Dr. Stephen Noll: Open Letter on Theological Education to Network Bishops and Common Cause Partners

Thank you, Stephen.  You have nailed it…perfectly.  There are a few other nails to strike, but it is early in the day (I’m finishing my sermon!!) bit I hope that your letter will be a “shot hear around the world”.

At my first board meeting five years ago, the Trinity Board made a major policy change.  We would openly and warmly welcomed students training for the AMiA, the REC, as well as ECUSA.  Today we have TEC students, AMiA students, an occasional REC student and a few others from mainline denominations.  But I have seen exactly what you are speaking about.  The scenario goes just like this:

A young evangelically minded student comes to his/her TEC bishop (through THE PROCESS, etc.) and asks the bishop for permission to go to Trinity.  No, says the bishop, you need to be ‘rounded out’ because you are going to be a priest for the whole church.  You need to go to Sewanee or VTS and get a more ‘broader’ look at ministry.  (But NOT ONCE did we see a liberal minded student being sent to Trinity by the bishop for a ‘rounding out’.) 

It has been this way for 28 years…and some of the most reluctant bishops (as you point out) have been our theological friends.

But for now, let’s talk about the future…

At Trinity we are open for business…fully open.  Dr. Paul Zahl announced his resignation at the last board meeting…and we are very sorry to see him go.  We are announcing on Tuesday (via a press release) that the Right Rev. John Rodgers will be a one year Interim Dean and President while the Board conducts an international search. 

While efforts to renew TEC have failed, the goal of Trinity has been even broader: to form Christian leaders for mission.  That mission goes on within Anglicanism all over the world…and especially in North American.

The bottom line is that we (at Trinity) are ready for the best and brightest students to come, both men and women, to engage their study and prepare for Holy Orders at all levels of the Episcopal and/or Anglican church. 

For those who are students reading this…please, consider and come to Trinity.  Pack your bags and get in gear.  You won’t be sorry.  For those leaders (bishops, COMs, church leaders, rectors) who are responsible for sending students, call me.  I’ll answer questions or arrange a tour of the school for you.  You will be impressed and delighted…and moved with the passion and dedication of our faculty, staff, and students.

So Stephen, thank you.  We are in active dialogue at a board level with the challenges you have presented.  (I can’t fully endorse your proposed policy statements…but that is a full board matter and future discussion.)

Faithfully yours,

The Rev. Canon David H. Roseberry
Chairman, Board of Trustees

Some of the most orthodox priests I know attended revisionist seminaries for various reasons. Dr. Noll raises an important issue, but the one-size-fits-all solution he suggests would be shortsighted (to say the least).

And as far as Nashotah and Trinity not receiving seminarians from revisionist dioceses: if someone from Newark wants an orthodox education, what could possibly be gained by turning him away?! Again, shortsighted.

There are better ways to make a “statement.”

tinpipes

“Let’s think outside the TESM/Nashotah box just a tad, or expand that box some.

I fully agree with your comments, but I’d like to see TESM use this opportunity to move ahead with concepts like remote education, and take advantage of the technology that is available now. When you are looking at a time of change, it’s time to look at other options. The Orthodox Churches have the St. Stephen’s program as an example. Yes, some resident time is necessary for “formation,” but for mid-lifers all the issues you raised are critical. Regrettably we have sent postulants to VTS only because of the grants that are available there.

Rather than competing directly with the other seminaries, (and risk financial loss) or appealing only to an evangelical base, I like to see TESM find its own market niche by being innovative in approaches to theological education.

We need Trinity’s witness. I hope this is a time for re-visioning.

gee, If I were a bishop I would want to send people to a place that turns out angry people who want to destroy the Episcopal church. I wonder what is going on?

lwrh,

Don’t know what you mean.  We have some great Trinity grads in our diocese that are doing good work.

Which sort of is anecdotal evidence that perhaps Dr. Noll is unaware of the various moderate dioceses who have folks from Trinity in them serving good parishes and Episcopalians.

I had thought, off the top of my head, that Mississippi has some as well. 

And I know that that’s true for other moderate dioceses . . .

In further response to Dr. Noll’s letter, it is hard for me to imagine that a base of 100 or so AMiA parishes, however many of REC parishes, and 30 CANA parishes, serve as a good foundation for a seminary’s constituency.

I suspect that all seminaries are having to deal with competition from outside their denomination.  I see that as a growing trend, not a declining trend.  I’ve been able to take now four grad-level seminary classes, thanks to Gordon Conwell, while working to earn my bread.  I would never have been able to even “test the waters” without Gordon Conwell in Charlotte.  And there are folks from many many denominations there, who are not going to their own denominational seminaries: Methodists [a ton of these], some from the African-American Baptist and AME denominations, Presbyterians [both mainline and PCA], Episcopalians, Southern Baptists . . . it’s a fantastic mix, and I am greatly enjoying it. 

Plus . . . I can always tell the worst “denominational war” stories there, and always get purple hearts and such from sympathetic Southern Baptists and Methodists and AME folks.  ; > )

Although . . . one Presbyterian had the good fortune to be at the Montreat Presbyterian church that recently left the PCUSA, and that somewhat stole my thunder.

If we conservative orthodox Christians are going to grow and multiply in spite of KJS & camp we need to take this thought seriously. We need now to be sowing good seed in order that we have a future of a healthy & faithful crop of priests for our future. We need to be thinking ahead for our growth in the Anglican faith with a strong pool of orthodox priests for the expansion of God’s Kingdom who will teach the True Gospel and stand firm for the faith entrusted to us by the Apostles! To stop short now will help to ensure our demise!

The St. Stephen’s program is briefly described here <a >

There are many Trinity graduates who are busy spreading the Kingdom of God in various capacities and I am thankful for this place and the solid theological education it has given to its students.  Both TEC revisionist bishops in my state have not allowed candidates for ordination to attend either Trinity or Nashota House and have not allowed graduates from either place to be hired.  This kind of censorship is what has passed for “progressive liberalism” in TEC in recent years. The closed and dying congregations that are the result of this deliberate censorship are there for all to behold.

Dear BettyLee,
I agree with your statement, however, if one feels that his calling to be a priest is truly a call from God and wants the best seminarian education he can receive to do what he is called to do…..Spread the Good News of Christ, and his bishop refuses to send him to a seminary that gives that instruction, then I would hope that he would find a another way to get there. I persoanlly wouldn’t let a revisionist bishop censor my education to be able to do my calling! Even if that meant moving! God comes first and when He does all else falls into place as it should in His grand plan!

Stephen is exactly right!!
How many good bishops over the years have not taken charge of shaping their dioceses out of fear of being identified with Trinity or Nashotah House?  Fear-based leadership has gotten us into this mess.
I’ve been on Trinity’s board for several years, and, although it’s not a perfect place, it is a very healthy Christian community of students and faculty that I"m happy to join David Roseberry in recommending.
Stephen, thanks for your courage in naming the elephant in the living room.

I am very thankful that my friend and former colleague at Trinity, Stephen Noll, has published this open letter in support of Trinity and Nashotah House (unsoliticed by anyone at those seminaries, I might add).  At Nashotah House, we just graduated 29 bright, energetic, evangelical and catholic men and women (the largest graduating class in 20 years) who are committed to reaching the world through faithfully proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

It is not that Prof. Noll is not unwilling to “think outside outside the TESM/Nashotah box” as Tinpipes suggests, but the real question orthodox Anglicans need to ask is: “Thirty years from now, will all of our clergy and leaders be trained in non-Anglican seminaries because we failed to support the two orthodox seminaries we had?”

Nashotah House offers a distance learning program http://www.nashotah.edu/distancelearning.htm aimed at covering all the basic areas needed for ordination, so that the inability to relocate should not be an obstacle.  Trinity offers online courses as well. 

At Nashotah House, we could not agree with Prof. Noll’s suggestion that we take only students from Network and Common Cause jurisdictions.  We want to remain open to anyone who can benefit from the training we offer.  Our students come from an amazing breadth of Episcopal dioceses and other bodies.  Increasingly, the dioceses we serve are finding our graduates to be faithful, constructive, skilled priests who excel in building and growing congregations.

I spoke recently with a leader in one of the new Anglican coalitions that have come into being.  Referring to the fact that many of their clergy have attended an array of non-Anglican seminaries, he lamented, “when we come to make a decision about something that pertains to our Anglican identity, we find we are unable to reach a consensus, because very few of our priests have a common understanding of what the Anglican ethos is.”  Is that the future we want for orthodox Anglicanism in North America?

If a distincitve, biblically faithful, Anglican expression of the Christian faith is worth preserving, we need to insure that our clergy are thoroughly trained in that tradition.  The point Prof. Noll is making is that, therefore, we must make it a priority to support our seminarians who seek that training and to support the seminaries that are providing it.

The Very Rev. Robert S. Munday, Ph.D.
Dean and President
Nashotah House Theological Seminary

Trinity has an extrordinary array of options for those who can’t attend full time or are far from Pittsburgh.  There is a very full schedule of on-line courses, and also some interterm programs that require just one week in Pittsburgh (with additional work to be done at home).
Moreover, Trinity sees itself as a school for laity as well as future priests,which I think is vital to the future of the church.  The three courses I took online have been incredibly valuable to me, and I hope to do more when my circumstances permit.

In the last few years, I have read of faculty leaving Trinity.  Gavin McGrath+ left, apparently having been a major officer in the faculty association and running afoul of the president and board?  Noll has left for Uganda.  And president Zahl has just announced that he is leaving.  Some suggest that his leaving may be related to carry over faculty/adminstration issues from the previous administration.  One might assume that Noll’s position (now essentially President of his Ugandan school) was an upward move.  But does anyone know why the others have left?  Is it a lack of funds?  Is it an administration/faculty issue…I was in higher ed. admin…there are always admin vs faculty issues, or something else?  Wycliffe is experiencing faculty/administration issues purportedly on the issue of academic freedom..alleged bullying of non-evangelical faculty members etc. and questions of academic credentials measuring up to Oxford’s snuff.

When I was going through the process in the Diocese of Florida, I was asked by the Canon to the Ordinary to go to General Seminary, then I was asked by the Bishop to go to Sewanee.  (This was during the first year of Bishop Howard’s episcopacy).  I was not prepared at that time to go to either place, because of the lack of orthodox theological education at both places (although, I hear, that things are now better at Sewanee).  The thing I kept hearing over and over again, is that the Bishop is the Bishop and you should do whatever he asks you to do (if he asks you to jump, ask how high!).  Some priests in the Diocese said, “Oh Townsend, he’s just trying to stretch you,” or “Oh go ahead Townsend.  You will learn how to defend the faith in ways that you could not get at Trinity or Nashotah House.”  There are inherent problems with each of these lines of reasoning.  The first, is that it assumes that a Bishop is truly discerning and his motives are pure and that the Bishop is living into their call to be beyond reproof, and that a Bishop has the ability to operate without boundaries.  It implies that seminarians and clergy in a diocese have no right to hold their revisionist bishops accountable.  The problem with the second statement (that you are to be stretched), is that you are in seminary to be formed for ministry and learn the tools that you need to be able to articulate and defend your faith.  You will have plenty of time to be able to defend your faith in the world and in your church.  Every bit of time that you spend being stretched, or learning about the revisionist side of the argument, is a bit of time that you are not learning about the faith once delivered to the Saints.  Also, Dean Munday at Nashotah House will be the first one to tell you that he has never had a revisionist bishop send a seminarian to Nashotah House to be “stretched.”  This is a sort of one-way stretching that only makes the church more and more revisionist, and this has to stop.

In the midst of my discernment process, there was one priest, who was wiser than the rest, who told me this, “Townsend, do you want your first act in preparation for the priesthood (which seminary to attend) to be one contrary to your faith?”  This was a commitment issue, and it became perfectly clear to me immediately at that point that I was to become a refugee seminarian, and I am eternally thankful for that priest for speaking out, possibly at her own peril.

I am eternally grateful for Bishop Ackerman, Bishop Duncan and all the other Bishops for allowing those of us in revisionist dioceses to live into our calling by ordaining us and sponsoring us to go to Orthodox seminaries.  We need more seminarians to be willing to make this commitment, and will put their foot down with all the Love of Christ when asked to go to a moderate to liberal seminary.

Now that I have gotten the ball rolling, I may have to leave this to those closer to the situation. However, let me respond to a couple of the main posts.

First, the fact that the Chairman of the Trinity Board and Dean of Nashotah House responded quickly and positively should say something. They are close to the everyday life and finances of these institutions. In Uganda, my university collects almost 90% of its operating funds from student fees. I would be surprised if Trinity or Nashotah get more than 25-30% of their income from fees. They need more students and generous donors to make it as stand-alone institutions.

For the “one size fits all” argument, yes, a new Anglican jurisdiction in North America is going to have form its priests and other leaders. I am perhaps being a bit prophetic in asking why in this very hypothetical situaion a candidate from Newark would want a Trinity education and then return to the TEC diocese there. This is the point: two completely separate churches are emerging. Trinity should not be producing TEC-hating priests but priests who can contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, which means recognizing what Fitz Allison calls the cruelty of heresy.

What about the practicalities of moving to Ambridge or Nashotah? Yes, it will be a burden for some, but many have shouldered that over the past 30 years. In any case, the target for the new church should be younger candidates who may give 30-40 years of active ministry.

The purpose of my Letter is to get a discussion started for the future of our movement. Let’s talk about it.

