The crux of my message this past Sunday, at least as it pertains to my own personal story, had to do with the way in which God used my years at Fuller Theological Seminary to shake me up and refine me. I simply can’t say enough positive things about my experience at Fuller and its desire to shape the future of theological education as it relates to the church.
The other day my friend and former professor, Dr. Ryan Bolger, posted, “Fuller Seminary and Emerging Churches” on his blog. It is a great read, chalk full of the reasons that I think Fuller in uniquely equipped to come along side those who really have a burden for the church in Western culture as I do.
On top of that, I subscribe to a Fuller podcast and the latest one was entitled “Fuller’s Future (ab. 20 mins. if you wanna listen),” and reminded me of even more stuff that make me happy to be a Fuller grad.
I have said it before (here and here), but I wanna say it again. Fuller is a great school. It repudiates the false dichotomy of conservative and liberal. It pushes no denominational agenda or system of belief. And its faculty seeks to find unity in God and God’s mission over and above any particular theological bent. If you are thinking about theological/missiological/psychological education, Fuller needs to be on top of your list of schools to consider.
4 responses so far ↓
1 Nathan // Jun 3, 2008 at 12:19 pm
“It pushes no denominational agenda or system of belief. And its faculty seeks to find unity in God and God’s mission over and above any particular theological bent.”
Isn’t the belief that unity should be sought in God’s and God’s mission - and that this unity must be at least partially defined in opposition to “denominational agendas” and “systems of belief” - isn’t all this itself a “particular theological bent” or even a system of belief? What makes this approach transcend all the other approaches that make similar claims for themselves? I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Fuller (or JrjrR) having a particular theological bent (and there’s certainly nothing wrong with seeking unity in God!); it just seems a odd to say you don’t have a theological bent in the same sentence in which you just described your theological bent.
Would it be better to say that our theologizing should be in service of God and God’s kingdom and not the other way around?
2 Nathan // Jun 3, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Sorry, I meant “JrRjr” not “JrjrR”.
3 JR Rozko // Jun 3, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Ooooh, that’s what I have to do to get you to comment - just be a lazy and imprecise writer.
You are right of course. I thought about trying to be more articulate, but decided to let it slide, my bad.
We all have some theological bent, there is really no getting around that. I mean, there would have to be (and there is) some common denominators for people to work together in any fruitful way. I suppose a better way to say it would have been (and adding to what you said), to say that Fuller, unencumbered as it is by denominational expectations and allegiances, can place its emphases elsewhere. They can embrace a broader faculty and student body - making room for more voices, which is always better, but also always harder.
To take it a step further, I would say that the centrality of the Kingdom of God, across schools, provides a unifying identity, but it’s that very concept which allows for more inclusiveness and maybe that’s what I am truly thankful for.
4 Nathan // Jun 3, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I’m also procrastinating on a paper - that helps me comment on blogs.
Cheers!
Leave a Comment