ISBN 0-19-511493-0 I figured if she was involved, the book would be good — although the blurb on the back cover almost caused me to send it back: ” . . . We have here what could easily become a paradigmatic scholarly approach to the synchronic interpretation of institutions of higher education.” Yuck!
Fortunately I opened the book. What is inside is a lot more readable and interesting than the cover implies. Four academicians, two evangelicals and two mainliners, involved themselves in a three-plus year study of two theological seminaries, one evangelical, the other mainline. The evangelical scholars focused on the mainline institution and vice versa. They lived on campus for extended periods, interviewed students and faculty and followed the lives of the students and the institution over a three-year period. Their report is made anonymously. The institutions are identified simply as Evangelical and Mainline. Students and faculty were interviewed in depth but are given fictitious names in the report. The book tries to capture the culture of each seminary and does a splendid job.
The authors show us why people go to seminary these days; what the seminary is trying to do for and with them; and what happens to everybody over a three-year period. Very interesting. They conclude with comments about theological education which I am sure will be important for seminary administrators and the like, but I was more interested in reading the book through a parson’s eyes. And here is what I got out of it.
First, good news! I was impressed that people decide to go to seminary today for the same reasons they always have Ð that they feel themselves touched by God and inspired by Jesus. The core experience is the same, evangelicals develop one kind of language to express it and mainliners another. It is heartening to me to realize once again that there is “one Lord” behind and within us all, in spite of our diversity.
Second, it is clear that the two seminaries are very different. Evangelical Seminary is interested in orthodoxy, in this particular case a kind of hyper- rational Calvinism. Though the professors do not agree on “what the Bible says,” they agree this is the important question. Theological correctness is a high value.
Mainline Seminary’s main concern is orthopraxy. It values encounter education where a person comes up against prejudices, preferences and the like. Social justice, inclusiveness, human dignity are understood as signs of the kingdom. Political correctness is valued.
Each seminary seems to have a group that gets picked on. Mainline Seminary sees that white males understand how they have misused power and are often confronted by women, ethnic folks and liberation theology. Evangelical Seminary often gives women a hard time, since several faculty do not feel they belong in church leadership. Both groups experience some tough times, but at the end feel that have grown and matured.
The seminaries have different goals — right thinking vs. right acting — and they each do a nice job. The students leave having internalized the ideas and values, though not every student buys the whole package.
My third insight is rather discouraging. While there is some cross- pollination during the seminary year, ie., an evangelical professor will lecture in Mainline Seminary and vice versa, by and large students read different books and emerge with differing theological and biblical authority figures. There was a time when nearly all Presbyterian ministers went to church- or university-related seminaries and read the same books. While we varied theologically we could at least converse and argue because we had a common intellectual core. No more. We’ve read different books in school and we read different periodicals and when we have read the same things we’ve done so through different glasses. No wonder it gets harder and harder to converse; we can hardly argue!
The best part of the book are the interviews, dozens of them, with faculty and students. Here are faith stories, and student stories and teacher stories, where we catch a glimpse of real folks trying to love and to serve the Lord. That sort of thing feeds my soul. So I ended up agreeing with one statement that cover blurb intellectual made before he got into using his big words. “[A] superb study . . .” Thanks, Barbara Wheeler and pals.