I think this is the first time I have ever felt scared about posting.  With the Rev. Prof. Noll, the Rev. Canon Roseberry and the Very Rev. Dr. Munday “in the room,” I feel rather like I did when reading my freshman English paper the day the college president came to visit the class. I won’t be too surprised to see “Welshman_from_Lambeth” logged in to comment.
    As I write this, I sit 150 miles from Nashotah as the crow flies (although there is a rather large body of water between), in a diocese where almost 1/3 of the parishes have no rector, but the bishop is “disinclined” to license clergy from at least 2 seminaries.  I   believe I would be correct in stating that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the bishop’s support to enter Nashotah or Trinity. 
    I would take issue with the good Rev. Noll (this would be the scary part) on his suggestion that Trinity and Nashotah limit their enrollment to Network and Common Cause dioceses and convocations.  I do sympathize with the statement I believe he is trying to make, but I respectfully disagree. As things currently stand, I think that a case can be made that there are more orthodox Anglicans in (non-Network) TEC dioceses than in the Network.  If we assume that 20% of the 1.7 million non-Network TEC members are orthodox (using the figures from the Network’s website) that is a total of 340,000 people.  I would hope that the potential clergy from within that group would not be excluded from entering seminary.
    The difficulty (and this should come as no surprise) is one of polity and diocesan jurisdiction.  If I were to elect to enter seminary (granted, I am over 50 and not an ideal candidate, but it is something I think about), my own bishop would be unlikely to be willing to send me.  And I would be unlikely to shell out the $1500 (whether my own money or a parishes) the diocese wants to engage in its 6 month discernment process. If I do not “discern” that I want to go to VTS or somewhere similar, and I am not on board with the bishop’s agenda for the diocese, the bishop may “discern” that I am not really clergy material.  I would have to grant that until and unless I can overcome my own cynicism in reference to bishops, I would not make a good priest.
    I have no idea how one might get around the customs, but there should be a way around one’s own bishop if one feels called to the priesthood, short of moving to Quincy or Pittsburgh and establishing oneself in a parish there.  Should the Primatial Vicar plan ever come into being, this is an issue that I believe should be addressed.  We need to have a conduit through which young orthodox Christians can become orthodox priests, regardless of what diocese they are in, and regardless of who their bishop is.
God bless all of you who are involved in the formation and education of the clergy.  Without you, there would be no orthodoxy.
TJ
(Dad was Nashotah, class of 1941, I believe- and no, McMahon is not my last name, for anyone looking him up in the yearbook)

It costs $1500 to engage in a discernment process?  I hadn’t heard of a fee for the discernment process.  Have I missed something?  Is this a widespread practice?

The PCA situation is not really comparable nor is it as simple as Covenant Seminary.  There is also Reformed Seminary with satellite campuses.  PCA clergy can be trained at Westminster in Philly or on the west coast, Gordon-Conwell, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and other places including Knox Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale.

As a lay person not called to the clergy I feel a little intimidated to comment, but still…it seems essential to me that the institutions that will train the orthodox clergy of the future come first from these two institutions and then as new seminaries can be created/converted that they be measured and certified in comparison to these institutions.  Here in Texas our own ultra-liberal seminary in Austin has made moves to become more conservative, but it seems doubtful to me that these moves have done more than move the seminary to slightly left of middle ground…a move that might mask its liberal tendencies from those of us who are removed from the day to day teachings available there.  I would love to see an annual evaluation of Episcopal/Anglican seminaries that would place them on a spectrum to allow us the opportunity to track the success/failure of seminaries that claim to be taking the orthodox view into account.  On a related issue, as a lay person called to teach I would very much like to obtain seminary level instruction in as many areas as possible, but even in a city as large as Houston it seems difficult to decide where to acquire an affordable orthodox education…after 25 years of public education in the field of history, I would love to supplement my BA/MA in history with a sufficiently orthodox theological education to feel more comfortable that, when I lead Bible studies or high school Sunday school classes, I am actually providing my classes with the best level of education that I can.  Online courses that are affordable would seem to make the most sense, but so far I have had to be satisfied with self education…it would be great to see the Network/Stand Firm/ any orthodox institution compile a comprehensive list of approved orthodox institutions from which to seek such an education…

When you accept God’s Call to ordained ministry, I think you have to do so knowing that it is going to be a major life change—that the path might not be an easy one—that sacrifices will be made.  It’s not like picking a career and doing a job.  It’s a calling.  So, yes, leaving behind your life as you know it and moving your family to Nashotah House or Trinity is a big deal, but shouldn’t getting your seminary education and being formed and prepared for ministry be a big deal? 

If we want orthodox Anglicanism to have a future, we have to be willing to support our future clergy in their education.  And that doesn’t mean asking them to set aside their convictions and study under revisionist faculty.  And that doesn’t mean putting them in situations where instead of learning, they find themselves having to constantly defend their faith.  Our clergy should come out of seminary built up, strengthened, educated, and ready to go!  They shouldn’t be exhausted, beaten down, and questioning their convictions, or utterly steeped in social justice yet unable to officiate at Morning Prayer.

Our orthodox seminaries must be sustained!  And the students who attend them should be supported financially by the parishes and bishops who send them there as well as any Anglican desiring to see more orthodox clergy in our Church.  As I said, it’s not easy to pack up your family and move half way across the country.  If they are faithful to do this, should they also be saddled with student loans?

I would ask those who wish to see orthodox clergy in our parishes to prayerfully consider supporting their local seminarian with their prayers and finances.  And if you don’t have a local seminarian, consider making a regular gift to an orthodox seminary for scholarships for those who aren’t being supported by their diocese or who are “refugees” seeking ordination from a bishop other than their own.

“This was a commitment issue, and it became perfectly clear
to me immediately at that point that I was to become a refugee seminarian, and I am eternally thankful for that priest for speaking out, possibly at her own peril.
I am eternally grateful for Bishop Ackerman, Bishop Duncan and all the other Bishops for allowing those of us in revisionist dioceses to live into our calling by ordaining us and sponsoring us to go to Orthodox seminaries.  We need more seminarians to be willing to make this commitment, and will put their foot down with all the Love of Christ when asked to go to a moderate to liberal seminary.”

Amen! Thank you Townsend Waddill…...Most of the responsibility lies with the seminarian as it is his calling….his decision to seek the right teaching says much abut how firm he stands for the faith and the Gospel.

sarah,

“In further response to Dr. Noll’s letter, it is hard for me to imagine that a base of 100 or so AMiA parishes, however many of REC parishes, and 30 CANA parishes, serve as a good foundation for a seminary’s constituency”

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point. Dr. Noll did not say that Trinity ought to limit her enrollment to CANA, AMiA and the REC. He very clearly included Network dioceses of which there are more than enough to provide an enrollment base.

Jill, $1500 seemed pretty steep to me too, but here you go- from the Office of Vocational Discernment of the Episcopal Diocese of Western Michigan:

“The VDP (vocational discernment program-TJ) is the required (my emphasis) preliminary course of study for any parishoner seeking admission to a religious order,to our diocesan Oakerhater school for deacons in preparation to become a deacon, or to an accredited theological seminary to become a priest….”
(the program meets over 8 weekends at a retreat house- hence the expense)
    “The diocese expects that sponsoring parish and applicant each contribute a fair share towards VDP tuition costs.
    “Tuition including lodging and meals, but excluding textbooks for the eight sessions is $1500.  There is no additional charge for spouse or significant other.”

There are several other rather amusing things in this little pamphlet (“significant other” above being just the start).  But I don’t want to take the thread off topic making fun of the policies here in EDWM.
TJ

Hi Matt, I was referring to this passage: “Later on, Trinity’s leaders were also too slow to recognize that AMiA and other Common Cause groups were there coming constituency . . . “

I would be intrigued to see how many seminarians from each of the 10 Network dioceses are sent every year.  I suspect that those numbers, coupled with the AMiA and other Common Cause groups that Dr. Noll mentions would not be nearly a large enough base of students, but I could be wrong.

In addition, I can’t imagine the 10 Network bishops all laying down the law and saying “that’s it—if any of you are evangelical/charismatic/low church you must go to Trinity”.

For one thing, that seems to be a bias towards “helping a seminary” rather than forming the best student possible based on his or her uniqueness.  And my bias is towards the student, not the institution.

If I were a bishop[ess]!  ; > )  . . . I’d probably create a list every two to three years analyzing the orthodoxy of various seminaries, as well as their Anglican programs [Regent College in Vancouver, I believe, has one as well, and now Gordon Conwell].  And I’d then probably come up—based on my top secret ranking scale—with five or six high priority seminaries, of which I suspect two of them would indeed by Nashotah House and Trinity.  And then I’d probably base my advice on the needs—both theological and personal—of the student.  [And no, I don’t think I’d try to send people to seminaries that were the opposite of their churchmanship/theology in order to “stretch” them.]

Probably another thing that might bear examining is were there other issues beyond the ones that Dr. Noll mentioned that prevented various orthodox bishops from considering Trinity a seminary to which they wanted to send their students.

One I can think of off the top of my head was that at one time, Trinity was known as a far more “renewalist/charismatic” seminary in its ethos and teaching, and was rather short on Anglican liturgy, theology, and other Anglican subjects that many traditional, formal Episcopalians might have valued greatly.

I am one of those people that would have valued such things in a seminary education, were I thinking about the priesthood.

So in one sense perhaps there were errors [as Dr. Noll also mentions] in the shaping of the seminary product that the seminary “paid for” in consequences to its success—I don’t know that for sure, but corporations make those errors all the time, so I don’t see why seminaries shouldn’t do that as well.

Regardless, the bias towards “helping the institution” that I see seems to me more of a marxist analysis of the market—that is, more based on *making* students choose a product, despite its not meeting the student’s needs, rather than fixing the product offering.

I should note that I say all of the above as a person who has contributed financially to Trinity Seminary.

Thank you, TJ.

This has been a very good thread for we laity.  Thank you all….

This has been an interesting thread and has raised the level of conversation and dialogue considerably.  I, for one, appreciate that.  In response to some questions as above, it is certainly possible for potential ordinands to go to a particular seminary without his or her bishop’s permission.  People do so all the time, both to Trinity and Nashotah on the right, as well as to EDS and CDSP on the left.  It is no longer the case that semianries require that students be postulants before admission.  However, by choosing to do so, the student runs the very real risk of closing the door to the ordination process in his or her original diocese.  But, this does not mean that said student could not be picked up in another diocese, perhaps by a bishop who is very friendly with the particular divinity school.  I recall that a few years ago Nashotah House adopted such a policy allowing non-postulants who still aspired to ordination.  In some cases, the seminary may be able to help find a sympathetic diocese which would be willing to adopt.  But there would be no assurance of such.  The student takes a risk, both personally and financially. 

Keep in mind, too, that there are lots of different reasons for bishops supporting some schools and not others.  Rarely does it make complete logical sense.  Some bishops like to support their alma maters.  Some like to support the school closest to their diocese. Some bishops, because of historical reasons in a diocese, find themselves on the board of trustees of a particualr seminary ex officio.  They may choose to support those schools.  Some bishops see in candidates a particular need for growth or challenge, and so will send a candidate someplace outside his or her comfort zone.  Often, if a diocese has a seminary within its borders, bishops will prefer to send a candidate to a school that is away, to get some breadth.  It is rare that a bishop will limit a student to one choice only, but no doubt that happens.  When I was in the ordination process, we had postulants and candidates in at least seven different seminaries, including some non-Episcopal schools.  Would the bishop have let a student attend TESM? Probably not.  Nashotah House? Maybe. 

Anyway, as one very interested in theological education, I have found it an interesting discussion.  Thanks.

I want to take this opportunity to remind everyone how important it is for us to also support conservative theological colleges and seminaries in the Southern Hemisphere, like Uganda Christian University and The Saints Augustine Seminary in Peru.  The same battle for truth is going on in Latin America, Africa and Asia, and these orthodox institutions need and deserve our support.  They are raising up leaders who really are the future of our Anglican Communion.

Where a person goes to school and especially seminary will brand him.  He will make connections and networking structure there.  This is not to say that some will jump the traces and be opposite from the usual graduate, but that is the exception and he will still need to overcome the flavor he is labeled with.  We all want to back our own Allma Mater, so leaders usually shape the succesors by directing to their home.  Now some of the problem with Bishops not supportng Trinity or NH may be due to the “Episcopal disease” of not being able to judge or condemn the apostate seminaries—all are equal. Another pecularity of Episcopalians is how one enters the ministry.  In ohter denominations, if you want to go to seminary you go on your own dime.  You might get advice and even ecconomic help from individuals and churches, or even scholarships, but you are not hired by the dioscese and then sent to seminary.  On graduation, the other denominations do not automatically give you a church.  Your are examined and then ordained.  Many never intend to pastor but go into other areas of service.  It is sort of the free market of seminary education.  The denomination supports the seminaries directly and not the students.  This helps keep the cost affordable.  It results in a built in selection process.  There are some down sides also but this thread is not for that.  IMHO

As a graduate of Trinity, longtime member of the Ambridge ministry community,and a priest in the Diocese of Pittsburgh I have nothing but fond memories of my time in seminary and I can attest to much of what Dr Noll, Dean Munday and Canon Roseberry have written.  I also appreciate many of the other comments.  For one Townsend Waddell has it nailed—for the sake of the gospel and the church one has got to attend a seminary that will strengthen ones faith and not water it down or destroy it all together as seminaries infected by liberalism will surely do.  So let me encourage tjmcmahan to take the plunge, (no matter your age)—go to TSM or Nashotah without your Bishop or diocesan support.  If you are called, God will see to it you will be ordained a priest in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and he will supply all your needs financial and otherwise.  I am a living testimony of that fact. 
As an aside, I was reading Mark Harris’ blog Preludium and his 5/23/07 entry titled “The Archbishop, the Vintner and the Judge”. It contained this little gem about Trinity and its community Ambridge:
“TSM was not, after all, a house in which there was finally room for me. That was too bad, for I have some fond memories of the place, the only Seminary in the Episcopal Church built in a slum”.  I am sure the good, God-fearing and hard-working people of Ambridge would be rather insensed to hear their town described as a slum!  It is not a upscale, tony neighborhood but it is hardly a slum

“This has been an interesting thread and has raised the level of conversation and dialogue considerably”.

I am a WORM in the DREGS who engages in bad conversation and dialogue…

To Matt, I would say that I remain in need of convincing whether CANA, AMiA, the REC, and the Network can provide an adequate enrollment base.  Part of the reason I am not convinced is that I have yet to see all of the Network’s enrollment base actually enrolling in orthodox seminaries.  How many Network dioceses and convocations are sending their seminarians to other seminaries?  You would be amazed!  (But that is precisely Prof. Noll’s point.)

To TJ McMahon:  I must say that I am dismayed, though not surprised, that the Diocese of Western Michigan charges $1,500 for the discernment process for ordinands.  This is the same diocese that just had to sell their cathedral.  They apparently know as much about encouraging vocations as they do about church growth.  Also, notice that line about: “There is no additional charge for spouse or significant other.”  I am afraid to go there.

Finally, let me mention mention one irony about students and the dioceses from which they come:  We had a Deacon from Newark (who had been ordained in El Camino Real when he worked there as a computer programmer) who wanted to come to Nashotah House.  Newark wouldn’t send him.  He came anyway, was ordained a priest in Quincy, and was then called to a parish in—(drum roll, please)—Newark! 

God is still in charge; and he hasn’t lost his sense of humor. 

Robert S. Munday+
Nashotah House

As a graduate of Trinity “Have We Dropped the ‘Episcopal’??” School for Ministry, and as one who matriculated without benfit of a bishop, having been thrown out of a diocese (in which my father was once a priest and member of the Commisson on Ministry) for failing to buy the “you need to broaden your horizons” view of my onetime bishop, I feel a need to comment—however late in the day, Tinpipes  .

