Abstract
In his recent book, The End of Theological Education, Ted A. Smith tells “the family history of one mode of theological education” (p. 21), the seminary. He draws on the life of Lyman Beecher and Lane Seminary to explain, in the introduction and chapter one, how the U.S. seminary emerged in the 19th century in response to the disestablishment of the “standing order” (p. 2) and rise of voluntary associations. Smith explains how these associations required new types of leaders capable of leading “for the good of a wider social whole” (p. 96), and that “good” was imagined as the redemption of a sacred nation, the United States. Seminaries were formed to meet this need, and the model of seminary that we inherit today, a professional graduate school for theological formation of leaders of professional associations, is the result of these theological aims and sociopolitical changes from the early 1800s.
In the subsequent four chapters, Smith explains how our times have evolved since, and thus, he argues, so too must theological education. In chapter two, Smith explores more recent trends in religious participation in the United States, suggesting that declines in membership and denominational affiliation are spurred by wider social phenomenon like identity politics, polarization, generational change, and clergy sexual abuse. However, the greatest cause for this decline in participation, he asserts, is the neoliberal phenomenon of “individualization,” a process by which the individual is acted upon by an outside force so that they internalize an identity as part of the market economy. In chapter three, Smith draws on survey data to illustrate the concrete ways that individualization is causing institutions to unravel. For churches and their leaders, this unraveling looks like declines in membership, minister salaries, and professional stature, and for seminaries, it manifests as a decline in enrollment. Seminaries respond to these market forces, Smith suggests, by proliferating degrees, modes of content delivery, and recruitment efforts.
As chapter three draws to a close, Smith warns against the temptation to “restore [voluntary associations] to the refurbished idol of a sacred nation” (p. 120). This notion, that America is a nation that must be redeemed by Christianity, is a recurrent theme in the text, one that Smith consistently names, and warns against. Indeed, following chapter three, Smith underscores this admonition by interjecting a sermon, in which he explains that rather than such false idols, the real end, or telos, of theological education must be union with God. Only thus, can theological education be a source of Christian hope. In chapter four, Smith advises the renunciation of three practices typical of theological education today: professional status, debt, and reason. Smith asserts the status that must be renounced is the settler colonial mindset that views white men as normative leaders of religious associations, and therefore, appropriate students in seminaries. Smith explains that debt is tied to this mindset and needs to also be renounced as a normative burden for seminary students, especially female and racially minoritized seminary students, who tend to accrue the greatest amount of debt in attending seminary. Finally, the professional mindset, which views theological learning as instrumental to credential attainment and professional entry, must be renounced. In the final chapter, Smith offers a variety of “affordances”—including individual authenticity, diversifying enrollment, chaplaincy training, post-professional solidarity with those ministered to, and “leaderfull” movements—through which theological education may improve and respond better to the signs of the times.
Smith draws on a wide range of literatures—including U.S. history, Christian theology, critical theory, ancient and modern philosophy, and social science—to paint his “family history,” and consistent with the critical theories from which he draws, Smith critiques the ways in which white protestant men have shaped U.S. seminary education to reproduce themselves and their privilege, both in the seminaries they attend and the social institutions they have gone on to lead. Smith’s critical lens and counter-storytelling, along with his use of historical narratives, are strengths of the book. However, despite his expressed desire to create a more inclusive theological education, Smith’s book often feels exclusive—particularly in terms of intellectual accessibility.
The many disciplines Smith draws on each have highly specialized language, yet he provides inconsistent explanations of the jargon he uses. This is especially evident when he draws on theology and philosophy. While theologians or philosophers may appreciate the book more for this expansive literature, readers from the social sciences may find it difficult to interpret large portions of this text without additional scaffolding. Perhaps that is why, at the end of the book, Smith invites all readers to “gather with colleagues and comrades for sustained study…. reading widely” (p. 203). The theological education that Smith envisions is ongoing. It is not meant to be consumed for individual instrumentality, like a terminal degree, but to inform a way of life with others, as people of faith. While Smith makes a convincing argument for the end of seminary education as we have known it, his book may not be as accessible or inclusive as the church he aims to form.
