Another great post, Karl. This is great advice for potential missionaries!

Dear Karl,
The advice you have given was the advice given to me by my ministers and Bible college lecturers as I was preparing to come out to Thailand as a missionary.

So I completed my M.Div and in 2007 at the age of 31, I came to the mission field with my wife and two young children (2 and 6 months). I’ve spent 1 year full time learning Thai and the last two years as a church planter in North Thailand. If I had a chance to do things over would I have done things differently in hindsight? Probably.

This is what I would have done.
I would have only done 1 year of Bible College. This would have given me solid Biblical grounding. This would have got me to the mission field sooner but more importantly before I had children. It would have enabled my wife and I to complete our Thai language studies more efficiently and effectively rather than both of us still struggling after 3 years.

Then after my first or second term, I would complete a BTh or M.Div in an Asian Seminary, such as in Singapore rather than in my home country. By now, I know the theological issues which I’ve been grappling with in my first and/or second term/s and which I can study further.

There are problems with studying your M.Div in your home country. My M.Div in Australia was great preparation for being a pastor in Australia, but I feel underprepared me for church planting in Thailand. I had one church planting subject during my M.Div. I feel that was inadequate. Many of the issues I’m trying to grapple with now in Thailand, we barely touched in Bible College. The complex issues dealing with what to do with idols for a new believer coming from a Buddhist background, developing indigenous worship, ancestor worship, the difficulties in communicating the gospel to Buddhist … there were no really dealt with. The many of the lecturers have not been on the mission field and could not speak from experience. Or it has been such a long time since they have been on the mission field that the issues had changed.

Also the problem in Bible Training in your home country is that it is not just Biblical principle you pick up. You unwittingly learn to read the Bible from an individualistic western perspective. Your training actually starts to blind you from seeing other perspectives which might come from looking at a passage from an Asian perspective.

If you were heading to Thailand to teach at a Seminary, then sure, an M.Div is the minimum requirement before you can teach so you need it.

You might decide to do M.Div in your home country for other reasons before coming to the mission field. For example, the reality is that very hard to do further study as you get older. Once you get married, have kids and already into full time ministry, it is very hard to get 2 years to study at Bible College full time (and the financial support) to get that M.Div. Getting your M.Div completed before you get on the mission field will mean that when you return to your home country it is much easier to get ordained in your denomination as you already have your M.Div.

Hey Karl – once I again, I see a clear desire on your part to ensure that new believers are well grounded in Biblical truth and I respect that. I do, however, in humility and love, find myself in disagreement with the main thrust of your argument.

The world today has, in my opinion, an unhealthy emphasis on formal education. A degree has become the be-all-and-end-all and people are measured by their qualifications and the institution where they obtained those qualifications. This emphasis has pervaded Christian circles too. I have, for instance, seen many missionaries, gifted and called by God, sacrifice their ministry on the altar of their children’s education. Your suggestion that missionaries need to have a formal theological education seems to reflect this general obsession with formal education (or with a piece of paper that says you have successfully been through the rigours of acquiring an education – the piece of paper is, of course, in itself, no guarantee that the recipient thereof has the ability, personality or character to do the job).

I disagree that missionaries (or pastors and other full-time Christian workers for that matter) have a M.Div or equivalent:
-To my mind, it not only serves to reinforce the clergy-laity distinction but actually widens it. More important than a degree, I think, is experience in outreach and evangelism and real, meaningful church-life in the home culture. Most missionaries come out with theological degrees but have no idea how to actually go about doing the work of a missionary.
-Christian leadership, which should be based on character and gifting is reduced to professionalism and academic ability.
-A B.Th, M.Div, D.Min etc, sure makes the messenger look good. I don’t know that it does much for the Message though.
-Risk of heresy and false teaching is always held up as justification for good training, however, some of the biggest heretics in church history were/are well trained theologians.
-Once you start insisting on a degree, it won’t be long before you need to specify where that degree was conferred. Do we only accept missionaries with M.Divs from Dallas Seminary or are M.Divs from the Online Seminary of Intergalactic Jesus Freaks acceptable?

