Australia and New Zealand Association for

Conference 21 to 23 November 2007, Brisbane Queensland

'Field Education as a Source of Integration in Training'

Colin Hunter - Director of Theological Field Education, Whitley College In honour of the late Professor Emeritus John Paver

The topic 'Field education as a source of integration in training' could lead one in so many directions that I have had to make choices about the issues I will address. One possible approach would be to put the contemporary practices of theological field education under the microscope and demonstrate how they have helped overcome the barriers, visible and invisible, that have separated the four fields of theology that exist in most undergraduate degrees in theology. This is a very tempting option, because field education has struggled to find recognition within theological education institutions whether they conceive of themselves as seminaries, academies, colleges or schools. My intuition - unsupported by research I hasten to add - is that the closer an institution considers itself to be towards the academy (as opposed to the seminary) end of the theological education spectrum, the less likely it would be to recognise field education as either theological or educational. If I am correct in my assumption, then this is paradoxical, because theology likewise struggles to gain acceptance within the university, insofar as it is perceived to be founded on the authority of Tradition and Scripture, and not upon open enquiry. In this respect field education, which is based upon open enquiry, might be said to be closer to the university model than some other theological disciplines. However much I wish to provide an apologetic for field education and laud its achievements, I have chosen to cast the net a little wider to argue more generally for the need for integration within the whole theological education and ministry formation enterprise, and then suggest where field education might fit as one of the unifying sources. The concept of 'training' predates field education by some centuries. It is appropriate, therefore, that I begin by describing the development of training as it applies to the preparation of men and women for ministry, particularly within my own tradition of the Baptist Union of Victoria. Before addressing the concept of 'integration' as it relates to training, I will discuss the phenomenon of 'fragmentation' in modern models of theological education, using the critiques of Edward Farley as a primary source. Then, drawing on the work of the late John Paver, whom I wish to honour in this paper, I will suggest some ways in which the practice of theological reflection through field education and other programs can become the key to integration in training.

I will then seek a broad definition of field education that encompasses different models, and make a case that at its heart lies the process we call theological reflection. It is because of this emphasis on theology that most theological field educators no longer use the term 'field education' and instead speak of 'theological field education' (TFE). Finally I will suggest some ways forward so that the core pedagogies of TFE - experience-based learning and adult education - can be integrated into theological education curricula.

Training.

The term 'training' has an honourable history within my own denomination, the Baptist Union of Victoria. The first Baptist pastors in Melbourne were neither ordained nor trained for ministry; they were simply men who had natural leadership and pastoral skills recognised by the small and struggling colonial churches. The first Principal of the Baptist College of Victoria, William T. Whitley, was a graduate of King's College Cambridge. Appointed in 1891, he came from a liberal theological background and symbolised the desire of early Baptists in Victoria to furnish their ministerial candidates with a thoroughgoing theological and general education. The course content included Comparative Theology, Psychology, Philosophy and Natural Science. The early equivalent of ministry formation was offered by a retired minister who discussed with students the 'possibilities and difficulties, the problems and dangers of the ministry'. In addition there were lectures on 'How to conduct weddings and funerals', 'Intercourse with other denominations', 'Development of a territorial mission', and 'Church business'. From the earliest days there was an intention to educate ministerial candidates in a way that would expand their world view, address their concrete situation, and help them understand their context theologically. In Principal Whitley's eleven years of leadership there were a mere eighteen graduates! We are dealing with a very different context today, one in which the ordination candidates enrolled in many theological colleges are outnumbered by as much as ten to one by students studying for their own edification, faith development, or for leadership in the church other than through the ordained ministry. I would imagine many traditions have a similar history of training for ministry, and, in fact, it is a model that is still extant in rural districts in Australia. A four-year undergraduate or graduate theological education is a luxury which many parishes in rural and remote areas are less and less able to afford. Lay people, many with little formal theological education, are providing leadership and performing the ministry functions necessary for the survival of the church and for the care of souls. They are doing theology on the run and dealing with all of the challenges faced in urban and suburban ministries and then some. With the rural recession and climate change they are dealing with the kinds of conditions that prevailed in this country through the Great Depression, or, if you prefer, that prevailed in Judah through the Great Exile. They are ministering to people being exiled from their third and fourth generation properties into poverty. Surely if ever there was a time when people in rural Australia needed support in interpreting the meaning of their situation and how they might discern the all but invisible face of God in the midst of dust and drought, it is now. In my opinion TFE provides the perfect model for resourcing these remote ministry heroes. My UCA colleague, Rev Barbara Spencer, will be taking a modified supervision training program to rural areas in Victoria as theologian-at-large in 2008.

