Abstract
As we complete another volume of the Christian Education Journal, I am so grateful that God continues to sustain our work here. I am also sincerely thankful for the scholarly community that had the vision to create this publication nearly a half-century ago, and which continues to provide a home for it.
At the annual gathering of this community this past fall, we approved an organizational name change. We are now the SPCM—Society of Professors in Christian *Ministry (formerly *Education). I’m grateful to the board of directors for their careful consideration and leadership in making this change, which I commend and welcome.
I will not rehearse the rationale of the SPCM board or my own for the wisdom in moving from CE to CM. I will categorically emphasize two important clarifications regarding this name change though: (1) the purpose and mission of the SPCM as an organization and community remains consistent and steadfast; (2) the name of the CEJ will remain the same, signaling that our organization and our journal are, as ever, committed to “Christian education.” Corresponding to these clarifications, in the sections below I share my perspective on the essence and aims of the SPCM as an organization, followed by a survey exercise in defining “Christian education” in the context of our field of study.
An Organization for the Church's Teaching Ministry
Although our name has been amended, the purpose and mission of the SPCM has not changed. Since our earliest meetings beginning in 1951 (we were incorporated in 1971), we have been squarely focused on advancing the study and field of educational ministry. For a historical account of our organization through the early 2000s, see Starr (2005). We have had four name iterations since 1971: National Association of Professors in Christian Education, North American Professors in Christian Education, Society of Professors in Christian Education (beginning in 2011), and now Society of Professors in Christian Ministry. Thus, our new name, although a tweak rather than an overhaul, does represent a shifting away from the nomenclature of “education” for the first time in our organization's history.
While we may be shifting, we are not unhitching. We are not in any way, shape, or form disassociating from Christian education. Moreover, we are not changing course. The new inclusion of “ministry” in our name is not a new emphasis in our calling and vocation. From an historical perspective going back to the Early Church, “Christian education” is characterized as “an effort to encourage people to gain an authentic relationship with God” (Lawson, 2001, p. 17). Our raison d’être is and has always been ministry. This is explicitly confirmed in the subtitle of our journal: Research on Educational Ministry. The emphasis on ministry resounds with the spirit and intent of our academic guild from its inception and charter, to equip and serve Christian academic leaders who are called to equip and serve Christian ministry leaders—particularly those called to the vocational ministry of teaching in church-based (primarily) and church-related (secondarily) contexts.
Indeed, our organization has always been committed to the vocation of discipleship ministry through teaching, hence “Christian education.” Given our emergence out of the National Association of Evangelicals in the mid-twentieth century, the nomenclature of CE made sense. That is, the overarching emphasis on ecclesial and parachurch ministry was assumed and understood, so the organization chose to be explicit in emphasizing the role and function of education. Now, however, the general connotation or association people have with the term “Christian education,” even among academicians, may as likely be formal Christian schooling or higher education as ecclesial teaching ministry. Thus, it is presently necessary for our name to represent our primary vocational calling and aim (the ministry of education) rather than our methodological focus (education as ministry).
Organizational Essence
At the conclusion of my term as President, which coincided with the 50th anniversary of SPCM's incorporation, I presented an address to the annual conference that was later published as, “A Community of Scholars for the Church's Teaching Ministry: A Vision for Flourishing at SPC(M)'s 50th Anniversary” (Trentham, 2022). Under the heading, “Who SPC(M) Is,” I characterized the essence and telos of our organization this way (see pp. 315–316): The redemptive significance of our society has always been and must always be rooted in the vocational calling, ideal, and labor of Christian education as the church's teaching ministry.
