A Seminary Changes its Name

The Presbyterian Outlook (printed edition, June 29, 2009, page 9) has reported that “The board of directors of Union Theological Seminary and Presbyterian School of Christian Education has announced that it will change the school’s name to Union Presbyterian Seminary in the near future.” Seminary President Brian K. Blount announced the name change on May 19.

The name change means something to both my wife and me. My wife is a 1981 graduate of the Presbyterian School of Christian Education. She graduated after the Assemblies Training School changed its name to the Presbyterian School of Christian Education and before the 1983 Reunion of the UPCUSA and PCUS and the federation of UTS and PSCE. We were married between her first and second year at PSCE and I lived with her on the campus of PSCE during the 1980-1981 academic year. While living on campus I took one course. More recently I have been a participant in a Colloquy on Prayer sponsored by the of the Institute For Reformed Theology (IRT) at Union Theological Seminary and the Presbyterian School of Christian Education. So we both have a history with and a small investment in the institution even though we both earned our Master of Divinity degrees from other institutions.

Prior to the 1983 Reunion of the UPCUSA and the PCUS there was only one “Union Seminary”. Which one depended upon whether a person was north or south of the Mason Dixon Line and whether one was a Northern Presbyterian (UPCUSA) or Southern Presbyterian (PCUS).

In the former PCUS “Union” was more or less THE SEMINARY of the Church even though there were others. It was located in Richmond, Virginia and it enjoyed almost instant name recognition and a reputation for excellence. It also enjoyed a loyal following.

In the UPCUSA, however, especially north of the Mason Dixon Line and particularly in the northeast, “Union” was located in New York City and it too enjoyed almost instant name recognition and a reputation ofor excellence even though it was a non-denominational seminary.

After the 1983 reunion of the UPCUSA and the PCUS southerners began serving churches in the north and northerners began serving more churches in the south and one could no longer assume which “Union” was being referred to when seminaries were being mentioned. Thus an identity crisis was born or at least for the time acknowledged.

Now there will be no more confusion. Union Seminary will be in New York. Union Presbyterian Seminary will be in Richmond, and in Charlotte, and in cyberspace, and who knows where else.

In President’s Blount’s sermon reflecting on the new name, he acknowledges that “there are many excellent arguments why the word Presbyterian should not be part of this name change. The word looks to the past in a world whose future appears more and more likely to be non denominational. Presbyterian, as a brand, and as a church is, I fear, dying. Perhaps the cutbacks and enduring staff layoffs at Presbyterian central in Louisville is a metaphor for the entire church, shrinking away before our eyes.” When it seems that fewer people can describe Presbyterian than can spell Presbyterian, claiming the name is a gutsy, risky move.

Can a Prince Reclaim His Throne?

I was introduced to Neo-Orthodoxy in college in the late seventies. That introduction included helpings of Barth and the Niebuhr brothers along with side servings of Buber and Bonheoffer. My immersion in Barthian Neo-Orthodoxy continued at Princeton Seminary where by choice I also consumed heaping portions of Calvin and Tillich. Half of one of my Pittsburg Seminary Doctor of Ministry seminars was devoted to Calvin and I read in Barth’s Dogmatics while I was working on my D. Min. project and paper. Thus I have numerous volumes written by these theologians on my book shelf, but only one book by Schleiermacher, his Speeches to its Cultured Despisers.

While I have been exposed to other theological viewpoints throughout my education and have previously read a little Schleiermacher, I have recently rediscovered him. While on the campus of UnionPSCE for the last Colloquy on Prayer, I wandered into the Cokesbury Campus Bookstore and picked up a 75% off the retail price Wipf and Stock reprint of B.A. Gerrish’s A Prince of the Church: Schleiermacher and the Beginning’s of Modern Theology. It has been by far the most concise and clear overview of Schleiermacher that I have read. It has even prompted me to begin thinking of myself as a “Liberal Evangelical” and to think that it is about time that Progressive (i.e. Liberal) Christians re-claim the “Evangelical” label co-opted and held captive by conservatives.

It can be argued that Barth and neo-orthodoxy pounded the last nail in the coffin of Schleiermacher and 19th century Liberal Theology. But it can now also be argued that neo-orthodoxy no longer enjoys the theological monopoly it once did. Various Liberation Theologies, Process Theology, and other theologies have chipped away at the neo-orthodox consensus to the point where neo-orthodoxy is just one theology among many. With the end of the neo-orthodox consensus perhaps it is time to dust off the throne, remove the nails from Schleiermacher’s coffin, and see if there is still some theological life left in this one time prince of the church. Resurrections, after all, have been claimed to happen.

