a comment on the nature of church leadership

This pertains specifically to Church leadership in the US, but has its relevance to the Church worldwide.

There are essentially two different options for studying for ordination:  "religious" and non-religious.  That may sound a bit odd, but it refers to how the institution is funded.  A "religious" institution is one that is wholly funded by its membership.  This means that the institution can teach whatever it wants, and at the end of the period of study, the institution can confer ordination.

The most obvious example of this is the Catholic priesthood.  The Catholic priesthhood  trains at Catholic seminaries which are funded by the Church.  Because of this, the seminaries can teach whatever they want to teach, and they can confer ordination at the conclusion of the course of study.

The equivalents in the Episcopal Church are Berkeley Divinty School at Yale, Bexley Hall, The Church Divinity School of the Pacific, Episcopal Divinity School, Seminary of the Southwest, General Theological Seminary, Nashotah House, Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, School of Theology at the University of the South, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, and Virginia Theological Seminary.

The Divinity School at Yale should not be considered an ordaining seminary because as an exponent of Yale University it receives both state and federal money and thus is required to comply with state and federal law, which means that the education provided is, by definition, not strictly in conformation with Episcopalian polity.

The Presbyterian equivalents are: Austin Theological Seminary, Columbia Theological Seminary, Dubuque Theological Seminary, Johnson C Smith Theological Seminary, Louisville Prebyterian Theological Seminary, McCormick Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, Princeton Theological Seminary, San Francisco Theological Seminary, and Union Presbyterian Seminary.

These institutions are the Protestant equivalents of Catholic seminaries:  funded by their denominations, they can teach what they want, and they can ordain graduates in their denomination.

The alternative is the "academic" seminary.  This is an institution of "religious" education which receives money from state and federal governments, which means they must comply with state and federal law as to what they teach. It also means that those institutions cannot ordain students at the completion of the course of study.  Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Baptist, etc students  take the same courses, and have to pass the same exams.

The various denominations choose their leadership from among the graduates of the denominational seminaries, rather than from the academic seminaries.  This is done for the simple reason that the education at the denominational seminary is completely under the control of the denomination, untainted by any requirement of presenting courses which are inclusive of a majority of perspectives.

Because of this, it is unlikely that Church leadership will change its polity in any significant way:  those who lead have been educated in the rightness of their own tradition.  Change would mean challenging the validity of the tradition which educated and ordained those leaders from whom change is sought.

I was trained at Union Theological Seminary, a "graduate school of religious education."  Because it is affiliated with an Ivy League university, it is a "presitge" school.  However, because it is a "graduate school o religious education," which means that it receives money from state and federal goverments, neither I nor my colleagues would be among those chosen to lead the denominations in which we proposed to be ordained.

When I was first introduced to my bishop, I told him I was going to seminary.  He told me I was going to go to General.  I told him I had been accepted at Union.  He repeated that I was to go to General.  That was when I learned the eleventh command:  thou shalt not end-run thy bishop.