What is Catalyst?
Four issues of Catalyst are mailed each academic year to some 5,000 UM theological students in more than 100 seminaries in the U.S.A.

AFTE
Catalyst is a project of A Foundation for Theological Education (AFTE).

What is the John Wesley Fellowship Program?
Each year AFTE awards up to five John Wesley Fellowships to assist gifted United Methodists in their doctoral studies at the finest universities.

Back Issues
Several back issues of Catalyst are now available on-line.

Subscriptions
Subscription is free for UM seminarians, and is available to all others for $5 per year.

THE NEW FRONTIER: RACISM AND THE SEMINARY PROCESS

For hundreds of years black people were not allowed to attend seminary. This is a tragic though important fact of the legacy of seminary education in the west. For all the changes in seminary education over the last fifty years, not the least of which has been the great increase in the number of women coming to seminary, the most dramatic change has to be the entrance of black people into the seminary process. This is the case because black people in the west (especially in America) have been overwhelmingly Christian. Black Christian communities have survived and thrived since the very beginnings of this nation without the benefit of any large scale participation in the seminary educational process. This has produced an extraordinary phenomenon: a tradition of Jim Crow-like exclusion of black Christians from seminary education that exists side by side with a large and strongly committed black Christian population relatively isolated from portions of the traditions of Christian discourse. This phenomenon has created an incredible dilemma for all those involved in the seminary process and especially for blacks who would become seminarians.

The dilemma then is like a two-sided, two-headed monster. On the one hand, every attempt to affirm the importance of seminary education must face the inertia of exclusion which has kept blacks from seminary and which in many cases continues to make the seminary feel like hostile and unsafe space to blacks. Furthermore every attempt at affirmation needs to show respect for black Christian communities, large and vital, that have thrived in large measure without seminary-trained clergy. On the other hand, every attempt to affirm the black church as a vital, central Christian witness in the west must reckon with its isolation from portions of Christian traditions that would broaden and deepen Christian identity. Such an accounting must be done in such a way as not to show disrespect for the black church, but to invite its members to partake of the entirety of Christian life and history through participation in the seminary process. Furthermore every attempt at commending the seminary process must face justified suspicion by many in the black community of a process which itself has been and continues to be hostile to its children of Africa. Therefore if one is not careful, and many people involved in seminary education are not careful, we can exacerbate the dilemma.

I am convinced that much of the conflict over multiculturalism in seminary education as it involves people of African descent in the west results from our inability to negotiate this dilemma. For example, many of my colleagues never fatigue of citing the importance of seminary education for the life of the church, while never showing proper respect to the black church or affirming the strength and power of this survivalist Christian witness. Another corresponding example: many black students, after feeling the hostility of the seminary environment and the dismissal of their Christian witness, in turn promote the continuing isolation of the black church. They do so for an honorable reason: Denial incurred, denial given. “We have gotten along nicely without white seminaries; what is their real value now?” they rightly ask. Thus, in this regard, it is not unusual to hear black (and white) students speaking of the black church tradition over against the white church tradition. In these instances tradition is evoked as a form of power: a way to acknowledge what fails to be acknowledged by the seminary process itself, this dilemma.

Three qualifications must be rendered at this point: (1) There has always been from the very beginning of this country a small though significant number of highly trained black clergy serving within both predominantly white mainline and Catholic churches as well as in free church traditions. (2) Christian life in America in general could be characterized as also essentially isolated from portions of the traditions of Christian discourse (despite the powerful influences in this country of Puritan, Reformed, Lutheran, and Catholic catechetical traditions). (3) As has been noted in several places, there is a strong and abiding anti-intellectualism and pragmatism that continues to hammer against the seminary educational process; this creates a dilemma for the seminary, the need constantly to justify its existence. However, even with these important qualifications, the fact remains that blacks who enter the seminary process and all others involved in seminary education must face this reality: we are in danger of re-establishing the racism of America society (not to mention the church), with its pain and isolation, in and through the very process of seminary education. In order to overcome this dilemma, I believe four things must be understood clearly. Two relate to the seminary experience itself, and two to the time when one graduates from seminary and enters full-time ministry.

