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.
–(The Rev. Dr.) Peter Moore is a former Dean and President of Trinity School for Ministry
This is an example of the subtle and not so subtle anti renewal attitude that has prevailed in the Episcopal Church for at least 35 years that I know of. And now TEC is paying the price as disbelievers in just about anything control TEC and make decisions that damn TEC to oblivion in my opinion. I do very much believe the Lord of this Church tried to save its members from themselves and they would not! Now we all pay the price.
My bishop will not let anyone go from my diocese. He has confused Satan with fundmentalism.
Can’t see why students cannot go to Wycliffe-UK, Ridley, Wycliffe-Toronto, Gordon Conwell, etc., even as I hear the stress, etc. It sounds to me like this is pointing to one kind of solution without really understanding the present problems inside TESM/TSM. God bless them as a new season dawns in a difficult time. I speak as one involved in theological education for 24 years, in different contexts, in a changing ecclesial world. It is not an easy vocation for those involved, even as so much is at stake in quality theological preparation. We tend to forget that the greatest reformers were also the premier intellects and greatest churchmen of their day.
“When the candidate goes before the Commission on Ministry, they are told that they must be broadened.”
This is one of the key techniques by which reappraisers established their grip on ECUSA: insisting that theologically orthodox candidates for ministry undergo “broadening.”
Yet diocesan committees evidently didn’t have similar concerns about “broadening” feminist, gay, and leftist ideologues by sending them to theologically orthodox seminaries.
PS: I wonder whether Bp. Benitez has any regrets about having barred his postulants from Trinity.
BTW–I am out of the loop. Just looked at all the spirited discussion on SF. I enjoyed a stint teaching in the DMinn programme at TESM, but do not know what the issues are there. Ignore the above as an outsider to TESM/TSM and its challenges.
In brief, it’s the only place you can get a reliable indoctrination.
6, considering the source I would say that you give TESM a ringing positive endorsement.
Ruidh [#6]: If you want a “reliable indoctrination,” go to one of those PC seminaries where the professor lowers your grade for referring to God as “He.”
To hear that even Network bishops discourage seminarians from going to TSM makes me sick. We’re our own worst enemies.
As a seminarian at Gordon Conwell, I really struggled over the decision to be at Trinity or GCTS. I think both would have been excellent and would serve me well. That said, when you compare the two programs in the dimension of the Word, GCTS requires more exegesis. While both schools require two semesters of Greek and Hebrew, GCTS requires two Greek and two Hebrew Exegesis courses as opposed to Trinity’s one Greek and one Hebrew. Further, at GCTS your preaching courses can’t be taken until after your Greek because obviously you want to preach expositorily. At Trinity you can take your preaching before finishing Greek which doesn’t make much sense to me. Also, GCTS is now offering an Anglican track with courses taught by orthodox priests in Anglican Church History, Anglican Liturgy, etc.
I absolutely support Trinity and do believe that bishops should encourage seminarians to got to Trinity and Nashotah House, and prevent them from going to revisionist seminaries. However, I do believe that GCTS, Beeson, etc. are good options and may be a better fit in some cases.
Perhaps there is a middle ground on this question.
As a seminarian at Gordon Conwell, I really struggled over the decision to be at Trinity or GCTS. I think both would have been excellent and would serve me well. That said, when you compare the two programs in the dimension of the Word, GCTS requires more exegesis. While both schools require two semesters of Greek and Hebrew, GCTS requires two Greek and two Hebrew Exegesis courses as opposed to Trinity’s one Greek and one Hebrew. Further, at GCTS your preaching courses can’t be taken until after your Greek because obviously you want to preach expositorily. At Trinity you can take your preaching before finishing Greek which doesn’t make much sense to me. Also, GCTS is now offering an Anglican track with courses taught by orthodox priests in Anglican Church History, Anglican Liturgy, etc.
I absolutely support Trinity and do believe that bishops should encourage seminarians to got to Trinity and Nashotah House, and prevent them from going to revisionist seminaries. However, I do believe that GCTS, Beeson, etc. are good options and may be a better fit in some cases.
Perhaps there is a middle ground on this question.