Should the Teaching of Pastoral Ministry be Church Based or Seminary Based?
Paper presented at an Icthus Research Centre symposium,
Singapore Bible College, 25 October 2004.
IntroductionThis paper contributes to discussion on the education of candidates for pastoral ministry within the Christian church.
This paper follows the following sequence:
1. Identification of the task being prepared for
2. Discussion of present methods of education for pastoral ministry
3. Proposal for a different approach
In summary, I will argue that theological colleges and seminaries are at their best in the teaching of the content disciples needed for pastoral ministry, including a theology of pastoral ministry, and in teaching the skills and habit of learning through reflection on experience, and that the learning of skills for pastoral ministry is best done through reflection on church–based experience that is both well structured and supervised.
1. Identification of the task being prepared forThere is much literature on the nature of pastoral ministry. Much of it is an idealised description, perhaps starting from Biblical data and then articulating the task through a theological grid. Much of this is fine and useful material, as a statement of the ideals of pastoral ministry.
Another way to approach the task of definition is to look at what pastors actually do. The following paragraphs present the results of such a study.
Activities record – description A pastor in a senior position kept close track of his ministry activities over a one-month period. These activities were logged using a table, which was written up at the end of each day.
Activities were described with a brief factual comment on what was done. Preliminary analysis of the related learning needs was done on the basis of prior learning and in conjunction with discussion with a mentor. As the exercise passed, the analysis became richer.
In order to crosscheck the comprehensiveness of this table, a further and simpler record of activities undertaken was kept for the following three working months. This further record saw repeats of the data captured in the earlier record, along with some further significant leadership activities, such as leading strategic planning, participating in selection of new office bearers.
1. Activities record – preliminary discussion of findings The activities undertaken were placed into the following groupings: Meetings, Administration, People, Staff, Teaching, Services and Leadership.
The percentage of time allocated to each grouping was calculated in order to better reveal actual working patterns and leaning needs. Time allocations, ranked in order from highest to lowest are presented below:
Activity type % of working time (rounded +, -)
Church services: 35.25% Includes all preparation as well as participation.
People: 24.69%
Administration: 12.98%
Meetings: 8.58% Includes staff meetings
Other: 7.76% Eg denominational duties; writing for outside publications, report writing;
Staff: 6.64% Includes individual contact with staff or FE students, as well as staff selection and admin
Classes: 4.09%
Several key learning needs can be identified from this table.
1.
Bible and theology. It is basic to the role that pastors possess significant Biblical and theological knowledge and are skilled in communicating this through activities such as sermons and classes. They also need skills using this knowledge as a resource in many people helping roles. Such knowledge and skills are also relevant to informing church actions on apparently pragmatic matters as buildings and finances. For example, what is ethical with respect to the church’s financial strategies? What theological priorities can inform the church in allocating funds to building needs as compared with other church activities? As a community defined by Christian faith, the church should expect that its key leader is something of a guide in the faith.
2.
Leadership. Leadership is another key learning need. Leadership was not calculated as a separate item on this table, because it is almost impossible to disentangle it from other items. In many of the things pastors do, they exercise leadership directly or lead by modeling. In most of what they do, pastors are being watched by others, either in the process of their work or in its product (for example, sermon preparation) – that is, they are modeling. In most of what they do, pastors influence the behaviours of others and affecting organisational outcomes – that is, they lead.
As an example, consider the roles in church services. Services are accompanied by a bulletin that is given to every member of the congregation. It may have the coming week’s announcements, sermon notes, prayer points and a variety of administrative matters. The pastor may write the announcements, prayer points and sermon notes. Each is a leadership function and affects individual and organisational behaviours: what items are included and excluded? What items are emphasised by different font / size / border treatments? What ‘frame’ is communicated by the way these items are written up?
Again, pastors do the spoken announcements and welcome in services. This is a most important activity as it helps set the mood of the congregation: will it be solemn, formal, warm, relaxed or whatever? What announcements are verbally emphasised and what is the ‘frame’ that is communicated with them?
The single largest time allocation in church services is to the sermon. Given the place of the Bible and preaching in protestant churches, preaching should be a high impact activity. What does the pastor choose to preach on? What frame does he place on the text? What aspect of the text does he choose to focus on in sermon preparation? What applications does he make from the text? What messages does he convey by body language, voice tone, pitch, speed and volume? What does he model about teaching and learning by the style of preaching?
