Kampala Evangelical School of Theology

KAMPALA EVANGELICAL SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

Towards a Responsive Model for Delivering Pastoral & Ministerial Training in the Contemporary African Context: A Case Study based on the experience at KEST, Uganda

by Dr. Philip Wandawa, 2017

Equipped For Every Good Work 2Timothy 3:17 I. Theological Education (TE) in a Double Bind?

The conventional theological schools, seminaries and ministerial formation institutions find themselves in a double bind of being, on the one hand inadequate and, on the other, ill positioned to meet the training needs of the church in Africa, and indeed in other parts of the global south where the church is growing rapidly. The inadequacy, it seems to me, does not stem from a lack vision, competence or effort, but rather from the sheer magnitude of training task in these parts of the world. Being ill- positioned on the other hand is not primarily or essentially a function of the lack resources, financial, intellectual or otherwise. Rather, it a function of being beholden to a training delivery structure and philosophy that is not sufficiently responsive to the concrete circumstances of the communities in Africa and the global south—communities they were founded to serve in the first place. It’s not for no reason that theological education (TE) has had to face trenchant criticisms. These criticisms or charges can generally be placed in three categories: 1. The charge of elitism, namely that TE is intrinsically elitist, concerned with and/or focused principally on academic criteria and benchmarks at the expense of spirituality, character, and real life ministerial competences

2. The charge of relevance, namely, that for all its laudable emphasis on correct doctrine, TE seems to suffer an endemic inability to engage life issues and concerns in the African context

3. The charge of access, namely that although TE may be said to be generally available to many in Africa, it is in actual fact inaccessible to the majority of pastors and ministers who need it due to one or all of the following factors (obstacles?):

o Mode of delivery of the training – that is either based upon or assumes more or less fulltime, residential format or commitment from the student

o Distance to and from training – the fact that TE training tends to be located either urban centers or in exclusive locations which, in either case, pastors from the hinterland find hard to reach

o Cost of training – compounded, on the one hand, by what William G. Bowen referred to as the “cost disease” (in higher education) and, on the other, by the economic and life realities of the majority of pastors who are most in need of training! Issues for Reflection - How do our respective TE programs and institutions measure-up against the yardstick which these criticisms posit? How we handle the criticism leveled against TE?

- To my mind, there is no need to be defensive about it, whether

o Positively, that is, by launching into an apologetic for TE, or

o Negatively, that is, attacking and berating those harbor such bias as ignorant etc.

- There is a Christ-like call to magnanimity in the face criticism—unfair or otherwise

- It is important to acknowledge that the suspicions and biases against TE are not entirely without foundation.

o Some of criticism amount to a defensive reaction against what is perceived to be bad theology that would be harmful to evangelical witness and biblical ethos of the church

Quest for a Responsive Model for Pastoral Training & Ministerial Formation o Other criticisms are directed against theological training paradigms that unhelpful, unfriendly, and disempowering

II. Has there been some Naiveté in the way we have Conceived Theological Education? My own experience and journey has led to suspect and perhaps even acknowledge that there has been a certain degree of naiveté in the approach to TE by sections of the church or Christian community. This naiveté manifests in some attitudinal tendencies: 1. There two attitudinal tendencies worth noting - First, at the general level, there is tendency to assume that TE or training of ministers is easy, matter of course, and certainly should, In fact, it should or will just happen - Second, even among those who have some awareness about the necessity of TE, there is a tendency to assume TE, like many services in the church, should be entirely free. And, if it costs anything at all, it should be very little indeed! 2. The Impact of these Attitudinal tendencies has been at two related levels - First, is the failure to recognize and fully appreciate that, like most human enterprises, TE is ineluctably an economic affair—consisting in the mobilization, concentration, and systematic deployment of a wide range of specialized resources including books, equipment, space, highly trained personnel etc., for the sole purpose of equipping men and women to offer ministerial services and perform works of service in church and society - Second, is the failure to apply a hardnosed, reality informed approach to the process of visioning, planning, and strategizing for TE. The consequence of this has been the inability to adequately understand and to respond to what Bowen calls “the cost disease in Higher Education.” Issues for reflection: While it is hard to quantify the precise impact of these attitudes, one cannot but wonder such naiveté has cost TEC. Might this explain the fate and state of the theological enterprise in Africa?