The term training has tended to be superseded with formation in recent times shifting the emphasis from teaching the skills considered necessary for ministry to shaping the person according to the desired profile for a Christian minister. I would want to include both agendas within the scope of TFE, but I would also reiterate that the most important quality we need to inculcate in potential church leaders is the capacity to think and act theologically in response to situations. Therefore when I use the term training, I do not split it off from the whole theological education enterprise. Neither do I want to define training as exclusively preparation of ministers for ordination. In a sense all Christians are ordained to ministry through baptism, some being for ministry within the church, others for ministry in wider contexts.

Fragmentation in theological education

Edward Farley critiques modern theological education for two fundamental reasons:

oHe is highly critical of the shift towards specialisation caused by the partitioning of theology into fields of enquiry.

oHe considers that theology has become overly focussed on the church and its doctrines rather than the world and its needs. Farley contrasts two fundamental ways of understanding theology. The first he describes as habitus, 'a habit, an enduring orientation and dexterity of the soul . a cognitive disposition and orientation of the soul'. This kind of theology 'is a practical, not theoretical, habit having the primary character of wisdom'. Theology as habitus is not at all anti-intellectual, but it recognises that reason comprises more than intellectual activity. It requires sapientia (wisdom) as well as scientia (reason) and he concludes that modern theology has neglected this integrative understanding which he calls habitus. The other understanding of theology, which Farley terms discipline, he attributes to the rise of the university in the late Middle Ages. The influence of Scholasticism shifted the focus of philosophical thought from the idealism of Plato to the rationalism of his pupil Aristotle. The emphasis of Christian theology shifted from the formation of the Christian person within the Christian community, to the discernment and articulation of propositional truth about God and the formation of Christian doctrine within the university. The university rather than the Christian community became the locus of truth from the twelfth century on.

Paul Tillich addresses the bifurcation of knowledge by distinguishing between different forms of reason; 'technical reason', which relates to those cognitive functions engaged in logical analysis, and 'ontological reason' which is 'cognitive and aesthetic, theoretical and practical, detached and passionate, subjective and objective'. Tillich asserts that the separation of technical reason from ontological reason - i.e. the alienation of cognitive from affective and aesthetic reason - is de-humanising, and this is precisely the critique that Farley makes of theology in modern times. It risks losing the soul in the service of the intellect.

