A deep church curriculum…
A thesis: if a Deep Church vision is to have a viable and vibrant future it needs curriculum. And curriculum needs institutions; not just one institution, many. Discussions in the blogsphere have to translate into formal, intentional, accredited learning and research if they are to have a pervasive transformative impact on our lives. From gathered essays the Deep Church conversation will need to move to the publication of peer-reviewed critical responses and texts books. The content has to solidify and find modes of delivery that form the minds and hearts of a new generation of thought-leaders and agents of societal change.
This is a simple, more or less self-evident proposition once we understand the history of western culture and the church, and the role of tertiary education in their development. It is a proposition that applies equally to other significant and Spirit-inspired movements or proposals for ecclesiological change. If, for example, the church is to do serious engagement with the political sphere or the arts or the marketplace there needs to be institutionally embedded curriculum that forms the minds and lives of those who would lead that engagement. And, in turn, there needs to be a disciplined intellectual tradition that is informed and nurtured by the experience of its practitioners.
Here is an illustration, no doubt known to many of us, of why church life is unavoidably grounded in institutional training. The Anglican communion worldwide and within the UK is in painful public turmoil. Splits along continental (‘provincial’) fault lines seem imminent. And the lines of division could tear apart the fabric of the Church of England too. Battle lines are being drawn. The struggle is partly focused on the Church’s educational resources. One faction – the conservative evangelicals - have strategically sought theological ownership of one and then a second of the UK church’s training colleges. This makes perfect sense. The Church of England is its training institutions. And in the last half-century there have been broadly two theological perspectives taught in its colleges – one evangelical (and resistant to critical scholarship), the other ‘liberal’ (in its embrace of critical scholarship and theological progression). Colleges have been aligned with one or the other. So there is some truth in the observation of Dr Michael Nazir Ali (the Bishop of Rochester) that there are now “virtually two religions” in the Church of England. Of course matters are more complex: an argument could be made for there being three or four very different, distinct understandings of the “one true faith”. But the point remains. Those differences reflect the theological education offered in distinct communities of learning. Sixty year-old clergy I know still voice the theology that they learnt in their twenties (Bultmann, Tillich and co). These patterns are mirrored in the global character of Anglicanism.
Of course ideas have legs. The battles of ideas are always fought in the messy world of church politics, mission and wider societal forces. But ideas find their legs in the education system. It is not for nothing that when New Labour surrendered control of the Bank of England and its manipulation of monetary policy for social ends that it devoted renewed attention to the education system where it has seen opportunity to right the wrongs of done to the poorest by opening up access to full participation in society and wealth creation. And in tertiary education the government, like so many in western democracies for the last hundred or so years, sees a context which can incubate a particular vision of a multicultural, politically tolerant, religiously “neutral” society. Ideas have legs. And if ideas are ever going to run legs and heads have to be trained to work together. It is schools, colleges and universities that provide this training. And the gate-keepers to new ideas are those with doctorates and scholarly publications to their names.
So, if Deep Church (DC), and the emerging church vision with which we are associated, is to have any legs, it needs a context of training. If this basic thesis is accepted there are paradoxes to be resolved and hang-ups to be overcome. For one thing, in the Deep Church conversation I frequently hear the voice that says DC means a return to the patterns and content of catechesis adopted in the first centuries of the early church. But in the world now dominated by the industry, resources and lengthy periods of learning offered by our universities church-based catechesis has no hope. Now it is, of course, true that the Alpha course demonstrates that programmatic instruction in the faith in a church context is possible without formal accreditation and study. But the Alpha course only goes so far and it is has not yet demonstrated that its informality is capable of defining a thoroughgoing discipleship and ecclesiology. The church’s historic, pre-industrial, mode of delivering catechesis may enshrine eternal principals, but it needs up-dating.
But of course this is no big deal. Arguably, what Deep Church wants is what, until twenty years ago our university Theology and Divinity departments offered – albeit to a socio-economic elite of whom the majority would “go into the (established) church” (posh speak for “get ordained”). When he coined the expression “Deep Church” C.S. Lewis had conversation partners who already knew what he meant. Perhaps this is one reason why his call for a common front among evangelicals and Catholics rooted in the deep tradition of the church was not heard as a battle cry: that tradition was not only self-evident to many, it was available in the “catechesis” offered in degree level theology. And no self-respective “university” was without its theology department. But now the call to rediscover Deep Church is a battle cry because the classic theological curriculum offered by our “universities” is no more. (In the original, medieval sense of the word, this also means our universities are “no more”, but that’s another story). Theology degrees have now moved away from classic, confessional Christian theology into religious studies, philosophy, critical theory and a narrowly (non-theological) historical study of the Christian texts. It is not that these are illegitimate subjects of study. It is that it is now hard to find a degree course that teaches essential Deep Church foundations (the bible – in their original languages and with sympathy for their theological character), patrology (early doctrine, spirituality and liturgical theology), church history (with faculty competency in all periods and without a partisan attachment to just one tradition) and doctrine (that is not just modern and “systematic”). As Douglas Knight will tell us there are places in the US where this curriculum is available, but in the UK the consumer is bereft of choice.
