(N.B. I am focusing on the seminary I know best, but there is a surely parallel story to be told for Nashotah House and the Reformed Episcopal seminaries. It strikes me that Trinity and the REC seminaries should naturally serve an evangelical Anglican constituency which seeks to be catholic-minded and Nashotah should naturally serve an Anglo-catholic constituency that seeks to be evangelically-minded.)

Two quiz questions will highlight the problem that blunted the kind of impact that Trinity was founded to accomplish. Which bishop refused to present the present Dean of Nashotah House for ordination because he took a job as Director of Library at Trinity? And which bishop refused to send any of his younger postulants to Trinity but sent them rather to his alma mater? Answers: Alex Dickson and Ben Benitez! I suspect Bps. Alex and Ben now regret those decisions, but they exemplify the mindset of conservative leaders during the critical period that Trinity was getting started.

The bold and visionary action taken by the founders of Trinity in the mid-70s was never matched by bold actions in the conservative dioceses to free students to train there. All it would have taken was a bishop, standing committee and commission on ministry in one diocese working cooperatively, and Trinity could have hosted every student who wanted to be formed with an Anglican Evangelical foundation. In the early 80s the Diocese of Pittsburgh opened the door, but within a few years the liberal holdovers on the COM found a way to stanch the flow by imposing a residency requirement, with the bishop's consent.

In 1996, I helped set up through the AAC an alternative ordination track for ministry refugees (the new bishop of Pittsburgh was to provide the conduit for this track). By that date, the horse had already fled the barn as far as any hope of reforming the church through a flood of renewed clergy. Since that time, in fact, the flow of Trinity grads has been diverted to AMiA and other Christian traditions.

Trinity's own leaders themselves, myself included, contributed to the problem. We were naïve to think that accreditation (1985) would make us acceptable in the mainstream Episcopal Church. Later on, Trinity's leaders were also too slow to recognize that AMiA and other Common Cause groups were there coming constituency, thinking that we could woo liberals to give us a few crumbs from their ordination process. But as we all know, contemporary liberals are anything but liberal. Such a hope is surely now a vain hope.

The point of these recollections is to warn that the same failure of vision may be happening today. In my occasional visits to conservative gatherings in the States, I hear people saying: "We've sent student X to Gordon Conwell or to Beeson or Wycliffe in Oxford." Or "We've set up our own fast-track training program." And I have asked these colleagues: "What about Trinity?" "Oh yes," they reply, "we are willing for students to train at Trinity, but..."

"Yes, but..." is not enough. Given the fragmented condition of conservative Anglicanism in North America, such decisions are understandable. But in my opinion, as a long-term solution to building a strong and unified Anglican church, they are inadequate and ominous. Say what you may about alternative models of theological education, a good seminary (or two or three) will be vital to the growth and long-term success of orthodox Anglicanism on that continent.

I say "that continent" because I live now in Africa and oversee the flagship theological centre of the Anglican Church of Uganda. The Church of Uganda recently identified an acute clergy shortage impending and has responded by increasing the numbers attending our "Bishop Tucker School of Divinity and Theology" (we just doubled our intake). The church in Rwanda has likewise recognized the need for a theological college, as have other Provinces. So the need and call for strong theological colleges call is not just a North American phenomenon.

So what can be done? I think a couple simple decisions and declarations could clarify matters.

1. The Boards of Trinity and Nashotah House should announce that their primary mission is to serve the Network and Common Cause churches and that they will no longer receive students sponsored from revisionist dioceses (not a very costly decision since they won't send students anyway). 2. The Network and Common Cause dioceses and churches should commit themselves to require all candidates for ministry to get their degrees from Trinity or Nashotah or a REC seminary, or at least to attend for one year to instill in them a common Anglican ethos.

As bishops and leaders in Network and Common Cause churches, you have great influence in these matters. Our movement has made a tremendous investment in these seminaries, and should not squander it. I have real doubts whether these institutions can survive without strong support from the churches they were birthed to serve. These seminaries in turn must focus themselves on building up the movement. If these things happen, there is a real chance that orthodox Anglicanism can emerge as a real church like the Presbyterian Church in America (note, with its Covenant Seminary) and not just a welter of "continuing" factions. If it doesn't, I think we are sowing the whirlwind.

Thank you for listening.

Cordially in Christ,

The Rev. Prof. Stephen Noll
Vice Chancellor
Uganda Christian University