In April, Geoff Folland, national director of Power To Change Australia published a series of blog posts (part 2, part 3, part 4) reflecting on his observations of the opportunities and challenges facing the evangelical Christian higher education sector. In the process he identified the ongoing ecosystemic impacts of post-Christendom on the sector. The decline of Christian identity, social acceptance, and knowledge within Western society in general has affected all aspects of the Christian subculture—which may be considered a sub-ecosystem of interconnected elements that mutually nourish and shape each other—of which Bible and theological colleges are a significant part, but only one part.
This article is the first of several interacting with Folland’s articles. In this article I’ll summarise the four approaches to ministry formation that Folland documents. Folland uses the metaphor of operating system architecture to describe the underlying values and convictions which implicitly characterise four different approaches to ministry formation.
Non-eccleisal Academia
The University of Divinity (UD) is a very broadly ecumenical institution which focuses on academic excellence without seeking to intrude upon the dogmatic, pastoral, or ministerial convictions and priorities of the people and ministries who study under it. It represents a relatively detached, dispassionate approach to the task of theology which prioritises cerebral precision over ecclesial discipleship which is not shared by Australian evangelicalism therefore does not feature in the rest of Folland’s analysis.
Ministry-resourcing Consortium
The Australian University of Theology (AUT) and the Australian University College of Divinity (AUCD) (formerly Sydney College of Divinity) are consortia that seek to resource their member colleges to pursue their particular visions of theological education and ministry formation. This consortium approach aims to simultaneously maximise the economies of scale required to efficiently engage with the administrative requirements inherent to formal academic qualifications; the dogmatic convictions and ministry priorities of different denominations and institutions; and a smaller-scale, communal approach to ministry formation.
The consortium approach is relevant to Australian evangelicalism in general and the Presbyterian Church of New South Wales (of which I am a part) in particular. The AUT’s member institutions include the established colleges that have nurtured Australian evangelicalism for decades, including the three Presbyterian colleges—Christ College Sydney, the Presbyterian Theological College of Victoria (PTC) and Queensland Theological College (QTC)—and the Reformed Theological College (RTC) in Melbourne, which is theologically aligned with Australian Presbyterianism.
Vertigal Integration
Folland thinks Alphacrucis University College represents vertical integration: it sits in the middle of a ministry pipeline originating from and leading to a “national platform [of] campuses, partnerships, and church-based hubs” that share and express Alphacrucis’ theological and ministerial convictions. He puts Moore Theological College in a class of its own, one that is “deeply aligned to a single ecclesial vision” and “depends on the level of capital held by a few institutions.” But I think Moore belongs within this vertical integration model, because it draws from, reinforces, and seeks to propagate ministries that share its theological convictions and ministry philosophies (not only its ecclesiology). Nationally, Moore has significantly contributed to the growth of the Reach Australia (RA) network the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC), and the Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students (AFES). Internationally, Moore is seeking to resource the global Anglican church, especially the Gafcon movement.
Diversification
Folland observes that a “growing number of colleges that began as Bible colleges have” diversified to become “broader providers of Christian higher education”, like “education, counselling, business, and community services.” “In many cases, these adjacent disciplines have become the [particular college’s] economic centre” through offering access to “[h]igh-demand, government-supported” degrees. But that leads to a broadening of the educational institution’s educational and missional focus. “Where once the institution existed to train ministers,” missionaries, and other church and/or parachurch leaders in the biblical, theological, and pastoral skills and attitudes associated with well-understood visions of church, parachurch, and missionary ministries, they “now exist[] to deliver a portfolio of outcomes—professional, academic, and formational” that imply a broader vision of Christian life and ministry and the role of an educational institution in facilitating the Christian life.
Other kinds of diversification stem from technological and social changes, like the rising cost of living, especially housing costs, makes it difficult for young adults to commit to full-time higher education, especially if they’re married with young children; and the prevalence of high-speed high-volume internet makes online learning plausible.
But I also think a lot of diversification stems from the opportunities and challenges associated with post-Christendom—which I’ll address in my next article.
This article was originally published on Kamal’s blog.