Christian education as a vocational calling is predicated on the truth that God is building his church, against whom the gates of hell will not prevail (Matt. 16:18). Christian education as a vocational ideal affirms that God's church is built up in love as God's adopted sons and daughters progress in confessional unity, in discernment and wisdom, and in faithful presence in the world. This is not an abstract or conceptual ideal, but an ethical one—i.e., it is an ideal that motivates us to get to work, and to work faithfully. This ideal carries an incumbent expectation: the ministry of Christian teaching must aim to fuel the church with an eternal hope and vision, “spur on” or “stir up” the church with a missional imagination (Heb. 10:24), and equip the church to embody and testify to the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ as ministers of reconciliation in the world (2 Cor. 5:18). Christian education as a vocational labor is the intentional, tangible means and practice of pursuing and promoting a vision of God's kingdom among God's people: instructing them in the everlasting way (Psa. 139:24) whenever they are gathered, so that they may manifest lives of discipleship wherever they are flung (Phil. 1:27–30). Howard Hendricks (1987) admonition should always be ringing in our ears: “we test the effectiveness of your teaching not by what you do, but by what the student does as a result of what you do” (p. 88). Christian education is facilitating learning unto Christlikeness, so that just as we have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so we may walk in him (Col. 2:6). Henceforth, the reason our little society has any significance and meaning whatsoever, the reason it is worth our time and energy and resources to sustain our gathered community, is that we are the custodians of our discipline; we are the curriculum for Christian education—in the academy, for the church, to the benefit and service of all those who God has entrusted to us to teach and lead, and ultimately in devotion to the glory of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Likewise, we ourselves must model a pedagogy that displays the full message, ethic, and beauty of life in Christ, lived well. Given this sacred stewardship it is good and right, as we celebrate our golden anniversary, to gather around the theme of Teaching for Redemptive Flourishing.
Organizational Ideals
At the end of the article, under the heading, “SPC(M)'s Future,” I proposed “Ten Ideals for a Flourishing Community of Scholars devoted to the Church's Teaching Ministry.” I am presenting these again here as my expression of hope for the faithful endurance of our Society who I love and remain committed to serving.
[Confessional ideal] SPCM must gather around a confessional identity and mission that affirms the authority and sufficiency of scripture, historic Christian orthodoxy as contained in the church's creeds, and Protestant-evangelical doctrinal distinctives. [Contextual ideal] SPCM must articulate and champion a comprehensive and holistic vision for the teaching ministry of the church in the context of late modernity. [Missional ideal] SPCM must assert the uniqueness of Christian teaching ministry as an irreducible mandate and extension of the Great Commission, most normatively rooted in ecclesial contexts. [Institutional ideal] SPCM must articulate curricular standards and excellencies for degree programs in the field of Christian education, in order to serve member institutions and their faculties, building on the work of Lawson and Wilhoit (2014). In addition, we should also explore how we may contribute to the growing trend of non-formal, non-traditional curricula for training ministry leaders, both domestically and internationally. [Diversity ideal] SPCM must enrich the constituency and leadership of the scholarly community by assimilating academicians, ministry leaders, and institutions that reflect the full ethnic, social, and cultural makeup of confessional evangelicalism. [Global ideal] SPCM must develop awarenesses, commitments, and strategies for learning-from and serving-in the dynamic movement of Christian teaching ministry in non-Western and majority-world contexts. The identity of God's church has always been global and will be so eternally (Rev. 7:9). We are not at fault to draw upon the resources and strengths inherent in the traditions of our industrialized Western educational and ministry contexts. But we must take care to avoid Western (particularly American) myopia. We must recognize that we live in an era in which Great Commission ministry and theological education is increasingly most energetic and viable outside rather than within our immediate cultural borders (see González, 2015). [Reciprocity ideal] SPCM must stimulate reciprocal dialogue, development, and debate among scholars and stakeholders within the field of Christian education, through a spirit of gospel charity. [Inter-disciplinary ideal] SPCM must facilitate intellectual and vocational receptivity and engagement among Christian education scholars and professors, from interlocutors and organizations who represent disciplines and communities beyond the field of Christian education. “As long as teachers stay within the safe bounds of their expertise,” says Parker Palmer (1993), “they can maintain the delusion of mastery” (p. 114). Just as we must not exist on a cultural island, so we must not exist on disciplinary island. [Literary ideal] SPCM must prompt the careful consideration of vital topics and issues, both perennial and current, to be engaged by scholarly authors and publishers who contribute to the discipline's forthcoming literature, always aiming essentially to enrich and equip students and ministry leaders. [Generational ideal] SPCM must establish a culture of mentorship and apprenticeship between established and emerging scholars in the field of Christian education.