You also mention discipleship. Does one really need a degree to disciple someone? Surely discipleship is not an academic exercise and a clinical transfer of knowledge from one brain to another? Discipleship, rather, is a process that takes place when lives are lived together in community. When Christ is experienced in the warp and weave and nitty-gritty of day to day life – not in a formal once a week take-out-your-notebook-and-write-down-what-I’m-telling-you training session. True discipleship is much more difficult than merely teaching or training, because it requires love, patience and sacrifice, things that cannot be gained or improved on intellectually.

I have lots more to say, but need to bring this comment to a close…one last thing. Formal, professional, higher education has a place and is valuable and in many cases, is needed for any person who wants to get anywhere in the world today. But it is a strongly individualistic and altogether worldly system. The pursuit of Christ and all that goes with that, spiritual growth, gifts, church, worship, discipleship, etc is a totally spiritual pursuit (with practical outworking and implications.) To try to superimpose a worldly system onto one that is not of this world will produce results which will almost always be a distortion of what God intended.

Shalom.

Thanks Rich & Nick for making this blog a lot more interesting. You each bring up good points.

@Rich - Language study before kids is certainly a big plus. It is obviously not possible for everyone who comes to the mission field, but I know that I greatly benefitted from doing my first years of Thai study and also my seminary studies before getting married and having kids.

You said that if you had to go back and do it over again, you’d do a year of Bible school first and then do more studies after a term or two. In a sense, that is kind of what I myself did. Coming out of college, I knew that I would need more formal Biblical preparation to be a long term missionary but I wanted to get some real world missionary experience before I plunked down a lot of money for training that I wasn’t sure that I would use. So, I came to Thailand for 2.5 years, began language study, talked with lots of Thai Buddhists, Thai Christians, and missionaries, and began to get a feel for the issues and realities of what ministry in Thailand would be like.

Going back to the U.S. and doing my M.Div, I took with me a growing (yet highly imperfect and incomplete) understanding of some of what I would need as I planned to go to Thailand long term. My American M.Div training didn’t directly address a number of Thailand specific issues (such as “ dealing with what to do with idols for a new believer coming from a Buddhist background, developing indigenous worship, ancestor worship, the difficulties in communicating the gospel to Buddhist” as you mentioned). However, having had some experience in Thailand, I was aware of some of these issues and I was able to spend time reflecting on those issues as I did my coursework. For my church history course, I looked at Justin Martyr’s approach to contextualization, and at Daniel McGilvary’s pioneer missionary work in Thailand. For missions classes, I researched contextualization issues specific to Buddhism - communication, karma & causation, merit transference, and so forth. Even though most of my classmates and teachers were not dealing with these issues, I had the time and space to reflect on, read about, and write on them. I was surprised at the good resources that I found in our library, written by people who had lived and worked among Buddhists.

Doing an M.Div in the U.S., I knew that a number of the issues that I would deal with on the mission field would not be addressed but I never expected seminary to be a one-stop shopping trip that would answer all my questions and give me everything that I need to know for a lifelong of ministry. And that would be true regardless of whether I am a pastor in my home country or a missionary someplace else. Hypothetically, if I had stayed on in the U.S. and become a pastor someplace, I could point back to my seminary education and say that in the U.S. context I am facing a number of issues that were not addressed in my seminary classes - i.e house church movement, emergent church, dispensationalism, theology of worship, ecclesiology, theology of ordination, seeker sensitive movement, role of church in relation to mercy ministry, politics, etc. Now perhaps some of my fellow students felt like our seminary did a good job on some of these but maybe they took some different classes than me, or chose different paper topics. Seminary can’t cover everything and I didn’t expect it to.

You indicate that going to an Asian seminary would help avoid a Western individualistic perspective. In theory that makes sense, but could you give an example? I would like to get a better picture of what you mean.

Also, in theory going to an Asian seminary as opposed to a Western seminary to get a more Asian perspective sounds like a good idea. One of our missionary colleagues in Bangkok went to Singapore Bible College for this very reason and was happy with the education that he received. However, if I were to do formal Biblical studies in Asian, I would want to do a lot of checking before I submitting my application. Here’s why:

It seems that there are quite a few Bible schools in Asia that more or less copy the curriculum of Western seminaries, so I am not sure that I would get a more Asian perspective in my studies than I would back home (unless it is discussion with other students outside of the classroom)