With deepest respect to the Rev. Drs. Noll, Munday and Roseberry, the problem does not lie simply with conservative bishops failing to send seminarians.  The larger failure, I believe, comes from seminaries that have substantively refused to acknowledge the need to rethink theological education outside the “come away to the cloister for three years” model.  Dr. Munday posts a link to a “distance learning” page for Nashota which, while certainly a step in the right direction, is not a complete program, and is not even for an M.Div. program, which degree most bishops and standing committees/commissions on ministry would see as essential for an ordinand, at least to priesthood.  Ian Newark states that “Trinity has an extrordinary array of options for those who can’t attend full time or are far from Pittsburgh.”  But only one option is available for a prospective M.Div. student, and that is an extension site at Northern in Chicago.  Neither seminary has a distance learning M.Div. program.  This, friends, is short-sighted, and I think symptomatic of the failure of our Evangelical Plot to Take Over the World .

Out here in the Wild West, we are working to develop an Anglican Studies component with a local Evangelical seminary, one that will not require residential study, will provide a solid Evangelical education with the necessary Anglican spin.  We should never have had to do so—Trinity and Nashota House should have been all over this a decade or more ago, providing distance learning to educate seminarians with a full course of Anglican ethos without the need to uproot lives for three years.

And while it is all well and good to say we need young 20- and 30-something candidates, the fact is that us late-bloomers have substantial gifts to offer in the life-experience category.  There is something to be said for maturity.

When we speak of “outside-the-box” thinking, we really need to think outside the box!  And really, the only way to do that is to burn the box and start over, at least as a mental exercise.  Here’s a question to get that thinking started: “What would Theological Education look like if there were no seminaries?”

Actually, West Coast Cleric, the Nashotah House distance learning program is a complete program, based on the seven canonical areas (we divided the Scripture area into separate Old Testament and New Testament modules to create eight modules).  The twenty students in the first “cohort” of the program are all postulants and candidates (from a wide variety of Episcopal dioceses).  So dioceses are accepting the program for ordination to the priesthood.

We’ll be admitting a second cohort into the program in July, and there is still time to apply:  http://www.nashotah.edu/distancelearning.htm

Robert S. Munday+
Nashotah House

Dr. Munday

When I spoke to the admissions person the other day, I inferred that I’d still have to come to the House eventually and that I couldn’t do the full program online.

Will Nashotah offer the MDiv online? 

I’m in Quincy. Nashotah’s my bid.  I’d like to get in on the football game with Seabury…maybe cense the pigskin

Purser to the deck hand: “Do go and arrange those deck chairs won’t you? They are in such a jumble!”
Deck hand to Purser: ” Sir we’ve hit an iceburg, the ship has a bloody great hole in her side and she has a 45 degree list to starboard. We’re sinking!”

Since no conservative candidate for bishop will ever again receive consents for consecration, the market for orthodox Anglican priests, the product of these seminaries, is very weak indeed. The hope that there will be a presiding bishop in the mold of Trajan is vain. What we will now have are variations on Nero and Caligula. Would the august gentlemen on this thread explain where these graduates are going to go where they will be unmolested, and even encouraged? In what numbers are there to be openings? I am not being facetious, or denigrating. I mean “august” as complimentary.  I just get the feeling of disconnect, unreality, deck chairs on the Titanic, reading these discussions.

teddy mak et al—Even when evangelical priests do get a call in a liberal or liberal/moderate diocese, we are marginalized at the diocesan level. We are rarely elected to Standing Committees, executive council, or appointed to significant committees and commissions. You live with it, but it does wear on you. noli illegitimi carborundum.

As you ponder the benefits of the20 and 30 somethings attending seminary, please recall the academic debt they are now carrying from undergrad. school.  There is a comparative yearly chart available for the average cost of a seminary education.  It is impotant to realize that until just last year, I believe, there was no endowment fund at all supporting Episcopal seminarians.  I know 2 dioceses in which a seminarian receives 2K a year if in the ordination process.  (A yearly collection is taken up in one of them for their support as well as a 1% portion of the diocessan assessment, but the max is 2K/ yr)  For one, it was automatic, for the other, the seminarian had to know the funds were available and ask.
  If the average undergrad is now carying 50-52K in debt and is looking at seminaries where tuition and in residence living expenses could be circa 20-27K/ annum, this is surely daunting.  Many seminarians I have met are later vocations.  They have second mortgaged or sold their homes or cashed in their pensions for the privilege of serving the church.  For most people, other than academics, 4 years of college and 3-4 in grad school produces an MD or JD after one’s name and high expectations of life-time earnings.  This just isn’t the case for clergy nor is there any certainty of employment.  For those on the west coast, for example,  cures are very dear, even for “recent” graduates with superb academic and “life-time” skills credentials.  Both Oregon and California simply don’t have space for those whom they have seen through the process.  Oregon has an interesting approach.  It has a house of studies in state for seminarians but requires at least one year in residence at one of the regular seminaries for completion of its process.  Such “hybrid” programs might be a reasonable road for the $ future.  I believe CDSP, the province 8 seminary, estimates about 27K/ yr, tuition and living expenses.
For both Nashotah House and Trinity, I can imagine that new “Anglican” programs showing up at places like Gordon Conwell may be welcome on principle but, in fact, competitors, when it comes to enrollment.

I appreciate Dr. Noll for starting the discussion. Anglicans of the Common Cause persuausion would do well to continue to evaluate and set a course for theological education in the next several decades.

Dr. Noll mentioned the beginning of TESM as a “bold and visionary action taken by the founders.” There is, of course, still a need for boldness and vision.

Nashotah and TESM must be included in a comprehensive vision for the theological future of Anglicanism in North America.

However, it would be detrimental to exclude connection with other seminaries that are producing very well trained ministers. It would seem that a combination of emphasizing what is already established (i.e., Nashotah and TESM) while furthering and developping programs at, esp., multi-denominational faithful seminaries (e.g., Gordon-Conwell; Dallas Theological; Trinity Evangelical, Ill.; Westminster in Phili & CA; Reformed Theological; Denver Seminary; to name a few) would not only give Anglican ordinands the most possible routes to effective training, but also provide the “rub” with christians of other denominations that Anglicans are often lacking.

There is great benefit in seeing and hearing what is going with trainees who are Baptist, Presbyterian, AG, independent, etc. We not only may draw from the best of other denominations but also become more equipped to examine our own denomination’s weaknesses. Most of the inter-denominational seminaries have faculty who teach the “standards” of liturgy, history and/or theology of their respective denomination. For the price (excuse the vulgarity) of a seminary professor, the Advent Christian Church has a teacher/mentor at Gordon-Conwell for a group of their ordinands; they receive an MDiv at a solid institution and are trained for Advent Christian distinctives by the professor and their local church. We could do worse than put an Anglican teacher at acceptable seminaries who could oversee distinctives for ordinands (and for those denominationally undecided students these seminaries)

Finally, we should not rule out the possiblity of overseas training for those who might be willing to try. If we are truly globally minded, Anglicans in North America could benefit from at least a handfull of ministers who studied in the Global South, or elsewhere.

All of this of course should be up for debates, so long as the debate continues towards developing a more comprehensive, bold and visionary approach to theological education of North American Anglicans in the future.

John Kurcina,
I am a student at Gordon-Conwell, and we actually have courses for a brand new Anglican track starting this fall.  What you are suggesting will actually be in full tilt very soon!

From the GCTS Catalog:

Master of Divinity (in Anglican/Episcopal Studies)
The Master of Divinity in Anglican/Episcopal Studies track is designed to prepare students for pastoral
ministry in the Anglican/Episcopal tradition. This track seeks to weave into the existing Master of Divinity degree a recognized concentration in Anglican studies, resulting in a program that both appropriately trains students for Anglican ministry and meets the rigorous academic standards for which Gordon-Conwell is known.
Students must complete 30 courses (90 credit hours), maintain a grade point average of 2.0 or more in order to graduate. Of the 30 courses, eleven must be completed in Biblical Studies (including Greek and Hebrew), five in Christian Thought, five in Ministry, six in Anglican Studies and three as a general elective. In addition, students must complete six rotations (equivalent to two three-hour courses) of Mentored Ministry, preferably in an Anglican Environment.

I was hoping to open this thread and see someone talking about how theological education needs to be decentralized from ivory towers toward a much more cost-effective, less one-size-fits-all education.  Instead, I hear Trinity and Nashotah House complaining about people developing Christian formation that is right for them and right for their context.  Are we really suggesting that those two seminaries should have a monopoly on theological education for Anglican postulants?  I don’t think that wise or defensible.  I for one wear my liberal VTS education like a badge of honor, not because I was well served, but because my faith survived intact, I was a witness to the truth, I was forced to develop a rigorous apologetic against post-Christian hostility to traditional interpretations, and, by the way, theLord called me to go there.  Competition is a helpful antidote to groupthink, to which Trinity and Nashota are not immune.  Although I will not support my alma mater, I will support Trinity financially, even though it is not my alma mater.

But I think we are missing a much larger problem, and we are not reading the signs of the times.  The temptation is to miss the real problem, which is that large bureaucracies have centralized too much influence in too few.  This Constantinian form of Christianity is going to go down in a blaze of post-Christian hostility in the West.  The builders believed in large, cumbersome institutions.  The boomers believed in building authentic community.  The gen-x-ers believe in authentic experience.  The folks coming next just want something authentic….. anywhere.  Because of this trend, we must walk away from our Constantinian Christianity, state-church, establishment church mentality of “ring the bell in the tower and they will show up.”  We need to retreat back to pre-Constantinian strategies for education and propogation of the Christian species.

I think the Trinities of the world should reduce the size of their bureaucracy and focus on becoming a much more regional effort, and let’s the rest of us develop regional institutes that focus a great deal less on navel-gazing and a great deal more on the practical theologies and the people skills that seminarians actually will need.  Send the future professors to the ivory towers….. what we need are missionary priests, not people trying to perpetuate the last estate of the aristocracy who have an entitlement mentality about sitting in their study all week.

Are we really suggesting in this day and age of mass communications that we need to uproot families for three years and saddle them with $50,000 worth of debt?  Absurd.  Rather, let’s focus our efforts on continuing education as opposed to thinking people have arrived after three intensive years.  Most of us leave seminary having not studied the practical theology that we really need before our first year.  Surely the Ph.D’s can get to work on reinventing theological formation entirely, rather than advocating for a hunker in the bunker at two seminaries mentality.

The other thing we need to realize is that there is a temptation right now to go through the first English Reformation, that of Henry VIII, in which he did not reform anything, he just declared himself the new head of the old bureaucracy.  If we want to ensure complete ineffectiveness in our decaying Western society, this would be the way to go.  If we want to ensure that the kerygma is delivered unencumbered, we must remove the trappings of cultural Christianity and go through an Edwardian period of an ACTUAL reformation of behavior.

With bishops jockeying for who gets to be the head of a wineskin that looks very much like the old one, I am not very encouraged about whether we are moving in the right direction or not.

The Lord will keep it alive with just a remnant if He has to do so, but His winnowing fork is in his hand.  I have met some Trinity grads who are wonderful, who are friends of mine, but to a person they have had an extraordinarily state-church mentality.  We need some more “what box” types, and until Nashota and Trinity starts cranking them out, we will need competition in theological education and Christian formation.

Let me close out my side of this discussion with a couple clairifications. Both Trinity and Nashotah House were ventures specifically aimed at reviving the Episcopal Church. In my opinion, this specific mission is now defunct, but they can serve to strengthen the orthodox element of North American Anglicanism (BTW, I have not even mentioned the role of Wycliffe College Toronto). But they are badly placed to compete in the more general marketplace of catholic- or evangelical-oriented seminaries.

I did suggest 12 years ago that Trinity could broaden its identity to include Evangelicals in Southwest PA and Evangelicals who were looking for a smaller community-minded experience with an Anglican flavor. This is still possible, but I rather doubt it would produce enough students to make a big difference. Obviously, there are distance-learning possibilities which both Trinity and Nashotah are already exploiting to some extent. But this too, I suspect, is not enough.

I wonder if Sarah Hey is not setting her vision too low in saying that the conservative groups – which include Network and Common Cause – cannot produce enough candidates for the ministry. Are you saying, Sarah, that these groups are doomed to a low-growth conventicle status in American Christianity. Maybe that’s true, but I would prefer to believe that, haveing cut loose the albatross of TEC, they will flourish and produce more than enough young clergy for the future. Or one can put it another way: if they cannot grow, then maybe we should all give up on Anglicanism as a dead branch and splice ourselves onto one that is flourishing, whether it be in an evangelical or catholic direction.

I believe there is still a role for an authentic Anglican witness in North Ameica. I think that for it to thrive it will have to have its own seminaries. That’s the gist of my argument anyway.

I think that the new leadership in the Anglican Communion will come out of some significant interaction with the Global South church.

ToAllTheWorld wrote:
Actually, West Coast Cleric, the Nashotah House distance learning program is a complete program, based on the seven canonical areas (we divided the scripture area into separate Old Testament and New Testament modules to create eight modules).
——————————————-

My apologies, Dean Munday!  I don’t know what caused me to write that it was not, as it clearly is.  I can only blame the late hour of my writing. Please forgive my lack of diligence, as well as the unwarrented slight.

I am very pleased to hear that dioceses are accepting this MA as proper theological education for ordination, as well.  I say we need more of the same.  So now, I place my hand over my mouth…

What a great thread.  Many thanks to Dr. Noll, Dr. Munday and all.  I went to VTS (‘85) because my liberal bishop forbade anyone to attend TESM, which in those days wasn’t accredited.  I can’t say it damaged me (the diocesan ordination process took care of that), but my D.Min. experience at TESM (2005) was outstanding.  Not only was I able to count African bishops and clergy among my classmates, but folks from the PCA, Charismatic Episcopal Church, non-denominational evangelists—you name it.

I think Steve Noll’s statement that the mission we all had in the 70’s and 80’s of renewing TEC is now kaput is the heart of the matter.  I would submit that, rather than being purely a matter of heretical vs. orthodox theology, it’s a matter of loss of evangelistic, discipleship-oriented intentionality.  Certainly the abysmal lack of coherent theology in most TEC clergy is a problem; however, I for one was basically trained to lead Prayer Book services and serve an Episcopal congregation—not to win the unchurched to Christ, to bring folks to faith in my neighborhood, etc.  Christoferos make this point above:

The other thing we need to realize is that there is a temptation right now to go through the first English Reformation, that of Henry VIII, in which he did not reform anything, he just declared himself the new head of the old bureaucracy.  If we want to ensure complete ineffectiveness in our decaying Western society, this would be the way to go.  If we want to ensure that the kerygma is delivered unencumbered, we must remove the trappings of cultural Christianity and go through an Edwardian period of an ACTUAL reformation of behavior.

