DISQUS

Grant · 4 months ago

I would consider Bakke university as an example of a school that fits your description: http://www.bgu.edu/index

DBlevins · 4 months ago

I think for some of ecumenicity remains important but we do not read ecumenicity as "generic" or even "apostolic" since we live in a particular history and context. Instead we might argue for a ecumenicity of particularity that does not evoke a primitivism of the early church but acknowledges we live in a world of different theological perspectives (some contrasting, some complementary, some competing) so we enter into an ecumenical conversation not by ignoring other traditions or demonizing them but also not ignoring our own tradition either. Guder argues that to be ecumenical is to be modest...with conviction. Unless one knows one's tradition one does not have a place to stand in a conversation. Now, historically this has been expressed polemically ("Why I am a Nazarene and not...") but to jettison tradition completely risks a generic ecumenism that marked the "death" of earlier ecumenical movements (a kind of reductionism as to not to offend people) rather than a catholic ecumenism that acknowledges that we need diverse expressions of Christian faith so we acknowledge both the gifts... and limitations... of our tradition (where the modesty comes in).

Second point: I think we need models of parish-centered education but we need to also acknowledge the limitation of this view as the "right" answer alone. To be frank parish-centered education comes with certain limitations, particularly the limitation of cultural perspective. So you have an ecumencial gathering of Anglican, Reformed, Methodist, and Anabaptist pastors learning togehter in east Ohio. Great, but still get an "east Ohio" perspective. One of the functions of "centers" of education is to provide not a "tower" (hierarchical) perspective of theological education but a "cross-road" (connectional) opportunity to allow students from different geographic/cultural limitations to engage students, within the same tradition, from other cultural perspectives. (POSTSCRIPT: anyone who has met students from any three of our Nazarene undergraduate schools in theological discourse immediately recognize that even the idea of a "Nazarene" theology proves illusive at best). If we cannot engage people of difference within our own tradition how are we equipped to engage people of other traditions? I think it is best to say that educational institutions may need to rethink and adapt (and reflective institutions should acknowldge this) but to raise the issue of total failure might be problematic.

mrdcbrush · 4 months ago

Dean, thank you for your thoughtful response.

I think my post mainly reacts to the, "Why I am a Nazarene and not..." that you mentioned as that seems to feel more ideological then ecumenical in tone. It's the whole idea that you walk into a random Nazarene church and ask the average member what their theology is and mostly it's along the lines of "well we're not Baptists" or "we're not Pentecostals".

I would say that the internet though has a huge impact on this whole discussion. I currently am working through an MA at Fuller seminary; however I reside in Kansas City. I have cohort members (and small group members within that) from the USA, but also Brazil, China, Nigeria, Uganda, Albania, etc. all in dialogue but in our disparate life/work settings. While there is nothing like eating Italian food in Italy at least we can partake and share our own cultural distinctiveness in a meaningful way.

I do agree that particular/distinctive viewpoints are inescapable (and even beneficial) and to wash them out is not maybe what I wanted to convey; however as a denomination we must be careful when attempting to integrate a term like missional which has had 30+ years (probably mostly done in the last 10 or 15) of work done in and around it's meaning and intent, so as not to move it out of it's broader meaning. For instance I doubt when people think of missional in a broad ecumenical sense that their mind immediately jumps to higher learning institutions as somehow being a mark of missionality. The proof is in the walking. (Please don't take this as I am saying that NTS isn't missionaly focused or headed that way potentially.) As much as I love NTS or the higher education schools within the denomination I feel it was a bit short-sighted for the church to couch them in this light. What does this mean for those in the course of study? Is our course of study program not missional? With an eye on missionality as a goal where are the low-cost alternatives to becoming a missionaly minded minister? How do continue to justify very expensive degrees for ever smaller churches built around a culture that is quickly dissolving? How do we equip young men and women that need to realize that they most likely will be bi-vocational in most cases if they want to repay their student loans? I have a lot of reservations about our very expensive (and Fuller doesn't escape my questioning here either) system of educating leaders to pastor churches that may be so small or new that no means of remuneration is even possible.

