Educational Challenges for Religious Leader Development: The Story of Theological Universities and Seminaries

• In Event: The Future of Religious Leadership in Turbulent Postmodernity

Short Description

How do church denominations and theological training institutes in the Netherlands and Belgium view changes in religious leadership and its requirements? Focus groups with participants from 15 denominations and 17 theological schools indicate that these views are shaped by interaction between context and (historical) identity of churches and their trainees.

Detailed Abstract

What are the views of church denominations and theological education institutions in the Netherlands and Belgium on religious leadership?

In order to answer this question, the Dutch/Belgian research group held four focus group sessions. Official representatives of 15 denominations participated in the first two focus groups. Together, they presented almost all official denominations in Belgium and the Netherlands (from Roman Catholic and Syrian Orthodox to smaller Protestant and Evangelical denominations). They were asked to comment on three questions:
1) How do church leaders experience the changed cultural climate with regard to the way religious leaders and office holders operate?
2) What aspects of their tradition do they consider vital to carry their tradition forward into the future?
3) What consequences should this have for the education of future religious leaders and office holders within their denomination?

The results from these two focus groups indicate that differences in leadership are associated with different views on the relation between group identity and social context (social identity theory). Church leaders consider the social identity of their denomination and its local churches to be dependent on their self-understanding, defined partly in continuity, partly in discontinuity with their social and cultural context. Some churches are part of a global church network (like the Roman Catholic or Syrian Orthodox Churches, but also immigrant churches); although the Western context of post-Christendom and post-modernism challenges their identity, their global resources provide enough strength to cope with practical challenges like decline in numbers (Roman Catholic) or finding one’s way in new territory (immigrant churches). Less globally oriented church denominations consider the current trends in the Western culture more as a threat to which new solutions need to be found.

A second aspect of social identity is found in the denominations’ evaluative stance towards the cultural context. All denominations agree that the Western culture influences the practice of church and other faith communities. They differ, however, in their evaluation of this influence. Some denominations are more open to and approving of culture, so they generally tend to face less stress, whereas those denominations that are more resistant to culture consider current societal trends more in terms of separation from culture (Bevans, 2005). At the same time, the level of commitment to engage with culture is not dependent on their evaluation of it: churches that are more counter-cultural may engage their context locally as intensely as those that are much more in line with culture.

With respect to the denominations’ view on leadership, these church leaders all sensed that the most pressing element is how authority is conveyed within the current church context. A new equilibrium is sought by the churches between those in leadership and the church members. Many of the focus group participants stated that their denomination’s tradition and their leaders’ rootedness in it are vital for the formation of authority in the local community in their changing context. This consequently influences the stress level that church leaders experience about the need to develop new competences and capabilities (like self-reflection and hermeneutic competences, communicative skills, and spiritual formation).

The second two focus groups were held with representatives of 17 institutes of theological education and training (both at the academic and professional levels). These institutions varied from large traditional denominations like Roman Catholics and Protestants to small international immigrant churches, and from a more or less homogeneous population (stemming from one denomination) to a very mixed population both in denominational background, ethnicity and age. They were asked to comment on three questions, closely related to the former ones:
1) How has your educational profile for the religious leader (pastor/minister/church-worker, etc.) changed due to cultural changes broadly labeled ‘post-christendom’ and ‘post-modern’?
2) Which three most important elements from your particular tradition should be preserved within the changing cultural climate?
3) What aspects of the curriculum are currently given more or less attention compared to the recent past?

The results from this second set of focus groups convey a broad spectrum of educational practices, as could be expected. The field can be mapped by pointing to four formal criteria: 1) Is their focus academic or professional (or both)? 2) Is it mainly denominationally of interdenominationally oriented? 3) Is it locally or globally oriented? 4) How does it view the relation between tradition and identity?

The most important themes that were voiced concerning the relation between cultural trends and theological education were: 1) the relationship between the influx of new students and their future work environment; and 2) the relationship between this influx and the focus and identity of the institution. These two factors determine the shape of the curriculum, whereas the educators’ choices of curriculum content are challenged by four elements: 1) the relation between ‘classical theology’ and personal capabilities and competencies; 2) the relationship between tradition, and cultural and religious context; 3) personal spiritual training in relation to personal religious identity as well as to the professional identity of the future leader; and 4) how religious leadership can be taught in relation to these three elements.

On the basis of these findings, the research group aims to provide conceptual tools and frames to improve how church denominations and educational institutions reflect on and practice religious leadership for their respective grassroots supporters.

Participant

• Hans Schaeffer, Theological University Kampen