Should Field Training Be Postponed?

It is generally expected by conference execu­tives that theological graduates from our col­leges will have had a certain amount of field experience during their college work.

By T. KENNETH LUDGATE, Instructor, Bible Department, Southern Missionary College

It is generally expected by conference execu­tives that theological graduates from our col­leges will have had a certain amount of field experience during their college work. Is this a reasonable expectation? Or should college train­ing be entirely theoretical? If it is reasonable to expect candidates for the ministry to obtain evangelistic and pastoral experience during their four years in college, what plans should we adopt in order to make this field work as satisfactory as possible? If it is not reasonable to believe that the already overcrowded program of the average the­ological student can be arranged to include useful, practical training in ministerial activity, when and where should the ministerial aspirant obtain this vitally important part of his preparation for serv­ice?

The territory within a. reasonable radius of our senior colleges has been used year after year to provide laboratory facilities in practical homi­letics. Naturally, such a procedure tends to pro­duce an unfavorable attitude toward the truth on the part of the people who are practiced upon year after year by enthusiastic and eager, but inexperienced, prospective ministers.

Student evangelistic campaigns are usually not commenced until several weeks of the school year have elapsed. One, or possibly two, meetings are held each week, and it is difficult to present the entire message adequately before the school year closes. It is not always practical for the interest that has been aroused to be cared for after the end of the school year, and not only are op­portunities for adding to the church membership lost, but there is the danger that people who have become partially acquainted with present truth will lose their interest and swell the numbers of those who are prejudiced against Seventh-day Advent­ists.

Some of our most experienced and successful evangelists would probably hesitate to embark upon a series of meetings in a town or a section of a city where the message had been partially presented repeatedly during the ten or fifteen years prior to a contemplated effort in that place. There is no need to enlarge upon this situation. Every­one connected with the Bible departments in our colleges is well aware of the difficulty of finding suitable territory for student evangelistic cam­paigns within a reasonable distance. We may well ask ourselves the question, Is it fair to call upon theological undergraduates to undertake responsibility that workers with many years of experience would hesitate to accept?

It is always possible to provide opportunities for the students to gain experience in literature distribution and house-to-house visitation, but even this form of practical training is handicapped by the attitude of people who have been invited to accept literature year after year by successive classes of theological students. A practical il­lustration of this situation was seen in the ac­tivities of a group of theological students at one of our senior colleges last year who engaged in sys­tematic house-to-house literature distribution. All went well for the first week or two, and several openings were secured for Bible studies to be conducted in the homes. When the students made their second call to give studies, they were in­formed that the people did not wish them to call again, as they knew they were Adventists from the college. This was not an isolated occurrence. Two or three groups had the same experience, and to say the least, it is not encouraging for beginners.

Another phase of the problem is related to the student's overcrowded curriculum. It appears to be the generally accepted idea that theological students should be given a liberal arts training, plus professional preparation, in the regular four-year college course. Contact with and observa­tions of the products of such a system leads to the conclusion that those who pass through it gain a smattering of knowledge concerning many widely separated fields and a thorough knowledge of none.

In addition to his struggle to meet the require­ments of this twofold theoretical training, the aver­age theological student finds himself obliged to en­gage in anywhere from ten to thirty-five hours of industrial labor a week in order to balance his fi­nancial budget. Being exceedingly anxious to avail himself of every opportunity to gain practical ex­perience, the already overburdened student gladly accepts an assignment for field experience in evan­gelism and endeavors to adjust his program to make room for the several hours a week that he must spend in preparation for, and participation in, evangelistic activities. According to the in­structions found in Counsels to Teachers, student programs should not be so arranged that there is no time for practical missionary activities.

"The teachers and students in our schools need the divine touch. God can do much more for them than He has done, because in the past His way has been restricted. If a missionary spirit is encouraged, even if it takes some hours from the program of regular study, much of heaven's blessing will be given, provided there is more faith and spiritual zeal, more of a realization of what God will do."—Counsels to Teachers, p. 546.

This instruction points directly to an adjustment of the study program to enable the student to find the necessary time for his practical field training. What, then, is the solution? Three practical plans suggest themselves to the writer:

1. Postpone field training until the student enters his ministerial internship. This plan would enable students to concentrate upon their theo­retical studies during their days in college, with­out the anxiety of wondering whether they will be adequately prepared for the duties required of them when they enter the work. It would be recognized by conference administrators that part of the responsibility associated with the employ­ment of ministerial interns would be the provision of opportunities to gain field experience under the tutelage of experienced ministers.

2. The theological course could be extended to permit the inclusion of field training. This pro­cedure would lighten the student's load during his senior year, and also meet the desire on the part of the field for ministerial candidates to receive practical experience during their college course.

3. The third plan would call for the elimination of certain subjects from the present crowded cur­riculum in order to make way for field training.

Plan number one is that which commends itself as being the most satisfactory under present con­ditions. Students would be enabled to gain their initial contact with field work in areas that were not used as practice grounds by college students. It is to be hoped that serious consideration will be given to this very real problem and that a satisfactory solution will be arrived at in the not far distant future.

By T. KENNETH LUDGATE, Instructor, Bible Department, Southern Missionary College

June 1946

Download PDF
Ministry Cover

More Articles In This Issue

Are We Just "Fiddlin"?

Food for thought.

Reviewers Admit Evidence Disproves Charges

Multiple book reviewers now reconsidering Millerism.

Catholics Capitalize Publicity

Publicity, it is said, is the life of trade.

Editorial Keynotes

Advance on All Fronts!

"Quit You Like Men"

Mankind's desperate plight lays upon the church of God new and enlarging responsibilities.

The Future of the Bible Work

What are the prospects for Bible workers?

View All Issue Contents

Digital delivery

If you're a print subscriber, we'll complement your print copy of Ministry with an electronic version.

Sign up
Advertisement - SermonView - Medium Rect (300x250)

Recent issues

See All