www.brian-edgar.

com

THE THEOLOGY
OF THEOLOGICAL EDUCATIONi
Brian Edgar
Professor of Theological Studies
Asbury Theological Seminary

Evangelical theological education as a whole today needs earnestly to pursue and recover a
thoroughgoing theology of theological education.
(Manifesto on the Renewal of Evangelical Theological Education)ii

What is it that makes something theological education? The obvious answer for many is that it is the
content. That is, it is education that is specifically about theology, about God (or, for some, about the
experience of God). It is also possible to suggest that the purpose is definitive of what makes something
theological education. After all, is it enough to say that knowledge is sufficient to qualify something as
theological education if it does not also intend to develop character and skills in life and holiness? Then
again, does the method play a role in defining theological education? What process is to be followed?
Does it involve academic research or is it a personal search to find the ultimate good? Many involved in
theological education would also suggest that the ethos is as important as the content and the method. The
spirituality, both individual and communal, which permeates the educational process, is critical. Of
course, this relates to the context in which the education takes place. Some prefer the academy, others the
church and some the wider community. The difference is theologically significant. One cannot really
discuss the defining characteristics of theological education without also paying attention to the people
involved. Does the faith of those involved define in some way some education as being theological even
if the content is not overtly so?

So, given these seven important dimensions of the education what is it that makes it theological
education? It is not hard to conclude that theology actually permeates the whole enterprise. It is even less
difficult to see that the numerous possibilities mean that there can be significant differences in what is
considered theologically central for the educational enterprise. Inevitably some forms of theological
education stress one or other aspect more than another and may insist that one or other is absolutely
fundamental. This paper maps out the similarities and differences in four broad approaches to theological
education. It begins with an assessment of David Kelsey’s classical – vocational, bipolar approach to
theological education in which he describes the poles as ‘Athens’ and ‘Berlin’. To this is added Robert
Bank’s missional approach, referred to as ‘Jerusalem’ and then I add a fourth, confessional model that is
also identified geographically as ‘Geneva’. This schema of four basic models creates a typological map
that can locate specific theological education programs and institutions and their emphases, assist in their
self-definition and indicate possibilities for movement to a new location in the theological education
environment.

1
 www.brian-edgar.com

Athens and a classical education

In Between Athens and Berlin: the theological debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) David H. Kelsey
examines theological education using an a-historical typology in which the terms ‘Athens’ and ‘Berlin’
represent two very different approaches. These are, he maintains, ‘the two normative types of theological
education’iii – at least as it exists in North America. Everything, he says, moves around an axis
comprising these two poles. By ‘Athens’ he means that the goals and methods of theological education
are derived from classical Greek philosophical educational methodology. He argues that the early church
adopted and adapted this model. The primary goal of this form of classical education is the transformation
of the individual. It is all about character formation, the cultivation of excellence and knowing the
supreme good, which, when applied to theological education means knowing God. Theological education
is thus not so much knowing about God as it is about knowing God. It is not primarily about theology,
that is, the formal study of the knowledge of God, but it is more about what Kelsey calls theologia, that is,
gaining the wisdom of God.

Wisdom is sought, not simply knowledge and theological education is fundamentally aretaic (that is, it is
the development of the virtues, the arete – the excellence of the soul). It is the transformation of character
to be God-like. The emphasis therefore falls upon personal development and spiritual formation. In that
sense the focus is very much upon the individual though it is not necessarily individualistic in the modern
sense for it began, in the Greek context, as something orientated towards the public good rather than
private interest and it was undertaken in communal context.

The early church adopted this educational philosophy not only because it was present culturally but also
because of its obvious connections with biblical and theological emphases on holiness and the
development of individual character. In theological education virtue is important and holiness essential.
This approach affirmed the need for a complete, inner, personal, moral and spiritual transformation. In the
case of Christian classical education the sacred texts were scripture rather than the philosophers, although
the study of the philosophers was still important and was understood to produce great reward. This
educational emphasis on character was entirely consistent with a theologically grounded obedience to
Christ worked out in the power of the Holy Spirit and depending on corporate worship, the close
interpretation of scripture and pastoral care. It is no surprise that the early church soon adopted this
model of theological education.

If theological education is understood in this way, in terms of theologia and the transformation of the
individual, then holiness and moral, spiritual transformation are central to the educational task. Any
assessment of a program of theological education on that basis would consider essential, for example,
whether the curriculum adequately addressed issues of personal, moral formation and whether the values
of the faculty and the institution as a whole were consistent with this approach.

