Ted Smith talks about the Past, Present, and End(?) of Theological Education

>> Paul: Welcome to the Future Christian podcast, your source for insights and ideas on how to lead your church into the 21st century. At the Future Christian podcast, we talk to pastors, authors and other faith leaders for helpful advice and practical wisdom to help you and your community of faith walk boldly into the future. Now here's your host, Lauren Richmond, Junior. >> Loren: Welcome to the Future Christian Podcast. Today we're welcoming the Reverend Doctor Ted Smith.

Ted is Charles Howard Candler professor of divinity and associate dean. A faculty at Emory University's Candler School of Theology. He holds degrees from Duke University, Oxford University, Princeton Theological Seminary, and Emory University. He is the author of three books, the New Measures. We're John Brown and most recently, the End of Theological Education, which reviewers have hailed as a generational landmark and reflection on theological

education. He has edited books on sexuality and ordination, contemporary issues in preaching and economic inequality. Smith also serves as director of theological education between the Times and the editor of the series of books that have grown out of that project. Ordained to ministry in the Presbyterian Church, USA, Smith served as pastor of two congregations in upstate New York prior to beginning his doctoral studies. Let's welcome Ted to the show.

Welcome to the Future Christian podcast. This is Loren Richmond, junior, and today I am, uh, pleased to be joined by the Reverend doctor Ted Smith. So thank you for being here and welcome to the show. >> Ted Smith: Thanks so much. It's a treat to be here. >> Loren: Great. Looking forward to having this conversation. Uh, what else would you like to share with our listeners about yourself? >> Ted Smith: Well, uh, not in my bio.

I, uh, don't think any, ah, bio that you might use are my family connections, and those are really important for this book. Um, this book is dedicated to my parents, who are very, uh, deep in the world of voluntary associations. They manifest, my mother manifested. She's passed. Now, my father continues to many of the highest virtues of that world. Um, and that was certainly what they raised me to do. And it's also written with my

sons very much in mind. They're 17 and 15, and I am passionate about thinking about what a church that is life giving for them is going to look like. And so it's very much a book about how do I hand down or hand on the real living heart of what my parents gave to me, uh, to that next generation. >> Loren: Yeah. Teasing a little bit of the content there, aren't you? >> Ted Smith: Not on purpose. I'm just telling you where the book came from. >> Loren: No, it's good.

>> Ted Smith: I think some of the passion, uh, behind it, I think, is because of those personal ties. >> Loren: Yeah, I'm sure share, if you would, kind of, about your faith story, your faith journey, what that looked like in the past and what that looked like today. >> Ted Smith: Sure. Well, as I said, I was absolutely. I'm a child of the church through and through. My family have been Presbyterians since before we can

remember. We don't know of a generation that wasn't and especially involved, uh, in a single congregation in my hometown of Springfield, Missouri. So my grandparents, my great grandparents, my parents all had helped to lead that church as passionate lay leaders. And so I think growing up, what being Christian meant to me was sustaining that institutional church. It meant being

a good person, high moral standards. It meant giving to the community, and then it meant serving and sustaining that church in every way that you could. Um, and I think that was the faith I was raised with. There wasn't a lot of emphasis on, um. Uh, what we might. That was the spirituality, I would say. Right. Uh, was that institutional sustenance. And I think, uh, I still value institutions very

highly. I think the book reflects that. But I think in the course of my faith journey, I would now describe the center of my faith is that in Jesus Christ, God has made a decisive, um, move for the redemption of the world. And that that move is unfolding in history, and that our work is to respond faithfully to that work and join it, uh, from the moment in history in which we find ourselves. And, um, that's both more and less than the sustenance of institutions.

>> Loren: Yeah. Yeah. What, uh, are some spiritual practices that you find meaningful in your life that you're willing to share? >> Ted Smith: Sure. Um, you know, I think my first vocation is really as a preacher. Um, I think that's literal in the temporal sense, and it's probably also, um. It works metaphorically as a kind of. It is the vocation that has priority over others and

defines others. So the simple act of preparing for preaching is, uh, for me, and then delivering the sermon, that is a deep spiritual practice for me. It is a source of joy, it is a source of life, communion, uh, with God. Um, so I'm very always happy when I'm able to do that. Um, I think related to that are disciplines of lectio divina, uh, which I pair with exegesis in sermon preparation, and then, uh, centering prayer. So those are kind of

bedrock for me. I'm an ecumenical oblate of a benedictine monastery in upstate New York, and I think that's where especially the lectio and the, uh, centering prayer kind of took shape for me. >> Loren: Yeah. Yeah. Well, thanks for. Thanks for sharing that. So, uh, Ted is on the show here to talk about his book, the end of

theological education. And there's no subtitle here. I'm just noticing he's there. It's, uh, just short and sweet. Most books have a long subtitle. So the end of theological education here. And, uh, I read the book, I think, a couple months ago now, but I've been looking forward to having this conversation, uh, with Ted for a while. So we're going to kind of jump in.