III. The Cost Disease in Higher Education What is it? And how is it related to TE? The “cost disease” is a concept advanced by William G. Bowen based on his research commissioned by the Carnegie Commission in 1966 on the economics of higher Education. The research findings and recommendations were later published in title The Economics of Major Private Universities. What is most interesting is that over 40 years later, Bowen discovered that the findings of that the 1960s study held largely true at the time he delivered Tanner Lecture series, Stanford University, under the title “The Cost Disease in Higher Education: Is Technology the Answer,” October 1, 2012! Bowen’s findings lead him to two key conclusions: - First, the “inexorable tendency of institutional costs per student to rise faster than general costs over the long term.” Note for instance: - While the general price rise over a period of 10 years was 50% the price rise for higher education was 70% - Education expenditure increase at average of 1% above inflation - This explains the cost sharing trend in public education with the proportion of government decreasing and that of individuals increasing. Government grant reduction/Increases in Cost sharing amounts is a sustainability strategy - Second, the Productivity Conundrum in Education Productivity here is understood as the “ratio of outputs to the inputs used to produce them.” On this understanding the fewer the inputs per output, the higher the productivity. The commission report found that: - There is less opportunity to increase productivity in Education - Even technology does not seem cannot shorten or bypass the educational process to lower costs - Rate of wage increase for comparable qualification determined by market - Given the low productivity prospects in education, labor costs rise faster in education than other sectors like manufacturing A revealing comment about the Cost Disease

Quest for a Responsive Model for Pastoral Training & Ministerial Formation To illustrate the true import of the “cost disease” Bowen quotes a comment made by certain Robert, namely that: “While productivity gains have made it possible to assemble cars with only a tiny fraction of the labor that was once required, it still takes four musicians nine minutes to perform Beethoven’s String Quartet in C minor, just as it did in the 19th century.” In short, productivity gains are unlikely to offset wage increases to anything like the same extent in the arts or education as in manufacturing

Reflection Issues Could it be that the place to begin is: - A sobering reality-based acknowledgment that TE is labor intensive, time consuming, all absorbing? Simply put, that TEC is by its very nature expensive. o Takes for example what it takes to secure TE’s chief resource. TE looks for people who possess a unique combination or confluence of qualities, skills, and intellectual attributes, among them: specialized training at a high intellectual level, a set of gifts and talents that are indicative of the ministry they are to exercise, a package of skills and competencies commensurate with their area or discipline of professional practice, clear evidence of knowledge, faith and experience of Christ that issues in a life style that is Christ-like and Christ-centered; and, not least of all, a definite sense of calling serve God. Finding, attracting, and retaining such people is tall order by any standard - To wonder and ponder o Whether the model of TE inherited from the missionary era and Western Christian tradition is appropriate and sustainable in Africa? And, o Whether or not the model, propped up by missionary support has not bred a complacent mindset that assumes that TE is immune from the economic headwinds and logic which all educational institutions of higher learning have to weather and navigate? o Furthermore, whether or not this complacency has not stifled creativity, and pre-empted what ought to have been a hard-nosed approach to planning and strategizing for TE in order to mitigate the inevitable effects of the “cost disease”? - To ask what can be done for TE? o Can we evolve a TE delivery model that is based on a network of echo systems rooted in the socio-economic and cultural factors in the African context?