Our scholarly community is, as it has always been, devoted to the ministry of teaching, to make learners—disciples (mathetai)—who follow Christ. May it always be so, and may we labor faithfully to this end, for as long as God establishes the work of our hands in the SPCM.
On “Christian Education”
Now, what about the term, “Christian Education?”
As I clarified already, the name of the Christian Education Journal: Research on Educational Ministry will remain unchanged. This reiterates my point above regarding the SPCM's continuing purpose and mission. It also reiterates the fact that the SPCM, which owns and publishes the CEJ, is not distancing itself from “Christian education.” Thus, on the one hand, “SPCM” explicitly signals our commitment to the study and vocation of diakonia—“…equipping the saints for the work of ministry” (Eph. 4:12); “…fulfill your ministry” (2 Tim. 4:5). On the other, “CEJ” signals our commitment to the study and vocation of didasko—“teaching all Christ commanded” (Matt. 28:20); “…teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ” (Col. 1:28).
Regarding my position and perspective on the nature of our field and its place as a discipline of academic study, I staked a claim in the (2021) article, “Mere Didaskalia.” There I promote the usage of the term “Christian Teaching Ministry” as most aptly indicating what we mean, in our sub-field of practical theology, when we invoke “Christian education.” The ministry of Christian teaching is an essential component and endeavor of any church that is organized in confessional-doctrinal continuity with the Apostolic congregational vision (Acts 2:42). The NT portrait of a Christian is thus one who is called and commissioned unto discipleship. The essential context of that calling and commissioning is the local church, comprised of fellow adopted brothers and sisters who are bound together by the Spirit of adoption (Rom. 8:15), sharing a common identity as “heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:7), and a common mission of “standing firm . . ., with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel” (Phil. 1:27). Discipleship is “centered in and fueled by our immersion in the body of Christ” (Smith, 2016, p. xi). The local church is the essential place in which disciples are equipped, and the essential place from which they are flung. At the center of the church's endeavor to equip and fling disciples is the church's ministry of teaching. (p. 218)
As I make clear in the article, I am not interested in promoting “Christian Teaching Ministry” as a superior term or alternative to other synonymous nomenclature such as “educational ministry.” Furthermore, I do not desire or intend for it to supplant our references to “CE.” That said, I do stand by “Christian Teaching Ministry” as a precise way of representing, specifying, and clarifying the aim and scope of our discipline within the broader field of practical theology, and the broader-still field of theological studies.
Our discipline—devoted to the study to teaching and learning for Christian formation and discipleship in ecclesial and church-adjacent ministry contexts—is most definitely Christian education. It is the most central, most essential, and most enduring form of Christian education that has or will ever exist. If just one field of study was allowed to lay claim to “CE,” I would argue that it must be ours. To this point, again, we have no plan or intention to edit the title of the CEJ. Still, as central, essential, and enduring as the ecclesial ministry of teaching is, “education that is Christian” does not exclusively occur in the church. (Although, as I have previously asserted with regard to Christian Higher Education, it should ultimately exist and function for the Church [Trentham, 2019, p. 327].) Hence we have clarified the identity of the CEJ with the subtitle, Research on Educational Ministry; and hence I commend “Christian Teaching Ministry” as a helpful descriptor.
In “Mere Didaskalia” (2021), I propose a definition: “Christian teaching ministry is the intentional facilitation of redemptive learning in gathered church contexts, by the means of Scripture and doctrine, unto discipleship” (p. 218). As with my posture on the nomenclature, I don’t assert this definition as an obligatory replacement for all other definitions of “CE” put forth in our field's literature. At the same time, I do think this term and definition reflect something vital about our field's particularity. With that in mind, below is a survey of my background study on some prominent definitions of CE. This study, which I have not previously published, was a significant part of my work in arriving at the definition I proposed.