There are painful and potentially tragic ironies here for those of us who have sympathy for the emerging church agenda. Whilst a Deep Church curriculum is now hard to find in the universities, the emerging church conversation has been invigorated by the energy, life and creativity that has come from some significant advances in theology and biblical studies in the last 30 years. In part, emerging church writers are popularising and applying the work of hard-nosed theologians (the likes of N.T. Wright, Stanley Hauwerwas and Walter Brueggemann). And these theologians are the product of, and would all advocate, a classic Deep Church theological curriculum. With the demise of theology in the universities is the stream of life-giving theological water about to run dry? In the UK we might ask, which institution will raise up the next N.T. Wright. Where will the next Lewis come from? And the question is the more acute because, for many in the emerging church scene there is a fundamental antipathy to institution. There is a hope that it is possible to be church in community relationships free from hierarchy, control and regulation. Whether or not that is possible – a question for another time – it raises the question whether there will ever be the kind of investment of time, energy and resources in an institution which could take forward a Deep Church vision in a way that would serve the concerns of those in a broader emerging church context.
On this very question of the institution Deep Church of course offers some good news. There is little in the Christian tradition to support outright opposition to institution. Current ‘Christian’ forms of such opposition surely reflect the relatively recent concerns of one strand of (non-Christian) modernity and its rugged individualism. But there is plenty in the Christian tradition and in Scripture – in Deep Church – that can help us recover a healthy understanding of how communities and institutions should function. Indeed, one result of recent work on Pauline theology has been to show how far the centre of Paul’s theology is concerned to offer a new vision of Israel’s polity that is organised around baptism and eucharist, but is free in the replication of the life of Jesus and the power of his Spirit. But for a full and proper understanding of that you probably need to take a module on Pauline theology taught by someone with training (a doctorate) in the subject and the institutional resources (a library, for example) to make study possible.
Crispin Fletcher-Louis is Principal of Westminster Theological Centre.
15 comments
9.47 pm on 8.21.2007
[…] Interesting. The full post can be found here. […]
9.43 am on 8.22.2007
[…] It’s an great piece, you can read it and join me in the discussion here. […]
6.08 pm on 8.22.2007
It sounds like you are proposing the general church population needs more theological training from scholars who have the ability to speak in a way that is both practical and challenging. I agree that the knowledge obtained from years of study is worth sharing and can lead to a more holistic Christian lifestyle. Maybe more in the ivory tower need to participate and lead Sunday school classes at the local church? Maybe when pastors take sabaticals they should join their friends church’s and serve as mentors to the laity? Let the gates be opened to the people.
6.17 pm on 8.22.2007
Yes, Dan. I think that to achieve what I describe in the posting there will need to be work not just by ‘the people’ (in the hard graft of academic study) but also by theological educators trained in the habits of the ivory tower. Writing as one of the former I confess it requires application and effort to engage the world outside the tower. Sometimes I have heard ‘people in the pews’ complain at out of touch theologians. I have also heard ‘theologians’ moan about ignorance among the masses. We need to cut each other plenty of slack, reengage and listen and learn from one another. I have found this to be demanding, but also a great deal of fun when there is the will and His grace.
1.00 am on 8.23.2007
If you ever want to teach at our church in Irvine, CA let me know. Thanks for wrestling with these issues.
11.23 pm on 8.22.2007
To what extent was this (the tail end) of a fortuitous set of sociological (younger sons in an Edwardian era, and various colonial/government offices who could soak up the excess output of these courses) and religious circumstances (the Oxford movement, etc.)? After all, a system that failed to replicate itself couldn’t have been a completely healthy.
One could argue that the demise of the Anglican Church has left large tracts of this country mostly barren spiritually. This might not be unconnected to it being led for decades by leaders educated in the ‘Deep Church Way’ but unable to communicate the usefulness of anything beyond a vague Deism.
So, I’m glad you mentioned educating the wider church. To a large extent the long term survival of the sorts of higher education that you mention rely on the support of a congregation that can actually see and understand it’s value.
