How Seminaries and the Ordination Process Leave Theologically “Liberal” Christians Behind

by Crystal St. Marie Lewis
R3 Contributor
First posted at Crystal St. Marie Lewis

1. Many denominations require candidates to obtain a graduate degree involving work in the areas of theology and philosophy. In those graduate programs, professors spend countless hours training students to think outside the theological box, only for their ordination committees to demand that they put God (and their capacity for exploration) back inside the box. Seminaries are often free and open spaces where people are encouraged to draw their own conclusions about sacred matters. Yet, students endure rejection after the academic stage of their ordination processes–ironically for drawing unapproved conclusions. I have come to think of this as the Explore Now/Pay Later model. (And, by “pay” I mean in terms of consequences and not dollars… The excessive number of dollars required to obtain a seminary degree are another matter altogether.)
2. The Explore Now/Pay Later model is detrimental to the spiritual and intellectual growth of the ordination candidate. Students who are afraid that they might begin to believe something that could cancel their eligibility for ordination can be resistant to the transformative process of intellectual pursuit. For these students, the information presented at seminary is viewed as a threat. Those who fall into this category could go through the motions of obtaining their graduate degree without appreciating the value of what they’ve learned. This reduces the rich history and diverse ideas within Christianity to a mere hurdle for the student to overcome, rather than something to be embraced, understood, remembered and passed on.
3. Many students will enter the ordination process with the intention of concealing their beliefs from their professors, ordination committees, and congregations. They enter ministry at the expense of their own sense of authenticity– often sacrificing their sense of self to the demands of the institution. I occasionally receive emails from pastors who fit into this category. They’re miserable in their parishes because they have to dress in a theological costume that doesn’t fit them… day after day… week after week… liturgical cycle after liturgical cycle.

The meaning of believe prior to [the year] 1600 includes more than [mental assent]. It comes from the Old English be loef, which means “to hold dear”… Thus until the 1600s, to believein God and Jesus meant to belove God and Jesus. Think of the difference this makes. To believe in God does not meanbelieving that a set of statements about God are true, but tobelove God. To believe in Jesus does not mean to believe thata set of statements about him are true, but to belove Jesus.

This meaning goes back to ancient Christianity. The Latin roots of the word credo, with which the creed begins and from which we get the word creed, means “I give my heart to.”Heart does not refer simply to feelings, to emotions, though those are involved. Rather, heart is a metaphor for the self at its deepest level–a level of the self beneath our thinking, willing and feeling. To whom do you give your heart, your self? To whom do you commit your self?” (pgs. 118-119)

“Which of these statements do you affirm, under penalty of exclusion from candidacy, are wholly and indisputably true”

“In what way do you demonstrate that you belove God, and that you belove Jesus? How do you demonstrate to the world that you have given yourself to them?”