What Is Non-Formal Theological Education?

When people hear the phrase "theological education", many of them picture a seminary campus with classrooms, libraries and degrees. This picture is familiar, and it shows only one part of how the church learns. Throughout its history, the church has learned in more than one way.

Theological educators describe three broad kinds of theological education. These are formal, informal and non-formal theological education. Each kind plays a role in the life of the church, and each works in a different way.

Formal Theological Education

Formal theological education usually takes place in institutions such as seminaries and Bible colleges. These institutions work in a similar way to universities. Students meet entry requirements and follow a set curriculum. Learning is usually measured through written exams and grades, and it leads to accredited degrees.

Formal theological education has served the church for generations. It has produced scholars and careful interpreters of Scripture. It also has limits. Students often have to leave their ministry setting to study, and the cost is high. For these reasons, many church leaders around the world are unable to follow this path.

Formal theological education focuses on academic formation. Its strength is the depth of study it offers. Its weakness is the distance between the classroom and everyday church life.

Informal Theological Education

Informal theological education is the learning that happens naturally in the church. It takes place through preaching and Bible studies, and through mentoring relationships and daily conversations. Most Christians learn their faith in this way.

Informal learning is relational and lived. It usually follows no syllabus and leads to no certificate. Because it is unstructured, it is hard to measure. Even so, it remains essential for spiritual growth.

On its own, informal learning rarely gives clear preparation for leadership. Churches that rely only on informal learning often find it hard to form leaders with consistency and confidence.

Non-Formal Theological Education

Non-formal theological education sits between formal and informal learning. It is intentional and structured, and it follows its own pattern instead of the systems of universities or seminaries. Learning is planned and guided, and it stays flexible in form.

Non-formal theological education usually takes place in churches or community settings. Students continue in their ministry while they learn. Learning happens alongside their service and their everyday responsibilities in the church. In this way, students learn theology while they practise it.

Non-formal programs often have clear aims, and they know what kind of leaders they hope to form. They use activities that support these aims, such as guided study and mentoring relationships, along with supervised ministry. Learning is shaped by real questions that come from ministry.

Assessment in non-formal theological education looks different from academic grading. Growth is observed over time, and readiness for responsibility matters more than written performance. The main concern is whether a person can serve faithfully and teach responsibly. Another concern is whether the person can lead others with wisdom.

Non-formal theological education has been central to the growth of the global church. In many parts of the world, it has been the main way that leaders are formed. It allows churches to train people who cannot leave their communities or pay for formal study. It also keeps formation close to mission and to accountability in the church.

Non-formal theological education offers its own distinct pathway. It works alongside formal theological education, and it goes further than informal learning. It combines clear aims with flexibility and service in the community.

GAAMT and Church-Based Ministry Training

GAAMT serves the church by accrediting the non-formal theological education offered by local churches and church networks. We work with churches that take responsibility for forming their own members through structured and intentional training. GAAMT accredits church-based programs, and it leaves the accreditation of seminaries and Bible colleges to other agencies.

The word "non-formal" can sometimes sound negative, as if something is missing. For this reason, GAAMT prefers to speak of church-based ministry training. This phrase helps churches describe positively what their training is.

GAAMT sees the local church as a full and natural place of learning, where theology is lived and tested. When training stays within the church, learning remains connected to worship and community life. It also stays connected to the church's mission in the world.

For GAAMT, church-based ministry training is a distinct model of theological education. It begins with the conviction that faithful churches can raise faithful leaders. It also holds that theological education belongs at the heart of the local church.

A Church-Based Approach to Non-Formal Theological Education Accreditation

Introduction

Accreditation is a familiar idea for colleges and universities. Bible colleges and seminaries also have a long history with accrediting agencies. In these settings, accreditation confirms that a person has completed certain requirements. It allows a student to move from one stage of study to the next. It also helps employers and other institutions understand what a credential means.

Churches have usually managed without accreditation. In the church, growth is seen in visible character and in faithful service in ministry and mission. The congregation can see who is growing. Leaders emerge through their service, and the congregation recognises them.

Over time, many churches have found that they can offer only limited theological education. Some members leave their home churches to study at seminaries. These seminaries are often accredited by national and international agencies. Sometimes a seminary credential becomes the reason a person is accepted as a leader when they return to a church.

Is Accreditation Necessary for the Church?

