Just woken up after having about 17 hours sleep in the last 24! I got home from the RSC yesterday, and was totally exhausted, it was a really intense process about 8 hours of interviews in the two days, and the rest of the time (free time) was spent socialising with the selectors so it was all rather intense. It was a really interesting experience though and even if I don't get through, it was great from a networking point of view. Jon and I spent some time getting to know one another dreaming dreams for the young people in the Central Baptist Association, which is all rather cool. His thoughts about the RSC and a explanation of what it is (for those who don't know) can be found here.

Anyway one of the interviews at the RSC got me thinking, is it possible to learn in more than one way? And do Church Leaders have to be academic? The interview in question concentrated on candidates theological knowledge and our ability to learn. I will happily put my hands up and say that I struggle with reading, I find it hard, and have to discipline myself to do so, but does this mean that I have a lower ability to learn, or do I just learn in a different way?

Of the three books we had to read for the RSC I only managed two, and had to work quite hard to get through them, two books was quite an achievement for me. The one I didn't manage was "Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places" by Eugene H. Peterson, a tough acedmeic, theological text. I relise that as a leaders we need to be constantly stretching ourselves and growing in our own learning and our own faith, but is reading the only way to stretch yourself and grow in your faith as a leader? A few years ago, in college we did the Honey and Mumford learning styles questionnaire and I came out as an activist - and theorist was my lowest, therefore does this mean on these grounds I'm not a academic enough to be a leader?

Interestingly enough the three books that they had asked us to read where looking at God and theology through quite post-modern eyes, however I found this interview to be from a very modern perspective, and not engaging with new ways to learn and stretch yourself, for instance the Internet was rejected as a source to engage with. It's funny isn't it, how on the one hand the church can appear to be culturally relevant and engaging with new ways of thinking and yet on the other hand can still be as stuck in its ways as ever?