Email a copy of 'Seminaries as Innovation Machines' to a friend

* Required Field

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...    Send article as PDF   

10 Responses to “Seminaries as Innovation Machines”

  1. Barnabas says:

    This can also apply in a global context, as we can each benefit from the access provided by the Internet. I am grateful for your weekly post and perceive it as a godly challenge to be sharpened by iron. Consistently you create a line of thought to motivate interaction and creative thought. This in turn encourages Daniels and Nehemiahs to establish the Kingdom where they are. Each temple becoming context specific, as encouraged by the original Clapham group in overcoming issues such as slavery. Many thanks Mike for your faithfulness.

  2. Chris says:

    Make sense to me.

  3. Jack Allen says:

    Tried it 2009-10. I was tenured faculty at a large seminary directing a very large church planting department. We tried a field-based seminary experience in a large, innovative, progressive, and highly secularized US city with plans for three more over a five year period. Most classes were online and each student was required to start a church before graduating.

    Student acceptance was overwhelming – 40 applications the first month. Initial results were stunning – 200 new Christ-followers in four months, and 11 new churches started. We literally could not keep up with the growth, but it tanked.

    The experiment failed for three reasons. Each of the three reveal a lack of innovation.

    1) The economy tanked leaving us without funding. Our sponsors had previous commitments to – of all things – building programs. As church offerings shrank 10%, our funding shrank 30%. It took only a few months.

    2) Academic traditionalists protested. Another seminary felt we were encroaching on their turf and refused to cooperate, further decreasing our funding possibilities. The other institution and many established (older) faculty members at our own school rallied against a field-based approach claiming it would undo the benefit of the campus residency experience.

    3) Denominational traditionalists injected the lethal dose. They conditioned further funding on us gathering all 11 groups into one, Sunday morning meeting at a rented facility, with a band. They asked us to move from non-traditional, organic, “we-go-to-you” church gatherings to a traditional, single-cell, “you-come-to-us” gathering. The latter was more easily counted and efficient, to be sure. They also asked that we not appoint any female leaders, require abstinence from alcohol, and send 10% of offerings back to the denomination. Our leaders withdrew their support of the denomination, and the experiment ended with a whisper.

    I do not think my brothers were malicious. Nor are they innovators. They looked at the landscape and felt things needed to be done in ways that were successful from 1980 to 2000. Whether they continue to be successful in 2030 remains to be seen. We can only hope.

  4. Dave says:

    So much good stuff here to inspire my thoughts to trail off toward. GCTS’s D.Min. programs seem on par with mentored education, but it’s off limits if you haven’t earned your MA first. Old school thinking: thinking that the rigors of an MA (old school style) “sort” you as capable of D. Min. mentorship, when frankly, experience could qualify you as a D. Min. mentor. Mike, you’re suggesting a great blurring of the lines between old school in-class education and mentored experiences, and I agree that the questions you’re asking need to be asked. As for your MOOC comments – I don’t know how you get around this – or if you need to – but it seems as if you’ve relegated MOOCing to a lowest common denominator thing – like a necessary evil, “oh yeah, the class thing, I guess I should read some books and listen to some lectures” but the real deal is in the mentored experience. On the one hand, some books and lectures by certain author/speakers are priceless. On the other hand, if a GCTS education can’t be w/o some MOOCing, then the necessary evil persists as a bow to old school obligations. Am I getting anywhere near where you’re at?

  5. Mike Metzger says:

    Dave, you’re in the suburbs. I’m not critical of MOOCs and have a hunch that they might serve seminarians quite well. My point was meant to be positive – MOOCs offer a wider array of courses from top professors worldwide than the traditional model. The immersion experience makes education both/and – MOOCs and mentors.

  6. Dave says:

    Love Jack Allen’s remarks: brief, honest, and extremely enlightening about the road blocks extant in our own tribes toward seeing Kingdom progress. Money money money issues mean we need “business people” with the foresight to work with (or around) denominational or church leadership that refuses to innovate. Though, a good business leader can help lead good religious leaders into better perspectives, and fund that better perspective.

  7. Dave says:

    Mike, I see, great point. Of course “survival of the fittest” prof is good for education with a highly sought after MOOC but the method will put profs not being sought after out of a job. Welcome to exile!

