Theological Mentoring and Spiritual Direction
In this brief conversation paper, I seek to raise a discussion on the challenges of contemporary theological education as formation in the biblical/theological traditions, in spiritual practices, and in vocational skills. And specifically, I wish to raise the question whether mentoring and spiritual direction can play a part in this formation process. I need to immediately add that this does not exclude other ways in which students can be assisted in their educational journey. I have always practiced academic advising, general pastoral help, small group care, and hospitality in our home, as some of the other ways we can journey with our students in their formation. And I have practised theological formation in informal small-group and friendship networks, and not only in institutional settings.
I also need to point out that when I speak of theological education, I do not only have formal education in mind but also recognise the many informal ways that can contribute to one’s formation. Also, theological education is more than only clergy- training. There are Christians who pursue theological education for the purpose of gaining Christian perspectives – even a Christian world-view – to undergird and guide their workplace involvements, and their life of witness and service.
Theological Education
Before we can pursue the above topic, we first have to reiterate what theological education is all about. And in whatever way that is defined, it will usually reflect one’s denominational orientation. But, let me first attempt to generalize as much as possible
· It is training/formation in procuring suitably qualified persons for pastoral ministry, service in church-related institutions, and mission work.
· It is the theological, spiritual, and practical formation of the whole people of God for their life and service in the family, the church, and the marketplace.
· It is the shaping of the life of the Christian for growth in knowledge (head), love (heart), and service (hand) in the following of Jesus.
· It is imbibing the rich Christian heritage in its two-thousand-year journey in its theologizing, its liturgical and spiritual practices, and its witness and service in the world.
Other short-hand formulations of the above are possible, and the order of priority will vary. I would place the above four perspectives on a continuum rather than in a hierarchical order. And I am suggesting that the above dimensions are only a starting point. Much more needs to be said and a richer picture needs to be painted.
And since much – though not all – of my teaching has been in broad-based Evangelical institutions, it is appropriate for me to move from the general to the particular.
Broad Theological Issues in an Evangelical Frame
In this reflection, I will move from broader themes that need to be in focus, to more specific themes.
First, one can’t meaningfully inhabit the whole Christian tradition. It is appropriate, therefore, to locate oneself in a particular faith-tradition. In this case, the Evangelical tradition is in focus. But given the diversity of this tradition, one usually goes to indicate that one is a Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, Evangelical Anglican, and so on.
Second, theological traditions are not stagnant, but developmental and contextual. Thus, one needs to know something of a tradition’s genesis and its particular charism and orientation, and how that tradition has developed over the years. Usually, in this development, one can see stabilization and even dogmatism, as well as renewal and revitalization. Faith traditions do go through phases and each phase has particular strengths and weaknesses.
Third, it should not surprise us that the genesis of a theological tradition is open to debate. The Evangelical tradition is rooted in the Reformation and in the Wesleyan and Pietistic movements, among other more contemporary influences. But a case can be made that its tributaries include the renewal movements of the Middle Ages and the teaching of the Church Fathers. And most fundamentally, Evangelicalism always makes the claim of fidelity to the biblical narratives and their normativity for faith and life.
Fourth, the way a theological tradition develops over time is both exciting and problematical at the same time. Exciting, is its renewal and contemporary relevance. Of concern, is when it is narrowed to become a hard-driven ideological position, or it becomes so broad and accommodating that it is no longer recognizable. It seems that the latter is a contemporary concern.
Fifth, theological traditions are never wholly uniform. They have a continuum. There are those (usually the majority) who are centrally located, and there are those who are more conservative at one end of the spectrum and those who are more radical at the other end. This diversity in unity should be celebrated rather than condemned. And it is this diversity that can provide a dynamism to the tradition. However, this is not always appreciated. There are always those who seek a rigid uniformity. And Jacques Ellul is right in his historical reflection that after the revolutionaries (and reformers) come the bureaucrats.
Dynamic Theological Educational Issues
Many theological institutions fall into either of two categories. The one is a denominational institution. The other is a trans-denominational school. In both – if theological formation is done well – more needs to be taught than simply one’s solo brand of theology and its related subjects. Even the latter school is often more monochrome than it is willing to admit. One’s tradition can be emphasized but other perspectives need to be given. The particularity of one’s tradition needs to find its place in the wider Christian tradition and needs to hear its key voices. Both of these two institutional realities, however, have their inherent challenges. The denominational school runs the risk of ignoring the wider tradition. The trans-denominational school runs the risk of too much diversity leaving students stranded without solid ground under their feet. Giving both of these risks, the fundamental orientation of a school needs to be what is best and most helpful for our students, within the overall educational vision of the school. This view can easily become blurred given faculty and staffing issues and concerns and institutional survivability, among other pressures.