The Network, AMiA, CANA, Common Cause, will all go the way of institutional Christianity in the West if we don’t seriously accept the challenges of the gospel in the postmodern world and begin taking our cues from missiologists for new and effective means of penetrating our culture for Christ.

However, I never would have seen this had it not been for my exposure to John Bowen of Wycliff, Toronto, one of our excellent teachers brought in for the D.Min. program at Trinity.  It’s clear that this type of “outside the box” thinking regarding evangelism is alive and well there.  I thank God for Trinity and all those who sacrificed so much—and continue to do so—to make it what it is today.

If we are witnessing a “realignment” of Anglicanism worldwide towards a more aggressively evangelistic ethos (and I believe we are) it only makes sense that its form in the cultures where it originated must change in that direction as well.

Hi Stephen Noll,

In response to your question—“Are you saying, Sarah, that these groups are doomed to a low-growth conventicle status in American Christianity—I have indicated some pretty bleak thoughts about this subject on a number of occasions.  You can read them—along with the fascinating comments—here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3117/

But rather than speak philosophically—where I suspect that we disagree quite a bit—let’s speak merely logistically.

For the 10 Network dioceses and some 250 or so parishes other parishes to produce enough seminarians for Trinity would require action of fairly miraculous proportions.  The Episcopal church itself has some 7500 parishes and 108 dioceses.  I don’t know how many seminarians each diocese produces on average—perhaps three or four a year?—but it’s just hard for me to believe that 1/10 of the dioceses could support Trinity—even were the 10 Network dioceses to institute a draconian rule like “all seminarians must go to Trinity”.

Beyond that, you are saying that such seminarians should not return to liberal to moderate dioceses.  So that would mean that most of the seminarians who graduate from Trinity would need to take groups of existing Anglicans in the U.S. and plant churches by hand.  But most clergy—of most denominations—are not gifted in that way.  I mean, they could try, but it does require skills and gifts to start something from scratch that are fairly unique; I’m an entrepreneur myself, in business, and it’s just an unusual person who can do that sort of thing.

Good luck!  Most of the departing Episcopalians are departing to other denominations in individual patches, and not “finding one another” and forming a group and then planting a church.  Those are simply the “facts on the ground”.

So I find it very unlikely that the Common Cause grouping plus 10 Network dioceses would be able to support Trinity.

Still . . . unless it actually is agreed to, we may never know if I or you are right!  I guess I’d have to see it myself.  And who knows, maybe it will happen.

I agree with Christoferos. 

I’ve come to see that a 3-year-residential requirement may not be good stewardship for most clergy candidates.

There are two revolutionary movements in secular higher education to make note of:

1) Distance learning, even on the graduate level.  It took some time to convert me to advocating distance eduation but I believe the technology has caught up to the concept.  (I took 3 courses from Trinity and had good experiences with them.)  It requires faculty to completely rethink their courses, and that is the chief obstacle.  (I am in the midst of this transition myself.)

2) Divided residence—some states (Florida, for example) are phasing out the whole concept of a four-year institution—it won’t be long until all students will begin their educations at community colleges.  Regional institutions could provide the early seminary courses at a greatly reduced cost.

I think this is a good time to completely rethink the whole way we’ve been doing seminary.  This is not going to settle well with faculty, so I doubt it will occur until the creation of a new Anglican seminary with a completely different approach to theological education.

Let me add that I appreciate the distance learning options from Nashotah and Trinity (and as I said, took advantage of Trinity’s) but the tuition expense is still high because it is necessary to support the physical seminary campus.

I think that Sarah’s argument makes sense.  One big difference between where we are in the Anglican realignment and where the PCA is now is that they are larger, more active in evangelistic outreach and growing at a much faster rate.  Given the way that the PCUSA is beginning to disintegrate under the weight of local option on same sex issues, I expect that the PCA will absorb more of their congregations.

I love Trinity - and have the fondest memories of our 5 years living as students in Ambridge.  I wouldn’t trade those years (did I mention FIVE years?) for anything - they were the rock-bottom basis for my husband’s (and my) pastoral care training, and the beginning of a beautiful network of friends across the country and the world.

Rock on, Steve Noll!

EmilyH raises excellent questions for Trinity’s Board to consider. Why can’t Trinity hang on to good faculty and administration? What prompted Gavin McGrath, Paul House, Allen Ross, Peter Moore, Paul Zahl, Steve Noll, Bob Munday, and others to leave? Has any other conservative seminary in the USA experienced this amount of upheaval in such a short time? How can there be any continuity in terms of curriculum as well as spiritual formation?

Dr. Noll rightly points out that Trinity has been too slow in recognizing and responding to the Spirit’s leading in the renewal and reformation of North American Anglicanism. At a time when once and future Dean John Rodgers was consecrated as a global south bishop, many in the Trinity family, especially Dean Moore, were vocally opposed to the AMiA. Seven years later, now that even Martyn Minns has become a global south bishop, Trinity is changing its tune. Perhaps this is a season of change; a true repentance for previously bad-mouthing brothers and sisters on the vanguard. Or perhaps this is simply a time of panic because there is no longer any real constituency for the admissions office.

Trinity is neither fish nor fowl. It has no future in the Episcopal Church, and thus the name change. But it also cannot compete with Gordon-Conwell, Covenant, Fuller, Beeson, RTS, TEDS and so on within Evangelicalism. In other words, neither revisionists nor evangelical leaders consider it a real option.

Trinity’s board also should consider how its advocacy for women’s ordination has affected enrollment and its positioning within the Anglican realignment. Some years ago, the decision was made that in order to be a player in the seminary options in ECUSA, Trinity should be progressive in terms of women’s ordination, thereby allowing it to stand firm on other more important issues. Since then, though a few individual faculty and staff have taken courageous stands against women’s ordination, there has been a corporate embrace. Consequently, the ethos of the school is remarkably feminist. This is another reason why so many do not even consider Trinity as an option for theological education.

I have a question about distance education for laity.  I am in a position where I can’t commit myself to a degree program, but would like to be able to take courses from time to time, as my life (well, my family permits.  I’ve done some of this through Trinity, but am wondering if there are other options for those of us who are more Reformed Catholic than Evangelical?

I always think it is good in discussion like this to ask: so what are you proposing? Those of you who are predicting a reduced intake or an alternative modes of instruction, what would you have the Trinity and Nashotah Boards do? Sell to the Moonies or the Muslims? Trinity began in an A&P, maybe they would take it back with improvement. (I used to say that my office was located in the fruit and nuts section.) It is just hard to imagine a significant religious grouping that does not have a theological training center. Can you name one? And for all the virtual degree progams that are springing up, I seem to recall that the Top Fifty or Top Five Hundred universities still have campuses.

If I can make a comment from the Anglican Church in Uganda, the Church here is very fearful that its theological colleges will die for lack of funding. That is one reason why attaching a theological college to a university, i.e., an explicitly Christ-centered university, has been a boon to the church here. Please don’t romanticize the church in Africa as if it just multiplies spontaneously without the need to educate its leaders.

Dean Moore was afflicted with the same malaise as many of the rest of us; we weren’t willing to accept the reality involving TEC when AMIA was created.  Trinity is an excellent school, but for a while it got caught in a no-mans land, rejected by most TEC Bishops on the one hand, while being critical of AMIA on the other.

This is a difficult time.  Anglicanism is in the sweep of a great torrent of historical change, and, humanly, we’ve no way of controlling the current of events.  We are called to trust in the Lord with all our hearts and lean not on our own understanding. 
I pray that Trinity will not be one of the casualties.  I’ve known some Trinity grads who’ve a wonderful joy in obedience.

Dear Stand Firm Posters:
Over the years there are only a few threads that I have read ‘cover the cover’ ...this has been one of the best.  I have read, marked, and inwardly digested it.  Thank you Steve for getting the ball rolling…and thank all who commented.

The Board of Trustees of Trinity has most of these challenges on the table…and you all of provided a lot of thought and reflections that I find very, very helpful and hopeful.  Your comments and thoughts will live on!

In the meantime, if any of you have additional thoughts or further reflections on Anglicanism and the future of theological education, please provide them.

Pax,

The Rev. Canon David Roseberry
Chair, Board of Trustees

As one unfamiliar with the seminaries in question I found this thread fascinating. There seems a tension between the pragmatists and the idealists with regard to theological education. I wonder if that divide is also to be found in the leadership of CANA, the AMiA, and also the Network Bishops? Noll asks ‘what do you want?’. Good question, what do the leaders of these institutions want? If they really percieve themselves as the fruits of the ‘New Reformation’, they will need dedicated seminaries to foster the orthodox Anglican tradition. However, if they just see themselves as ‘exiles’ looking for a ‘safe’ place, then the need is only for somewhere for future congregational leaders to be trained, and theres losts of options for that. If Noll is right in his analysis, then it is lack of vision and stategic thinking brought the orthodox and their seminaries to this sad state. Is it too late?

What prompted Gavin McGrath, Paul House, Allen Ross, Peter Moore, Paul Zahl, Steve Noll, Bob Munday, and others to leave?

Over the last ten years I have become a kind of TEC Forrest Gump.  While not being intimately involved at the mover and shaker level I have had some doings with a lot of the major movements and events among ECUSA conservatives.  Some of this just has to do with having gotten to know various or our fearless leaders before they were fearless leaders.  I knew Kendall Harmon before he was T19.  I knew the ACI people when they were SEAD. 

While not being an insider at TESM, I know a little bit about its inner workings because I know people who either have taught there or are teaching there.  I had lunch with Stephen Noll in Charleston just before he went to Uganda.  Paul Zahl kindly telephoned me at work the day after the takeover of St. John’s, Bristol.  I have recently gotten to know Sudduth Cummings, who is now a priest in New Haven, but who used to teach at TESM. Leander Harding, now on the faculty, is a great friend of mine.

I think it a bit conspiracy-minded to imagine that all the above left for the same reasons.  I know the personal circumstances behind why some of the above left.  They weren’t for the same reasons.

Anglican Emissions in the Americas,

Your comments do not fit the facts and merely express your irritation that some Anglicans do not approve of the AMiA.

RE: “At a time when once and future Dean John Rodgers was consecrated as a Global South bishop, many in the Trinity family, especially Dean Moore, were vocally opposed to the AMiA. Seven years later, now that even Martyn Minns has become a Global South bishop, Trinity is changing its tune. Perhaps this is a season of change; a true repentance for previously bad-mouthing brothers and sisters on the vanguard. Or perhaps this is simply a time of panic because there is no longer any real constituency for the admissions office.”

1) Being “vocally opposed” to the construction of non-Communion solutions to the problems confronting ECUSA is not the same as “bad-mouthing brothers and sisters”.  “Brothers and sisters” should be perfectly capable of understanding when fellow “brothers and sisters” ardently disapprove of an idea and maintain rational disapproval of actions.

Further, Trinity is not “changing its tune” now that Bishop Minns is a bishop of Nigeria.  According to David Roseberry, they began accepting AMiA students in 2002—a mere two years after the original ordinations, a startlingly swift and flexible move for an institution.

My sense is that this is going to be a big year for Trinity as the D. Min. program at Trinity takes off with record enrollment and a quantum leap in mutual support with Global South faculties.  And the focus of the D. Min. should be church planting.  Period.  Full stop.  Nothing else.  That’s all.  And how will this influence the development of fellows programs and seminary enrollment and Timothy programs across the renewed landscape?  Ephesians 3:20,21.

For what it’s worth, allow me to give a plug for the new(ish) Anglican Studies program at Duke.  Not that I’m biased or anything.  (I’ll be there this fall.) 

http://www.divinity.duke.edu/programs/aehs

Now, I’m of course in agreement with the folks saying that we ought to be pro-active about supporting Nashotah and Trinity.  But I think it’s also the case that as time goes on, there will be a very important role for Anglican programs at seminaries like Duke, Gordon-Conwell, and Beeson.  That’s just facing facts—the Episcopal Church is small to begin with, and the traditional wing therein is even smaller.  We won’t be able to get by without a little help from our friends. 

Also—my bishop, +Smith from ND, sends folks to TESM quite frequently.  But I was very grateful that he was open to sending me elsewhere.  I think that’s the most sensible policy—encourage ordinands to consider TESM and Nashotah, but recognize that there are still other good options available.

I just have to jump back in with a brief question—
Re: those who are speaking as “mid-lifers” who are concerned about uprooting from the lives they have established, etc.  My question is this—do you think that after you finish seminary and are ordained you’ll be able to just stay exactly where you are and not uproot?  I would think it quite rare for someone to complete their seminary education, be ordained, and stay in the same place they have been.  Bishops don’t typically put you back in your home parish for obvious reasons.  And further, you kind of have to go where there are openings and where you are needed and where the Lord leads you.

When you take this path, you have to put your life in God’s hands and go where He leads.  Set fear aside.  Seek His will.  I’m not saying that the only place God will ever lead is Trinity or Nashotah House, but I don’t think you should discount either of them simply because you would have to uproot your life.  Speaking from the Nashotah view—there are great jobs here for spouses, great schools for the kids, and it is an amazing place to live.  There is nothing like living in community with others on a similar path.  There is fabulous support for the spouses and children.  I could go on…  I will also add that having some time away from “home” (i.e. relocating to seminary for one year or three years) might make the transition to ministry and the changes that entails a little smoother.  Looks like my brief question isn’t so brief after all.  Oops!

I don’t know why I’m entering this thread, I certainly feel outclassed.

Sarah brought up a point which I could do a little research and stirred other thoughts.

In further response to Dr. Noll’s letter, it is hard for me to imagine that a base of 100 or so AMiA parishes, however many of REC parishes, and 30 CANA parishes, serve as a good foundation for a seminary’s constituency.

Per web directory (hand-count so possible error) REC has 157 parishes. REC has has three seminaries: Cranmer Theological House (CTH), Houston, TX; Cummins Theological Seminary, Charleston, SC; Reformed Episcopal Seminary, Philadelphia, PA

I’m not sure how many free agents REC might get or more pertinent how many ‘Continuing Churches’ these seminaries serve.

TESM and Nashotah are actually in an interesting place to help maintain unity and possibly bring in others that are not currently a part of Common Cause or FACA, even if for self interest (continued survival beyond thirty years). According to one’s count in a less than flattering post there are 58 Continuing Churches that ECUSA has split-off over the years. A hand-count of other FACA members gives—APA 77 parishes,  EMC 32 parishes and ACA 87 parishes. If added together all the other not listed that should provide a nice base for these five seminaries as well as Regent’s program.

