Seismic Shift in Seminary Education
by: Joshua Stanton on April 20th, 2010 | 8 Comments »
How should future religious leaders be trained so that they can at once be rooted in their traditions and equipped to work with people of others? This question has been asked with increased urgency, as American theological seminaries have tried to adapt to what has become the most religiously diverse country in history. Answers have proven somewhat elusive.
This week, from April 14 – 16, a group of remarkable visionaries and emerging inter-religious leaders convened at Andover Newton Theological School and Hebrew College to discuss potential answers during the pioneering CIRCLE National Conference 2010. Participants included Brad Hirshfield, co-Founder of CLAL: The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Ingrid Mattson, Director of the Macdonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations at Hartford Seminary and Executive Director of the Islamic Society of North America, and Stephen Graham, Director of Faculty Development and Initiatives in Theological Education at the Association of Theological Schools.
It seemed fitting to hold the conference jointly at two of the few seminaries to cohabitate the same campus and maintain a close administrative and curricular relationship. Students at Hebrew College and Andover Newton can cross-register for courses, while several classes are team-taught by professors from both institutions. The campus also houses the Center for Interreligious and Communal Leadership Education (CIRCLE), whose “mission is to nurture a new generation of moral and spiritual leaders equipped for service in a religiously diverse world” through a fellowship program, leadership training, and inter-campus initiatives and programs. Its administrators, Dr. Jennifer Peace and Rabbi Or Rose, saw the conference as a natural extension of their work.
What became clear during the conference were areas that seminary education often fell short. Many schools offered only minimal courses on other religions and few made such courses a degree requirement. Fewer still provided inter-religious experiential learning opportunities to their students and faculty.
Yet there was also a sense of opportunity and momentum, not only to redesign seminary curricula but pioneer a new theology, capable of recognizing a place – and a positive one at that – for other religions within a nuanced and affirming vision of one’s own. Scholarship, inter-religious education, experiential learning, and dialogue could redefine seminary life. Leonard Swidler, Professor of Catholic Thought and Interreligious Dialogue at Temple University, reflected on this trend with optimism, noting, “We always needed dialogue as a species, but now we are aware of it. These are times like no other in human history.”
Also apparent during the conference was the extent to which several key funders had fostered inter-religious studies and action, and particularly seminary life. The Henry Luce Foundation came up repeatedly in discussions as an organization that had underwritten crucial inter-religious efforts around the country and beyond. (It also sponsored the conference itself.) Its Program Director for Theology, Lynn Szwaja, was also credited with helping inter-religious relations grow from a nascent to a robust field through thoughtful allocations and the mentorship of grantees.
To many, the conference was among the most fulfilling of their careers. “It feels like the start of something big,” remarked Janet Penn, Executive Director of Interfaith Action. A number of participants spoke of the possibility for follow-up conferences and meetings. But still more spoke of the significant transformations that had already taken place at the conference itself. Paul Knitter, Paul Tillich Professor of Theology at Union Theological Seminary, who was honored during the event along with Rabbi Irving Greenberg and Professor Diana Eck, cited his mentor Raimon Panikkar: “To answer the question ‘who am I,’ I have to ask the question ‘who are you.’” While both could take a lifetime to answer, the conference helped reframe the search.
This article was originally featured in the interViews section of the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue.




At last!!! They could start, simply, by making it clear that whatever ‘God’ may be, all religions are simply cultural and historically different approaches to that One Reality….my Indian Master, when asked the question “What is God”, looked up, eyebrows raised in comic perplexity and replied “What is God? Why it is a three-letter word meaning All That Is!!”.
For me, that has been enough ever since………………..Tony Roeber
Hi Tony,
Actually one of the interesting parts of the conference was the general premise that ‘we’re all different’ but that such differences must not lead to tension so much as a more concerted effort to learn. I think that’s probably a less challenging starting point, particularly to more conservative religious practitioners, who are sometimes more difficult to engage in dialogue and interfaith work. It strikes me that a ‘big tent’ approach will likely have to be based on this premise of difference. Great comment, though, and one that I think certainly did resonate with many at the conference.