Let me move, then, to some dynamics.
First, the Evangelical heritage is diverse historically and culturally. This opens the need for on-going dialogue and discussion within this tradition. What I have often found surprising is how students consider their brand of Evangelicalism as the only brand. And this branding has become ever narrower in the spawning of Evangelical self-standing churches, pushing the world’s thirty-four thousand Christian denominations to untold numbers. A better historical understanding of the diversity of Evangelicalism is called for. And a much more responsible Evangelicalism needs to be shaped that overcomes a hyper institutional individualism, a too narrow vision of the task of the church in the world, and conversion from cultural conformity to becoming a prophetic voice in society.
Second, the Evangelical tradition with its European and Western roots needs to be understood in the movement’s present-day global reach. The resulting diversification of Evangelicalism should be seen as a healthy sign, rather than as a problem. This opens the way for cross-fertilization. One challenge is that Minority World Evangelicalism (in the West) needs to become much more open to hearing the perspectives of the Majority World of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. That some will assert their brand of Evangelicalism as normative, will always be a problem. Understanding something of global Evangelicalism is important in theological formation.
Third, Evangelicalism, lives with the ongoing tension of being a particular denomination on the one hand (Baptist as one example), and a broad-based religious movement on the other. Again, particularity and generality need to be held in creative tension. This opens up perspectives for ongoing mutual learning. This is challenging. Just as the West (Minority world Christianity) failed to listen well to the rest (Majority world Christianity) so we now run the risk of reversal. With an overplay on post-modern, post-Christendom, and post-colonial, we may too readily dismiss what is still of value and develop reactive theologies and practices at home. Positive dialogical processes are called as well as genuine attempts to develop contextual theologies that are both relevant and prophetic.
Fourth, there is nothing static about a movement. Thus, Evangelicalism is ever involved in the three-step dance of maintaining its central tenets, appropriate contextualization, and the dynamics of spiritual renewal. This means that biblical studies, theologizing, historical studies, social science research, and spiritual and missional theology and its practices, are ever at play. That this rich scholarly approach is called for is particularly important to overcome Evangelical’s dominant motif on witness and service (hand), its downplay on spiritual practices (heart), and its underplay of biblical/theological grounding (head).
Fifth, Evangelicalism is ever to be interactive with other Christian traditions. This movement is simply one “player” in God’s overall purposes for humanity, and maybe is not as special as it thinks it is. The movement, therefore, needs to be marked by humility and a willingness to learn from our sisters and brothers in the broader faith-tradition. Here historical theology, comparative theology, and ecumenical studies play a part. Since Evangelicals tend not to cooperate well within their own ranks, a broader dialogue and possible missional cooperation will indeed be a challenge.
Sixth, that Evangelicalism, particularly in countries where other religious faiths are dominant (but also in the multi-culturalism in the West), needs to engage far more in inter-religious dialogue, is clearly a given. Its failure only reinforces the label that Evangelicals are far too tribalistic. This makes the point that theological formation should include the study of other religions.
Finally, if we were to apply the creative tension of particularity and generality to studies at the Asian Theological Seminary in Metro Manila, Philippines (where I have taught for several decades) then we would highlight the foundational nature of biblical/theological studies and their application to all other areas of the curriculum. In the need for the ongoing formulation of Filipino and Asian biblical/theological motifs, using a post-colonial hermeneutic, a post-Christendom vision of Christianity, and a post-Euro/American set of theological priorities and their implications, can only be a part of the story. Particularly, this post aspect is only one lens in a dialectic. The other lens– and the more important – is the engagement lens where in biblical/theological reflection and in educational, pastoral, and missional engagement new insights emerge that can contribute to a local/national theology that is both contextual and orthodox. The majority world contextual theologies are obviously not creative if they simply redefine themselves in relation to Western theologies. Instead, they need to be organic, bottom-up, and engaged in local socio-cultural issues.
Further Specifics in Theological Education/Formation
I hope that if you have read thus far, you are still wanting to hear more about what theological education is all about. And then we still have to engage in the matter of mentoring and spiritual direction or companioning. So here are some further pointers –
· Theological education contributes to a person’s growth in being servant of the reign, or kingdom of God.