Farley asserts that defining theology as a speculative search for propositional truth has distanced it from genuine engagement in the human predicament. Partitioning theology into specialist fields has exacerbated the separation and led to a shift in the attention of theological enquiry moving from the world to the church . A further consequence of the distancing of theology from human experience and praxis is that there is now a missing element in the structure of theological education as it has been delivered in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. That missing element, asserts Farley, is 'the theological interpretation of situations' , in other words relating the insights of theology to the questions posed by human experience. So, the development of theological education beginning in the twelfth century and consolidated in Europe in the nineteenth century, has led to a two-fold separation; the separation of intellectual knowledge from wisdom through the partitioning of theology; and the separation of theology from lived experience through the increasing professionalisation of ministry. Whilst I agree with many of Farley's critiques of modern academic theology, I would also acknowledge that I have benefited greatly from the excellent theological education that I received. I would not want to be misconstrued as being dismissive of it even though it was characterised by the kind of specialisation of which Farley is so critical. I had inspiring teachers such as Dr Athol Gill and Dr Graeme Garrett who in many respects embodied integration of practical theology into their teaching. From Gill I learned that theology is the servant of mission to the marginalised and the dispossessed. From Garrett I caught a passion for Paul Tillich's method of correlation which provides the intellectual foundation for my own practice of theological reflection today. More important than the pedagogy by which we teach, is the enthusiasm we model for interpreting our situation and how to discern the activity of God within it. The bifurcation of theological education and ministry formation is evident in the example I quoted earlier about the training of Victorian Baptist ministers in the early Twentieth Century. A retired minister gave the ordination candidates instruction in practical matters which related primarily to the church-oriented functions of ministry. The remainder of the program was academic in its focus and there is no indication of any attempt to integrate the theoretical and the practical.

Linda Cannell, commenting on current developments in theological education in the USA, observes that 'seminaries are restructuring themselves as universities' and questions whether they can any longer serve the churches. She asserts that:

'. academics often perceive the church as dysfunctional, confused, at the margins of society, and lacking in spiritual character. Similarly church leaders are often reluctant to interact with the academy because of perceptions that its language is too esoteric'.

Cannell is critical of what she perceives as 'the besetting sins of higher education - pride, power, arrogance, elitism - that hinder engagement with people who are seeking understanding'. Frank Rees, as the then Professor of Systematic Theology at Whitley College in 2005, wrote similarly, 'There is a common perception that a great gulf divides the churches and their practical concerns from the academic interests of theological education'. This perceived divide threatens to widen in Australia as theological institutions are forced to respond to increasing pressures to develop research capability in order to attract government funding. The possibility that the Australian Government may introduce a category of 'specialist university', accredited to teach in only one discipline, may prove financially irresistible to providers of theological education. Cannell's concern about the phenomenon of 'seminaries restructuring themselves as universities' may well come to apply in Australia as well as the USA.

As an administrator of higher education ministry degrees, I am very committed to solid research into the ministry of the church as it seeks to live out its vocation as the embodiment of Christ in the world. I am very proud of the fine research that I have been privileged to witness as an administrator, supervisor and companion to ministry studies researchers. But research must always be the servant of the church just as the church must be the servant of the world for the sake of the Gospel. 'Research for research's sake' is a concept fraught with the risk of further dissociation of theology and praxis, and with the risk of the kind of intellectual elitism described by Cannell.

Integration.

Attempts at integration in training for ministry take many forms. One of the gifts of the Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) movement has been its focus on the intra-personal development of the minister. Drawing on the insights of Sigmund Freud into the phenomena of transference and counter transference, CPE has helped students identify the ways in which they experience problems about learning due to their attitude to the supervisor (transference) and learning problems due to their attitude to the patient (countertransference) and the parallel process that occurs between the supervisory relationship and the clinical relationship . This is one form of integration - personal integration - which is a major focus of CPE and which also finds its place in TFE, if to a lesser degree. Personal integration is about overcoming dissonance between thinking and feeling, it is about self-awareness and self-acceptance, and must surely be one of the objectives of formation for Christian ministry . Having worked in the areas of professional development and professional standards for people in ministry, it is my conviction that many of the abuses perpetrated by clergy result from a lack of integration of the self, a view supported by the research of Paul and Libby Whetham.

