Theological education - a subjective perspective

A few days ago I got into trouble. And rightly so.

I made a rather off-the-cuff, off-colour remark on facebook, which really generalised and disrespected a group of people. Sometimes I am an idiot. And sometimes I fail. This is one of those times. 

And I got called on it. And rightly so.

What happened?

Well, one of my facebook-buddies had posted a link to this year's General Ordination Exams (GOEs) of The Episcopal Church (TEC). For most Episcopal ordianands the GEOs is one of the final steps before ordination. I took them in 1999 and so did most of my seminary friends. (Whether or not the GEOs are a good or bad thing can be discussed - but not today).

My response to my friend's posting was a re-post and an inappropriate comment:

http://episcopalgbec.org/previous-exams/questions/2013.pdf

My evil side wonders how VST students would do on this. And my even more evil side wonders what would happen, if this was a closed book exam... And, yes, I think our theological education is crap!

Now, of course the problem is this: It is a blanket statement that demonises students and the Vancouver School of Theology (VST) as a whole. I apologise. There is no excuse for this kind of comment. Period.

But what sparked my comment?

I believe that much of our theological education is not sufficient anymore when it comes to exegesis, theology, liturgics, ecclesiology and polity, and ecclesiastical history. And, yes, I do think this is true for VST.

Why?

Because I have seen it many times over. I know from my own experience as a priest in the Diocese of New Westminster.

Of course, it is a rather subjective position. 

Furthermore, I am biased: I think Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in my time did an amazing job in training people to be good parish priests. I left Seabury ready to serve the church and engage the world. This is not because I am more clever than others (I am not!) and I don't even think it is because the faculty at Seabury at the time was brilliant. But I think it is because the curriculum focused on the right issues and because the church valued theological training more than it does now. 

But I think there has been a shift.

I think there has been a shift towards training leaders rather than theologians. 

On some level, I support the shift. We do need good priests who know what it means to be servant-leaders.

When I was reading theology in Germany, there was no leadership training. And there was no spiritual formation either. It was all highly intellectual and academic. And this shows in ways that make me raise at least both eye-brows when I read about how the German church deals with societal and global issues and when I consider pastoral care, congregational development, mission and evangelism in Germany.

But I also find the shift in theological education troubling, as the requirements for biblical, theological, historical, liturgical, and denominational classes have unfortunately decreased. (And, yes, I know I sound like an old curmudgeon.) VST, for example, does no longer employ a liturgics professor with a PhD in liturgy...

I do not blame the seminarians. (Heck, I do not believe I have enough theological knowledge and skills - so maybe I am projecting...). And I do not blame individual faculty members. There are great teachers at many of our seminaries, VST included!

I blame the shift in theological education I spoke of earlier. And I think this shift puts us in danger of losing  our identity, our unique Anglican way. Maybe this is not a bad thing. Maybe our tradition has outlived its time. But I don't think so. In fact, I do believe that Anglicanism (with its focus on incarnational theology, with its identity marked by prayer and not by creedal statements or a magisterium, with its emphasis on a liturgical carrying-out of worship and of life itself, with its openness to change while firmly being rooted in the traditions of the Early Church and the Reformation, with its sacramental understanding of the church and of the world, with its empahsis on mission (cf. http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ministry/mission/fivemarks.cfm)) has an unparalleleld position to engage and to offer profound insights for post-modern people in a post-modern world. We are not just another Protestant denomination and we are not just Catholic-lite. We are a unique expression of the Christian revelation. So unique, in fact, that I believe our church's unique way creates the tools needed to offer meaning and healing in a searching and hurting world. 

But we will lose these tools, if we do not hand them on. We will lose our unique way that has so much to offer, if we continue the way in theological education we have engaged. We will stop being Anglican. This is not a problem in itself. It is a problem, because people who look for different answers in the 21st century - answers that are profound and true, answers that save souls and lives, answers that make the Reign of Christ real not just in an afterworld, and answers that equally connect us with our true selves and with one another - will not find these answers.

I believe the shift in theological education first and foremost jeopardises God's mission.

But I am preaching again. Sorry...

So, where do I think we should go?

Well, here are my $0.02:

For the sake of the church and more importantly for the sake of God's mission (and also for the sake of our seminarians...!) we, the church, must take theological education seriously. It must not just be a hurdle on the way to ordination. It must be a prime focus. And this must be reflected in how we provide resources for theological education. (And, btw, theological education is not just a means to train priests. It is something the whole church and all its members must engage.) We need financial support for seminaries as much as we need financial support for seminarians. Theological education should not bankrupt those engaging in it. Furthermore, we need scholarships for members of our church to do PhDs and ThDs in biblical, systematic, ecclesiastical, practical, liturgical, and missiological theology. And we need to encourage clergy to pusue DMins not just in congregational development... What if the church would actually "take over" seminaries and run them from general resources? What if we were to offer theological education for seminarians and qualified lay-folk for free, incl. doctorates? Yes, there is a danger that this could stifle independent scholarship. But surely, we would find ways to safe-guard academic freedom. We are Anglicans, after all...

Secondly, I believe we need to reverse the trend to do off-campus theological formation. Yes, there are financial issues. And, yes, there are cultural issues. But is theological formation really possible as a part-time experience when seminaries are supposed to challenge your faith and dismantle your assumptions, and when seminarians engage with something that goes to the core of one's being? Furthermore, doesn't a condensed part-time training not only limit exposure to our theological tradition, but also cut into time to engage and listen to the issues, fears, concerns, joys of, and threats to the lives of people outside the church?  

Finally, rather than cut the curriculum, I think we need to extend it - we might have to add another year or two. No, I do not want to give up on leadership-training. But I also do want to see once again solid teaching of theology in all areas. Stop the cuts to teaching theology! Stop the cuts to teaching liturgy! Stop the cuts to spiritual formation!

This might all not sit very well with some. But there you are... As I said above, this is a subjective analysis based on my own experience. I.e. it is based on anectodal evidence. But I do hope this will spark discussion...