Before Sending Someone Abroad for Seminary

The Content Of Theological Education

70 years ago, former Yale scholar Hugh Hartshorne answered the question, “What is theological education?” in an article. He believes that at first theology was merely for the purpose of teaching the doctrines of the church, but it quickly expanded to other topics, including sermon preparation and church governance. In his opinion, this expansion was the result of seminaries unconsciously being pressured by the church, because if graduates of a seminary were of little use to the church, it would be a short time before seminaries were unable to recruit students. Hartshorne mentions in his article that the general consensus at the time was that the purpose of seminary was to help students master not only the traditional subjects, but also to master knowledge concerning human nature and sociology, and also to train students in the techniques of preaching, pastoring, and personal evangelism. He points out that from a practical perspective, theological education’s weakness lay in vocational training (5). In reality, the basic framework of North American theological education was basically established 200 years ago: biblical languages, exegesis, systematic theology, and homiletics (6). When professors of the very first North American seminaries (Andover, Princeton, etc.) returned from studying in Germany, this was the fourfold pattern they brought back (7).

The Crisis of Theological Education

Professor Edward Farley of Vanderbilt Divinity School believes that it was the influence of the Enlightenment that caused seminaries to abandon teaching the proper way of living, and instead have as their primary purpose researching theology as a topic. This happened concurrently with the birth of the modern university in the nineteenth century. The Athens and Berlin models in Professor Kelsey’s book and Professor Farley’s words mirror one another. Over the past hundred years, seminaries have continually added various subjects, but the influence of the German Berlin model is still clear to see. Professor Farley even asserts, “the current seminaries are simply unable to provide theological education” (8).

The fourfold pattern of theological education described above does not mention spiritual formation. Edgar points out that “the vocational model does tend to leave personal, moral, spiritual development in the background” (9). However, in actual practice, spiritual growth is not just behind the scenes, but often completely neglected. Hollinger wrote a book titled Head, Heart & Hands (10). He used these three different body parts to represent thought, passion, and action. At a conference of Chinese seminary students in 2014, Hollinger pointed out that historically, Christians often leaned towards some extreme. Seminaries typically attract people who lean towards the “head,” and most seminary professors are also “head”-leaning, or skilled at handling ideas and concepts. In the past, seminaries paid little attention to spiritual formation. In the 1930s, the concept of spiritual formation did not even exist. Of course this greatly impacted the church as well.

Over 30 years have passed since Professor Farley cried out that “the current seminaries are simply unable to provide theological education.” Have seminaries improved in this area? I believe so. Some seminaries have already established “spiritual formation” courses. Gordon-Conwell even added a Master of Arts degree several years ago—in Spiritual Formation. (Although to have “spiritual formation” as an academic topic is, in itself, a rather odd thing.) However, it seems to me that the Berlin model still haunts us today.

Western universities were formerly seminaries. And the divinity schools of Europe are housed in universities. However, the church in North America was dissatisfied at the secularization of university divinity schools, and so established new theological seminaries separate from the larger universities. Of course, in reality the situation is a bit more complex. To take three seminaries as examples:

• Displeased with the liberalization of Princeton Theological Seminary’s Divinity School, in 1929 a group of faculty and students led by John Gresham Machen left resolutely, establishing Westminster Theological Seminary. Almost from the very beginning, this seminary had the goal of competing academically with top universities such as Princeton, but at the same time holding fast to the faith of the Reformed Presbyterians, striving to defend the truth once delivered to the saints.

• Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary resulted from a merger between Gordon Divinity School and the Conwell School of Theology. Both of these seminaries were originally founded for the purpose of training pastors and missionaries, and that original vision has remained unchanged to this day—even now they refuse to start a PhD program (11). But the strategy of actively influencing society, first proposed by the seminary’s first president, conservative evangelical Professor Harold Ockenga (a student of Machen who followed him to Westminster), has influenced this seminary to a certain extent. This seminary continues to carry on the conservative evangelical faith of President Ockenga, and often takes a gentle, but principled posture in their engagement with culture.

• Trinity Evangelical Divinity School decided to call itself a “divinity school,” showing its ambition in engaging with secular culture.