I hope I don't sound angry, but I am concerned.

Again, thank you for your response and time.

Peace,
David

DBlevins · 4 months ago

Good comments David and great talking with a concerned Nazarene :0-) Okay, couldn't resist. I do hope you see our exchange as friendly banter.

A little more seriously I think we might have missed something in Methodist history that might help this conversation. David Hempton has written an interesting text titled Empire of the Spirit that traces Methodism, primary as a populist movement on the margins of the larger colonial expansion (be that North American expansion or British expansion). What Hempton notes is that schools often served as connectional centers for Methodist efforts, often before other denominational agencies or structures could catch up. Hempton's observation has been documented elsewhere (often in-house Methodist research texts in higher education that rarely get around beyond scholars working with the field).

Now, I am not saying all schools serve this roll today but if we could return to seeing them as connectional centers rather than gatekeepers it might help reframe the role of higher education. After all, it takes an institutional structure like Fuller to assist and provide the very mechanism for global discourse you describe. Not only with the technical infrastructure but also the identified connectional center for graduate discourse. Again, I would say that we have not always understood this view of education/connection in the Church of the Nazarene... but perhaps we can in the not too distant future. Case in point, when I was at Trevecca Nazarene University we institutied a summer program in conjunction with the region's district training schools where TNU faculty met with district pastors (teaching the course of study) to walk through all of the new modules as they emerged in the current Course of Study education program. The implicit goal was to put local training pastors into a conversation with faculty so that we could learn from each other. Research faculty offered the fruit of their efforts, district pastors offered their insights working with small church and bivocational settings. The results were mixed at first (we had years of distrust to overcome on both sides of the conversation) but overall the we were able to bridge a percieved boundary between district training through the course of study and undergraduate education. The bridge was the acceptance of our mutual vocation as teachers regardless of location. This represents one example and I am not sure how the program continued after I left TNU for NTS. David, thisis not so much a specific critique of your concerns (at times quite valid) but I offer this only to raise the fact that sometimes we just do not "see" how educators in our schools actually serve at multiple levels in far more collaborative ways than we realize. I have friends who choose to write for the sake of local churches in some really unique ways but rarely do we see this work.

I think we recognize that the term missional has not been fleshed out well in the COtN. It is part of our Core Values but the term probably conveys multiple meanings in various congregations. I think we have opportunity to sharpen that understanding in the near future. We just had George Hunsberger from the Gospel in our Culture Network meeting with faculty the last two days. We were gratified to know he thinks our school is a lot farther down the road as a missionally minded community than many other theological schools. However we, as a faculty, recognize we have a long way to go.

Josh · 4 months ago

Thanks Dave for a good post, and thanks Dean for taking the time to post here and give us young bucks a different view point.
Interesting that you would suggest a local cohort group, Dave, because that is exactly what our church is starting up this fall. We are calling it the Circle of Leadership. It is open to anyone with a degree in ministry or a call to ministry. In our church, that's about 25 people, but we are limiting it to 15 people for the pilot group. We will read The Missional Leader, take turns leading discussions, and meet in smaller groups of 5 for support and prayer. It's an experiment, but it's along the lines you're talking about. Our goal is to empower a community of growing leaders.

frjohnwhiteford · 4 months ago

I looked up the word "missional" and here is what websters says:

"Missional
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above."

Why this neologism? If you mean "missionary", why not use the correct English word for it?

James_Diggs · 4 months ago

because "missional" does NOT mean the same thing as "missionary".

