Spiritual Formation in the House Church Seminary

About the Author

Rebecca Chen was born in China. She and her family became Christians when she was a teenager. She received seminary training in the United States with an MDiv degree. Now she serves in theological education for the house church in China.

Spiritual Formation in the House Church Seminary

Church development and theological education always go hand in hand. The church provides human and material resources to establish seminaries, and the talents trained at seminaries contribute to the growth and expansion of the church.

Since the late nineteenth century, when many foreign missionaries came to China, a number of theological education institutions have been established. With the changes in Chinese society and the growth of the Chinese church over the past hundred years, theological education in China has gradually changed. Before 1949, theological education was mostly led by foreign missionaries. After nearly thirty years of stagnation, the Three-Self theological seminaries resumed teaching in the 1980s, and the quietly growing house churches slowly began to have their own training systems for ministers. In the past two decades, more and more foreign theological training institutions have begun to re-enter China to help house churches gradually establish more standardized seminaries. In today's China, there are religious studies of Christianity in secular universities, and the Three-Self and house churches have their own theological education systems.

The theological education discussed in this paper focuses on specialized seminaries in the context of the house churches in China, which is probably the most complex and most in need of reform and progress. This paper is divided into three parts: First, it discusses the goals of theological education in the current house church context in China; second, it discusses the situational factors that need to be considered and changes that need to be made to achieve such goals; and finally, it offers some specific suggestions for the current practices of theological education in the house church.

The Purpose of Theological Education in the Chinese House Church

The house church seminaries aim to train full-time workers for the church and thus to help the church grow in maturity. Of course, full-time workers may include not only pastors, but also church planters, missionaries, parachurch ministry workers, teachers in Christian schools, counselors in the church or parachurch ministries, theological researchers and even Christian intellectuals in the broader sense. It is clearly not feasible to ask seminaries to fully meet the needs of all these different roles at the same time. In the current period of rapid growth of house churches, the greatest need is the shortage of preachers who can be directly involved in pastoral care in the church. The basic ability to engage in pastoral practice in the local church should be a common expectation and requirement for all kinds of full-time workers. If there are other special callings, then professional study may be pursued. For example, if one is interested in a theological academic career as a scholar, one can also pursue further studies in academic institutions overseas. Therefore, the main purpose of the Chinese house church seminaries is still to train preachers for the local church.

Our question then changes to, what kind of preachers are needed in Chinese house churches today? No matter how unique the situation of the Chinese house church is, the answer to this question must be universal, and we must return to the Bible. Jesus Christ is the great Shepherd who, as our mediator, executes the offices of prophet, priest, and king (WSC 23). In the local church, the pastoral work of the preacher is in some sense to serve as a representative of Christ in this mediatorial role. It is helpful, therefore, to think about the call of the preacher in terms of these three offices (1). First, the preacher’s role as prophet points primarily to the ministry of the Word of God, which is what the word “preacher” literally means. In other words, the core task of the prophet is to preach. Just as the prophets of the Old Testament spoke God’s Word to His people, so the preacher’s task is to proclaim and explain God’s word to the congregation, the most important application of which is the Sunday pulpit. Therefore, seminary students must first be rooted in the Word of God, master the basic methods and main summaries of systematic and biblical theology, and thus be able to expound the main points of faith, explain specific passages of Scriptures, and “proclaim the gospel." Today's house churches face so many complex challenges, from various heresies to liberal theologies, from worldly temptations to mainstream persecution, it is impossible for preachers to survive this “crisis call” without firmly grounding their faith and ministry in the Word of God. This is a basic skill that every minister of God must have and should be acquired during his first theological degree (Master of Divinity or Master of Christian Studies). If one misses training in this area, it will be difficult to have the opportunity and time to make up for it later. Even if one desires to study in the future, it will only become more expensive and more difficult.

Second, the role of the preacher as a priest points to pastoral care and personal concern for his congregation. Wu Dongri, president of China Pastoral Seminary in Beijing, pointed out that Chinese house churches are undergoing a transformation from a gathering model to a pastoral model, and the spiritual demands of the believers are growing (2). Pastoral care for believers is increasingly more than just a one-way delivery of information. Instead, preachers need to be able to deeply understand their congregations and the people they are evangelizing in order to provide help and guidance to meet their unique needs.

Third, there is also a kingly dimension to a preacher’s role. As a community, the effective functioning of the local church and its various external ministries requires coordination and cooperation within it; and the preacher, as a leader, bears a great deal of responsibility for direction and management.