Surveying Definitions
Definitions are important; particularly so when considering the concept of vocational calling. A definition does not determine something or someone's essence, but it does articulate that essence with words. A definition of a field of study thus articulates the essence of a given discipline. The principles of explicit, hidden, and null curriculum can be applied to definitions. There are explicitly included components of a definition that the definer purposefully emphasizes as most fundamental and decisive. There are hidden components of the definition that the definer leaves to implication and/or to secondary or optional consideration. And there are null components that the definer purposefully omits or does not address. To understand this regarding the nature of definitions and those who offer them is to recognize that definitions are contextually generated, and agenda based. Definitions of a field of study are proposed in the context of a given set of circumstances, and they represent the convictions of the definer with regard to what (should) substantiate and comprise that field's most essential identity, both to those within and outside the field.
In scholarly and academic contexts, a definition of a field of study serves a couple of very important roles. First, to students and interlocutors from outside the discipline, a definition serves a prima facie function by communicating what is most basic and vital to the existence and purpose of a field of study. Second, to those within the discipline, a definition serves a philosophical and navigational function by signaling the central vision around which the field may unite, and the trajectory along which the field may proceed in both research and service. In the case of Christian education (CE), then, a definition serves to represent what CE is, as well as to demarcate CE's distinctive function—both as an academic and ministry endeavor—alongside and in distinction from other disciplines. In other words, a definition packages in one statement what CE is called to be and what it is called to pursue. It articulates the field's vocational-missional distinctive.
Practice-Focused
Most scholarly treatises and discussions that represent the field and ministry of Christian education appeal primarily to the imperative or the ethic of faithful and effective educational ministry as a definitional basis. That is, they define the field and vocation most directly in terms of faithful and effective practices. This is not to say that those discussions are merely pragmatic or utilitarian, lacking theological and philosophical foundations or convictions. It is, nonetheless, an observable tendency that those foundations and convictions are not explicitly articulated and cited as the source of appeal for the identity and essence of educational ministry. This is the case even when discussions include references to theological and philosophical foundations, such as in the most prominent introductory textbooks in the field of CE (see, e.g., Anthony, 2001; Cardoza, 2019; Yount, 2008). To be clear, presuppositional foundations for CE are presented in these volumes, but the definitional framework of CE is almost always predicated on the practice and manifestation of CE rather than its essential identity and character.
Moreover, in many cases, the appeal is to a general theological or philosophical presupposition that founds or supports all forms of Christian ministry (not redemptive teaching in gathered contexts, specifically) or all forms of Christian discipleship (not redemptive learning unto wisdom and discernment, specifically). Examples of this include appealing to the Great Commission as a theological conviction or Christian formation as a philosophical basis. Indeed, educational ministry is a Great Commission ministry, and indeed it aims to engage the phenomenon of Christian formation—but so should any ministry that exists within or proceeds from the church. So, while these general indicatives are not in any way wrongheaded, they do not affirm the particular calling of Christian education in the church. That particular calling is predicated on the development of doctrinal discernment among God's people gathered in local congregations.
Generalized Focus
Definitions that aim to articulate the broadest possible scope for the ministry of Christian education (CE) tend to gain a breadth of vocational relevancy at the risk of forfeiting vocational-missional centrality. This can be seen in definitions that emphasize generalization and comprehensiveness.
In the Evangelical Dictionary of Christian Education, Williams cites and interacts with a handful of prominent definitions of CE, and then summarizes a comprehensive set of dynamics and manifestations: “Bible-based, theologically sound, Holy Spirit-empowered, the elements of teaching/learning/growth/equipping, change, the church, evangelism, and service.” He then adds, “Christian education, then, is more than merely teaching Christians” (Williams, 2001, pp. 133–134). One may safely assume that Williams’ intent is to extend the scope of CE beyond direct, didactic instruction in programmed or controlled settings such as Sunday School. This traditionalist trope is duly challenged by many in the field of CE, including Estep and Maddix in Practicing Christian Eduction (2017): “Christian education doesn’t take place just in a classroom, on Sunday morning, scheduled so as not to interfere with the worship service. This notion … is too restrictive and obstructs the potential for instruction in the church” (p. 12). So, in that sense, yes, CE is not “merely teaching.” But in another sense, teaching is both the content of truth that Christians affirm as the basis of all learning and development (didache) as well as the communicative means by which God's truth is rooted and cultivated in the hearts of God's people such that they mature and persevere as faithful disciples (didasko). It is not merely teaching, but it is mere didaskalia (Trentham, 2021).