The Last Colloquy

I have written in an earlier post about my participation in a Colloquy on Prayer sponsored by the Institute For Reformed Theology (IRT) at Union Theological Seminary and Presbyterian School of Christian Education. That participation has now officially ended, along with the colloquy. The colloquy met for six times from September 2007 through April 2009. Our last gathering was last week.

During our final time together we were treated to a lecture by Elsie McKee, Professor of Reformation Studies and the History of Worship at Princeton Theological Seminary. She lectured on Calvin and Praying for “All People Who Dwell on Earth”. Colloquy participants discussed the section of Calvin’s Institutes devoted to prayer, specifically III.20.1-52. We also discussed Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki’s In God’s Presence: Theological Reflections on Prayer. Being that it was our last colloquy we also reviewed and evaluated our time together and said our goodbyes.

Unfortunately I was not able to attend McKee’s lecture and came in midway through the discussion of Calvin. It seemed to me, however, that Suchocki elicited more discussion than Calvin, perhaps because most of the participants being Presbyterian meant that Calvin was nothing new but Suchocki’s Process Theology was. Suchocki defines prayer as “our openness to the God who pervades the universe and therefore ourselves, and that prayer is also God’s openness to us.” (p. 18) The “basic supposition” of Suchocki’s “relational theology or prayer” is that “God works with the world as it is in order to bring it to where it can be.” (pp. 18-19)

I found Suchocki refreshing and insightful. I think there was a consensus among colloquy participants that she address a contemporary and popular audience that many Reformed writers have not addressed. There may be however, resources within the Christian and Reformed Tradition prior to Process Theology that might be mined to do just the same. Thus, while this was our last colloquy, we still have much work to do.

Over all I appreciated gathering with colleagues in pastoral ministry as well as with seminary students and seminary faculty to read and discuss several texts related to the topic of prayer without the need to write papers, take exams, or in any other way document our learning. The IRT Colloquy models a company of pastors and others coming together around agreed upon topics and texts, reflecting on and discussing those texts and topics, learning from the authors and from each other without a certificate or degree in mind. .Imagine that, learning just for the love of learning. I think Socrates would be pleased.

Colloquy on Prayer

In Hallowed Walls I noted that I had recently attended a meeting of the Presbytery of New York City that was held on the campus of Union Seminary in New York City. Less than forty-eight hours later I found myself on the campus of the other Union Seminary, the one in Richmond, VA. I was on campus to attend a gathering of a Colloquy on Prayer.

In 2007 I was invited to participate with other pastors as well as theological students and scholars in a Colloquy on Prayer sponsored by the Institute For Reformed Theology (IRT). The IRT is an associated Program of Union Theological Seminary and Presbyterian School of Christian Education. The Colloquy has been scheduled to meet six times over two years. Each gathering begins with a reception and dinner on day one. Day two morning and afternoon are devoted to discussion with the evening being a group dinner. The morning of our third day is also devoted to discussion and the colloquy ends at lunch. The Colloquy on Prayer draws about half of the twenty-three participants from UTS/PSCE faculty, students and alums. It is convened by Dr. Dawn DeVries, John Newton Thomas Professor of Systematic Theology.

Through our first five gatherings we have read and discussed writings on prayer by Sam Balentine, David Crump, Origen, Evagrius Ponticus, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Sienna, Gertrude the Great of Helfta, Steven Chase, Martin Luther, John Bunyan, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Karl Rahner, Immanuel Kant, Ludwig Feuerbach and Sigmund Freud. At our next (and last) gathering we will discuss writings on prayer by John Calvin and Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki.

Having earned my Doctor of Ministry in the Reformed Focus at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, I compare the amount of time I am spending, the pages of text I am reading, and the level of discussion I am experiencing as the equivalent of two D.Min. Seminars minus the two twenty page papers I would have written. The other pastors in the group help keep us focused on the parish, asking such questions as “How would this preach?” and “What difference would this make in pastoral care?” The students add the perspective of a technologically savvy younger generation anticipating ministry in a postmodern world. The scholars keep us focused and intellectually honest. Each and every participant brings with them their varied experiences, education, insights, questions, and personalities.

Original photographs from the most recent Colloquy, including photographs of participants and scenes from around the campus, can be seen here.