Hopefully there's a lot here in the book. So, um, I think let's start by talking about like, the background of formal education and churches in the United States. >> Ted Smith: Yeah, the formal theological education in the US. Yeah. The book has a strong historical slant and I think that's because to understand the present moment, we have to understand how we got

to where we are. Um, and so the book begins with what I call, uh, borrowing language from, um, the social order in Connecticut, the standing orders. And the standing orders were what Europeans, uh, brought to the United States in their imagination. And it was shaped by the kind of. By the treaty of Westphalia and the way that, uh, the religious violence in Europe was resolved, which was to say that each political unit will have one established religious body,

one established church. So nobody was really able to do that in North America, but that is what they brought with them in their imaginations. It's what the puritans. The puritans were dissenters in England, right. But they wanted to establish a, uh, purified church in North America. So too, the anglican settlers of Virginia, um, they brought this kind of standing order imagination. And in the standing order there's really. This was true in Europe, and it was true in the earliest university, uh,

colleges in the United States. Um, Harvard, Yale and William and Mary. Uh, down in Virginia, uh, there really is no distinction between the regular curriculum and theological education. The regular curriculum for all undergrads is thoroughly theological because the standing order itself is theological. So to take your place in it, whether as governor or as a teacher in the college or as a pastor or as a lawyer, whatever, to take your place in that standing order is to be theologically

educated. So there wasn't really, um, a stark separation. Pastors then would just get a little kind of postgraduate apprenticeship with somebody, um, who knew the kind of craft of pastoring. But the theological education was part of

everybody's undergraduate. Well, uh, in the early national period, uh, with the founding of the nation and with the revivals that were very much a part of this story, you just couldn't sustain that vision of a unified standing order anymore, um, certainly not on a national

scale. So you get a separation between church and state politically, and then that's mirrored educationally with the founding of a new kind of institution, which is the seminary, uh, Andover theological Seminary, founded in 1807. Uh, they were breaking, uh, they were critical of Harvard, but they didn't found a new Harvard. They founded a new place that was dedicated entirely to the training of ministers. Now, that became the norm in the United

States over the next 200 years. But it's worth remembering that it's actually a fairly new kind of thing, right. That it wasn't the norm, uh, before. It's not how any of the, ah, Puritans or early anglican pastors were trained here. Um, and it's certainly not the norm through the millennia and across the continents, but that's the form that really took shape and became dominant in the United States.

>> Loren: Yeah. So you talk about in the book this move from that standing order to what you call, or perhaps others call, but you use the term too in the book, voluntary associations. Uh, so share about that kind of, that transition from the standing order, as you call it, to the voluntary associations. >> Ted Smith: Yeah, it's from the established

church, uh, to a model that is very familiar to those of us who are connected to churches today. Model in which you have multiple denominations that are together under maybe in a more or less contentious way, but together under a canopy that is defined largely by the nation. By the nation, uh, the nation state. They exist together under that canopy. So how did that come to

be? It's always, uh, worth remembering, I think, that when the standing orders had kind of run their course, when they no longer fit the imagination of people, church membership in the United States was very low church adherence. Um, so at the time of the revolution, by one good estimate, it's about 17% of Americans are affiliated formally with a congregation. Now, that number needs nuancing because the standards for formal affiliation were sometimes very

high. There might have been a wider penumbra, but still, um, the church was badly out of sync with the national imagination in 1776, and the numbers reflected it. What the revivals did, they were, um, the revivals of the first of the second great awakening, especially those early national revivals. They were a revolution in worship style, for sure, that fit with these new democratic times. They were also a revolution in

institutional style. So you moved from an established church to, um, churches that were these voluntary associations where people of like mind got together. They might have called their pastor, right? They had that kind of power, rather than a bishop appointing them. Uh, and then they funded themselves not through taxes, because the taxation, funding by taxation went away in the first three decades of the 19th century. They funded themselves

through donations. So you've got a really new kind of organization that emerges in those first decades of the 19th century. Um, and that's the congregation as voluntary association. And you know, this was shocking to outside observers. When Alexis de Tocqueville comes to the United States, you know, he's a french aristocrat. His imagination is shaped entirely by the

old westphalian standing orders. And so he's like, well, if they don't have that, it's just going to be chaos here and it's going to be, uh, atheism, because how would you have a church if it's not established? So he comes here, though, and he sees this incredible, uh, religious vitality, for one thing. And he also sees, um, not chaos, but people organizing themselves into these voluntary associations with all this dynamism and energy. That's, uh, just surprising to

him. And then he gives us a brilliant chronicle of that. But it's worth remembering how new that was and what a kind of revelation it was, uh, at that moment in. >> Loren: History, I'm thinking, as you were talking, assuming about, I have my history correct. The denomination I'm ordained in, the christian church, disciples of Christ, is really a, uh, product, right, of this process. >> Ted Smith: Absolutely right, yeah,

yeah. Cane Ridge and the whole restoration as tradition was really one of the, I mean, the revival at Cane Ridge was one of the most powerful, uh, and influential revivals that kind of rolled out of that early national period. Um, but yeah, a lot of the disciples, the, uh, church of Christ, um, emphasis, you see it in the kind of the very democratic notion of pastoral leadership, um, the democratic sense that anyone can celebrate the Eucharist, right. That we're going to share that

around. It was there in the preaching style, it's there in the polity, it's even there in the ecumenism m because there's an ambivalence about being a denomination. We don't want to be a denomination, we're just a church. Uh, but there's still that sense that all of, uh, all christians are actually connected, but they're not connected in that restorationist mind as a state church. >> Loren: Mhm. >> Ted Smith: They would be connected as like one mega denomination, that kind

of thing. So, yeah, you're exactly right. This is your DNA. And it's kind of mine too, because my presbyterian, uh, roots are in the Cumberland Presbyterian, which is like kissing cousins to disciples. >> Loren: Yeah, I was at. I was fortunate to be at Cane Ridge last summer as, uh, part of when the disciples had their general assembly in Louisville and they took a trip out there. And to me that's. I mean, to me that's just. It's holy ground. And I don't say that as like someone who's

