Despite the inclination of theological education to focus on the intellectual, theological education is not responsible for and concerned with pure academics or the mere contestation of ideas. In a discussion with Moltmann on 30 June 2017 at the World Communion of Reformed Churches (WCRC) General Council, he noted that theology is not only for the so-called professionals and is not something you read, but it is something you do. Volf and Croasmun (2019:1) deemed that academic theology should be about what matters most: ‘the true life in the presence of God’. When academic theology or theological education loses this dimension, theology becomes irrelevant (Volf & Croasmun 2019):

Theology and theological reflections are important because they are about what matters the most. And living the true life in the presence of God means theological education has to equip students, or rather everyone, for this life.

The backdrop of this research is the theological education of the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC). The DRC, in a process of missional transformation as described in their policy document, Framework Document on the Missional Nature and Calling of the DRC (DRC 2013), has already embarked on a journey to re-imagine theological education for the formation of missional leaders. However, this research is also applicable to theological education in general and proposes that the formation of a missional spirituality is fundamental to theological education.

The research questions posed are as follows: What is the relation between theology and spirituality, what is the significance of missional spirituality in theological education and what is a probable model for the formation of a missional spirituality.

The relation between theology and spirituality¹ is clear. Theology and spirituality are irrevocably connected and interdependent. According to Schneiders (2002:135), theology attempts to grasp and articulate what is believed and lived, and it is the intellectual articulation of spirituality. Hernandez (2006:4) noted the indivisible relationship between theology and spirituality. Sheldrake (2010:62) asserted that the fundamental connection between theology and spirituality has become axiomatic. Van Niekerk (2019:28) stated that theology is ingrained in spirituality. However, this was not always the case as theology and spirituality have, separately, gone through various transitions. The most recent transitions can be mentioned here.

In recent decades, major shifts took place in the relationship between spirituality and theology. First, what was understood as ‘spirituality’ has changed considerably. ‘It is no longer limited to monastic-clerical elites and has also broadened beyond attention to prayer and contemplation to include reflection on the values and lifestyle of all Christians’ (Sheldrake 2010:61). Second, Christian spirituality is no longer concerned with defining ‘perfection’ in the abstract, rather it examines the complex mystery of human transformation in the context of a dynamic relationship with God (Sheldrake 2010:62). Spirituality is thus about all the different aspects concerning human life. According to Williams (1990:12), spiritualty is more than a science of interpreting exceptional private experiences and removing the distinction between the so-called compromising activities and spheres (the family, state, the individual body or psyche) and the so-called pure realities (the soul and the intelligible world), and spiritualty becomes more complex. He stated that spirituality ‘must now touch on every area of human experience, the public and social, the painful, negative, even pathological byways of the mind, the moral and relational world’ (Williams 1990:12). Spirituality is staying alive in Christ (Williams 2016:76). This change in the understanding of spirituality has a profound influence on the goal of spirituality. With this understanding, the Christian life is not about enlightenment, but wholeness (Williams 1990:12). Third, spiritualty is now connected with theology and biblical studies. This connection is partly because of the changes in theology. ‘Theology has moved from a deductive, transcultural approach to reflection on the experience of God and the practices of discipleship in cultural particularity’ (Sheldrake 2010:62). Waaijman (2006:2) also noted these two approaches when describing spirituality – the deductive approach, theologically orientated, and the inductive approach, starting from lived experience. The latter is no longer neglected. It can thus be concluded that theology and spirituality are interdependent. Hernandez (2006:131) stated that this interdependence means that knowing God implies loving God, ‘theological impression gives way to spiritual expression in the same way that the reality of the expression itself solidifies the truth of the actual impression’. However, according to Schneiders, spirituality also goes beyond theology. Considering that both theology and spirituality have gone through shifts and changes, Schneiders (1986:273) stated that spirituality was secondary to theology, but ‘spirituality has emerged as an autonomous dialogue partner demanding independence for the sake of mature interdependence’. Kourie (2009:148) also stated that spirituality, once regarded as a ‘Cinderella’ discipline, has returned to its rightful place and is wielding influence inside and outside of the academy.

