The Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1980 encouraged states to establish land-grant universities (or colleges) across the United States. The mission of these institutions was to focus on the teaching of agriculture, science, military science, and engineering as well as the liberal arts. This mission was somewhat in contrast to the historic practice of higher education to focus on a liberal arts curriculum.
The Hatch Act of 1887 strengthened the work of these institutions by establishing a system of agriculture experiment stations, and the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 created a system of cooperative extension to be operated by these schools to educate people across the states--especially in rural areas--about current developments in agriculture, home economics, community development, and related subjects.
Growing up in a city, I knew little about this vital part of America’s educational system until I began learning more about the history of higher education and then serving as a campus minister at a land-grant institution. This system--combining research, teaching, and community service--not only transformed rural areas but helped to build a strong and economically dominant nation.
Theological education could learn a great deal from this educational model. Although many seminary degrees today are provided not only in a campus setting but also online, theological educators have the opportunity to make an impact by adopting some aspects of the “extension service.”
First, theological educators are experts in both academic and practical fields. They not only have spent years studying the biblical, theological, and historical background necessary for effective ministry but also have applied this understanding to disciplines such as preaching, pastoral care, ethics, practical theology, and community engagement. Churches, judicatories, not-for-profit agencies, and individuals can benefit from this professional expertise.
The seminary can provide this expertise through physical conferences--both on and off campus, online learning experiences for laity and clergy, and consulting. The seminary might well partner with satellite teaching sites, churches, or community organizations to provide resource centers geographically distant from the main campus.
Second, churches, judicatories, and not-for-profit organizations provide a “test bed” for the practices originated in the seminaries. Theological education is not done in a vacuum but in the context of an evolving and changing world. As students engage in field education or contextual learning, theological educators can assess the effectiveness of their carefully formulated ideas and concepts in a real-world setting. Feedback from the field strengthens the theological institutions.
This dialogue between the field and the seminary is even more important in a rapidly changing context--spiritual, cultural, economic, and political. Dynamic interaction between the two is a “win-win” for both and calls all involved into cooperative Kingdom work.
Comments