These considerations regarding church services reveal how deeply leadership roles are embedded in the activities of pastors. A similar analysis could be performed for almost any activity recorded in the sample month. They reinforce the critical importance of the pastor’s own learning for leadership.
3.
People The activity record also shows the importance of knowledge of people and skills in working with people. This is obvious in activities such as Meetings, Staff, People and Classes. Of all the types of activities listed above, administration appears to least depend on effective learning about people. This appearance is deceptive. Much administrative work is exercised through office staff or volunteer helpers and effective performance by them depends on establishing and maintaining good working relations with these people. Much of this work involves interfaces and impacts on leaders and members of the congregation. This again involves people skills, for example through anticipation of how administrative functions involving congregational impacts can be made most ‘easy’ for the volunteers who make up the congregation and its leaders. Learning about people is therefore another key learning area.
4.
Organisational matters. A fourth major broad implication of pastoral activities is the extent to which they involve the pastor’s own learning and skills in organisational matters. Churches can be large and complex organisations and almost all pastoral activities are conducted within the web of the organisational matrix.
Pastors at senior levels have even deeper impacts on organisation life and behaviour, through informal sources of influence and power. These come though involvement in choosing key lay office bearers, shaping agendas for meetings, chairing meetings and participating in the many informal but highly influential meetings that characterise church life, especially in Asian cultures.
The extent of this organisational influence is such that pastors need good learning in knowledge of organisational behaviours as well as good skills to shape their own actions.
5.
Community. The Church is more than an organisation. It is a community of people. These people have their fair share of loves, hates, laughs, loathings, difficulties and joys. For many of them, church is a place to ‘be’ as well as a place to ‘do’. This is seen in the way church members will linger around the premises and engage in extensive socialising with one another apart from church activities.
The fostering of healthy community life is a strategic leadership activity for pastors, due to the impact of a positive sense of community on church life, including formal meetings.
In a sense, this community role is the summation of much else about the church. The church is a gathering of people defined by Christian faith and whose community is expressed and shaped by organisational elements. It is a key role for pastors, to shape, maintain and extend the sense of community.
The activities record reported above captures some detailed data on the range and balance of pastoral activities . The above discussion includes a brief analysis of some key features derived from this data. The discussion identifies some key learning needs associated with pastoral roles. These needs can be seen as falling into two distinct groups. One group includes knowledge and skills in the underlying content of the Christian faith. This is Bible and theology learning area. The other group includes organisation, leadership and community skills.
It is now timely to ask how these extensive and varied learning needs are best satisfied.
2. Present sources of learning for pastoral ministryLearning for pastoral ministry typically takes place as pre-service and in-service activities.
Of these, pre-service learning typically receives greater weighting, if measured by formal learning experiences. There are several factors relevant to this. Unlike other professions such as accountancy and medical practice, pastoral ministers are typically not required to do continuing in-service learning as a requirement for maintaining professional registration. Promotion and pay increments do not directly depend on continuing professional education and there is no formal relationship between such education and gaining a more highly regarded appointment.
While opportunities for continuing education abound in many courses and conferences, little financial and time provision is typically made to encourage and facilitate attendance. For example, churches may allow annual study leave to pastors, but do not necessarily provide funds for course fees and travel costs. It would be interesting to do a detailed study on the in-service education done by pastors. To what extent do they rush from one ‘tips and techniques’ conference to another, hoping to pick up the latest ‘magic button’ to a booming church and with little sense of the incoherencies between these techniques and between the techniques and the pastor’s own theology?
Pre-service learning for pastors arguably has major impact on the shape of their professional practice and on the content and style of their continuing learning. Subtle messages about the relative importance of different learning areas are given by the amount of attention given to them in theological college, as measured by teaching hours and their contribution to the credentialing qualification.
Pre-service learning is typically conducted through a three or four year tertiary level programme offered by a recognised theological college and resulting in a publicly certified award. These programmes typically include a mix of three elements. Firstly, courses in the core theological disciplines of Bible and theology, along with supporting disciplines such as church history and philosophy. Secondly, courses in practical ministry, such as preaching counselling, youth work, and worship . Thirdly, mandatory ministry experience with local churches or other Christian agencies through field education (FE). FE typically involves about eight hours weekly field experience during semesters and a fulltime internship lasting for a month or so. This FE also involves observation, participation, reflection and assessment and again involves a local church minister in supervision and assessment.