Also, neologism is just part of the ongoing development of how we use language and the word "missional" is a good example of how this can be a positive thing.

frjohnwhiteford · 4 months ago

Since Websters is of no help, how would you define "missional". I realize that new words are created all the time, but when you create a new word by adding a suffix to a word with as long a history as "mission", there should be a good reason for doing so. And when you look at the meaning of the two suffixes in question, it is difficult to see that there is a fundamental difference between "pertaining to" and "connected with".
http://www.michigan-proficiency-exams.com/suffi...

James_Diggs · 4 months ago

Since you are interested in outside sources I suggest you expand your research beyond websters. WE did not make up this term here, it is one that is widely growing in the church across traditions. It is a term that is listed as one of the Church of the Nazarene's official vales. "Christian...holiness...missional".

A quick google search you will find a lot of helpful information and searching Amazon with the keyword "missional" will give you a slew of book you could pick up on the subject.

I just find it odd that you come here, only checking websters for a definition (not exactly comprehensive research is it?), and rebuke us by accusing us of somehow making up a word.

Oh and by the way the word "misssional" is in Oxford English Dictionary.

frjohnwhiteford · 4 months ago

I realize it is now in the Nazarene Manual, and I did google it, which is how I ran across this site. I had heard that the Manual had been rather significantly changed, and was struck by it's use of this term, as well as a number of other things. And yes, according to Wikipedia, it is in the Oxford English Dictionary...now, and according to the same article it was coined in 1934 by a German Missiologist (whether he actually coined the English word, or simply one that someone thought best translated by "missional" is not stated in the article). Interestingly, the definition it gives is ""relating to or connected with a religious mission; missionary." In other words it means the exact same thing as "missionary." I graduated from Southern Nazarene University in 1990, and took a lot of missions courses in the process, and never had occasion to run across the word "Missional". It clearly is not a term that has a long history of wide use, and I can't quite see what those who use it think they are gaining by doing so.

From the outside looking in, it just seems to me to be another example of focusing on packaging and marketing rather than substance. A rose by any other name smells as sweet, and a Church does not become more or less missionary when they change the suffix to "-al"

pbrad21 · 4 months ago

"From the outside looking in, it just seems to me to be another example of focusing on packaging and marketing rather than substance. A rose by any other name smells as sweet, and a Church does not become more or less missionary when they change the suffix to "-al"

John, I can understand your concern in regards to packaging and marketing rather than 'substance'. Ironically, the missional movement is concerned with the same.

God had a mission in Jesus. Being missional means aligning one's self with the mission of God in the person of Jesus Christ. Since Jesus became one of us and lived in our world to reach us, restore us, redeem us, and transform us... becoming missional, in part, means going out into the world and living in the world in order to redeem, restore, and transform.

unfortunately, one can be a missionary, but not really be in the world or redeeming it. such is the case that we've seen in the early americas when missionaries and the government partnered together and offered this to the people indigenous to the americas... "convert or be killed". its not really aligned with the mission of God is it.

however, you don't have to be a missionary by profession in order to partake in the mission of God.

not all missionaries are missional. you don't need to be a missionary to missional.

being missional or talking about missional is not a critique of missionaries. it is a critique of the church 'getting in the way' of the mission of God.

does this help in understanding the term and ideas related to missional? does this help to understand why we use the term?

also remember, the term blog wasn't used or found in the dictionary until people started to blog. but here we are... blogging. so i think it's evident that we come up with terminology when the times call for it.

Steve Grove · 3 months ago

In the Canada West District we offer the 24 COS courses through facilitated online PODs which are centered in the local church. At $150/course Canadian you can complete the whole program for $3600. 2 courses/quarter, 6 courses/year - 4 years you can be done. You don't have to leave a full-time job, and it connects you to a local church for the "ministry" side of the "pastors" training. It connects with the annual assessment weekend and yearly Board of Ministry interviews that go with maintaining a District license.
I think it is great - you minister where you are at, are mentored in a local church, which benefits from your involvement in ministry. Wesley got in trouble for "laying on hands" on putting people without seminary experience in positions of leadership.
Check out www.eteach.ca