As we discuss curriculum revision at my own seminary, I\u2019ve found myself thinking anew about what it means to be part of a seminary faculty. Watching events embroil other seminary faculties in troubling conflict, that question has gained considerable urgency.<\/span><\/p>\n The question may seem abstract, but an answer might go some way toward answering the questions about the mission of today\u2019s seminaries. The answer also has the potential for answering questions about the relationship between seminary boards, their administrative leaders, and the faculties themselves. And, of course, it could shape the way in which we understand the relationship between seminary faculty and their students.<\/p>\n In bold relief, my own answer to the question is this:<\/p>\n Unlike other faculties, a seminary faculty is committed to both learning and spiritual formation.<\/i><\/p>\n They give themselves to the same level of academic rigor, but seminary faculty embrace a commitment abandoned a long time ago. The larger academy is neutral, if not negative about the existence of the divine. Seminaries are not, nor can they be. The study of religion without a commitment to the existence of the divine, never mind a specific construal of what God is all about, is the focus of university\u2019s department of religious studies. In those settings the tools of understanding are philosophy, history, anthropology, psychology, and sociology. In a seminary, theology remains \u201cthe queen of the sciences.\u201d The other disciplines amplify the seminary\u2019s understanding of God, but they cannot replace it. For that reason, seminary faculties hold that it is not just possible to learn about God. It is actually possible to encounter God.<\/p>\n