By virtue of the inevitable movement of life, many of the theological seminaries of the United States have been compelled to appoint successors to men who have for a generation been leaders in theological instruction, and still others are facing similar necessities. Nor is this succession of change merely one in personnel. During the past five years, there has been an exceptional interest in the curricula of theological seminaries throughout the United States. Who of us has not been at the

more »

... of faculty committees armed with questionnaires ? We have answered questions regarding Hebrew and Greek, sociology and religious education, financial aid and dormitories for married students. He who thinks that the world of theological seminaries is an educational Nirvana gives evidence of not knowing the seminaries. In this transformation, however, it is not as clear as we could wish that the reorganization of the curriculum of a seminary has always been based upon genuinely educational principle. It too often appears to the observer that changes in the curriculum have been at least limited by an over-sensitiveness to inherited prerogatives of some department of instruction. Only in a few cases would it appear that the committee having in charge the reorganiza-tion of a seminary course has proceeded to ask fundamental questions as to just what is the essential vocation for which the seminaries are training men. It is this question that I would ask this evening. What is the chief function of the theological seminary? And my reply is unqualifiedly this: the preparation of men for efficient leadership in religion. I Such an answer naturally gets its full meaning from the definitions of the various terms used, but even if we approach it without attempting such precise thought, it will be evident, I trust, that the minister's vocation today is less that of the prophet and more that of the apostle. The difference between the prophet and the apostle may fairly well be described by saying that while the prophet uttered the divine message and left it in the hearts of his countrymen, the apostle not only uttered but institutionalized the divine message in a group of people who accepted it as true. When one compares the influence of the prophets upon the Hebrew people and the influence of the apostles upon the Roman Empire, this difference is at once apparent. It would be difficult to find a group of people who had less immediate influence than the prophets.