Quote:
Originally Posted by py3ak  Dr. Clark, thanks for picking up on this thread. In your view is WSC functioning as a theological seminary in an ideal world would? Do you think it's wonderful or merely necessary that 70% of the students are there for, in essence, vocational training? Do you think that your institution would be more of an institution of learning if you were able to concentrate on research without having to teach students? And if I can take advantage of your attention, do you think that you or other professors, in Lewis' language, treat the students as human or as candidates for humanity? |
I'm not sure how to answer this question. If I say, "in an ideal world..." one could say, "Aha, I knew it, seminary education is flawed!" Nevertheless, things could always be better. I'm not entirely sure what is implied in your "ideal world" scenario. I'm not a very good "ideal world" thinker inasmuch as it entails rolling back 250 years of history, in some respects, to a world that doesn't exist.
I can say what things I would change to improve our ability to educate students:
1. Students would come to us knowing the Reformed confessions. Most of our students, even those from confessional Reformed congregations, do not know their confessional standards. Our churches could begin addressing this problem as soon as the next Sabbath.
2. Students would come knowing English. Many of our students, even those from elite schools, don't write or speak very well. An increasing number of students can't say what a noun or a participle is! This is highly problematic at the graduate level. Our secondary and undergraduate systems are failing us.
3. Students would come knowing at least one other language beyond English. Latin would be extremely useful. Our curriculum was designed in 1929 with the assumption that students would come knowing Greek!
4. Students would come with a basic knowledge of world history and the history of philosophy and ideas.
5. Our students would come with sufficient financial support from their congregations so that they could concentrate on their studies.
6. Our faculty regards students as humans made in
imago Dei. Surely all of us, in Christ, are being made more human as we are renewed in Christ's image. If I understand the question our faculty regards our students in the light of our anthropology and soteriology. I guess that what Lewis is getting at (he would appreciate my ending the sentence with a preposition).
7. When I mentioned the university I wasn't thinking of the modern research university. I'm impressed S. Schwenn's book,
Exile From Eden about leaving the Univ of Chicago (for Valpo) because he did not
simply want to be a researcher but he wanted to teach and to form character in young people. In the older univ. system teachers taught, they formed people. The Weberian notion that teaching is a burden to be shed in favor of pure research is not ideal for seminary education nor is it terribly useful for any school. I learn from my students as they learn from me. I research as a teach and teach as I research.
8. We understand that we serve the church primarily but we do so in the academy so WSC necessarily straddles two worlds simultaneously. That's our calling. We harvest the best work of the academy (as best we are able and to which we try to contribute) for the well being of the church(es).
Another way to put this, if I understand the issue, is that we pray while we study and study while we pray. We don't divorce the two. Piety should be learned and the learned should be pious.
9. I don't accept the premise that what we do is "essentially" vocational training. We are engaged in teaching the humanities and training for a vocation. We must do both. We're not "essentially" a vocational school even though most of our students are called (or being called) to pastoral ministry.