The seminaries will probably have to be very proactive and Dr Noll’s letter is only one side of the equation. I can imagine that there are some hurt feeling in some of the Continuing Churches that have felt they’ve been fighting alone for thirty years and one of the task Dean Munday and Chairman Roseberry will have is to apologize and build relationships.

In some sense they are in a better position than +Duncan to connect with some that maybe alienated. Even with the most altruistic intentions, there could be a suspicion that +Duncan looking to increase his power base. These seminaries have the freedom to bluntly state that they want something and desire to be chosen to provide their services built on a common heritage.

Kind of rambling thoughts, but since 1873 REC has managed to build three seminaries with a smaller base, it should be possible to sustain TESM and Nashotah. Maybe now is the time they should cultivate relationship where politics may has previously impaired.

“where politics may have previously impaired” 

William Witt writes:

I think it a bit conspiracy-minded to imagine that all the above left for the same reasons.

There are certainly many reasons for the departures in recent years. But perhaps the chief reason is that there has been insufficient reason to stay. Had Trinity been on the forefront of mission, rather than waiting to see what will happen in TEC, there might have been compelling centripetal force to keep a good team together. This is particularly the case with non-Anglican faculty, who don’t find long-term motivation in the institutional preoccupation with North American Anglicanism.

Sarah Hey opines that my comments:

merely express your irritation that some Anglicans do not approve of the AMiA.

This is a good guess, but incorrect. In truth, my irritation is with Trinity for following more than leading in the renewal of Anglicanism in North America. With the formation of the AMiA, those who responded to the call for action did the best they could given inadequate formation years earlier in other ECUSA seminaries. With Rodgers’ early retirement from the AMiA, the primary decision makers since then have been more pragmatists than theologians. In particular, the uncritical embrace of church-growth methodologies has led to short-term numerical gains but long-term institutional weaknesses. Only time will tell whether the AMiA will be able to address these issues.

In point of fact, I am thankful that some Anglicans do not approve of the AMiA, at least those who see the theological weaknesses and have charitably called for theologically Anglican renewal. Would that the faculty at Trinity were able to lead the way on constructive critique, providing a robust strategy for renewal, including practical components for the churches that have the courage to move from maintenance to mission.

Sadly, they are unprepared for this present moment. Given the substantial faculty turnover, mission uncertainty and confused identity, I am not convinced that a mandatory year at Trinity would be beneficial for Common Cause clergy.

<blockquote>But perhaps the chief reason is that there has been insufficient reason to stay.<blockquote>

Of the stories I know about, this was not the case for even one departure.

Anglican Emissions in the Americas,

I agree with your summation of the current situation, I disagree with where you are leaving it. I think is it very good for the troubles you listed. I think they are in part of why Dr. Knolls confession of failures.

I stated that a task for survival for these two schools is to seek out and apologize any who have been brushed off during the time they had hoped to please ECUSA bishops. If the 58 number is correct, CANA would be the exception in the well-wishes +Minns has been generally received by the orthodox—I imagine 56 other have felt more like AMiA in the way people have threated them from ECUSA or even the AC. Probably much worse than AMiA in many circumstances.

The wonderful thing about TEC and the AC possibly imploding all around us is that individuals are not only more free to build relationships with those who have been alienated but it also would behoove us to do so. Maybe not the best repentance (done purely on Christ commands w/o a self-interest), but our hearts are hard so often the Lord can use the circumstances to motivate our obiedence.

Problem are often opportunities. These schools may never have stepped out unless the situation forces them. I’m hopeful trusting they pray and seek the Lord, because in Him pruning is never a bad thing.

Humble apology Dr. Noll for misspelling your name  

First, a note of clarification.  According to the ACN, there are 2039 clergy in ACN dioceses and parishes, another 106 in the non-TEC Network parishes supported by Southern Cone, West Indies, etc.  Although they do not list separate clergy numbers for CANA, AMiA, or APA, there are 219 parishes between them (which, I would hazard to guess, is at least 250 clergy).  If you add in the continuing churches outside APA, I think you could reasonably estimate something close to 3000 clergy in orthodox churches, without counting either REC (135) or Windsor diocese (598).  If only 1/30 of those 3000 clergy (=100) retire in a given year, you need to turn out at least 100 seminarians to replace them, and that does not take into accout potential growth.  Given that you may lose some clergy to causes other than retirement, that any new Anglican structure in the US may include some Windsor diocese, and that we might indeed enjoy growth if any of those million+ people who have left TEC over the last 30 years (not to mention from other denominations or new converts to Christianity) are willing to join into an orthodox Anglican Church, the need for clergy might well exceed 200 per year, and I suspect that those kinds of numbers would indeed be sufficient to keep a couple seminaries busy.
    One thought I’ve had since the beginning of this thread is that theological education is something we need to be prepared to pay for. And here I mean all of us who consider ourselves orthodox.  If there is a Primatial Vicar, separate orthodox Anglican province, or loose network of diocese and parishes, the one sure thing is that 815 will not be sending any lease income from Trinity Wall Street to Nashotah or Trinity seminary. The costs of attending a seminary look expensive if you went to college 30 years ago, but really are in line with what you might expect to pay for the same level of education in many state sponsored universities (and lower than private institutions).  More expensive than a community college, true, but community colleges are not offering masters and doctorate degrees.  It is up to us to build the endowments of these seminaries to the point that scholarships are readily available for worthy recipients, and that funds are available to subsidize educational outreach to lay people as well.
  Something that I think might be easy and cost effective (for lay outreach)  would be for webmasters and bloggers to provide links to educational sites. (Many actually have such links, but often hidden somewhere that may be difficult to navigate to) BTW, Stand Firm powers that be, do you have any plans for the big, dark space on the right side of my screen? I have, for example, frequently made use of Project Canterbury http://anglicanhistory.org/ which has tons of source material.  This would make much of “what we hold sacred” readily available to casual readers as well.  There are also several websites that offer free courses in New Testament Greek, Hebrew, and Latin and I am sure you can find Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine on the web as well, in either translation or Latin.  Many resources are out there, we just need them more conveniently accessible, adn we need help separating the wheat from the chaff.
Thanks again, and God bless you all for this wonderful forum.
TJ

First, let me thank Professor Noll very sincerely for starting this great thread.

I’ve found much food for thought here—much of which calls for further mental digestion.  However, two thoughts beg to be aired before this thread is submerged.

First:  Both AMiA and the orthodox seminaries desperately need to give a very long, hard, and DETAILS-SPECIFIC look at how they propose to do business together in the coming decade or two.  In other posts, I’ve commented ruefully on the AMiA-commissioned study a couple of years back that is said to have revealed, to AMiA Bishop Murphy’s dismay, that the membership of AMiA really had little more heart for mission and evangelism than did the ECUSA structures from which they had made their exodus.  Though AMiA was—and I believe still is—supposed to be all about evangelising the 130 million unchurched people in the US, I see little enough outreach toward, and successful inbringing and conversion of, the unchurched in the AMiA contexts I’ve witnessed to be asking questions about how we in AMiA, as a body, are going to proceed toward better success in this project.

Some years ago, when AMiA was getting itself set up, its paradigmatic means of creating a new AMiA parish seemed to be to assemble a group of twenty (or fifty) (!) like-minded laypeople who wanted to form a new Anglican parish.  These people were supposed to be encouraged to start regular weekly meetings, with (perhaps) one of their number being ordained once the group had reached some critical mass.

Amongst the devils in the details was the difficulty of assembling an active crowd of—let’s make it easy and say 25—people with a practical interest in an Anglican body who would be willing to settle during such an interim phase for lay-led Evening Prayer / Bible study, without the regular presence of an ordained minister.  For every one person willing to do such a thing, one finds seven who would be interested in paying a visit once services got up and running and a priest hired.  To be sure, those interested in a no-clergy-needed ‘Bible study’ format can readily be accommodated, but attracting potential pioneers sufficiently wedded to Anglican styles of worship, faith, and practice, to a group initially difficult to distinguish from a non-denominational Bible study, proves to be a difficult task.  For a group to submit itself to an ordained clergyman (with the attendant increase in top-down influence from that clergyman’s professional superiors) after having fought its way to viability through a long initial lay-led stage is itself a potentially bumpy transition.

This is difficult enough when one is dealing with the (dwindling) number of ex-Episcopalians whose heart really has been set on doing church in an Anglican way all along.  How much harder when one’s target audience are the agnostics and secularists and New Agers and others who make up North America’s unchurched?

By and large, these people are not as well-off as one’s stereotypical Episcopalian.  My own AMiA congregation—blessed in its foundation by its having initially crystallised as the Canterbury-trail-interested subset of a local nondenominational megachurch, thus birthed complete with accepted (though un-seminary-trained) leadership—is still very shaky financially.  My fellow congregants are emphatically middle-class and blue-collar, at best; they are desperately selling their homes to pay off school debt, asking on the parish’s online forum about affordable used cars; one was making repeated trips to Tijuana, Mexico, for non-optional dental surgery because she had no insurance and could not afford desperately-needed treatment in the US.  Though the clergy repeatedly tell us that they are bowled over by the congregation’s faithfulness in tithing and financial generosity, at the end of the day there is not much blood to be squeezed from this turnip.  We are meeting in a high school, storing our church equipment in a trailer that is towed by a volunteer’s pickup truck with a transmission that is showing signs of failing as a result of the load.  Most of our clergy hold part-time or full-time jobs apart from their clerical work.  A proposed annual expense of a few hundred dollars was a very delicate subject at our most recent vestry meeting.

I can’t help but think that this very shaky financial situation is going to be very common throughout AMiA.  I can predict with confidence that if AMiA ever really does get up and running and converting one percent of its 130 million target group, birthing new congregations as it contemplates doing, the finances are going to lag a very appreciable distance behind the creation of congregations.

This is going to be one of the difficult realities which any clergy-training scheme is going to need to address—and not merely to address, but to accept, and assist, and to thrive in spite of.  If your congregational leader is trying to lead one or two dozen new converts, it is nearly a mathematical certainty that he will need to draw his pay from some source other than the congregation.  This means that he is going to have 40+ hours less waking time per week to devote to clerical work, which very likely means that he is going to have to share such service with a number of other leaders.  If this rising leadership is going to be given any theological or divinity-type education whatsoever, it is going to have to take place within the matrix of their already-existing geographical, social, and ecclesial communities.  For anyone in such a leadership role to uproot and move to Ambridge or Wisconsin for three years would be fatal to the new church.  While modern communication makes running a new church by epistle from out of town a much-more-feasible endeavour than it has been in the past (I’ve personally fielded many theological questions and requests for pastor-like advice while studying for the ordained ministry 5000 miles from the group I’d planted), it is still going to be a combination of extension courses, independent study, and local educational opportunities that will have to make up the bulk of clergy training in any scenario that AMiA or CANA would regard as success.

I recognise the difficulties, believe me.  Our local AMiA and REC and continuing-Anglican groups have done a remarkable job at sharing resources, with the REC pastor offering historical and systematic theological instruction, a local AMiA hospital chaplain offering counseling training, and the local parishes having adopted the Colorado-based ‘Veritas’ programme as the approved means for Biblical and homiletic preparation.  Unfortunately, the temptation exists in this context of financial instability for the providers of these various kinds of instruction to see the provision of their teaching services as their own last hope for family financial stability, and to exert their influence even within the AMiA context to have their instruction made mandatory, so as to ensure that their meagre income can be supplemented via fees from aspiring ordinands.  In this, as in other areas, the interests of the instructors and of the instructional institutions can end up at odds with the need to get labourers out into the harvest-fields.

In any event, if Anglicanism is to survive in this context, it is going to have to look very different from the ECUSA / C of E / three-years’-seminary-or-two-years’-theological-college models we’re more used to in the First World.  Though I am not sure what this should look like, I’m afraid I can say with confidence that TSM and Nashotah ought not to look to AMiA—especially if AMiA really does turn the corner and achieve great evangelistic success—as a source of solid revenue. 

In a related vein, I am interested in any input from those more familiar than I with the leadership training used in the Province of Southeast Asia (and described, somewhat favourably, by Wycliffe-Hall-Oxford’s Dr Michael Green in his book Asian Tigers for Christ); I gather that that province has addressed, with at least some lack of abject failure, the situation of explosive lay-spearheaded evangelistic growth, and the practicalities of educating leaders in a situation of that kind.  If anyone reading this knows more about how that is done, I would welcome such information.

Second:  I applaud the extension programmes of TSM and Nashotah.  They are very clearly an effort at precisely the kind of outside-the-box thinking that needs to happen for orthodox Anglicanism to grow in the modern day.  I am similarly appreciative of AMiA’s own home-grown clergy-credentialling programmes of study.  I think these all offer at least some prospect of giving a specifically-Anglican element to the educations of the kind of far-flung, three-years’-residential-study-is-a-pragmatic-impossibility church leaders that Anglicanism may increasingly need.  Sitting elbow-to-elbow in study sessions with fellow AMiA aspirants who may never even have seen the inside of an Episcopal church before joining our AMiA parish,  for whom infant baptism is a novelty regarded with at least residual distrust, I have had to wonder how AMiA is going to retain a genuinely-Anglican theology. 

And yet I am wary of Dr Noll’s proposed denomination-wide requirement that seminarians patronise one of the two (or slightly more) recommended seminaries.  True, a steady stream of students would benefit TSM and Nashotah—perhaps at a time when such a benefit is something without which those instutions might not survive.  I am familiar—albeit at second hand, from my TSM-alumna wife, with the deep financial sacrifices made by the TSM faculty, whose families lived on welfare, and whose students lived in vermin-infested slum housing amongst drugs-addicted single mothers, protected from violence by camaraderie with the other poor amongst whom they lived.  (My own funding situation was comparable—I recall once only half-jokingly suggesting to my overseeing bishop, when finances were tight, that I could live in a lean-to and kill the occasional deer from the Magdalen College Deer Park for food.) 

In spite of the inevitability of sacrifice in training for ordination, I am wary of wide-reaching mandates such as Dr Noll understandably recommends, for the simple reason that God, in His providence, seems to me very rarely to bless such universal plans.  I deferred my own postulancy indefinitely after a committee on ministry insisted I attend their favoured seminary—one for which I’d done the maths, and demonstrated I could not afford, though I’d calculated means of attending two other seminaries whose financial aid was better or whose expenses were lower.  The unwillingness to think outside the box of that (orthodox and still-relatively-faithful) diocese’s education scheme betokened an unwillingness to problem-solve, to acknowledge the situation presented by God in His providence and to bend to circumstances uncontemplated in the development of the plan. 

