Significant new directions were taken in theological education in India and Asia in recent years. There are various reasons for this. By and large, theological education was heavily dependent on the West. This has been true in matters of curricula, training methods, personnel, and finance. Only recently has theological education begun to take roots in Asian soil, bringing about its inevitable renewal and changes. Also, there is a new awareness and appreciation of the context of theological education. Three areas where we see new directions might be noted.
First, there has been a radical rethinking of the nature and task of theological education. As in the case of secular education, it has been patterned after traditional European educational systems. It trained only an elite, a professional class that stood aloof from the grassroots-level church members. It took men away from the rural areas to the urban centers. It perpetuated a concept of Christian ministers as a specially qualified and privileged class of people.
But the context of theological education had to be taken seriously, and that context is both the life of the church and the struggles and aspirations of society at large. The Theological Education Fund, an agency of WCC, which has had a keen interest in theological education in the Third World, gave particular attention to the importance of “context” for the training of ministers. Their publications, as well as those of a host of Asian agencies, have dealt with what is understood as “doing theology” in context.
Seminaries in Asia were more occupied with Western theological systems than with the problems and experiences of the church at home. Therefore, the issues dealt with in the classrooms tended to be mere academic gymnastics. During recent years, seminaries have made earnest attempts to correct this situation.
So also there is an increased awareness that creative and functional theology should seriously concern itself with an understanding of and a meaningful life in the society at large with all its victories and struggles. That is to say, its orientation should increasingly be the Asian renaissance and dynamics of change. Theological training that shuts itself off from the world is only an attempt at brainwashing the students, and not education.
In all the enthusiasm for contextualization, the danger has been to minimize the importance of the Bible and the Christ of history for Christian theology, and of theology being reduced to sanctified sociology. In our understanding of theology, its relevance should never be emphasized at the expense of its uniqueness.
Another development is the rediscovery of the importance of the total person of the trainee. The center of the educational process is the student and not the curricula. Excellence in theological education cannot be measured in terms of academic standards in the realm of cognitive knowledge. In the biblical concept of knowledge, to know is to experience in an intimate way. Academic discipline in the abstract as we know it today has no place. Therefore, training is not just imparting some knowledge to be rationally grasped, but rather the building up of God’s men and women for Christ’s mission in the world.
Second, there have been significant changes in the patterns or methods of training and consequently structures of education. One sees rapid development of many patterns of nonformal theological training. This is true in other parts of the world and to a large degree in the area of secular education also.
The movement of Theological Education by Extension, influenced by its earlier success in Latin America, had a phenomenal growth in India and in many countries of Asia. Unlike Latin America, TEE in Asia tries to reach lay leaders rather than those already in Christian work. Also, the programs in many cases are sponsored by seminaries that continue to have steadily growing residential programs.
The extension education pattern has many advantages over the traditional residential training. The former is based on the principle of natural selection of leaders and development process. The students continue to live in their own cultural milieu, support themselves, and study through the same life experiences of the people whom they serve. It reverses the elitist concept of the trained and paid ministers who become a professional class. In addition to TEE, many lay training centers, institutions for frontier ministries, research programs, and so forth also have emerged recently, initiated by both church agencies and seminaries.
Structures for theological education also have gone through major changes. In India, for example, some three years ago a new national structure was established by combining together functions of primarily two bodies. The Senate of Serampore had legislative and academic concerns, but the functions of the Board of Theological Education were of a consultative, missiological, and creative nature. Under the new system each member seminary is given maximum freedom in forming their own curricula and developing teaching methods to meet diverse needs.
In the other two major associations of theological institutions in Asia also, namely, the Northeast Asia Association and Southeast Asia Association, the member institutions are given freedom and flexibility to develop contextual studies and methodologies. Only a structure that is alert to the rapidly changing circumstances and needs and is a servant to its mission can be an effective one.
Third, there has been a new understanding of the Christian ministry and consequently a concern for the training of the whole church. In regions where the Christian population is a small minority, it becomes urgent for the ministry of Christ that the whole church be mobilized for it.
Christian ministry is the ministry of every member of the church. The world comes in contact with the church through its laity. Where a living church meets the world, the latter confronts the Gospel. The Word comes to the world through the whole church. Therefore, all Christians are called to do Christ’s ministry. The church in Asia as never before seems to have launched recently many programs for the training of the laity.
Unfortunately, theologically trained full-time ministers often spend all their time in ministering sacraments and doing administrative work. They get very little time for their preaching-teaching ministry for which they are specifically trained. Plans have been suggested in certain cases for the church to ordain for the sacramental and pastoral ministry people who would do it on a part-time basis, supporting themselves through secular professions. This will release theologically trained ministers for a fulltime ministry of teaching and strengthening the laity. Lay people are at an advantage over the professional ministers in their witness for Christ. They live and work with the great majority of non-Christians at every sphere of life. Women can be effective in reaching homes and through homes children and youth in particular.
Another problem is that many people who are already in the Christian ministry, such as pastors and evangelists, are those without any formal theological training. Residential seminary studies cost much and produce too few workers to meet the needs. Seminary graduates with their degree-level training often do not fit into many ministries, particularly in village and rural situations. The church-at-large in Asia is based in rural areas. There has been an increasingly felt need for grassroots-level training of Christian workers.
In ancient India, schools were called “gurukulam” or the “teacher’s house,” because the pupils studied as they served their teacher, living with him in his home. In any adequate understanding of theological education, the central place should be given to one’s total commitment to Christ, the teacher, and his service of him in the world.
Saphir P. Athyal is principal of Union Biblical Seminary, Yeotmal, India.