like, committed in the wool to disciples. I say that as, you know, a place where something supernatural, if I can use that word, like, took place. Um, but, yeah, for sure. Interesting. Like, how much coral there is there. I, uh, was just like, thinking, like, do I need to look back at my, um. What's the book? Stone Campbell encyclopedia. Make sure I have the dates right before I ask that question. >> Ted Smith: But you've got it. >> Loren: Yeah. So, uh, you know, in

the context. So maybe we'll talk here, at least through the. My reference point of like, the christian church, disciples of Christ. When did this, uh, because again, thinking back even to disciples history, like, uh, even broader speaking, like, I've worked in the Methodist church, and there was certainly, like, uh, the writing preacher. What's the word? You know, circuit writing. Yeah, the circuit writing preacher. There wasn't like the professional, like, full

time pastor as we think of today. When did that model really begin to take shape? >> Ted Smith: Yeah, that's a great question. Um, that model of the kind of settled, professional pastor had a very uneasy relationship with the revivals. Right. Um, because the revivals were often challenging the credibility and the authority of exactly those kinds of pastors.

Um, and often the people who were doing that challenging were people were women and children and enslaved people, uh, or formerly enslaved black, uh, citizens for whom ordination was not always going to be an easy path. Right. It was really an upsetting of the, of the kind of. That kind of hierarchy. And you're. You're exactly right to say that the circuit writing Methodists and the kind of. There's a kind of, there's a kind of charism that was attached to the circuit riders that

was not easily domesticated. And, you know, Methodists, uh, retain a sense of itinerancy and their elders that is supposed to echo that and carry that charism forward. Um, and I think it's more or less practiced. Um, but it's a reflection of that ongoing uneasiness. It really happened, though, for these traditions that we're talking about, the more revival oriented traditions. It happened across the early decades, um, um, of the 19th

century. Um, a key figure in that is Charles grandison Finney, the great revivalist. Um, my first book, the new measures, is on him. And, you know, he was trained as a lawyer. And in many ways, what Finney did was to take that ecstatic revival energy and channel it into, um, more respectable forms. So nobody was, you know, taking off their clothes and running around in the Holy Ghost power at a Finney revival. That

wasn't going to happen. But there was still that new kind of energy that then was, um, grafted into, uh, the mores of an emerging professional class. So that's happening especially across the 1820s and 1830s in the south with Methodists. A similar process is happening. Uh, Christine Lee Harriman has a beautiful book on this southern cross that kind of shows the gradual assimilation of Methodist, uh, pastors into these more settled and, uh, quasi professional

roles. You see the real professionalization of ministry, though, across the 19th century. Uh, and then it really is taking hold in the 20th century, and I mean professional here in a very kind of strict social science kind of sense, like from Max Weber. Um, and the professional is neither labor nor capital. The professional is part of a guild that, uh, has a certain amount of autonomy, that kind of thing. And then the professional has a special education

just for them. And so the, um, professionalization of ministry happens across the 19th and then the 20th century. And it's important, uh, that really ministers were in some ways the first professionals in the US. You have theological schools before you have medical schools before you have law schools proper. Right. Um, so the education differentiates sooner, and the ministry kind of emerges as a professional

class sooner. Uh, um, but then medicine and law join it, and then other professions as well. >> Loren: So like these other more established denominations, like, I'm thinking, like the congregationalists, Presbyterians, would they have already had this kind of professionalization or, uh, to have been more informal? >> Ted Smith: That's a great question. Uh, they were warmer to the more settled ministry patterns to one

pastor in a place. Um, and it's one reason they didn't grow in the same way that Baptists and Methodists just took off, disciples as well took off in those early national period. Um, and the Presbyterians and congregationalists, who had more numbers at the turn of the century, they had more numbers, but they didn't grow because they didn't hitch, uh, themselves to the revivals. And part of that was because of their commitment to that settled

ministry. So they already had the people who were in place, uh, with authority over a congregation. That ministry professionalized, though over the course of the 19th century, they weren't fully professionals in the early decades of the 19th century, they were more like it was still kind of a holdover of the old standing order. They were more like a local squire. >> Loren: Hm. >> Ted Smith: Or something. Right. A kind of echo of an old, almost feudal kind of order.

Uh, but then it becomes professional later on. And one way you can see that is ministers didn't used to move around a lot. >> Loren: M. Um. >> Ted Smith: And so if you were in a place, you were of that place. But a key feature of professionalism is that you get a credential. You've got an m div paper and you can, you've got an MD, you've got a JD and you've passed your boards and you can take that credential and move around with it. Right?

>> Loren: Yeah. >> Ted Smith: And you don't move, uh, you know, in the real professional model, at the, at the way the bishop moves you, you choose when you move. And so then you get the kind of. You get a, you get a career path that's appropriate to professionals. Like, you start with a small church, you go to a bigger one. You go to a bigger one, and then you retire. And, uh, you have. And retirement is possible. You don't have to work till you die. Right.

Because that's that movement into a professional class. And there's a pension plan. What, you know, the denomination has a pension plan. Yeah. >> Loren: It is interesting thinking about that model of the more of the denominations or groups that really had to use the term hustle they experience, the more growth. And we kind of see that maybe

this will play into our conversation more. Like. I think we really still see that today in many ways, like the clergy that still have to, quote unquote hustle to use the term, like those churches tend to be. Not, uh, always, of course, but it seems like there's a correlation there with more church growth and vitality. So it's an interesting dynamic there. Um, I feel like we're staying in this professionalization conversation for a while. Hopefully that's okay here.