· It seeks to deepen a person’s understanding and experience of the significance and power of the written Word and of the living Word, Jesus Christ, through the power of the Spirit. In the Word, in the beauty of the grace of Christ, in the sustenance of the life-giving and enlightening Spirit, within the frame of a learning community, and in one’s normal life context, formation can take place. In Christ, through Word and Spirit, and in the Spirit, through the Word and the grace of Christ! Christological and pneumatological motifs must ever reinforce each other.
· This kind of education is to be transformative and empowering providing persons the theological, spiritual, and practical resources and skills to be the bearers of the kingdom of God, the servant leaders of the church, and the change agents of society. If this is to be more than mere rhetoric, then seminary/college courses will need to have an appropriate fieldwork component, and action/reflection dynamics.
Having made these basic points, we still need to engage the context and service delivery of such education. Here again, let me first make some of the most basic points-
· What is the content of this education and formation?
· What is the method of this education?
· What is the setting for this education?
· What are the training and skills, wisdom, and spirituality of the educator?
· What kind of student does the institution seek to produce?
· What are the ecclesiastical and societal challenges to which the institution in particular wishes to respond?
Let me make some, though not all, responses to the above.
First, regarding content. Not only should the institution teach the richness and diversity of the Evangelical heritage in dialogue with the wider Christian tradition, but this content must be integrated across the various disciplines. Unfortunately, our programs still reflect educational fragmentation. There are those only interested in academic theology. Others are interested only in pastoral studies, counseling, spirituality, or missiology, with other required courses seen as a mere tack-on. The pressure at play here is vocational specialization. And this may well be in conflict with the broader formational vision that will ground students in matters of the mind, the heart, and the hand – orthodoxy, orthopathy, and orthopraxis. Seminary education will need to find some balance between vocational training and general educational formation, which is meant to give the student foundations in engaging the scriptural and theological traditions. If students lack the latter, then I can’t see how they will have the skills to craft a world-formative Christianity. And if a missional concern is never peripheral, then historical and cultural studies and the use of social sciences need to be ever at play. One can’t relate effectively to a society from which one is isolated and one does not understand.
Second, educational methodology. If theological education is fundamentally formative, transformational, and empowering, then strategies need to be used to facilitate these sought-after outcomes. This means that much more than a “banking” system of education is called for. Classroom work, small group discussions, guided studies, and reflective fieldwork, among other strategies, need to be used. All of this poses a great present-day challenge in our post-covid environment of online learning. Clearly as much as possible, hybrid models of educational delivery are needed. But if formation is to remain the focus then multiple strategies will need to be at play.
Third, the educator. If theological education is formation into a fuller understanding of the Christian faith and in discipleship of living in Christ, for Christ, and in the way of Christ in the power of the Spirit, shaped by one’s participation in the faith-community, and expressed is all the domains of life, then obviously the educator should reflect this vision. The faculty person is more than a knowledge expert. He/she is also a follower of Christ, a participant in the life of the church, and someone engaged in society. This has all sorts of consequences. But some balance will need to be found between scholarly endeavors, spiritual practices, real student engagement, and community involvement.
Fourth, the student. Students are not about numbers in the institution, but persons. The size of classes are not badges of honour for faculty. The institution has a responsibility, at the very beginning of accepting the student and in academic advising, to seek to ascertain how the student can be best served during her/his time at the seminary/college. This means faculty need to take a personal interest in the student. This is best done in academic advising, small group work, and the practice of hospitality, among other endeavors. It is particularly important that faculty are abreast of current trends in church and society. This is so they can affirm what is good and challenge what needs rectification or adjustment. This transformational impulse implies that students are schooled in reading scripture against themselves and for the kingdom of God; understand theology as subversive in casting another vision of life; embrace the ethics of service and suffering; and grow in a kenotic Christology.
Why Mentoring?
In the above, I am seeking to cast a vision of the dynamics of theological formation and education. To some extent this vision is idealistic. But this is better than it being merely functional and pragmatic. Students are not a commodity to be exploited. They are persons made in the image of God who are carrying the call of the gospel to further shape their lives in Christ for the sake of Christian service in the reign of God. Thus, what educators are called to be and do is to be marked by great care. We want to serve students well.
In order to do this, we need to flex and vary the curriculum without compromising the academic standards of the institution and we need to do more, if and when, we can.
