Theological
Education and Missional Formation
Theological
education does not exist on its own. It exists to serve the church so that the
church can rightly understand God’s mandate to bring salvation to all nations until
the Lord returns. What kind of theological education does the church need? In
discussion with Alexander Duff’s mission theology, Andrew F. Walls draws out a
missiological implication, saying, “Duff’s scheme assumes that the study of
mission lies at the center of the theological curriculum, not at its margin,
for mission is the reason for the existence of the church.”[1]
The church does not precede mission. Rather, there is church because there is
mission—the missio Dei.
In
the light of the missio Dei as the
purpose of the existence of the church, the church must be missional in the
sense that the nature and practice of the church must be
theological-understood, christological-shaped, and missional-driven. Craig Van
Gelder says, “Mission is no longer understood in this conversation primarily in
functional terms as something the church does;
rather, it is understood in terms of something the church is, something that is related to its nature.”[2]
The church is missional because God who created the church is a missionary God. The praxis of the church is entirely
determined by the being of the church; the being of the church derives from the
being of God, which is characterized by his trinitarian sendings of one another
to the world. The inner being and outward acting of the triune God are two
sides of the same coin. So does the church.
The being of the church must be outwardly expressed through missional
praxis. In reverse, the praxis of the church points to the missionary nature of
the church that reflects the triune God as a missionary God.
If
the purpose and existence of theological education is to serve the church so
that the church can be truly missional on earth, theological education and its
curriculum should be structured and oriented to build up the missional church.
Van Gelder suggests, “Missional theology helps foster an integration of the
various foci within theological education by incorporating formation,
education, and vocation within a larger framework of God’s mission in the world
and the church’s participation in it.”[3]
Traditionally,
theological education is composed of four divisions: biblical, theological, historical,
and practical studies. It is commonly known as the fourfold curriculum. This
system was developed by Protestants in the European context after the
Reformation. The original intent was to separate these disciplines so that it
could be easily understood and applied without any intention of splitting the
four disciples apart from the whole. However, the theory/practice split did
occur, especially under the influence of the Enlightenment, which was trying to
“establish foundations for human knowledge” and to “do so through the use of
the studied discipline of experience and the exercise of reason.” As a
consequence, “The development of theory in this context became the focus, and
its critical application came to be seen as a separate and sequential action.”[4]
Doctrine
and practice are separated by the divisions of the classical theological
curriculum. Such a separation is unfortunate but it can be restored. Ellen T.
Charry notes:
Reclaiming the
beauty of life with God for the people of God will require attending to the
practice of life with God….Whatever the intellectual adjustments that must be
made in order to do so, the reclamation of the pastoral functions of doctrine
will fail unless theology is reconnected to devotional life. For theology is not
just an intellectual art; it cultivates the skill of living well….Christian
doctrine can guide the Christian life because it forms identity and character.
But it is not the only Christian instrument of formation, but the chief of
several such tools.[5]
The
dichotomy of doctrine and practice can be linked through Christian formation—paideia. The goal of theological
education is to present everybody mature in Christ (Col. 1:28), nurturing them
to be like Christ (1 Jn. 3:2) until Christ is fully formed in their lives (Gal.
4:19). Doctrinal understanding of God is outwardly expressed in our devotional
living. In this vein, the Christian formation of a person should be the goal of
theological education. The goal of theological education is not to increase the
knowledge of God in one’s mind, but to cultivate piety and godliness in life.
If the goal of theological education is to nurture Christians to be like Christ, the result of Christ-likeness is to follow Christ. Christ was sent to do the will of God to finish God’s work (Jn. 4:34). Followers of Christ are sent out to do the same. In other words, Christian formation is insepartion from Christian mission. The Father sent the Son. The Spirit was sent by the Father and the Son. Then, the church is invited and sent by the Father, the Son, and the Spirit into the world to carry out the missio Dei to the end of the earth until the end of the age (Acts 1:8; Matt. 28:19-20). Missional theology can be a unitary subject that gives a coherence of the classic theological curriculum, which nurtures missiologists to know God truly in thought and deed. Kyle J. A. Small writes, “Instead of finding the one best way to do mission, Mission becomes one of the unifying identities in a polycentric vocation of theological education. Mission is participation in the reign of God, and it is an operative habitus…for which leadership is cultured.”[6]
This
is Edward Farley’s understanding of theological education as a theological
task.[7]
The term theologia must regain its
proper meaning, which is understood as a sapiential
knowledge of God. Theologia is
not knowing about God, but knowing God in relation. It is more than knowing
God. It is about living before God. Theologia
is a transforming encounter with God. Such a transforming knowledge leads a
person to become a transforming and renewing being (Rom. 12:1-2). Such a person
is a missional person, for he lives unto the missionary God.
[1] Andrew F. Walls, “Missiological
Education in Historical Perspective,” in Missiological
Education for the Twenty-First Century: The Book, the Circle, and the Sandals:
Essays in the Honor of Paul E. Pierson, edited by J. Dudley Woodberry,
Charles Van Engen, and Edgar J. Elliston (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1996), p. 14.
[2] Craig Van Gelder, “Theological
Education and Missional Leadership Formation: Can Seminaries Prepare Missional
Leaders for Congregations?” in The
Missional Church and Leadership Formation, edited by Craig Van Gelder
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), p. 42.
[3] Ibid., p. 44.
[4] Ibid., p. 35.
[5] Ellen T. Charry, By the Renewing of Your Minds: the Pastoral
Function of Christian Doctrine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997),
pp. 239-240.
[6] Kyle J. A. Small, “Missional
Theology for Schools of Theology: Re-engaging the Question ‘What is Theological
about a Theological School?’” in The
Missional Church and Leadership Formation, p. 67.
[7] See Edward Farley, “The Reform
of Theological Education as a Theological Task,” in Theological Education 17 (Spring 1981), pp. 93-117.