For this reason, the three areas of preaching, caring, and leadership are often the primary expectations of preachers in the church, but this does not mean that equipping seminary students with these “vocational skills” is the only goal of the seminary. This is because, with limited time and space, these skills are often superficially developed, and they can even be consciously acquired without a solid foundation. But to truly help seminary students cope with the rigors of pastoral ministry and to be effective in ministry over many years, these superficial skills must be supported by a broader vision and a life that is deeply rooted. Seminaries should not be content with just being a “vocational and technical training institute,” but they are also tasked with the important responsibilities of spiritual formation and faith inheritance.

We can speak of this deeper formation of seminary students in two ways. The first is a worldview perspective. Preachers are called by God to lead the church in responding to the challenges of our time. Therefore, in addition to mastering the Bible, they must also know the world, understand society, and have some awareness of what has happened or is happening. This understanding is not “neutral” knowledge and information divorced from Scripture, but still requires the ability to interpret the phenomena occurring in society from a faith perspective, indeed from a Christian perspective. John Frame asserts that theology is the application of God’s Word to all areas of life (3). Our faith is not isolated doctrines, but a holistic worldview that includes “all aspects of life.” Preachers themselves must develop this worldview before they can properly respond to the complexities of a changing society.

On the other hand, the Christian faith does not exist in a vacuum. The gospel is inevitably expressed through the means of culture (for example, the gospel must be expressed through the medium of language, and every human language is a part of its culture). In turn, a particular cultural tradition reflects the worldview of the people in that group and how they perceive and respond to God, themselves, and the world, ultimately shaping their unique culture. Each person has his or her own cultural background of origin, and the unspoken worldview system behind it must be constantly clarified, examined, and corrected as it interacts with God’s revelation. Thus, worldview education is first and foremost a challenge to the seminary students themselves, helping them to develop a sense of self-awareness of their own culture, and to critically remove the sinful parts of their culture. This ability to recognize and reflect on one’s culture is also part of communal repentance and the building of new life.

In addition, the church in general, as the “light of the world” and the “city on a hill,” also has a responsibility to witness for Christ in the world and to manifest the kingdom of God. Concrete actions include a variety of outreach ministries that serve society and care for those in need. This also requires a worldview framework as a foundation. It is important to clarify that when we emphasize the formation of a worldview for seminary students, it is not to politicize and socialize the Christian faith as a tool to promote a particular political philosophy or social ideal, but to present the true gospel—God's redemptive act in history—by expressing an understanding of society and culture.

While the establishment of a worldview framework can be extremely rich in its dimensions, it is still contained within a rational system of knowledge. James K.A. Smith, in Desiring the Kingdom, challenges this tradition of rational supremacy in Western theological education. He points out that human beings do not live purely by rational thought, but are liturgical, worshipful creatures. What really drives people to act as human beings are their deepest desires and passions, their vision of the “good life.” Education, then, is not primarily about the assimilation of ideas and information, but about the shaping of hearts and desires; it is not only about getting into the mind, but also (in a more fundamental sense) about capturing the heart, the καρδια of the New Testament (4). It is no coincidence that biblical counselor Paul David Tripp also speaks of each person as having his or her own “abstract theology” and “functional theology” and that

The interpretations a person brings to the events and new awareness… are not the result of objectively held abstract theology. No, the functional theology that shapes the way a person responds during this period is rooted in the values, treasures, and cravings of the person’s heart (5).

This phenomenon is widespread throughout the entire world. Joshua T. Searle, analyzing the mission of theological education in the former Soviet Union after its collapse, astutely points out that the Western-style individualistic approach to evangelism, with its overemphasis on the need for personal conversion, led to a situation where

Western missionaries unwittingly created sub-groups of “wannabe Westerners” – i.e. people who were attracted not only by the message of salvation in Christ, but also by the opportunity to escape the often difficult living conditions of post-Soviet society. Theological education, as taught by Western missionaries in the FSU, has been seen by many as a bridge between the poverty of post-Soviet society and the affluence of Western consumer society (6).

Some scholars also point out that in South Africa, theological education institutions provided students with good theological knowledge, but failed to provide a formal discipleship program appropriate for their real situation, and thus inadvertently hindered their spiritual growth (7).

A similar situation has been emerging since China's economic reforms and opening-up in 1978, so it is of great interest to us. In any case, theological education is not only the transmission of knowledge and the acquisition of skills, but also the formation of people and the transformation of life. According to Alan Leong, “The first importance of education is to produce people with independent personalities and the ability to think and criticize; education must bring about the effects of conceptual enlightenment, intellectual openness, and personality development... Seminaries must first produce complete and mature ‘human beings’ before they are qualified to speak of training ‘preachers’” (8).