Traditional Asian education focuses on rote memorization and reproduction of material rather than critical engagement of the content that is taught. This past year I was talking with a couple of short-term workers from Hong Kong who are going to Bible school in Hong Kong. I asked if they were enjoying their studies and if they felt it was preparing them well for long term missions. They hesitantly said “yes” and expressed disappointment with the one-way rote memorization teaching style that did not allow for interaction or discussion with the teacher or other students in the classroom. The Western educational system is far from perfect, but I think that one of it’s strengths is pressing students to think and to analyze, and not just accept what they hear and spit it back on the test. Granted there are lots of lousy Western schools that don’t get students thinking, but I found myself helpfully challenged to think and question in high school & college (both secular), and in seminary as well. I would not want to go to a school, either Asian or Western, where I could not get that.

3) There are a number of Asians who consider the quality of education in the West to be generally higher than that in Asia. Certainly some of the people who say that likely have an excessive admiration for all things Western, but I do wonder if there is some truth to it. I was recently talking to a Korean-American friend whom I went to seminary with, and he shared with me that some of our Korean classmates who had done their M.Div in Korea were disappointed with the education they received. Thus, they came to the U.S. for further studies beyond the M.Div.

************************

@Nick - your zeal to crusade against formalism and worldliness is very admirable and I agree with many of the points that you make. However, it would seem that you are making some assumptions about my views that I don’t hold, and at times you almost want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

First of all, I did not say that ALL missionaries NEED to have an M.Div or even formal Bible education. I merely said that it CAN be helpful, and in many cases is advisable. Of course there is sometimes an unhealthy emphasis on formal education and there are people out there who just want the piece of paper and not the learning and growth behind it. But the number of students at my seminary who fit that description were a very small minority.

Secondly, I did not say that you need a degree to disciple someone. Before I came to Thailand for the first time, I did not have any formal Bible degree and had never attended a Christian school. Yet, I shared the Gospel, prayed with people, tried to disciple some young men, and so on and so forth. My foundation in the faith was not from a formal degree but from that home church experience that you talked about, Nick. I agree with you that life-on-life everyday discipleship, and those relationships in the church community are the most important and crucial incubator of true Biblical faith. However, during those initial 2.5 years in Thailand, I realized that there were big holes in my understanding of the Bible, and that affected my ability to disciple people. A guy that I was discipling had lots of questions about the book of Revelation and end times prophecy that I could not answer. It is easy for people to get sucked into an unhealthy obsession with prophecy but I didn’t have many good answers to counter the exciting ear-tickling teachings that he was hearing elsewhere. Unfortunately, I had not been taught about that in my church experience to that point. Going to seminary helped me get a clearer Biblical understanding of these and other issues so that I could better help people anchor themselves to the Bible and not be swayed by all the winds of doctrine and false teaching out there. And doctrine affects real life. If someone is swept off into chasing after the latest prophecies from Big Name Preacher So-and-So who just flew into Bangkok on their private jet, then they are likely not focuses on loving their next door neighbor.

As you point out, discipleship is not merely information transfer. However, information transfer is certainly part of it. Jesus commended Mary for sitting at his feet listened to His teaching while he had a gentle rebuke for her sister Martha who was busy serving. Knowing God and His Word deeply are necessary in order to work out that real life day-in day-out nitty gritty discipleship. The majority of that happen in the local church community, but seminary can be helpful too.

Third, you point out some abuses of formal Bible education as if that is an excuse to get rid of it altogether. You say, “Christian leadership, which should be based on character and gifting is reduced to professionalism and academic ability.” Just because that happens sometimes, do we avoid formal Biblical studies altogether? You also say, “some of the biggest heretics in church history were/are well trained theologians”. Yes, many were. What of it? The degree doesn’t make the man or prove anything about their Biblical faithfulness no matter what school you went to. Among the graduates of my seminary, there is an antagonistic agnostic and a guy who is now a gal. Getting a degree from a solid Biblical faithful school proves nothing, only that you got a certain type of knowledge there.

