Sex and the Seminary: Preparing Ministers for Sexual Health and Justice

Abstract

Religious traditions affirm that sexuality is God's life-giving and life-fulfilling gift. Every member of the clergy will be called upon to address the sexuality needs of the people they serve, yet only a handful of seminaries in the United States are actively preparing their students to assume this important role. In Phase I, 36 U.S. seminaries participated in a survey of the sexuality education of religious professionals and clergy. Phase I results pointed to an overwhelming need for improvement in the sexuality education provided to seminarians and the overall sexual health of the seminaries. Phase II included further assessment of three seminaries and technical assistance provided by the Religious Institute. Preliminary results from Phase II indicate improvement toward greater sexual health and responsibility at each seminary. Research and technical assistance is ongoing at these and other seminaries.

KEYWORDS:

• ministry
• religion
• seminary
• sexuality education
• sexual justice
• sexual health

Clergy and other religious professionals have a unique opportunity and responsibility to guide congregations and communities through any number of sexuality-related concerns. Religious traditions teach that sexuality is a sacred part of life, developed in connection with, and informed by, belief systems and practices of faith. In turn, congregants and others in the community rely on clergy as a source of counseling and guidance when it comes to questions of sexuality. Many perceive religious professionals and clergy, regardless of training, to be capable of dealing with marital counseling and sexual dysfunction (Conklin, 2000), teen sexual development and relationships (Clapp, Helbert, & Zizak, 2003), and family planning decisions (Ellison & Goodson, 1997). Unfortunately, these perceptions do not always square with the reality of seminary education. No one understands this better than clergy and seminarians themselves.

This article summarizes research that was conducted to identify shortcomings in the sexuality education of seminary students and methods to improve upon those weaknesses. Thirty-six seminaries, representing a range of religious affiliations, institutional structures, geographic locations, and student populations, participated in an investigation of the sexuality education of religious professionals and clergy in Phase I. The survey measured participating seminaries according to the Criteria for a Sexually Healthy and Responsible Seminary, which was developed by a multifaith group of seminary educators, administrators, and sexuality educators. Phase II included further assessment of three seminaries and technical assistance provided by the Religious Institute. Preliminary results from Phase II indicate improvement toward greater sexual health and responsibility at each seminary. Research and technical assistance is ongoing at these and other seminaries.

BACKGROUND

Ideally, clergy and other religious professionals will have formal, graduate-level training that will enable them to become “sexually healthy.” As described by Debra Haffner in 2001, sexually healthy religious professionals are “comfortable with their own sexuality, have skills to provide pastoral care and worship on sexuality issues, and are committed to sexual justice in their congregation and society at large” (Haffner, 2002).

According to the Pan American Health Organization, professionals who address sexuality issues should have certain basic training. This includes “basic knowledge of human sexuality, awareness of personal attitudes towards one's own and other people's sexuality which should include a respectful attitude towards persons with different sexual orientations and sexual practices, and basic skills in identifying, and if necessary, referring to the appropriate professional, problems of sexual health” (Aurioles, Coleman, Vargas, Mazin, & Rosser, 2000). Other professions, such as the medical and counseling fields, instituted required training in preventative and proactive sexuality education after research demonstrated a clear need and lack of training (Schmidt, 2002). At this time, no quantitative research on the efficacy of sexuality training for clergy exists.

Over the last two decades, a series of studies has reported that seminarians and clergy feel unprepared and ill-equipped to deal with a range of sexuality-related issues (Richards, 1992). A late 1980s study of Protestant clergy found that clergy are “not clear about roles, rules, possibilities, and limits in the sexual arena” (Lebacqz & Barton, 1991). They reported being uncomfortable discussing sexual matters, even with married couples. The goal of the study was to develop a framework for professional sexual ethics, but it also helped to articulate the broader implications of sexuality as it relates to the ministry. The authors concluded that a single framework was not sufficient, as nuances arose for particular groups such as women in ministry, single pastors, and gay, lesbian, and bisexual pastors. They recommended components essential to a professional sexual ethic: “account for pastoral power, for sexism and its effect on both pastors and parishioners, for heterosexism and its implications, and for other social and psychological factors that set the stage for sexual behavior” (Lebacqz & Barton, 1991). The ethic must also adequately deal with the potential for sexual abuse and sexual relations with “honorable intentions” (Lebacqz & Barton, 1991).

