lifeasmission
exploring the mystery of life and mission as one and the same
-
Archive of "Fuller Seminary" Category
Dr. Rozko?
I have a decision to make. Several months ago I wrote a post about Fuller pulling together a DMiss cohort around the topic of Anabaptist Perspectives in Missional Ecclesiology. I applied to this program and it is scheduled to begin this November.
In the meantime, I accepted a job here in the Chicagoland area at Northern Seminary which is pulling together its own DMin cohort around the topic of missional leadership.
Of course each program comes with its own features and benefits. Both programs are cohort-based and non-residential, but let me lay out some of the distinctives of each program and see what sort of thoughts and advice you might have to offer.
The DMiss…
The DMiss, like a PhD, is a research driven program. The program moves from theological/missiological considerations to issues of context and culture, and finally, to leadership and change dynamics. The final year is given to integration, assessment, and dissertation writing. The cohort will be led, primarily, by Wilbert Shenk and James Krabill.
The DMin…
The DMin is a course driven program, the topics such as, “The Church in Post-Christendom, The Gospel and Culture, Missional Theology, and Misional Leadership.” The program culminates in the writing of a thesis. David Fitch is leading the cohort while Al Roxburgh and Craig Van Gelder will be involved as well.
I think very highly of both of these schools and their programs. I think both programs will do immeasurable good in equipping men and women for service in and to missional churches, but I go back and forth on which one is the best for me, at this time, given the larger scope of all that God is doing in my life.
What sort of questions would you be asking if you were me? What aspects of doctoral level education do you believe are most important and relevant?
Reviewing Deep Church by Jim Belcher
Jim Belcher, the author of Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional, and I have much in common.
We both did masters degrees at Fuller Theological Seminary.
We both have a heart for church planting.
I teach a class on the Emerging Church based on the intensive that he references in his book. (35)
We get frustrated when people talk past one another, defaulting to caricatured stereotypes rather than embracing a posture of openness.
And we both value looking for a “third way” to approach dichotomistic thinking.
He is right when he says,
It seems that every time someone criticizes the emerging church, they pick the worst-case scenario or the most extreme statements. (49)
He is also correct in noting,
It seems the emerging church, for rhetorical purposes, uses sweeping generalizations about the traditional church that are unfair. (76)
The larger Body of Christ would indeed be served well by discourse that is deeper, more specific, and marked by a sense of humble openness. Belcher’s chapters on Deep: Truth, Evangelism, Gospel, Worship, Preaching, Ecclesiology, and Culture, are essentially his attempts to facilitate just that – a worthwhile enterprise in my opinion.
While Belcher’s book is truly helpful in this regard, I’m not sure he really hits the mark in terms of articulating a true “third way” as a means of engaging these topics. Very often, his conclusions in these chapters are a combination of a chastened version of the EC position he articulates and an expanded version of the traditional position he articulates (usually w/ reference to Tim Keller and his church!). I suppose this is a kind of “third way,” maybe even precisely the one Belcher desires, but I’m not certain it’s the most helpful kind of third way for the Church to pursue.
The mistake, I believe, comes in the assumption that one can simply pit the positions of the EC against the positions of the traditional church. The main problem here is that many in the EC camp are themselves trying to articulate and maneuver a “third way” between the modern categories of conservatism and liberalism, a feature that Belcher seems to either overlook or discount w/o comment. An indication of this is his quick dismissal of the Anabaptist tradition from which many in the EC draw as one which is able to circumvent many of the dichotomies addressed in this book on account of its fundamentally, Christendom-rejecting, stance. Belcher never seems to ask, “How might people in the EC camp already be searching for a third way in response to classic approaches to these issues?,” but assumes that their positions are simply reactions against the positions of traditional churches.
Belcher sets himself on this course in stating,
We need to define it [the emerging church] as a movement, particularly its theology. The best way to do this is to look at what the emerging church movement is against – the things they are protesting and the rasons why they are calling for change. (38)
For the life of me, I can’t grasp why someone would want to define a movement by what they are against (even it it is a protest movement) rather than what they are for. We certainly regard what the classic reformers were for as far more more important than what they were against! But more than this, Belcher fails to identify missiology as a core motif for the EC. For many, if not most, in the global EC movement, it is an attempt to participate with God and God’s mission in the world that is reshaping how they understand the sorts of topics that Belcher raises in his book, not vice versa.
These criticisms notwithstanding, I am glad that Jim wrote this book and don’t doubt for a second that it has an will continue to help many.
**Jim has recently decided to resign from his position as lead pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Newport Beach, CA. You can read a letter he wrote to the congregation regarding this transition here and some additional discussion about this sort of trend here.
