Towards an Urban Seminary对一个城市学院
Written by Mark Van Steenwyk : December 21, 2005写的马克范steenwyk ： 2005年12月21日
I’d like to direct your attention to a series of intriguing posts by the newest addition to my blogroll, Jamie Arpin-Ricci. He’s written several posts on "imagining" an urban seminary (我想直接请你注意了一系列耐人寻味的职位，由最新的除了我的博客链接，杰米阿平-利玛窦，他的书面几个职位对“想象”一个城市学院（ post 1员额1 , ， post 2员额2 , ， post 3后3 ). Now, some of you may say, "there already ARE urban seminaries!" ） 。现在，你们当中有些人可能会说， “目前已经有城市神” ！ Yes indeed. To this, Jamie says:是的，确实。对此，杰米说：
"Throughout North American, many seminaries are either not urban or, if “在整个北美，许多神学院不是没有市区或者，如果
they are in urban locations, function in a bubble.他们是在市区的位置，功能，在一个泡沫。 This isn”t true of这isn “吨真实的
all schools…but it所有学校… …但它
is still a discouraging trend. I also think that more school needs to integrated with the urban poor.仍是一个令人沮丧的趋势。我也认为，学校需要更多的综合与城市贫民。
I know that I mentioned that urban ministry is more than inner city我知道我提到，市区部以上的内城区
ministry, but there is a still a great imbalance in the Church in their部，但有一个仍然是一个很大的不平衡，在教会里，在他们的
emphasis (or lack thereof) on the poor & marginalized."重点（或缺乏）对穷人及边缘化“ 。
Here’s more of what Jamie has to say:这里的更多什么样的杰米已说：
As the world is becoming increasingly作为世界上越来越
urbanized, the locality of the Church, including its missional城市化，地方教会，包括其missional
communities, educational institutions, etc. must intentionally respond社区，教育机构，必须等故意作出回应
by alligning themselves with this new reality, both in emphasis and由alligning自己与这一新的现实，无论是在重视和
physical locality. However, we must understand that this is more than身体的地方，但我们必须明白，这是多
proximity of buildings and ministries, but by necessity is a calling附近的建筑物和部委，而是由必要性是一种感召
for the radical relocation of our lives to urban contexts…为激进的搬迁我们生活的城市背景…
Part of the challenge with having Seminaries which speak to urban contexts is that Seminaries are almost inherently separated from context. If we want to have urban Seminaries that are authentically shaped by their urban contexts, we’ll need the following:部分的挑战，拥有神学院，其中发言的城市背景是神，几乎在本质上脱离的背景下，如果我们希望有市区的神是真实地塑造自己的城市背景下，我们将需要以下条件：
- Seminary education should be longer, and have its internship components woven throughout the seminary experience.神学院的教育应该更长，有其实习组成的梭织整个修道院的经验。
- Seminaries need to resist the impulse to become completely commuter campuses. Living on campus could be utilized to help foster a truly missional education, but only if living on campus meant "living in the neighborhood" rather than "living within the bubble."神需要抵制的冲动，成为完全的通勤校园生活在校园内可利用，以帮助培养一个真正的missional教育，但如果只生活在校园，就是“住在附近的” ，而非“生活泡沫” 。
- Seminaries need to be set free from its captivity to the Academy. I’m saying this as someone who intends to start a PhD in the near future. I realize that intellectual rigor is important, but some of the academic structures work against the ideal of a contextualized urban seminary. Some of these are: having only PhDs as professors, requiring that students be conversant with well-known Western theologians, when their time may be better spent conversing with other global voices, and the emphasis on writing and research rather than on ministry development projects.神需要设定，不受其圈养的，以该学院。我说这是有人谁打算开始博士学位，在不久的将来，我认识到，智力严谨是很重要的，但有些学术结构的工作，对理想1 contextualized城市学院的一些这些国家是：只有博士教授，要求学生熟悉著名的西方神学家，当他们的时间可能会更好地用于对话与其他全球的声音，以及侧重于写作和研究，而非对财政部的发展项目。
