Posts Tagged ‘seminary’

Awe and Wonder: Whither Theological Education?

Friday, April 4th, 2014 by Nimi Wariboko

aweAn important dimension of any religion is the feelings of awe that arise with encounters with the holy and the beautiful. Otto Rudolf in his 1917 book, The Idea of the Holy, argues that the experience of the numinous, the sacred, the holy is the ineffable core of religion. When persons encounter and experience the sacred they develop a sense of dependency on something objective, external, and greater than them. The experience of the numinous takes two related forms: (a) terrifying experience of the “wholly other,” and (b) fascination. Where can we encounter these experiences? Read the rest of this entry »

African Pentecostal Kinetic Preaching, Part 2

Wednesday, March 19th, 2014 by Nimi Wariboko

african_preaching_2In Part I of this essay, I examined the kinetic nature of African Pentecostal preaching.  We discussed the sheer energetic force of preaching as a full-blooded dramatic performance. The performance requires an ensemble of skills that draws the people to one another, to the preacher, and to God. In that very act of centripetal collation and knitting of emotions and foci, there is a subtle mastery of centrifugal energy fashioned to maintain a circle of aura around the preacher. This is what I want to discuss today. My guiding question remains: are seminaries in the North America adequately preparing their students for this kind of preaching?  Read the rest of this entry »

Revising a Seminary: Student and Alumni Reflections

Thursday, November 17th, 2011 by Wolfgang Vondey

In a previous post I invited students and alumni of the School of Divinity to voice their opinion about the Future of the Seminary and the current attempt to restructure its curriculum. We had a large number of responses, many of them by email rather than directly to the post. Here are the results of opinions offered. They are interesting, to say the least, even if not always conclusive. The table below shows the responses ordered from highest to lowest percentage. Opposing opinions do not always show next to one another. Let me know what you think!

Number

Respondent Feedback

%

1

SOD should keep biblical language/biblical studies courses

15

2

SOD should offer more practical/ministry-oriented courses

12

3

SOD should NOT reduce or drop spiritual formation courses

8

4

SOD should keep systematic theological courses

8

5

SOD should revamp church history

7

6

SOD should offer academically oriented courses

6

7

SOD should NOT reduce the degree programs

6

8

SOD should offer courses related to education, counseling, and  psychology

  4

9

SOD should reduce or drop spiritual formation classes

4

10

SOD should find a way to reduce the courses/costs

4

11

SOD should offer more electives and reduce the core

4

12

SOD should offer more online courses

4

13

SOD should offer training in technological research tools

3

14

SOD should implement a mentoring program

3

15

SOD should re-evaluate practical/ministry-oriented courses

3

16

SOD should revamp missiological courses

3

17

SOD should reduce the electives

2

18

SOD should offer chaplaincy program

1

19

SOD should offer more summer courses

1

20

SOD should create more motivating pedagogical techniques

1

21

SOD should offer public speaking courses

1

Changing a Seminary: The Future of the School of Divinity

Wednesday, October 12th, 2011 by Wolfgang Vondey

It’s no secret, the School of Divinity is getting a new building! But what is less known is that the faculty of the School have been working long and hard on changing their curriculum to adapt to the changing face of a seminary in the 21st century. When the new building goes up, it will house a very different School of Divinity. Just what exactly that means, however, is still up for grasps. So why don’t you join in the discussion? What should the perfect seminary look like? Read the rest of this entry »

Grading Time

Thursday, April 21st, 2011 by Wolfgang Vondey

It’s a difficult time: grading time at seminary. It’s not a time I enjoy. Grades divide.

Grades divide students into the good, the bad, and the ugly. Well, that’s tongue in cheek. But there are the groups of the A-students, the B-students and so on. Or sometimes just the geeks and the rest. More often than not, the students who excel in all areas find it difficult to join the majority groups. Jealousy, envy, and admiration form a complex divide.

Grades divide students from their teachers. The one gives the grade and the other receives. I would not give my wife or son a grade, but as a teacher I have to grade my students. Sure, my three-year old is not in a graduate degree program, but there is a similarity in relationship. I love my students. Well, most of them. Teaching theology is a significant responsibility. It is always as a person teaching persons that I engage my class. That can be parental love or brotherly love. Sometimes it’s tough-love, but nonetheless, it’s love. Sometimes grades tell the unpleasant story that a student may not be equipped for the graduate program at this time. Grades put everyone back in their place at the end of the semester. No matter how much you got around the table, in the end grades define your relationship.