So we've kind of built the background. So let's talk now about the challenges, uh, of this professionalization model. >> Ted Smith: Yeah, um, I think there's two challenges or problems or sites of ambivalence, however you want to frame it. One of them, uh, has to do with social class and what happens with the professionalization of ministry, especially in the denominations where it happens the

most. Right. Where they really, really do kind of enter that professional class is that you get an alienation of church leadership from poor people and even from working people. And sometimes, I think, ministers, even when we were fully professionalized, the salary often. Wasn't there a, uh, profession is not just about income, it's about social class.

And when you have a ministry that is part of the professional class, well, then, uh, it just creates relational obstacles, um, in connecting with working and poorer people. And I think that's one reason why you see, um, the denominations that most professionalized their ministry really ceased connecting to working class and poor people in America. And to me, uh, I mean, my denomination did that.

That is what we did. Um, and I think it's a scandal of the gospel, um, and it's not just because to me, what Jesus is doing is not just, um, doing good things for poor people from a position of relative privilege, which is the core of the professional ethos. Right. But no, what Jesus is doing is a deep form of solidarity, uh, with the poorest people around him. And, uh, the professionalization of ministry blocks that in a deep way. So that's r1 crisis,

I think, that it creates. And I think a second one, um, is a more subtle theological problem, because the professional. Deep in the professional ethos, especially a professional ministry ethos, is that you want to make the world a better place. >> Loren: Mhm. >> Ted Smith: That's not a bad thing. Um, it does happen from a position of power. I'm going to use my social

power to make the world a better place. I mean, that's what I was raised to do, use your power to make the world a better place. But I think the problem with that theologically, is that it often uses theology and all the stuff of church life, the church, the sacraments, preaching, all of that becomes instrumental to the transformation of society. So, um, our talk about God, we want to talk about God in a way that's going to

bring about the kind of changes that we want to see. That's an instrumentalization of theology. But the thing is, uh, that gets the relationship exactly wrong. Right. Um, God is not a tool in our hands to do what we want to do. Um, and instrumentalizing theology, instrumentalizing the sacraments, worship, all of this stuff, um, it brings a deep distortion into it, and I think the professional model

invites that. So, uh, those are two crises that I think were kind of baked into the model, and I think you see all kinds of reactions to them. Another one, I mean, that goes right along with the class piece, is just the way in which professionalism is tied to a politics of respectability. And I, um, think a younger generation, especially of black scholars and activists, have really clarified the limits and, uh, just the deep problems with the politics of respectability.

>> Loren: We may not get past this professionalism part because there's so much here, like, as you're talking about, like, the alienation, I'm thinking, like, again, as someone who has standing in my denomination, like, I have to take boundaries classes. And I was thinking about, like, and this is, this leads into

another question I was going to ask you. Like, like, how much of this is, how much of these kind of like, uh, professionalism models are really tied into like, what we'd call mainline institutions versus like, uh, more evangelical traditions, like Baptists or even now, you know, non denoms? Um, because, like, I'm thinking, like, you know, as a. I was trained, I'll say, like, as someone who's ordained, like, you don't have friends in your church ministry context.

Right. Um, there's very, you're supposed to have some fairly, I don't know, secure boundaries, I guess. Um, which, again, kind of thinking about implications. Right. Can lead to this really isolation, uh, in loneliness for clergy, which

there's. I've read a few good books out, but, like, I'm thinking about, like, I have some good relationships with evangelical folks, uh, church folks, and, like, talking to their pastors, like, the idea that you can't be friends with a clergy, you know, or friends with your parishioners is

bizarre. Um, so, like, again, I'm kind of long winded here, but like, is this, is this a thing that has not. Is this a problem somewhat unique to these mainline traditions, I guess, is what I'm asking. >> Ted Smith: Yeah. Um, it's definitely native to what we call the mainline. >> Loren: Yeah. >> Ted Smith: Um, so that's where it is. Yeah, it's where those trends are deepest. With that said, I think, um, the master of divinity is a professional degree,

and ats is very. The association of theological Schools, which certifies, uh, those schools that offer an MDIV is very clear about enforcing those kind of standards, um, so that it becomes a professional education. Now, people might undergo that with their fingers crossed behind their back, or it might not take very deeply. Um, but if you have an mdiV, then you've received a professional education. And to me, one of the, I talk about

this in the book. One of the most striking things about, uh, the last half of the 20th century is the way in which all kinds of christian traditions have moved to professional, uh, theological education. That's true of Catholics, which you could say, does that really fit with the catholic theology of the priesthood? Not so sure. Um, but if you've got an ATS accredited catholic institution, um, then there's a professional formation that's happening there.