IV. The Magnitude of the Pastoral Training Task: A Global Perspective It is no exaggeration to say that sheer need and magnitude of the training task in Africa and the global south in general is daunting. Consider the following: 1. According to most reliable recent estimates there are at least 2.2 million pastoral leaders in the majority world who are functioning as shepherds in contexts and conditions described above 2. Only 5% of these (2.2 million) leaders have any training or preparation for pastoral ministry at all 3. Given the world population demographics and the growth projections of Christianity—arising from evangelism and mission efforts—the need and urgency to train pastors is unlikely to let up for the foreseeable future. It is estimated that 50,000 people accept Christ and baptized everyday thereby creating a need for at least 1,000 pastors each shepherding 50 new coverts daily.1

Thought for Reflection

1 These recent estimates were shared in a Global Congress involving about 3000 pastoral trainers and leaders convened by Dr. Ramesh Richard in Bangkok, Thailand, June 15-22, 2016. For more information visit http://rreach.org/portfolio- items/gprocongress-highlights

Quest for a Responsive Model for Pastoral Training & Ministerial Formation If the growth trajectory is as these estimates suggest, then we can safely conclude that the need for trained leaders for the church in the global south will continue to, not only outstrip but to actually, overwhelm the ability of the church to equip and prepare them for years to come.

Quest for a Responsive Model for Pastoral Training & Ministerial Formation V. The Magnitude of the Pastoral Training Task: A Local Perspective based on KEST Experience The best way to illustrate the magnitude to training from a local perspective is to draw, anecdotally, from the experience of KEST the last 4 to 5 years. There are two experiences or stories which fit this occasion: 1. Strategic Realignment in view of KEST Vision and Mission and the Outcomes! About four (4) years ago KEST made a strategic shift to adopt a model that involved systematizing and mainstreaming our non-formal training program. The proximate goal of this move was twofold: to (i) break out of the bottlenecks and limitation imposed by in conventional seminary requirements in order to (ii) to make quality training accessible to who do not have the minimum academic benchmarks 2. Immediate Outcomes of the Strategic Realignment There three related outcomes, the second caused by first, and the third by the first and second. o First we were approached by and agreed to training a group of pastors from small Pentecostal/Charismatic denomination in Hoima, Northwestern Uganda o Second, no sooner had we training the Hoima group than we were approached another group of pastors from neighboring district, Kiboga. They had heard of our training in Hoima o The establishment of training centers in Hoima and Kiboga meant the numbers of students who were completing KEST program more than doubled from 30 to 150! o Third, we were approached by the umbrella church body to which the Hoima and Kiboga belong called the National Fellowship of Born Again Pentecostal Churches (NFBPC) seeking a partnership to train all their pastors 3. The NFBPC Highlights various Training Challenges & Opportunities The NFBPC is one of the bigger umbrella organizations that brings together indigenous churches and church movements spanning Evangelical, Pentecostal, and Charismatic traditions. If one considers that the NFBPC alone has at least 30,000 member churches, then the task and challenge of training comes into view with sobering clarity! Some observations and lessons from this story: o First, the fact an entity like the NFBPC desires a training partnership with KEST is a promising sign for the future of training in Africa. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the NFBPC will follow through the strategic investments necessary to transform the promise into reality o Second, the fact that 90% of NFBPC Pastors have no formal ministerial preparation serves to accentuate the magnitude task. For just this one group at least 27,000 pastors need of training, now! o Third, it also clear that at the current training output capacity of 150 – 200 pastors annually KEST efforts are but a drop in the bucket. At this capacity it will take KEST close to a century to train just half (13,500) of this group. It will take many KESTs to make a real dent on training task o Fourth, it’s worth remembering that the strategic realignment indicated above involved recognition of two things: first the need to maintain a proper order in regard to the twin loyalties in TE—to the church and to the academy, and second, the need to move non- formal programs from the periphery to the center of our training agenda as a school. 4. Balancing Priorities of the Church & the Academy It is important to recognize that there is often an unexpected tension between training priorities as they relate to the church constituency KEST exists to serve, and the academic regime imposed regulatory bodies (in Uganda, the National Council of Higher Education). Rather than simply let the priorities of the regulatory regime to dictate the character and direction of the program, the

