Why shifting can help to avoid drifting
In previous posts, I have been discussing the matter of mission drift. While drift can and does occur when institutions overtly jettison historic commitments, as has been documented throughout the 400 year history of North American higher education, I submit that the greater danger for the Bible college movement may occur when institutions fail to examine the implications of shifting reality in terms of the means they employ in order to be faithful to the ends they rightly hold dear. So, what are some key examples of “shifting reality” that should provoke a critical re-examination of the ways in which we go about our business of developing and deploying students into God’s global cause? In my last post, I highlighted the shift we have undergone from the so-called Christendom paradigm (in which Christianity enjoyed a privileged, even if too-often relatively benign, position at our cultural, political, societal center) to a missional paradigm (in which believers, churches, colleges, and religious non-profits operate on the cultural and political margins amid an often hostile environment). So, what about this shift?
Vocation transcends occupation
The historic shorthand to describe the essence of Bible college education was to suggest that it prepares students for vocational Christian service. In so doing, I believe we unwittingly (and un-biblically, I might add) conflated the notion that ministry vocation is equivalent to church occupation. In light of the missional milieu in which today’s North American church finds itself , we no longer have that luxury—and that is a good thing. For a majority of “called” individuals in the emerging generation, ministry vocation may not be lived out in a church occupation. While that has always been the case, it seems to me more likely to be the norm, in light of the current missional reality, that we can no longer simply call people to come to the church but rather must call the church to go to an increasingly culturally distant and hostile people.
Ministry leadership in a missional environment
Under the Christendom paradigm, it is easy to see how the enabling (c.f., Eph. 4:11-12) spiritual gifts of shepherd (pastor) and teacher experienced elevation over other gifts in the church and theological education. According to Alan Hirsch and others, in a missional paradigm the church’s leadership needs will require a shift toward more recognition and affirmation of individuals gifted for cross-cultural pioneering (apostles), counter-cultural perception and penetration (prophets), and culturally relevant proclamation and persuasion (evangelists). These are the gifts necessary for extending and equipping the church to expand and engage a hostile culture. Now for the question that sometimes keeps me up at night: To what extent does our biblical higher education faculty and curriculum reflect a Christendom bias? If it is true that fully-formed students will be like their teachers (Lk. 6:40) does our faculty roster resemble the gifts and dispositions that correspond to the missional reality of the world into which we thrust our graduates?
Ministry modalities in a missional environment
Think of the potential implications of this shift relative to our curricular programs. When I was in Bible college in the 1960s, the range of our curricular programs largely mirrored the ministry staffing roles of local churches and mission agencies. But such programs correspond less and less to the missional context into which we are sending our graduates. You no doubt recognize that international missions platforms are shifting from that of professional Christians (i.e., persons with ministerial credentials going to other countries to perform ministerial occupations) to Christian professionals (i.e., persons deployed to other countries on the basis of their professional credentials and skills). When the new reality–even here in North America–is missional, we are unfaithful to our mission to the extent that we refuse to reconsider the nature and range of our curricular programs.
Shifting without drifting
But how do we ensure that the curricular changes we adopt represent shift and not drift? I believe drift occurs when we fail to be clear about what motivates the initiation of a curricular program, what dictates the content and design of our programs, and what validates the quality of our programs. More about this in my next post …
Fresh gleanings to fuel your leadership awareness, reflection, and conversations …
CCCU: Purity vs. Unity
You have no doubt heard the news that Eastern Mennonite University and Goshen College have withdrawn from the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities (CCCU), reportedly disappointed at the controversy their decision to change employment policies to accommodate “celibate” single and married LGBTQ persons sparked within the CCCU membership. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised at the “spin” coming from the higher education community castigating CCCU for its reluctance to affirm ECU and Goshen’s continuing membership.
The Diminishing Marketplace Value of a College Degree
Ironically, in a time when North American higher education policy is pushing the employment/wage earning college degree metric, the business and ministry marketplace appear to be moving in the opposite. Here’s an example: citing lack of any meaningful correlation between educational credentials and success, Ernst & Young has eliminated consideration of degree classification as an employment qualification. If you think churches are not doing the same, you are out of touch.
The Power of Expectations
Are you following ABHE Senior Fellow Todd Hall’s Lead With Connection blog? Check out this example of the rich leadership insight and guidance Todd offers.