…when faced with the possibility of having to take Systematic Theology from a Professor who was a publicly vowed “adoptionist” (Jesus was simply a man adopted by God for a special purpose at Baptism), I elected to take a course from another liberal seminary in the city””but one where they actually took the whole text of classics by Luther, Calvin and others and opened them up for reasonable discussion and review. Again, I took the course, passed with flying colors, came back to my TEC seminary and took an exam to “opt out” of Systematic Theology””and passed with flying colors along with the comment from the professor “We do hope you come to value some of the things we consider important here at ___________ Seminary.”
Well, I didn’t. Thanks be to God.
I was fortunate that I knew Christ and the Bible long before I attended that seminary. So I was willing to pursue resources outside of my TEC seminary, to consult highly respected orthodox evangelical and Anglican scholars who held a different worldview than my professors, and to write papers and take exams that required twice the amount of work than I would otherwise have had to do to “go along and get along.”
But most of my classmates were not so inclined. Many of them are leaders in TEC today. I don’t believe that’s an accident. It is the result of being shaped in TEC seminaries by a worldview that is hostile to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of all, and to the plenary inspiration and authority of the Bible. And it is a worldview, frankly, that is not open to alternative points of view. And as a result, the prophecy of Hosea 4:6 came true in TEC: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”
While not clergy, I have heard many similar statements that the trajectory of TEC really started with the hiring of revisionist faculty by seminaries. That did indeed shaped the minds of clergy to not recognize authentic Anglican Christian faith. So if the trajectory started with the liberal influx in to seminaries, then the only way to combat it is to have an influx of orthodox faculty into our present seminaries or as Canon Ashley suggests the forming of new seminaries that are authentically Christian. We all should be thankful for the formation of Trinity School for Ministry.
I do not share his pessimistic views that one sermon by the PB will be the first step on the slippery road to revisionism within Nashotah. I realize that is how many see the invitation but, for the moment, I am willing to take Bishop Salmon at his word that they will be an example to her. In other words, he does not see Nashotah House changing. In fact, he is hoping for the reverse that their example will be an influence on her. I will be praying for just that.
Like #1, I don’t want to rush into judgment in this sad case. Former dean of Nashotah, Bob Munday, has also written a scathing critique of +Salmon’s decision to invite the reprobate, apostate PB to be a guest preacher at the seminary. “Love hopes all things” as well as endures all things, and given +Salmon’s long history of faithfully upholding the true gospel, I would prefer to give the man the benefit of the doubt in terms of having good intentions. However, we all know what the road to hell is paved with…
My chief concern at this early point when not all the facts are yet known is that Nashotah House, like all residential seminaries, is already facing a very uncertain future in terms of attracting enough students and raising enough money to be viable longterm. In the precarious position that it’s in, it doesn’t take much to sink the ship, and this controversy could easily prove very, very damaging to the reputation of Hashotah as a safe school for orthodox Anglicans. And that would truly be a shame and a huge tragedy, because there is no other seminary of its (Anglo-Catholic) type in North America. Trinity (TSM) in Ambridge, PA, Cranmer House (REC) in Houston, the REC seminary in Philadelphia, Wycliffe College in Toronto, and Regent’s Anglican program in Vancouver, are all predominantly low church and Protestant in orientation. Starting a whole new Anlgo-Catholic school from scratch would take many years and would be a very difficult feat to pull off successfully. So I very much hope that this dispute proves to be merely a tempest in a teapot that blows over quickly.
Meanwhile, I’ll add two or three brief general comments relating to the future of theological education.
1. Anglican tracks at ecumenical seminaries are becoming more common and will likely train more and more of the future leaders of orthodox Anglicanism in North America. I see this as a very positive and promising development. Evangelical seminaries like Fuller, Gordon-Conwell, Asbury, and Beeson now have such Anglican tracks, but something vital is lost when there isn’t a sufficient critical mass for doing the Daily Office together and enjoying the sort of rich community life that traditional Anglican seminaries have always offered.
2. Although online courses have skyrocketed in popularity in general in recent years, there are major problems with trying to do theological education mostly that way. For one thing, you tend to lose the peer-to-peer mentoring that goes on in the classroom. A lot of experimenting is going on in this area, however, and I hope that ways can be found of making “distance learning” work. Check out the new totally non-residential seminary that has recently been started by Holy Trinity, Brompton/London (the home church of the Alpha Course).
3. Finally, it may make sense to try to consolidate our efforts in theological education instead of trying to keep lots of little seminaries alive. The Southern Baptists and the Missouri Synod Lutherans have long taken that approach and it has worked well for them. For example, the LC-MS only has two seminaries that serve the whole denomination, but they are very large (St. Louis and Ft. Wayne, IN). If Nashotah ends up collapsing, for whatever reason, the best thing to do might be to create an Anglo-Catholic department at TSM in Ambridge. Or it may be time to create the equivalent of the Anglican track programs at Fuller and other evangelical schools at an RC school like Notre Dame.