This history raises the question of whether the church needs accreditation at all. At GAAMT, we see accreditation for local churches as a pastoral matter. Our main interest is how churches care for and form their own members. Measuring churches against a standard is a smaller part of our concern.

In recent years, many churches have stopped developing their own training. They trust seminaries to do the training for them. Sadly, many members who leave for theological training never return to the churches where they grew up. This loss of trained people makes it urgent for churches to recover theological education that meets the needs of their congregations. Churches need more intentional training, so that they can train their own leaders for the mission of the next generation.

In this situation, accreditation can help churches in several ways. It can affirm churches that their training programs have value. It can also encourage church members to invest in their church's education. When churches work together with other churches and networks, accreditation can create a sense of accountability. It also helps churches to know that others share their efforts.

GAAMT exists to support this work. GAAMT accredits church-based ministry training so that churches can grow as communities that serve the next generation well.

The Current Direction in Accreditation

If accreditation has value, then a further question follows. Some people may ask whether seminaries and churches should aim for one common standard.

In recent years, many accreditation bodies have begun to speak positively about non-formal theological education. Recent guidelines often use the language of competencies and learning outcomes. These documents suggest that non-formal and formal education can work alongside each other. GAAMT welcomes this development. Most educators now accept that learning happens outside seminaries as well as inside them. In some models, credits from non-formal programs can even count toward recognition by formal institutions.

The desire to honour learning that happens in ministry settings is important and positive. The effort to name competencies, instead of relying only on classroom hours, is a real and positive change in global theological education.

The Challenge Beneath the Promise

Alongside this promise of partnership between seminaries and churches, a difficult pattern has also appeared. In practice, the standards used to recognise non-formal theological education are usually taken directly from formal seminaries.

Competencies are often defined by academic expectations. Rigour is measured by criteria that assume access to libraries and protected study time, along with trained staff. Teachers are expected to meet the standards that a seminary uses to define a teacher. Local churches struggle to meet these expectations. As a result, their training looks weaker when it is judged by seminary standards.

This result is usually unintended, and it is still real. Recognition can slowly turn into comparison. Partnership can shift toward conformity with seminary standards, and churches can become dependent on seminaries again.

GAAMT Accreditation Has a Different Starting Point

GAAMT's understanding of accreditation begins with the church. Our first question concerns how churches can recover their vision and mission as Scripture describes them. We ask what a good church looks like according to Scripture. We also ask what faithfulness looks like in ministry and mission.

We believe that a good church, rooted in Scripture and attentive to its people, will naturally develop good theological education. That education may look different from a seminary. It may move more slowly, and it may leave out some subjects that a seminary would consider essential. At the same time, it can be deeply relational. It can form character that the community is able to see. It can also prepare ministers who rely on the church in ministry and work with the church in mission.

Competency-Based Education from a Church Perspective

Many of us who work with GAAMT have studied in seminaries, though not all of us have. We recognise that seminary thinking has value for church-based ministry training. Some of the language that shapes theological education today is also encouraging. We hear about competency-based learning, and we see good signs in the use of micro-credentials. We commend the use of portfolios in place of exams. We also value the focus on outcomes and impact.

GAAMT strongly supports competency-based theological education (CBTE). CBTE focuses on what learners can actually do as well as what they know, and this focus lies at the heart of ministry training. However, GAAMT is concerned about how some competencies are defined and applied. For this reason, we are cautious when CBTE protocols are used mainly to check compliance.

GAAMT encourages churches to think about competencies in biblical terms. We may ask local church leaders what Jesus wanted his disciples to become. We may also ask what the apostles wanted the various churches to develop. Another important question is how the Bible describes growth in these competencies in the life of the church.

Scripture shows some broad competencies that apply to every church. Believers are to become like Christ and to be filled with the Spirit. They are to show the fruit of the Spirit and to fulfil the Great Commission. Scripture also shows much diversity, and it gives no single training program for reaching these goals. In his letters, Paul focused on some competencies for one church and on different competencies for another church.

GAAMT wants to protect the space where churches think about competencies in light of their own needs and abilities. These competencies grow out of the church's own life and ministry. Seminaries can help guide this discussion, and the competencies themselves will vary from church to church.

Seminaries and churches need to work together. Formal theological education can help point churches back to Scripture and help clarify what faithfulness looks like. Even so, the local church remains the main place where faithfulness is tested and shown.