Despite these ambiguities, specialists in spirituality concur that theology and spirituality are essential companions. They are united in their persistence that firstly, human experience is a genuine source of wisdom and knowledge about God; secondly, this human experience requires a form of interpretation obtained from a diverse and wide range of academic methods; and thirdly, the appropriate study of spirituality requires us to go beyond a sense of truth as neutral and objective (Endean 2005). These considerations demonstrate that spiritualty without theological reflection and theology not grounded in real life experience is not only inadequate but also feeble. Spirituality has liberated theology, and together, it has transformative potential (Kourie 2009:167). Spirituality exempts theology from the constraints of mere academics.

From this brief overview of theology and spirituality, it is clear that spirituality is more than an inward movement of contemplation and meditation, it is an outward movement concerning all aspects of life and it is about life itself. This means that spirituality is not about enlightenment, but about becoming whole and living a flourishing life. A flourishing life is not about wealth or success, but rather ‘the good to which humans are meant to strive’ (Volf & Croasmun 2019:13). It has also become clear that theology is not detached from existence or experiences, and theology frames and points out the meaning of life. Becoming whole and living a flourishing life in God’s presence is God’s main concern for his creation and ‘the purpose of theology is to discern, articulate, and commend visions of flourishing life in light of God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ’ (Volf & Croasmun 2019:11).

With this overview of theology and spirituality, the first research question is answered, and the establishment of this relation and interdependence between theology and spirituality leads to the next research question, namely the significance of missional spirituality in theological education.

Theological education and spiritual formation are interdependent. Missional spirituality is a spirituality that plays an important role in re-establishing an important dimension that was lost. ‘Missional’ has become a supporting word, scaffolding, and missional spirituality can be understood as pointing towards authentic Christian spirituality.

Missional spirituality is a spirituality that ignites and nurtures a way of life for the sake of others. This brings us to the second research question: what is the significance of missional spirituality in theological education, especially with regard to the DRC’s process of missional transformation.

Helland and Hjalmarson (2011:loc. 508–509) asserted that theological education is inherently spiritual as it addresses the whole person and inherently missional as it concerns God’s mission to the world. This suggests that theological education is already forming spirituality, but when it is not performed intentionally and when theology ceases to focus on God’s mission to the world, it is most likely an immature or reserved spirituality. It has lost an important dimension. Unfortunately, it seems that theological education lacks intentional spiritual formation. Naidoo (2010:189) asserted that theological education is in crisis – theological institutions are not equipping the right type of leaders or the purpose of theology is misunderstood, ‘the theological curriculum is in disarray with minimal integration among the disciplines and a tendency to functionalism’. Johnson and Dreitcer (2001:vii–viii) observed that many congregational leaders have had no intentional training in spiritual formation and the consequence being the lack of mature spiritualities. The lack of intentional spiritual formation produces ‘professionals’. There should be a fundamental shift in paradigms and practices ‘from equipping managers to equipping spiritual directors and leaders, from maintenance to mission, from church at the centre to a kingdom frame’ (Helland & Hjalmarson 2011:loc. 223–2235).

Guder (ed. 1998:217) advocated that the model of academic learning, regarded as an ‘abstract enterprise and based on observation rather than personal involvement’, should be reconsidered and ‘structured intentional formation needs to be rediscovered’. It is not enough to add another course or module for spiritual formation, and theological education as a whole needs to be re-evaluated – the content, but especially the methodology. Cannell indicated that when theological schools are confronted with the lack of spiritual growth, their response seems to be the addition of another course (Brynjolfson 2010:197), or as Helland and Hjalmarson (2011:loc. 2243) noted, to simply attempt to improve what has always been performed. Banks already wrote about re-envisioning theological education and alternative missional models 20 years ago. He noted that when certain questions regarding theological education come up, they are usually addressed as operational matters, concerning academics and administration, and not as theological matters (Banks 1999:9). Theological education is in desperate need of deep change.

