The Timothy Conference

T H E T I M O T H Y C O N F E R E N C E

2. Most workers go to the least needy fields, though over 60% of all people live in cities.

“The real, demonstrated sending priorities apparently emphasize helping Christians become better Christians rather than helping non-Christians consider Christ–or helping Christians of one kind (essentially Catholic or Orthodox) become Christians of another kind (evangelical or Catholic or charismatic, and so on) rather than helping those who have not heard the Gospel to hear it.”

Michael Jaffarian, “The Statistical State of the Missionary Enterprise.” in Missiology: An International Review , Vol. XXX. No. 1, January 2002, p. 28.

C. Most theological schools are not designed to prepare their own students (let alone the urban underclass) to be workers for Christ in the harvest fields of the city.

“Few will deny that the United States is an “urban” nation whose most profound problems are on display daily in its metropolitan areas. Nonetheless, only one third of the Association of Theological School accredited seminaries in this country offer (much less require) courses concerned with “urban ministry.”

Robert V. Kemper “Theological Education for Urban Ministry: A Survey of U.S. Seminaries.” in Theological Education , Vol. 34, Number 1 (1997): 51-72.

1. Kemper’s article examined some 227 courses, 19 M. Div. programs, 8 M.A. programs, 7 D.MIN. programs and 14 institutes, research centers, and consortial arrangements focused on urban ministry in the context of regional and denominational diversity in the United States.

2. Of the 169 seminaries in Kemper’s survey located in 33 states, only 59 seminaries offered any urban ministry courses, with 110 offering not a single course related to urban life and needs.

3. These schools are unavailable to those who do not meet the academic requirements to enter their programs.

4. As a rule, these schools are very expensive and seek to locate themselves in places where urban problems are least experienced:

“Urban theological education further challenges the presumption of location for theological education. In addition to the dichotomous discourse of theory and practice, there is the question of the appropriate place for teaching urban theological education. Is the isolated environment of campus-based theological education the best place to train leaders for the urban church? Traditional seminaries should recognize the opportunity to expand their curricula paradigm beyond the monastic ideal of the traditional classroom to the wider community.”

Warren Dennis, Katie Day, Ron Peters. “Urban Theological Education: A Conversation about Curriculum.” in Theological Education , Vol. 34, Number 1 (1997): 41-50.

Page 92