In the end, clergy-formation must first serve God—and look actively and inquiringly to Him for direction, as a servant looks to his master.  It must, next, serve those people to whom the ordinand is hoped to minister—and these are not necessarily, nor primarily, those who are already inside the Church and who might conceivably help defray the expenses of education.  While the welfare of this or that seminary may be of great importance in this service, it must at best be a secondary consideration.  I write this as one who loves the seminaries, who long aspired to teach in one, with the goal of prodding TEC in an orthodox direction, and who have been courted as a potential instructor for seminary extension courses.  I would grieve at the closure of TSM, or Nashotah, or any of a number of other such colleges.  But whatever means of formation ends up replacing the prior methods needs to bear in mind all those whom it will serve, and to be set up with a humble receptiveness to correction by unpredicted realities.

Apropos of the need of such humility amongst planners, in the face of God’s providence, I’ll offer the following under-read poem by Dorothy Sayers:

  The Architect stood forth and said:
‘I am the master of the art;
I have a thought within my head,
I have a dream within my heart.
Come now, good craftsman, ply your trade
With tool and stone obediently;
Behold the plan that I have made—
I am the master; serve you me.’

  The Craftsman answered: ‘Sir, I will,
yet look to it that this your draft
Be of a sort to serve my skill—
you are not the master of the craft.
It is by me the towers grow tall,
I lay the course, I shape and hew;
You make a little inky scrawl,
and that is all that you can do.
Account me, then, the master man,
laying my rigid rule upon
the plan, and that which serves the plan—
the uncomplaining, helpless stone.’

  The Stone made answer:
‘Masters mine, know this: that I can bless or damn
The thing that both of you design
by being but the thing I am;
For I am granite and not gold,
for I am marble and not clay,
You may not hammer me or mould—
I am the master of the way.
Yet once that mastery bestowed
then I will suffer patiently
The cleaving steel, the crushing load,
that make a calvary of me;
And you may carve me with your hand
to arch and buttress, roof and wall,
Until the dream rise up and stand—
serve but the stone, the stone serves all.
Let each do well what each knows best,
nothing refuse and nothing shirk,
Since none is master of the rest,
but all are servants of the work—
The work no master may subject
save He to whom the whole is known,
Being Himself the Architect,
the Craftsman and the Cornerstone.
Then when the greatest and the least
have finished all their labouring
And sit together at the feast
you shall behold a wonder thing:
The Maker of the men that make
will stoop between the cherubim,
The towel and the basin take,
and serve the servants who serve Him.’

  The Architect and Craftsman, both,
agreed the Stone had spoken well;
Bound them to service by an oath
and each to his own labour fell.

AN OPEN RESPONSE FROM FORMER TESM DEAN PETER MOORE:
In response to Steve Noll’s excellent piece on why Trinity (and Nashotah, from which I hold an honorary degree) must be supported by Network and Common Cause bishops, I would add only a couple of thoughts:
First, It is not just retired bishops like +Ben Benitez and +Alex Dickson who in their day refused to send students to Trinity. It is also quite a number of current Network bishops who have sought all kinds of alternative roots, as you suggest, and in some cases refused to allow students to come to Trinity. It has been frustrating for Trinity Deans to watch capable candidates be spirited off to England, Canada and other US seminaries who then, upon graduation, are almost totally unconnected to the US Episcopal/Anglican renewal scene, and woefully uninformed about historic Anglican evangelicalism. No one is saying that Ambridge is a great tourist destination, especially in February. But theological education there is solid, biblical, Anglican, and thoroughly in touch with all the theological currents in the wider church. Those who have suggested that qualified candidates, who wanted to come to Trinity, or might have come with a bit of encouragement, would “do better” to go elsewhere have to bear some responsibility for the chaos the Episcopal Church is in today. The fact that some of these bishops are my friends makes me very sad.
Secondly, the system that we now have is itself confusing. Frequently, I’ve heard bishops say that they are “willing” to have candidates go to Trinity. However, when the candidate goes before the Commission on Ministry, they are told that they must be broadened, and go elsewhere. This is a case of one playing “good cop” and the other “bad cop.” One senses collusion in these decisions.
Thirdly, it has become clear to me over the years that stereotypes about Trinity have nothing to do with the reality that one finds there. The stereotypes, however, are a necessary defense by the liberal leadership of TEC against any willingness to countenance the thought that historic biblical theology, coupled with missionary zeal, has a place within North American Anglicanism. Of course, this is historical nonsense. But the misrepresentation lingers. It is necessary that the liberals stigmatize Trinity as fundamentalist, or narrow, or anti-women, or hate-filled, or whatever—not because any of these labels stick, or have the slightest relationship to reality, but because they protect the users from actually facing the facts: Anglican evangelicalism has both an historic and a current place within North American Anglicanism, and until the recent unpleasantness was making great strides towards leading TEC backward to its roots, and forward to its true missional calling.
Peter Moore

You want outside-the-box thinking?  How about this:  Trinity sounds like a fine institution, but it is expensive and requires travel.  Why not set up a series of schools such as the Good Samaritan School of Theology, of which the current PB was dean for six years?  How expensive would that be? 

I hereby apply for assistant dean.  (I’m lazy, and being dean of an imaginary institution sounds a little too taxing.)

While our orthodox Anglican educators are in the process of planning the future of orthodox seminary education in the US and Canada, and of the ordination requirements that must dovetail with whatever the seminaries offer, it would be very wise to incorporate at least some planning for contexts in which seminary education and clerical formation have to proceed under unprecedented noncooperation from society at large, or even active persecution.

Part of the desirability of this will arise out of increasing contact between our seminaries’ graduates and cultures such as those of the Islamic world and the more-oppressive of the Asian nations, in which aspects of Christianity and especially Christian evangelism are restricted or forbidden.  Thirty years ago, martyrdom for the Anglican faith was a ridiculously-unlikely prospect for most North American ordinands; nowadays, TSM’s “Seed and Harvest” newsletter bears stories of escapes from bombardment in Lebanon, and probably most of us have firsthand acquaintances involved in evangelistic ministries to Muslim countries where such activity is regarded at least by some as a capital felony.  It might not be amiss to give some thought to how at least a tolerably-comprehensive seminary training might be created and ‘packaged’ so as to render such instruction portable and useful for potential Church leaders operating under such restrictive conditions.

Likewise, it is not premature for those at the helms of our seminaries to think through the potential impact of deChristianising trends within what have previously been Christian countries.  Already we are seeing governmentally-supported restrictions on orthodox Christian speech in several Western countries.  Even in the US, the legal framework is already in place for the potential revocation of tax-exempt status from politically-incorrect colleges and other institutions, probably including churches themselves.  The 1983 US Supreme Court case of Bob Jones University v. US, 461 US 574, stands for the proposition that the US government may revoke the tax-exempt status of a university or other ‘charity’ if that organisation’s policies are at odds with the government’s approved morality.  In the case of Bob Jones, the university’s policy involved racial discrimination, which was held to be sufficiently at odds with the public good to make tax-exempt ‘charitable’ status inappropriate. While, like most here, I am horrified at that university’s stance, it is no less horrifying to see the government getting that far into the business of ideological determination that a private university’s policies are morally wrong.  Alan Sears, in his co-authored book The Homosexual Agenda, independently predicted that the Bob Jones University case will be used in the near future to attempt to attack conservative Christian institutions’ tax status in the US.

The day when visible, out-in-the-open, tax-exempt orthodox Christian seminaries are allowed to operate and thrive is already past in some countries; I predict some further tightening even in such places as the US, UK, and Canada.

It stands to reason that our orthodox Christian seminaries, in the context of whatever re-thinking they do to address the changes going on in Anglicanism, ought to give some thought to making their curricula ‘portable’ enough to address situations of increased societal disapproval and even outright persecution.  I think even the development of a minimalist ‘samizdat’ curriculum, with texts that could be copied, translated, and used with little or no additional contact from the seminary, would not be a bad idea.  (Taking a page from J W Wenham’s Elements of New Testament Greek, I suggest the provision of a universally-accessible answer key to questions in the text would be a very desirable feature.)

There are 9 (I think) accredited TEC seminaries serving 108 dioceses. That is about 12 dioceses per seminary per capita. But in reality several seminaries have very small enrollments and some dioceses send aspirants/postulants at a slower rate than others.

Supposing that the 10 Network dioceses, CANA, the AMiA and common cause partners are committed to missions and evangelism, the base is plenty large enough to support both seminaries.

The larger question is whether this should be done. The question touches on the divide between communion and federal conservatives within the orthodox camp. The past few weeks have demonstrated that the communion conservative solution, based as it is on an untrustworthy Canterbury and a divided body of primates, is likely unworkable. We will know for sure after September 30th.

But I do not share Sarah’s pessimism with regard to the survivability/sustainability of North American orthodox Anglicanism rent from Canterbury. I think the AMiA and CANA are both doing quite well and, in fact, cooperation between those two groups and the Network and other common cause bodies could provide not only the base enrollment for Trinity and Nashota but the foundation for a Reformed Anglicanism in America, connected to the Global South.

I think Dr. Noll’s open letter represents one pillar in this future ediface. If these two seminaries can churn out well educated and trained missionaries not only to take the place of retiring or resigning rectors and vicars but to plant churches in North America then we will have hope of an Anglican future untainted by the heresy of TEC or the chaos of Canterbury.

It is becoming more and more obvious that of the three marks of the church (right proclamation of the Word 2. right celebration of the sacraments and 3. just discipline) TEC lacks marks 1 and 3 while Canterbury lacks at least the 3rd but perhaps the first as well.

It is time to think through and prepare for the real potential of a world-wide split. Dr. Noll has offered us one ingredient

Maybe I can, as a kind of Africanized Anglican, add a comment to the post by Africanised African above by saying that I think seminaries will have look radically at their curriculum and educational goals and that mobilizing for mission, evangelism, church planting and apologetics needs to be front and center in the program. I would agree with AA that many conservative churches, even those with African ties now, are not sufficiently oriented in this direction. Indeed many African Anglican churches themselves are much too establishment oriented. Trinity Seminary has at least tried to address this need with the Stanway Institute for World Mission and Evangelism, of which John Rodgers was the first Director and John Macdonald the current one. Trinity has closed down and sent its students to the New Wineskins for Global Mission Conference since 1994. And Trinity has had required courses in Mission and Evangelism since the beginning in 1976.

In addition, Trinity has been trying to take up the slack in student exchanges with the church in Africa and other parts of the world. I say take up the slack because VTS and EDS have dangled scholarships for many years for African students and many African provinces will not allow them to go there. We at Uganda Christian University have been offering a “Stanway East African Leadership” program for the past five years where a student from East Africa studies for one year at Trinity and then completes the M.A. at UCU.

Trinity has also offered scholarships for D.Min candidates from Africa and other countries. One thinks of Bp. Ben Kwashi as a graduate. We at UCU are now working with Trinity on a joint D.Min degree whereby a cohort of students will come for one month of coursework at Trinity and then do the rest of their study and D.Min project on location in Africa. This course is due to begin in June 2008.

One thing which I think is in the genetic make-up from the early days when Bishop Alfred Stanway came to found Trinity is a willingness for radical action to advance the Gospel. The present crisis in the Anglican Communion is a threat, to be sure, but it is also an opportunity and I think Trinity’s leaders (and Nashotah’s and others) are prepared to adapt to the new situation. That is why I am confident this thread will not be mere talk but lead to action. Thanks again to the many good ideas presented here. It is clear that the Deans and Boards of these institutions are interested and listening.

I think there are 11?  Here is a list I found online:

Berkeley Divinity School at Yale, New Haven, CT
Bexley Hall - Colgate-Rochester, Rochester, NY
Church Divinity School of the Pacific, Berkeley, CA
Episcopal Divinity School, Cambridge, MA
Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest, Austin, TX
General Theological Seminary, New York, NY
Nashotah House, Nashotah, WI
School of Theology of The University of the South, Sewanee, TN
Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, Evanston, IL
Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, Ambridge, PA
Virginia Theological Seminary, Alexandria, VA

But I think the important number is how many postulants/MDIV candidates each one has.  I think we would be surprised at the small numbers for many of the 11.  Which would really mean that the average number of dioceses served would be closer to 15-17.

Again, though, we’re looking at 1) the number of ECUSA folks that Trinity has from various non-Network dioceses right now and 2) the number that would be gained from the 10 Network dioceses and common cause . . . and thinking that the latter would outweight the former???

Does any have any numbers of students at these seminaries?  Or the number of MDIV students?  Either or both would be awfully handy . . .

I have been a member of congregations, both in and out of TEC, that have provided very substantial funding for seminary students rising from the parish. 

However, our Episcopal parish was in a Diocese that had an unwritten policy of not sending someone to Trinity or NH, and would not accept Trinity grads.  We ended up funding only one brave person who went outside of the Diocisian process and attended Trinity.  The rest went to the usual choices, Sewanee, Virginia, General.  In retrospect, I regret almost every decision to fund students in these “traditional” Episcopal seminaries over the last twenty years. The results were not good, and in some cases these indivdiuals have turned 180 degrees in the wrong direction.  We ended up doing more harm than good to these promising young Christians.

A few years ago I heard that Trinity was the largest seminary in terms of total student headcount, Virginia was largest in terms of enrolled MDiv students and either General or Swannee was third and fourth or vice versa.  Nashotah and Bexley Hall were on life support but the prognosis has dramatically improved for the House. Dean Munday reported on this thread that Nashotah has graduated is largest class in many, many years—Bravo!  I also read yesterday on a liberal blog that Seabury-Western is sinking rapidly.

I am guessing that the reason that Matt mentioned 9 seminaries is that he has already decoupled TSM and Nashotah from pecusa.

TSM and Nashotah will thrive once the realignment is further down the road, imho.  The REC example is apt given their 3 seminaries and 157 parishes. 

I would hope that we can get beyond any past feelings of negativity concerning the AMIA.  We are all in this chaos together at this point.

