Theological Education in a Changing Culture

In an earlier blog I spoke of how the paradigm for higher education was shifting from "school" to "LMS," from place to system. One way to explore this change is to use various forms of systems theory that capture the complexity and dynamism characteristic of the larger cultural environment. 

One such approach is to understand the theological school as a cultural system in the midst of other cultural systems that make up its larger environment. This allows us to bring both methods of cultural analysis and cultural intelligence to bear on understanding and relating to these systems. And in considering the school itself as a culture system we also gain new means of understanding the dynamism of its relationships with these systems and use new analytical tools to address its inevitably internal frictions.

This is particularly important in the 21st century if we are to avoid adopting static solutions to dynamic challenges. I'll offer one example as a beginning for further reflection.

Theological schools, and indeed virtually all institutions of higher education are rushing to implement systems of online education. These appear a necessary response to rapid changes in number and culture of potential students and the value student culture places on accessibility and personalization, as well as the need for new pedagogical theories to address the ways these students best learn.

The problem with simply identifying "online" as a solution to the challenge of declining numbers of students and increasing competition with more "contemporary" schools is that merely going online risks creating a new set of static structures that cannot keep up with the changing culture of the potential student and student population. Within the school the implementation of such systems creates stress among existing faculty and creates conflicts over best practices in pedagogy.

As every theological school experiences, online courses may not best utilize faculty strengths or address the demands of credentialing authorities necessary to a student's ministry. In other words it may not be a ready adaptation to a changing cultural environment.

Thus a better way to view "online" is as a constantly evolving set of tools and pedagogical methods that expands the range of responses a theological school can offer to a changing cultural environment. Deploying these tools, among the many already available out of the long traditions of theological education, should involve looking at the actual cultural values of the student culture in a way that both acknowledges and honors those values, but also transforms them as the student is prepared for ministry.

Simultaneously a theological school must be constantly aware of emerging tools and the possibilities that they bring.

As an example of emerging tools, the advent of virtual reality and augmented reality as a medium of engagement.  Current implementations of online education have only the crudest forms of interaction among students, usually through written discussion forums. But it is already possible to create virtual classrooms in which students freely interact in a 3 dimensional space. As an intermediate step to this streaming 360 video can make integration of classroom lectures and online participation more engaging. Imagine the possibilities for making the classroom more accessible not merely as intellectual theater, but as a realm of real human interaction. 

In any case the kind of fully interactive and emotionally engaged relationships that need to be cultivated for the sake of effective ministry, while poorly addressed by "online" today may be addressed by emerging technologies in the very future. And to the extent that these emerging technologies become part of church culture then understanding them isn't merely a matter of theological school adaptation to student culture. It it a theological task rooted in understanding the missional meaning of "ex-carnation;" the driving of the spiritual from the physical associated with a growing wedge between the individual and society. Only a theological understanding of these can ground the adaptation of these technologies in the context of robust and culturally aware ecclesiologies.

In the meantime it would be best to adopt a pedagogical posture that allows constant adaptation to the changing environment in which theological education finds itself today rather than static adaptation of new technologies that themselves are in a state of flux.