|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Tertiary qualifications for ministry
|
RainbowGirl
Apprentice
# 18543
|
Posted
During a bible study last week one of the parishioners got quite up in arms about what he perceived as unfair selection criteria for priesthood. Specifically the requirement that priests be capable of completing a university level of theological degree. He felt that this unfairly excluded a range of people who were either not capable of completing such a rigorous course of study, or had not had the opportunity to complete the schooling needed for admission to such a course of study.
My first reaction was well, yes of course we want priests who are educated, but then again... priests are not necessarily called to be teachers.
I was just curious what the ship thought about it? Not sure if it impacts the response but the parish in question is a moderately evangelical Anglican parish.
Posts: 32 | From: Australia | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Well, whatever else you say about it (and there's an awful lot starting with the narrow outlook it leaves) a Moore College degree is academically rigourous. Over 4 years full-time study there is a solid grounding in NT Greek, detailed study of at least 2 Gospels and several Epistles for a start, all taught at a high level.
I am not sure of the need for NT Greek, but we want good scholars, those who can guide and lead us in our faith journeys. Yes, they need to be pastoral (I'm not sure how that skill can really be taught) but that's not all, any more than the academic grounding is all either.
[ 16. September 2016, 07:46: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
There is a lot of content at Moore, I'll grant you that and yes, 3 or 4 years of Greek is good but I wouldn't agree that MTC is 'academically rigorous", not at all.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
This has been a long-standing tension in ministerial formation. C.H. Spurgeon the Baptist, when he started his "Pastor's College", was much more interested in spirituality and enthusiasm than formal entrance qualifications; he trained his pastors practically rather than academically. The tension still exists in the College today, so it offers courses ranging from simple "in service" ones for lay people, to evangelists' diplomas, right up to doctoral studies.
By the way, I can't see the point of dong NT Greek unless you study it to a high enough level t understand the nuances and subtleties of the text. Most of us (IME) never get anywhere near!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
An educated clergy is a valuable thing, not to be discarded lightly. But in these days of ministry teams and mission areas, we might think about whether there are different types of priestly roles for which different educational levels might be required. I'd have thought that at an absolute minimum, in a small church with no full time 'traditional' priest of its own, you need someone who can celebrate Holy Communion - for which AFAICS no particular education is necessarily required- and read a sermon (and I say 'read' rather than compose advisedly: a modern version of the Book of Homilies could be a very useful resource) for which no more than the ability to read, intelligently and with understanding, is necessary. A rather different education would be required for clergy in other roles. I see no reason why these types of clergy could not co-exist, and it makes me cross to hear church authorities bleating about needing to make do with fewer clergy, when what they really mean is fewer clergy with a traditional formation and function. IME many congregations could, if required, identify from among themselves someone who was perfectly capable of performing the basic priestly functions that I've mentioned, as an ordained, local, non-stipendiary minister. the role need be no more demanding than any of the lay roles which people do take on, and certainly no more demanding- perhaps in some ways less demanding of time and some types of skill- than being a churchwarden.
[ 16. September 2016, 08:39: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
Spending part of your formative years in circles in which educated clergy were the exception rather than the norm is a good way of giving you an appreciation of educated clergy.
That said, ISTM that the model of many seminaries was set in the 18th/19th century where they expected to take in people of a wide range of educational abilities and set them up with enough Greek and Hebrew (and a general theological framework) to continue to resource themselves in the absence of many opportunities for education from outside afterwards.
So perhaps this model can be changed slightly; otoh I can see a case for having a majority of clergy having some knowledge of Greek/Hebrew - even if it's somewhat rudimentary - if only to serve as a check and balance of sorts.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Ten years ago I'd have been all for having priests who might not fulfill the academic criteria of the modern theological college course; however, now I'd urge caution and have come to see that we ditch it at our peril. The change of mind has come about thanks to someone who remained a deacon for a number of years because they couldn't make their way through the academic route, either studying full-time or part-time. Eventually a diocesan decided to ordain then anyway and put them in a parish on their own.
The 10+ years of waiting to be priested seems to have given this individual nothing other than a massive chip on their shoulder; the standard of preaching is dire and most sermons have in them something along the lines of "the church ignores people who are touched by the spirit but aren't clever enough for the middle-class hierarchy" (they have a class chip too).
If that were the only problem maybe something could be done, but unfortunately they also seem to have little idea about the importance of either performing liturgy well, or of including in it certain elements which most of us would view as essential: I've been at a communion service where there was no NT reading, no creed, no absolution.
Not only does this sort of thing underline that decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, but also that there are certain rules that must be made clear to would-be priests.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
RainbowGirl
Apprentice
# 18543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Well, whatever else you say about it (and there's an awful lot starting with the narrow outlook it leaves) a Moore College degree is academically rigourous. Over 4 years full-time study there is a solid grounding in NT Greek, detailed study of at least 2 Gospels and several Epistles for a start, all taught at a high level.
