Toward a Teleological Theological Seminary
June 4, 2009
Again returning to Pastor Carol Merrit’s post, and the many thoughtful responses, in reflecting on the possibilites and necessities of pastoral education in the future we are at once confronted with the Protestant conundrum.
Who is this seminary for? Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Episcopalians . . . ?
Each have their own theologies of ministry. Perhaps pastors/priests are seen as sacramental; perhaps there is not much if any a line between clergy and laity except on has different responsibilities. Traditionally, how educated have the clergy been expected to be? There are many other presenting issues.
This ‘age’ has been called ‘post-denominational,’ and, if we are aiming to include a loosely defined “emerging” movement in these posts then in which there is a general ethos of distrust (perhaps disdain) for authority. For instance Tony Jones in his book “The New Christians” argues there is no line whatesoever between clergy and laity, and he loves it. Or, it is often the case that one need not explicitly confess a denomination’s distinctives to be a minister.
How can we do theological education in this kind of atmosphere? Well, it has been noted persistently through ecumenical dialogues that for two groups to start to come together and have meaningful relationships, what is not the best foot forward is to merely agree to the lowest common denominator. Quickly the rich heritage of each fellowship becomes blurred and is made to seem an addendum; a not-necessary part of our Christian identity, and so it must be downplayed and not made to be ‘divisive’ since it is not the ‘core.’ This seems to me to be unfortunate.
I want to be on record as saying that until we are able to learn how to unify despite diversity, and discern what diversity is acceptable and what is too far, I think that denominations should put a large stress on denominational distinctives. I have a friend, an Episcopalian, studying to become a priest. He is attending a Lutheran seminary, an excellent Lutheran seminary, but he has often found himself frustrated with the persistant Lutheranism that pervades the school. Since he is going to be an Anglican priest, he does not feel that he is always learning what he should be learning to help him be faithful in the future.
Now Episcopalians have a practice, and it seems to me to be brilliant, that if one attends a non-episcopalian seminary that is fine, but they will have to take what is called an “Anglican Year” where they spend two semesters specifically studying Anglican history, theology, distinctives and all that. Add to that that one does not even need an MDiv but merely has to pass the “General Ordination Examinations” (which include proficiency in biblical languages, church history, theology and liturgy) and I think, perhaps with a bit of a bias, that The Episcopal Church is on to something. The point is not a degree, the point is profiency to perform what has been the ‘job’ of the Anglican priest.
So, amongst many other things – I still have like 10 posts in my head – I think that until denominations are dead (if they ever will be) then it is imperitive that we maintain identity in our traditions, and do it well. This is not to say that one tradition is “better” than another; but that ‘lowest-common-denominator’ Christianity makes for thin pastors and theology.
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
June 4, 2009 at 13:59
I agree about maintaining identity in our traditions. I didn’t grow up Presbyterian, so when I was preparing for ordination, I needed to be seeped in it theologically and culturally. After 10 years of being Presby, I still get culture shock sometimes.
Although I have to say that I was continually stretched by people who were from other denominations who were in our classes. The diversity made it a much richer educational experience.
I’m so glad you’re continuing the conversation.
June 4, 2009 at 14:08
Absolutely Carol,
But what made them challenging was their “other” tradition yes? I’m not trying to say we segregate off into bubbles; just let each be their own well, because the richness is in the tradition.
June 4, 2009 at 19:23
Re: anglican practice. I think what makes an Episcopal Seminary Episcopal is its practice. Your friend who attends the Lutheran seminary may not be getting practice, that is morning or evening prayer, what is the eucharistic theology? Fortunately the Lutherans and Episcopalians are in communion so priests and ministers are canonically interchangeable, this arrangement would be a whole other animal if he were going to a Presbyterian seminary because the theology and practice are so different. But I think this is why Episcopal Bishops require their seminarians to complete at least one year of Anglican studies: Episcopal identity is to be found in its worship, not its doctrine; which is, I think, unique among protestant denominations and what I think is the answer to the non-denominational conundrum: common worship.
June 4, 2009 at 19:40
Does one need a spendy M.Div in order to show compassion for a grieving parishioner? Of course not. Does education help when weighing contemporary issues in light of scripture and tradition? Absolutely.
Most would agree these are both traditional functions for a professionally trained minister among others). But which is their prime function? And where does this lovely Reformation idea of the priesthood of all believers come in?
The definition of minister/priest is changing once again and each movement will have find it’s way of working it out through its own tradition.
Until we can settle on just what it is that a vocational minister/pastor/priest/church leader-type person is, I’m not sure there is much of a way forward.
I fear the state of the American Church will have to get even more dire before this issue will be properly addressed. Humans notoriously relinquish to change only after the pain of staying the same exceeds that of changing.
June 4, 2009 at 19:46
Josh,
Re: Anglican practice – I agree, mostly. It’s not that we don’t have doctrines (I am speaking as an Episcopalian), they are just captured in our worship. So opening the liturgy with “Blessed be God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit” we are being explicitly Trinitarian.
All that to say, yes – common worship IS common theology, formed in praise, which as any Eastern Orthodox (and Anglican) Christian will tell you is the best way to express theology.
lex orandi est lex credendi!
June 4, 2009 at 19:48
Reed,
I think there is more tacitly understood than you realize. It’s there among cradle Episcopalians. Even something as simple as the fact that we operate parochially (that is the parish church) says something. And the three fold structure of our ordinations require that we see them historically, so what they have been classically is still authoritative for how they are seen now.
Speaking of “the rule of prayer is the rule of faith” you should look at the ordination vows and liturgy to see our theology for the three-fold ministry
June 4, 2009 at 20:38
Just saying thanks for the pic of King’s College Cambridge. One of my favorite places.
June 4, 2009 at 21:59
It is gorgeous isn’t it?
June 5, 2009 at 14:33
By the way Josh,
I hope you keep commenting on our posts, even if it is only sometimes. I would love to hear some more perspectives from fellow Anglicans.
June 8, 2009 at 10:01
Tony
I’ve read them. I understand that there is a historical understanding for the priesthood but I think the current crisis reveals a variety of opinions on the matter.
The historical three fold is indeed tacitly understood, but it is just one of many voices.