Christian leadership development today (Post 3 of 4): three types of formation

This is the third 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. My second post reflected on how I think post-Christendom has affected the broad cultural context in which Christian leadership formation takes place. 

In this third (and so far longest – sorry…) post I’m going to show how Geoff ends up describing three different patterns of theological and ministerial formation which reflect different assumptions about the nature of responsible Christian ministry. I’m not convinced that “[t]he decisive divide is not primarily theological [but] economic” [1] and that “similar theological commitments can [therefore] produce very different institutional strategies.” [2] Significantly different formative strategies signify at least different prioritisations of theological convictions, which in turn signify differences between theological systems. The key differences between the three models have to do with the human location of formative authority. [3] Who decides the content of teaching and mode of delivery? Why do they have that authority? And where are these authoritative people to be found? Geoff describes three answers to these questions: 

1. Biblical and theological scholars in a Godly academic community; 
2. Ministry practitioners in their ordinary ministries; 
3. The individual Christian seeking training. 

1. Temporary intense immersion in a community of Godly scholarship 

Geoff correctly observes that the traditional theological college model reflects a “sustained commitment to theological scholarship—producing research, engaging with broader intellectual currents, and forming leaders capable of sustained reflection.” [2] It therefore reflects the conviction that theological scholars possess the knowledge therefore authority to shape future ministry leaders. 

Bible colleges and theological providers… sustain the disciplines that are hardest to reproduce elsewhere: careful exegesis, doctrinal clarity, engagement with the original languages, and the formation of theological judgement over time. [1]

That investment in theological depth has demonstrably served not just one particular denomination or network but an entire interdenominational ecosystem. 

In Sydney, evangelical institutions responded to theological pressure from German liberal scholarship by strengthening, not withdrawing from, academic engagement. Moore College developed a model that held doctrinal clarity and serious academic work together, a legacy that still shapes the prioritisation of research and long-term theological contribution. [2]

This theological heritage enabled Moore to engage in its vertically-integrated resourcing of like-minded church and parachurch ministries as noted in my first post, and has also contributed to the contemporary vigour of Calvinist evangelicalism in Sydney and NSW. 

However, I do not think that this institutional model reduced to a prioritisation of theological scholarship alone. I think it reflects a commitment to the value of holistic imbibing of this scholarship through a temporary, quasi-monastic “shared life [of] lectures, meals, [and] chapel” which sought to “guarantee[] [the] intellectual, spiritual, and relational coherence” of those who graduated from that college community and were sent back into the world. [2] To exaggerate for the sake of typological clarity: this model treats the ordinary rhythms of ‘secular’ life as a hinderance to ministry formation. Ministry formation is best achieved through temporary withdrawal from those secular rhythms so as to deeply immerse oneself in alternate rhythms of communal worship, study, and discipleship, which are intended to form the character and convictions required to lead people out of the ‘world’ towards God. 

To use an economic metaphor: this model is ‘supply-side’ driven. It assumes that supplying the ‘market’ with enough skilled, characterful leaders will maintain the beliefs and ministry strategies – the culture, the ‘market’ – of the particular Christian community the educational institution seeks to serve. 

The advantages and disadvantages of this model both flow from this model’s intensively countercultural quasi-monastic nature. The advantage is the thoroughness of its communal formation. Its disadvantage is the possible irrelevance of that formation to the issues faced by ordinary people in the rest of the world outside the college. 

Another disadvantage of this model is, as Geoff rightly observes, its relative inflexibility. “A significant portion of the cost base” of a traditional educational institution “is fixed. Buildings require maintenance whether they are full or half empty. Overall compliance costs under TEQSA do not scale down when enrolments fall. [5] Core staffing, particularly faculty” is “not entirely fixed, but difficult to adjust without compromising the integrity of” the college’s educational portfolio. [4] 

Faculty costs are high because the formation of high-quality Biblical scholars, theologians, and reflective practioners itself requires the investment of significant time, energy, and money. To attract and retain quality faculty, a theological college needs to provide adequate stipends and benefits which recognise the sacrifices scholars make to gain competence within their academic guild. Like any ministry, a theological college can expect their faculty not to be primarily motivated by money or status but by a desire to serve Christ and his church and a sense of divine ‘vocation’ – a desire to use one’s learning to equip the church. But recognising and celebrating that kind of personal commitment is different to taking it for granted and using it as an excuse to avoid 1 Cor 9:3-14. 

But that only goes to reinforce Geoff's point that “the model works” as long as “student numbers grow” or at least remain stable, but “[w]hen they decline, [financial] deficits emerge quickly — and are difficult to reverse without [significant] structural change” which risks demoralising and alienating existing faculty, students, and stakeholders. [4] 

2. Participation in ordinary ministry 

Geoff also rightly observes that the above traditional model of ministry formation “is increasingly [being] supplemented or replaced by pathways in which ministry experience precedes or runs concurrently with formal theological education.” “[S]tructured pathways like MTS, Reach Australia, and City to City Australia use apprenticeships, residencies, and coaching to identify and deploy leaders.” “Apprenticeship and church-based formation now function as primary filters for emerging leaders, with formal study integrated at different points, rather than serving as the universal entry point.” [2] 

This model, like the one above, is still ‘supply-side’ driven. Its focus on practical ministry formation still assumes that ministry trainees need to be equipped with skills, insights, values and competencies of the ministry wherein they are trained, where those beliefs and skills are different to those inculcated by the ‘normal’ world. ‘Secular’ beliefs and values may still be problems that need to be overcome. 