In this sense, we see that preachers should take God’s mission as their personal conviction, not only with a rational identification, but also with the desire of their heart. Jesus said, “The truth will set you free” (John 8:32). The way of serving Christ is certainly a way of self-denial, but it is not the same as a moralistic rule that disqualifies one from pursuing the “good life.” Rather, it means that the definition of the vision of the “good life” is completely renewed by the truth, thus developing a Christian maturity that experiences true Spirit-led growth in life, with the values and desires cherished by the heart being redefined by the Word of God. It should be said that such a life transformation is not something that only the preacher needs to experience, but that every Christian should have; however, the preacher must be an example and a forerunner. With such a life foundation, the theological knowledge and ministry skills gained by seminary students in the classroom can be truly implemented and used to build up God’s church and expand God’s kingdom.

In conclusion, the goal of Chinese house church seminaries should be training preachers who are after God’s own heart, whose “spiritual fragrance” comes from within. Therefore, the mindset needs to be reversed: first to help seminary students experience God’s grace, form a spiritual life that desires God’s kingdom, and build a holistic Christian worldview perspective; and then to equip them with the pastoral skills needed for expository preaching, care, and leadership, and to train them to put these skills into practice in real ministry situations.

Challenges Specific to the Chinese Context

Achieving the above-mentioned goal of preparing preachers, or at least moving in that direction, may not be an easy task. In recent years, more and more churches or institutions have begun to open seminaries in China, and while they have certainly produced some talent, they have also faced difficulties. Most of these seminaries have, to a greater or lesser extent, brought some foreign theological resources into the country. But the shift in global Christianity over the past century has caused Western mission agencies to begin to rethink the traditional Western model of theological education (9). It is important to recognize this because it reminds us that a direct transfer of the Western model of theological education to China will inevitably encounter difficulties. Behind theological education, however, is the building of theology itself, which cannot be done overnight. At present, there is no well-developed system of so-called “Chinese theology” for the Chinese church. The theological tradition recognized in the contemporary world still bears the “trappings” of Western culture, so theological education in China inevitably faces the question of “how to express Western theology in the Chinese context.” That is, as long as we are talking about formal theological education that is still based on the framework of the Western theological education tradition, this theological education will necessarily have a cross-cultural and missional character. It is necessary to consider the practical situation and limitations of the Chinese house church and to consider countermeasures on this basis. This includes some characteristics of the Chinese house church itself, as well as differences between East and West in the stage of church development.

The roots of the Chinese church were established by foreign missionaries during the modern missionary movement of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Many of these missionaries were influenced by pietism and focused on spiritual disciplines such as devotion and prayer, which later became the foundation of the Chinese church. In the 1980s and 1990s, house churches in many parts of China (especially in rural areas) experienced great spiritual revival in which the pietistic tradition also played an important role. But what do these spiritual traditions mean for house churches today, decades later? Are they the driving force behind the advancement of the house church in China, or are they the culprit behind the hindrance of church development? Perhaps these traditions should be neither fully accepted nor rejected, but rather carried forward in the process of reformation.

First, the unique value of these pietistic traditions must be recognized. During the long history of persecution in the modern Chinese church, faithful believers have indeed relied on these spiritual disciplines through many difficult years, and the fervor of spiritual revival has indeed brought forth a large community of believers. These are the precious legacies of the previous generation of believers for the Chinese house churches that we should cherish and remember today. Especially in these days when consumerism is spreading throughout the country, churches and believers are often deeply affected. In the face of such challenges, house churches need to consider how the spiritual tradition of pietism can possibly provide resources for today's church to help a new generation of believers resist the onslaught of secularism. Seminary students are part of this new generation of believers, and so this rich resource should not be overlooked when considering the spiritual formation of seminary students.

At the same time, however, it is important to recognize the shortcomings often associated with the house church tradition of pietism. For example, while older church leaders persist in the godly pursuit of the kingdom of God, they generally have a narrow understanding of the kingdom of God, often seeing only the level of personal salvation and the scope of their own churches, thus lacking a cosmic perspective and neglecting God’s universal grace and the care and salvation of the whole created world. This has led to a strong “out-of-this-world” tendency in the teaching of the traditional church, leading believers to avoid integration into secular society in an effort to maintain their own holiness. There is more of an attitude of passive avoidance rather than active participation in the rapidly developing and changing times. In the long run, house churches have gradually become disconnected from society and more and more alienated from each other. And if such a tendency becomes the mainstream of the church, it can even lead to the phenomenon that the more they faithfully obey the teachings of the church and actively engage in ministry, the more they become disconnected from society and do not understand the world. Young seminary students entering seminaries are also likely to bring with them such characteristics and are unfamiliar and uncomfortable with thinking about the Christian worldview. This requires more intentional guidance from seminaries to promote an “in the world but not of the world” formation of church leaders.