Quest for a Responsive Model for Pastoral Training & Ministerial Formation vision and mission of the institution should be allowed to be the chief arbiter. In the case of KEST we determined that: a. While regulatory framework cares little for the non-formal program, the non-formal program is nevertheless essential to our vision and mission, our raison d'être and therefore deserved to be given a high profile b. While the academic benchmarks are indispensable to the formal program, they only serve a small part of our vision and mission 5. Moving the Non-formal from the Periphery to Center Driven by the Profile of the Pastors who need training most The response of groups NFBPC training led us to interrogate our program in relation to what they happen to be: a. What kind or crop of pastors is the NFBPC bringing into the KEST training fold? b. What leadership needs and challenge do they have? c. What biblical and theological knowledge deficit do they bring with them, and above all d. What was KEST going to do about it? o Were we going to allow the unique needs and challenges they have influence or even determine the training curriculum, philosophy, and approach? o Or were we going to impose upon them what they we know they need? In order to respond to their need in with our vision and mission, it was necessary that we gain a full understanding (profile) of who they are. Four characteristic their role stand out 6. Leadership Profile: Lack of Ministerial Training is the De facto State of Affairs We find that 85% of any typical sample group of pastors, particularly from the new church movements, have no preparation or training for ministry at all. It does not help that the majority of these church movements do not have seminaries, let alone a theological training tradition of any sort 7. Educational Profile: Low Basic Education & Literacy Skills Threshold In addition to the leadership profile painted above one has to add the fact that the majority of pastors in this category either completely lack or acutely deficient in what are considered to be minimum general prior education skills and competencies—high school certificate—necessary to access pastoral training in the average conventional seminary 8. Lifestyle Profile: Bi/Multi-Vocationalism is the Norm not an Exception The majority of these pastors are by necessity bi-vocational. They maintain a fulltime job or vocation in order to support themselves because the churches they serve do not pay them enough to live on. Almost without exception 9. Cultural & Family Factors: Overwhelming Impact These pastors always have obligatory (provider) ties, not only to the immediate family (wife and children) but very often also, to the wider extended family and community. What this means is that these pastors cannot afford to be away from their home base for more than few days at time 10. Religious & Theological Concerns are Overwhelmingly Practical, Functional, even Utilitarian The view and attitude to training which these pastors have is not shaped by classical ideals— orthodoxy, church or ecclesiastical traditions, doctrinal purity, clarity, and precision etc.—but more by practical and personal concerns arising from a set of standards, expectations, values and norms held by the church and wider society regarding the role and vocation of a pastor—things such as spiritual power, leadership influence, success etc. Some Lessons & Issues for Reflection Aligning ourselves with the intimations of Divine Providence? - Those of you who undertake to train among the poor and least educated communities and wonder whether it is all worth it. We cannot but count it one of those impenetrable enigmas of divine providence that, for good or ill, its often people from the lower strata of society who are not only economically vulnerable but who often, are of little or even of no learning at all, whose knowledge of God’s word and theology is abysmal, whose ministry skills and practices may be

Quest for a Responsive Model for Pastoral Training & Ministerial Formation highly questionable, if not atrocious, yet, yet—and this is where enigma of divine providence is most inscrutable—it such people rather than those who are educated and relatively well off, who responding to God’s call to serve and minister in some of the most difficult sections of our society often at great personal cost! Is it after all even truer today than it was when it was written that God has chosen “the foolish things of the world to shame the wise,….the weak things of the world to shame the strong…..the lowly things of this world and the despised things—even things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him” (1Cor. 1:27-29) - If the largest number (90%) of those who are giving themselves to pastoral ministry come from the lower, less or even not educated strata of society, how and why is it that the majority of our premier TE institutions are focused on the smaller percentage (10%) of those of a higher academic threshold? - Is there, perhaps, a call to the relativization of conventional models delivering TE? What might this entail? o First, a soul searching of sorts: Have we, perhaps, become overly beholden to conventional TE models with their quality assurance and accreditation apparatus with allure of intellectual distinction and prestige within the fraternity of academic institutions? o Second, humility, a more humble estimate of the place and significance of formal conventional TE training model in God’s overall agenda to equip his church for ministry? The recognition, among other things, that while conventional TE training models remain important and necessary particularly for training at high levels of learning, they are by no means the divinely ordained and only way to prepare God’s people for ministry o Third, is it not time to acknowledge that, even at their best and full capacity, conventional formal theological programs and institutions can reach only a small fraction of the pastors who need training—and even then only those with prior academic qualifications—the flip side of this fact that being that the majority who do not have threshold academic competencies are left out o Finally, a pursuit of the above will likely unleash the freedom and courage to seek-out, develop or invent alternative models to deliver pastoral training—models that are more responsive to the unique circumstances of pastors as revealed the profile of the majority of pastors above VI. Features or Marks of a Delivery Model of Pastoral Training that is Responsive Life Circumstances of most African Pastors : The Experience of KEST Story 2012 -2016 In view of what we have said so far, a responsive model of training needs to be informed by factors that affect the majority of pastors who need training most: - Lifestyle issues and situations circumstances - Suspicions, biases, and misconceptions they harbor arising from their and station in life - The sheer and enormity and urgency of the training task - A strong appreciation of the economics TE (Luke 14:28) This suggests a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach to the conception and process of TE which is the incarnational in nature in two senses: - First, it is KEST (the theological institution and theologians) that goes down to seek to serve the pastors to rather than expecting the pastors to climb up to KEST in order to be served - Second, when KEST goes down to the pastors it listens to the pastors in order to allow the voice and needs of the pastor to shape the character of the training program There are 1. Program Repositioning This step has consisted in making both formal and non-formal training delivery options mainstream to KEST program as a whole. Non-formal training programs are, no longer merely a secondary or even tertiary but in fact, integral to KEST training agenda and philosophy. This has a positive impact on the KEST training program overall in two ways:

Quest for a Responsive Model for Pastoral Training & Ministerial Formation - First, it ensures integrity and parity of quality between formal and non-formal programs. KEST non-formal program are as first rate as the formal programs - Second, it allows for differentiation in the educational process, enabling KEST to pitch training at the different levels of the educational needs of pastors 2. Creating Enabling Training Delivery Mechanisms Establishment of centers—KEST Community Engagement Centres (KEST CECs)—in the regions (upcountry) in order to make the training program accessible to the majority of pastors 3. Training Philosophy that seeks to Empowering The training philosophy entails several motifs and practices that are Socratic with a touch of conscientization of Paulo Frerie. The training - Is delivered with an attitude and manner which affirms and respects the vocational and experience - Seeks and to elist the vocational experience of pastors to help them to understand the prior experience and integrate with the new knowledge they are acquiring in class - Avoids unnecessary academic apparatus which tends to intimidate and disempower pastors - Seeks to awaken and nurture their critical faculties by enlarging their knowledge base, and cultivating a healthy self-awareness and regard as ministers of the gospel 4. Ceding & Sharing Ownership Stake CEC are established in close consultation and partnership with local church leaders from the community where the CECs are located. Local buy-in into the vision of training is essential to securing a sense of shared ownership of the training process by KEST on the one hand, and by the local/beneficiary communities on the other 5. Delivery Mode: Training is delivered in one week modules, at a time and duration that is mutually agreed and fits in with the lifestyle obligations of most pastors 6. Curriculum: The curriculum assumes and weaves realities in the African context into the fabric of the instructional process at all levels—content, method, illustration, and example 7. Medium of Instruction: Training is delivered in both English and the main local language of the region where the CEC is located, and in which the pastors discourse and preach 8. Cost: The training is delivered at a cost intended to make training, not only affordable but also, a more viable option for more pastors—more viable than is the case in a traditional seminary format Some Conclusions and Lesson - It’s true early to draw any firm lessons and conclusions. The process and model is still evolving