My own experience of teaching at theological colleges (including being a college Director of Field Education) is that students put far greater emphasis on the more content based subjects and often give light and dismissive attention to practical subjects as taught in the classroom. This may be reinforced if practical subjects are assessed on a less than rigorous basis and results merely recorded as ‘satisfied requirements’. Yet, field education often proves an engrossing experience and draws students to give extra hours of volunteer time. (Note however, Miner’s finding about the lack of preparation for students to gain most from FE ).
I have supervised FE students in both Australia and Singapore and notice that students can become quite enthusiastic about FE, giving extra hours and becoming closely identified with the church where they serve. What it is about FE that attracts this interest? Is it because students come into college motivated by a desire to serve in the local church and FE gives them an opportunity to do just that? Or is it because the nature of the learning experience in FE (observation, participation, reflection) better addresses felt learning needs?
This contrast in student attitudes to classroom courses on ministry practice and to FE is a ‘puzzle’ whose investigation holds promise of interesting findings.
Such is the common pattern of ministers’ pre-service education. This education is often criticised for its failure to prepare students for the actual demands of professional practice. It is worth looking at some of this criticism and some of the alternative models that have been proposed.
Based on his 1980s study of NSW Presbyterian ministers, Fullerton comments:
'
This study has shown that theological education is an important period within which a candidate's theological orientation and expectations of the ministry may be reinforced or modified depending upon the candidate's prior orientation and the emphasis of the theological training institution. Currently, theological education has a heavy emphasis on the imparting of doctrinal and biblical knowledge and little attention is given to training or preparing the candidate to cope with the multitude of pressures and conflicts that he/she is likely to encounter in the parish ministry. During their time in theological college candidates need to be exposed to the vulnerability of the faith, the pressures that they will face, the conflicts that they will experience and the church's position in a secular society. There is a need for a greater emphasis on practical training and the equipping of candidates with personal skills to help them deal with stress and conflict.'
In response to the perceived inadequacies of pre-service training Fullerton calls for more support for in-service learning:
‘
The church needs to provide opportunities for ongoing education, evaluation, reflection, planning, development of existing skills and the gaining of new skills. Such educational opportunities may have to be made mandatory for ministers in order to ensure that those who especially need such assistance do actually receive it’.
Miner echoes similar concerns in her 1990s study of NSW Presbyterian ministers. She focussed on professional stress; finding that all ministers surveyed were vulnerable to stress and two thirds were moderately vulnerable. 45% felt that deficiencies in their theological training caused stress in their early ministry, with the most common complaint concerning a lack of training in practical, interpersonal and counselling skills . Her criticism of existing theological training is sharp when it comes to the adequacy of training to meet the professional expectations created during the very same training:
‘
Two expectations arise: firstly, that exit students will be competent in their use of biblical languages, biblical history and theology, particularly applied in preaching and teaching; and secondly, that they will be able to carry out the tasks of ministry with minimal supervision and assistance. There is also the expectation that the minister will be a generalist but have specific competencies in a range of semi-professional areas. At the level of skills, there is insufficient time to teach beyond the basics in management and counselling, while skills in evangelism, religious education and youth work are not formally addressed. There is no time for theoretical background in developmental psychology, mental health issues or organisational theory, all of which would provide a basis for specific skills. So theological education raises expectations about priorities and skills in ministry but in its present form cannot equip ministers thoroughly to meet these expectations. For these reasons theological education was perceived to be deficient by a majority of ministers and training inadequacies directly contributed to depersonalisation and anxiety.’
Miner reports some pastors who found resources to cope in some non-formal aspects of their course. One spoke of the practical knowledge gained by holding a church pastoral employment simultaneously with doing the formal course and another of having done courses at another college that focused on practical skills .
Like Fullerton, Miner sees part of the remedy in continuing education:
‘
Finally, continuing education will be needed to equip current ministers for greater role specialisation in the future. Courses in people skills (counselling, conflict management), evangelism, youth work, religious education, administration and group processes (from a systems perspective, for example) would be appropriate.’
The Fullerton and Miner studies are both based on the same data set, but at different times and with different methodologies. They are not alone in commenting on the problems of existing pre-service education. Both see a remedy by making some adjustments to pre-service training, but both major on the importance of continuing education. But, must effective learning for pastoral ministry wait for the ad hoc opportunities of such continuing education, by which time bad habits may be irretrievably set?
