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 (post 1, post 2, post 3).  Now, some of you may say, "there already ARE urban seminaries!" Yes indeed.  To this, Jamie says:

"Throughout North American, many seminaries are either not urban or, if
they are in urban locations, function in a bubble. This isn”t true of
all schools…but it
is still a discouraging trend.  I also think that more school needs to integrated with the urban poor.
I know that I mentioned that urban ministry is more than inner city
ministry, but there is a still a great imbalance in the Church in their
emphasis (or lack thereof) on the poor & marginalized."

Here’s more of what Jamie has to say:

As the world is becoming increasingly
urbanized, the locality of the Church, including its missional
communities, educational institutions, etc. must intentionally respond
by alligning themselves with this new reality, both in emphasis and
physical locality.  However, we must understand that this is more than
proximity of buildings and ministries, but by necessity is a calling
for the radical relocation of our lives to urban contexts…

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:

1. Seminary education should be longer, and have its internship components woven throughout the seminary experience. 
2. 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."
3. 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.
4. 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." We need to find alternative ways of evaluating someone’s education…perhaps a tougher application process.

These are just a few of my thoughts.  Anyone want to chime in?

About Mark Van Steenwyk

Mark Van Steenwyk is a member of Missio Dei. He is a speaker, writer, educator, and grassroots organizer. With the support of the Central Plains Mennonite Conference, he travels to radical and intentional communities around the country to help network and offer support.