Attending to the theological education crisis and addressing the adaptive challenge requires clarity on the primary goal of theological education. Rowan Williams stated in an interview with Christianity Today (2020:n.p.) that the purpose and nature of theological education is not about a set of issues or problems and, in the broadest possible sense, is learning more about the world that faith creates or the world that faith trains you to inhabit:

You are formed to see, sense and relate in a new way, grounded in the missio Dei.

Determining the purpose or primary goal of theological education will shape the nature and content of the curriculum and will have implications for spiritual formation in the educational structure (Naidoo 2010:189). The DRC formulated a policy document about the formation of missional leaders. Missional leadership is about the transformation of people and institutions and equipping of people and communities to be able to join God’s mission to the world (DRC 2013:16). Theological education is key to developing this type of leadership. The policy document makes it clear that the formation of a missional spirituality is thus a crucial part of theological education (DRC 2013:16). The primary goal of theological education can then be described as the formation for missional leaders to equip the church for its missional calling.

Affirming this primary goal is essential for theological education that aspires to be intentional and holistic formation, and consequently spiritual formation. Spiritual formation can and does happen implicitly through current theological education, and spirituality is formed by engaging in all aspects of life, including academics. However, when outcomes are not addressed intentionally, ‘we will end up generating other outcomes, some not at all desirable’ (Brynjolfson 2010:200).

A theological education curriculum, or any curriculum for that matter, starts with specific outcomes that it wants to achieve to attain its primary goal. These outcomes are usually determined for each module, discipline and degree. However, the theological education outcomes mentioned here will be general, and the overall outcomes focused on a theological, rather than a pragmatic, point of view. Helland and Hjalmarson (2011:loc. 2279) proposed three significant outcomes, or they can be described as areas of equipping, in the formation of missional leaders. To ground this research in practice, the practical suggestions in terms of theological education and pedagogy are applied to theological education in the DRC, and more specifically the theological training at the University of Pretoria’s Faculty of Theology and Religion, one of the partner faculties of the DRC. The broad ideas are, however, applicable to the broader concept of theological education. These three areas of equipping can be expanded upon towards holistic theological education.

The pedagogical model and dominant structure of many theological education institutions prioritise academic instruction with some practical exposure and compartmentalise spiritual formation, seen as happening implicitly or informally ‘through individual faculty contributions and extracurricular activities’ (Naidoo 2010:185–186). Intentional spiritual formation is not typically part of professed formal theological education. Harrison (2017) expressed the importance of holistic theological education by stating:

The pedagogical model and structure should take into account that theological education is beyond an academic course, a process of formation. The impression is that current pedagogical models do not promote holistic theological education. The main focus on academic excellence causes an imbalance. As is the case in most of theological education in the orbit of the DRC, and also on many institutions serving mainline churches in the West, the curriculum’s structure is focused on books and classroom work, safely removed from real life (Houston 2013:114; Paas 2011:126). The practical exposure is minimal and the intentional formation of spirituality nominal. However, it should be said that effectively integrating the academic, practical and spiritual has rarely been achieved (Kelsey 1992:105).

The challenge of addressing theological education as a process of formation means that resources should be allocated accordingly and all the areas of formation should be deemed essential. A curriculum with an integrated approach aims to generate outcomes in all the areas of formation and learning (Brynjolfson 2010:22). These areas of learning are described by Ellison as knowledge, skills and attitudes. A minimum knowledge base, skills, attitudes and beliefs are the elements for consideration when teaching congregational leaders (Ellison 2009:160). These different areas of learning are also commonly used by others in pedagogical models for theological education: cognitive (knowledge and understanding), skills (abilities) and affective (character formation) (see Brynjolfson 2010:198; Houston 2013:111; Wall 2015:185–186). Learning and formation typically does not take place in these neat categories. And perhaps, it is important that the lines are blurred and the different aspects and areas are seen as more integrated. However, using these aspects and areas of learning of formation is a way to be intentional about holistic theological education. To be able to achieve specific outcomes, there has to be a high degree of intentionality.