In addition, the church tradition of pietism has been integrated with elements of Chinese indigenous culture in the course of its contextual development in China over the past century. One of the phenomena of a church tradition heavily influenced by pietism is that Scripture interpretation is often personal and devotional, with little guidance in hermeneutics and lacking the foundation of the universal church faith traditions. These characteristics, developed in a traditional Chinese culture that values emotions and sentiment over reason and debate, and obedience to authority over independent thought, tend to breed anti-intellectualism in varying degrees. We have seen the dangers of this anti-intellectualism, as many believers who pursue these “spiritual” experiences are prone to blind faith and vacillation; even church teaching often wavers between legalism and antinomianism rather than staying on the right path of the gospel of grace. In order for theology to be firmly grounded, reason is an important tool that God has given us. We have seen that the mainstream Western church tradition, from the Apostles and Church Fathers to the medieval scholastics and the Reformation, was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy and placed great emphasis on reason. If we are to reverse this anti-intellectual tendency rooted in Chinese culture, theological education today will inevitably have to incorporate critical thinking. Therefore, training in rational discernment is very important, and it is often an uncomfortable but necessary task for students entering seminary.

Moreover, as an organization born out of Chinese grassroots society, the house church has a strong flavor of clan patriarchy. The church’s greatest demands on the younger generation are humility and obedience. While these qualities are important and legitimate in their own right, a narrow understanding of them often causes problems. For example, traditional Chinese “humility” discourages people from seeking to be leaders, or in spiritual terms, “all are servants of God.” Behind this apparent humility there is often spiritual pride and avoidance of responsibility. Not talking about leadership and authority on paper does not mean that there is no authority, but it exists in an invisible way that often requires long periods of guessing in the dark. This may be the “unspoken rule” of Chinese grassroots society, but under the renewal of the gospel, the church should recognize the need for change and have the courage to make a breakthrough. As mentioned earlier, the preacher shepherds and teaches the church, and is indeed the leader of the flock. Recognizing this fact, we must recognize the need for seminary students to consciously develop their leadership skills as future church leaders.

On the other hand, the different stages of church development in China and the West have created a tension between the Western model of seminary and the Chinese model of church to some extent. In Western countries, both churches and seminaries have developed to a relatively mature stage. In particular, some denominational seminaries have been working steadily with their respective churches for many years, and the relationship between the two is very close. On the one hand, the seminary students have grown up in the church, and through years of learning in the Sunday school system and weekly sermons, they already have a certain foundation in theology and will not have too much difficulty when they enter a Master of Divinity program. On the other hand, it is possible that several generations of pastors and staff in a church have had similar seminary experiences, so they know exactly what the seminary students will learn and encounter in seminary. When such seminary students return to the church during their studies and after graduation, the elders of the church will know exactly how to help and use them. What they are taught in the seminary and what they practice in the church are basically complementary, and there is not much conflict.

The reality of the Chinese house churches is quite different. Most of the house churches in China have developed in the decades following the economic reforms of the 1970s; they do not have a long history and are in many ways still relatively young. Most church leaders have not received formal theological training. Although they have rich spiritual experience, they do not have a deep understanding of theological education, which makes it difficult to carry out many of the expected tasks in the church according to the Western seminary model, such as pastoral care and practical training for students. Some seminary students have not been equipped before entering the seminary, and their ministry experience and theological foundation are weak, so it is not easy for them to adjust to seminary at first; and when they enter the church after graduation, what they bring to the church may be too new and difficult for the church to accept. All of these factors can create a gap between the seminary and the church, and thus cause difficulties in cooperation between them.

In conclusion, for house church seminaries, the tradition of pietism in the Chinese house churches is a spiritual resource, but it can also create challenges and tensions that are detrimental to the development of the church when combined with Chinese culture. Since most of the churches are still in a relatively early stage of development, and the seminaries are still finding their own models, the interaction between them needs to be fine-tuned. These are unique contextual factors that need to be considered in the current theological education of the house churches.

Recommendations for House Church Seminaries

As noted above, the goal of theological education is to form and shape people in a holistic way: we expect seminary students to experience a renewal of spiritual life, to develop a broad worldview, and to acquire knowledge and skills for ministry. This multifaceted educational goal means that the seminary’s influence and support must be all-encompassing. The learning environment is not limited to the classroom, but also includes various other fellowships, communications, and activities; theological education is not simply about theology itself, but also about the contextualized expression of theology in various situations; the method of learning is not rote memorization and indoctrination, but rather emphasizes critical thinking and the implementation of practical pastoral application. Considering the unique situation of the Chinese house church, we will discuss our recommendations in these three areas.

