The Czech Republic

The current 3-year Series focuses on the challenges and opportunities of 21^st century international theological education. This is not an uncommon theme in these early years of the 21^st Century; but we are seeking conversation and, possibly, decision-making around the following issues:

1. The future of theological education and leadership development in post-communist countries.
2. The characteristics of nonformal and non-traditional initiatives that are emerging in many countries; and the nature of their inter-relationships.
3. Alternatives emerging within conventional theological education.
4. The need for international collaboration in degree programs and in leadership development for the church.

The first Consultation in this 2004-2006 Series took place in Nairobi, Kenya with about 70 leaders from several African countries represented. Most are leading institutions that were established by westerners, and trying to direct these institutions to today’s African realities. Others are leading non-formal alternatives. The second Consultation took place in Chicago with about 65 leaders concerned about ecclesiology and theological education. We wanted the third Consultation to be in Eastern Europe because of the interesting developments in both conventional and non-formal (non-credentialed) theological education in post-Communist countries. The fourth and fifth Consultations in 2006 will be Chicago and Brazil respectively.

The Ward Consultation is a forum for international leaders to engage issues that affect the church’s mission in the world. See www.wardconsultation.org What follows is a reflection on the Ward Consultation held in the Czech Republic in June 2005.

In 1928, Alphonse Mucha wrote, “ The purpose of my work was never to destroy but to construct, to link up; because we must all hope that humanity will draw together and this will be easier the more they understand each other. . . .” (In JiÍR Mucha. 1989. Alphonse Mucha, His Life and Art. New York: Rizzoli International Publications)

The Slav Epic, probably the greatest work of his life, took 18 years to complete, and it is still one of his most controversial. He envisioned this massive 20 canvas display (each canvas measuring 6 meters by 8 meters) as a way to help the fragmented and dispersed Slav peoples to understand their heritage, and out of this understanding to be the light to the nations he wished them to be. Even his son identified his ideal as one that would never be realized, but he respected his father for it nonetheless. To the end of his life, Alphonse Mucha never lost his idealism—his hope—for his people, even though he was discouraged many times by the fact that it was never realized. Though his faith was more akin to superstition than Christian faith, his faith inspired hope, and his hope drove his art. His sense of history and philosophy gave substance and meaning to that art.

In company with leaders from Central and Eastern Europe at the Ward Consultation in Malenovice, Czech Republic, we became aware of the long history that has marked their nations, and sensed their hope for the future. Many of the leaders at the Ward Consultation have lived through persecution and unimaginable stress. Yet, the ministries that are emerging bear witness to their persisting faithfulness when hope seemed lost.

With the fall of Communism in 1989, the church in Central and Eastern Europe faces new challenges: finding ways to avoid competition and promote understanding among leaders; ministering within a growing secularism; overcoming, in some churches, a binding traditionalism; and confronting so many opportunities for ministry that leaders are often paralyzed by the array of choices.

Representatives of schools, nonformal education, and churches were present at the Ward Consultation in Malenovice, Czech Republic (June 2-4, 2005). The most productive conversations took place around the tables at meals, during walks, and on the large patio. The interactions in the large group gatherings did suggest, however, that there is a desire for greater understanding and interaction among representatives of the church, the schools, and the nonformal efforts. The evident trust that is building among the leaders from the various contexts and cultures suggests that it is time to initiate concrete experiments with one or more schools, churches, and nonformal education efforts to explore issues such as educational design, assessment, and organizational evaluation.

Questions are being raised about the nature of theological education for today’s generation and for the church and society that are emerging. Education in Europe is based on centuries of tradition related to disciplines of knowledge, the character of institutions, and the conventions that shape relationships and curricular experiences. The schools tend to be shaped, consciously or unconsciously, by centuries of educational tradition. Some of these traditions are important; but more recently, the restrictions of educational institutionalization, accreditation, and the now troublesome specialization and fragmentation of the disciplines of knowledge, contribute to the perception that the schools in themselves cannot fulfill the tasks of leadership development for the church and society. In many instances, it seems that the church in Central and Eastern Europe is preoccupied with how to survive in a post-Communist (and, in some respects, an increasingly post-denominational society). The astonishing increase of nonformal initiatives in many countries around the world seems fueled by the perception that neither the churches nor the schools are nimble enough to respond to the challenges of the 21^st century. Leaders in nonformal education are searching for effective formats for training and development. In the absence of viable models, these efforts may also unwittingly take on the instructional and curricular designs of the schools—because we have been exposed almost exclusively to these styles of education for a lifetime!

