This book is not for everybody, but it’s probably for more than
you’d think at first glance. In fact, if you’re reading this review, it is
probably for you. Paul House offers a worthy parry & thrust into the
discussion on the future of education. This book is a polemic, and House tells
you upfront which side he comes down on—and strongly at that. However, I don’t
think you can walk away from this book thinking that House has pigeonholed
Bonhoeffer onto his own side; he lets Bonhoeffer speak. (Self-proclaimed)
non-historian House expertly retells the seminary years of Bonhoeffer, setting
his most popular works in their chronological and more powerful context.
Book thesis: This book attempts to do two things. First,
it tries to examine Bonhoeffer’s theology and practice of theological education
in their original context. Second, it endeavors to assert the biblical
necessity of personal, incarnational, face-to-face education for the health of
pastors and churches.
I need to say at the start that there may be two reasons why
readers will be disappointed in this book: first, they may think it uses most
of its pages to recapitulate information we already
know if we have read (1) a biography of Bonhoeffer, (2) the Cost of Discipleship, and (3) Life Together; and secondly, they may
think it is too argumentative and critical of ‘technological advancements’ for
‘distance education.’ And yet, House (and by extension, I) warn you that such
‘problems’ with the text are precisely what House wishes to communicate. In
other words: House accomplishes his thesis to the utmost; so if you don’t like
the thesis, you will not like this book.
But let me explain why I think his thesis is valuable. It’s
easy to read The Cost of Discipleship
or Life Together and extrapolate all
of the pithy statements and insightful ideas divorced from the context they
were written in; but when the manuscripts are placed in a chronology of Bonhoeffer’s life, and the
editor constantly turns to show influence and implications of each section, the
works come alive with new vigor. And so Bonhoeffer becomes less an ivory-tower
theologian, and especially less a spy, and more a committed disciple of Jesus
Christ striving with all his efforts and energies and passionate heart to equip
more disciples of Christ for the ministry of the church in dark days. In some
sense the two major chapters that form this book are 75% summary of Bonhoeffer’s
books, and yet I think even the reader familiar with Bonhoeffer’s books will
find fresh and powerful insight into the weightiness of the call of Christ.
And, perhaps more significantly, they are struck with the example of one who
remains faithful to the commission with which he charges others. Reading
Bonhoeffer’s ideas in this context both magnifies the call and encourages the
called: for he who calls is faithful and preserves his people to the end.
As far as polemics are concerned: you will find a sincerely
convinced seminarian espousing a very specific seminary philosophy and
critiquing a similarly specific seminary philosophy. House shows a humble
conviction, however, always reminding readers that his idea is not staunch
traditionalism, but rather an informed faith in Christ, God incarnate, who
gathered disciples face-to-face, and builds his church doing the same. The
final chapter reveals the deep wisdom House has accumulated from sincere and
lengthy reflection and dialogue about arguments and counterarguments; about
seminary life now and future. His arguments are not trite and childish, but
measured and thoughtful. He takes disagreement seriously and (I believe) proves
that more than anything, he wants to be faithful.
He announces his indebtedness to others and his pleasure at serving with
seminaries who model this incarnational model, but he does not pretend that
these are the only institutions who are truly honoring Jesus. He offers
suggestions for a variety of ministerial training centers from large seminaries
to denominational programs. You may disagree with his conclusions, but you will
have to wrestle honestly with the biblical text and example. Nonetheless
whether you find the argument persuasive, you will have no doubt that House
really does “endeavor to assert the biblical necessity” of this education
model.
I offer one potential area of improvement. House states
pretty early on that he is not an Hagiographer (he also states that he is not
an historian). And it may be difficult to believe this is true from this text alone. Not only does he
show apt ability in bringing the history to life, but he does not critique
Bonhoeffer’s own ideas or actions. Surely Bonhoeffer was not yet perfect, and
yet we find no mention of failures. This is, in part, due to the de facto nature of history and the
purpose of the book: ‘what did Bonhoeffer believe and do about seminary?’ but it
may leave the reader wondering if everything Bonhoeffer did really was
appropriate. Perhaps there is nothing worth criticism that fits the scope of
this book, but I am at a loss to know whether that is true. Indeed, every time
a place for possible criticism arises—the daily seminary schedule, the
absence/return from seminary, the correspondence with friends or family, the
resistance, etc. House mentions that ‘others’ have disputed the reasons or
integrity, but House himself never does. For this reason, I believe House is
open to the charge of hagiography; and yet I am the more grateful that his
focus is upon edifying and building the body of Christ. Indeed, you must remove
a false structure before building a sound one in its place, and so accuse me of
hagiography: I find House’s work excellent.
As I stated before: this book isn’t for everybody, but it’s
for quite a few more than you’d expect at first. With 5/5 stars, and no
comparable work I’m aware of, I recommend this book to
Seminary Presidents (and Christian Universities)
Seminary Prospects
Parents of Seminary Prospects
Church Elder Boards
Senior Pastors
Youth Pastors
Directors of Denominational programs
I received a free digital copy of this book for review as
part of Crossway’s Beyond the Page program.