A pedagogical model focused on these different aspects of a student’s formation and the different areas of learning to cultivate capacities can be regarded as a holistic model – a model that forms a student’s head, hands and heart; a model where there is an opportunity for intellectual development, practical exposure and engagement in community and the formation of character; and a model that creates the proper culture for learning and formation and that can lead to the intentional formation of spirituality. It is worth noting again that spirituality and spiritual formation do not denote something abstract or mystic, but a way of life (Naidoo 2010):

The intentional and explicit formation of spirituality then implies attending to the methodology of formation and the context of formation. According to Brynjolfson (2010:199), theological education is inclined to use inappropriate methods; the methods focus on acquiring knowledge and developing critical and analytical skills and thus are not able to intentionally form spirituality. Moreover, intentional spiritual formation requires an appropriate context. Brynjolfson (2010:199) stated that the three areas of education correspond to three contexts:

This poses a challenge. If certain outcomes are to be achieved, there has to be a high degree of intentionality. However, the informal education context, where spiritual formation takes place according to educational theorists, is unstructured and lacks intention, and when education is intentional and structured, it becomes non-formal or formal (Brynjolfson 2010:199). There is a complex relationship between the different learning areas and contexts for learning. Brynjolfson (2010:199) suggested that instead of being intentional about providing learning experiences to achieve spiritual formation outcomes, to be intentional about providing the contexts in which certain outcomes can be anticipated. This is a significant insight into intentional spiritual formation. Intentional spiritual formation can take place if theological education can also provide, suggest or anticipate these non-formal or informal contexts. These contexts entail minimum structure and giving up control and imply that lecturers, as well as students, will have to be open to the guidance of the spirit. Intentional spiritual formation can and should thus be part of the theological education curriculum or syllabus.

Albert Einstein’s well-known phrase is applicable when it comes to the DRC’s theological education: ‘Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’. Missional leaders will not be formed by the same theological education that forms traditional congregational ministers focused on managing, maintenance and ministry to members. Webber (2002:194–195) wrote about a new kind of leadership and stated that this new type of leadership is shaped by: (1) a missiological understanding of the church, (2) theological reflection, (3) spiritual formation and (4) cultural awareness. These four points are also essential when discussing the missional leadership of the DRC and proposing a syllabus for the formation of missional leaders. According to Harrison (2017:347), a syllabus for this type of theological education should include the following core components: minimum knowledge base, pass-on-able habits and skills, and attitudes and beliefs. This has already been established as the different areas of learning and will give shape to the framework. Although these are known as the common learning areas, the balance needs to be restored, and all the areas of learning should be addressed intentionally. The content of theological education must then be formed by the central theme of mission, the focus of theological education directed to the community and the consequence of theological education in the formation of a missional spirituality.

Missional transformation requires missional leadership – being equipped and equipping others for God’s mission. Theological education to this end is about more than acquiring a new skill set or completing an extra academic module on methods for becoming a missional church. Missional leadership requires the transformation of the self – a missional metanoia. This requires a holistic theological education that forms a missional spirituality. A transformation of the self is to be able to transform. Wright (2008:270) challenged the church – if the gospel is not transforming you, will it transform anything else? Helland and Hjalmarson (2011:loc. 107–216) stated that we can bring transformation only to the extent to which we are transformed, a missional spirituality is thus imperative for transformation. ‘Transformation is only possible if it is nourished by spirituality. If mission is all about a “transformative spirituality”, then the church needs a missional spirituality’ (Niemandt 2016b:89). ‘A key insight of the initial missional church conversation is that it was not primarily about the church developing yet another strategic approach for reaching a new generation’ (Van Gelder & Zscheile 2011:7). The emphasis should be on formation for God’s mission – on being God’s people and then doing by participating in God’s mission. Cultivating a faithful missional community is thus an ongoing process of formation and reformation (ed. Guder 1998:180). Cultivating students to be missional leaders is also an ongoing process of formation and reformation. It is not adopting a framework document or an adjusted curriculum, more leadership development programmes or research on being a missional church, which is needed to become a missional church, it is a missional spirituality and ultimately a missional metanoia. ‘A missional spirituality is a spirituality that forms and feeds mission’ (Helland & Hjalmarson 2011:loc. 239–240). Thus, the formation of a missional spirituality is fundamental to theological education.