Inevitably, then, the instructional processes and curriculum of formal and nonformal education are often similar. Most of us are well versed in the structures of schooling. We are not as well versed in that which constitutes and enhances learning. However, our conversation suggested that the issues are not so much in the similarities and differences between formal and nonformal education, but in understanding the nature of teaching and learning and the variety of contexts possible for each. Changes in structure and method are not the answer to the way forward for formal and nonformal theological education. The more important questions are about the nature of the church and the role of theological education for the whole people of God. What are we doing today so that the church and society 30 years from now will be strengthened?

Westerners and Central and Eastern European leaders agreed that leadership development must help men and women become bridge-builders. Christian leaders today must find appropriate ways to bridge the gaps between church and society, faith and culture, denominational barriers, gender differences, and so on. The qualities needed by bridge-builders and the ways in which they are nurtured are important questions for both formal and nonformal education.

Our conversations turned then to contextualization in relation to teaching, learning, and ministry. It was not as evident at our meetings in Malenovice, but in some settings, identification of church life and school structures with the West creates a backlash—in other words, curriculum and organizational structures that look like the West tend to be perceived as neo-colonialism. However, economic colonialism may actually be more of a problem. The question was asked, almost in passing, about how financial (and other resource) infusions, from the West in particular, have shaped theological education, leadership development, and ministry efforts. To what extent have these infusions hindered contextualization and the development of the church and those agencies that serve the church? To what extent have infusions from the West made it possible for leaders in context to expand their efforts for good? Considering these questions, it became apparent that there are assumptions, structures, and conventions in every culture that need to be challenged by the gospel. We realized that sometimes contextualization can be a cloak for an inappropriate ethnocentrism.

Is lifelong learning the expression of Christian commitment to the gospel (assuming lifelong growth toward obedience, responsible service, and maturity); and should lifelong learning became the organizing principle for learning experiences, curriculum development, assessment, and organizational relationships in theological education? At what points then, is an intensive academic experience needed, and why? How is it organized and assessed? Against what criteria? At what points, then, is more focused professional development needed, and why? How does one know when it is needed? What motivates the desire for development? In what ways does active involvement in ministry in church and society incorporate active reflection-on-practice and what are the relationships of active reflection, academic development, and professional training?

Typically, concerns about restrictions imposed by accrediting agencies surface in conversations about the future of formal theological education. However, one could rightly ask: Should accreditation have built into its processes the obligation to demonstrate the ways in which it is identifying and responding to change? In some instances administrators and faculty concerned about “their accreditation” will use the standards as a way to avoid innovation. Yet, often the standards cited to repress innovation either do not exist, or they are not as intractable as they appear. Accreditation may measure that which is perceived necessary for some vision of standardization; but accreditation often misses, is unable to assess, or misrepresents that which is essential in theological education. Preserving theological schools is the stuff of accreditation. Preserving, and more importantly, improving theological education is another matter altogether. Interestingly, in North America, the accrediting association for theological schools came into being largely as a way to protect the schools from overly intrusive churches.[1] Today, the accrediting association is concerned to convince churches that they need theological schools!

For me, it is more useful to think of leaders in a Christian context as those who assist the people of God to understand and to live consistently in relation to their identity and purpose as the people of God. This focus shows the falsity of the temptation to behave as a CEO of a corporation concerned about product (numerical growth at keynote events such as worship services, financial success, and so on) and more conscious that it is God’s prerogative to add to the church as He sees fit; that saving souls is the prerogative of the Spirit of God following the atoning work of Christ; that the leadership of the church is the prerogative of the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ. Understanding these principles tends to put us in our place as disciples learning obedience—sharing with one another what God is doing in discipling us; as servants seeking to do the will of the triune God on behalf of the people of God; as agents of reconciliation and equippers of others; and as those who witness to the work of Christ. Any extrapolation of these principles into theological education should fundamentally affect the ways in which we conceive of and carry out learning experiences for such leaders. What is it that equips the church for the advancement of the kingdom of God? What characterizes the leaders who assist in this task? How does theological education (in all its manifestations) support the decisions we make in relation to such questions? And who are the partners is making such decisions? Clearly, theological education is not an end in itself, and as one school-based educator noted, the outcome of teaching a course is not simply teaching a course!

