Christian political correctness."
So do we really want ex graduate ministerial aspirants whose heads are full of secular assumptions about vital Christian doctrines (which can onoy undermine or destroy them), or Christians who are rooted and grounded in the principles of the Word of God?
So I come back to the question I raised in my original post: "is the Bible sufficient in and of itself to proclaim and defend the biblical gospel?" More than that - is it also sufficient in providing all needed principles for pastoral ministry?
If it is not then we can dispense with most of the NT scriptures, but since Paul reminds us that ALL Scripture is profitable, for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, then I suggest to that degree secular accreditation is superfluous to requirements.
"What of real spiritual value would be lost to ministerial training if the altar to secular academe were torn down in our theological colleges?"
ReplyDeleteThis is a good question, well worth asking. I work in a context where only a tiny minority of ministers have socially-recognized theological training, so there is an alternative.
A couple of answers:
1. I wonder if the biggest issue is simplicity and fighting the old boy network. Anglicans in Oxford know what a degree from Wycliffe or Cranmer Hall is worth. But what about Pentecostals in Peckham, or Anglicans in Singapore? Secular validation is a simple means, and far more efficient than the North American alphabet soup that makes it so easy for people to be conned by cowboys. A Durham University degree doesn't guarantee honesty or faithfulness, but it does indicate a certain level of intelligence!
2. It will make it nigh-impossible to accept students from outside the EU. No validation means no visas, and putting the whole cost of validation onto overseas students would presumably raise fees considerably. English evangelicals don't have much to offer the global church, but faithful and first-class academic theology ought to be something. It's probably the main way C of E central finances contribute positively to the worldwide church.