Christian leadership development today (Post 2 of 4): the effects of post-Christendom

This is the second of four posts interacting with Geoff Folland’s observations about the opportunities and challenges facing the Australian evangelical Christian higher education sector. My first post introduced the series and summarised the four institutional approaches to ministry formation which Geoff has observed within the Australian Christian higher education sector. In this second post I will use Geoff’s insights to background for my own observations on how I think post-Christendom has affected the broad cultural context in which Christian leadership formation takes place. 

Christendom stability 

Australia, along with the ‘Western’ world, is now post-Christian. For this series I’m going to use the term ‘Christendom’ to highlight the way that Christian religious and moral assumptions used to dominate Western social assumptions in ways they no longer do. 

Under those social conditions, the prevalence of a (usually nominal and superficial) Christianity permitted Christian ministry formation to operate with “a more stable church ecosystem, a more linear ministry pathway, and a lower regulatory burden” than it now does. Colleges, students, and college stakeholders – denominations, parachurch ministries, mission agencies, and individual Christian benefactors – could rely on an established vision of the nature of training for church ministry, parachurch ministry, and mission. This shared understanding of the different ‘pipelines’ for ministry formation permitted 

1. Colleges to adequately focus on their particular form of ministry training and invite stakeholders to fund that vision of training; 
2. Stakeholders to invest in particular colleges’ vision of ministry formation, trusting the college to produce students who believe the doctrines and will conduct the ministries which advance that vision; 
3. Students to permit themselves to be shaped by that college’s doctrines and ministry philosophies, confident that the churches, parachurch agencies, or mission movements associated with that college, confident that they will find useful ministry – a ‘job’ – within those ministry networks. 

Post-Christendom complexity 

Geoff observes that current college students are less likely to rely on the above stability but are more likely to be 

1. Seeking flexibility and variety in educational options 
2. To equip themselves for a variety of ministries; and 
3. Significantly funding themselves, 
4. Through juggling part-time work with part-time study, 
5. Therefore demanding flexible learning options, including online and intensives. 

Some of this diversity would not be driven by the cultural marginalisation of Christianity but by other factors like 

• The rising cost of living, especially housing costs; and 
• The increased accessibility of high-speed internet which facilitates online learning. 

However, I think this diversification is also significantly driven by the following three factors which express post-Christendom: 

1. The rightful desire of faithful Christians to be equipped to respond to the opportunities and challenges of post-Christendom social marginalisation;  
2. In an ecclesial context where ordinary church leaders don’t feel equipped to sufficiently perform the above equipping. 

1. Christians want to respond to post-Christendom 

Post-Christendom can be considered two interconnected social dynamics: 

1. The perceived marginalisation of, sometimes opposition against, Christian beliefs and behaviours; 
2. The social acceptance, sometimes enforced celebration, of non-Christian beliefs and behaviours – non-Christian religions, secularity, hypersexualised self-identity, etc. 

Faithful Christians rightly want to be equipped to respond to these diverse, multidirectional challenges. They desire 

1. Adequate discipleship, catechetical, and apologetical resources to equip themselves and others to stand firm against the social forces which seek to undermine Christian faith and identity, and also 
2. Evangelistic, missional resources which can effectively commend the faith to others in this newly contested environment. 

Contemporary Australian Christians rightly want to be equipped in everything from parenting skills to political activism to specific evangelistic techniques for one particular ethno-religious group, e.g. Nepalese Hindus. 

2. Ordinary congregational leaders don't feel equipped to respond 

Ordinary church leaders are trained to be competent in basic ministries. They need to be able to preach, lead small groups, engage in pastoral care, mentor and disciple people to grow in Christian maturity, lead the church in evangelism, help the church connect with missionaries, get involved in administration as necessary, and lead the church in long-term strategic planning. That's already a lot! The ordinary pastor can't also provide specialised training tailored for the needs and interests of every individual in his congregation. 

This goes part of the way, I think, to explain Geoff's observations about the proliferation of diverse training opportunities, both by Bible and theological colleges offering more and more courses and by the emergence of alternate formal and informal training platforms. We'll talk about them in my next post. 

**** 

References 

The quote is from Geoff Folland, ‘The Stewardship Horizon.' Header image credit Pexels.