Conclusion

GAAMT's work in church-based ministry training stands alongside formal theological education. We want to learn from global trends in theological education and stay aware of them. Our main concern is to keep the focus on local churches. We want local churches to develop training programs that are consistent with Scripture, doing the best they can. Some churches will do this better than others, and this gives churches the opportunity to help one another improve and grow.

GAAMT works with the conviction that healthy churches produce meaningful theological education. Accreditation should strengthen this work. A good church that is faithful to Scripture and engaged in mission is already a place of deep formation. GAAMT's task is to recognise and support that formation.

Formal and Non-Formal Theological Education: A Video

Nigel Ajay Kumar recorded a short video that explains the difference between formal and non-formal theological education. In the video, he responds to a question from ICETE, the International Council for Evangelical Theological Education. This post gives a short summary of the video and a link to watch it.

Theological training today faces a significant shift across the Majority World. For the past century, traditional residential seminaries set the standard for ministry preparation. Rapid church growth in local towns and rural areas now demands accessible learning. Understanding how formal and non-formal systems differ helps both models collaborate well.

The first major difference between these two educational approaches involves location and language. Traditional formal institutions require students to leave their home communities to study in major cities. These academic programs rely heavily on English for instruction and research. In contrast, non-formal education brings training directly into the local church setting. Leaders learn in their native languages while remaining active in their home ministries.

Teaching methods and program structures highlight another key division between the two models. Formal institutions deliver exhaustive curricula covering systematic theology, church history, and biblical languages. These academic programs enforce strict deadlines and evaluate students through written exams. Non-formal programs focus on key biblical themes, discipleship, and practical ministry skills. Their flexible schedules accommodate working leaders and evaluate growth through practical ministry projects.

Questions of institutional recognition and authority create distinct differences between these groups. Formal colleges depend on recognized accrediting agencies that require faculty to hold advanced post-graduate qualifications. Grassroots movements respond to urgent local needs where experienced pastors must train others immediately. These local ministries work outside traditional accreditation systems to equip leaders without delay.

The two systems define and evaluate their core outcomes in contrasting ways. Formal education measures achievement through academic papers, research presentations, and written dissertations. Non-formal programs value visible life transformation, spiritual maturity, and active community outreach. Both sides now recognize the need for balance between solid doctrine and everyday practice.

The ongoing conversation between formal and non-formal training holds great value for the church. Experienced grassroots pastors offer deep ministry wisdom, while academic institutions provide rich theological resources. Both approaches gain strength when leaders listen well, honour different gifts, and work together.

Church-Based, Church-Centric and Church-Housed Training

Nigel Ajay Kumar wrote an article that compares three models of leadership training for grassroots churches. He calls these models church-based, church-centric and church-housed training. The article helps curriculum developers think about who owns the training and where it takes place. It also helps them think about who teaches and who assesses the learners. GAAMT builds its accreditation on the first of these models, church-based training. This post summarises the article and links to the full text.

Why the Distinction Matters

The article grew out of the author's work with a team of Majority World practitioners. The team was developing ministry training content for grassroots pastors and leaders. Its aim was to help local churches take ownership of their own learning and ministry.

The team also saw a risk in this work. Trainers could act as outside specialists who overlook the local church or even bypass it. To guard against this risk, the team went back to the meaning of church-based training. They found that the three models differ in where training happens and in who owns the content. The models also differ in who teaches and who assesses the learners.

Church-Based Training

In church-based training, the local church is the owner of the training. The church is also the setting where training happens and the main agent that carries it out.

The church stays responsible for its training even when the curriculum comes from outside. It adapts the training to fit its own needs and mission. Training takes place within the everyday life of the church, through teaching and mentoring and through practical ministry. Local pastors and elders are the main trainers. The article points to 2 Timothy 2, where mature leaders pass on teaching to reliable people who will then teach others.

In the article's example, the local church works in a similar way to a Bible college. It develops or adapts its own curriculum. Its own leaders then teach and assess the students.

Church-Centric Training

In church-centric training, the local church is the focus and the beneficiary of the training. The curriculum and teaching usually come from outside institutions, such as seminaries or parachurch organisations. These institutions also provide the oversight.

Church-centric training may take place in or near a church building, and it is designed with the church's needs in mind. Pastors may support the training. However, outside trainers usually do the teaching and mentoring.