Does that fit with Pentecostals um. But the assemblies of God has sought um, as has kojic. They have sought ATs, um, accreditation for their mdivs. And if you really want to be a leader in those denominations now, you better go get your seminary education. Those. So, on the one hand, the latter part of the 20th century saw that spreading to all, spreading across movements and denominations, including evangelical

ones, very much. I think what we're seeing now, though, um, is a real, and this is at the heart of the book, is an unraveling of the professionalization of ministry. That's unraveling. And with it, the congregation has voluntary association and the notion of a denomination. All those things go together. Professional ministry, professional education. The congregation is voluntary association and the denomination, and all four of

those things are unraveling together. And so I'm trying to think about, you know, what does theological education look like now? What does ministry look like now? What's the form of, uh, the congregation or a local gathering of christians? >> Loren: Yeah, well, there's, like I said, there's so much here to talk about. Um, like, hopefully this is not being the same drum here of

professionalization and ministry. So forgive me if you're trying to move the conversation along, but I'm thinking like, like a, like, I just heard this, I think, recently from Tom, I can't remember, see his name, Tom Reiner, the SBC guy. He mentioned something like in a podcast I was listening to, like a really small, surprisingly small percentage of SPC pastors have even a bachelor's, I think it. I think he

said. And then I'm like, I'm also thinking about, um, like in, like the Calvary traditional, if I understand this correctly, and I think I do, folks can kind of just train informally, almost like an apprenticeship. So, uh, this kind of. I think this kind of broadens out into one of the themes you talk about, at least as I understand it in this book, this need for a more, I don't know if this is the right word, more specialized approach, um, to ministry.

>> Ted Smith: Yeah. >> Loren: Um. >> Ted Smith: I do think we're seeing all kinds of signs of, uh, the formation of, uh, christian leaders that are happening outside of professional education that's really expanding now. So I think the 20th century saw this incredible. It is really a remarkable consolidation of the forms of training, uh, across the denominations and

of the, and the forms of the institutions, too. So there was that consolidation, and now I think it's a time of unraveling, and that means there's all kinds of other energy, there's all kinds of other, uh, things that are developing like some of the ones you name

and what I'm calling for in the book. Um, well, I'm very careful, I think, not to give a blueprint for a next theological education because I really believe, I mean, it's a theological conviction for me that, uh, that's going to come about only as groups of christians gather together for faithful discernment in their place, uh, from their tradition, with their folk. Um, that's how it's going to happen.

Because if I just like, hand down the blueprint from the fifth floor of candler School of theology at Emory university, this is just a replication of that professional model. Um, so I'm not going to. I don't think, I don't think there's any good in that and I don't, um, it might make for cleaner talking points, but that's not what I'm trying to do. So instead what I offer are a series of renunciations. You know, if the professional model is over, well, then we need to give up professional

status. We need to stop pretending, uh, to be in that kind of space. We need to give up the instrumentalizing relationship to theological knowledge, and we need to give up the financial model for theological education as professional education which relies on student debt, um, which could be justified if you become a professional. Well, then, you know, it could be worth it to go in, but that's not what's happening anymore. Um, and then I try to name some affordances that people can discern

in the world as it is. Um, so it, yeah, it's more trying, uh, to bring the church to self consciousness and then provide resources for discernment. And I think and hope that what comes out of it is going to be richly plural. It's going to be different, uh, traditions and different communities pursuing different paths. Um, I think that's what the church needs right now. >> Loren: Yeah. So let's talk, if we can, here just about some, some perhaps challenges of this new vision you

have, at, uh, least as I see them. And I think you kind of lay these out in the book, if I understood you correctly. But you talk about this move towards smaller and more homogenous denominations, and I think, at least in my context, I feel like we're kind of seeing that, I mean, quite literally, like with the United Methodist church, right, like the splintering right from the global Methodist church to now, there's a smaller but certainly more progressive liberal,

whatever you want. Like, I think I just got an email, like, hey, we can really celebrate that we're now a progressive denomination. Uh, um, the same thing has happened in the. Every mainline denomination, I think, has gone through some sort of splintering, often around the issue of LGBTQ or gay marriage in the past. Um, so obviously there are some strengths to that, whether it be more, um, focused clarity on mission and

values and ethos. But what are some drawbacks, do you think, of this really smaller, more homogeneous, um, units? >> Ted Smith: Yeah, that's a great question. Um, and it is exactly the dynamic that I see right now. I, um, think where that fits in the larger story that I'm trying to tell is that when the voluntary associations really have their power, uh, they almost have a kind of aura, and sustaining the denomination, sustaining the congregation, that becomes in itself, a

worthwhile activity. It's so important, and that's absolutely true for my parents and their generation to be Presbyterian and to sustain first in Calvary Presbyterian church like this was at the center of their faith. Um, and I have enormous respect for that and the sacrifices they made to do that. But what you get with, uh, the kind of individualization that I name and the expressive qualities that attend to that are there's a big shift in people's

relationship to the institution. And now it becomes more important that I get to express myself and that the institution reflect my values than that it simply be sustained. >> Loren: Mhm. >> Ted Smith: And one way, you know, that is, you know, the. The denominations were like, they held together when people lost votes. They. They worked to win next year, but they stayed, like, and they stayed because the institution meant so much to them, the institute. And now if people lose

votes, they leave. Right. They're out. Right. Um, and that's, uh, that's tied to this kind of, uh, what Robert Bella et al. Call an expressive individualism. So Robert Wuth, now the great sociologist, named the rise of special purpose groups within denominations that were kind of. They were almost

like lobbying bodies, advocacy groups. And I think what's happened in the last 20 years since he spotted those groups, and those groups often connected much more deeply with people, um, because they were more expressive of what they really care about and of their identity and their values. Um, but what's happened is not that any of those groups took over a denomination. It's rather that through the fracturing, the denominations kind of became special purpose groups.