In 2001, the Seminary Sexuality Education Survey, conducted by Sally Conklin, investigated how seminary training prepared clergy to address the sexuality-related needs of congregants. This 2001 survey evaluated only course offerings and course content, leaving institutional environment and advocacy unevaluated. The survey concluded that “those preparing for ministry were not helped to understand their own sexual values or behaviors, and where there were courses in sexuality, they were not required or connected to the core curriculum” (“The Role of Sexuality Education Within Seminaries,” 2002).

In 2004, a survey of graduates of five evangelical seminaries between 1992 and 2002 reported that minimal attention was given to understanding and maintaining sexual health or managing feelings of sexual attraction in professional contexts. Researchers concluded that incidents of abuse are reduced and graduates are clearer on sexual misconduct due to training they receive, but they do not know what to do with expected feelings of sexual attraction to congregants. Graduates did perceive their faculty members as helpful on an out-of-class basis, more so than the seminary structure of classes and training (Meek, McMinn, Burnett, Mazzarella, & Voytenko, 2004).

In a 2008 survey of progressive clergy—those who support comprehensive sex education, reproductive justice, and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) equality—fewer than four in ten (38%) agreed that their seminary education adequately prepared them for dealing with sexuality issues in their congregations. In addition, only one-third (35%) agreed that their seminaries adequately prepared them for dealing with sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression issues in their congregations (Haffner & Palmer, 2009).

Despite 20 years of consistent findings that clergy and religious professionals are not receiving adequate training to address sexuality issues in liturgy, counseling, education, or policy making, there has yet to be a comprehensive review of what is being taught to future clergy and religious professionals in seminary settings. There has been a shift toward encouraging, and in some cases requiring, preventative training to reduce sexual abuse (Robison, 2004). Yet if avoidance of abuse or misconduct is the only manner in which students learn about sexuality in ministry, the focus remains on liability and unhealthy sexual behaviors.

RESTRUCTURING MINISTERIAL EDUCATION

Over the past decade, the Association of Theological Schools (ATS) has renewed the focus of theological education to be attentive to aspects of ministerial formation, specifically skill training for the ministry (Aleshire, 2008; Hough, 1995; G. B. King, 1995; Schuth, 1999). Structuring ministerial education to correspond to the needs of the professional life into which students graduate requires a renewed emphasis on experiential learning and on balancing the competition of educational needs across the curriculum. As the ATS curriculum standards state, the overarching goal of the theological curriculum “is the development of theological understanding” which includes “acquiring the abilities requisite to the exercise of ministry” in an individual's community of faith (Degree Program Standards, 2006).

According to ATS, the primary goals of a ministry degree program “should take into account: knowledge of the religious heritage; understanding of the cultural context; growth in spiritual depth and moral integrity; and capacity for ministerial and public leadership” (Degree Program Standards, 2006). Sexuality-related issues are present in each of these four areas and must be dealt with explicitly to best prepare religious professionals and clergy for ministry careers.

Besides accreditation standards, denominational ordination requirements also shape the structure of ministerial education. Before the current study, only two denominations had reviewed their ordination criteria and made statements regarding the need for sexuality education of their future clergy (Johnson, 1986; Presbyterians and Human Sexuality: The 203rd General Assembly Response to the Report of the Special Committee on Human Sexuality, Including a “Minority Report,” 1991).

Before any substantive restructuring of ministerial education can happen, seminaries must recognize that not offering sexuality courses is also a kind of sexuality education. A null curriculum or lack of attention to sexuality can convey a lack of regard for pastoral problems arising from sexuality, while reinforcing the shame and discomfort that often attend sexuality issues (“The Role of Sexuality Education Within Seminaries,” 2002).

CRITERIA FOR A SEXUALLY HEALTHY AND RESPONSIBLE SEMINARY

A sexually healthy and responsible seminary provides training in sexuality issues so that seminary graduates and ordained clergy emerge as trained religious professionals who can deal with the complexity of sexual matters—in a healthy, constructive, and appropriate manner. Formation of religious professionals and clergy requires more than a renewal of the curriculum. It requires an institutional shift toward becoming a sexually healthy and responsible seminary that models respect and dignity for all persons.

In May 2008, the Religious Institute and Union Theological Seminary held a one-day colloquium of prominent seminary leaders to refine the Criteria for a Sexually Healthy and Responsible Seminary at Union Theological Seminary in New York. They addressed how the seminary can graduate professionals who have the background, opportunities, and skills to be sexually healthy and responsible. These criteria can serve as a framework for evaluating and guiding seminaries as they seek to better prepare their students for ministry (Table 1).