As the director of Trinity’s Center for Distance Learning, I have been following this thread with great interest.  I am thankful not only for the many comments, but also the obvious recognition of how important theological education is.  I would like to add the following:

Residency Requirements:
The Trinity community has been in dialogue for sometime now regarding residency requirements, and the dialogue has not yet ended.  There are two significant issues in this conversation that I have not seen explicitly mentioned in the above comments:
<ul><li>The importance of community in formation and preparation for ministry.  As we are created in the image of a Trinitarian God, community is essential to all aspects of our lives, including learning.  Being present on campus in community with the faculty, staff, and fellow students of the school is of inestimable value for preparing people for ministry.  For students pursuing theological education from a distance, how can we ensure that they have the opportunity to join in a biblical, Anglican community as they prepare for their calling?</li>
<li>Accreditation requirements.  Trinity, Nashotah, and most other theological institutions receive their accreditation through ATS.  ATS requires that we have residential requirements for masters programs.  This has to be a part of the conversation as well.</li></ul>

Anglican Studies Programs:
While such offerings from non-Anglican institutions meet the immediate need for local access to Anglican courses, they fail to meet the deeper need for leadership formation within an Anglican context.  The potential result could be a generation of Anglican leaders who are disconnected from an understanding of ministry that is distinctively biblical and Anglican.  We (i.e. Anglican theological institutions) need to be providing not only access to theological education, but also the opportunity to be in a biblical, missional, global, authentic Anglican community.  Trinity and Nashotah have already begun to do this with our distance learning programs (TrinityOnline and Nashotah).  Trinity is also preparing to pilot a new extension program aimed at addressing the very need we’re discussing here.  (How’s that for a tantalizing tidbit?)

Travis S. Hines
Director, Center for Distance Learning
Trinity School for Ministry

As a Trinity alumnus, and because of my deep appreciation for Trinity’s faculty, I also wanted to post a second comment regarding the concern about faculty who have moved on from Trinity.  I appreciated Bill Witt’s comment regarding this issue, and I would add the following:

Don’t forget to take into account as well the quality of the people who have remained.  Les Fairfield, Rod Whitacre, Laurie Thompson, and Grant LeMarquand are faithful men of prayer, mission, and scholarship who have significantly shaped the lives of the current and future leaders of the church.  Look also to the years of quiet steadfastness of many of the staff whose commitment to the school is born of a commitment to the gospel:  Maxine Moore, Donna Peduzzi, Rae Klinzing, Leslie Deily, Jan Bova, Theresa Newell, Lona Hart.  Look also to Trinity’s board, and to Trinity’s current faculty. 

God has been faithful to Trinity through the quality of people he has called to lead and serve and the school, both in those who continue at Trinity and those who have followed him to other places of ministry.

The importance of community in formation and preparation for ministry.

To me, this is true of education in general. How much more must it be true for those going into the ministry.

RE: “The REC example is apt given their 3 seminaries and 157 parishes.”

TonyinCNY,

If the REC seminaries are the examples that you believe Trinity and Nashotah House should follow—then we don’t need 10 Network dioceses at all to pledge total allegiance to the two Seminaries.  We should be fine with just 2 or 3 ECUSA dioceses doing that.

As a followup—and just to supply some data—here are some stats on some of the seminaries in question:

REFORMED EPISCOPAL SEMINARY
Enrollment: 17 (15 FTE)
Faculty FullTime: 8
Faculty PartTime: 7
Library Resources (000): 23

NASHOTAH HOUSE
Enrollment: 71 (64 FTE)
Faculty FullTime: 7
Faculty PartTime: 4
Library Resources (000): 108

TRINITY EPISCOPAL SCHOOL FOR MINISTRY
Enrollment: 248 (119 FTE)
Faculty FullTime: 9
Faculty PartTime: 2
Library Resources (000): 102

[NOTE: Cranmer House and Cummins are not accredited (save by the REC), so I cannot find information on number of students/etc; Cranmer House does not bestow civil academic degrees but instead gives titles/licensure directly from the REC.]

I would hope that we can get beyond any past feelings of negativity concerning the AMiA.

The appointment of +Rodgers interim dean will go a long way in that area (as well as provide a good laugh at the irony). However, there is no reason for the other Common Cause partners to follow Dr. Noll’s+ advice unless the seminaries court them (sans CANA, +Minns has been involved with TESM for years).

As the current climate is up in the air and who knows what the next two years will look like for traditional Anglicans in the US, the schools are ought to really seek out any and all partners, especially the one Common Cause ones (58 - 10 = 48 uncourted groups).

Another question for the Dean and Chairman, why are the schools not that attractive to free agents? TFC had a free agent graduated Gordon Cornwall last year, four at Duke currently and Truro has one at RTS which may be more than both parishes had officially at both these schools. I have no answers, but an observation shared for people more familiar with seminaries to possibly raise some points.

from Whis Hays <whishays@rocktheworld.org> 
subject RE: Peter Moore Responds to Steve Noll’s Recent Piece on Theologicsl Education  

I would like to offer a response to the line of discussion begun by Noll, Roseberry, and Moore.

First, the issue of who is Trinity preparing (and Nashotah) for what sort of mission and ministry. I taught at Trinity for 15 years, from 1991-2006. There is an assumption underlying this entire discussion that Trinity’s role is the preparation of priests. Of course it is. But when did it become only that? Trinity was intentionally named a “School for Ministry” with equipping of the laity in mind, both volunteer and professional. Trinity’s extension ministry, interterm courses (credit and non-credit), the programs for youth ministry and missions, and the non-degree diploma programs all speak to this wider call. I believe Trinity must reassert this part of its original vision, thereby helping renew the vision of the orthodox Anglican movement in North America. We need to share St. Paul’s hope for all God’s people to grow in Christ and share in the work of Christ. Trinity must give full weight to a wide range of implications raised by its mission statement: “Equipping Christian leaders for Mission.” Priests? Yes. Only priests? May it never be.
Second, Dr. Moore touches on one aspect of the current crisis that has gone largely unnoticed. I submit that Anglicanism is in the midst of a massive system failure, and that the Commission on Ministry canons passed in the late 60’s are responsible for much of the failure we are now enduring in the US (and spreading to the rest of the world). We must pay greater attention to other parts of the system as well. For instance, another part of the system failure is also pointed out by Dr. Noll, namely that we didn’t consolidate orthodox influence by sending candidates to Trinity and Nashotah. We all know another part of the system failure was the passage of the Dennis canon in 1979 which turned over local parish property to the denomination. Our acquiescence to the passage of that canon is now producing a bitter harvest. For the most part, however, it seems to me that we are not asking hard enough questions about what went wrong. We are trying to use the same old system with good, believing people at the controls this time. In my opinion, this means we will achieve perhaps one generation of theological purity and gospel impact before the entire system fails again. A computer which crashes from having a bad hard drive may be rebootable. But not for long.
Where do Trinity and Nashotah have opportunity to improve the system? I return to my first point: in valuing all Christian leadership, not just ordained leadership. I think it is especially vital for North American Anglicanism that Trinity would value the preparation of leaders for youth, college, and young adult ministry. Why? For one extraordinary reason: THERE IS NO CLEAR PATH for young people to take from confirmation through high school and college into adult leadership. These are the years in which career decisions are made. But instead of a clear path (or set of paths), there is a minefield of expectations that young Anglicans will (and should) sow their wild oats instead of leveraging their youthful energy to serve the Lord. When it comes to young people, we have an entire culture of excuse and dismissal and marginalization. We have multiple ways to let young people know they aren’t necessary right now… and then we wonder why they return the compliment!
Our system has produced the most geriatric and least missionary of all American denominations. This must change. And the change must be systemic in the orthodox Anglican seminaries. I would especially like to suggest that we must prepare youth and college ministry leaders both lay and ordained, both volunteer and professional. This is a serious system issue that must be faced. The only alternatives are that other training structures will not only supplement the seminaries (which is good) but supplant them (which would be bad), or else our Anglican numbers will continue to dwindle. When we Anglicans come to view real ministry as being done by the entire body, ESPECIALLY including its younger members—not just priests—we will finally have a chance to escape the death spiral of incessant decline.  We can begin to actually advance the Kingdom as well as merely preserving our church.
In Jesus,
Whis Hays
Executive Director, Rock the World

T. S. Hines writes:
“(How’s that for a tantalizing tidbit?)”
I respond:  AAARRRGGGHHH!  Any more meals like that, matey, an’ yer’ll walk the plank!
   

Sewanee - [hand count]
Total Enrollment 2006-2007 - 89

TEC M.Div - 69
Diploma in Anglican Studies (Ordination track) - 6
M.A. - 3
Certificate of Theological Studies - 1
D. Min - 7
United Methodist M. Div - 10

Both Trinity and Nashotah House had the vision and the courage to differentiate themselves as orthodox seminaries long before many of us knew that it would require courage to be an orthodox Anglican in the U.S. in the 21st Century.  So let us give them the credit that they richly deserve. 

Thank you to Travis Hines and Whis Hays for adding important factors to this discussion. Building on what Travis Hines wrote regarding the importance of community in theological education, it might be worth adding to this discussion the concept of theological education of clergy as spiritual formation, and not simply as professional training.  Ordained ministry is not just a job or a career.  It is a vocation, a sacrificial response to God’s call.  While training for the priesthood, one would pray that our future clergy might grow spiritually, and not simply acquire knowledge and practical skills. It is difficult to really focus on one’s spiritual formation while working 40 hours a week, possibly raising a family, participating in parish and community life, etc, etc…  It is certainly possible to learn the material from on-line courses, and I applaud the efforts of both Trinity and Nashotah in this area, or by commuting to a nearby seminary after work or on weekends, but by necessity, this becomes just one more thing we have to do rather the primary thing we do.  No seminary can prepare students for everything that the priest will encounter in the course of parish ministry, but seminary can and should provide a firm foundation upon which the priest can draw.  The personal, intentional, deep spiritual growth of our future clergy must be a goal and a result of theological education, not an after-thought or a fortuitous happenstance.  By spiritual growth I don’t mean navel-gazing. I mean a spiritual growth that is Christ-centered, not self-centered.

Just for kicks, here are the stats for the other Episcopal seminaries:

BERKELEY DIVINITY SCHOOL [2005 data]
Fall 2005 Data:

Enrollment: 71 (62 FTE)
Faculty FullTime: 0
Faculty PartTime:
Library Resources (000): 0

BEXLEY HALL
Fall 2006 Data:

Enrollment: 42 (28 FTE)
Faculty FullTime: 2
Faculty PartTime: 0
Library Resources (000): 0

CHURCH DIVINITY SCHOOL
Fall 2006 Data:

Enrollment: 104 (83 FTE)
Faculty FullTime: 13
Faculty PartTime: 2
Library Resources (000): 0

EPISCOPAL DIVINITY SCHOOL
Fall 2006 Data:

Enrollment: 89 (8 FTE)
Faculty FullTime: 11
Faculty PartTime: 11
Library Resources (000): 248

EPISCOPAL DIVINITY SCHOOL OF THE SOUTHWEST
Fall 2006 Data:

Enrollment: 109 (95 FTE)
Faculty FullTime: 11
Faculty PartTime: 21
Library Resources (000): 109

GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
Fall 2006 Data:

Enrollment: 119 (104 FTE)
Faculty FullTime: 9
Faculty PartTime: 8
Library Resources (000): 518

UNIVERSITY OF THE SOUTH SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
Fall 2006 Data:

Enrollment: 194 (148 FTE)
Faculty FullTime: 12
Faculty PartTime: 9
Library Resources (000): 147

SEABURY WESTERN
Fall 2006 Data:

Enrollment: 92 (62 FTE)
Faculty FullTime: 7
Faculty PartTime: 26
Library Resources (000): 493

VIRGINIA THEOLOGICAL
Fall 2006 Data:

Enrollment: 246 (203 FTE)
Faculty FullTime: 17
Faculty PartTime: 17
Library Resources (000): 189

********************

NASHOTAH HOUSE
Enrollment: 71 (64 FTE)
Faculty FullTime: 7
Faculty PartTime: 4
Library Resources (000): 108

TRINITY EPISCOPAL SCHOOL FOR MINISTRY
Enrollment: 248 (119 FTE)
Faculty FullTime: 9
Faculty PartTime: 2
Library Resources (000): 102

Of the 976 full-time students in the Episcopal-Seminary-World, Trinity has about 12% of that total.

Of the 1385 TOTAL [includes part-time] students in the Episcopal-Seminary-World, Trinity has about 17% of that total.

If one counts only full-time students, VTS comes in first as the largest at 203, Sewanee is second at 148, and Trinity is third at 119.

Professor Noll wrote:

Maybe I can, as a kind of Africanized Anglican, add a comment to the post by Africanised African above by saying that I think seminaries will have look radically at their curriculum and educational goals and that mobilizing for mission, evangelism, church planting and apologetics needs to be front and center in the program. I would agree with AA that many conservative churches, even those with African ties now, are not sufficiently oriented in this direction. Indeed many African Anglican churches themselves are much too establishment oriented. Trinity Seminary has at least tried to address this need with the Stanway Institute for World Mission and Evangelism, of which John Rodgers was the first Director and John Macdonald the current one. Trinity has closed down and sent its students to the New Wineskins for Global Mission Conference since 1994. And Trinity has had required courses in Mission and Evangelism since the beginning in 1976.

[discussion of interesting cross-pollination schemes was here]

One thing which I think is in the genetic make-up from the early days when Bishop Alfred Stanway came to found Trinity is a willingness for radical action to advance the Gospel. The present crisis in the Anglican Communion is a threat, to be sure, but it is also an opportunity and I think Trinity’s leaders (and Nashotah’s and others) are prepared to adapt to the new situation. That is why I am confident this thread will not be mere talk but lead to action. Thanks again to the many good ideas presented here. It is clear that the Deans and Boards of these institutions are interested and listening.

 

Dr Noll, I am extremely intrigued by the first of your two paragraphs above. 

Reading it and re-reading it with a genuinely burning curiosity, I have to admit that I’m unfamiliar enough with what you describe that I’d probably benefit from your unpacking these statements a little more—and, I suppose, if I’m having trouble cottoning to what you have in mind, many of the others reading this thread must be in the same situation.

1.  You write that ‘I think seminaries will have look radically at their curriculum and educational goals and that mobilizing for mission, evangelism, church planting and apologetics needs to be front and center in the program.’  Would you have any more-detailed suggestions you’d care to make in this regard?  (Even off-list would be very welcome, though I suspect the other readers would greatly benefit from what you’d have to say.)  You’ve mentioned TSM and UCU further down in your post, but it’s hard to tell how much you think either of those colleges has done this, and what, if any, further steps you think might be desirable toward these ends.  Any comments?

2.  You mention three concrete things you say TSM has done in the way of retooling for greater missional (and maybe for greater apologetic?) emphasis:  starting the Stanway Institute for World Mission and Evangelism; closing down to encourage students to attend New Wineskins conferences; and requiring courses in mission and evangelism.  I would bet that I am not the only reader here who would love to hear from you in more detail what these mean, and how they work—and (distinctly from the foregoing) how well they’re working.  Indeed, if somebody told me to draft a curriculum for a seminary course in ‘evangelism’ so as to make it make a difference, I’m not sure I’d know where to begin.  Also, if you have any brainstorms as to what TSM might do in addition to these things, you’d find a receptive audience here, I imagine.