  8. Bob says:

    Dear Mike,

    Thank you for taking time to create thought-provoking material, as always.

    (1) What if seminary professors were required to be involved with local churches, including church plants, as I think Westminster Seminary Philadelphia has decided? That seems like this would logically lead to M.Div. (or D. Min.) students working alongside their professors as clergy in contexts where innovation would easily commend itself, and shake up seminary education in the manner in which you suggest.

    (2) Why not send the seminarians to programs located in really “hard-core” post-Christian environments (I think some of the contributors to “The Supremacy of Christ” argue that all of the West is post-Christian now), such as Tyndale Seminary in Amsterdam or London Theological Seminary or Moore Theological College in Sydney? Instead of assuming that re-christianizing America will accomplish what God wants or that this is even the proper goal. There is nothing like being outside of your own country to shake up some of your assumptions, which can lead to innovation.

    (3) The influencers of our world are not necessarily nourished by Washington or by Washington alone. Isn’t it time to end the seduction of evangelical Christians by the Right and the Left? Locate a variety of cities where those who shape what actually goes on in society live, we have, increasingly, a “globalized” culture sloshing back and forth between world-class cities inside and outside of America (check out Redeemer City-to-City). Wasn’t it Henry Kissinger who said something to the effect that people in Washington live off of the intellectual capital they brought with them when they arrived?

    Regards from abroad!

  9. Mike Metzger says:

    Hi Bob:

    While I appreciate the time and thought you put into these ideas, here is an observations for each of your three points:

    1) The skunk works model I am proposing links seminarians with practitioners, not professors. Practitioners are businesspeople or artists, for example. Most professors lack the kinds of hand-on experiences that practitioners have. I have met few seminary profs who could assist in the kind of endeavor I am proposing.

    2) I never suggested that this is “re-Christianizing American.” But I agree that most of the West is now post-Christian. Therefore, setting up shop in DC, Seattle, San Fran, or DC is just as legit as Amsterdam and London.

    3) I wholeheartedly agree it’s time to end the seduction of evangelicals into right and left camps. I disagree with your reductionist
    description of Washington DC. As Charles Murray points out (“Coming Apart”) the cultural elites in this region represent many diverse disciplines – not just politics. I’m not sure what you mean by the “influencers of our world are not necessarily nourished by Washington or Washington alone.” I said nothing about nourishment. I was talking about placing emerging leaders in proximity with the influentials. This can of course occur in many global cities, not just DC.

    Thank again for your thoughtfulness. Regards from right here!

  10. Milton says:

    Interesting exchange. A couple of points that occur to me. First, I’m more amenable to discussions of innovation ecologies than innovation machines. The context and conditions of innovation are vital and they are, mostly, not machine-like. The comments and responses reflect this. I think understanding ecologies of innovation requires greater rigour and insight than machine processes do. Using ‘ecology’ terminolgy isn’t about being careless or less attentive. Something alive and well suited to its context is much, much more intricate than any machine – nothing original in that observation and I know you and your readers are well versed in such things.

    The salient point for me is that you can’t exactly say, “We will innovate this, and this and that” but you can learn about the conditions that give rise to novel and valuable insights, applications, organizational designs, and so on. MOOCs, seminary education, course delivery modes and other elements constitute important contexts for possible innovations (or innovation suppression, as is sometimes the case).

    I have done a few MOOCs over the last year (Data Analytics, Social Network Analysis, etc.). It is very important to actually run through a few to get a sense of their potential and limits. Face-to-face interactions, shared physical contexts (cities, neighbourhoods, workplaces), common labours in such spaces, these all matter greatly and MOOCs are in no danger of replacing them. I think MOOCs represent a threat to education that has been turned into assembly lines – large classes, bulk education, assembly line type training, these are all ripe for undercutting by MOOCs. Deeper collegial and mentoring exchanges can be enhanced by MOOCs but they are in no danger of be replaced by them.

    One other innovation context that is under-represented is city planning. It represents a deeply important intersection of some of the most influential and powerful cultural drivers but remains under-realized in many education settings, seminaries included.

    Thanks for the post and for those who commented.

Leave a Reply