curses to the denomination

several months ago, i posted an entry here that seemed to ruffle a few feathers, though it elicited no responses. despite the facts that (1) the point of the post really had nothing to do with what caused concern to some and that (2) i simply followed the example of "blogging-with-a-hook" set by some of the very people whose feathers ended up mussed, i have to admit my blog has rarely seen as many hits as in the days and weeks following that post. so, given what my religious heritage sadly sees as proof of diligent and faithful service, i am compelled to post yet again with the hope of seeing the numbers rise.

as i pointed out in my post from late february, the weblog and commentary of al mohler, the president of southern seminary, is generally a great read. today is no exception. tackling the tendencies of graduate schools to hire people who have little to no practical experience in their disciplines, mohler sounds a clarion cry to theological seminaries to exercise diligence in their hiring practices.

"It should be unthinkable," writes mohler, "that the faculty in a theological seminary would include professors of such limited experience in church life. And yet, I have interviewed applicants for faculty positions who, when asked about their church involvement and ministry experience, have virtually nothing to offer." i do not doubt this final sentence one bit. and, given the relative inexperience, practically speaking, of more than a few faculty members southern has hired during the time and since i attended the school from 1997 to 2000, such a claim is even more frightening. "The task of seminary leaders," mohler continues, "is to make certain that persons of such minimal church experience and commitment are not offered faculty positions in our schools." from repeated conversations with pastor-friends (graduates from southern as well as other baptist and non-baptist seminaries), it seems that in modeling and teaching the nut-and-bolts of practical ministry, seminary educations in general fail their graduates. such practical areas, it seems, can best (if not only) be taught by men and women who have actually spent time in the trenches and muck of pastoral ministry.

so, i think mohler is absolutely correct in issuing a "wake-up call" to the administrations of theological seminaries, especially those of his own denomination. i find it providential that this commentary arrives when it does--on the heels of hiring and promotion announcements at the sbc's seminaries. a quick glance at baptist press releases from this year and previous years reveals, sadly, that the convention's hiring and promotion practices may need such an alarum. as thrilled as i am that personal friends from sbc, and other evangelical, seminaries are getting tenure-track jobs and promotions within the denomination's theological institutions, i have to admit that, given mohler's commentary, some (by no means all) of them "have virtually nothing to offer." this is a problem that one hopes the various seminary administrations will continuously strive to rectify. "Otherwise," as mohler contends, "the theological seminary will be more of a curse than a blessing to the local church and its denomination."

one caveat: i am still wrestling a bit with a sentence in al's next to last paragraph, namely: "True Christian scholarship, dedicated to the training of Christian ministers, must be devoted to and measured by what actually happens in the local church." what bothers me here? well, is scholarship dedicated to the training of christian ministers the only true christian scholarship? is that even what mohler is saying? or must true christian scholarship primarily be devoted to and only measured by what actually happens in the local church? i suppose the answer depends on one's definition and understanding of "true christian scholarship." i would not say (and i am not absolutely certain mohler is saying) that true christian scholarship is defined and limited by such motivations and effects, so that any scholarship that occurs for different reasons or with different ends is, by default, not true, or authentic, christian scholarship. to say "true christian scholarship" can only look like this, can only come from these motivations, and can only have these effects seems a bit arrogant, which i don't think is mohler's intent. again, just a caveat.