In a comment on the previous post, Mark Schnell observed the distinction I was making between traditional seminaries and the MDiv we already forsee at IWU. By the way, I should make it clear that we are in the most basic accreditation process for this MDiv and that it is on the supposition of approval that I speak of IWU offering it.
Here's what we think is distinctive about our proposed curriculum:
___________________
1. We believe this Wesleyan seminary would provide the most integrative MDiv degree in existence.
Most seminary programs follow a scholastic model where you take individual Bible, theology, and historical courses that largely remain unconnected to practical courses or at best connect in an ad hoc way. Our MDiv would offer individual elective courses in Bible and theology to be sure, but the core curriculum is completely oriented around the practice of ministry. Each of the six practical domains (global mission, congregational formation, congregational life, proclamation, worship, and leadership) includes biblical, theological, and historical units within the course, informed by content experts in these areas. So unlike other programs, you have interdisciplinary accountability in the curriculum of practitioners by theoreticians and theoreticians by practitioners within each course design.
2. We believe this Wesleyan seminary would offer the most practice oriented MDiv degree in existence.
This orientation is evident not only from the way biblical, theological, and historical material is organized around practical ministry, but from the fact that each of the six domain courses requires a person to be in ministry currently. Each course thus involves a supervised ministry in which case studies of a problem-based nature are brought into the mix of the course. The actual practice of the domain is part of the course. Full time residential students without appointment will receive placements within reasonable proximity to the campus.
3. Although most programs have spiritual formation components, this Wesleyan MDiv would be one of the few that has spiritual formation across the curriculum.
Alongside each of the six domain courses, a person will take a one hour spiritual formation course with the same facilitator, who also serves as the cohort advisor. Distinctive here is the fact that these courses follow the process of change, rather than the traditional course in spiritual disciplines that has no real map for change but only sends you off to read and pray.
4. This Wesleyan seminary would likely join those few cutting edge MDiv degrees that only require about a third of the degree to be onsite.
Yet even these onsite courses would not require a person to move to a residential location. In roughly two, one week onsite intensive courses per year, the student would be able to complete their residential requirement. However, a student would also be able to move to Marion to attend the seminary full time.
5. The program would be a 75 hour degree, which would make it one of the most compact MDiv degrees in existence.
The lowest number of hours currently accepted by the Association of Theological Schools is 72 hours. The typical student will complete this degree in a little over 4 years, although a full time student might finish it in a little more than 2. The Association of Theological Schools also allows for about 15 hours of such a program to be “excused” in the light of courses a person has already taken in undergraduate programs. We would further allow for a certain amount of “credit by assessment” if a student can assemble a convincing portfolio. These features will combine to make IWU’s degree highly competitive in a market that runs on convenience.
6. Finally, the program would allow for a 15 hour concentration in an area of specialization.
This concentration will fit hand in glove with MA specializations currently offered by IWU's graduate program in religion: Youth Ministries and Ministerial Leadership. These concentrations will no doubt proliferate. For example, a concentration in Biblical Preaching might accentuate skills of biblical interpretation and hermeneutics. Certainly Greek and Hebrew will be available as electives, as will a number of advanced theology courses. These concentrations allow a person to develop a specific skill set. Further, a student can take the concentration either on the front or back end of the program.
__________________
Here are the most general objectives of the Global Christian Mission course:
Description: This course is a comprehensive, integrative approach to missional Christianity, beginning with biblical foundations and ending with the tools needed to facilitate mission, church multiplication, and service in the church today. Topics range from the classical fields of evangelism, church growth, and global missions to volunteerism and service to the world in its economic and social dimensions. The course involves contextually appropriate missional ministry and so requires that a student currently be in an approved ministry setting. Prerequisite: Pastor, Church, and World.
Objectives: By the end of this course the student should be able to
1. Compare and evaluate the most effective ways to lead others to Christ and grow the church.
2. Compare and evaluate the most common and effective ways in which Christians can and should serve the non-believing world both locally and globally, in all the domains of life.
3. Be able to apply the theoretical principles of mission, church multiplication, and Christian service to one’s own ministerial context.
4. Be able to integrate Scripture, Christian theology, and Christian history with the conduct of mission and the multiplication of the church, as well as in the service of others.
5. Express the importance of the Great Commission and the Great Commandment of loving service to others in all domains of life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
That is what I would call, "pretty tight."
The concentrated program would a nice option I'm sure for a lot of people who are currently in ministry already and do not want to have to spend 4 years at Seminary. I've met a lot of people here at Bethel that complain about how long an MDiV can take. In professional circles, everyone flaunts their MBA--I laugh at those hours compared to an MDiv!
What's your thoughts on making Greek and Hebrew optional? That trend seems fairly recently in the history of seminary education. As a "biblehead," it has to make you cringe at least a bit doesn't it?