Another form of integration, which also finds its locus in the ministering person, might be termed theological integration that seeks to inculcate a theological mindset in ministers and faith communities. The goal of this kind of integration is to encourage a constant conversation within the ministering person and the faith community between the perplexing experiences of life and ministry that challenge one's deeply held beliefs, and the rich resources of the Christian Tradition mediated to us through academic theological education. I well recall experience as a theological student in the early nineteen eighties, grappling with the mysteries of Greek in a pre-sessional intensive and then engaging in Greek, Introduction to Biblical Studies and Introduction to Systematic Theology for the rest of the year. Introduction to Systematic Theology was my first experience of an attempt at theological integration. The three-term subject was divided into three sections - Bible, Systematic Theology and Church History. It was taught by three different lecturers representing the three fields, in three discrete blocks of time, without reference to each other's material. It was a valiant attempt to integrate two of the three Schleiermachian fields and I found it both fascinating and helpful to gain an overview of the territory of theological education as it was taught then. In retrospect, the missing element in this integrative introduction to theology was the very aspect of theology that Schleiermacher judged to be the crown of theology - practical theology. I 'road-tested' this section of the paper with a group of Australian Defence Force (ADF) chaplains recently when I was invited to address them on the topic of 'formation'. One of chaplains objected strenuously to the term 'integration' on the basis that all ministers function with a multiplicity of roles and personas and integration is not a realistic or even possible goal. He wanted to replace 'integration' with 'narrative as the connective tissue' between the sources for theological reflection, an insight entirely consonant with the ethos and processes of TFE. ADF chaplains face a complex web of professional loyalties as military officers, as pastors to service men and women, as ordained clergy of Christian denominations, and as disciples of Jesus. 'Integration' can be a misleading term when used in relation to formation and training if it is intended to convey the impression that within the conditions of existence all fragmentation can be overcome. 'Narrative as the connective tissue' for theological reflection is an imaginative and useful image. My immediate response was to agree with the chaplain's critique and adopt the image, but also to defend the idea of integration as the eschatological hope and goal of all Christian formation - the reconciliation of all things in God.

The very word integration speaks of unity emerging out of diversity; that which is differentiated forming a unified whole so that each part retains its identity undiminished. Of course this is an idea that finds its ground in that understanding of the Trinity which posits that the manner in which the persons of the Trinity relate (perichoresis) is the manner in which the Godhead acts in the world. It is also present in the Apostle Paul's understanding of the church as the 'Body of Christ'. When a student is in the process of training for ministry, their course of study, ministry placements, supervision arrangements are prescribed for them by the institution. Integration in training, therefore, has to be a goal that is set and articulated by the training institution, it is not primarily the students' responsibility to set the agenda. However, if the institution provides an adequate framework for personal and theological integration through TFE and other programs, the students must then demonstrate that they are capable of achieving a measure of personal and theological integration in preparation for their vocation in ministry.

Theological reflection as a locus for integration in training The late John Paver was a pioneer in Victoria in challenging fragmentary models of theological education and in modelling integrative methods in theological education. In his book, 'Theological Reflection and Education for Ministry', published shortly before his death, Chapter 2 is titled 'Theological reflection as a method of integration'. Paver makes two important assertions about the nature of theological reflection in this chapter. The first assertion advocates 'the priority of experience in theological reflection'. Whatever may be one's preferred model of theological reflection, to start with concrete experience ensures that it is grounded in the real world and opens the possibility for the integration of theology and experience. The second assertion, 'conversation is the preferred mode of communication in theological reflection', indicates that theological reflection is not an isolated, individual activity, but a respectful engagement with 'partners, not adversaries'. Rees likewise envisages theology as 'a continuous conversation between one's context and one's personal and communal experience of God, bringing to that conversation all the resources of Scripture study, the traditions of Christian faith, and the rigorous demands of critical reasoning' . 'Integrative theological reflection of this nature seeks a wholeness and integrity in the life experience of individuals, their present situation, their understanding of biblical texts and traditional formulations .'.