TABLE 1 Detailed Criteria for a Sexually Healthy and Responsible Seminary

Periodic worship opportunities that address sexuality issues.

Seminary-supported student groups that address sexual and gender identities and sexuality needs, such as a Women's Center, LGBTQ Group, Reproductive Rights Group, Support for Married/Coupled Seminarians, HIV Positive persons, and other sexuality-related groups.

Faculty and leadership who are active on social and sexual justice issues in professional organizations, advocacy organizations, their denominations and communities, including research and publications, public witness and activism.

A commitment to gender, racial/ethnic, and sexual diversity in its student body, faculty, staff, and leadership.

A commitment to inclusive language in worship and in the classroom.

Anti-discrimination and full-inclusion policies, addressing sex, race, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and marital status, that are widely included in catalogs, admission materials, faculty and student orientations, Web sites, and periodic postings in newsletters and announcements.

A commitment to being safe from sexual harassment and abuse, including professional ethics and healthy boundaries policies for students, faculty, and staff, and periodic required training opportunities.

Regularly scheduled course offerings on sexuality issues, including courses on sexual ethics, LGBTQ theology, women in religious traditions and faith communities, and sexual abuse and domestic violence.

Required coursework on human sexuality and healthy professional boundaries.

Inclusion of sexuality topics in introductory and core courses, such as Hebrew Bible/Old Testament/Tanakh, New Testament, Theology/Systematics, Ethics, History, Midrash/Rabbinics/Code, Pastoral Counseling, Worship and Preaching, and denomination-specific/polity classes.

Required training for junior and senior faculty as well as deans and advisors on integrating sexuality issues into their classes, advising students with diverse sexualities, and maintaining appropriate professional boundaries.

Library holdings that include current materials on sexuality and religion.

A sexually healthy and responsible seminary is committed to fostering spiritual, sexual, and emotional health for its students, faculty, and staff and providing a safe environment where sexuality issues are addressed with respect, mutuality, and openness. Every seminary needs to help students address formation issues relating to their own sexuality, understand a range of sexuality issues including scholarship on sexuality and gender, and develop competencies for addressing sexuality needs in future ministerial and educational settings. Seminarians will have the opportunity to examine their own sexual attitudes and histories; become knowledgeable about sexuality, including sexual behaviors, sexual response, sexual orientation, gender identity, and personal relationships; develop a commitment to gender and sexual justice; undertake periodic theological reflection on the integration of sexuality and spirituality; develop the skills to provide pastoral care, worship, and referrals on sexuality issues; and become versed in their sacred texts, their tradition's teachings and history, and denominational policies on sexuality issues.

THE CURRENT STUDY: PHASE I

In Phase I of the current exploratory study, descriptive research was conducted using an extensive survey based on the Criteria for a Sexually Healthy and Responsible Seminary. This survey evaluated the education and training in sexuality issues offered by seminaries. The results provide a current portrait of the state of sexuality education at leading seminaries and rabbinical schools in the United States.

PHASE I METHODS

Survey Instrument

A 120-question survey was developed to assess an institution's performance in areas outlined above in the Criteria for a Sexually Healthy and Responsible Seminary. To formally measure an institution's ability to meet the criteria, the survey was divided into three major areas: curricular, institutional environment, and advocacy. In each of these areas, subcategories were developed to assess topical areas related to sexuality studies, LGBT/queer studies, feminist/women's studies, and sexual abuse/violence studies (Heyward, 2003).

Curricular

Questions focused on institutional offerings of degrees, including majors, minors, and certificates, as well as course and learning opportunities, including full-semester courses, introductory courses, and credit and noncredit workshops.

Institutional Environment

Questions assessed whether institutions have inclusion, anti-discrimination, inclusive language, and sexual harassment policy statements, as well as how information regarding these policies is distributed; the demographics of faculty, staff, and students; worship service topics; and library holdings.

Advocacy

Questions addressed the degree of public involvement and commitment to issues of sexual justice by the president/dean and faculty, student organizations and groups, and events hosted or sponsored by the institution.

Participants

The term seminary is used in this study to describe Jewish, Christian, and Unitarian Universalist educational institutions dedicated to the training of clergy and religious professionals in these faith traditions. There are not equivalent Buddhist, Muslim, and Hindu institutions in the United States that are externally accredited. The participating seminaries were externally accredited by either the Association of Theological Schools (ATS) or the U.S. Department of Education.