Learning in Community

First, the entire school environment and atmosphere is crucial to the formation of students’ lives. Under existing conditions, the physical campus is very limited. Here we are talking more about the cultural and community conditions (although there is some connection between the two) (10). Teachers and students in a seminary should be a like-minded group of people in the service of God, and therefore be in fellowship with each other. Relationships between faculty and students, friendships among students, joint and private activities, and formal and informal communication often have a subtle but vital impact. The learning and growth of transformed lives takes place in these deeply communal groups and relationships, and the daily life of a seminarian should be a life of spiritual and authentic community.

Returning to the Bible, we find that the models of theological education are all models of community. From Elijah to Jesus to Paul, the formation of the next generation of spiritual leaders takes place in the context of community life around a central figure. Not only did they discuss theological and pastoral issues together, they also ate and lived together, and this central teacher presented his whole person to the disciples—an organic education. If we look at church history, what Augustine, Martin Luther, and Bonhoeffer did in their communities or small seminaries are also good examples of the important role that community played in theological education. The life of this community is a life of worship, with the worship of God as the purpose and center of the life of the whole community (11). James K.A. Smith notes that because people are worshipful creatures, regardless of the object of worship, it is the worship in community that truly shapes the environment of one’s heart’s desire (12). In fact, the Chinese public education system, from elementary school to university, does not lack this "worshipful" community life as a means of shaping a shared social imagination. If the secular world uses such methods, intentionally or not, to achieve its ends, how much more should Christians who worship the one God, who is truly worthy of worship, treasure this privilege?

If we recognize the importance of community for the growth of our seminary students, we should strengthen our commitment and give more thought to this area. Unfortunately, the decline of community atmosphere is a problem facing many theological institutions around the world today. In particular, the concept of a "campus" is becoming increasingly blurred as seminaries make greater use of distance learning or short-term intensive courses. While these methods of teaching can reduce much of the work and expense, the value of building relationships cannot be ignored. Although distance learning can transmit the sound and image of the classroom through the Internet, the atmosphere of mutual learning among students and the spontaneous and natural communication between teachers and students is severely limited. Rev. Lee Minji has pointed out that digitization means "connection without community," where only information is transmitted, but life is not shared (13). Studying theology is already a lonely journey, and this loneliness is compounded by the fact that distance students cannot feel the atmosphere of the classroom. In fact, many seminaries are aware of this problem and have developed additional online activities to encourage distance students to build relationships with each other. But the format itself is still different from the real interaction of an offline group, and there could even be additional temptations (14). Online community can only be a temporary supplement, not a substitute for real relationships and influence in a physical group. The intensive class format also has many drawbacks and places high demands on students' self-learning skills and self-motivation. There is so much information in the class that it is almost impossible for the students to respond, and by the time the students begin to slowly digest the content of the class, the teacher has already left, making the teaching and pastoral care of the students much less effective. The seminary’s choice of such a teaching method is certainly limited by the particular situation in the country, but on the other hand, in today’s social atmosphere of striving for efficiency and practicality, everyone wants to produce the most results with the least amount of human and material resources (15). It is difficult for churches and seminaries not to be influenced by this, so they gradually get used to these expedient methods and see them as the norm, ignoring the possible losses for the seminary students. It should be said that the distance and intensive format has its applications in some specific situations, but it is not the best option for professional theological education of the kind we are discussing.

Therefore, despite the difficulties, we must promote full-time in-person education as much as possible. In addition, community among students, faculty, and staff must be intentionally structured by the institution, otherwise the ideal community will not emerge spontaneously. Banks' specific suggestions for this include creating casual spaces on campus where students and faculty can eat and rest together informally; building community in the classroom through discussions, small groups, and presentations; and celebrating and commemorating Christian holidays and institutional anniversaries together, among others (16). In addition to these casual opportunities for interaction, students need to form fellowship groups, led by regular mentors, with shared worship and devotional times, as well as deeper shared prayer, etc., through which there is more human expression and connection. In such communities, students are encouraged to develop genuine spiritual friendships in which they can hold each other accountable, face each other's sins and weaknesses together, and be reconciled by acceptance in grace. And such relationships are facilitated not only on the horizontal level, but also on the vertical level of the students’ relationship with God, where the pietistic spiritual tradition of the house churches can come into play. In this atmosphere, students can also organize themselves into more academic or interest groups and explore richer presentations of their faith in corporate worship.

Because of the limited capacity of many existing house churches, many of which are unable to provide solid pastoral support for seminary students, the seminary must also bear some responsibility for the pastoral care of the students. The faculty of the seminary is not only a teaching team, but also a pastoral team. In addition to the faculty, there should be a pastoral mentor, preferably a mature pastor from a nearby church, who can provide the seminary students with personal spiritual guidance and future vocational counseling. Seminaries should also have chaplains and biblical counselors to provide pastoral care for students beyond their studies.