There is much that can be done in the execution of a normal course in the curriculum. This may include Q and A in each lecture period. It may include some tutorials or small group work. It should involve the opportunity for students to sign up for time with faculty and other forms of relational connection.
When this takes place, it is possible for a mentoring relationship to come into being. No student will be open to such a relationship if the delicate membranes of “community” have not already been forged.
So, why then mentoring? Good teachers want to do the right thing by the curriculum, but they have more to give. And without over-investment, and without forms of control or creating dependency, it is possible on the part of faculty to do more. Mentoring is one such opportunity. This is usually instigated by the student in the context of meeting with a faculty for some advising.
What emerges is the possibility of making some time for in informal meeting with the student regarding some skill issue. Mentoring is not counseling. It is sharing wisdom and expertise regarding exegesis, reading theology, preaching, pastoral care, and missional issues, among other domains.
This skill-set orientation has a time limit. It may simply involve meeting three of four times. Mentoring is an agreed-to relational intervention between a mentor and mentee to enhance a certain capacity on the part of the student.
This significance of this is monumental. It signals to the student that they are “worthy” of extra time and attention. This sense is important in motivating the student to do more to work better. It is a form of empowerment. And it forges a stronger bond between faculty and the student.
In the future, this relationship may bear further fruit in the student’s on-going development.
What of Spiritual Direction?
There is no doubt that educational programs are meant to enhance one’s knowledge and skills base. The formation of a Christian “mind” – or worldview – is an important dynamic in theological education. But so is growth in emotional intelligence, cultural awareness, and the strengthening and further development of spiritual practices. Thus, mind issues and heart issues are important.
While the seminary/college is a particular intervention in the life of the student, this should never seek to become totalistic. Family, church, and work-involvement are also important formative domains.
But since theological education is so much about God and the scriptures and action in the world, it is imperative that attention is given to the issue of sustaining spiritual resources. Nothing is done well when the inner wells run dry.
Heart matters do really matter. Hence theological formation includes courses on Christian spirituality. And these may be complemented by spiritual practices in every course, in conducting retreats, and in making available spiritual direction for those seeking this form of assistance.
If theological education is indeed formative and transformational then the student will need to do a fair bit of reflecting and reframing. This means rethinking one’s previous conceptual framework and reflecting on one’s values and practices. One set of practices has to do with the spiritual disciplines and receiving spiritual direction while in a formation process could be very productive.
Spiritual direction or companioning is particularly helpful in seeking to discern what heart-changes are taking place and what the brooding Holy Spirit is seeking to birth in one’s life. Changing aspects of one’s theology usually triggers changes in one’s prayer life and contemplative practices. And this may well issue new pathways in a person’s calling and life direction.
To facilitate the above, seminaries/colleges should encourage some of its faculty and/or staff to be trained to provide this ministry to students or outside resources should be tapped.
Reflection
It should be obvious that this vision of theological formation has in view the intellectual, spiritual, and vocational enrichment of the student. This enrichment is the kingdom of God oriented with missional intentionality. Students are to be equipped to be servants of Christ in the power of the Spirit.
This presupposes a particular form of educational community. And this places demands on faculty and staff to create a relational community for vocational training, spiritual enrichment, and prophetic ministry.
In whatever way in which this may come to expression in our educational institutions, the tenor is much more that of monasticism than the university. And this means that faculty are more than merely educators. They are servant leaders. They are mentors. They give the gift of hospitality to their students.
However idealistic this may be, this is worth doing for the future of the church and its impact on the world.
Conclusion
This hopefully is a thoughtful and reflective piece of writing on the topic of theological education. I can’t imagine too many readers being happy with it. For some, this is a bridge too far. For others, this is nowhere near radical enough.
This is all ok. This is a conversation piece. I did not set out to write a scholarly paper, only some reflections more or less off the top of my head.
But this paper is written in hope, with a particular angle in view. Namely, that possible changes in the church and its ministry to the world, can be impacted by the way in which theological formation is implemented.
Thus, I have attempted to sketch a rich relational environment in which this formation is to take place. I have sought to sketch a picture of the multi-faceted nature of theological education. I have attempted to set out some of the realities to be faced by faculty staff and students.
At its heart, this piece of writing seeks to move beyond the ever-pressing demands of institutional survival, faculty career agendas, and the pressures of pragmatism and functionalism. It seeks to cast a relational and transformational vision of theological formation. May we have the courage to move more and more in the direction of the old formative modality of training in the community.