- We need to broaden our standards. Too often, we assume that quality ministry leadership requires a formal seminary education. If I were to start the ideal urban seminary, odds are it wouldn’t pass accreditation standards. In other words, someone could go through the ideal urban ministry training, which is filled with hands on experience and rigorous constructive theological training, and not be an "M.Div."我们需要扩大我们的标准。往往，我们假定质量部的领导，需要一个正式的学院教育，如果我开始的理想城市学院，赔率是它不会通过的认证标准。换言之，有人可以通过理想的城市部的培训，这是充满了手中的经验和严谨的建设性的神学训练，而不是一个“自由的学” 。 We need to find alternative ways of evaluating someone’s education…perhaps a tougher application process.我们必须找到其他方法，评价别人的教育…也许更强硬的应用进程。
These are just a few of my thoughts. Anyone want to chime in?这些都只是一些我的想法，任何人要附和呢？
for further reading .为进一步读。 . 。 . 。
- None Found无发现
Thanks for the shout out.感谢为喊出来。 Great blog!伟大的博客！
Peace,和平，
Jamie杰米
I’m usually with people when they talk about reforming theological education.我通常与人民当他们谈论改革的神学教育。 There are so many things wrong with seminary education right now, I think it’s easy to see what needs to be changed.有这么多的事情是错误的，与神学院教育的权利，现在，我觉得这很容易，看看有什么需要改变。
Where most people lose me, and where you just lost me, Mark, is when people attack the idea of accreditation and PhD level professorship.如果大多数人失去了我，而你刚刚失去我，马克，是当人们攻击的想法评审和博士学位一级教授。 There are plenty of people out there who have PhD level educations through self-study or some other method outside academia (real world experience, for example).有很多人在那里谁拥有博士学位，教育水平，通过自学或其他一些方法以外的学术界（现实世界的经验，例如） 。 But it doesn’t matter how well educated or experienced they are if they don’t have credentials to prove it.但也不要紧，如何受过良好教育或经验丰富的他们，如果他们没有凭据来证明这一点。 I could be ready to win the gold medal in the 200 meter dash at the 2008 Olympics, but if I don’t qualify for the Olympics, I won’t run.我可以作好准备，赢得金牌，在200米，在2008年奥运会，但如果我不符合奥运会，我将不会执行。 The system of accreditation is a really terrible one, but you can’t decide to bypass it or ignore it and expect your vision of an urban seminary to pass muster in the realm of ideas.该系统的评审是一个真正可怕的一个，但你不能决定绕道，或忽视它，并期望您的梦想，一个城市学院通过在鼓起的境界的想法。 Now, I’m not against the idea of the seminary itself having different internal measures of success, I just think you have to connect those measures to the accreditation system if you want them to matter outside that seminary.现在，我不反对的想法神学院本身有不同的内部措施的成功，我只是认为你已经连接这些措施，以评审制度，如果你想他们的问题之外修道院。 That is, incidentally, why PhD work matters.这是顺便提一句，为什么博士的工作事宜。 It may be an arbitrary measure on some level, even the level you’re talking about.它可能是一种武断的措施，在一定程度上，甚至水平您谈论。 But in most ways, it is not, because it represents countless more hours of study and work than any other level of education.但在大多数的方法，这是不是，因为它代表了无数更多的时间学习和工作比任何其他的教育水平。
I don’t think we’re as far a part on this matter as you think, Chris.我不认为我们正在尽量的一部分，在这个问题上，作为你认为，克里斯。 I’m not in favor of completely dismissing the accreditation system.我不是在主张完全否定了评审制度。 You and I have talked about having different “tracks” for scholarly students and those who want to focus on ministry.你和我都谈到，有不同的“轨道”的学术学生和那些谁不想把重点放在部。 I’m basically asking for something similar.我基本上要求类似。 If the goal of an organization, or a particular program, is to prepare godly leaders for contextual ministry, I think we need to ask how to do that in the best way possible before we hamstring ourselves with accreditation.如果目标的一个组织，或某个特定程序，是准备正直领导人为内容部，我认为我们要问怎样做，在最好的方式之前，我们自己的腘绳肌与评审。 It may mean that we have some programs that are accredited for continued education, but I suspect we’d end up with some terminal seminary degrees which aren’t useful except for simply training people for ministry.它可能意味着我们有一些节目是认可的继续教育，但我怀疑我们愿意为此与一些终端修院度，这是没有用处，除了简单的培训，为人民部。 I guess I’m asking for more options, rather than a dismantling of our current options.我猜我要求更多的选择，而不是拆除我们目前的选项。 Am I making sense?我决策的意识呢？