One of the tasks that surfaced in our conversations at Malenovice was the need to create space and opportunity for the sharing of ideas, resources, and even finances. A number of men and women from the West were present at the Consultation. All of these men and women came with considerable experience in Central and Eastern Europe. I was stuck here as I have been in Africa, Brazil, and in some Asian contexts, of an emerging role for such persons as internationalists who come and go, or who stay for periods of time, to encourage and to become colleagues with national leaders. In Africa, for example, many if not most, of the institutions and churches established by missionaries are now led by African nationals. The role of the missionary is changing. The role of the internationalist is perhaps as a different sort of bridge-builder—one who is able to see different contexts, and to share news and ideas from these contexts.

Where do we go next? Insights and suggestions from those present at the Ward Consultation in the Czech Republic follow:

· The characteristics of transitional leaders or bridge-builders. Clarify the components of bridge-building.

· How can effective bridges be constructed between nonformal and formal theological approaches?

· Who is determining the “agenda” for theological education and for what purposes?

· How can we develop and maintain a proactive stance (rather than a re-active stance) so that we are truly futuristic in our development of theological education?

· The questions related to values and value systems and how values relate to theological education.

· The duplication of efforts in certain areas. What could be accomplished by collaboration?

· What is the role of the scholar in a region where nonformal education is the norm for the churches in that region?

· What is a biblical view of knowledge? What sorts of knowledge are needed for the different roles of theological education?

· What is the role of the church and what education does the church need? What is the place of the church in the education/equipping enterprise? At what point would it be helpful to include congregational voices? How would these voices be identified? Who initiates the dialogue?

· To what extent are post-communist churches and denominations replicating Communistic practices in leadership?

· To what extent are leaders in the variety of theological education efforts servants of the church?

· What different or broader vision is possible for the academy and who will interact over this question?

· Attention to the disturbing duplication of training institutions in Eastern Europe.

· A process by which we determine goals for our curriculum—be that in formal or nonformal efforts.

· More careful thought about who is a “leader” in a church in Central and Eastern Europe.

· Enable more interaction between people who share similar struggles and challenges.

· Create a series of problems of such a nature that if we aren’t struggling with these we might as well forget the information we are teaching.

3. What research inquiries are necessary to provide data for formal and nonformal theological education, churches, universities, and service agencies?

· Use existing sociology of religion data and research designs to inquire into the needs, religious attitudes and so on of pastors, and nominal and active members of churches.

· What are the real and perceived needs of the churches? How can the level of dysfunction in the church and in theological education best be assessed and then dealt with?

· Develop a test site to develop and then examine particular areas of change and development (e.g., the development of less compartmentalized organizational, departmental, and curricular structures; the employment of particular large-scale strategies for learning and assessment).

· How might an international Doctor of Ministry program foster the development of church leaders able to lead effectively in a global world?

· Examine the extent to which the academy and nonformal initiatives are a true representation of society and the church.

· Examine the nature and the role of theological scholarship in the academic world—as it serves the church in its mission in society.

· Are we trying to do too much? If we “system-mapped” the issues as we see them, to what extent would this help us understand the linkages, disconnections, and influencers?

· Assess the levels of competition and cooperation in nonformal and formal approaches in theological education.

· Examine the outputs of money and time to the completion of a degree in the academy; and to the completion of a reasonable period of leadership development in nonformal education.

4. What specific professional development needs are suggested by our discussions?

· We have an informed and well founded impression that churches need help and that pastors need ongoing assistance. There is need for ongoing development of pastors and other leaders in relation to problems that they encounter that the seminary cannot deal with. What we need are examples of learning experiences that will do the job.

· Coalitions of support, resource sharing, and encouragement will help to subvert issues such as competition and lack of trust.

· Coaching of pastors in areas of their particular work. Adequate training is needed, in particular, for youth leader coaches.

· Appropriate stewardship of financial resources (giving, spending, fundraising).

· The development of a nonformal Ph.D. program for leaders in nonformal education.

· Bring together pastors and seminary faculty to deal with matters common to both. Add administrators and denominational leaders later.

As we came to the last day, our interaction with Zygmunt Karel led us more clearly into challenges and opportunities particular to Central and Eastern Europe. In large group it was difficult to get at these issues for a number of reasons, but the quality of interaction in the last hours demonstrated that there is much to be learned from what the Central and Eastern European leaders are creating and adapting. Clearly, we are not finished with learning from this region of the world.

The questions we began with at the Consultation may be appropriate as these musing come to an end:

[1]Just as regional accreditation for universities came into being to protect the universities from applicants from schools they considered substandard.