>> Loren: Yeah. >> Ted Smith: Um, and so they're more expressive for people, and I think that's where you get the celebratory email, ah, that you were referencing. Hey, finally, the denomination can reflect our values. Um, they're smaller, more homogeneous, just as you say. Um,

so what are the challenges of that. I think, um, one of the biggest challenges of that is figuring out how these different bodies are going to relate to one another, because the denominational ethos, um, and this is why many people, uh, that is there in ecumenism, the denominational ethos at the heart of it is, hey, uh, you may be a wesleyan, you may be a calvinist, you may be a thomist, whatever, but we all have a sense of being like all of these traditions are valid in some way at least

deserving the respect of the state. And, um, we have a place for them as part of a larger national mission. So I think part of the problem with the old denominational ethos is the way that it made a sort of idol out of the state. The state was that which was holding all of the church together. Um, but the challenge now is with these new, more expressive denominations, it's harder for them to want the other ones to continue to exist.

They would like for them just to disappear. And to find any kind of common cause starts, uh, to feel really, really problematic. So I think, uh, that's the great challenge that we have. The other thing that's really interesting, though, it's a misreading, I think, of the present moment. If what you see is a breaking of denominations. The biggest movement that's happening right now are congregations just moving out of denominations, even if they're

officially still in. But they, uh, a really wealthy, uh, mainline denomination or mainline church, they might run all their own ministries, they might have their own missionaries. They're kind of becoming increasingly, they're, ah, doing a lot of the things the denomination used to do themselves. And a large number of the churches that left in the most recent presbyterian and Methodist splits, they're not even joining the so called conservative denomination. They're just going out on their

own. Um, and that I think, uh, there's a way in which that fits the times. Right. You're not part of this larger thing. Uh, you're part of a congregation that's more expressive, um, and closer to the individualized individuals that are at its heart. >> Loren: Yeah, like, it's interesting. Cause on both sides of that, like, I'm thinking about, like, I think it's church of the resurrection, right. The Methodist church in Kansas City. Like, they're still part of the denomination. And I think,

um, what's his name? Hamilton, you know, is quick to point out they're proud to be united Methodists. But like, like you said, like, isn't it, like, I don't. I mean, I could be wrong here, but I don't think, like, they're necessarily, like, using everything from Abington or whatever the publishers are, you know, I think. >> Ted Smith: Uh, again, or their associate pastor just, uh, recently became the director of the press at Abingdon. >> Loren: Oh, interesting.

>> Ted Smith: So, you know. >> Loren: Yeah, kind of a. Kind of a. Kind of reversed there, right? >> Ted Smith: Yeah, I think. Yeah. And then. And they've convened meetings. >> Loren: Right. >> Ted Smith: And none of this is criticism. It's just to kind of name sociologically the dynamic. >> Loren: Right. >> Ted Smith: Where really. And you see it even in, um. You see it in money.

>> Loren: Yeah. >> Ted Smith: Denominations, uh, at least experience themselves as broke, right? Oh, my gosh, we don't. But. So where is. Where's the money concentrated in Christianity? In America today? It's concentrated in, um. In large congregations or wealthy congregations through endowments or through present giving. >> Loren: So do you think this is something that gives, like, the evangelicals

a big. I mean, certainly, broadly speaking, the SBC would be part of evangelicalism, and they're certainly going through their own institutional challenges. But do you think, like, because of, like, the light or the lack of, um, uh, overhead, so to speak, from non denoms, like, there's some loose networks and such, like, do you think that gives them, I hate to say, advantage? Um, some. >> Ted Smith: Well, I think. >> Loren: Yeah, go ahead.

>> Ted Smith: Yeah. You would say, are they better adapted to the. And here I would. I would. >> Loren: Uh. >> Ted Smith: I think evangelical versus mainline as theological markers, I think, will lead you astray. >> Loren: Yeah, that's fair. >> Ted Smith: M because the SBC, uh, has seen a decline in baptism and a decline in membership now for 15 years, um, it's been precipitous. And, uh, what is it?

Southwestern Baptist theological Seminary, I recently read, has seen like an 80% decline in the number of mdivs. So, uh. But here, note the key. What's declining the denomination, what's declining the seminary that provides professional education. So both of those are well adjusted to that older order of voluntary associations. Now, where do you see the growth? You see the growth and the vitality, um, in the places that are well adapted to this present moment of

individualized individuals. And I do think a megachurch is that, um, megachurches are better adapted to this. Um. And here's why. Um, they often are designed to give, uh, you a chance for that kind of ecstatic, expressive experience. And, um, that's true in worship. But I want to reject the denominationalist critique of the mega church that says, well, it's just a consumer spirituality. No, some of the things that can happen in those small groups, which are the necessary component, can

be profound. Study of the scripture profound, uh, work of discipleship. And I also want to push back and be, it's not obvious to me that serving on the building and grounds committee makes one closer to Jesus than being part of a small group and then going to ecstatic worship. Um, but those are the different ethos that are in play there. So I do think that the megachurch is better adapted to the times for better and worse. I, um, also think house churches

often are, um. And the key there in both cases is that you're not asking members to sustain the institution with their labor, with their voluntary labor. Because. And in the megachurch it's because paid staff. >> Loren: Right. I'm thinking, uh, yeah, ah, I was thinking like the, the mega church near me in my neck of the woods, like at least one of the two big ones. Like they have like a christian school. Like I think they have some kind of

like theological training center now. Like they're really, they're becoming like a mini denomination almost in their own right. Uh, which leads me something. You said. I want to ask real quick your thoughts on this. My thought is in the future, the best forms of church are going to be, like you said, the micro church and the megachurch, these churches in the middle are just going to get squeezed out. Do you think that's right?