I see what you’re saying, I would probably have to see how it worked out in the actual curriculum though.我看你是怎么说的，我也许会看它如何计算出来的实际课程，虽然。 If there were a combination of accredited and non-accredited degrees, then you may risk having basically two seminaries in one organization.如果有相结合的认可和非认可的程度，那么您可能的风险后，基本上有两方面的神学院在一个组织。 I also balk at the idea of having a distinction between “scholarly” students and those focused on “ministry.” In the end, we can’t throw the baby (theological education) out with the bathwater (accreditation), even though the bathwater is extremely filthy and full of various diseases.我也不惜的想法有一个区分“学术”的学生和那些集中于“经济部”在年底，我们不能丢婴儿（神学教育）与bathwater （评审） ，即使bathwater是非常肮脏的，充满了各种疾病。 Wait, it’s got to be your baby…等待，它的获得要您的宝宝…
Yeah, I would have the same concerns.是啊，我也有同样的忧虑。 My thoughts in this post were pretty introductory…trying to get some thoughts flowing.我的想法，在这个职位被漂亮的介绍…试图得到一些想法流。 I’m not a fan of having basically two seminaries.我不是一个范有基本上有两方面的神学院。 And I don’t like the idea of having ministry students fluffing through without dealing with difficult scholarly issues and scholars fluffing through without dealing with difficult matters of praxis.和我不一样的想法后，教育部学生fluffing通过未经处理困难的学术问题和学者fluffing通过未经处理的困难事项的实践。 However, there are some inherent flaws with the system.但是，也有一些先天缺陷与制度。 It is based upon a very fractured, segmented way of learning.它是基于一个非常裂缝，分割的学习方式。 It also helps feed the clergy/laity distinction.它还有助于饲料神职人员/俗人的区别。
And even if one tries to obliterate teh clergy/laity distinction on paper, you’re still left with a huge functional divide between the learned and not-learned.即使一个试图抹杀神职人员/俗人的区别在纸上，您仍然留下了巨大的功能之间的鸿沟的教训，而不是教训。 Even if you have a very egalitarian church model, you’re still left with a form of clericism within the academy and seminary.即使你有一个很平等的教堂模型，您仍然留下某种形式的clericism内部学院和神学院。
I think monastic approaches or intensives approaches hold promise.我认为寺院的方式或办法intensives举行的承诺。 I also think seminary as it is has a role to play, but I’m increasingly uncomfortable with the extractionistic approach seminaries are forced to have (take the student out of a ministry context).我也觉得神，因为这是有一个可以发挥作用，但我越来越不舒服，与extractionistic办法修院被迫有（采取学生走出一个部的背景下） 。 I’m also frustrated that once you train someone for 4 years, they carry so much debt that they are basically forced to become functional clergy.我也感到沮丧，一旦您的列车，有人为4年，他们进行这么多的债务，他们基本上是被迫成为功能性的神职人员。 Those of us who don’t like the idea of being “clergy” might say “well, I’ll just go ahead and get a PhD so that I can teach for my job.” But in the end, this is basically as much a priestly role as clergy.我们这些谁不喜欢的想法正在“神职人员”可能会说： “好吧，我将继续进行并取得博士学位，让我可以教，为我的工作” ，但在年底，这基本上是多1 priestly的作用，作为神职人员。
So, how do we proceed?因此，我们应如何进行？
Thanks for bringing up the topic.感谢带来了话题。 I think it warrants a lot of discussion.我认为这是值得了很多讨论。 I am presently writing my dissertation for a DMin from the Bakke Graduate University in Seattle and just finished writing the following…我目前写我的论文为dmin从对Bakke大学研究生在西雅图和刚刚写完以下…
The “Urban Ministries” Training Challenge– “市区各部委”训练的挑战-