Seminaries were chosen to participate in the survey based on the likelihood that they addressed sexuality issues to some degree. To begin, a list was developed of seminaries where there were faculty or leadership staff that had endorsed the Religious Institute's founding document (Religious Declaration on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing, 2000). To that initial list, the Religious Institute's advisory committee recommended additional institutions to provide geographic and religious diversity. In the end, 50 schools were identified as having at least some ongoing conversation regarding sexuality. Thirty-six U.S. seminaries completed the survey, a 72% response rate.

The institutions varied in size, with the majority enrolling between 151 and 500 total students. On average, they had a slightly higher enrollment than the profile of ATS accredited institutions in the United States.

The 36 seminaries represented a broad spectrum of denominational and institutional affiliations (Table 2). A range of Protestant and Jewish seminaries or rabbinical schools was included, as well as nondenominational and Unitarian Universalist institutions. The survey sample is generally reflective of the denominational affiliation of most ATS institutions. Jewish rabbinical schools are not members of ATS. One rabbinical school from each of the four major Jewish movements participated.

TABLE 2 Denominational Affiliation of Participating Seminaries with Percentage Representation in the Survey Sample and in ATS*

Denominational Affiliation (2006–2007)
	Survey
ATS	Sample	Religious Affiliation	Detailed Affiliation
57%	56% (20)	Protestant	Methodist (5), Presbyterian (4), Lutheran-ELCA (3), American Baptist, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, Church of Christ, Episcopal (2)
21%	25% (9)	Nondenominational
	11% (4)	Jewish	Orthodox (1), Reform (1), Conservative (1), and Reconstructionist (1)
∼1%	5% (2)	Unitarian Universalist Association
22%	3% (1)	Roman Catholic
*Jewish seminaries are not accredited by ATS.

Participants also represented a variety of institutional structures, from independent and free-standing to departments within larger universities. The majority (25, 69%) of participants were associated with other institutions in some capacity, such as university affiliation or a union of other theological schools. Ten schools (28%) were associated only with a union or association of schools, and 15 (42%) were associated directly with a university. In comparison, ATS reports 34% of its institutions are university- or college-affiliated. ATS does not report the number of its institutions that are affiliated with unions or associations of theological schools.

Each participating institution received an honorarium of $700 for participating in the survey as a token of appreciation. Half the stipend was paid upon receipt of a commitment form to participate and the other half after the full survey was completed. Each institution was also asked to select a lead person to take responsibility for completing the survey. The lead person served as the primary contact between the institution and the survey project director. Lead persons included administrative deans, staff, and faculty members. These individuals were coordinators for data collection with access to individuals and information which they were unable to answer personally.

The researchers were exempt from Institutional Review Board processes because the subject for this study was primarily public data collection. However, when content of the public data was sought (e.g., subjects covered in a specific course offering), subjects (e.g., individuals who will provide the data) were the administrators, faculty, staff, and students of the seminary. Access was gained through appropriate academic offices. All participation in this study was anonymous and voluntary when data were not already public knowledge, such as instructors of courses or worship service content. Participants were reminded about the anonymity and voluntary nature of the study when contacted.

Procedure

The survey focused primarily on the 2006–2007 academic year, but courses offered within a three-year period were permissible to include in order to providing a broader portrait of the participating institutions. Not every institution answered all 120 questions, as some questions depended on a positive answer to a previous question.

The survey was formatted through the online survey site Zoomerang.com. The Zoomerang tool provided a unique Internet address for the study, so that each school was able to enter its information directly. Each institution had to collect the data in advance of completing the online form.

Data Collection Challenges

Although the institutions surveyed are all seminaries that offer graduate-level training to religious professionals and clergy, there were many variations in institutional language, categorization, and even teaching structure. Questions needed to be sufficiently broad to address this diversity.

In addition, the length of the survey required diligence on the part of the lead person. Its depth and breadth often required consulting various institutional people and groups in order to confirm answers. Many of the survey coordinators described the survey as labor intensive. However, many also expressed interest in its results and said they had learned much about their own institution's commitment to sexuality issues from participating.

PHASE I RESULTS

Full results and figures of the results of Phase I can be found in a previous publication by this author (Ott, 2009). A summary of the results is provided below.

Phase I found that almost all future clergy and other religious professionals could graduate without taking a single sexuality course (Table 3). More than 9 in 10 of the seminaries surveyed did not require full-semester sexuality issues for religious professionals (35, 97%) or LGBT (34, 94%) courses for graduation. Only one seminary required a course in sexuality issues for religious professionals, and only two required an LGBT/queer studies course.

