Read on Twitter
So I absolutely loved my seminary experience - I learned more than I can say, forged deep friendships, found a community of faith and inquiry and support.
That said, I think seminaries need to do better in communicating just how piecemeal, baseline, and preparatory the education we receive is.
We learn *just a little* church history, a *smidge* of family systems theory, are given a *morsel* of systematic theology.
We aren't trained extensively in any subjects we study. We are given rough-and-ready tools that we begin to master wherever we pursue our vocations after graduation.
To use a @MtrKDJoyce-esque metaphor: we are taught how to do basic carpentry. We might be able to produce a fine birdhouse, but it will be a while before we've honed our skills to the point where we can frame houses.
I think seminaries need to do a better job communicating just *how* little knowledge we've been given in the grand scheme of things.
My crash course in family systems theory, again, does *not* make me a family therapist nor able to psychoanalyze my congregants.
Yet many of us carry ourselves as though we're Freud incarnate.
My high-level survey of liturgical theology did not provide me with enough depth to revolutionize a congregation's liturgical traditions.
Yet that is the first thing many of us do when we arrive at a congregation.
I don't think seminaries should necessarily be teaching these things better (well, they could always do better I suppose!) nor should we necessarily be going further in depth.
I think it's a matter of emphasizing to seminarians that *we* aren't experts - even intermediate authorities! - on *any* of these subjects. We have been given a *roadmap* to continue that learning.
I think this is one among many approaches that might helpfully counter the growing sense among clergy that we are *actually* community organizers or therapists or scholar-priests when we haven't received nearly enough training in those things to avoid hurting our people.