2
 www.brian-edgar.com

Berlin and the reflective practitioner

The second pole of Kelsey’s typology is what he refers to as ‘Berlin’. In his evaluation of it, Robert
Banks prefers to call it the ‘vocational’ model in contrast to the ‘classical’ model of Athens.iv Whereas
the classical model is derived from antiquity the Berlin model is derived from the enlightenment. Berlin
represents this approach to education because the University of Berlin was deliberately founded as a new
form of research university as part of the Prussian reform of education undertaken along enlightenment
lines.

In the new enlightenment universities theology had to justify its place. Previously, it had been the Queen
of the Sciences because it was understood to be derived from divine revelation rather than natural
observation or deduction. But the palace revolution of the enlightenment meant that revelation was
dethroned and reason reigned supreme. Whereas the classical model accepted the sacred texts (whether
philosophers or Scriptures) as revelation containing that wisdom which is essential to life, now reason
demanded that these texts be subject to critical enquiry. They could no longer be accepted on the basis
that they were received authorities and they had to be proved. In a research university the texts are not
rejected but they are treated differently, there is disciplined, orderly, rigorous enquiry.

The goal is no longer personal formation based on the study of authoritative, classic texts. The research
university seeks to train people in rigorous enquiry, to find theory and to apply it to solve practical
problems. It broadened out from the narrower classic approach in which the sources were limited to the
ancient texts and now the whole panorama of human endeavour, including the natural sciences, physics,
chemistry, the social sciences, arts and humanities became the legitimate focus of study. The PhD became
the standard educational achievement and the aim was to establish a scientific theory that could then be
applied to specific situations. Chemists developed theory, summarized in the periodic table of elements
that could then be applied in chemical engineering. Physicists searched for the integrating laws of motion,
gravitation and light. Engineers devised formula for safe and efficient building and biologists, medical
practitioners and lawyers all learnt their theory and then practiced their profession.

In this context, if theology was to be admitted as a science within the academy and the university it had to
demonstrate that it had both a body of theory and a practical function. It was thus argued (to the
subsequent regret of some) that theology was indeed an area of theoretical study rather than of personal
development and that its practical function was the building up of the church, primarily through the
formation of ministers. Theological education was now ministerial training, rather than spiritual
formation. The aim was the training of leaders for the church, to provide people able to apply theory to
the life of the body and the emphasis fell on the development of hermeneutical skills, the interpretation of
scripture and upon bold, visionary leadership.

If theological education is understood in this way then a review of a specific program of education will
need to determine whether the context, the people and the methodology are appropriate for that task and
whether, at the end of the educational program, it produces theoretically aware and practically effective
ministers. However, the presence of another clearly defined alternative model also allows for a
comparative examination. In contrast to the classical model it becomes clear that while a strong
understanding of theory and practice is important to the life of the church, the vocational model does tend
to leave personal, moral, spiritual development in the background. It is also possible to ask whether the
strong focus on research skills, gaining all that is necessary to develop a sound method in hermeneutics, is
as appropriate for practitioners in the local church as it is for researchers in the university. Do professors
working as researchers model what the local church needs? Or does it create pastors who preach like

3
 www.brian-edgar.com

professors? The contrast with the classical model also inevitably raises the question as to whether an
enlightenment methodology that is associated with high levels of doubt and skepticism is ultimately
healthy for theology.

It is clear that when the typology places two different models side by side it raises important questions
about theological education and its underlying theology. A third model allows for an even more dynamic
set of contrasts.

From Jerusalem to the ends of the earth

Kelsey hints at the incompleteness of his bipolar model when he notes that Tertullian’s well known
question was ‘What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? rather than ‘What has Athens to do with Berlin?’v
This points to the possibility of a third type of education. But, having paused to consider this possibility
Kelsey immediately moves on with the comment ‘Whatever the theologically normative case might be,
however, it is the case that modern North American Christian theological education is committed to
‘Athens’ and ‘Berlin’, and it is committed to both of them for historical reason’.vi And so, leaving behind
what he describes as potentially theologically normative Kelsey proceeds for the rest of the book to deal
with the de facto situation.