In addition, such community life can help young seminary students learn how to work together and resolve conflicts as they mature in their personal lives. Many preachers who leave the ministry do so because they fail to get along with others. If the preacher himself cannot get along with his fellow pastors, how can he pastor his church well? It is a crucial growing experience for seminary students to live together and strengthen each other as much as possible during their school years. It is often costly for preachers to encounter interpersonal tensions in the pastoral field, but seminaries can give students more tolerance and encouragement and have more resources to help students grow and mature in their relationships.

Overall, the influence between lives that happens in seminary is often intangible. Regardless of the specifics on paper, the manner and attitude of how things are conducted throughout the seminary implicitly proclaim what it truly believes. It is often in this unconscious way that true formation has its deepest impact. Therefore, the seminary is concerned not only with the academic performance of the students, but also with their whole lives: their relationship with God and people, their courses, their fellowship, their church life, etc., all of which help to shape their spiritual life, vision, and abilities. And perhaps most importantly for seminary faculty and staff, it is not what they say or teach, but how they live in their daily interactions with students —whether they truly demonstrate the gospel and theology they believe and preach—that impacts them most.

Interdisciplinary Learning and Contextual Theology

The second major area concerns the content of teaching. In order to establish a holistic vision of the Christian worldview, house church seminaries should open their minds and broaden their horizons from the traditional content of Western theological education, that is from theology itself, to the application of contextual expressions of theology, reflecting on how the Christian worldview interacts with different cultures and times.

The first thing that can be strengthened is the field of history. The history of mankind is also the history of God’s salvation, and the development of church history is itself a process of theological contextualization. The development of theology is the process of solving the practical problems of real history. Therefore, the study of theology requires the study of history. T.E. Chiu even suggests that the study of modern Chinese history must be part of the curriculum of Chinese theological education today, and this certainly includes Chinese church history (17). Seminary students need to understand and respond to contemporary China and the Chinese church from a Christian worldview through an understanding of history, so this aspect of the curriculum is necessary. In addition to special history courses, historical reflection should also be strengthened in other theological courses, so that students can develop the habit of learning to think about theological issues through a historical lens.

Second, from the perspective of forming the whole person and the building of a worldview, music and the arts can be given more weight in the seminary curriculum. The search for truth, goodness, and beauty is an inherent desire of man that reflects the image of God, and the search for truth and the pursuit of godly ethics is the culmination of theological study. Yet aesthetics as an important way of knowing God and the world is often hard to find in seminaries. Indeed, the increasing importance of the aesthetic in human life in the wake of Romanticism has often been overlooked in Protestant churches and theology. As Banks argues, the current theological approach to education focuses on the cognitive aspects of students, but does not pay enough attention to the human imagination and creative capacity, nor does it go far enough (18).

Indeed, music and the arts can often be a helpful complement in this regard, providing concrete examples of how faith is expressed in different cultures around the world. Music is inherently an important element in the Christian worship tradition. Yet, in contrast to the importance of music in the worship of the church, it makes no sense that many of the courses in the Master of Divinity program are not music-related. Not only that, but the development of musical trends is the most popular expression of ideas and culture. And in the case of art in general, it contains a rich message about the world and the church, for art itself is the expression and reflection of human beings about the things they believe in. William A. Dyrness notes that the study of works of art can be discussed on three levels of theological education, thus involving three different levels of practice. These levels include the theology embodied in the works of art themselves, the impact of these works on the worship practices of the congregation, and helping students develop a spiritual sensitivity through art as part of their spiritual disciplines. He writes,

Art can make us reflect upon and can challenge or affirm our own values and presuppositions. Just as going across cultural boundaries often throws in sharp relief the unique values that differentiate us from others, so an encounter with a richly elaborated artwork can elicit deep feelings and set up resonance with many dimensions of our experience (19).

In terms of concrete implementation, this does not mean that the seminary must introduce more art courses; a more viable option is to find ways to integrate them into the curriculum already in place, and to use more art in all forms—painting, sculpture, music, song, fiction, drama, poetry, film, video, crafts, dance, etc.—in its teaching (20).

In addition, to help students develop a worldview system, it would be helpful to offer liberal arts courses that come from a Christian worldview perspective. This may be difficult for the average seminary, and the cooperation between a seminary in Western China and its School of Humanities is a good precedent. Seminary students are required to take courses from the School of Humanities as electives and auditors, thus achieving a balanced and organic connection between theological education (knowledge of God and man) and humanities education (knowledge of the world) within a Christian perspective. But one should also be careful that seminary students must first have a solid spiritual foundation and a committed church life, otherwise there is a danger that they will be drawn to the liberal arts courses to the detriment of the study of theology itself. More importantly, that seminary’s approach may point us to a possible future direction in the long run, namely, a partnership between a seminary and a Christian university.

