In a previous article, I summarised the four institutional approaches to ministry formation that Geoff Folland has observed within the Australian Christian higher education sector. In this article I will use Folland’s insights as background for my own observations on how I post-Christendom has affected the broad cultural context in which Christian leadership formation takes place in Australia today.
Christendom Stability
Australia, along with the ‘Western’ world, is now post-Christian. Here I use the term Christendom to highlight the way that Christian religious and moral assumptions used to dominate Western social assumptions in ways they no longer do. Under those social conditions, the prevalence of a (usually nominal and superficial) Christianity permitted Christian ministry formation to operate with, Folland writes, “a more stable church ecosystem, a more linear ministry pathway, and a lower regulatory burden” than it now does. Colleges, students, and college stakeholders—denominations, parachurch ministries, mission agencies, and individual Christian benefactors—could rely on an established vision of the nature of training for church ministry, parachurch ministry, and mission.
This shared understanding of the different ‘pipelines’ for ministry formation permitted colleges to adequately focus on their particular form of ministry training and invite stakeholders to fund that vision of training; stakeholders to invest in particular colleges’ vision of ministry formation, trusting the college to produce students who believe the doctrines and will conduct the ministries that advance that vision; students to permit themselves to be shaped by that college’s doctrines and ministry philosophies, confident that the churches, parachurch agencies, or mission movements associated with that college, confident that they will find useful ministry (a ‘job’) within those ministry networks.
Post-Christendom Complexity
Folland observes that current college students are less likely to rely on the above stability but are more likely to be seeking flexibility and variety in educational options ; to equip themselves for a variety of ministries; and to be significantly funding themselves, through juggling part-time work with part-time study, therefore demanding flexible learning options, including online learning and intensives.
Some of this diversity is not driven by the cultural marginalisation of Christianity but by other factors like the rising cost of living, especially housing costs; and the increased accessibility of high-speed internet which facilitates online learning. However, I think this diversification is also significantly driven by factors arising from a post-Christendom context: the right desire of faithful Christians to be equipped to respond to the opportunities and challenges of post-Christendom social marginalisation; and an ecclesial context where ordinary church leaders don’t feel equipped to sufficiently perform the above equipping.
Christians Want to Respond to Post-Christendom
Post-Christendom features two interconnected social dynamics. First, is the perceived marginalisation of, sometimes opposition against, Christian beliefs and behaviours. Second is the social acceptance, sometimes enforced celebration, of non-Christian beliefs and behaviours, such as non-Christian religions, secularity, and hyper-sexualised self-identity.
Faithful Christians rightly want to be equipped to respond to these diverse, multidirectional challenges. They desire adequate discipleship, catechetical and apologetic resources to equip themselves and others to stand firm against the social forces which seek to undermine Christian faith and identity. They also desire evangelistic resources that can effectively commend the faith to others in this newly contested environment. Contemporary Australian Christians rightly want to be equipped in everything from parenting skills to political activism to specific evangelistic techniques for particular ethno-religious groups in their neighbourhood (e.g. Nepalese Hindus).
Ordinary Congregational Leaders Don’t Feel Equipped to Respond
Ordinary church leaders are trained to be competent in basic ministries. They need to be able to preach, lead small groups, engage in pastoral care, mentor and disciple people to grow in Christian maturity, lead the church in evangelism, help the church connect with missionaries, get involved in administration as necessary, and lead the church in long-term strategic planning. That’s already a lot! The ordinary pastor can’t also provide specialised training tailored for the needs and interests of every individual in his congregation.
This goes part of the way, I think, to explain Folland’s observations about the proliferation of diverse training opportunities, both by Bible and theological colleges offering more and more courses and by the emergence of alternate formal and informal training platforms.
I will talk about different models for ministry formation in my next article.
This article was originally published on Kamal’s blog.