In the 1960s a group of theological educators in Latin America developed an approach known as Theological Education by Extension (TEE). TEE developed in response to the difficulty of providing a satisfactory seminary-model extraction style programme in developing countries. TEE is designed to facilitate the training of practicing Christian leaders and involves an integrated programme of self-teaching materials delivered to students through the most convenient technology available, learner seminars at a local level for the purposes of enrichment and enlargement of learning (but not for content delivery); and practical ministry tasks. A key distinctive element is the use of the local peer group learner seminars to integrate content learning and practical assignments – these seminars have been compared to the ‘post’ that connects the two rails of a fence .
TEE is very interesting from the interests of the present research. As I have previously written:
‘
TEE also offers the individual learner the value of self-reinforcing learning through the related practical ministry projects … For example, students may be presented with new information in their self-teaching materials and have a related ministry task of teaching that same material to members of a church small group. The ministry relatedness of this assessment task gives it an urgency and importance more likely to reinforce learning than the endless writing of seminary papers for the eyes of professional seminary teachers only! In common with other forms of distance education, TEE has the extra benefit of contributing to the development of self-directing and continuing learners with high levels of skill and motivation. This feeds nicely into the goal which is common to much adult education, namely of producing an independent lifelong learner. It contrasts sharply with the seminary model of closed pre-service training followed by decades of ministry characterised by increasing dullness and diminishing knowledge, punctuated with the occasional in-service seminar to which learners are compelled or persuaded to attend.’
In addition, TEE offers education that is liberating to the learner, with its Freirean combination of a lively process in which reflection and action join in a continuing dynamic in which themes are named, problems identified and action taken to achieve solutions. TEE is, however, vulnerable to criticism at several points, including a possible loss of rigour in learning, lessened professional socialisation and problem of quality assurance for field based learning, given the lack of supervision . However, its strengths have attracted attention as a mainstream method of theological training and not just as a poor cousin for churches and students unable to afford a seminary. Part of these strengths is a challenge to the whole basis of seminary education and development of an approach that is empowering, inclusive, transformative, liberating and, above all, tied to development of good practice .
3. Proposal for a different approachSome common threads are emerging in the above discussion. Pre-service theological education is typically focused on knowledge and skills related to the ‘content’ side of professional practice. It includes a measure of education in practical subjects that occupy a minority part of the curriculum and which may be of low status in gaining the key tertiary qualification needed for professional entry. While constituting a small part of the formal requirements of pre-service education, FE may be highly regarded by students at the time and later found to be of considerable use. Meanwhile, TEE has emerged as a widely adapted form of pre-service education whose several advantages involve integration of theory and practice via integrative learner seminars and reflection.
A recent study on educational methods in the whole church calls for a general shift from what is identified as a predominant schooling model towards a relational model centred on ‘discipling’ . Collinson notes the literature on dissatisfaction with traditional seminary models and responses in the now-common emphases on spiritual formation, supervised field education and Clinical Pastoral Education and a general shift towards more nurturing models of education . She surveys recent studies by Robert Ferris and Robert Banks, both of whom emphasise the practical context of learning and the importance of critical reflection as a tool for learning. Ferris writes: ‘Helping students apply learning in ministry is our first challenge; helping them reflect critically and Biblically on that experience so as to learn from it is our second’ .
Collinson sees Banks as especially strong and clear in his call:
‘ .'
… he also emphasises a life-related, practical ministry approach to all theological learning. Thus he advocates collaborative learning and field based education using Groome’s action-reflection cycle and including observer participation and reflective action. He sees use of Scripture in the reflective process as being essential, because it provides a foundation for the learner’s conversation for life as she or he is involved in daily service of the kingdomIn the remaining part of this paper I focus on the issue of generating good professional learning through reflection on experience and how this could be incorporated into pre-service theological education.
But first, let us be explicit about what this should not involve. People in pastoral ministry need a high level of competence in the core theological disciplines. If anything, a case can be argued for increasing attention to these in pre-service training, as well as encouraging continuing attention to them during in-service learning. Indeed, one unfortunate consequence of the earlier noted shifts to more practical emphasis in theological seminaries is that students are doing less of these key content disciplines. This is noticeably evident in the lack of skills in the Biblical languages among theological graduates – a lack that is a source of profound concern with respect to their (in)ability to satisfactorily perform a core professional task of the pastor, namely to interpret and teach the Bible well . I believe that more time needs to be given to the core content disciplines in the theological curriculum and that this is achieved, not by adding to classroom hours, but by re-shaping the learning programme. I argue that much (but not all) learning for practical skills should be removed from the classroom and located in churches. However, this is more than a matter of pushing theological students out to spend more time in FE appointments and hoping for the best .