To help seminary students better adjust to ministry after graduation, seminaries typically have internship requirements for students, usually in terms of credits or hours, but less attention is paid to the specific content of the internship. In fact, internships in real ministry settings can be an important form of learning. In order to help seminary students broaden their horizons, gain a greater understanding of the expression of God's gospel and the expansion of God's kingdom, and go beyond their personal spiritual experiences to see and learn about ministry from a global perspective, it is recommended that seminaries consider partnering with various “parachurch” institutions, so that, in addition to the daily pastoral practice of seminary students in their local or home churches, they are also given more short-term but varied internships to observe and learn in each of these organizations for a short period of time. The key is to cover as fully and extensively as possible a wide variety of ministry positions, including short-term missions, long-term missions, campus ministry, biblical counseling, worship groups, Christian schools, etc. This will allow students to understand the different types of full-time ministry in a relatively short period of time, so that they can have clarity about their specific callings and prepare for their future direction. Even for seminary students who are clearly called to be pastors, a deeper understanding of the nature and content of the work of these institutions can be beneficial for better partnership between the church and such institutions in the future (21). This proposal also highlights the difference between China and other foreign countries. In foreign countries, the various parachurch institutions are open and transparent, and students can approach and learn about them independently, but in our current situation, for various reasons, many institutions are semi-public or completely hidden, and it is difficult for "outsiders" to know their information and gain trust (a situation that often limits the development of the institutions themselves). It is likely that seminary students have never been exposed to these institutions, so their understanding and perspective on ministry tends to be narrow. Seminaries, as a platform for more information, can help and support seminary students in this area.

Critical Thinking for Continuous Learning

In the third area of methodology, as mentioned earlier, believers in traditional house churches often lack independent thinking, and they are likely to be completely unfamiliar with and unprepared for the Western way of thinking. Therefore, they desperately need training and preparation in critical thinking. In this regard, it is important to free the mind, encourage questioning, and face conflict and doubt head-on. Many seminaries are now responding by offering introductory courses in research methodology in their incoming students’ first semester. These courses should not only teach the specific principles of reading and writing, but also encourage the development of a critical way of thinking. At the same time, it is important to recognize that the Western Christian tradition of philosophical reasoning is not an absolute standard, and that the tendency to reduce Christianity to a "limited set of doctrinal propositions" does not fully reveal the richness of Scripture. Perhaps theological education also needs to look for resources of common grace in the traditional Chinese way of thinking and learn to express the content of the Christian faith within it.

This is not just a specific subject, but it is a common need for reflection in the teaching and learning of all subjects. D.H. Lam, for example, pointed out that the teacher has the greatest influence on students’ critical thinking, regardless of the specific subject. “The adequacy of lesson preparation, the organization of the materials, the encouragement of active participation in discussions, and the content of the exams to illustrate thinking have a significant impact on the development of students' analytical skills” (22). Although Chinese students are often used to (and comfortable with) the "spoon-feeding" method, it is difficult to achieve good results for our teaching purposes. Seminary teachers should try to avoid one-sided indoctrination, and instead take care to combine classroom discussion and post-class research to lead students to spontaneous learning, with more pairing and cooperation among them, so that they can learn from each other. Especially in today's Internet age, the breadth and depth of information gathering has been revolutionized. Many materials that were once available only to professionals are now available to the average person online. The new generation of seminaries should respond to this reality and make good use of the resources brought about by this common grace. This is a particularly important area to focus on for house church seminaries, where the building of physical libraries is limited in many ways. Efforts should also be made to provide students with access to real information and to build online or electronic libraries. The training of students should not emphasize rote memorization, but should focus on methods that cultivate thinking, including, of course, helping students acquire the ability to access and evaluate information. Seminaries with the capacity to do so should also consider offering seminars, i.e., thematic discussion courses, for the upper grades to encourage students to explore spontaneously and to cultivate the habit of extensive reading and long-term study.

The process of learning should not stop in the classroom, but must be put into practice. The theological learning process is complete when a theological student is able to integrate the course content, apply it to pastoral situations, and truly minister to believers and seekers in the church. This requires the cooperation of the seminary and the church, and the willingness of the church to provide a platform for seminary students to practice what they have learned, to tolerate their immaturity, and to provide grace-filled support and guidance.

Finally, it should be added that theological study should be a lifelong endeavor for anyone who serves God, even for every Christian. The student’s years in seminary are very limited and cannot fully accomplish the task of forming a life, but are only a beginning, laying a foundation and giving a proper direction. Therefore, seminaries should also be conscious of helping seminary students in their long-term studies, such as holding regular pastoral forum seminars and offering refresher courses for preachers. For alumni, they should stay in touch through alumni associations to continue the spiritual friendships formed on campus, so that new preachers do not feel lonely, but have a support group behind them. In fact, graduates who have gone to different churches and come back for reunions have brought those churches closer to each other and to the seminary, and can further promote mutual understanding and cooperation.