This omission is unfortunate and that is a view shared by Robert Banks who, in his Revisioning
Theological Education, develops a ‘Jerusalem’ model to stand beside Athens and Berlin. It is a missional
model and its basic theology is derived from Kahler’s dictum that ‘missiology is the mother of theology’.
Theological education is seen as a dimension of mission. It is an aspect of the teaching ministry of the
church involving specialized testimony to the kingdom and the goal is the conversion of the world.

In the classic model ‘formation’ was personal transformation while in the vocational model it was
ministerial training but in the missional model formation is a turning towards mission. Mission has to
have reference to all dimensions of life: family, friendships, work, neighbourhood. It encompasses the
whole ministry of the whole people of God. Notice that it is a mission model not a missiological model.
In the latter case missiology is an important discipline, perhaps even the most important discipline within
the full range of disciplines but educationally speaking a missiological approach is a specific form of the
vocational approach which takes place within an academic, university style context rather than in the
context of actual mission work in the wider community. A missiological approach to theological
education may demonstrate the importance of mission to the life of the church but if it does this by
providing a particular content rather than transforming the process itself then it is not a missional model.
For Banks the new content demands a new style of theological education.

Geneva and the maintenance of tradition

While the addition of Bank’s missional model to Kelsey’s classical and vocational approaches is useful, a
fourth approach is also needed in order to better describe the actual state of theological education. Using
the same form of geographic identification I call this fourth approach the ‘Geneva’ model of education,
although it could just as easily be referred to as ‘Rome’ or any other city identified with a particular
confessional approach. In a confessional approach to theological education the goal is to know God
through the use of the creeds and the confessions, the means of grace and the general traditions that are
utilized by a particular faith community. There is an emphasis on formation through teaching about the

4
 www.brian-edgar.com

founders, the heroes, the struggles, the strengths and the traditions that are distinctive and formative for
that community of faith. Formation occurs through in-formation about the tradition and en-culturation
within it. For it to be effective it needs to have reference to all dimensions of life including, family,
friendships, work, community and ministry.

The nature of the Geneva model is illuminated by a set of contrasts. Firstly, the appropriate context for
theological education in the confessional model is the seminary and this stands in contrast to the classical
approach that is grounded in the academy, the vocational that is intrinsically connected to the university
and the misssional that undertakes training in the wider community. Secondly, the goal of the
confessional model is to enable people to know God through a particular tradition while for the classical
approach the aim is the transformation of the individual. The vocational model aims at the strengthening
of the church and the missional model aims at converting or transforming the world. Thirdly, in Geneva
theology is understood as the process of knowing God while in Athens theology is intuited wisdom. In
Berlin theology is a way of thinking and applying theory to life and the church and in Jerusalem theology
is missiological. These contrasts show that the typology as a whole can make clear that the various
debates about the specifics of theological education are actually debates about fundamental theology.

The typology in diagrammatic form

CLASSICAL Transforming Knowing CONFESSIONAL

the individual God

ATHENS GENEVA
Academy Seminary

THEOLOGIA DOXOLOGY
MISSIOLOGY SCIENTIA

JERUSALEM BERLIN
Community University

Converting Strengthening
MISSIONAL the world the church VOCATIONAL

Limitations of the typology

The kind of typology that is demonstrated here is not above criticism. An understanding of its potential
limitations may persuade educators that its use is inappropriate or, more optimistically, it may enhance its
use by enabling potential pitfalls to be avoided. The first potential limitation is that the typology may
provide a theoretical framework where actual forms of theological education are pressed into categories
that are not really accurate descriptions of their characteristics. Its validity in that situation depends upon
the level of sophistication and understanding of those who use it. If it is perceived as reflecting reasonably
accurately the nature of theological education as it exists then it may prove to be helpful as individuals
and institutions undergo self analysis in the light of the typology. Secondly, the typology is not, of course,
comprehensive. It only deals with four major approaches to theological education and it would be
possible to add a fifth or even a sixth approach. On the other hand one of the strengths of the typology is
its simplicity. Absolute comprehensiveness may come at the expense of usefulness. A third potential
5
 www.brian-edgar.com

limitation is that some may find the use of the geographic identifications to be unhelpful. They may prefer
the descriptive terminology of classical, vocational, missional and confessional. Fourthly, there is no
doubt that the typology is western in form and style. It largely relates to theological education conducted
by mainline churches and white, male, professional, first world people in formal academic and
institutions. Its attempt to incorporate other forms of theological education through the missional model
may, or may not adequately reflect the real situation. And it may not relate very well in non-western
contexts. It should also be noted that the typology is primarily theoretical and academic in form. Who
should determine what theological education should be? Should it be theological educators, ministry
practitioners, ecclesiastical leaders or the whole community of faith? So the typology is subject to the
criticism that theological education is not a simply higher stage of education for some, but a dimension of
everyone’s Christian education. Finally, some may consider that the identification of a particular
characteristic with one or other model implies that it is exclusive to that particular type. That is not
intended. No doubt there are other limitations as well. Those who intend to use the typology are
encouraged to consider them, especially as they relate to their own context.