TABLE 3 Full Semester Course Offerings for Participating Institutions

Full Semester Courses
		Require	Offered at	Course
	Total	Course for	Least Once	Offered as
	Institutions	Graduation	a Year	an Elective
Women/Feminist Studies	31 (86%)	6 (17%)	11 (31%)	25 (69%)
Sexual Ethics	20 (58%)	6 (17%)	6 (17%)	11 (31%)
Sexual Abuse and Domestic Violence	12 (33%)	3 (8%)	3 (8%)	9 (25%)
Sexuality Issues for Religious Professionals	12 (33%)	1 (3%)	3 (8%)	10 (28%)
LGBT/Queer Studies	10 (28%)	2 (6%)	3 (8%)	7 (19%)

Moreover, courses focusing on sexuality-related issues were often absent from seminary curricula. Most of the seminaries in the survey did not offer full-semester sexuality-related courses. Two-thirds did not have a course in sexuality issues for religious professionals (24, 67%). Three-quarters did not have an LGBT/queer studies course (26, 72%). Where courses existed, fewer than 1 in 10 of the seminaries offered them every semester or every year (3, 8%). Only one in six seminaries required a sexual ethics course (6, 17%).

Women and feminist studies courses were covered much more often than any other sexuality area. The seminaries surveyed were teaching three times as many full-semester courses in women/feminist studies (31, 86%) as they were in sexuality issues for religious professionals (12, 33%) or LGBT/queer studies (10, 28%). They offered almost three times as many majors, minors, and certificates in women and feminist studies (13 of the 24 that allowed specialization in nontraditional areas, 54%) as in sexuality (4, 17%) or LGBT/queer studies (4, 17%). On average, introductory courses covered gender (67%) and women in religion (70%) more consistently than sexuality (49%) or LGBT/queer topics (41%). Sexuality and LGBT/queer topics were covered more frequently in field education and pastoral studies courses than other academic areas such as biblical studies, theology, ethics, and history.

Junior faculty members were not teaching sexuality-related courses. Curricular offerings in sexuality were faculty driven; that is, the availability of courses depended on faculty members being willing to offer them. Most full-semester sexuality-related courses were being taught either by faculty at the senior professor level or by adjunct professors and lecturers (76 courses of 85, 89%). Junior-level professors seeking tenure-track positions were generally not teaching sexuality-related courses.

Two-thirds of the seminaries surveyed had fewer than 40% women serving in faculty (22, 61%), administrative (23, 66%), or board of trustee positions (26, 72%). More than half of the seminaries (20, 56%) did not have policies for full inclusion of women. Half did not have policies for full inclusion of gay and lesbian persons (18, 50%). Almost two-thirds did not have full inclusion policies for transgender persons (22, 61%). Full inclusion in this context denotes the full inclusion of women, sexual, and gender minorities in congregational and educational life, including ordination and the blessing of same-sex unions. Inclusion policies are voluntary measures to encourage and welcome diversity in an institution.

Despite these shortfalls, the survey revealed areas where progress had been made. For example, 8 in 10 of the institutions surveyed offered learning opportunities such as classes or workshops in sexual harassment prevention (30, 81%). More than two-thirds required instruction in sexual harassment prevention for all ministry students (26, 72%), and more than one-third required it of all students (14, 39%). More than 9 in 10 had sexual harassment policies for faculty, staff, and student relationships (35, 97%).

Twenty-five percent of seminaries (9 seminaries) had free-standing centers or programs dedicated to a sexuality-related issue. The existence of the centers resulted in increased course offerings, workshops, and learning opportunities in sexuality-related topics; faculty positions with a specialization in sexuality-related research; and often greater advocacy on sexuality-related issues.

Three out of four schools reported that faculty members or senior administrative staff had published or been featured in the media addressing a sexual justice issue in the two years prior (27, 75%). LGBT issues were the most likely topics addressed (14, 52%).

Students were also creating their own opportunities for sexuality-related noncurricular experiences. Students were able to participate in events on sexual and reproductive justice at two-thirds of the seminaries (25, 69%) in the two years prior, and many of the seminaries offered sexuality-related worship in the year prior (21, 58%) and student advocacy or support groups (29, 81%). Worship opportunities and student advocacy groups were the only categories where LGBT/queer issues were addressed equally to women and feminist studies topics.

Sexuality issues were often addressed within a framework of intersecting social justice issues, such as economics, environmental, racial/ethnic diversity, and disability issues. The majority of faculty teaching sexuality issues for religious professionals or LGBT/queer studies courses, and all of the sexuality-related centers, addressed sexuality from racial, ethnic, and cross-cultural perspectives.