Although a degree doesn’t PROVE anything, I want to ask you, Nick, if you really think that it doesn’t matter where a degree was obtained. You said, “Once you start insisting on a degree, it won’t be long before you need to specify where that degree was conferred.  Do we only accept missionaries with M.Divs from Dallas Seminary or are M.Divs from the Online Seminary of Intergalactic Jesus Freaks acceptable?” I have already mentioned that I am not INSISTING on a degree but if you do have one, then where it is from does say something. Not all schools are created equal. I didn’t go to Dallas Seminary although I know that Dallas does have a reputation for certain kind of Bible education - strong on Bible exposition, baptist, dispensational, and ties to fundamentalism. So if I meet a graduate from there, I have some idea of where he is coming from. I would have to follow that up, of course, by spending time with the actual graduate in question because he may or may not fit the mold of the place that he graduated from.

A degree doesn’t prove anything but it may give a good indication of what a person values and believes. Not all seminaries give people a faithful understanding of the Scriptures and different schools have different strengths and weaknesses. And different schools attract different kinds of people. What kind of person would be attracted to the Online Seminary of Intergalactic Jesus Freaks? I know that you meant the name as a tongue-in-cheek remark but the name and reputation of a school does say something. I would take a long hard look at a graduate of the “Fresh Fire Seminary of Prosperity Power” before accepting him as a missionary.

I do admit though, and I’m sure you’ll agree, that in many places there is the false assumption that because someone graduated from seminary/Bible school (or even from a specific school), then that person is “good to go” and “ready for ministry.” It happens in the U.S. and as you know, it happens all the time here in Thailand. The schools perhaps bear some responsibility for this assumption but I think the greater blame lies on the churches who continue to accept, and give the pulpit to anyone who has gone to Bible school.

The solution to many of these problems lies in the churches realizing that it is primarily their responsibility to disciple and train leaders, not formal Bible schools or seminaries. Schools can help with especially content heavy subjects like Greek, Hebrew, Church History, and other specialized subjects that don’t get dealt with in much depth in many churches (such as missions, contextualization, other religions, preaching, systematic theology, etc.). If a church is going to bring on a pastor from the outside, it is the church’s job to look at his character, gifting, maturity, calling and so forth. It is not the seminary’s job to evaluate these things. Churches who assume that the seminaries weed out the ungifted, uncalled, and immature are making a big false assumption. Ideally, gifted, called, mature leaders and pastors would rise up from within the church itself, and then you would have much less questions about character, calling, etc. because you’ve seen it develop in that person right before your eyes in relationship in the church community.

@Rich & @Nick - I always enjoy the discussion and I look forward to your responses, if you have the time.

Hi Karl,
I don’t think I need to add much. You’re right in highlighting the issues involved in studying in an Asian context. I do agree that a seminary can’t address everything you need, but as in your experience, you had to work through many Thai/Buddhist/Missions issues yourself though with access to good resources. To me though, that seems to be negate the primary benefit of studying at seminary I.e. Learning from the experience and knowledge of the lecturers and working through issues together with your fellow students.

I guess from our posts, we are agreed that there is much greater benefit doing a full theological degree after getting some field experience first if you require this and that you will need to think carefully about choice as to where you do that further study, whether back home or in Asia.

The Bible colleges I were thinking of were in Singapore.

You might want to get your hands on a recent book, “The Trellis and The Vine - Colin Marshall and Tony Payne”. It is strongly recommended by the likes of Mark Dever. It emphasizes well the need for the pastor to be trainers in getting the whole congregation involved in discipling rather than just thinking that good preaching is enough.

The key issue for me here is that there is a difference between getting an “education” and getting adequate “training” and what role the seminary plays. I hear the argument that you get the Bible at seminary and training in the church, but so little training and discipling goes on in churches and seminaries are so academic these days that pastors and missionaries are full of knowledge but not that well trained and ineffective in making disciples.

Rich

My name is Katie
I am currently a sophmore in college and looking into colleges to transfer to. I am very interested in doing missionary work and working with the hearing impaired. I would like to learn sign language and minister through that. Right now I am choosing between a Bible College and Public University. I am having trouble choosing because of the cost. I am very interested in the Bible college and would like to know how much more you think this will prepare me, how much missionary agencies look into that, if it will hurt or help me when going to a foreign country to have a biblical degree(if they are very anti God would I be accepted with that on me resume),and how difficult it will be to pay for school loans while trying to be a missionary. If anyone could just share their insight on these issues I'd really appreciate it.