>> Ted Smith: Well, that's already happening demographically. I mean, all the numbers point to that. >> Loren: So it's almost like you're better off being a micro church than you are being a church of 150. Right. >> Ted Smith: Uh, and there are more such churches, I think. What, it depends though, there's a lot

of different ways to be a so called micro church. I think, um, what I would want, uh, and I say this as one who is pastor of two small membership congregations in a rural area myself, I

think the most important thing in those kind of settings is to embrace that smaller form instead of trying like what's death is to have 75 members, trying to sustain a congregational model that really takes 200 members. And then everybody's just exhausted and burned out. And if somebody new, miracle of God, uh, walks through the door, somebody new walks through the door, everybody just descends on them like vampires.

And it's like, hey, you've been here two weeks. Would you like to chair the christian education committee? Because the institution needs it, just needs the life. Right? But when we spot that vampire dynamic, that's when we should say, okay, that's not church. Church should be giving life. Um, but I think, uh, there are super, uh, strong models of congregations that are very small. They might function more like extended families, even if it's not necessarily a blood family.

But that's the logic of them. Um, they might have really low institutional overhead. That's in terms of cost, like their space, but it's also in terms of their committee structure and their finances, their personnel, all that. Um, I think those can. And a lot of the so called fresh expressions, movements, they really, they fit that, uh, model, and they tap into the desire for expressive individualism.

M. Uh, that, I think is very much, uh, kind of a sign of the times and intimate community, you know, not, um, in a committee meeting, but in a Bible study in which we're talking out of the issues in our lives. >> Loren: Okay, I know I'm keeping along here, so let me ask you one more question here before we take a break. Um, and there's so much more I wanted to get to, but, uh, like I said, I knew there's gonna be a lot of, a lot

of stuff here. So let's talk about this expressive individualism that certainly is the. The water we're swimming in, the air we're breathing right now in our context. Um, you write in your book this shift in institutional rules from formation to platforms. Denominations almost are seen as, um, well, quite literally platforms to help someone express themselves or be their full selves in thinking about this model. Um, and as I understand you advocate for seminaries taking on a more

individualistic approach in ministry. Like, what is the danger of, like, are we adapting too much to the culture? Like, we're kind of like, feeding this thing? That's really not a healthy dynamic. Does that make sense?

>> Ted Smith: Yeah, for sure. Um, the formation versus platform distinction, uh, that, uh, I'm, uh, trying to make there is, I think you see it clearly on a congregational level, where, you know, a congregation, there's a way in which the professional minister, one of the virtues of a good professional minister is they really serve the institution. Um, and they get what authority they have from the

institution. So, um, they stand, you know, if you were to draw it, they stand under the institution holding it up. And what I think we're seeing now, increasingly is pastors of large churches. Um, they're not standing under that institution holding it up. They're standing on top of it. And it is their platform that lets them reach, uh, even more people. >> Loren: If I can even interrupt there. Sorry, I'm just thinking I'm an example

of this right now. There's so many clergy my age who are just like, we're not willing to, from a crumbling institution, we're not willing to hold that up and get crushed by it, right? >> Ted Smith: Yeah, yeah, I think that's right. I mean, this is the, ah, this is where I'm an old style reformed. >> Loren: Uh. >> Ted Smith: In my theological DNA. I'm deeply ambivalent about the voluntary association

model. It did crush, uh, people that, uh, making the voluntary association central had all, you know, it had the professionalization problems that I named. I'm ambivalent about that and I'm deeply ambivalent about the order that is emerging now. Um, but I think theologically God is. There have been no unambivalent moments in human history. All the moments in human history have been shot through with sin. Um, and God has, uh, in God's graciousness has decided to work through human history for the

redemption of the world. So, uh, that's what I think is happening now. And that's where I think the idea I would absolutely want to resist. And I really loathe the kind of writing that it takes like a little pop sociology, mhm, or something, and then shows the church how to conform better to the age. Basically, that's what it's doing. Well, that's not theology, that's advertising.

So I don't want to do that. I think we have to do the sociological work through theological lenses so that we know what our moment in history looks like and we're not deceiving ourselves. Um, but then I think we have a critical relationship to that. Um, so I'm not calling for a more individualistic mode of theological education at all. Um, I do name individualization as an affordance for theological education, but it's a very indirect one. Like the biggest way in which it's an affordance is, uh,

in some ways it's terrible. This individualization that we have. It carves people out of communities. It leaves them on their own without any kind of story to orient their lives, and then it charges them with building all on their own an authentic self. Well, I wonder why anxiety is so widespread. Like, that's just a terrible kind of condition that a lot of people are in right now, right?

And I think if what theological education is designed to do is to say, hey, you need, we're going to give you professional credentials to go lead these crumbling voluntary associations. People aren't interested in that, just like what you're saying, right? But if theological education says, hey, uh, I see this enormous challenge that you, that the world has given you, that you have to put a life before God together and you have to figure out all, you know what

and there's actually learning through the centuries. That can help you do that. Um, well, that's a different purpose for theological education. It's less professional education, and it's more like, um. Yeah, it's more oriented towards helping individuals put selves together. And a lot of our students are already doing that. They get an M div, and then they go, uh, into social works. They get an M div, they go on to law

school chaplains. Well, and chaplaincy to me is like the signature, one of the signature forms of our time for religious life. Because what is a chaplain, a religious leader who isn't part of a voluntary association. Right. They're not leading a voluntary associate. They're employed usually in a, you know, a for profit or non profit, um, hospital, military corporation. Um, and they. There's no building and grounds meeting for a chaplain. Right. And a chaplain doesn't need to invite anybody to do

that work. Right. So they are the religious leader kind of emancipated from or stripped of leading a voluntary association. And I think that's why that, uh, like, students want to do that. And there's a growing, um, possibility for it. >> Loren: All right, well, we're already, like, 53 minutes in, and. >> Ted Smith: Sorry, I've been. >> Loren: No, like, I want to talk for another 53 minutes, but I unfortunately have other things to do.