Institutional profiles were developed for each seminary based on how fully they met the criteria for a sexually healthy and responsible seminary. The profiles suggest that even the most committed seminaries could be doing more to prepare their students and promote the sexual well-being of their institutions.

BEST PRACTICES

This portrait of what the seminaries are doing—and not doing—demonstrates a clear need for improvement on sexuality-related issues across the curriculum, the institutional environment, and seminary faculty and leadership. In an analysis of the findings, 10 seminaries stood out, meeting two-thirds of the Criteria for a Sexually Healthy and Responsible Seminary: Andover Newton Theological School, Candler School of Theology, Chicago Theological Seminary, Claremont School of Theology, Drew Theological School, Episcopal Divinity School, Harvard Divinity School, Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, Vanderbilt University Divinity School, and Wake Forest University Divinity School. While even these institutions can improve in quality and scope, they offer models of seminaries that have made an institutional commitment to curricular offerings, policies, gender parity, and advocacy on sexuality-related issues. No one institution met all the criteria, thus each of the seminaries studied showed room for improvement in adequately addressing sexuality-related needs.

When broken down by type of criteria—curricular, policy, demographic, and advocacy—trends are visible in what seminaries are doing and where improvements could be made. Figure 1 presents the percentage of seminaries meeting the individual criteria. Overall, current policies on sexual harassment, anti-discrimination, and offerings for sexual harassment prevention are supported by the vast majority of seminaries. Student bodies reflect gender parity, and many seminaries engage in advocacy on sexuality-related issues. Yet most institutions need to improve in the area of course offerings, inclusion policies, worship opportunities, and gender parity of faculty, administration, and board of trustees composition (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1 Percentage of Seminaries Meeting the Itemized Criteria for a Sexually Healthy and Responsible Seminary

PHASE I DISCUSSION

There can be no question that clergy should be sexually healthy religious professionals who possess the skills to address the sexuality needs of their congregants and maintain healthy ethical boundaries. Yet as Phase I demonstrates, most seminaries are not providing their students with the opportunities to assess their own attitudes about sexuality or develop the skills they will need in ministry. This is due, in part, to the fact that ATS does not require that seminaries integrate sexuality education into ministerial formation. ATS standards need to explicitly articulate how sexuality-related issues are present in each of four areas: “knowledge of the religious heritage; understanding of the cultural context; growth in spiritual depth and moral integrity; and capacity for ministerial and public leadership” (Degree Program Standards, 2006).

The other force shaping seminary education is the need to provide courses that meet denominational ordination requirements for ministry candidates. Most denominations currently do not require their candidates for ministry to develop competencies in sexual health and education beyond sexual harassment prevention. During preparation for ordination, candidates across all denominations should be required to complete courses or workshops on sexual health, education, and counseling (Haffner, 2002). For example, in December 2009, the Unitarian Universalist Association voted to adopt a sexuality-related competency for all ministerial candidates beginning in 2010 (Unitarian Universalist Seminarians to be Trained in Sexuality Issues and Ethics, 2010). Denominational bodies can use their existing education offices to develop specific curricula in conjunction with seminaries in order to provide learning opportunities.

In addition to these changes at the accreditation and denominational levels, seminaries must not only offer but also require the coursework that religious professionals will need to address the sexuality-related issues that arise in ministry. These issues include counseling married/partnered couples, dealing with attraction to and from congregants, sexual abuse prevention policies, and lifespan sexuality education. This coursework might include a combination of full-semester courses, coverage of sexuality issues in introductory and core courses, and credit and noncredit workshops. These educational opportunities must be regularly scheduled and built into degree requirements. A sexually healthy and responsible seminary will require at least one course on sexuality for graduation, a requirement at only one of the 36 seminaries studied.

Seminaries also must assure a supportive environment for sexuality-related issues. Seminaries must have anti-discrimination, sexual harassment, and full inclusion policies that reflect sexual and gender diversities. It was a welcome surprise that almost 9 out of 10 seminaries surveyed have anti-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation, and half have such policies for transgender students, staff, and faculty. All seminaries, unless prohibited by their faith traditions, should implement such policies. In addition, seminaries must provide opportunities for worship and advocacy that reflect the diversity of sexuality issues students will encounter in their ministries.