In the article's example, church leaders take part in a curriculum designed for their needs, and outside experts teach it.

Church-Housed Training

In church-housed training, the church provides the venue for the training. An outside organisation, such as a seminary or Bible college, sets the curriculum and does the teaching. The same organisation oversees and assesses the students.

Students in church-housed training do not need to belong to the host church. The program follows the policies and standards of the outside institution, and accountability lies with that institution. In the article's example, people from many backgrounds gather in a church building, or online, to learn from experts.

The Connection with GAAMT

GAAMT accredits programs that are church-owned, church-based and church-located. These three terms describe the church-based model in this article. The church owns and governs the training, and local pastors and experienced believers do the teaching. Students learn in the places where they live and serve.

Church-centric and church-housed programs can serve the church in valuable ways. GAAMT's accreditation focuses on church-based programs, because these programs keep the local church responsible for forming its own members for ministry.

Read the Full Article

The full article was published on 23 April 2025 on the Regeneration NAyK blog. You can read it here: Church-Based Leadership Training Is Different from Church-Centric and Church-Housed Leadership Training.

Breaking Barriers for Theological Education for All

Dr Ashish Chrispal and Dr Alex Abraham wrote an article called "Breaking Barriers for Theological Education for All: A Global South Perspective". The article describes a large need for theological education among church leaders in the Global South. It also describes the early vision that later led to the formation of GAAMT. This post gives a short summary of the article and a link to the full text.

The Need

The authors begin with the growth of the church in the Global South. They estimate that 90 percent of the leaders of new churches in this region have no formal theological education. They also estimate that around two million such leaders are waiting for training that would help them build strong and healthy churches. Most of these leaders cannot afford seminary study. Many of them also do not meet the entry requirements of seminaries.

The authors tell the stories of two church leaders in South Asia to show this need. The first leader, Pastor Raj, was a painter before he became a church planter, and he cannot read. His congregation grew to around 4,000 people, and his team planted around 200 churches. The second leader, Pastor Madan Lal, studied only up to the second grade. Over 25 years he baptised around 4,000 people and planted many churches and house churches.

The authors ask whether leaders like these would be welcomed in seminaries. They also ask whether anyone would recognise the training these leaders have received, even when it is sound and fruitful.

The Barriers

The authors name several barriers that keep such leaders from theological education and recognition. The first barrier is a mindset that theological education is only for a small number of people. In this mindset, theological education belongs to people who are literate and who can afford the cost.

A second barrier is the size of the need. The authors note that around 50,000 people graduate from seminaries worldwide each year. In the same period, nearly 100,000 new churches are planted in India alone.

The authors also describe theological education that has become mainly academic. They cite a South Asian study which found that most seminary graduates never planted a church. Other barriers include high entry requirements and content that does not address the cultures where leaders serve. The authors also point to teaching that centres on the professor, and to limited practical preparation for ministry. Finally, they note that most theological content is copyrighted and unavailable in local languages, so churches are unable to adapt it.

The Response

The authors describe how church leaders in the Global South are creating their own solutions. These solutions include low-cost training and open-source curriculum. They also include teaching in local languages and giving serious attention to oral learners.

The authors call for several changes in how training happens. Training moves from the institution into the church. It also moves from a focus on academic excellence toward ministry that changes lives. In addition, the authors call for teaching that centres on the learner, and for learning that continues throughout life.

The article then describes early steps taken in South Asia. Two consultations on non-formal theological education took place in Bangalore in 2018. These consultations led to the formation of the South Asia Forum for Non-Formal Theological Education in August 2018. A later consultation in Delhi proposed a global association that could recognise non-formal theological education and set standards for it. The same consultation proposed bachelor's, master's and doctoral programs in Christian ministry.

The Connection with GAAMT

GAAMT grew out of the South Asia Non-Formal Theological Education Forum and was established in 2020. Many ideas in this article continue in GAAMT's work today. These ideas include church-based training and recognition based on ministry and character. They also include training in local languages and the open sharing of curriculum. The ministry programs proposed in the article are now reflected in the five qualification levels that GAAMT accredits, from the Certificate of Ministry to the Doctor of Ministry.

Read the Full Article

You can read the full article by Dr Ashish Chrispal and Dr Alex Abraham here: Breaking Barriers for Theological Education for All. The link opens a view-only copy of the article.