Over the years, church leadership development and theological education has almost always be in the purview of the formal educational institutions (i.e. universities and colleges). One such formal education setting was the Presbyterian Seminary of Guatemala located in Guatemala City.
Founded in 1938, the goal of the seminary was to provide trained leaders for the Guatemalan church. After twenty-five years of effort, however, an evaluation of the results revealed a disturbing trend. Only 5% of the graduates from the Presbyterian Seminary were still in ministry after twenty-five years of effort. At the time of the evaluation, the dire nature of the situation was further emphasized by the fact that only six learners were currently enrolled in the traditional seminary program. It quickly became obvious that the plan was falling short in providing the more than 200 Presbyterian congregations in Guatemala with the trained leaders they required.
In response, a trio of missionary educators, Ralph Winter, James Emery, and Ross Kinsler, developed and implemented a number of proposals that eventually led to the present-day format of Theological Education by Extension (TEE). As with all of the adaptations in leadership development, Mulholland notes that TEE “did not result from a carefully predesigned theoretical model with a fully developed theology of ministry . . . but rather in response to the needs of the church faithfully engaged in mission.”
Analyzing the situation, it became apparent that the first major issue was one of geography. With the seminary located in Guatemala City, the journey to the seminary was largely inaccessible. Therefore, the first step was to relocate the seminary from Guatemala City to an area that was more centrally located. However, this move did not solve the problem. While this may have partially solved the issue of geography, church leaders were still not coming to the seminary. Although the seminary was now closer, the residential requirement of the seminary structure was still prohibitive to most leaders due to home and congregational responsibilities.
Thus, the concept of a decentralized seminary came into being. If the leaders could not come to the seminary, then the seminary would go to the leaders. The residential program would be maintained for those able to adapt, but now the program would be taken directly to the people. However, this too suffered from a number of issues. First, many of the leaders could not meet the minimum educational requirements for the program. As such, the curriculum with its strong emphasis on reading and writing was often beyond the academic capabilities of many leaders. Second, the traditional seminary format requiring significant time for outside reading and reflection was not possible along with the daily demands of ministry and survival. Finally, the curriculum was often found to be woefully lacking in meeting the needs of learners from “radically different cultural heritages [and] social levels.”
It was from this milieu that the present-day form of TEE was born. In its original form, Ted Ward characterized TEE using the “Split Rail Analogy.” According to this analogy, TEE consists of three primary components: cognitive input, field experience, and seminars.
The first rail, cognitive input, constitutes the core of the instructional material. In classical TEE format, this is imparted through the use of materials utilizing “programmed instruction.” The “programmed instruction” method of learning utilizes a process of self-instruction that allows the learner to progress in small, manageable steps, at their own pace, while providing positive reinforcement through active participation and self-checking without the need for a dedicated full-time instructor.
Field experience constitutes the second rail, providing real-life experience for the material learned in the cognitive input phase. Since the use of “programmed instruction” allows the learner to work on their own, the field experience is provided naturally in the course of daily ministry activities. Thus, the concepts learned in the cognitive phase can be directly applied, adding further positive reinforcement.
The final component consists of seminars which are conducted on a regular basis. In some cases, these seminars are conducted weekly. These seminars provide a forum for dealing with any issues the learners may encounter, discussion and networking with other learners, accountability, and testing. Just as fence posts provide stability and unity to the fence, seminars provide accountability and continuity to the TEE program.
TEE was launched with this three component model in Guatemala and operated successfully for a number of years. After utilizing the original TEE format, however, Fred Holland noticed that a component seemed to be missing. Specifically, Holland noted that the three component model, while imparting knowledge, was not necessarily creating strong leaders. Based on this perceived lack, Holland proposed a modification.
While retaining all of the original components detailed in Ward’s “Split Rail Analogy,” Holland added the component of “spiritual formation” as foundational for all the other aspects of TEE. For Holland, the goal of “spiritual formation” (aka. spiritual direction) is defined in the traditional Roman Catholic sense, with a Protestant view of the specific methods. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the goal of “spiritual formation” is as follows:
Still more frequently is spiritual direction [formation] required in the lives of Christians who aim at the attainment of perfection . . . This striving after Christian perfection means the cultivation of certain virtues and watchfulness against faults and spiritual dangers.
While cognitive input and field experience prepare the learner for the human-to-human realm of ministry, it is “spiritual formation” that builds the learner’s relationship with God, keeping them tied to the source of all ministry. As Holland notes:
The foundation that makes service experience, home study, and seminar discussions into acceptable ministry training is spiritual formation, which encourages devotion to God, dedication to service, and growth in personal holiness. It is a planned-for part of the model. It does not simply happen while TEE is done. Spiritual formation is the positive response to all that God is calling us to be.
In the early days, the TEE experiment ran with little notice. However, as the result of a consultation of missionary and church leaders held at the Christian and Missionary Alliance in Armenia, Columbia, leaders from both Bolivia and Columbia became very interested in TEE. In Bolivia, the TEE standard was taken up by Peter Savage and propagated through the George Allan Theological Seminary of the Evangelical Union in Cochabamba, Bolivia. Similarly, TEE was taken up by the United Bible Seminary in Medellin, Columbia. Both of these programs experienced success that quickly became known throughout the world. Since that time, TEE has exploded around the world, including the remainder of Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia. TEE has even made in-roads into the United States and Europe, perennial strongholds for traditional formal education. In Africa alone, the growth of TEE has been staggering. Kinsler notes that a 1983 survey revealed more than 100 separate programs in Africa. By 1995 this had increased to 341 with an estimated 2002 enrollment of over 100,000 learners. Similar growth has occurred across the globe.
Latest Comments