Conclusion: a case study

Many programs of theological education as they actually exist today are actually a mix of the types noted
here. Those involved in these programs can use the typology to map out where they stand and to consider
where they perhaps ought to be. If we consider for a moment a hypothetical example it is possible to see
that reality and theory can be related though the typology. Consider, for example, a Methodist theological
education program. According to the typology it could be located at a variety of points on the theological
scene and have any number of different emphases, all of which are consistent with Methodist theological
principles. It could take a confessional approach, deliberately stressing Methodist theology, traditions and
spirituality. It could also lean towards the classical model because spiritual formation, holiness and
sanctification are significant in the Methodist tradition. A vocational approach to Methodist education
would be one that stressed the need to develop theoretical skills for practical ministry within the church
while a missional model could well flow from Wesley’s evangelistic focus and the conviction that ‘The
world is my parish’. These different emphases are not inconsistent and can be combined but if, for
example, the decision is made to locate the program in the wider community then it shifts the educational
process very significantly towards the missional end of the spectrum and may (or may not) mean that
other aspects of confessional training, personal development and ministry practice become secondary. It
is likely that many forms of Methodist theological education will actually be mixed models with an
emphasis in one or other direction. The nature of the mix is what makes a particular program distinctive.
It is hoped that others will find the typology a helpful tool for analysis and development

A survey
The typology which is outlined above could become the basis for discussion by various educational
institutions. The following very informal survey may provide fruitful discussion material for those
involved in particular institutions, especially if administered to a group prior to the reading of the
accompanying article. It is not intended to be used to gather quantitatively valid statistical information but
rather as the basis for a discussion on the nature of theological education by those with an interest in that
area.

1. Theology can be described in many ways. Which one of these statements would you place first in your
prioritized list of what it involves?
6
 www.brian-edgar.com

1. Theology is wisdom, knowing God.

2. Theology is a tool, a way of thinking about the world.
3. Theology is developing a knowledge of God.
4. Theology is missiology.
5. Theology involves all of the above and any separation is entirely arbitrary and unhelpful.
6. Theology is ………..(if you don’t choose one of the above please complete the sentence yourself).

2. Theological education also involves a number of dimensions, but which of these do you think best
describes its goal for the student?
1. Personal, spiritual, moral growth and transformation of life and character
2. Vocational, ministry training to strengthen the church
3. Growth in the knowledge of God and the ability to think theologically.
4. Enhancement of missiological knowledge and abilities.
5. This is another false forced choice; it has to be all of them!
6. None of the above, rather it is…………………………..

3. Which of the following statements best describes the role of the teacher/professor/ lecturer/educator?
1. Model and provide the student with access to, and teaching concerning, the intellectual, spiritual
and moral disciplines needed in the Christian life.
2. Be an experienced and knowledgeable researcher who works with the student to enhance their
knowledge of particular areas of study and the related research and analytical skills.
3. Demonstrate the life of one who knows God and is able to stimulate and help students think
theologically.
4. Be an experienced practitioner who is able to share in and actively help students develop their
gifts for ministry and mission.
5. They have to be all of the above.
6. My alternative, preferred definition in twenty words or less is……………

4. Many things are learnt in theological education. Some of them are probably helpful. Which of the
following statements would you rate as most important?
1. It is important for students to study the Scriptures in order to be personally transformed.
2. It is important for students to develop the skills to be able to examine, critique, understand and
teach the Scriptures.
3. It is important for students to study the Scriptures in order to discover the character and nature of
God.
4. It is important for students to study the Scriptures in order to understand the ministry of the church
and to be able to apply Scriptural principles in their own ministry.
5. Not only are all of the above needed, but none of them has any priority.
6. It is important for students to study Scripture because……………

Evaluation: When all four questions have been answered the next step is to see whether a pattern has
emerged. The first four statements in each of the questions relates, respectively, to the classical (Athens),
vocational (Berlin), confessional (Geneva) and missional (Jerusalem) approaches to theological
education. The fifth option in each case suggests that each is equally important while the final option
allows individuals to express themselves on the matter. This may help clarify where an individual stands
on the matter and it is possible to compare results for a number of people in the one institution. The aim
of the process is to clarify and to enhance the reflective process.