If TFE is to be a source of integration in training, both theological field educators (such as Paver) and faculty of theological institutions (such as Rees) must achieve some commonality in their vision for theological education and training. Field educators must be committed to critical correlations between experience and the content of academic theology. Conversely, integration cannot happen if faculties are not able to recognise the necessity of teaching theology 'with a due regard for theology and experience'. Whilst the question of integration in training for ministry must necessarily be examined in the broader setting of theological education generally, it may be reasonable to suggest that a theological institution's approach to TFE is something of a litmus test of its commitment to context and experience. Charlotte McDaniel conducted research with theological field education directors in the USA and discovered a very high rate of turnover and low rate of research publications amongst the research group. She writes, 'The high turnover among ATFE administrators raises the question of value and selection. .. high turnover among these personnel suggests low value'. The value placed on TFE, and on those who teach and administer TFE programs, depends to a very large degree on the recognition by faculties of the fragmentary factors inherent in a proposition-based curriculum. Speaking from my own experience. the commitment of the Whitley College faculty to the integration of theology and praxis has meant that TFE has become an integral and valued component of the curriculum.

TFE can legitimately claim to be a source of integration in training through the discipline of theological reflection provided it pays due attention to each of the necessary sources for theological reflection, and to the multiplicity of contexts for ministry. It is to the integration of theological reflection into the practice of TFE that I now turn.

Theological reflection and TFE

I understand TFE to be a distinct discipline within a teaching institution which provides theological education. In most programs offered in this discipline, a theological student reflects with a supervisor and with peers on her or his experiences of ministry. TFE is neither speculative nor abstract, it always deals with lived experience and its primary task is to model theological reasoning about the ways in which God is present and recognisable within human experience. As such it is concerned with theological reflection which I defined in 1995 as: . to seek to understand a given situation, as far as is possible, in the totality of its meanings (psychological, sociological, cultural, theological) in a way that will lead to a more informed response by the minister-in-training in the future. . Theological reflection in a Christian context places both objective experience and subjective interpretation under the scrutiny of the faith community using the resources of the Christian tradition to seek a truly Christian interpretation and response to a given situation.

Whilst there is nothing in that description I would resile from, in the intervening years I have come to appreciate the struggle that many of the students in my tradition have when invited to loosen their adherence to the exalted theology of Scripture in which they were formed as children and teenagers. I find many can with their minds acknowledge that Scripture is multi-vocal and contextually authored, and can even write distinction-level exegetical papers employing sophisticated forms of biblical criticism. But when it comes to interpreting lived experience theologically, they frequently abandon their exegetical and hermeneutical skills in favour of an unreflected aphorism or biblical analogy. Grappling respectfully, yet rigorously, with the relationship between Scripture and experience is a challenge, not only for the New Testament professor, but for the TFE supervisor.

However I have also come to appreciate the value of simplicity in theological reflection, similar to Paul Ricoeur's 'second naivete'. In this I have learned much from the example of the Principal of Whitley College, Rev Dr Frank Rees. Rees has developed a model of theological reflection which has become influential with TFE students at Whitley College. He asks the following questions of a concrete situation: Where is God in this situation?

What is God like in this situation?

What is God doing in this situation?

Therefore what does God require of us in this situation?

Although the questions themselves are simple, the very asking of them can lead a student into an imaginative reflection that is profoundly theological and innately contextual. Rees does not see these as the only questions to be asked; rather they serve as conversation starters which prompt and invite further exploration and reflection.

Today I would place at the centre of theological reflection:

othe importance of dealing rigorously and respectfully with Scripture.

othe value of a simple yet penetrating framework for theological reflection in practice.

othe indispensability of a trusted community of reflection in which all questions are permitted and welcomed.

