Yet another of now approximately 40 Anglican programs in non-Anglican/Episcopal seminaries. Whether you are conservative ior liberal this trend is not helping the Anglican seminaries (including Nashotah House or Trinity School for Ministry). Neither will Anglicans in North America be able to maintain an Anglican ethos for very long if the majority of Anglicans are trained in non-Anglican school with bits of Anglicaism tacked on.—- and, yes, I have a vested interest in this topic…

Grant LeMarquand
Academic Dean
Trinity School for Ministry

Dean LeMarquand is no doubt aware that moderate and liberal bishops will not allow conservative seminarians to matriculate at NH or TSM. Period. The other Episcopal seminaries are corrupt to one extent or another.

They have allowed students to attend non-Anglican schools with Anglican programs.

Grant, you’re absolutely correct.  But having two orthodox Anglican seminaries in the north of the country is a mismatch demographically—one that wasn’t so bad when VTS and Sewanee were considered orthodox.  The Anglican programs at other seminaries are there because there is a demand for them, and that demand is largely driven by geography.  No one would want to see Trinity and Nashotah diluted or harmed, but having an Anglican seminary in the Southeast (the Atlanta area seems reasonable) would make a great deal of sense—and there’s no reason it couldn’t be an extension campus of Trinity or Nashotah. (Gordon-Conwell and Reformed Theological Seminary and Asbury all have multiple campuses).  Likewise, more formal partnerships between Trinity and Nashotah and schools like Beeson in Birmingham or Gordon-Conwell in Charlotte would certainly be helpful—even if only as an interim solution.

Fr. McMichael is a former faculty member at Nashotah House - professor of liturgics in my time there (Class of 1994).

#2 is correct and I will go on to say that progressive (liberal) diocese will not allow their seminarians to attend Trinity.  That was made abundantly clear in the diocese I live in.  They are perfectly happy with sending their people to Yale or Virginia, anywhere but Nashotah House or Trinity.

Atlanta has an Anglican Studies program at Emory’s School of Theology (which, of course is Methodist), which was set up by former Atlanta Diocesan Bennett Sims many years ago (probably the late 80s).  Many clergy in Atlanta Diocese have gone through that program.  I do not know its leanings as far as reappraising vs reasserting, though it is well-known that Bp Sims voted in favor or approval of +VGR and attended his consecration.  The priests I have known from that program have all been pretty moderate; but that may be because those are the ones I would have associated with and knew before they went into the program.

Thanks for these comments. I won’t go into everything that I could (it’s the end of the semester!), but I would just make a few points. Yes, it is probablemmatic that both Trinity and Nashotah are in the north - it does mean that going to seminary is ‘harder’ than if the school is just next door. Of course no one said that training for ministry would be easy (I could mention that Jesus u[prooted his disciples from their homes and families for 3 years and that Paul went to ‘Arabia’ for 3 years…). Establishing more orthodox Anglican seminiaries would simply spread things much thinner. Schools like RTS and Gordon-Con and Asbury can have multiple campuses because they are not denominational schools - yes, Asbury is ‘methodist’ and RTS is ‘reformed’ but they draw students from a large group of denomination. Trinity and Nashotah are deliberately Anglican, not generically evangelical or ‘orthodox.’
The point about liberal dioceses not allowing students to come to Trinity or Nashotah is, of courses, absoluetly true - I’ve been at Trinity for 11 years now and I meet people all the time that say to me ‘I wanted to go to Trinity but my bishop wouldn’t let me.’ Steve Noll told me that he heard the same thing for 20 years. What is sad for us now is that those who are leaving tec COULD come to Trinity now (their bishops WILL let them!), but they choose non-Anglican seminaries closer to home for the convenience, or in some cases the name of a seminary that is more prestigious. As a result our numbers (Nashotah is suffering as well I believe - although Dean Munday has done a tremendous job there, virtually raising it from the dead) are much lower than they were a few years ago. We are concerned not only for our own survival (a real concern btw) but also for the survival of an Anglican ethos within the conservative Anglican movement on this continent.

I’m just now finishing up my second year at Emory’s Anglican Studies program. On the plus side, they allow you to work for three years in a parish. I’m in a Continuing Church organization, and so they’ve generously allowed me to remain in a parish within my church.

My church, therefore, is feeding me with the traditional sorts of texts. I’ve gotten an introduction to Hooker & Cranmer, and I have readings from Eric Mascall and Mortimer’s Elements of Moral Theology.

While Candler is ostensibly Methodist, most of my professors have not been; in fact, most have been Anglican, Roman Catholic, or even Melkite. I have been exposed to Karl Barth, which is useful, since so many Protestants value his stuff, as well as the arguments of Feminist, Womanist, and Liberation Theologians. It’s great for serving up irenic statements or apologetics that don’t talk past my intended audience.

One can get a good education at Emory, if one has a certain amount of stubbornness and civility. The trick is not to be an uncritical sponge. And, quite frankly, an uncritical sponge who happens to have stumbled upon the “right” books isn’t that much more useful than an uncritical sponge who happened upon the “wrong” books. Both need to be boxed on the ears for not thinking critically so that they understand more fully what they’re being fed.

The labels “reasserter” and “reappraiser” aren’t particularly useful for a diverse place like Emory. Most NT and OT classes will teach the historical critical method of Biblical exegesis. Most theology classes will teach a Barthian or Tillichian version of post-modernism. If a student drinks the Kool Aid, it will make him into a Liberal German Protestant. But nobody says you have to drink the Kool Aid.

I will stumble out of here with:
a) A non-corporeal “Real Presence” Eucharistic theology informed largely by Patristics, Thomas Aquinas, Hooker, Trent, and Berengar.
b) Richard Hooker’s distinction between Justification and Sanctification.
c) Sts. Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and Gregory the Great and C.S. Lewis’ understanding of atonement.
d) Affirmation of at least the first 7 Ecumenical Councils.
e) A fine blend of Augustine’s and Thomas Aquinas’ metaphysics.
f) The moral theology of the One, Holy, Apostolic Catholic Church (pick whatever issue you like, really).
g) The classically Anglican belief in church polity—threefold ministry of divine origin, Apostolic succession, etc. (And, yes, Hooker thinks bishops are essential).

And on and on. And I went to a “liberal” seminary. “Fr. Jake,” if you’ll recall, went to Nashotah House. So, whatever.