In the most recent textbook aimed to represent the full scope of the discipline, Christian Education: A Guide to the Foundations of Ministry, CE is defined this generalized way: “Christian education includes all fields of study and related ministries whose purposes involve equipping in the biblical worldview, helping to make disciples, and facilitating transformation in the lives of believers through teaching-learning (education) and formation” (Cardoza, 2019, p. 2). This definition identifies CE as a collection or association of all the ministry endeavors it may entail or involve. Namely, “it involves those ministries and disciplines whose direct or indirect purposes related to supporting or facilitating the lifelong process of disciple making and life transformation” (p. 2). This is beneficial on its own terms in the context of an introduction to a textbook that is intended to present a comprehensive set of academic topics and sub-disciplines germane to the study of CE.
Still, on the basis of this definition, a discerning reader (particularly one not previously initiated to the field of CE, which is the intended audience of the text) will be stymied regarding the most basic and distinctive character of CE. It is classified as “an area of practical theology” (p. 2), Thus implying there are other such areas that do not constitute CE. But if CE includes all ministries related (directly or indirectly) to the pursuit of “disciple making and life transformation,” what other distinctive areas of ministry may there possibly be? Reviewing the textbook chapters, one may deduce that ministries of counseling, evangelism, and arts are distinct from CE, but surely those ministries relate (directly or indirectly) to disciple making and life transformation. This definition and classification may thus be generally helpful to one who asks, “What is the overarching aim and breadth of CE as a field of study?” It is insufficient, however, for one who asks, “What is the distinctive calling and mission of CE as a ministry vocation?”
Noting this insufficiency does not summarily dismiss or cast aside this or other similiar definitions and classifications that have been put forth. Indeed, CE does entail ministry endeavors devoted to disciple making and life transformation. May it never be otherwise! CE is not any such ministry, however. Furthermore, the identity or essential character of CE must be defined on the basis of something more basic than the existence and function of its component or adjacent parts. This definition thus typifies the field of CE according to its breadth, but does not present CE (as it claims) “in its essence” (p. 2). That essence must appeal to the primary biblical form (i.e., the essence) of CE as a normative, vocational feature of the New Testament church—a locally gathered and constituted body of disciples.
Comprehensive Focus
A standout definition that aims for and achieves comprehensiveness is Pazmiño's (2008) in the third edition of Foundational Issues in Christian Education: “Christian education is the deliberate, systematic, and sustained divine and human effort to share or appropriate the knowledge, values, attitudes, skills, sensitivities, and behaviors that comprise or are consistent with the Christian faith. It fosters the change, renewal, and reformation of persons, groups, and structures by the power of the Holy Spirit to conform to the revealed will of God as expressed in the Scriptures and preeminently in the person of Jesus Christ, as well as any outcomes of that effort.” (p. 91)
I present and unpack this definition in every educational ministry class I teach! It is explicitly theological, precise, and robust regarding the phenomenon of (any) “education that is Christian.” In comparison to the basis of vocational identity and calling put forth in my proposal on “Christian Teaching Ministry,” however, it omits—though not out of neglect or mistake!—three features: (1) an ecclesial basis or rootedness for the ministry of education, (2) a distinction between “education” that may occur on an individual or gathered occasion, and (3) a distinction between Christian education and other ministry domains (such as evangelism, counseling, missional outreach) which may likewise claim to “foster change, renewal, and reformation, of persons, groups, and structures.” Again, let me reiterate that these are distinctions but not necessarily weaknesses of Pazmino's superlative definition in comparison to that of “Christian teaching ministry” that I propose.
Mission Focus
In Teaching the Faith, Forming the Faithful, Parrett and Kang (2009) contribute the most substantive and penetrating volume available from the recent or current generation of scholars in the field of Christian education. Their work provides what the book's subtitle promises: “a biblical vision for education in the church.” Rather than presenting a statement definition, the authors assert that the proper beginning point for rightly conceiving and leading the church's teaching ministry is to consider the question of purpose and mission. Asking “Why does the church of Jesus Christ engage in a ministry of teaching?” prompts a careful consideration of both the rationale and telos of educational ministry, they assert (p. 20). This is a keen insight driven by a deeply biblical conviction. Indeed, if the ultimate redemptive vocation of every Christian and every Christian church is to live in devotion to God and labor for the glory of God, then every facet and function of the church's teaching ministry should be intentionally directed unto that prime endeavor.