Letters to Brian McLaren from Emerging Church Students
I am fortunate to get to instruct an online course entitled, “The Emerging Church in the 21st Century,” for Fuller Theological Seminary each year. Based on current discussions and publications, I try to make appropriate and helpful updates to the course each time around. This year, I decided to make Brian McLaren’s newest book, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith, an optional book choice (students have to read something by McLaren).
After I made this decision, a flurry of reviews of the book were published all over the blogosphere. I was disappointed that a great many of them paid no mind to the life and ministry of the author and were virtually completely devoid of charity, something which ought to mark all Christian discourse. More than this, I was thwarted in my effort to find reviews that offered reflections that were practical in nature.
Convinced that there is a better way to engage with the material of Christian authors, I created an alternative assignment, which about half of the class has chosen to participate in. I created a blog, dearbrianmclaren.wordpress.com, and invited students to write a personal letter to Brian. Here’s the criteria for the assignment and grading:
1) Letter must be addressed to Brian as the author of the book and should be between 500-600 words.2) You must speak to the practical implications of Brian’s content for your own life and ministry – no abstract, hypothetical or theoretical speculation. If taken seriously, what are the implications of Brian’s points and proposals for your church or how you live and minister? Obviously, you will have to be selective and won’t be able to address everything in the book, that’s fine.3) The degree to which you write with Christian charity. You are welcome, even encouraged, to disagree with anything (or everything!) Brian has to say, that’s not the point. The point is showing that you can disagree and respond to an actual person with Christian charity.5) Included within the letter, or at the end, you should pose 2-3 questions to Brian that you are left with after reading the book.4) Provided enough people are reviewing the book in this manner, you must comment on at least three other peoples letters/posts within a week of their being posted on the blog.These letters have been posted and Brian has even been gracious enough to give some time to reading and responding to them. Though this is primarily a class assignment, the blog is public and I’d encourage you to read the letters and offerer comments if you choose.
Even better, if you’ve read the book, I’d invite to you respond along the lines of the guidelines above and leave a link to your letter in the comments below.
Anabaptist Missional Ecclesiology – Doctor of Missiology
All good missional ecclesiology is owing to the Anabaptist tradition. I came to understand that at some point in grad school and have only become more convinced of it since.
This is why I want to let everyone I can know about an incredible opportunity coming up this fall. Ever heard of a DMiss? If you haven’t, you need to familiarize yourself.
The DMiss is an applied research doctoral degree designed for ministry practitioners as opposed to straight academics, but its focus is missiology – an increasingly vital dimension of study for those engaged in ministry within Post-Christendom.
This fall Fuller Theological Seminary is launching an “Anabaptist Missional Perspectives Cohort” for those interested in the DMiss program. From Fuller’s page on the DMiss program…
The Doctor of Missiology degree equips leaders to effectively integrate theory into missional praxis within the global reality of the twenty-first century. With this program, key leaders will continue their ministries in-context, attending a cohort-based seminar once a year for four years at Fuller’s campus, and interacting with a Fuller SIS faculty member.
The DMiss program is designed for leaders with a minimum of five years of missional experience who desire:
1. To assist mission leaders in context.
2. To have direct impact on practical ministry.
3. To maximize their leadership potential within their organizations.If you’re interested in anabaptism or missional ecclesiology, have already got a masters degree, are looking for some more education, and are convinced, like me, that the best forms of education are those rooted in a learning community of engaged Christian leaders, you really need to check out this program. Deadline for applications is the end of May and if you hurry, you might even be able to get a refund on your application fee!
Learn more about the cohort model of education here.
Learn more about the program structure here.
Let me know if you have any questions, I’d love to talk more about it. And please forward this on to others you think might be interested.
Toward A Missional Vision of Theological Education: Preliminary Thoughts
After having given several posts to the consideration of bi-vocational ministry, its relationship to missional ecclesiology, defending it as a spiritually formative leadership model, and then commenting on its relationship to theological education, I have been thinking more and more about how we are equipping leaders to lead truly missional communities. Though it’s in no way a brand new topic of interest to me (see here & here), I want to unpack, in a more focused manner, some of the shortcomings of our current system of theological education and begin sketching what I find to be a more faithful way forward.
In anticipation of some things I want to say in future posts, I want to offer just a few preliminary thoughts that I think are important to have in mind as I write and as discussion (so badly hoping that some good discussion ensues!) takes place.
1) Seminary is not evil. Unless it changes and adapts it will be increasingly ineffective and irrelevant, but that’s not to say it has no positive effects. I am a product of a Seminary education and I’m thankful for it. In fact, I could hardly have a good grasp on the shortcomings of it had I not gone through it.
2) There is no one, right, “biblical” way to come at this. I hope to make a case for a missional vision of theological education that is more biblically faithful given our context than what is currently offered, but it’s not because I find it to be the only/universal approach.
