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
:-)

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 :)

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.

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”).

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.

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”).

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.