7
 www.brian-edgar.com

Expanded typology
Accompanying the article and the questionnaire is an expanded version of the typology in tabular form. It
includes nine dimensions of the four types and allows for an easy comparison of the various approaches.
The comments are rather cryptic and are more suggestive than definitive. Like the questionnaire it may
provide a useful basis for discussion.

8
 www.brian-edgar.com

Symbol Athens Berlin Geneva Jerusalem

Model Classical Vocational Confessional Missional

Context Academy. It is public education . Individually University. It is public education. It takes place in Seminary. It is a specifically ecclesial Community. It is mission education and it takes
based yet it requires a communal atmosphere. association with the church. It requires an open, education usually undertaken in the place in the context of mission, the wider
It is a shared task. scholarly community. context of a coherent, believing community
community

Goal/purpose Transforming the individual. The goal is Strengthening the church. Training of leaders for the Knowing God. A way of life Converting the world. Mission – discipleship.
paedia – character formation – the cultivation church, those able to apply theory to the life of the expressing the life of the believer in Theological education is a dimension of
of excellence or knowing the good (God). It is church. Practical thinkers, reflective practitioners God. Objective knowledge of God mission and has a special mission context.
the development of the virtues. needed. combined with subjective union with
God.

Emphasis Personal formation. Disposition. Interpretive skills. Functional. In-formation. En-culturation. Mission. Partnership.
Knowing who… Knowing how… Knowing what… Knowing for…

Scope Whole church – spiritual guides Clergy – skilled leaders Clergy – teachers. Whole church missionaries/ministers.

Formation It began, in Greek context, as something for The task of theology is to clarify vocational identity Discursive analysis, comparison and Learning has to have reference to all
the public good but became individualized and as the basis for Christian practice. synthesis of beliefs. dimensions of life, family, friendships, work
focused on inner, personal, moral and religious and neighbourhood.
transformation.

Theology Theology is the knowledge of God, not about Theology is a way of thinking, applying theory to Theology is knowing God through a Missiology is the mother of theology.
God. It is wisdom that is intuited. life. Theology is applied: spiritual, missiological, specific tradition. It involves action – mission .
vocational.

Source of Searching inquiry into texts. It starts with an Radical critical inquiry into texts. It begins with a Analysis, systematization, application The mission of Jesus, his disciples making
authority assumption of their authority (antiquity is search for justification of authority and is much more of confessional texts – scriptural, ministry. It is theology for the future church.
good) based on revelation. Theology is the self conscious about method. Authority based on historical and contemporary. It is
queen of the sciences. It is theology from reason. It is theology from below. theology from the past.
above.

Teacher Provider: of indirect assistance through Professor: the teacher is a researcher whom the Priest: knowledge of the tradition. Lives Practitioner/missionary: the teacher is not
intellectual and moral disciplines to help the students assist. Teacher qualities: researcher and able and exemplifies it as well as knows it. removed from practice. Discipler, involved.
students undergo formation. The teacher is to develop research abilities in others. Teaching involves sharing lives as well as
also searching and models the process. truth.

Student Theologia cultivates the individual’s spirit, Becomes theoretician able to apply to practice. Initiated into the tradition, the beliefs, Discipled to become disciple-maker
character and mind to develop a disposition the vocation, the ministry
(habitus).

9
 www.brian-edgar.com

i
This article was delivered at a number of conferences and published in the Evangelical Review of Theology (2005) Vol
29 No. 3, 208-217.
ii
World Evangelical Alliance International Council for Evangelical Theological Education Manifesto on the Renewal of
Evangelical Theological Education (2nd edition 1990).
iii
David H. Kelsey, Between Athens and Berlin: the theological debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 27.
iv
Robert Banks, Reenvisioning Theological Education (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).
v
Kelsey, Between Athens and Berlin, 5.
vi
Kelsey, Between Athens and Berlin, 5-6.

10