My philosophy of Bible in the curriculum is unusual for a Biblehead at an evangelical institution. It is why I have not protested this trajectory and why I think that, ultimately, this curriculum is better than other seminary curriculum.
Here is my logic, much of which I think most evangelicals have not yet admitted to themselves:
1. What we have long called Bible is more accurately theology in dialog with the words of the biblical text.
That is, when I am most doing original meaning research (and am talking about things like the book of Wisdom and Philo), my ministerial students perceive me to be the most irrelevant to the way the Bible actually functions in ministry (facilitating the hearing of God's word to real people with real needs).
I would argue that most ministers don't even realize how far off they are from the original meaning in ministry and that many evangelical scholars play games with the text to make it look more familiar than it is--even though they should know better.
2. That the typical evangelical scholar's focus on the original meaning ironically is not justified from the standpoint of the Bible itself.
Since theology is what guided the NT interpretation of the OT, not context. Most evangelical attempts to connect NT interpretation to OT context is peculiar and based almost entirely on anachronistic concerns.
In particular, Paul did not use the OT in Hebrew most of the time and there is no evidence that the author of Hebrews even knew Hebrew. In other words, if we are to take our cues from Scripture itself, a person could write Scripture using only an English translation.
NT authors added and took away words from the OT text regularly to make the text say what they, under inspiration, heard from the words.
3. Reformation often comes from "original meaning" and contextual research, so there should be individuals whose speciality is in Greek and Hebrew and the science of original meaning.
But such individuals serve more "on retainer" and of course as central prophets in some seasons. But in normal operating mode, this use of the Bible is not what God predominantly uses to form a holy people of God.
I do not represent IWU or its seminary in these comments. But I'll take on anyone in debate on this--the old school evangelical use of the Bible with its focus on original meaning and original languages represents a major paradigmatic blind spot that does not represent the future (or frankly, the present) of theological hermeneutics.
I'm not pushy--there will be plenty of people to balance out my sense of what hermeneutics should be (the IWU malarchy committee). But if I were designing the use of the Bible in the seminary of the future, it would have these priorities--how has God led the Church to read Scripture? God's word for the Church first, original meaning second.
Thanks for sharing this Ken. This is certainly cutting edge stuff. I heard Dr. Bob Whitesel say a few years back that the seminary model was a dying paradigm. I think he was speaking in regards to a traditional seminary style.
I believe what you are describing here is going to be the kind of model that keeps seminary education alive and relevant in a world that is changing so rapidly we can barely keep up. The integration between theoreticians and practitioners is a major selling point in this program. I'm excited to see how it shakes out it next five to ten years.
I"m glad I'm at Gordon Conwell, I believe God led me here, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a bit jealous of those that will have the opportunity to be a part of this MDiv
I tend to lean more with your hermeneutical description, Ken. My training at Duke has taught me to approach the text in a very narrative fashion that, while concerned with higher Biblical criticism, does not let all of the chips fall in that direction. Historical criticism is helpful for placing texts in context and seeing how the Biblical authors interpreted each other's work. However, we would be completely amiss if we assumed that we can only preach a text if we know the original meaning. The Bible says what the church says that it says. The church, gifted with the Holy Spirit's guidance, is alone capable of understanding God's Word as it is active and alive today.
Are we to surmise that just as the NT used OT passages out of historical context to justify a "conviction", that that is what is to be proper hermeneutics for today...the Church being the interpretor of the text, just as it has been always?....it is only constructed meaning that makes any difference? Is there no "real" meaning in the text that "matters"? And in Protestanism, what body of believers is arbitrator of the "truth" of the text? Is the denomination the "end of interpretation"? Does it not matter what the author was really trying to do or say to his audience? And the historical situation was not important in understanding the meaning of the text? And why would this "truth construction" be important? How is it even pertinent to today?
I would say my time so far here at Bethel has lend itself well to your hermeneutic (and to what Kevin has come out of Duke with). Very narrative in fashion, perhaps with less emphasis on reading theology of the Church back "into the text." That could be because of a limited trust in systematic theological findings on the whole.
I actually agree with your choice. I just found it funny that a man who spent so much time doing research, wading through several languages, etc... would champion a seminary curriculum that left languages up to choice. But, your logic is right on, so carry on my son. I'm doing both Hebrew and Greek here...mostly for doctoral work in the future. Other than that, I don't find it all that important for ministry on a daily basis either.
So who will handle teaching Nietzsche, Feuerbach and Russell in the curriculum? :D
My excitement grows every time I hear more about the plans for this MDiv at IWU. What a resource for the kingdom and prime destination for ministry education this will become!
-DD
Should I not plan on leaving town so soon? If I got my M.Div. in Marion, who would pay for me to study?
Love,
scott
Post a Comment