Life in Seminary
(1) The educational process is socially conditioned. This means that seminary education follows the same educational processes and procedures of American culture which are themselves inherently racist. It would be beyond the scope of this essay to examine fully the racist nature of education in the west. It is better for us to note a few characteristics of racist thought and behavior as they manifest themselves in the seminary.

(a) The equating of intelligence with English skill and primarily with the ability to write. The most persistently difficult connection to challenge in the minds of (formally trained) western intellectuals is that between a person’s ability to write well and their level of intelligence. This also includes the connection proposed between a person’s ability to speak English clearly and articulate their ideas clearly in English with strength of mind. At root lies a history of white supremacy and cultural imperialism in which Europeans judged non-Europeans as less human and more animal-like because they discovered no language skills “equal” to their own. The discovery of new worlds coupled with the enlightenment’s high appreciation for language and writing came together to the detriment of all non-European cultures. The point here: in the minds of many in the seminary (as in larger society), poorly written work signifies lazy students and/or poor minds, poor minds signify poor students, and this signifies second-class student citizenship.

(b) The rejection of oral traditions with their inherent forms of rationality. What is being rejected in the above equation is the importance of oral traditions of rationality, cultures which find their most complex ideas and forms of thinking conveyed best when spoken (and not necessarily written). This is not to say that oral traditions are anti-writing. As the work of H.L. Gates Jr. (The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of African-American Literary Criticism [Oxford University, 1988]) and RAT. Judy ((Dis)Forming the American Canon: African-Arabic Slave Narratives and the Vernacular [University of Minnesota, 1993]) have pointed out, African culture(s) has always included writing and textual production. Rather, many people think, reason, argue, discern their lives without the direct signification of written texts. Or they have a very different relation to written texts than is usually exhibited by those who are involved in formal seminary education. The point is that few seminaries are ready to build upon the already established forms of rationality that, for example, many people of African descent still inhabit. Instead, they disrespect these forms while seeking to supplant them with purely written forms. Take for example, the tradition of black preaching. It is not unusual to find professors of preaching in seminaries that know very little of this tradition of virtuosity and even attempt to “correct the preaching” of students shaped in this tradition by dismissing the centrality of orality. They hope to improve on the quality of the sermon by simply improving the written text of the sermon without attending to the crucial disjunction between oral presentation and written performance.

(c) The promotion of elitist mentalities. The greatest tragedy of racist behavior is the sheer elitism it promotes and justifies, all in the name of academic excellence. Education in the west and especially in America was intended to promote and sustain an aristocracy, the future leaders of the masses. There remains a flavor of that wish in the seminary. This elitism goes beyond recognizing high achievers, hard workers, and brilliant students. It is the equating of moral superiority, emotional maturity, and even depth of Christian life and commitment with academic achievement. But it is also the subtle message sent to students who do not measure up to this “elite” image: you do not belong here. This message is sent and received not necessarily by students who do not measure up academically, because often this elitism wears a white face. Built upon the heavy investment in intelligence as writing/speaking English and the rejection of oral cultural rationalities, it is not difficult for seminary educators to give even “academically strong” black students the impression that they are just visitors at their (own) school.

It is more important at this point to understand the way seminary education is socially conditioned than it is to determine how to respond to this development. Because understanding what is happening is half the battle. Yet along with this social/racial conditioning another thing must be understood.

(2) Seminary education reflects a much older process of Christian formation and educational tradition which must be engaged in, and understood without racist projections. Anyone who enters seminary for preparation for the ministry of the church is stating explicitly that they will be in some sense responsible for the tradition(s) of Christian thought and practice. This does not mean they will know everything that Christians have thought and practiced for over 2,000 years, nor does it mean that they will be responsible for the knowledge of every Christian tradition. It does mean that they admit to a level of accountability that will deepen and widen their understanding of Christian existence, that will expand their cultural awareness of the nature of Christian life, and that will demand they take hold of ways of being and thinking in the world as Christian that heretofore had probably been foreign to them.