Furthermore, seminaries must address gender equity in their faculties, staffs, and boards of trustees. Although most of the schools report increasing numbers of women students (and in some seminaries, women now constitute more than half of the student population), there is an unyielding stained glass ceiling in leadership. Equal representation in academic leadership continues to be a problem in academic institutions; at the national level, women make up only 23% of college and university presidents (King & Gomez, 2007). Women represent only 19% of the presidents and 42% of the deans in the seminaries studied. Even more surprisingly, only 28% of the seminaries have boards of trustees with at least 40% women in leadership. This continued male dominance in leadership, especially on the governing boards, does not reflect the change in student composition in the past 20 years and could easily be addressed through recruitment and identification of qualified women.

Too often, faculty members who teach sexuality or LGBT courses, such as Queering Jewish Studies and Christian Sexual Ethics, report feeling isolated in their own seminaries. To improve their effectiveness in training future religious professionals, faculty members who offer courses on sexuality-related issues need ongoing development opportunities and supportive networks for resource sharing. These resources should be made available to doctoral students as well. The Religious Institute released an online forum for faculty and religious professionals in March 2010 to address this need (Religious Institute Forum, 2010). Continuing education also is necessary to help fill the gaps in preparation and training for those currently serving in ministerial roles. Seminaries might consider continuing education for alumni at reunions or satellite events and on-campus workshops open to religious professionals in the community.

Given the financial constraints at many institutions, no seminary can be expected to do all of this on its own (Seminary Distress, 2008). In order to invest in the sexual health of seminary students and their future congregations, there need to be resource-rich partnerships. These partnerships would allow for jointly developed courses, workshops, and other educational events. A number of centers now provide resources that complement and reinforce what individual seminaries can offer, including regional events, worship materials, bibliographies, and trainings. Seminaries should explore additional opportunities for collaboration.

Seminaries, denominational offices, and accrediting bodies all can benefit from advocacy and educational organizations that provide faith-based resources and trainings as well as ongoing support for students as they move into professional ministry careers.

THE PILOT SEMINARY PROJECT: PHASE II

Following Phase I of the current study, a plan of action was developed to address the various problems identified with sexuality education in seminaries. This plan of action addressed denominational ministerial formation requirements, regional seminary coordination, faculty training and support, and sexuality training for seminarians and clergy. It also created a pilot project for several institutions to work toward becoming sexually healthy and responsible seminaries. In this section, this pilot project is highlighted as Phase II of the current study.

PHASE II METHODS

The Religious Institute selected and invited three institutions as pilot seminaries to test whether intensive technical assistance and training with a minimal commitment of funds would influence how the seminary addressed sexuality issues. The three pilot seminaries—Brite Divinity School, Jewish Theological Seminary, and Yale Divinity School—committed to meeting two-thirds of the Sexually Healthy and Responsible Seminary criteria by spring 2011.

Participants

Institutions were chosen based on their participation in the initial survey as well as on diversity of geographic location, religious, and institutional affiliation. Deans at each seminary were contacted by Religious Institute staff with an initial invitation to participate, contingent on the agreement that the seminary would make the requisite changes needed to meet at least two-thirds of the criteria. Each seminary undertook internal discussion and voted on their participation (including, in some cases, faculty and/or board approval).

Yale Divinity School, based in Connecticut, is a nondenominational, university-affiliated theological school. Brite Divinity School, based in Texas, is a denominationally based Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) seminary with an affiliation to Texas Christian University. Jewish Theological Seminary, based in New York City, is a rabbinical school of the Conservative Jewish movement and has no external university affiliation. In Phase I of the current study, all three institutions demonstrated shortcomings in curricular offerings, inclusion policies, and institutional environment and leadership.

Compensation

The Religious Institute provided the participating institutions with $5,000 subgrants for each of the two years of participation. Payment of the subgrants was made in September of each academic year, for a total of $10,000. Subgrants were to be used at the discretion of the participating institutions to further their ability to meet the Criteria for a Sexually Healthy and Responsible Seminary.

Procedure

The participating institutions communicated with all relevant administrators, faculty, and students about participation in the Phase II pilot study, facilitated introductions to Religious Institute staff, and appointed a committee to handle primary communication. The participating institutions also worked in collaboration with the Religious Institute to review their initial 2006–2007 survey submissions and develop an update based on the 2008–2009 academic year.

Participating institutions then developed and implemented a plan of action, drawing upon the survey update and the Religious Institute's recommendations, in order to meet and sustain at least two-thirds of the Criteria for a Sexually Healthy and Responsible Seminary. The participating institutions will conduct a final evaluation of progress toward implementation of the plan and recommendations in fall 2010.