Um, and I'm sure you do. So I really appreciate the time. Like I said, there's a lot more to talk about here. There's a lot more in the book. So I do want to recommend the book, the, uh, end of theological education. Uh, who is it? Erdman. So check it out. Let's take a quick break, and we'll come back with some closing questions. All right, we're back with Reverend Doctor Ted Smith. So thanks so much for the conversation. These closing questions are meant to be taken as seriously

or not as you'd like to. So if you're pope for a day, what might that day look like for. For you? >> Ted Smith: Well, you know, I'm a cranky old presbyterian, so it would look like dissolving the papacy. >> Loren: That tends to come up a lot here in this podcast. >> Ted Smith: Well, you need to talk to some better. >> Loren: Yeah, I do. Unfortunately, I do. Um, a theologian or historical, uh, christian figure, uh, you'd want to meet or bring back to life.

>> Ted Smith: That's interesting. Uh, Jesus, for sure. It's the obvious, but not to say it would be insane. Um, I think another, uh, that I would really like to meet, uh, and talk with is Benedict St. Benedict, um, in part because the communities that he founded have been so meaningful to me, and in part because I think he's both. He had an innovation that was theological, it was liturgical, and it was also institutional. And

I think we need something on all three of those levels. And for the record, I do not think Rod Dreyer's, uh, the benedict option understands benedict, really, at all. >> Loren: Oh, I like that. I like that. Okay, good, good. >> Ted Smith: So, yeah, I mean, one reason I'd like to have him back is just to say, that's not what I meant. Please don't assimilate that through, uh, your particular political battle axis that you're trying to.

>> Loren: Yeah, I've not read that, but I'm familiar with it, so that's intriguing. Um, what do you think history will remember from our current time and place? >> Ted Smith: What will history remember from our current time and place? I think one thing that will be remembered is the staggering inequality of our society. The growing number of people who are homeless or who are working in jobs that, like, you can barely get by. There's just no hope. And then the top end is just

unbelievable. It's the greatest wealth the world has ever known. But those two things coexisting. So not to our credit, I don't think. >> Loren: Yeah. Let me reframe this last question here. What do you hope maybe for the future of church institutions? >> Ted Smith: Yeah. >> Loren: Seminaries, churches? Answer how you'd like to. >> Ted Smith: Sure. Church, uh, institutions right now, I think, feel. We feel poor.

>> Loren: Mhm. >> Ted Smith: And disrespected and besieged. And I think that's because we are trying to prop up a model that has lost its living connection to the times. But, um, we are not in fact, poor, um, and not just in a gospel sense, but there are real resources in all of these institutions. Money, um, and then just really gifted people who are ready to serve, uh, in profound ways, um, and ideas and

traditions and practices. So there's just a lot of wealth in the full sense of that term, in these institutions. And what I would love for us to do is to turn that wealth towards creating institutions that fit these times. And those will be ambivalent, um, just like the ones that we're inheriting that are. But just to turn from that task of propping up to building, uh, what we need to build. Um, and I want us to build something between a kind of gnostic

individualism. It's just kind of me and God, often our own little meditation app, um. Uh, and the kind of sustaining of the voluntary association, um, at all costs. Um, there's just got to be a better alternative for that. And I think we're seeing some of those alternatives already starting. And I want that, not because I want the church exists, um, because God has decided to use the church in ways for the redemption of the world.

So that's what I really want, is that work of redemption to continue with faithful responses from us. >> Loren: All right, I'm going to pop, uh, a question here. Yes. No is your choice of response. Uh, so, like, a comment has been made, like, I'm a member of the pension fund for the christian church, that the money of the pension fund will long outlive the denomination. Yes or no question. Will the, uh, money from mainline institutions outlive the institutions?

>> Ted Smith: Uh, no, because the money will be used to sustain the institutions. >> Loren: Okay. Okay. >> Ted Smith: Um, but I think the institutions are going to take very different forms. Literally, it's already happening, uh, as the denominations are becoming large, special purpose groups instead of denominations, even if they still call themselves. >> Loren: Boy, we need another 45 minutes for that.

All right, where can, uh, people connect with you, get your book, all that stuff? >> Ted Smith: Uh, yeah, I don't really do social media, so not through any of those usual channels, but I'm at emory's candler school of theology. Um, I'm happy to respond to emails as best I can at ted Smith emory.edu. And, um, yeah, those are the main and best ways. They're welcome to come to candler anytime. I'd love the conversation.

>> Loren: Yeah, well, this has been. I've really appreciated the conversation, enjoyed your perspective. So thank you so much for sharing with me, uh, and hopefully with our listeners here. So I always leave folks with the word of peace. So may God's peace be with you. >> Ted Smith: And also with you. >> Paul: Thanks for joining us on the Future Christian podcast. To learn more about Loren or the podcast, visit future dash christian.com.

One more thing before you go. Do us a favor and subscribe to the podcast. And if you're feeling especially generous, leave a review. It really helps us get the word out to more people. About the podcast. The Future Christian podcast is a production of torn curtain arts and resonate media. Our episodes were mixed by Danny Burton and the production support is provided by Paul Romaglevitt. Thanks and go in peace.