Parrett and Kang substantiate this conviction by appealing to the purpose and mission of the church's teaching ministry as an analogue to the purpose and mission of the Incarnation. “The church exists in this time and in this space because of the even now commission to Christ's ministry of reconciliation,” they say (p. 28). The authors then double-down on the already implied assertion that God's anointed instrument for accomplishing his mission in the world is the body of Christ, gathered and united. This is also a vital truth and implication: God's plan is for his Great Commission to be pursued and accomplished through the institution of the church comprised-of individual disciples—rather than in and through individual disciples in isolation-from or in mere association-with the institution of the church. Indeed, the quintessential New Testament passages that focus on Christians’ essential redemptive vocation and mission, such as Ephesians 2:10, are predicated on God's “corporate masterpiece—the one body, the church, as the beautiful creation of God” (p. 31).
Proceeding from these convictions, Parrett and Kang propose seven “basic questions” as prescribing the framework by which the ministry of Christian teaching should be organized in local churches. The first relates to rationale and purpose, and the rest relate to administration and execution: (1) Why do we teach? (2) What do we teach? (3) When do we teach what? (4) Whom are we teaching (and what difference does that make)? (5) How shall we teach? (6) Where shall we teach? and (7) Who are the teachers? (see pp. 12, 128). It should first be noted that the comprehensiveness of this framework, and the book's careful treatment of each question in turn, produces a robust expression of the purpose and work of Christian teaching in the church. It may be noted as an omission, however, that all of these questions pertain to the imperative dimension of educational ministry, while none relate to the indicative. Missing from the list, in explicit terms at least, are the questions of identity and being: What is the ministry of teaching? and According to what inherent attributes is educational ministry distinct and essential? Parrett and Kang's focus is the phenomenon of educational ministry: its functional pursuit and methodological framework. According to the indicative-imperative principle, however, what a person or ministry is called to do must be predicated on what one is called to be. Vocational mission must be predicated on vocational calling.
Thus, while not challenging or contradicting Parrett and Kang's essential convictions pertaining to the purpose and mission of Christian education in the church (indeed while heartily commending them), an additional presuppositional angle is due consideration. In order to comprehensively conceive the biblical ideal for the teaching ministry of the church, it is essential to consider what that ministry is called to be in its essence. Thus, my only significant philosophical amendment to the vision for educational ministry set forth in Teaching the Faith, Forming the Faithful, is this: in order to rightly assert the (epistemological) rationale and (ethical) mission of the church's teaching ministry, it is necessary to affirm its (ontological) essence. Thus, in addition to asking “Why does the ministry of Christian teaching exist and unto what ends does it aim, one must also ask, “What is its unique identity and character in the context of God's redemptive design for the church?”
In defense of this notion, one may simply consider the necessity of taking the same approach to rightly conceiving the person and word of Jesus. One must affirm the reality of Christ's being and uniqueness alongside, and indeed logically prior-to understanding the rationale and mission of Christ's ministry. Now, one may experientially or chronologically comprehend the claim that Jesus's purpose and mission was to accomplish redemption for sinners prior to understanding the full reality of Jesus's identity. One cannot truly confess Jesus as Lord or embark upon a life of following him, however, without first acknowledging the basis of his Lordship. One must believe that “in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (Christ's identity as God), in order to believe, “…and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col. 1:19–20).
This same indicative-imperative progression and combination applies to the Christian life of every believer, as well as to every local church ministry—including the ministry of Christian teaching. In order to rightly affirm what Christian teaching ministry is for in terms of purpose and mission, one must understand what it is in terms of vocational identity and calling. Furthermore, if these two elements are unbalanced, isolated, disconnected, or uncoordinated, the result will eventually result in a lack of vocational integrity and a loss of missional intentionality.