Thus far I have been using the rubric of TFE as if it is a uniform discipline with similar content across institution. However, I see three categories of TFE in theological institutions, each with strengths and weaknesses. The following observations emerge, not from research, but from my experiences as a theological field educator, as a founding member of VATFE and long time member of ANZATFE, and more recently ATFE:

oThe first category, and perhaps the most common, comprises denominational programs which are specifically designed for the formation of candidates for ordination and are not available to non-candidates. Some of these programs are accredited to offer degree and diploma-level units, others are a non-accredited but compulsory component of the formation program. Most programs in this category would have formal education and accreditation for supervisors. Students would have the benefit of personal supervision, peer reflection groups and some level of congregational evaluation. The focus of such programs is on the candidates' verbatim reports of their experiences in ministry placements, and there is usually a significant emphasis on theological reflection upon those experiences. A legitimate critique of such programs is that they can still be overly focussed on students' experiences within the context of the local church and fail to address the wider issues of justice and ethics in society.

oSimilar programs are offered by non-denominational theological education providers. While these institutions may not be official ministry formators, many of their graduates will become ordination candidates or serve in lay ministry positions in a range of denominations. Some of these institutions require every student to undertake TFE in a placement, arranged by the student themselves, in a church or agency. Due to the large numbers involved and the finite resources available to fund such programs, supervisors may not be trained in the art of theological reflection and in the discipline of supervision. Nevertheless the programs that I have observed and the teachers who resource them are to be commended for their commitment and integrity.

oThe third category of institution may not even describe themselves as providers of TFE. For instance many Roman Catholic theological institutions do not offer TFE programs as such, however this seeming lack may be compensated for by rigorous programs of formation, often based on extensive immersion experiences, provided by religious orders. The strengths of such programs lie in the exposure of novices to the challenges of contextual theology in disparate cultures. On a similar but smaller scale, the Australian Baptist missionary organisation, Global interAction, provides short term supervised immersion experiences for young people exploring a possible vocation in mission overseas. Increasingly those who commit to these immersion experiences are required to be involved in supervision and engage in theological reflection on the experience.

Regardless of the model of TFE, and whether or not it is termed such, the underlying epistemology and pedagogy are similar; experience is a valid source for interpreting human experience, together with Scripture, tradition and culture, under the examination of critical reason within a faith community.

Theological field education - a way forward

I will conclude this address by relating two personal examples in which I have experienced what I consider to be genuine integration in formation. The first is an aspect of Supervised TFE as it is taught at Whitley College. The other is a case-study based unit, 'Theological Reflection for Ministry' introduced into the curriculum in 2007 as a core unit for ordination candidates but open to any student enrolled in a MCD theology degree.

STFE at Whitley College is offered mainly for ordination candidates and is taught over two semesters. It focuses principally on the students' goals for their context and their reports of ministry experiences which they present to a supervisor and the peer reflection group. In recent years I have invited members of the Whitley faculty to present their own models of theological reflection to the peer group to augment the teaching and modelling provided by myself and supervisors. Each faculty member attends the peer group for one hour on consecutive weeks. In the first week they present a paper explaining how they engage their particular discipline in the interpretation of situations. Many faculty have said they find this a challenging yet rewarding experience. Some have even said they have changed the way they teach units in their discipline to adopt a case study methodology in order to ground their teaching. The overwhelming response from students is that these presentations have been seminal in helping them identify and own their own approaches to theological reflection, and to begin to integrate theological reflection into their practice of ministry. What this experience has taught me is that integration must be a goal of the whole institution, not only the theological field educators. This can only happen if the faculty understand that the critiques of Farley, Cannell et al must be taken seriously if the graduates of programs are to be capable of leading faith communities towards a theological interpretation of situations.

For some years Frank Rees as Professor of Systematic Theology and then as Principal of Whitley College expressed a desire to develop the STFE model. He identified the limitations of the model resulting from its dependence on ministry issues brought by the students. In some ways the model still did not address Farley's concern that theological education was focussed too much on the clerical needs of the church. This is in my experience a valid critique of STFE as I have taught it - a significant proportion of verbatims and case studies deal with the internal machinations (and often dysfunctions) of the local church community. In response, Rees and I collaborated to develop the two-semester unit, 'Theological Reflection for Ministry'. It replaced previously taught units in church leadership and instead identified eight key topics to be addressed. These included amongst others ministry identity and integrity, leading a congregation in mission, ecumenism and interfaith dialogue, conflict resolution, and homosexuality and ministry. In retrospect, I could have broadened the canvas even further to include issues such as environment and poverty. Perhaps this will be the next stage in the evolution of experience-base theological education at Whitley College.