All the best,
Josh
It’s coming closer: how we can all know that our differences are fascinating gifts that we offer to complete the whole, as we creep (or gallop) forward to be discovered in the whole.
Is it possible for contemporary religions to find a way to actually embrace plurality of religious expression and belief? I went to seminary in Cambridge/Boston in the 1980′a to a seminary (Episcopal Divinity School) that was struggling with this question in its own student body. We either do this or we continue to war with one another as we are doing today. I seen nothing in spiritual experience which necessitates ethnocentrism, but much in religious belief which does. How do you tell the Wahababi Moslem and the Assembly of God Christian that they are both “saved”? We are asking for a miracle, a very necessary one, but, nevertheless, a miracle.
A recent paper in the American Academy of Religion journal by Prof Michael Hogue titled “After the Secular” describes the curriculum at the seminary where he teaches. The goal is to train “public theologians,” who are able to relate to, work with, and respect groups of another religious persuasion. It’s a shirtsleeves program of practical involvement across denominational identities.
The paper reviews scholarly commentary by theologians that provides the intellectual framework for such programs.
Interesting idea. I have been a part of several Inter-faith bodies. I moved from a liberal Presbyterian USA denomination(Cradle Presbyterian) to Unitarian Universalist because I have questions that believers are unable to discuss in a totally open manner. Belief-faith is a natural barrier to acceptance on anything “other.” At most the “other” is tolerated as one of “God’s children,” and the statement that “all paths lead to heaven.”
This is an insult if one does not conceive of heaven.
Never have I been able to converse with a believer who, I thought and felt truly understood the depth of meaning for a non-believer. Who respects non-believers without thinking, hoping that some day the non-believer will become a believer? In other words, there is, as it seems to me, a condescending unconscious underlayment.
At the UU congregations I have attended there have been the usual variety of agnostic, pagan, liberal Christians, Buddhists, Jews–and secular humanists. I sense little to no meeting of the minds at crucial contact. Toleration is not understanding. I understand why believers believe. Many secular humanists/atheists are as rejecting, at some level, of believers, especially fundamentalists of all stripes. In a UU assembly there is, usually, an effort to be accommodating, for we tend to be an educated class. Comprehension, I don’t know. Many UUS are “former Christians or Jews who range across a spectrum from total rejection of their pat to celebrating the “culture,” Pain has brought them so far. Pain still exists, for many.
UUs are said to believe in nothing. Not so. The seven Principles are specific, and workable. I am still searching–but know that I am not within the “believer” ranks. Good luck crossing the bridges.
Hello Gwendoline,
You may find the new Integral Enlightenment and Feminine Power.com/ Women on the Edge of Evolution free online seminars and materials very helpful as they transcend and bridge much of the inter-religious dialogues bringing us up to a very spiritual dynamic integrity. They now have weekly dialogues with many of the people at the forefront of serious global and personal change work. Best, Kala
I was “conditioned” by seminary training in the Lutheran Church-Missouri to learn about ‘the others’ only in terms of their ‘errors.’ I got “re-conditioned” via ecumenical and interfaith experiences during the Civil Rights era of the 60′s to recognize that justice, mercy, and peace are the only hermeneutical principles that matter in any of our traditions… and ultimately evolved into the United Church of Christ. In a small congregation in Lovettsville, Va (St. James UCC) we are celebrating the Easter Season with reflections by representatives of other traditions (Jewish, Baha’i, Sikh, Episcopal [for its liturgical tradition], Muslim, and Quaker] around their own stories and their perceptions of the traditional Christian story. Had my seminary experience opened me up to notins of what we might ‘learn’ from others, some early years in ministry would not have been wasted on narrow, religious concerns.