Thank you

In June 2009, after one year of academic study on the "Theology and World Mission Course" at Oak Hill Theological College, London, I jetted off to a Muslim-majority country for a summer of overseas gospel ministry. As I sat on the 13-hour flight, it was easy to imagine the potential payback of classes I'd taken on Mark's Gospel and the Pentateuch. But, what of the other subjects: abstract, academic and arduous? Would trinitarian theology, critical modern scholarship, Hebrew and Greek pull their weight as well? Or would they turn out to be no more than expensive excess baggage?
Over the next two months, the answer became clear. Again and again I was pleasantly surprised to see, in all sorts of exciting ways, cross-cultural ministry dovetailing with what I'd been learning in class - including even the most unlikely of modules!
On the more obvious side, biblical studies and practical apologetics were of great help when I was teaching the Bible in local churches and guiding Christians in how to share their faith with others. Also, the world mission modules enabled me to train local missionaries, and they helped me understand and evaluate the missionary strategies being used by Christain workers from overseas.
There are just so many cross-cultural issues to think through! Should Muslim converts publicly identify themselves as Christians? What about going to the mosque? Fasting in Ramadhan? Praying five times a day? Eating only halalfood? Wearing the veil? Are these things merely cultural, or is there a line you should not cross if you want to stay true to the gospel?
As I plunged into all these questions, I was thankful that I'd been able to set aside time beforehand to study what the Bible says. How dangerous to try rescuing others from the raging torrents, without first securely mooring oneself to the shore!
It was, however, through interacting directly with Muslims, that the rest of my subjects really came into their own. I remember how, back in the classroom, studying critical modern New Testament scholarship had felt a bit like a waste of time; but having worked hard to expose its shortfalls, I now found myself much more confident in defending the authenticity of the Bible against those who wanted to undermine it. The Gospel of Barnabas and liberal scholarship have, sadly, done much to strengthen Muslims in their unbelief.
Similarly, church history helped me stand firm by the crucial doctrines of the trinity, the person of Christ and the canon of scripture, all of which, for Muslims, must be proved and cannot be taken for granted, as we so often do in the West. "How could God become a man?" and "Can't you see that one simply does not equal three?" are still live issues today, just as they were many centuries ago. Had I not been familiar with the relevant Bible passages and the formulations of the great church councils, I just don't know how I would have defended Christ from ridicule and misunderstanding.
Perhaps my most surprising discovery was that even Hebrew and Greek came in handy! I received great respect from Muslims when they discovered that I was learning the original languages of scripture, so as not to have to rely on translations. Hebrew was especially useful: being similar to Arabic, it helped me relate to my Muslim friends better, as I recognised some of their vocabulary and phrases.
Intriguingly, I came across a couple of Muslims who, for the sake of exposing apparent contradictions in the Bible, had memorised various Bible verses in the original Hebrew and Greek. Without having studied the biblical languages for myself, I would have found myself completely at sea.
More broadly, language study gave me the transferable skill of a firmer grasp of English grammar, which helped me teach Muslim schoolchildren in an English language centre, leading on to some great evangelistic conversations!
One particular highlight was preaching Christ to hundreds of Muslim university students at an interfaith dialogue. Another was sharing the gospel with Muslims at their equivalent of a midweek Bible study. I was able to respond thoughtfully to their objections and explain the good news which otherwise they might never have heard.
In these interactions with others, my studies proved their worth, helping me stand firm in the gospel, confident in my ability to respond faithfully to the challenges of others.
Again this Summer, I continued to find my 2nd year studies dovetailing with the practical ministry opportunities on the ground. The breadth and depth of Biblical, theological and cross-cultural training I have been receiving on the "Theology and World Mission" course have continued to give me the confidence and flexibility to take new opportunities as they arose, which otherwise I would have been unprepared for.
In my experience, these overseas summer mission placements have stretched me further than ever before; by comparison, even the most fascinating of lectures feels just a little dull! And yet, humanly speaking, it was largely the academic training at Oak Hill College that had prepared me for so many of these fruitful opportunities, which would otherwise have remained beyond my reach.
So now as I return for my third year at the books and set my face like flint to plough through a wall of Hebrew irregular verbs, it's encouraging to remember that theological education is not just a classroom exercise. It's not only biblical studies and pastoral counselling which have real-life application. I know from personal experience that even the abstract, the academic and the arduous have a surprising value out in the field. Theory and practice do indeed go hand in hand.