But unlike the above, this model does not consider the rhythms and rigours of ordinary life a problem to overcome through intentional temporary seclusion but the context wherein those Godly, ministry-sustaining beliefs and behaviours are formed. It therefore “aligns more closely with how ministry actually happens [by] integrat[ing] learning and practice in real time.” [2] The quasi-monastic retreat can only be temporary. Effective ministry formation needs to reflect the fact that ordinary ministry occurs in the busyness, fatigue, stresses, and conflicts of ordinary ‘secular’ life. 

The real-life apprenticeship nature of this model also shifts the locus of ministry formative authority. Its location within ordinary ministries implies that demonstrably competent ministry practitioners, not scholarly theoreticians, primarily possess the knowledge therefore authority to shape future ministry leaders. Theoretical knowledge inculcated in an institution detached from those on-the-ground ministries is not necessarily in conflict with this real-life formation, but is secondary to it and should serve it. 

Forming ministry trainees within those pressures is a double-edged sword. It should ideally equip trainees with the personal resilience to continue in lifelong ministry. But the exhaustion and distraction might prevent the intellectual attention necessary for the development of the kinds of deep theological convictions which are equally necessary for effective lifelong ministry. 

Geoff also notes that this distributed model may not produce high-quality, reliably standardised outcomes. 

In the distributed model, coherence must be constructed, shifting responsibility from the institution to the network, from the shared environment to the designed experience, and from proximity to intentionality. This places greater weight on local systems and mentors to carry what community life previously embedded. While the model works well in contexts where local elements are strong, inconsistent contexts can lead to uneven formation, making the system scalable but not necessarily uniform. [2]

3. Diversity and agile responsiveness to individual needs  

The third model that Geoff implicitly identifies is more ‘demand’-oriented. It locates authority in students training preferences. It requires the educational institution to provide a diverse suite of courses to fulfil what students demand, and/or be agile enough to rapidly adapt to changing demand profiles. Colleges would therefore need to provide: 

• Traditional centralised ministry formation as per model one; 
• And parallel centralised training in other kinds of Christian vocations like “counselling, education, and community service”; [2] 
• Both in decentralised and intensive modes for those who are unable or unwilling to conform to the centralised delivery mode. 

This model helpfully serves the diverse needs and opportunities of the church and Christian community at large. It recognises that ministry and missional opportunities exist beyond the traditional silo of Sunday service and its associated meetings (youth group, Sunday school etc.) and may in fact be more effective outside that silo. Chaplains at schools, the police, military, aged care, and hospitals probably have significantly better evangelistic access than an average church pastor. Its responsiveness to demand also enstructures economic resilience by “draw[ing] revenue from counselling, education, and community service pathways, reducing reliance on [the] single vocational pipeline” of traditional ‘ordained’ pastoral ministry. [2]

But the diverse nature of this model is its own weakness. Geoff’s observations deserve to be quoted at length. 

[D]iversification changes the institution's internal logic. A mixed classroom, including a school chaplain in training and a lay leader, operates differently from a cohort focused solely on pastoral ministry, altering formation by making the shared vocational trajectory less defined. At an institutional level, the growth of adjacent programs influences staffing, marketing, and resource allocation, potentially shifting the centre of gravity. The key question is whether these new programs remain integrated within a coherent theology of formation or become parallel streams that subsidise the institution without being shaped by its original purpose. This creates a governance issue, as boards now oversee a portfolio requiring clarity of purpose and alignment between mission and revenue. Handled poorly, diversification creates drift—subtle and incremental—until the institution no longer resembles its original form. [2]

The effect of a particular college's ecosystem 

The three above models are not necessarily in conflict. While one type of educational delivery will necessarily dominate, the other two can be present in secondary and tertiary roles. 

This series of posts considers how post-Christendom complexity affects ministry leadership formation. Part of the answer has to do with how Bible and theological colleges are embedded within their own smaller ecosystems of congregations, parachurch agencies, benefactors etc. That smaller ecosystem may determine which of the above three models a Bible or theological college needs to utilise, and how the other two can be effectively combined within it. In my next and final post I'll apply that to my pastoral context: the NSW Presbyterian Church and its theological college, Christ College Sydney. 

*** 

Footnotes and references 

I'm using the Vancouver referencing system because having set up this blog I discovered it doesn't provide for footnotes... 🙄 

1. Geoff Folland, ‘The Stewardship Horizon.'  
2. Geoff Folland, ‘The Adaptation Question.’ 
3. I say 'human authority' because as good evangelicals we instinctively and rightly hold to the Bible as our final authority. But that only pushes the question one step back. Who gets to decide what the Bible says about effective ministry? My threefold typology answers this as follows: 
1. The traditional college model says the scholars, through their scholarship, possess the authority to communicate what the Bible says; 
2. The applied-apprenticeship model says demonstrably fruitful effective practitioners have the credibility to at least show trainees how to effectively communicate the Bible; and 
3. The flexible-agile model responds to individual convictions about how people understand the Bible and what it's saying to them. 
4. Geoff Folland, ‘The Balance Sheet.' 
5. Geoff thinks that the formation of the Tertiary Education Quality & Standards Agency, TEQSA, in 2012 has benefited theological, pastoral, and overall formal Christian education through “lift[ing] standards and strength[ening] governance.” But “[i]t also locked in a high fixed-cost model” where “[c]ompliance became a permanent overhead”: Geoff Folland, ‘The Hidden Architecture.’ 

Header image credit Pexels.