In order to make a point I need to tell you a story. But I’m running the risk of sounding like a disgruntled student who received a B when I think I should have gotten an A. So bear with me as I give a bit of context. (Also, I’m ecstatic to have gotten a B).
I’m a 38 year old seminary student. I hope to graduate by the time I’m 40, but such a feat will require taking Hebrew. I’m still holding out hope that Jesus returns before I’m forced into this most undesirable of situations. I’ve been doing ministry in a local church for almost 20 years now. This means that I have a bit of a unique perspective when it comes to taking these classes. I’m also not a very good academic. I’m a nerd, yes. But I also understand that I’m never going to fit into academia and I’m okay with that. And what I’m sharing with you today is part of the reason for that.
I’m a pastor. I’m a preacher. I’m a writer…but not of academic journals. And I’ll be so bold as to say I really think academia ought to listen to what I’m saying because I’m what they are attempting to produce for local churches. And what I’m saying today is that there is a flaw within all of this which I believe poorly trains preachers.
I wrote a paper awhile back and received a B. I’m ecstatic with that. Given the rubric for grades I’m even wondering if that B was a bit generous. The grader made a very true comment. “The resources you cite are of good quality but your citations are all over the place”. I received an 84 not because of content (though my thesis could have been more tightly worded and argued) but because I didn’t do the greatest job of following the manual of style. That’s not a news flash to me. I’m usually going to break codes of style, just ask my oft embarrassed children.
To sum, my content was great but my form was off. “Here’s a B”. 98% of the interaction with my paper was on the way the paper was written and not on the actual content of the paper. And this is what I am saying is a problem. This isn’t true of only this one particular class. This is almost always the way papers are graded in seminary.
I don’t believe for one moment that any of my professors would say that form matters more than content. Form matters because we don’t want to be needlessly distracting. And it’s good to have a manual of style which students must conform to. It’s a helpful practice. But the unintended consequence is that we are churning out young pastors and thinkers who are placing a greater value upon being technical than upon being compelling. Don’t read me wrong. There is a value in precision, but your precision doesn’t matter much when nobody remembers what you’ve said.
It’s the type of precision which matters. I agree with what Tim Pollard says here:
When presented with great content that has been elegantly organized, audiences are shockingly tolerant of so-called delivery deficiencies. The reverse, however, is of course not true. Great delivery cannot and will not rescue deficient design. Random, confusing, imprecise material does not become great when it’s delivered well. It merely becomes well-delivered random material. (Pollard, 56)
What Pollard is referencing here is artful precision. This is the stuff that preaching and pastoral ministry is made up of. It’s precision doesn’t terminate on itself. Precision is the means to a greater end; namely to be persuasive. If you try to dissect a piece of art you end up ruining the beauty of it. Likewise,mastering the technique of preaching and pastoring is at best only half the battle. At worst, it’s a distraction from the deeper things which really do matter.
Os Guinness is correct:
With the deepest things in life, there is always more to knowing than knowing will ever know, so the deepest knowledge must be learned in life, from experience, and under a master. Even a master cannot specific in words what, at its deepest, is beyond words. The best of teachers, lectures, seminars and books simply cannot do what it takes. The way of the disciple is a different and deeper way of learning. (Guinness, 36)
I’ll close with a confession. My title is more artful than scientific. The truth of the matter is that the local church has often outsourced to the seminary what she ought to be majoring in—disciple-making. A massive part of the problem here is that we’re sending men and women to seminary in order to disciple them into being the type of people who could be pastors or ministry leaders. But the seminary wasn’t built for this. It was built for scientific precision.
The seminary has had to pivot. But I believe there is more pivoting that needs done, otherwise we’re going to be training scientists to paint upon our canvas. Perhaps it isn’t only the seminary which needs to pivot. Maybe our local churches need to find our artistic hearts again.
—
Photo source: here