Specifically, I argue that seminaries and theological colleges should focus on: (a) teaching the core content subjects needed for ministry; (b) teaching a good theology of ministry; (c) teaching skills of learning through reflection on practice; (d) organising and supervising church-based field experience opportunities where students can gain practical experience and learn for pastoral ministry through reflection experience.
I have just commented on the need for more emphasis on teaching the core content subjects. What of a theology of ministry?
Many seminaries list ‘Pastoral Theology’ as a subject in the curriculum. However, this is often a misleading title. Inspection of the college handbook reveals that these courses would be better entitled ‘Ministry Practice’, for they are typically courses on preaching, counselling, ministry to different ages groups and such like. Some of these courses doubtless include some theological reflection, but the focus is often very practical - a kind of ‘tips and techniques’ approach. Is there a coherent, consistent and comprehensive pastoral theology? Often, the answer is ‘no’, for courses on ministry practice are not the same as a theology of pastoral practice.
A good pastoral theology will arise from the core theological disciplines and may be best taught by those qualified in these disciplines. It supplies a conceptual framework for practice. It will enable students to choose, design and evaluate different specifics of practice and should help keep pastors from the rank pragmatism that is often identified as characteristic of the evangelical church . In short a pastoral theology will help keep practice from being blind. In turn, good pastoral practice will help keep theology from being empty. It is through a genuine pastoral theology that the Scriptures remain central to ministry practice.
What of learning for practice through reflection on practice? What constitutes good learning from practice and how can it be justified as a replacement for classroom lectures in pastoral practice?
It is a long-held belief that knowledge is generated in academic institutions and that the role of professional practice is to develop skill in the application of that knowledge. In recent decades there has been recognition that real knowledge can be developed from practice. If so, this has profound implications for both professional practice and for education for professional practice.
For example, some epistemologists speak of the emergence of new modes of knowledge production in response to the greatly increased demands for specialized knowledge in western societies after World War II. These new modes are applied, transdisciplinary, heterogeneous, heterarchical, socially accountable and reflective, wider and more temporary . They are outside of traditional institutions and mechanisms for the generation of knowledge.
The generation of knowledge through reflection on practice is prominent among these new epistemologies. Donald Schon traces the rise of what he calls ‘technical rationality’ (TR) in which an underlying theoretical discipline gave rise to applied sciences and then to development of the skills and knowledge needed for professional practice . In practice, he argues, TR simply fails to deliver the kind of knowledge needed for the world of actual practice in professions as varied as medicine and the social sciences. This is a world of uncertainties, instability, uniqueness and fast changing realities. The unchanging and universal nature of TR knowledge is largely inadequate as a guide to practice . Meanwhile, there is a vast body of knowledge developed by professionals as they ‘think on their feet’ – much of it is spontaneous, unaware and not readily describable . But it does ‘work’ and it is what, in fact, guides much practice. What is needed, according to Schon, is exploration, analysis and development of reflection on practice as a rigorous source of knowledge, so as to avoid the present dilemma of choosing between irrelevant TR based knowledge and non-rigorous knowledge derived from practice .
Schon and others have given considerable attention to the generation of knowledge through reflection on practice, such that it is systematic, open to scrutiny and justifiable as a new form of ‘science. This extended development of knowledge through reflection on practice has grown into ‘action science’ Action science has a well-developed set of approaches for helping practitioners ‘map’ out a problem situation by examining contexts, action modes and frames and how these impact on the way participants ‘see’ a situation and how this works out in cycles of actions and reactions of participants. By exposing these ‘frames’ and dynamics, reflective practitioners are enabled to better understand their own behaviour and that of others and then to effect changes based on re-acting, re-framing or re-designing as is appropriate.
However, this reflective learning is more than the common practice of professional journaling and reflection ‘after’ practice. Good reflection after practice is a valuable tool for professional learning. As a further stage, practitioners might also move to reflection ‘before’ practice. That is, to the anticipation of a coming challenging situation in which advance reflection enables the exchange to be better designed and managed. In its highest forms, reflective learning involves high level skills of ‘reflecting in action’ where the practitioner is self-aware of the multiple elements and unfolding dynamic of a situation and able to use this awareness to change his / her actions towards better quality practice.