Incidentally, there is no reason why philosophy can’t be part of all of this. There is definite stream of reformed thought in parts of the emerging church movement - who draw on the Princeton Theologians, the continental reformed theologians, Edwards etc. In the Anglican context it would play the part of ‘reason’ in Hooker’s three-legged stool.
11.24 pm on 8.22.2007
To what extent was this (the tail end) of a fortuitous set of sociological (younger sons in an Edwardian era, and various colonial/government offices who could soak up the excess output of these courses) and religious circumstances (the Oxford movement, etc.)? After all, a system that failed to replicate itself couldn’t have been a completely healthy.
One could argue that the demise of the Anglican Church has left large tracts of this country mostly barren spiritually. This might not be unconnected to it being led for decades by leaders educated in the ‘Deep Church Way’ but unable to communicate the usefulness of anything beyond a vague Deism.
So I’m glad you mentioned educating the wider church. To a large extent the long term survival of the sorts of higher education that you mention relyies on the support of a congregation that can actually see and understand it’s value.
Incidentally, there is no reason why philosophy can’t be part of all of this. There is definite stream of reformed thought in parts of the emerging church movement - who draw on the Princeton Theologians, the continental reformed theologians, Edwards etc. In the Anglican context it would play the part of ‘reason’ in Hooker’s three-legged stool.
11.24 pm on 8.22.2007
To what extent was this (the tail end) of a fortuitous set of sociological (younger sons in an Edwardian era, and various colonial/government offices who could soak up the excess output of these courses) and religious circumstances (the Oxford movement, etc.)? After all, a system that failed to replicate itself couldn’t have been a completely healthy.
One could argue that the demise of the Anglican Church has left large tracts of this country mostly barren spiritually. This might not be unconnected to it being led for decades by leaders educated in the ‘Deep Church Way’ but unable to communicate the usefulness of anything beyond a vague Deism.
So I’m glad you mentioned educating the wider church. To a large extent the long term survival of the sorts of higher education that you mention relies on the support of a congregation that can actually see and understand its value.
Incidentally, there is no reason why philosophy can’t be part of all of this. There is definite stream of reformed thought in parts of the emerging church movement - who draw on the Princeton Theologians, the continental reformed theologians, Edwards etc. In the Anglican context it would play the part of ‘reason’ in Hooker’s three-legged stool.
11.47 am on 8.23.2007
I read the article yesterday and have been reflecting for my comment…..bollocks! Sorry more politely…i feel if saying that propisitional truth is necessary for the deeping of church (emerging/growth/renewal/reformation)as a propisition then I strongly disagree. Yes it is needed but not as a propisitional statement (as THE supporting structure) because it undermines sovereignity and makes faith again an acedemic, intellectual middle class persuit. yes certain people are naturally gifted towards acedemia and they form part of the process, structia but not as a propisitional component.
2.00 pm on 8.23.2007
Trev, I’m puzzled. How does concerted study of theology (of the bible in its linguistic, historical, literary and theological context, of church history, doctrine (and so forth)), ‘undermine sovereignty’? Surely, we would expect the study of these things to deepen our understanding and appreciation of God’s sovereignty?
Crispin
11.33 pm on 8.23.2007
I think this is an excellent idea, but I think as some of the previous posting demonstrate there are a few hurdles, and big one’s at that need to be faced. I am speaking as an american so I’m not exactly sure how things play out on the grassroots level there but one of the biggest problems we face is anti-intellectualism and therefore anti-institutional attitudes. I say this recognizing this is not just a grassroots church problem but a grassroots american problem. Here, far too many people seem to have a beef with academia either because they precieve they will not be good at it or because the precieve it is as arrogant. I think this is also compounded by our western seperation between facts and values, public and private, mind and heart. The great thing about C.S. Lewis and others was they recognized and overcame this problem through there winsome and careful writings and they found ways to integrate these things which invited others to be persuaded. I agree that the emerging church movement and deep church would do well to begin to take on these areas. Prehaps by doing so we can avoid some of the more reckless characterizations about history and the relationship between modernity and post-modernity that have come up here and there. I don’t want the post to be too long but I think the liberal-conservative problem is also a more complex problem than we’re willing to admit. We do indeed need more folks who are willing stand between academic halls and the local church but it tenuous a place be.