In conclusion, since our God is a triune God, our theological education should be both one and many. The maturity of spiritual life, the worldview, and the intellectual skills of ministry are not separate, but are different facets of a real person. And the atmosphere, teaching content, and learning methods of the seminary are not isolated factors, but are integrated to work together to dynamically form people and return them to God's will in the midst of real difficulties. Even though the content discussed is diverse and complex, and there is a wide gap between the ideal and reality, it is still worth the struggle. We should try our best to reflect the essence of unity in theological education. We also pray for the anointing of the Holy Spirit to bless generations of Chinese house church pastors through theological education, and for the seminary to become a blessing for the Chinese house church.

Rebecca Chen was born in China. She and her family became Christians when she was a teenager. She received seminary training in the United States with an MDiv degree. Now she serves in theological education for the house church in China.

Notes

1. Jeffery A. Landis, “The Pastor as Prophet, Priest, and King,” New Horizons, July 2011, accessed May 13, 2022, https://opc.org/nh.html?article_id=712.

2. Wu, Dongri, "How to Do Theological Education in China," Sacred Mountain Magazine, No. 2, 2009, 46.

3. John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1987), 81.

4. James K.A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview & Culture Formation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009), 22.

5. Paul David Tripp, Lost in the Middle: Midlife and the Grace of God, (Shepherd Press, 2004), 51.

6. Joshua T. Searle, “From Christian Worldview to Kingdom Formation: Theological Education as Mission in the Former Soviet Union,” European Journal of Theology 23 (Autumn, 2014): 104–115, 16.

7. Johannes J. Knoetze, “Transforming theological education is not the accumulation of knowledge, but the development of consciousness," Verbum et Ecclesia, July 2020, 41.1(1), a2075. https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v41i1.2075.

8. Alan Leong, Preface, Cultivating Theological Education for a New Generation of Preachers - Essays of the 2016 Theological Education Conference, ed. Man-yiu Lee (Hong Kong: Alliance Bible Seminary, 2016), 12.

9. Andrew F. Walls, “Overseas Ministries and the Subversion of Theological Education,” International Bulletin of Mission Research, Vol 45, Issue 1, 2021: 7-14.

10. Editor’s note: Given the illegality of any religious institution that is not willing to comply with the oversight of the Chinese Communist Party, Chinese seminaries may take place virtually or underground, making it difficult to replicate a typical campus experience.

11. Robert J. Banks, Reenvisioning Theological Education: Exploring a Missional Alternative to Current Models (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 138.

12. James K.A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom, 158.

13. Classroom lecture on "Theology of Worship" given by Rev. Lee Minji at the Reformed Theological Seminary in Taipei in January 2022.

14. One of the problems is that when distance students begin to build relationships with each other, the nature of the network dictates that this communication is hardly ever completely public and open, but private; not many-to-many, but one-to-one. If the students are younger, it is harder to grasp the emotional boundaries between male and female relationships in the long run, and it is difficult for any supervision of inappropriate relationships.

15. Editor’s note: This presumably refers to the nature of persecution in China and other countries.

16. Banks, Reenvisioning Theological Education, 223.

17. T.E. Chiu, Help Me Go - A Vision for Evangelization in China (Taipei: Evangelical Church in China Publications, 1993), 323.

18. Banks, Reenvisioning Theological Education, 220.

19. William A. Dyrness, “Sharpening Our Vision as a Mode of Theological Education," Sacred Imagination: The Arts and Theological Education, Theological Education Volume XXXI, Number 1 (Autumn 1994): 91-96, 94.

20. Banks, Reenvisioning Theological Education, 221.

21. The inspiration for this suggestion came from the internship experience in the author’s own medical education. In a seven-year master's degree in clinical dentistry, only four and a half years are spent in the program, and the other two and a half years are spent in internship. Each student is required to spend six months in a large clinical internship in a general hospital, rotating through three or more departments, then a year in general dentistry, and then a final year in their specialty. This means that for one and a half years of the internship, the student will be doing something that will not be part of their future career, but through these departmental rotations, the student will be able to understand the structure of the entire health care system and the collaboration mechanism between various medical disciplines, and will have a comprehensive understanding of the professional practice of dentistry. All of this is very helpful for the future career of dentists.

22. D. H. Lam, Theology is the Study of God: A Journey without End (Hong Kong: Dao Sheng Publishing, 2011), 130.

This article was written for a seminary in China.

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.