In order to assist in completion of the 2008–2009 academic year survey update and provide well-grounded review, Religious Institute staff conducted initial site visits with the president/dean, key faculty, and student groups of the participating institutions.

Based on the review and collection of new data, the Religious Institute developed recommendations to assist the participating institutions in creating a plan of action to meet at least two-thirds of the Criteria for a Sexually Healthy and Responsible Seminary by May 2011.

The Religious Institute then conducted at least three site visits to monitor progress on the plan of action, in addition to online, phone, and in-person technical assistance. Religious Institute staff also facilitated faculty and administrator meetings on participation in the pilot project and the importance of attention to sexuality related-issues across the curriculum and institutional environment; provided assistance with policy revision through current institutional channels when necessary; and conducted workshops and trainings to student groups as requested.

At the conclusion of the pilot project, the Religious Institute will provide each participating institution with a written review of the original action plan and achievements to-date.

PHASE II NEXT STEPS

As of May 2010, each pilot site has committed to significant campus-wide changes. The three institutions are working to adopt and/or update inclusion policy statements. These changes relate to the inclusion of sex, gender, and sexual orientation in their anti-discrimination and inclusion policies.

Positive changes will be made to curricular offerings at these institutions. These may include developing a full-semester course on sexuality issues or requiring at least one sexuality-related course prior to graduation. Also, institutions will be creating or updating ministerial misconduct workshops and sexuality-training opportunities. Moreover, one institution will make this sexuality-training opportunity a requirement for all field education ministry sites.

Since the beginning of Phase II, these institutions have also engaged in more institutional advocacy on sexuality issues. All institutions have implemented extra-curricular workshops and trainings for faculty and staff. Other activities include a school-wide sexuality awareness day and lectures on inclusive language.

PHASE II DISCUSSION

The pilot seminary project has begun to result in significant institutional changes through on-site education and skilled consultation with knowledgeable staff. This model suggests that, given the appropriate resources and attention, most seminaries can achieve at least two-thirds of the Criteria for a Sexually Healthy and Responsible Seminary.

In addition to the three pilot seminaries, Religious Institute staff have consulted with four other seminaries and provided minimal consultation and review time. At least two of those institutions have made or will make changes that will enable them to achieve at least two-thirds of the criteria. These two institutions had already met more than 50% of the criteria prior to engaging the Religious Institute for further assistance.

By the end of the study's grant period, the percentage of leading Sexually Healthy and Responsible Seminaries will have grown 50%. This is due in part to the pilot study program, which has elicited an open acceptance and clear desire by well-known seminaries to make progress toward becoming sexually healthy and responsible institutions.

In addition to the pilot seminary program, during Phase II of the current study the Religious Institute staff has also worked directly with eight denominations to raise awareness and advocate for change in ordination requirements. Two denominations have already developed and implemented standardized sexuality-related competencies for ordination candidates. Collaboration with these denominations and with interested seminaries may result in an online sexuality issues for religious professionals course that provides basic training in the skills all candidates for ordained ministry will require.

The Religious Institute also has received independent requests from seminaries to provide training and evaluation. Two denominations and three seminaries are seeking to collaborate with the Religious Institute on the development of online learning tools to maximize such training. Furthermore, denominational committees have asked for assistance in creating policy change and implementing those changes.

CLOSING WORDS

Seminaries nurture, educate, and train future generations of clergy and religious professionals. Theological education cannot afford to neglect sexuality education and training for religious professionals and clergy. At a time when virtually every major religious movement is wrestling with issues of gender inequity, teen sexuality, and the rights of LGBT persons, many denominations have no requirement for sexuality education and training for their future clergy. In an age when sexuality permeates popular culture, and reproductive choice, sex education, and marriage equality headline the nation's political discourse, seminaries are neither prioritizing sexuality-related courses nor integrating sexuality training within ministerial formation. In a profession that finds individuals and couples, families and communities turning to them for guidance and counseling, substantial numbers of religious professionals report that their seminary training did not prepare them to address the diverse sexuality issues that arise in ministry. Many partners are needed to bridge the gap between sexuality training and seminary education. Collaboration among seminaries, denomination offices, accrediting bodies, and education and advocacy groups is necessary to assure that every theological institution is a sexually healthy and responsible one.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by an anonymous grant awarded to the Religious Institute and Union Theological Seminary. We thank Rev. Debra W. Haffner, Timothy Palmer, and Kayla M. Parker for their assistance in this study and manuscript.