Quest for a Responsive Model for Pastoral Training & Ministerial Formation VII. The Impact of a Responsive Training: 2012 - 2016 Even though it has only been a few years since it was adopted, the responsive training model has had a positive effect that has injected new vitality in the KEST program overall. Since the launch of the first CEC in August 2012 signs of vitality are discernable in several areas: 1. Community Engagement Centers (CECs): Thus far two CECs have been established—one in Hoima, the other in Kiboga 2. Overall number of Student being Trained & Graduating from the KEST program has increased dramatically: a. Enrollment has risen from an average of 30/50 students in 2012/13 to a new average of 120/150 students in 2015/16—a 200% increase b. The frequency of turnover, graduation, has increased from a tri-annual (once every 3years) event to annual event:  Thus between December 2013 and June2016 KEST has graduated 3 classes (cohorts) through the CECs— representing total number of 136 pastors  Compare this with fact that the first crop of students in the formal Degree program, which was re-launched in 2012, graduated this October 3. KEST Relationship with churches & Public Visibility has been strengthened significantly  Interest and requests for KEST to establish CECs in more areas and regions are increasing 4. The Magnitude and Urgency of the Training Task has become Clearer The CECs have shone a light on the magnitude of the training task as a whole. The magnitude is anecdotally illustrated in a request to partner in training which KEST received from the National Fellowship of Born Again Pentecostal Churches (NFBPC) in Uganda. NFBPC is one of the bigger umbrella organizations that brings together indigenous churches and church movements— spanning Evangelical, Pentecostal, and Charismatic traditions. If one considers that the NFBPC alone has at least 30,000 member churches, then the task and challenge of training comes into view with sobering clarity! Two observations will suffice:  First, if we take into account the leadership and educational profile of the pastors described above, it is safe to assume that over 90% of pastors from these churches have no formal ministerial preparation and therefore need training—this means at least 27,000 pastors!  Second, at the current annual training capacity and output of 150 – 200 pastors per year (through CECs it would take KEST close to a century to train just half (13,500) of them

VIII. Proposal to Build the Capacity of the Responsive Model – KEST CECs The goal of this proposal is to access financial resources to enable KEST develop capacity in four areas: - First, to make quality ministerial training accessible to more pastors who need it by using the responsive model to overcome the limitations or bottlenecks of the traditional seminary model - Second, the ability to deliver training more efficiently and effectively - Third, adopt and execute a strategy that will multiply output and broaden the impact of the KEST CECs overall - Fourth, build key institutional resources to enhance the sustainability quotient of KEST program overall for the long-term There are four main steps to be taken: 1. Increase the Number of CECs in order to multiply the locations and number of pastors who can access and benefit from the KEST program. To this end: a. Five new CECs are to be opened in Kampala, Mbale, Gulu, Masaka, and Soroti within the next two years b. Each CEC is projected to take in from 50 – 100 pastors for a combined total of an additional 250 - 500 pastors trained in year

Quest for a Responsive Model for Pastoral Training & Ministerial Formation 2. Produce a Training Manual to facilitate the delivery of training at the CECs. The projected benefit of the of the manual will include: a. Reduction of the burden and time spent on preparation b. Freeing teachers to devote more time to the training process—finding creative ways of delivering learning c. Foster the integrity of training content d. Enhance efficiency in the delivery of training e. Make it easier to attract and recruit more qualified people to the training team 3. Expand the Training Team as the groundwork and network for the multiplier factor in the training strategy : a. Identify and recruit people with the appropriate training, ministry experience, and gifting to be part of the training team either as part-time/adjunct trainers or fulltime b. Begin KEST Trainers Apprenticeship Program to train, and mentor KEST students to become trainers of the pastors. This is to ensure a wider pool of resource people who can be a part the team of trainers to deliver the program through the KEST CECs c. Develop internal capacity to review and revise curriculum, and also capability to translate the manual the appropriate local languages d. Develop and maintain regular training team development programs to mentor and orientated the team of trainers into KEST vision, mission, values, and philosophy of ministry and training. 4. Program Support: Mobilize and secure the resources— financial, human, and logistical—needed to implement the proposed program effectively. These will include: a. Administrative support for the coordination and logistical responsibilities of the program b. Liaison capacity to nurture, maintain, and grow the partnership relations with participating churches and church organizations c. Funds to recruit and retain qualified and gifted trainers and funds to begin the KEST Trainers Apprenticeship program d. Funds to develop the educational materials—teachers and student manuals—to be used in the program e. Equipment that facilitates the preparation and delivery of training f. Planning and Evaluation Support to shoulder the responsibility of strategic thinking, evaluation, and vision for the training program

Quest for a Responsive Model for Pastoral Training & Ministerial Formation