Qualified to Lead

Now that I've finished a few books that were on my personal to-read list, I am diving into Prof. Kathleen Flake's "American Religion Ph.D. Must-Read List." Essentially, the literature in which she believes any doctoral candidate in American Religion must be proficient. First up, Nathan Hatch's The Democratization of American Christianity. I'm familiar with his analysis (not a unique one) that religion in America took on a populist character, in keeping with the democracy guiding it politically. He begins by discussing the debate between Yale- and Harvard-educated theologians/ministers and the illiterate field preachers that were popping up all over the place in the early 19th century.

The elites and the commoners make similar arguments to what one might hear today between liberal divinity school graduates and those who attended Bible colleges, or between long-suffering, hoop-jumping United Methodist candidates for ordination, and young Baptists who were ordained at eighteen with no formal theological training whatsoever.

I definitely agree with Hatch's analysis, in that the freedom to determine for oneself what one believes, and the sufficiency of enthusiasm to empower one to preach is a thoroughly American concept, but I'm not sure where I come down on the issue in practical, modern-day terms.

Raised in the Disciples of Christ tradition (one of Hatch's major examples in this book), I vehemently reject creeds, as well as the notion that ordained clergy have special authority when it comes to administering sacraments like baptism and communion. (In the Disciples church, any baptized person can perform these sacraments.) On the other hand, I have a high-quality theological education, and firmly believe that historical-critical knowledge of the Bible, and objective analysis of religious history make my fellow scholars and I particularly qualified to teach and lead others in matters of religion. I feel that my academic studies have led me to a better understanding of God, and as a result, a deeper relationship with God. Does this make me more qualified, then, to provide leadership to a congregation, than I was when I was "merely" a baptized Christian, without theological education? Should all believers have equal authority and ability to proclaim the gospel (in both word and deed)? Or should academic training be a must for all those preaching from a position of authority?

I believe firmly in my right to accept or reject doctrines based on my own conscience and reason, and also in my capacity to share the blessings available to me as a Christian with others (in the form of sacraments). Leadership of a congregation, however, requires more than a sound mind and a giving heart--it requires the ability to spur other minds to their own understanding of the Gospel. Any faithful person could stand up and tell others what he or she believes about God, and listeners may either agree or disagree. A well-educated pastor, however, can tell others what many various schools of thought have believed, and ask the right questions of his or her listeners, in order to lead them to their own understanding of God. This is true spiritual leadership.