12.05 pm on 8.24.2007
I think that one of the problems that there has always been in ‘the church’ is the belief that discipleship is teaching and teaching is academic. This is reflected by the Universities and Seminaries where they are totally biased to the intellectual. Whilst I reflect what Trev said, I think that we are always prone to the ‘baby - bath water.’ Teaching & study of the Word is a vital part of Discipleship, it is just that, a part. We confuse knowing God and knowledge. I can have knowledge of God and not ‘know him.’ My grandfather had a photographic memory and had the whole bible in his head, but died unsaved.
The church has always struggle because knowledge of the scriptures has always been the measure. He who has the greater knowledge has the power. The Catholic church kept it in Latin to deny people knowledge. Today the ‘ivory tower’ as you put it does the same making knowledge of God restricted to a clever few. Clergy and laity is not biblical and creates a dualism but on not least, pride.
What qualifies us is the Spirit of God. He annoints us and calls us. He is our teacher. Intellectual understanding is not the platform of our faith. Relationship is…
Disipleship is a broader ‘training’ of people through, experience, relationship and understanding.
We need to have places that encourage relationship with understanding not just academic prowess.
‘institutionally embedded curriculum’ without the Holy Spirit is useless. I beleive what Trev has alluded to is that the world needs the power (sovreignty) of God as opposed to the power of the mind. The power of the mind becomes idolatry as we become smug in our understanding.
Now do not get me wrong, I am not against people who pursue greater understanding of the Word, but it is not the key. I have four close friends here in Africa that all have masters in theology and they constantly say that they wish they had never done it because when it comes to acting in faith, it works in opposition.
Sure knowledge (faith) is based on us knowing God (relationship) never in having knowledge about, formed by academic educational curriculum.
You need both, in the right order and priority.
4.06 pm on 9.27.2007
“As Douglas Knight will tell us there are places in the US where this curriculum is available, but in the UK the consumer is bereft of choice.”
I enjoyed your post Crispin and strongly agree with a lot of what you wrote. I’d like to make a shameless plug for the London School of Theology, of which I am a graduate, in response to the above paragraph. I have a friend studying at St. Paul’s Theological Centre, which I understand is similar in approach to Westminster Theological Centre. As my friend and I have got to know each other we’re realising how similar the heartbeat of our respective institutions seem. Of course, as students, one is always aware that there will be a political side that often remains hidden. However, I served as a student rep on the Academic Board at LST, and again as it went through its recent re-accreditation process. I can say with absolute confidence that LST fits the bill in terms of offering the cirriculum that UK institutions supposedly lack (perhaps this was only a reference to university faculties of which I’m unqualified to comment?).
Under the tutelage of my teachers and mentors at LST I found a vibrant and stimulating environment in which to grow as a Christian and as a critically thinking member of the Church who is also passionate about engaging the culture (I went to LST precisely to grow in this way and develop from my experiences as an art student in London). I am now about to return to LST for post graduate study, not because it is familiar but because, having searched all over, I’ve come to the conclusion that it still offers wonderful things for the Deep Churcer. To cite once recent example Ian Stackhouse, a Deep Church author, read for his PhD there.
I can’t speak for other colleges, and I hope LST is not alone, however, for anyone who is wondering, LST offers the curriculum being called for: “a degree course that teaches essential Deep Church foundations (the bible – in their original languages and with sympathy for their theological character), patrology (early doctrine, spirituality and liturgical theology), church history (with faculty competency in all periods and without a partisan attachment to just one tradition) and doctrine (that is not just modern and “systematic”).” It also chucks in a lot of the other stuff to boot :)
11.02 pm on 9.28.2007
Hmmm….. I think…. (therefore I am!!!) ;-)
Joke: Rene Descartes is sitting in a pub, he’s a bit too much. “Another beer?” asks the landlord. “I think not,” says Descartes, and promptly vanishes.
Seriously, I think…
If Deep Church means anything much, then it means the Deep Church which is the Church of the Deep Magic.
It is the magic that the White Witch did not know.
This with my love.
Oliver
:-)
10.47 am on 12.11.2007
IMHO one of the most significant bits of damage to the church of the last half century was the closure of Kelham in 1973. This was considered by many to be the greatest of all the theological colleges, which sent out priests with the deepest understanding of life and of God. In my book, having studied the work of Fr. Kelly and the growth of Kelham and it’s theology, that’s your model for a deep church theological college.
For those interested in Kelham and in Anglican theological training during the twentieth century in general, I recommend Alistair Mason’s ‘History of the Society of the Sacred Mission’ ISBN-13: 978-1853110795. SSM is the order which ran Kelham, and the book reveals much of the politics in the church from the point of view of the order which ran what was in 1969 the biggest (in terms of numbers) theological college in the land.
Oliver
:-)
Alas, comments are now closed.