Those of us who are not from the city are the ones who have created the categorical definition of “urban ministry”.我们这些谁不是来自城市的那些谁创造了明确的定义， “市区部” 。 To those who have lived and worked in the city all of their lives it is just “ministry”.那些谁有居住和工作在这个城市的所有他们的生命，这是刚刚“经济部” 。 Similarly, I did not consider the ministry at the little rural church in Ashton, Iowa where I grew up to be a “rural ministry”.同样，我并不认为财政部在小农村教会在阿什顿，爱荷华州我成长的地方，成为一个“农村部” 。 It was simply “ministry”.这只不过是“内政部” 。
Since those of us who are outsiders have created “urban ministry” the ones who most often teach and participate in “urban ministry” studies, tend to be relative outsiders to the urban environment.因为我们这些外人是谁创造了“市区部”那些谁最常见的教导，并参加“城市部”的研究，往往是相对的外人城市环境。 Most of my “urban ministry” training has been taught to me by relative newcomers to the city.我大部分的“市区部”培训已教给我新来的相对城市。 The participants have also been primarily white and of rural or suburban background.与会者也主要是白色和农村或城郊的背景。
In designing BUILD, the Breakthrough Urban Institute of Leadership Development, it seemed to makes sense that those who best know and understand a culture, those who have lived it and who know it from the inside, would be best equipped to teach outsiders about their culture.在设计，建设，突破城市学院的领导发展，它似乎是有道理的，那些谁最适合认识和了解一种文化，这些谁住了它，谁知道它从内，将配备精良，教导外界对他们的文化。 Rather than me, from a farm in Iowa, trying to train suburban or rural transplants to the city, it seemed it would be more productive for all of us to listen to those who know the culture as they in turn are emboldened to describe their experience and share their perspectives in a safe environment.而不是我，从一个农场在爱荷华州，试图列车郊区或农村移植到城市，似乎会更有生产力，为我们所有人听那些谁知道文化，因为他们在又是有恃无恐，来形容他们的经验并分享他们的观点在一个安全的环境。
We decided this type of training could be best accomplished by adopting the Tranformative Learning Approach developed and pioneered by adult learning theorist, Jack Mezirow, author of Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning and Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood: A Guide to Transformative and Emancipatory Learning.我们决定这种类型的培训，能够最好地完成了采用tranformative学习方式的发展和开创的成人学习的理论家，杰克mezirow ，作者的变革层面的成人学习和培养批判性反思在成年指南：变革和解放的学习。 Mezirow?s theory is built upon the philosophy of Paulo Friere who wrote the books, Pedagogy of Hope and Pedagogy of the Oppressed. mezirow ？ S理论是建立在哲学圣保罗friere谁写的书籍，教育学的希望和教育学的被压迫者。
We designed a twelve week course based upon the experience of participating in a diverse group with ample representation of minorities and lifelong city dwellers.我们设计了一个十二周当然，根据经验，参加在一个多样化的小组有充分的代表性少数民族和终身城市居民。 We are not presently accredited, but hope to link up with seminaries near Chicago to provide BUILD as an accredited elective course.我们不是目前认可，但希望连接起来，与神学院附近的芝加哥提供建设作为经认证的选修课程。
Good post.良好的职位。 This topic reminds me of a discussion I had recently with a friend.这个题目使我想起了讨论，最近我曾与一个朋友。 We lamented the close relationship many evangelicals have with power structures in society.我们感到遗憾的密切关系，许多福音派与权力结构，在社会上。
And, related to this, the role of the Church in relating to society (very Yoderian emphasis).和，与此相关的，作用教会在有关社会（ yoderian非常重视） 。 Which makes me wonder if the role of the Seminary shouldn’t be more a function of the Church–and not as a separate entity.令我不知道如果作用修院不应该，更是功能的教会，而不是作为一个单独的实体。 I don’t have a clue how we would go about establishing this, but I wonder if Seminaries (and those who its students minister to) would be better suited if the Church played a more central role in their existence.我手边没有线索，我们如何去建立这一点，但我不知道如果神（和那些谁是学生部长）将是更适合如果教会中发挥更大的作用，中央在他们的存在。