Grades divide us from our calling. I have a standard question for students: what do you want to achieve in seminary or in my class? The answer is often associated with grades: I want to get an A. When I ask how the class was or the seminary experience as a whole, the evaluation often comes in terms of grades: I didn’t do as well as I wanted or I managed to keep a 4.0 GPA. That’s not what I mean, though. I am not at seminary to give grades but to teach. Students should not be at seminary to get grades but to learn.

Now that it’s grading time, I get numerous emails by students who want one or two or more points in their grades. Some ask to get a better grade or a specific grade. I wish I had received similar emails throughout the semester from students wanting to learn more, wanting clarity on ideas, theological constructs, doctrines, asking for a better understanding even (or especially) if their grades did not reflect their knowledge.

Now that it’s grading time, I wish I could go back and encourage students where I did not, critically engage them where I simply moved on, or question things I left open. I feel reduced in my relationship to numbers or letters. How can I preserve the relationship? How can students engage me without looking for a good grade? How can they give critical feedback without fear of retribution or positive feedback without coming across as wanting a good grade? How can we be persons in a shared journey of faith?

In the end, reviving seminary depends much on our attitude toward grades. I have to give them. Students have to get them. It’s in the manner we give and get that defines us.

Revival at Seminary

Monday, April 4th, 2011 by Wolfgang Vondey

What exactly is seminary education? If you asked me, I would say it is characterized by two key elements: ministry and academics. The question is how well these two elements are brought together. Too much ministry, and the seminary experience is not much more than an average Sunday School; too much academics, and students will find it difficult to connect the content of their classes with everyday life. There are many students who only know the ministry side of the faith, and who struggle with the academic dimension, just as there are those who come to seminary from an academic career and have little practical experience in church ministry. Renewing the seminary experience must speak to both groups! But how?

Increasing the academic side will perhaps nurture in some students interest in pursuing an academic career, perhaps in college teaching and scholarship. Increasing the ministerial dimension will likely challenge those academically trained to consider the practical implications of their knowledge. And yet, I do not believe that we should overemphasize seminary education as offering “practical theology” degrees as if there were such a thing as “impractical theology.”  In turn, we hardly want to encourage programs in “theological ministry” as if there were such a thing as ministry that is not-theological. A first step in the right direction is certainly to stop perpetuating the division of theology, academia, and praxis. Such language only leads to internal tensions and creates a mindset that artificially divides subject matter, classrooms, disciplines, and interests. Not to mention what kind of graduate would leave seminary if ministry and academics were not integrated holistically. Some may argue that this is precisely what is happening and that the seminary experience needs an overhaul. But little is offered to move forward.

The mindset of many seminary students, particularly in pentecostal and charismatic circles, may be that seminaries need revival. Okay. Let’s do it! But how exactly is it going to happen? What exactly do we mean by revival at seminary? Who would participate in such a revival? Where would it originate?

I am envisioning that some of you are now thinking of revival in the classrooms. So let’s stick with that image. What would that kind of revival look like? Do we envision worship music and praying, sermons, dancing, shouting and prophecies? What exactly is revived by that experience? I think if we drive these questions further, we discover that seminary is a place where revival must integrate ministry and academics and that it is precisely in these two aspects that the difficulties reside. Anyone who has ever been in an academic classroom and has sensed the prophetic or perhaps convicting or just simply gripping reality of a discussion knows how difficult it is to integrate the ministerial dimension in that moment without going fully to a revival experience that effectively marks the end of the class time. And yet, at such moments, we cannot simply carry on business as usual. And if we manage to move to a different level, perhaps a prayer or simply a moment of silence or a time of ministering to one another, how difficult is it to move back to the classroom? At the heart of these difficulties, is it not the tension we have created between what we call “ministry” and “academics” (as if one could exist without the other)? If I am right, then this is where revival at seminary begins. Not in chapel but in the classrooms. Who is going to initiate it? Who will recognize it when it happens? Where is it going to take us? These are not rhetorical questions. Unlike church, revival at seminary requires more careful planning. So perhaps that’s where we need to start?