Of course, they each have their own pitfalls (which not everyone will fall into, but somebody certainly will). Those Westminster students who did not receive the “truth” will likely find their path towards truth become increasingly narrow (and do not think that this is the “narrow path” Jesus spoke of); students at Gordon-Conwell who did not know their own denomination going in likely still do not know what denomination they are coming back out; whereas the more one engages with secular culture at Trinity, the less distinct from secular culture they will become. (Please note: I am only describing possibilities, not certainties. And my views have their limits and biases. To better understand any one seminary, it is best to ask around. The students and alumni at a seminary can speak the most authoritatively, as well as the churches to which the seminary students belong.)

Though seminaries were established with different backgrounds, they seem to share one commonality: they all desire to connect with the top universities. Evangelical seminaries seem to lean towards hiring professors with doctorates from universities, and some professors often encourage their students to apply to famed schools of the world (regardless of whether the school is Christian, and more so if the school is known academically). Sometimes they even take pride in saying that “graduates from our seminary are recognized by the top universities.” (It seems to me that evangelicals are not very confident that they can train the best students.) In reality I am not opposed to studying for a doctorate at a university. The main point I wish to convey is that, given the historical context, it is natural that North American seminaries connect with universities. But at the same time, universities have to some extent become a limiting factor for seminaries. On the one hand, seminaries want to prepare men and women for use for the kingdom of God, and on the other hand they desire to be recognized by the top universities. The two goals are not necessarily irreconcilable, but neither can we say they are in perfect harmony. It often depends on the person.

Because it “depends on the person,” seminary students must do their homework before choosing a seminary, and then choose one that is suitable for themselves. Searching for the perfect seminary is like searching for the perfect church, which can only result in one thing: running in vain. Of course, there is one factor that must absolutely not be neglected, that is, that God’s power is often made perfect in our weakness. I myself am a living example. But does that mean we should not do our “homework” ahead of time? Certainly not! I repent of my past ignorance, and I thank God for his special protection.

Perhaps the paragraphs above are overly pedantic. Let me attempt to express myself more simply:

1. The strengths of a Western theological education are obvious.

In addition to the English-speaking world’s spiritual tradition in recent centuries, many ancient documents (whether Judeo-Christian works or other works on its historical context) have already been translated to English.

This rich tradition is manifest in seminary professors and the churches they lead. While we are still working hard to learn English, those scholars have already mastered several other languages. They are the embodiment of tradition.

History is often strikingly similar. What is happening in the Chinese church/society today, may have already happened long ago in the Western church/society. And the Western world often already has deep reflections on these topics.

2. However, seminaries are not immune to influences from the greater environment.

A. Seminaries are still defined as “research institutes,” rather than as places for forming character or faith.

When students graduate they receive a master’s or doctoral degree. Their diplomas are tied to the “research” they do. Although a Master of Divinity requires interning at a church, it is still not a big part of the coursework. Other degrees basically do not require internships (counseling programs are a natural exception), and demand only that academic requirements be met.

Some American students have the goal of teaching in university afterwards. They are not at all interested in pastoring a church or in missions. The Western students who are willing to patiently spend time with international fellowships are usually those burdened with missions.

Seminaries often assume (and perhaps such assumption is necessary) that students have a decent faith foundation. (After all, when applying, one must submit their conversion and calling testimonies, and must have a letter of recommendation from a church.) But in reality, the students’ faith foundations are varied. Jack Fitzmier, former vice president of Claremont School of Theology, exclaimed in a 2004 article that a rather large percentage of seminary freshman had not read through the complete Old Testament even once! (12)

When these students have completed their Old and New Testament surveys, their Greek and Hebrew classes, a couple exegesis classes, received their diploma, and arrived at a church, then will they suddenly become a “Bible expert” or a “shepherd of the flock”? Is God’s holy word thus entrusted to them? If any secular company were to hire on this basis, it would be hard not to go out of business. I do not wish to belittle seminary students. But based on the testimony of Professor Fitzmier in North America and my own experience in China, we must honestly face the situation. Of course, God’s great power is again and again made perfect in our weakness. If we are willing to place ourselves as “five loaves and two fish” in the Lord’s hands, he will use us to feed the “five thousand.” However, there is still another question that causes worry.

B. Western individualism is being played out to its fullest, as shown by the lack of emphasis on prayer.

Many seminaries have realized the problem of prayer. Hollinger of Gordon-Conwell once mentioned a statistic during a weekly school gathering: The average daily time that a North American pastor spends in prayer is 3 minutes. Are these pastors not from seminaries?