How are people to learn this reflective knowledge and the associated skills? At present, learning from experience may often be hit and miss, especially in Christian ministry. For example, a group of pastors may be talking about their experiences and taking mental notes of these ‘lessons for life’. There may be real wisdom here, but is it tested and justifiable? Or again, a theological student may blunder his way to failure in an FE assignment, but be skillfully unaware of what caused the blunders. Instead of examining the episode in a way designed to learn from it, he may be scolded, or scold himself, and resolve never to go near that area of ministry again.
What I am suggesting here is that much good learning in the knowledge and skills needed for the actual world of pastoral ministry (as outlined in Part 1) is available from reflective learning on actual practice in the working life of the church. Such learning from reflection also echoes some of the themes raised in my earlier discussion about FE and TEE. To gain maximum benefit from this kind of learning, pastoral students need at least two things.
First, they need a lot more time in pastoral practice than at present and this needs to include well-rounded exposure to the full range of pastoral experiences. Can this be achieved making the academic year more compact through better timetabling and the earlier suggested redesign of the theological curriculum? Or, can better use be made of the time served after theological college graduation and before ordination by treating it as a rigorous professional internship on the medical school model?
Second, students need to be taught how to learn through reflection on practice . This could be a key role for a theological college and could be a worthy replacement for some or most of the courses in ministry techniques that presently clutter many a curriculum. What is attractive about this is that students are being given a powerful tool for their own life-long learning. Pastoral ministry is a changing field of practice and no two ministries are alike at a given moment. No amount of pre-service teaching in set-piece pastoral approaches can adequately prepare students for the unique, complex, messy realities of their ministries where the unique, complex, messy reality of who they are intersects with the unique, complex messy reality of the ministry where they serve and the people who they are privileged to serve. However, if pastoral students have learned ‘how to learn’ through reflection on experience in theological college, and if this has been inculcated as a learning habit, they are well equipped for better practice and better learning.
I do not suggest an uncritical borrowing of the approach to professional knowledge suggested by Aygyris, Schon and others in their field. In particular, the utmost care is needed to develop a good pastoral theology and use it as the conceptual framework to guide both ministry practice and to ‘discern’ the knowledge gained through reflection on experience. However, I do suggest that much pastoral practice would gain if seminaries and churches combined to teach and develop good skills of reflective learning. This should result in a good principled pragmatism. ‘Principled’, in that pastoral practice is guided by good theology and the core theological disciplines. ‘Pragmatism’ in that practice is adjusted to the working realities of ministry.
ConclusionThe title of this paper is ‘should the teaching of pastoral ministry be church based or seminary based?’. My answer is, not surprisingly, ‘both’.
The seminary has an indispensable role in helping students grow in their knowledge of the Christian faith, in providing a conceptual framework within which the practice of ministry is exercised and in developing the skills of reflective learning. For their part, churches can provide the venue where students learn and grow in ministry skills as they apply skills of reflective learning to the actual ministry practice that they engage in.
David Burke
BibliographyArgyris, C; Putnam, R; Smith, DM (1985). Action Science. (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).
Burke, D, (1997). Theological Education by Extension – More Than Education At a Distance. Unpublished paper.
Collinson, SW (2004). Making Disciples – the Significance of Jesus’ Educational Methods for Today’s Church. (Paternoster, Carlisle).
Davies, JA (1993). Language and The Theological Curriculum. Reformed Theological Review, Vol 52,1, pp1-11.
Ferris, RW (1993). Towards a Theology of Training Methods. Unpublished Paper presented at 15th Biennial Conference of South Pacific Association of Bible Colleges.
Fullerton, G (1989). Theological Orientations, Ministerial Roles and Role Conflicts – A Study of Presbyterian Ministers in NSW. Unpublished report on research presented as a Doctor of Ministry dissertation, San Francisco Theological Seminary.
Gibbons, M; Limoges, C; Nowotny, H; Schwartzman, S; Scott, P; Trow, M (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. (SAGE, London).
Jenson P (1996). Maturing the Mind: Intellectual Attainment and Theological Education. Reformed Theological Review, Vol 55,1, 109-120.
Miner, M (1996). Discussion Paper On Theological Education. Unpublished report based on a UWS PhD thesis, The Human Cost of Presbyterian Identity; Secularisation, Stress and Psychological Outcomes for Presbyterian Ministers in NSW.
Noll, M (1994). The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids).
Schon, D (1983). The Reflective Practitioner – How Professionals Think in Action. (Basic Books, USA)
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).
Wells, D F (1993), No Place For Truth (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids).