A New Definition
Thus, while standing firmly in community and solidarity with these colleagues, I commend employing the term “Christian teaching ministry,” defined as “the intentional facilitation of redemptive learning in gathered church contexts, by the means of Scripture and doctrine, unto discipleship” (Trentham, 2021, p. 218). This definition broadens the scope of educational ministry beyond its traditionally assumed limits (e.g., small group Bible study), and at the same time delimits educational ministry as an essential feature and function of the local church, with a distinctive vocational calling and mission. To impose more specificity on this definition would likely result in the tendency to fragment the primary vocation of Christian teaching into one or more derivative educational ministries. At the same time, to further broaden this definition would likely result in generalizing the scope of CE to an extent that it is vocationally non-distinct and therefore organizationally (ecclesially) non-essential in its own right. I.e., if CE is (more generally) the ministry of discipleship, it becomes all ministry, whether in the church or any other context; and if CE is (more generally) the ministry of Christian formation and growth in the church, it is non-distinguishable from any ministry in the church (e.g., missional outreach, mentoring, counseling, fellowship, personal biblical spirituality, etc.). (p. 219)
It is difficult to be focused in one's mission if one's calling is ambiguous. Likewise, it is impossible to discern one's core vocational purpose if one's core vocational identity is ambiguous. “Christian education” as a ministry vocation and academic discipline has suffered in recent years from what may be called “identity dispersion.” This is likely the result of a trend toward specialization in vocational sub-categories on the one hand (e.g., “CE = age-graded ministry”) and the trend toward missional overgeneralization on the other (e.g., “CE = facilitating Christian formation”). My proposed definition seeks to identify a centering balance between these two tendencies. It denies neither the validity of specializations within the field (such as children, youth, or adult ministry) nor missional connectivity alongside coordinating Christian educational initiatives or institutions adjacent to the local church (such as higher education, Christian schooling, campus ministry, etc.).
When we define the vocational calling of Christian teaching ministry as being rooted and established in the institution of the local church and taking place in the context of the church gathered, it provides a number of helpful clarifications and distinctions for the ministry and discipline of Christian education. To name a few:
The ministry of teaching unto discipleship in gathered local church settings is the essence of Christian education in the church. While the field of Christian education(al) ministry may well extend beyond this in terms of academic curricula or professional (ministry) applications, it may never extend beyond this in terms of its essential character and identity, or its ultimate telos. In the same way that Smith exhorts Christians to tend to their most basic sense of identity and telos in order to ensure that their “endeavors are indexed toward God and his kingdom,” (Smith, 2016, p. xii), the field of Christian educational ministry must index every one of its endeavors and sub-disciplines to its essential redemptive character and mission: facilitating learning unto Christlikeness in the church. On a general level, defining the setting and occasion of Christian teaching ministry as “the church in gathered contexts” highlights a necessary distinction in comparison with other ministry areas and disciplines that may involve “teaching and learning” in either informal or privatized settings. These include specific settings such as personal one-on-one mentoring, and general settings such as church fellowship gatherings. Specifying that Christian teaching ministry occurs in gathered contexts distinguishes it from the ministry of counseling in the church. Christian or biblical counseling is a ministry of the church, and it does involve teaching and learning. In addition, the ministry and field “biblical counseling” in particular is predicated on the pursuit of discipleship. There is correspondence between Christian teaching and counseling ministries, therefore. The decisive difference between the two is that Christian teaching ministry is predicated on learning in the context of community, in “open” (i.e., rather than private) group settings in the church, for the purpose of building up the body of Christ gathered together. The ministry of counseling, by comparison takes place in settings that are specifically private to individuals, couples, or “closed” groups, for the purpose of addressing a particular need or unique issue. So, whereas Christian teaching ministry is characterized by facilitating learning unto Christlikeness in the church, Christian or biblical counseling ministry may be characterized as “facilitating personal redemption or recovery within the church.”
If the essence of church's teaching ministry hinges on the role and power of biblical doctrine which engages the imaginations of God's people in the church through learning, then the mission of Christian teaching in congregational contexts must be to faithfully leverage and administer biblical doctrine (didaskalia) in order to compel the church to live into its calling “as a royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9).