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary has put a fair amount of effort towards this. If one wants to pray or worship, even if not individually, there are many corporate opportunities. Before each semester begins, there is a prayer day for all faculty and students. Professors will pray before class. (When I took classes at Harvard Divinity School, the lecturers did not pray, even though one of the professors was a Christian. From the beginning I felt like something was missing, and only later realized that it was because we did not start with prayer.)

At Gordon-Conwell, meeting a professor in his office often begins or ends with prayer. Korean students meet every morning during the week for corporate prayer meetings; Chinese students also have a weekly prayer meeting; and some students also have prayer meetings during week nights. The school has two worship services every week, and prayer rooms. And one can always pray at the little chapel.

In terms of spiritual atmosphere and community life, Gordon-Conwell is considered one of the better schools among American seminaries. I was once chatting with a student from another seminary. I said, even though that was the case, there were still students (and not just Charismatic ones) who felt that there was not enough of a spiritual atmosphere here at the seminary. The brother I was talking with half jokingly replied, if your spiritual atmosphere isn’t good enough, then we have no spiritual atmosphere at all!

However, if you do not want to join these activities (or do not have time to), you do not need to. This means that a student could smoothly graduate from seminary without praying. They could smoothly graduate from seminary after only reading the few chapters of the Bible covered in their exegesis class. Yet when they arrive in the church, they are suddenly a “Bible expert,” and a “shepherd of the flock.” Of course, this is an extreme example.

But if some seminary wanted to make prayer meetings mandatory for students, I suspect nobody would want to apply to this seminary. They would think, “It’s graduate school, and we’re still doing this?”

C. Theological questions are not answered.

The advantage of seminaries with denominational backgrounds is that students can clearly receive teaching from a certain background (although I understand some people do not see this as a positive). But overall, a research institute is defined by having students seek their own answers through research.

Uncritically accepting an “expert’s” stance is practically an academic crime. Western academic research is about learning to listen to and dialogue with different voices, and ultimately deciding which one to listen to. (Is this not very similar to the Berlin model?)

Of course, faculty members strive to do well in all areas, so that students would be “healthy in body and spirit,” “growing in knowledge and love.” However, completing my master’s degree does not mean most of my questions have been cleared up. Theological training broadened my view, and let me see how ignorant I am. On some questions, I used to answer confidently, but now I am no longer so certain. For many questions, if I were to research more deeply, it could end up as a doctoral dissertation. (In studying theology, one often experiences, as a poet once said, “over mountains and streams, I wondered if there was a way forward, when beyond the shade of the willows and the bloom of flowers was another village.” [13]).

Then, of what can I be truly certain? If one does not properly digest what they learn, it could (at least temporarily) cause great “side effects” for the seminary student:

• One might feel like their original foundation is destroyed, and become an agnostic.

• One might accept a certain doctrine, and begin to reject and criticize all who disagree.

• After learning set after set of theories, one might feel like their original sending church or other churches are so helplessly backwards, that their hearts might be filled with contempt and disgust.

D. Furthermore, the difference between Chinese and Western cultures means that those who come to study theology must engage in two levels of cultural translation.

In America, one only needs to discern what is the truth, and freely accept it; versus what belongs to Western culture, and judiciously accept portions.

After returning to China, one must also discern what they have learned: what must be used, what can be used, what should not be used at the moment, and what should best be tossed like garbage.

Do you hope that professors will help us do these translations? Some seminaries prefer to hire people with cross-cultural missions experience to be professors, and they will be relatively sensitive to the needs of seminaries abroad. But ultimately we ourselves need to do the work of cultural translation.

I have seen in myself the various “side effects” mentioned above, sometimes caused by ignorance, other times by hardness of heart.

My purpose is not to demonize Western seminaries. Much of the above is drawn from the top scholars on North American theological education. Another point I should clarify is that the grace I received in seminary is far beyond what I could have wanted or hoped for. If given the chance again, I would come abroad again, and attend the very seminary I did. I only wish to remind those who will be coming out soon what they ought to pay attention to while receiving grace in so many forms. And also to continually remind myself.

What does this have to do with the church? What does it have to do with me?

I hope that this article invites seminary students, prospective seminary students, and local churches to come together and reflect on theological education in North America. (In reality, these identities are fluid. Before coming, I was a prospective seminary student; having come, I was a seminary student; after returning, I am now a member of the local church, and might be one who is “about to send someone abroad for seminary.”)