Each case study was developed by a member of faculty or invited guest lecturer and was discussed over three weekly sessions of three hours each:

oIn week one the case study was presented by the lecturer for about half the class time. The class split into groups of four, discussed the case and identified three core issues for theological reflection. In the plenary the issues identified by the groups were reduced to three discrete issues.

oIn the second week the presenter and other co-opted faculty addressed the three core issues identified in week one. Over the two semesters there were presentations in biblical studies, systematic theology (ecclesiology, Christology, soteriology et al), missiology and pastoral studies, all arising from pressing theological questions identified by the students.

oBetween week two and week three the students had to develop a theological reflection on some aspect of the case, making reference to the material presented by faculty. The reflections were shared in the groups in week three, followed by a discussion on practical responses to the case.

STFE gives students the opportunity for theological reflection on issues of immediate concern to them in their ministry context. 'Theological Reflection for Ministry' requires that they apply their developing skills in theological reflection to broader issues of being the church in the world. Both take seriously the sources of experience and tradition in seeking a theological interpretation of situations and therefore can claim to contribute to integration in training. Integration is happening in many theological institutions through interdisciplinary teaching across the specialist fields. Curricula are being reviewed and integration is one of the aims. I am convinced that TFE has a significant contribution to make to the objectives of integration, particularly in the training of people for ministry. It engages the resources of the Christian tradition and the insights of specialists in each of the fields, and then seeks to integrate them within specific contexts. It is in contextualising theology that the particular models of education embodied in TFE have most to offer.

References

Cannell, Linda. Theological Education Matters: Leadership Education for the Church. eBook ed. Newburgh, IN: CanDoSpirit, 2006. Farley, Edward. Ecclesial Reflection: An Anatomy of Theological Method. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982. ---. "Interpreting Situations: An Inquiry into the Nature of Practical Theology." In Formation and Reflection: The Promise of Practical Theology, edited by Lewis S. Mudge and James N. Poling, 1 to 26. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. ---. Theologia : The Fragmentation and Unity of Theological Education. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. Hunter, Colin. "The Development of a Model of Supervision of Ministers-in-Training with the Baptist Union of Victoria." Master of Ministry, Melbourne College of Divinity, 1995. McDaniel, Charlotte. "Publications by Members of the Association for Theological Field Education: Survey Results." Theological Education Volume 37, no. 2 (2001): 59-70. O'Gorman, Robert T., Kathleen Talvacchia, and W. Michael Smith. "Teaching from a Community Context: The Role of the Field Educator in Theological Education." Theological Education Volume 37, no. 2 (2001): 1-57. Paver, John. Theological Reflection and Education for Ministry. Edited by Leslie J Francis and Jeff Astley, Explorations in Practical, Pastoral and Empirical Theology. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006. Rahner, Karl. The Trinity. New York: Crossroad Pub., 1997. Rees, Frank. "Teaching Theology with Due Regard to Experience and Context." Theological Education 40, no. Supplement (2005): 101-13. Ricoeur, Paul. Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation. Translated by Denis Savage. New haven: Yale University Press, 1970. Steere, David A. "Supervision among the Helping Professions." In The Supervision of Pastoral Care, edited by David A. Steere, 39 to 64. Louisville, KY.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1989. Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology. Three vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. Whetham, Paul & Libby. Hard to Be Holy: Unravelling the Roles and Relationships of Church Leaders. Adelaide: Open Book Publishers, 2000. Wilken, F.J. Baptists in Victoria: Our First Century 1838-193 8. Melbourne: Jenkin, Buxton & Co, 1939.