Sarah, these figures need to be parsed a bit, although I can only speak to the Sewanee figures:
Enrollment: 194 (148 FTE)
The figure of 194 includes the Doctor of Ministry (D.Min) students who are enrolled in the summer.  The designation of part-time vs full-time also applies to the summer school D. Min students.  Most of these summer students are already ordained clergy. These figures reflect the large number of folks enrolled in Sewanee’s summer continuing education program.

I’ve gone back and double-checked my Sewanee figures for 2006-2007:
Total enrollment during the academic year: 93
Summer school enrollment: 101
TEC M.Div: 67

Sarah, between you and Karen B. I’m outclassed  

Good work with the research

Shameless plug     A few folks have wondered about ‘out of the box’ accessible, lower cost, orthodox, quality laity education. As a current student in the program, I suggest looking at the ‘Foundations for Discernment of Christian Ministry’ (FDCM) program.

FDCM is offered in either a mentored residential small group setting, OR an online small group mode, and is directed toward laity education and clergy continuing education. TESM/TSM provides a non-credit certificate for each year of a student’s work.

I am just completing the Church History year, and the texts are Justo Gonzales’ two-volume “Story of Christianity,” and Les Fairfield’s “Exploring the Church’s Past.

http://www.hopeanglican.us/fdcm/
or email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

There is an interesting regionally-based, uncampused, parish-oriented, ATS accredited model here:

http://seminary.bethel.edu/soe/index.html

Just a quick clarification regarding the FDCM program mentioned above:  As of December 2006, Trinity no longer issues the non-credit certificate for the this course of study.

Some of our Christian Foundation Program (CFP) studies (authored by folks such as Les and Lynn Fairfield and Stephen Noll) are used by the FDCM, and they are also available for purchase directly from Trinity for use by individuals or groups.

Travis
Director, Center for Distance Learning
Trinity School for Ministry

Although I appreciate Dr. Noll’s argument and recommendations, I would caution the Boards of Trinity and Nashotah House from excluding students from “revisionist” dioceses.  I am a recent graduate of Nashotah House and come from a “revisionist” diocese.  If I had been excluded from attending because of the status of my diocese then I would not have had the opportunity to return and there would be one less non-revisionist priest in the diocese.  Subsequent to my tenure at the House, at least two other students have attended or will be attending in the near future.  At the same time I attended the House another student was was allowed to attend Trinity.  This was huge from a minority point of view!  Do not underestimate the grass roots level and rejoice in any victory no matter how small.  Or to be cliche, do not cut off our noses to spite our face!

As another member of Bob’s cohort this past year in the FDCM program, may I second his recommendation?  This is a viable conservative alternative for EFM, taught from a more orthodox viewpoint, and priced a bit better for folk on fixed and lower incomes.

The texts were superb, particularly Gonzalez, and I had just taken Anglican and Episcopal Church history in an Episcopal diocesan seminary setting several years ago, and the Lichfield (England) studies sequence, and this (Foundations for Discipleship in Christian Ministry), was much more comprehensive and complete.  The Anglican and Episcopal specifics were not stressed, but the overall history of the Christian Church through the Reformation and into the post-modern experiment was well presented. 

I am looking forward to participating in the theology module being put together for the fall 2007 term.

And, for emphasis, here are the addresses again:
http://www.hopeanglican.us/fdcm/
or email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

In addition to the above:

If we can generate enough interest in the Northern Plains, we might be able to host a residential, rather than on-line class in the Dakotas and/or Wyoming and Montana next year.  There are mentors available.

I do not think that we can over-emphasize the roll that seminaries have in the life of the church.  As a graduate of the Church Divinity School of the Pacific (CDSP) in Berkeley, CA, I greatly enjoyed the small volume of the school’s history, written by Alda Morgan.

What finally became CDSP, started out as a few young men sitting at the knee of the Bishop of California in the cathedral close.  The Bishop’s clergy encouraged him to hire ‘theologians,’ trained in contemporary German Higher Criticism.  Thus, liberal Anglicanism was birthed on the West Coast, and we are still reaping today. 

I believe that Christian education needs to be taken seriously, for a change.  MDiv degrees, Master of Arts, Anglican Certificates or Bachelor’s in Theology are not going to be enough to raise up lay and clerical leaders who are effective apologists in increasingly hostile Muslim and secular humanist environments.

Do TESM, NH or the REC include a radical rejection of materialism, German Idealism, humanism and positivism?  Does every course emphasize historic Christian Platonism, the philosophic worldview of the Fathers, especially Clement of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, the Cappadocians, Maximos the Confessor or John of Damascus?

If any Anglican group is going to throw its future in with a certain provider of theological education, we had better make sure that it is as radical and as committed to healing hundreds of years of Anglican failure and schism as I hope we are. 

George Kovoor visited the Diocese of San Joaquin last year, and I think that Trinity Bristol http://www.trinity-bris.ac.uk/ is one radical answer to Christian education, especially evangelical education.  Instead of talking about evangelism in classrooms, their students are actually out in the field for significant periods of time.

Finally, where are our parochial schools?  Allowing our children to mire in American Public Schools, where positivism and materialism are on the menu everyday, we as a church need to be at least as committed as the RC were at the beginning of the century.

Dear Friends:

Thank you for your many helpful reactions to my original piece. I am leaving Uganda and going to UK and USA for a month, and I will be offline for a few days. I am glad to see that Board and Faculty from Trinity and Nashotah have been following this thread and I trust that this discussion will provide both insights and momentum in charting the future.

If in departing I can summarize my main point, I would say this: We are entering a new era of Anglicanism. The old idea of different theologies fishing from the same boat in the Episcopal Church died in the past thirty years. Interestingly, it died just as Trinity came into existence to serve the renewal movement and Nashotah House was reformed to serve a more explicitly evangelical catholicism.

The appointment of John Rodgers as Acting Dean at Trinity is significant in more ways than one. First, it represents the healing of a rift within the conservative movement between those working for continued reform and renewal inside TEC and those who concluded that TEC is unreformable. Whether or not one agrees with the mode and timing of AMiA’s departure, almost everyone now agrees that its foresight was correct. (N.B. Recently heard one of the Global South Primates say: “When AMiA was formed, I was quite upset. But now I see I was wrong, and I want to apologize for my reaction.”)

Secondly, John Rodgers embodies the pioneering spirit of those who made a visionary and missionary decision to start a new seminary in a very liberal denomination. It was visionary in that it saw the importance of forming clergy and lay leaders in order revive the Church. It was missionary in the sense of actually hoping to return the Episcopal Church to a biblical, confessional and mission-minded heritage that it had had for only a small part of its history in the first half of the nineteenth century. (The history of Nashotah House as a missionary arm of the Anglo-Catholic movement and the history of the Reformed Episcopal seminaies which nurtured some of the embers of the nineteenth century Evangelicalism are other stories to be told.)

That vision succeeded but the original mission failed. Trinity did emerge as a living community and institution, which has turned out many fine priests and lay leaders. The mission failed for various reasons, including the lack of a corresponding radical commitment at the diocesan level even from conservative bishops, standing committees and commissions on ministry.

In one sense, we are back in the mid-seventies when radical action was called for. It is my argument that North American Anglican theological seminaries – at least a few of them – will be essential to a cohesive reformation of Anglicanism in North America. Indeed they may not only serve to train leaders but also serve as ecclesial hubs for the emerging movement in a way that did not happen thirty years ago. It would appear that the rigid diocesan structures of TEC will not be replicated in the Network/Common cause movement. Nor should they be, even after there is a further consolidation of the different bodies represented. In the absence of such rigid Establishment structures, learning centres, like the medieval monasteries, may be even more important than they have been in the past. To be sure, the advent of technology and the financial necessities imposed by starting afresh may give these seminaries a new way of teaching and serving, but I do not think that includes going out of business.

That’s the gist of my argument – once again. When the AAC was founded in 1996, theological education was one of the working groups identified as crucial to reform. That has not changed. I would urge the AAC, Network and Common Cause to recommit to ongoing discussion and action. In so doing, do not fail to recognize that in Trinity and Nashotah (and the REC seminaries) you already have fine resources on the ground for helping build the new church on your continent. And in saying “your continent,” I remind you that any new reformation of the church and education should be global in nature and scope and working closely with the churches and educational institutions in the Global South.

“God’s work done in God’s way will not lack God’s provision,” Bishop Alfred Stanway taught us at Trinity. Despite the daunting challenges facing us, that truth abides. God bless.

There certainly seem to be a lot of changes going on at TESM, some apparently without notification to key players.  As the founder of FDCM, and one thus actually familiar with FDCM’s curriculum, I would like to clarify a few misstatements that occurred upstream.

While both the in-person and online pilot FDCM groups did try out one (1) of Trinity’s CFP workbooks, other books were better received for our purposes, and FDCM will no longer be using the CFP workbook.  As an FDCM student mentioned in his kind words of praise above, the Gonzalez texts were very much appreciated, so they, along with some primary source material, will continue to be used.  The Spanish language version of FDCM utilizes the Spanish translation of Gonzalez’s books.  FDCM’s theology year utilizes Alister McGrath’s introductory text (incidentally, McGrath’s latest book about art and theology received positive reference here on Stand Firm several months ago).  FDCM’s Old Testament curriculum, currently entering its first year of testing, takes the unique approach of utilizing each and every word of the Old Testament, so that students can focus deeply on every bit of God’s word as we have received it, without having to skip or skim through parts, and a supplementary text as well,  in order to “cover” every thing in one year of study. 

All the topical years of FDCM utilize the FDCM Spiritual Guidebook volumes, which cover, in progressing depth, the classical disciplines of Christian spirituality, along with some innovative discernment exercises, and a useful method for theological reflection.  The goal of FDCM is to promote the discovery and clarification of one’s vocation through learning about God and his church, and through an active program of discernment exercises and theological reflection.

If, indeed, it is true that Trinity no longer intends to grant certificates to FDCM students, FDCM nonetheless will continue to meet the need for intelligent and effective, in-depth, orthodox Christian education for adults, both online and in-person.

FDCM’s website revision will be completed soon, and I will post a notice when it is.

Thank you,
Kathryn Jeffrey+

I disagree again with several of the premises that Stephen Noll has stated above.

For one thing, I can only believe that when he says “The mission failed for various reasons, including the lack of a corresponding radical commitment at the diocesan level even from conservative bishops, standing committees and commissions on ministry” he is placing at least some of the blame on bishops who did not support 1) creating a new seminary rather than reforming the old and 2) did not support a “renewal” seminary.

While certainly one could say “see, they didn’t have ‘radical commitment’” in reality—once again—there was merely vast disagreement in strategies, values, and goals.  Since the founding of Trinity, the “reformers from within” accomplished that reform at least in Nashotah House [and there have actually been gains at two other seminaries, but it remains to be seen as to their extent].  The “let’s start over” group founded and developed Trinity.  I’m not certain that the “let’s start over” group should point fingers of blame at the “reformers from within” group for not supporting a new seminary, when they were focused on their particular strategy just as the “let’s start over” group was focused on their own.  By the same token, I do not think the “reformers from within” group should point fingers at blame at the “let’s start over” group for not helping with diocesan conventions, or ECUSA bishop elections.  The two groups simply have different goals, different values, and different strategies.

It often appears that when either group bewails some failure, they point fingers at the other group, implying somehow that the focus on their own values, goals, and strategies is somehow a result of poor character, or weakness, or timidity, or perniciousness, when in reality—it’s just a difference in values, goals, and strategies.

Further, the differences between renewal Anglicans and traditional Anglicans [I do not mean disrespect to either group when I use those terms, I simply don’t know what else to name them] are significant and, again, I’m not certain that we can blame traditional bishops for wanting to send their students to other seminaries they deemed more traditional [or in an attempt to reform them], rather than a manifestly [and sometimes somewhat radically] renewal seminary.  Back when I was considering an Anglican seminary, the traditional clergy that I spoke with laid out very clearly my options [including Trinity] and those options like Wycliffe Hall, Regent College Vancouver, and several other Australian/UK seminaries were mentioned.  It’s just a natural bent!

Those two points being made, I need to point out again that the above arguments and differences are precisely the ones, writ larger, that have been ongoing regarding the departers [AMiA, CANA, etc.] and the stayers.  The “reformers from within” [and here I mean from within the Anglican Communion] simply have different strategies, values, and goals than the “reformers from without” group.  So when Stephen Noll says the below about the changes at Trinity, I have to wonder if he is merely making assertions based on what he desires rather than reality. 

“The appointment of John Rodgers as Acting Dean at Trinity is significant in more ways than one. First, it represents the healing of a rift within the conservative movement between those working for continued reform and renewal inside TEC and those who concluded that TEC is unreformable. Whether or not one agrees with the mode and timing of AMiA’s departure, almost everyone now agrees that its foresight was correct.

First, when Dr. Noll says “rift” if he is referring to hard feelings or rage on either side, I have not been a part of a generation that has experienced such.  I have been happy for any of my friends who have wanted to leave and move on, and I have wished for their success.  I do not feel any ill will towards their departures, any more than I feel ill will to those who have left for the Roman Catholics or the Lutherans or the PCA.

But if he means by “rift” a basic disagreement on values, goals, and strategies, that “rift” [a bit too dramatic a word, using this meaning] remains between Federal Conservatives and Communion Conservatives, and likely will forever.  People just disagree.  And people have different personalities.  Some people are naturally “builders” and some are naturally “reformers”.

So for me, the appointment of Bishop Rodgers merely means that Trinity is [as it has been] moving towards a Federal Conservative vision of Anglicanism, not some sort of healing of a rift between the two different strategies.  This is fine!  If that is the direction the board wishes to go, than that is their decision about their identity.  Oddly enough, even though I am not an Anglo-Catholic, it causes me to look with more interest at Nashotah House, and Wycliffe Hall, Oxford.  Why?  Not because of ill will towards Trinity, but simply because I am a Communion Conservative.

Further, I can’t speak for any other Communion Conservatives, but I’m certainly not one who “agrees that [the AMiA’s departure] foresight was correct”—I certainly wish it had been otherwise, although I wish them well in their identity and blessing.  But honestly, I don’t think about them as an organization all that much, since I’m focused on other matters within other branches of Anglicanism.

I can only think that Dr. Noll believes that “almost everyone agrees” because he’s hanging out with a lot of Federal Conservatives???

But regardless, I say all the above again, having consistently donated financially to Trinity and blessing them in whatever way they wish to move forward.

Is is true that Dr. Stephen Noll was one of two drafters of the CAPA “Road to Lambeth” statement?  Is so, from his position in Uganda, will he be working on the GS Catechism?