3) This is a huge topic. I have no intention of addressing all the many dimensions of this topic that deserve to be touched on. I am more interested in fleshing out some general thoughts for the sake of stoking the fires of imagination and creativity.
4) I’m not writing from an ivory tower. Not only would such a thing fly in the face of all I want to propose, but these reflections are born out of raw pastoral desire to see the church grow and flourish by being led well. I am writing as one involved in a local church community that’s doing the hard work of making this uphill journey.
That being said, I am looking forward to some hopefully spirited dialogue in the coming weeks as I try too deal with what’s wrong with out current system, what we ought to be aspiring to, how it relates to a missional ecclesiology, and what it might take to move us forward. Genuinely interested for others to weigh in and fill in gaps.
Bi-Vocational Ministry & Theological Education
I think this will be my last post in a series on bi-vocational ministry. If you’re looking to catch up, feel free to check out the earlier ones:2) Bi-Vocational Ministry & the Missional Church
3) Bi-Vocational Ministry & Spiritual Formation
4) Bi-Vocational Ministry & Support Raising
Thinking on this topic has stirred up a number of thoughts, ideas, and connections that I think will take shape in a next series of posts, so I won’t say too much here.
What I will say is this…
In 2004 when I began my education at Fuller Theological Seminary, I was on the fence about doing an MDiv. I wasn’t sure that my future was going to be in professional, paid, church staff ministry. I also wasn’t so sure that the structure of the degree was all that well equipped to prepare people for that sort of ministry given the trajectory of the Western church anyway. To my utter shock, I soon discovered that these sentiments were widely shared and many of the people who would have been the best candidates for MDiv’s were opting for less traditional and more flexible routes. (FYI – Fuller has since done some major and commendable course correcting regarding all their programs, including the MDiv!)
My hesitations confirmed by the sentiments and decisions of my peers, I chose to do an MA in theology which gave me the ability to take 1/2 my classes out of Fullers’ School of Intercultural Studies enabling me to craft a degree that explored a missiology of Western culture.
In contrast to the average School of Theology student, many of the students doing degrees in the School of Intercultural Studies had widely marketable skills and trades. Whereas the average SOT student was there to get an academic credential in order to get a job, the average SIS student was in school to learn how to be better a better missionary or to do more study regarding a particular area of interest. Unlike their SOT counterparts, they weren’t looking for a degree to get a job.
Now, Fuller as a school didn’t create this reality per se, they were merely filling two different needs, augmenting on the one hand, and preparing on the other.
If, as I have tried to say, churches being led by a team of bi-vocational leaders is more sustainable, healthier for leaders and congregations alike, and all-around positively spiritually formative, then theological schools would do well to intentionally structure themselves for the sort of education that Fuller’s SIS was offering de facto.
There is a lesson to be learned here from Christian Liberal Arts schools (yeah Malone!) which prepare men and women of God for service in all areas of life… AS FOLLOWERS OF JESUS. That people would “graduate” from this sort of education to one of specialized, professional theological training is a regrettable reality. I say this as one with the highest of value for theological rigor and advanced training. But, I also say it as one who thinks these things should never come at the expense of extending to Christian leaders the opportunity to lose touch with “the world.”
A missional ecclesiology calls for a missional approach to theological education that would be best described in terms of formational training. This is what I hope to explore further in my next series of posts.
Popular Posts
recent posts
Share-Worthy
- Me Vs. Craig Carter on Same Sex Relations: How My Position Differs from the Traditional Evangelical Approach (Reclaiming the Mission)
- A Missional Ecclesiology [In Brief] – Part IV (Dream Awakener)
- Deprivation and Hope {into the story} (winncollier)
- The Nature Of Faith (Jonathan Brink)
- Thoughts on the mosque at Ground Zero (J.R. Briggs)
tweets
- . @amyrozko made pesto & it was out of this world good. Like, "I'm gonna put it on my cereal tomorrow" good. #FB http://twitpic.com/2koy8h 17 hrs ago
- shared: Me Vs. Craig Carter on Same Sex Relations: How My Position Differs from the Traditional Evangelical Approach http://bit.ly/dzSs0X 22 hrs ago
- lifeasmission ReDeux:: Halloween Party http://bit.ly/c8lOdh #FB 1 day ago
- lifeasmission ReDeux:: My Friend Jason: A Real Man of Genius http://bit.ly/ce2XPV #FB 2 days ago
- Blast you 6:30! Why can't you be more like your brother, 8:00!! 2 days ago
- More updates...
Recent Comments
- Rob on Dr. Rozko?
- jrrozko on Dr. Rozko?
- jrrozko on Dr. Rozko?
- matttebbe on Dr. Rozko?
- jrrozko on Dr. Rozko?
Ecclesia Bloggers