John Frame proposed directly placing the functions of a seminary within a church, instead of having seminaries exist independently of the church (14). To do this places very high demands on the church. However, he said that some churches are already putting his suggestion into practice, and I believe he is going in the right direction. Seminaries and churches need to come much closer to each other. We should be doing theological research within the context of the church, and not independent of the church. (As far as the east is from the west, so far are many doctoral research topics from the actual situation of the church.)

Finally, I hope to offer some practical suggestions as advice for seminary students and for myself. (I will not be redundant.) I believe that if someone in the church is called and is about to go abroad for seminary, then it is best for the church and the prospective seminary student to decide together what seminary to go to. The church should not leave this question to the prospective student himself, merely writing a letter of recommendation the way one writes a certificate of divorce, and letting the student simply leave. The student must not ignore the church and follow his own will either.

The church must help prospective seminary students discern whether or not there really is a call from God, and whether or not it would be suitable for them to go abroad for seminary. They also must understand the advantages and problems of Western seminaries. Then they can have a basic understanding of what situations the seminary student they sent out will be living in. Even among evangelical seminaries, each seminary has its own unique properties. Some are more academic, some more pastoral, some more engaged in dialogue with culture. We must not search for the one that is “best” in other people’s views, but must find what is “most suitable” for oneself. If one does not have a good foundation, or was sent to the wrong place, things could turn out badly. Churches send members out, hoping that seminary will solve all of their problems great and small. But it is possible that when the member returns, they become an even greater problem. Indeed, while seminaries can build people up, they are also able to magnify small problems. Once a seminary student receives “formal theological training,” then they have acquired the theological capital and confidence to cause trouble.

Western seminaries have a wonderful tradition, but they also have their own problems. In reality, what any seminary is able to accomplish is very limited. Do not hold the unrealistic hope that seminaries can turn stone into gold and decay into wonder. Seminary students need to be held up by prayer. They need to be cared for. They need to maintain a certain familiarity with their homeland. When one is abroad for many years, one’s relationships with their home has faded while new networks abroad have been formed; the needs of the home cannot be seen, but the needs abroad are abundantly clear. When one graduates, it is a very understandable temptation to remain. The church cannot simply use a paper contract to tie a worker down (15). If they do not have love in their hearts, if their service is not out of willingness, then even if they were tied down with sturdy metal chains, what use would it be? It would simply give the enemy one more breach through which to attack. It is only the vision from heaven and the burning flame of the Holy Spirit within their hearts that causes them to boldly go forward without care for themselves.

Notes

1. David H. Kelsey, Between Athens and Berlin: The Theological Education Debate (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2011), 13. First edition published in 1993.

2. Summarized from Kelsey, 5-19.

3. Robert J. Banks, Reenvisioning Theological Education: Exploring a Missional Alternative to Current Models (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).

4. Brian Edgar, “The Theology of Theological Education,” Evangelical Review of Theology 29, no. 3 (2005): 208–17.

5. Hugh Hartshorne, “What Is Theological Education?,” The Journal of Religion 26, no. 4 (1946): 235–42.

6. William Adams Brown, “A Century of Theological Education and After,” The Journal of Religion 6, no. 4 (1926): 368.

7. Edward Farley, Theologia: The Fragmentation and Unity of Theological Education (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1983), 10.

8. Ibid., 14.

9. Edgar, 211.

10. Dennis P. Hollinger, Head Heart and Hands: Bringing Together Christian Thought Passion and Action (Downers Grove Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2005).

11. Editor’s note: Since this blog post was written, Gordon-Conwell has started to offer a Doctor of Philosophy in Theological Studies (PhD).

12. Jack Fitzmier, “The Aims and Purposes Literature: Notes From the Field,” April 12, 2004, http://www.resourcingchristianity.org/sites/default/files/transcripts/research_article/JackFitzmier_Aims_%26_Purposes_of_Literature_Essay.pdf.

13. Lu You, "Touring Through A Village on the West of the Mountain." Lu You 陸游 was a Chinese historian and poet of the Song Dynasty in the 12th century.

14. John M. Frame, “Proposal for a New Seminary,” accessed June 25, 2014, http://www.frame-poythress.org/proposal-for-a-new-seminary/. Link to Chinese version：https://www.churchchina.org/archives/100908.html.

15. Editor’s note: This practice can occur when house churches provide financial support for their members to study abroad.

This article was originally a blog post. This English edition and introduction are copyright © 2023 by the Center for House Church Theology. Illustration by PC Ng.

We encourage you to use and share this material freely—but please don’t charge money for it, change the wording, or remove the copyright information.