Schuller, David S.

English

Asbury Theological Seminary

University Religion Departments:Challenge to Theological SeminariesDavid S. Schuller*Phenomenal enrollments in religion courses are reported fromacross the country. State universities and private schools, complexmultiversities and small colleges are experiencing the same shift.Religion departments�either newly installed or radically redesigned�are attracting students in amazing numbers. In the school year1965-66 a rapid survey of colleges revealed that one of every tenstudents in state universities was enrolled in a religion course; inprivate schools the ratio rose to one in six. In universities wherereligion departments were established with known scholars, enrollments rose to over a thousand a year. At the University of Iowanearly a thousand students were enrolled in the core course. Stanford, Princeton, the University of California, Western Michigan, andPennsylvania State have been among the leaders in drawing togetherdistinguished faculties and in fashioning departments that usuallyoffer a full range of courses from underclass to graduate level.Seminary administrators and faculties have greeted this suddenchange with ambivalent reactions. While welcoming this new intereston the part of the rising generation, some seminaries sensed competition in the future. There will be a competition for the most ableteachers in seminaries. Students will be faded with a viable alternative to enrollment in a seminary.As a result, seminaries have been forced to ask fundamentalquestions about their role in the life of the churches and of thecommunity in the future. Should the "study of religion" on the graduate level be centered increasingly in the universities rather than inthe seminaries? What, then, will be the task of the seminary in thefuture�will it be restricted to the more narrow task of training full-time professional workers in the church? What will distinguish theAssistant Academic Dean, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.University Religion Departments 21different styles of the learning enterprise in the two situations?should one expect a difference in method, content or context ofscholarly inquiry in university in contrast to seminary?While the very question of relationship can be phrased on anumber of levels, perhaps the most useful suggests a distinctionthat sees the seminary as an agency of the church, and the religiondepartment as an agency of the university. This approach grants asimilarity of content, interest and method. It sees the distinction inthe goal and purpose of teaching. The university study of religionwould be quite dissociated from the practice of religion either incommitment or vocation. The university is not seen as the agencyfor providing "religious education." It is not to produce convertsor nurture faith. In contrast, it remains the task of the religiouscommunity to supply agencies that will train men for service withinthe religious community. As Daisuke Kitagawa has reminded thechurch, it must beware of the temptation to exploit the universityreligion department by expecting it subtly to promote the cause of aparticular religion or denominational confession. "The universityqua university is neither to produce 'religious' men nor sacralizesociety or culture." Churches may define a chaplaincy task on thecollege campus, but this should not be met within the setting of thereligion department. This is not meant to deny that a given instructor probably will indicate his own beliefs and commitments, althoughthe critical open study of the phenomena of religion does not demandit.What are the major issues confronting seminaries as a resultof the growth of such university departments?First, the demand is more insistent that seminary education inthe future must be in vital contact with a university center. Thosewho would serve from within the religious community must be relatedto the culture and to the mainstreams of secular intellectual life.This requirement involves more than having a certain number of seminary faculty men who have been trained in another discipline. Suchan arrangement served during a transitional period, but is becominginadequate when measured against the excellence and specializationavailable in university centers.The above demand does not imply an uncritical acceptance ofthe university as the font of all goodness, truth, and wisdom in thetwentieth century, but it does see the university as the open marketrplace of ideas, a place where ideas are generated, where presuppositions of the status quo are challenged. In these very years theuniversity is increasingly becoming the symbol of free research, thequest for understanding beneath mere technical skills, for integrityin the search for truth.22 The Asbury SeminarianSignificant contact with the university implies more than proximity. This does not come easily. In his farewell address at theDivinity School of the University of Chicago, Bernard Loomer observed that the greatest failure of theological education which hehad observed was the isolation of the seminary from the university,even though it was located in the center of a great university campus.Universities are suspicious of dogmatism, indoctrination and denominational propaganda masquerading under the guise of education. Butas the University of California and Stanford have demonstrated, inthe case of the Graduate Theological Union, they grant warm, fraternal and reciprocal arrangements to theological education when itproves its superior quality.Second, the demand for a high quality of education within seminaries will intensify. Students coming from university religion departments to seminaries will probably bring a broad background inculture, religion, and the humanities. Having been exposed to themethodologies in several other disciplines, they will make increaseddemands for methodological rigor from their seminary instructors.More students will have had an intellectual exposure to other worldreligions. They will require greater depth of knowledge on the partof their seminary instructors as they attempt to relate their previousknowledge to the Christian faith and the confessional background ofthe seminary. The model of the seminary of the future must satisfythe standards of a first-rate graduate education.Third, pressures from other sources will join those of the universities in making imperative a more ecumenical setting for seminarystudy. Budgetary problems, competition for students, and the increased difficulty in building a quality faculty and library give everyindication that they will intensify. The small isolated seminary willface problems that will eventually become insurmountable. Alreadygaining support is the idea of clustering a number of seminarieswhich may retain their confessional loyalties, denominational affiliation, and concerns of ethos and formation. By coming togetherthey would be able to share buildings, library holdings, specialistsin more fields, stimulation through a larger aggregate of men withindepartments, and the cross fertilization of differing confessionalheritages. Denominational loyalties could be preserved; greaterclarification of one's positions, however, would result from dailycontact with those of other denominational backgrounds. This shouldprovide a superior training for men who will work in a pluralisticculture.Fourth, seminaries should be challenged to their unique taskof relating to the mission of the church. The church today is strivingfor a new understanding of itself and its relation to the entire worldThis goal demands leadership which will aid the people of God inUniversity Religion Departments 23understanding the mission of the church in the contemporary world.Yet much seminary training appears to be directed at making a man aconservationist not only of the Christian faith but of a whole bodyof concepts and symbols whose disintegration began a generationago, making them totally antiquated. This problem poses a difficultyfor the ministry quite unlike that of any other profession. In theministry, unlike medicine, for example, we are dealing with the historic quality of "given" material which must be related to the contemporary world. Other professions have their historical continuitiesbut, as Gustafson points out, they do not turn to ancient documentsfor authentication or for insight as clergy do. This tension will remain for seminaries. In its answer will lie one of the potentially significant contributions of seminaries.In spite of the uneasiness one finds on seminary campuses today, many of us are convinced that we are standing on the edge of agreat leap forward; a revolution in theological training has begun.University departments of religion are playing one significant rolein this transformation. The moment for seminary response is upon us.

University Religion Departments: Challenge to Theological Seminaries

https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1959&amp;context=asburyjournal

University Religion Departments: Challenge to Theological Seminaries

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Asbury Theological Seminary