It's curious how education has become somewhat of an expensive commodity. I understand that our society requires "pricing out" in order to enforce a sense of elite belonging, which is supposed to indicate the "best of the best." This system certainly works well for a person who works hard, gets his/her MBA at Harvard, and manipulates the masses into paying off his student loans when he gets that job at Goldman Sachs. And that's capitalism, and it works as well as any other system I've seen.
Nevertheless, I've come to see that our society is not quite as driven by competition as free-marketers would like to think. Thankfully, some of us are motivated by cultivating a life of significance that's expressed by major altruistic or creative contributions to society. Motivation by altruism and/or creativity is something that I find is grossly overlooked by those individuals who seem to neatly tie their blanket assertions about our free-market systems. This makes me think that we will experience a major vacuum in capable teachers, social workers, probation officers, technicians, and journalists. With the rise of student loan interest rates and the decline of funding for these sectors, we are narrowing the scope of "best and the brightest" in these fields by demanding that they live a life of debt if they choose these career paths. It begs the question... is education as an expensive commodity the most effective way of making it more elite? More excellent? Or, is it simply a business? And if it is indeed a business, then why does our culture seem to view higher educations as such a noble institution?
On a more personal note, my husband and I have discussed the issue of seminary many times as a basis for equipping those who want to go into full-time ministry. My husband attended seminary for awhile, did not find it particularly useful, and was very aware of the uselessness of accumulating large sums of debt for studying several perspectives of systematic theology (which he would never use again), and so he did the reasonable thing... he left.
Acts 29 seemed to show us that ministers without seminary training were more successful than those with seminary training. In fact, Paul seemed to believe that attending the most prestigious seminary of the day was like poo-poo. Perhaps this is because they weren't isolated from the "real world" for several years in a sterile academic environment, writing papers, and discussing 10 perspectives on the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I understand that seminary seems to give people the security of knowing you've been professionally trained to do ministry. Doctors go to medical school, lawyers go to law school, etc. However, doctors and lawyers are not being weekly trained in gatherings (and mentorship) in the same way that our modern church functions. Shouldn't we trust pastors with direct accountability more than those with degrees? Sadly, the perception of the expensive commodity of education enforces a belief that pastors with degrees are the elite... and therefore able leaders, with masses of debt. Does 4 years of rigorous religious theory really equip pastors?
I'm certain that I've made my biases clear. However, I truly wonder... why do we still submit to this system? And, if we do agree that it's flawed (even in part) how do we find a better way?
No comments:
Post a Comment