David Handy+, Ph.D.
(I was once interviewed for the NT position at Nashotah, but right now, I’m glad I didn’t get it)
Cat lady and Dr. Handy. I hear what you are saying BUT. I know the PB and have my personal opinion about her, but that aside her actions have shown she has a truly demonic agenda. Unless NH is willing to openly rebuke her and privately counsel her before her “sermon” then there may be value in having her present. Even then I doubt it. This is the woman who recently rebuked Paul for taking a demonic spirit from a woman. Think about that seriously. She openly defended the Devil and rebuked an apostle personally chosen by Jesus Christ in the same sermon. And the administration has chosen her over one of their own. She is personally and with enmity persecuting Jack Iker. I am sure to him, this invitation is like the head rabbi inviting the head of the SS to Passover. If the issue of orthodox seminaries needing to keep money lines open, then to me that is a non issue. If they aren’t teaching what the orthodox body needs, then they need to reassess. NH may need to start worrying about substance over form.
The new demographic is manifest in the ordination statistics. Most people no longer train at a traditional TEC seminary.
We at TCI address this by offering courses necessary for ordination examination that would not be available at the non-Anglican schools, and also opportunity for leadership at MP and EP at St Albans Chapel (www.cranmerinstitute.org). DTS and Redeemer Seminary in Dallas have lots of students on the Canterbury Trail. Residential seminaries are facing lots of challenges, though we are doing well at Wycliffe-Toronto. I suppose it is important to remember that the residential seminary as we know it is pretty much a mid nineteenth-century phenomenon.
David Keller, I think you are taking this invitation waaaaaaay too seriously as if she has been asked to accept a faculty position at Nashotah. She has not. This is one sermon. If you think one sermon will change the faith of those at Nashotah House, you don’t think very much of them as Christians, do you?? Think about what you are saying- i.e. that the faculty and students can not discern what is authentic Christian faith from heresy. Do you really believe that? Seriously…… I would consider your statement to be an insult to all those presently at Nashotah.
#5 Thanks for your comment. Upon reflection I think everything you said is correct. The Devil is very convincing even, if not especially, to believers. The bigger issue is why NH would rather have KJS spew her vile revisionionism to their students and staff rather than honor Jack Iker. Inviting the Devll in is always dangerous. I am quite vulnerable to his (in these case her) message so I avoid inviting him/her into my home whenever possible.
RE: “If you think one sermon will change the faith of those at Nashotah House . . . ”
I don’t think the issue is whether a sermon by Katharine Jefferts Schori “changes the faith” of people at the House.
A part of the reason why one does not offer a pulpit to a false teacher—why we are commanded to repudiate publicly false teachers—is because a pulpit or an altar of a Christian church offers *credibility* and authority to a watching world. Katharine Jefferts Schori is a scandalous false teacher and the actions of Christians and churches should be not to offer her a pulpit but to publicly repudiate her teaching and announce to the watching world that she is in no way a representative of the Gospel despite her unfortunate leadership of an entity that purports to be Christian.
Thanks to Dr. Seitz (#4) for weighing in as a seminary prof himself. One thing that all observers can agree on is that theological education is in a state of turmoil, confusion, and rapid transition. But what the future state of theological education and priestly formation will look like (and the two are by no means synonymous) is still unclear.
David Keller (#3 & 6),
I grant your point that it’s hard to imagine what possible grounds there might be for such an apostate wolf in sheep’s clothing as the nefarious PB to be invited to PREACH at Nashotah House, or any other orthodox seminary. Extending her n invitation to participate in a public debate, perhaps, or for a private visit to check out the campus would be less offensive but still problematic. Personally, I think Paul’s admonition to SHUN such false shepherds is the appropriate stance (Rom. 16:17-18), but I’m still waiting to find out how +Salmon justifies this extremely troubling and controversial move before forming any more definite opinion.
In the meantime, I reassert the point I made above, which is that I’m afraid that this highly dubious and polarizing invitation could prove extremely damaging to the reputation of the House, enough so as to jeopardize the future of the school. Almost all residential seminaries are now in a very precarious position, and it doesn’t take much to push them over the edge into insolvency. It would be sad enough if Nashotah were to be forced to close despite the heroic efforts of many to keep it afloat. But I hate to think that the only orthodox Anglo-Catholic seminary in North America might have committed suicide through the well-iintentioned but foolish actions of its own president/dean. That sucks.
David Handy+
“If you think one sermon will change the faith of those at Nashotah House, you don’t think very much of them as Christians, do you??”
Who has suggested that?
The issue is what state their faith is in already, if the faculty are putting forward Mrs Schori as an acceptable preacher, and the students are accepting it .