Let's talk about training — specifically "formal training" — by which is usually meant university or theological training.

Before we start, let's make it clear that I earn my living by designing training for adults, so I have more than a little experience in the subject. I'm not opposed to training; it's good for many things, but it's also not so good for some things.

It's good for transmitting facts and procedures — the who, what, where, when, why, and how. And it's good for teaching us how to think.

Although the caveat on that is that the "how to think" is actually "how we the trainer think you should think". So what any certification process is really doing is testing you on how well you think like how the certifier thinks you should.

Does anyone see the potential control dynamic in that? To be fair many teachers are sincere in their desire to teach their subject, but unfortunately they frequently don't have the final say about what or how they will teach. Many training institutes are themselves subject to a certification process.

Back in the 70's schools tried an experiment in teaching young people to actually think. It was eventually shut down when it resulted in a whole lot of awkward questions and even more awkward silences from those in charge.

What formal training is not so good for is all those things that fall under what I call the squishiologies or more properly the soft sciences and arts. These are about the ways and whys of human thought and emotion.

Training can't make you honest, sincere, passionate, committed, awestruck, appreciative, or creative. It can't give you a vocation or calling. It can't make you ethical, empathetic or compassionate. These are human feelings and emotions that are difficult to quantify and measure.

A really good teacher can lead you to these, but it's up to you to actually experience them. And that's based on his/her personal experience and not the training content. They can't give you their experience; all they can do is lead you to a place where you may have a similar experience, and try to help you interpret that experience.

Religion is one of those squishiologies. Universities and seminaries will give you the facts and processes, and teach you all about how to run a religion. What they won't give you is those things that make us human; that make for a good religious leader. Every year these institutions crank out religious leaders who are well informed, but perhaps not so oddly enough aren't… very… religious.