Given what I outlined earlier, this second point may seem contradictory. How can a process that is so racially conditioned also signify a healthy Christian formation? Fundamentally, seminary education, even poorly executed education, reveals a multigenerational, multicultural testimony to a vast network of Christians living out the faith over vast space and time. In effect, seminary education invites its participants to hear the great cloud of witnesses who themselves witness the eternal God made known to us in Jesus. No seminary or seminarian can afford to allow the racism of the enlightenment, the racism that has distorted our lives, to determine the nature of seminary education or how to respond to seminary education. In the latter case, this is in large measure the responsibility of the student. Students must not read racism back into the entire history of the church. This is the problem of presentism, the error of applying present-day ethical concerns and configurations to ancient lives and ways of thinking. This is not to say we cannot or should not judge the quality of life of earlier Christians, rather that racial categories are not helpful in that quality of life.

A seminary or seminarian engaged in trying to find those aspects of the tradition that are authentically “black” or which speak to black people will inevitably have little to say to black people. The reason is not because there are not rich resources, but because all the resources are rich and need deep exploration. So from the Apologists to Aquinas, from the beginning to now, all aspects of Christian life and discourse have something to say to the black community that would add its already rich life. If this were not the case then the Jesus witnessed to by Christian faith would not be the Alpha and Omega.

Life after Seminary
The decision to go to seminary has to be as significant and momentous as any decision one could make. And when one graduates from the seminary the decisions do not stop. Every seminarian has to understand that two choices await them after graduation.

(1) Life outside the seminary is confrontation and battle with a church still trapped in the inertia of its own racial exclusion. Every seminarian must decide whether to invest time and energy in fighting this inertia or to give in to it. It is amazing to see the surprise in students’ faces as they encounter the racial barriers that are part of the church. Two groups of students come to mind that are most directly affected by these barriers: (a) White students in predominately white church settings who are trying to make their churches more inclusive, and (b) black students in predominately white churches who are trying to survive in their ecclesial systems. For both kinds of students, the challenge before them is to speak theologically and not simply as ideologues about this inertia. That is, unless they have been taught to address it as a theological” problem and not simply a problem of culture or society, the inertia of exclusion will remain too powerful for them to overcome.

(2) Life outside the seminary for black seminarians is confrontation and battle with a black church suspicious of seminary-trained ministers and resistant to (positive) change and growth. While not all black seminarians serve in predominately black churches, and while not all black churches are resistant to change and growth, this does represent another choice that black seminarians must make. There is a level of self-deception involved in the current politics of Afrocentrism. Many black church leaders believe they are being prophetic in denouncing white Christianity and affirming black Christian life as a unique and authentic form of Christian existence. Although this is indeed a proven stratagem in overcoming the inertia of exclusion, we must acknowledge its limitations. Beyond correcting bad self-image, such a stratagem is simply restating what is obvious to anyone who takes seriously the life of the church. At worst, this stratagem degenerates into forms of cultic and cultural religion, devoid of the command of Jesus to go into all the world and preach the gospel. Black pride that stands in competition with boasting (only) in Christ dishonors and disrespects both the black church and the God it worships. Black students (and white students serving in black churches) must choose not to engage in the politics of race to the harm of these vital Christian communities. Only by claiming a way of life, Christ’s life, that demands ultimate allegiance can we press beyond this dilemma into the new frontier of seminary education that deeply affects for the better the lives of common black folk.

The most depressing aspect of racism’s relation to the seminary process is that seminaries as a whole are not much further along in 1995 in addressing the problems of race than they were in 1965. Yet this reflects a reality of western church life: We are quite comfortable with a racial segregated Christian witness covered by the guise of cultural difference. Until we face together the racist horror we protect because we fear the revolution that the gospel requires, we make a mockery of the reality of the resurrected Lord.

By Willie James Jennings, Assistant Professor of Theology and Black Church Studies, Duke Divinity School.