I am not sure of the need for NT Greek, but we want good scholars, those who can guide and lead us in our faith journeys. Yes, they need to be pastoral (I'm not sure how that skill can really be taught) but that's not all, any more than the academic grounding is all either.
Not sure if it changes anything but the education this guy was talking about wasn't a Moore College education, think more Trinity College Theological School/St Francis Theological College. The parish is moderately evangelical, the diocese in which its situated is very much not (I moved a few months ago out of the evangelical diocese I was in). The clergy joke a lot about being taught to chase their tails during their studies via circular/high level philosophical thinking.
Here even the non-stipendiary ordained local ministers are required to have studied at least a 12 month tertiary theological qualification.
Posts: 32 | From: Australia | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
The thing is, none of this academic theological education seems to go anywhere.
The best sermons I've heard recently tend to be heartfelt, full of practical wisdom, but void of any theological content. The worst include borderline antinomianism and the claim that 'we can know that the story of the Exodus is reliable because it was written by Moses and is therefore eyewitness testimony', which makes me think the clergyman in question spent seminary with his fingers in his ears lest he heard anything that distressed him.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm another in favor of more rather than less. (And my denom requires quaternary qualifications, if that's a word!)
The problems with just turning people loose on the church are these:
You get pastors who haven't a clue how to counsel effectively or (more important) when to hand someone off to a psychiatrist, social worker, doctor, etc. etc. etc. They do a lot of damage.
You get pastors who are and sound ignorant of basic things their parishioners mostly understand, and as a result, they lose the respect of the congregation--particularly if they are fool enough to spout off on those subjects anyway.
You get pastors who can't "give a reason for the hope that is in you" in any coherent way, which means that preaching and evangelism suffer.
You get pastors who haven't the first idea how to do apologetics--meaning that people suffering in doubt remain in doubt, or have it increased, even on subjects where the church has had strong, viable answers for two thousand years already (but the pastor isn't acquainted with them). This is one place where even elementary Greek or Hebrew comes in handy, as a lot of doubt is based on ignorance--like the woman who insisted to me that the center notes in her King James Bible were inspired of God.
Tertiary and quaternary education often (not always) beget humility, which is what you want in a pastor. Not someone who can never say "I don't know" and whose little learning is definitely a dangerous thing, both to pastor and to people.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
I do hope this post does not cause the ruffle of a feather or two, but I'm just mentioning it as the discussion sounds, as always, interesting.
If I may refer to my topic a while ago on what theologians know about god, i.e. the Christian God, my point of view is that there is a very basic flaw in the problem of whether a priest is highly educated or not. They, and Theologians, do not actually know anything about God. They believe they know a whole lot of things, but that is different from knowing actual facts.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I do hope this post does not cause the ruffle of a feather or two, but I'm just mentioning it as the discussion sounds, as always, interesting.
If I may refer to my topic a while ago on what theologians know about god, i.e. the Christian God, my point of view is that there is a very basic flaw in the problem of whether a priest is highly educated or not. They, and Theologians, do not actually know anything about God. They believe they know a whole lot of things, but that is different from knowing actual facts.
Even if I accepted the principle underlying your argument it would still be wrong. Rev'd Dr. Rowan Williams is better educated than Pastor Elmer T. Hicksville, who boasts that he has never read any book other than the Good Book. The fact, or rather the contention, that they are both mistaken is neither here nor there. You are confusing being educated with being right.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Many lay people are better educated than their clergy as it is.
Well, yes, in a general way and sometimes in theology etc too. But it's a question of education for a specific filed, surely? In general I'd say I was probably better educated than my plumber and I could imagine being better educated than my GP- but not in plumbing or in medicine, and when the pipes flood or I get an attack of something nasty, that's what counts!
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I do hope this post does not cause the ruffle of a feather or two, but I'm just mentioning it as the discussion sounds, as always, interesting.
If I may refer to my topic a while ago on what theologians know about god, i.e. the Christian God, my point of view is that there is a very basic flaw in the problem of whether a priest is highly educated or not. They, and Theologians, do not actually know anything about God. They believe they know a whole lot of things, but that is different from knowing actual facts.
But education is more than simply the accumulation of facts. My undergraduate background was political philosophy, how exactly do we "know" what the perfect society is, or what constitutes the legitimacy of government?
My suspicion of the critique of theology as an academic discipline is that it winds up as a rejection of any education that is not tied to the hard sciences. In which case, not only theology, but philosophy, literature, art, psycho-analysis, goes out.
[ 16. September 2016, 14:41: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
To answer RainbowGirl's original post, it matters how you envision the role of ordained ministry. If you simply see the minister's role as simply reading things from a Missal on Sunday morning, and not much anything else, then all the minister needs is to know how to read.
If however, you want a sermon, then the minister needs to be knowledgeable in Biblical exegesis and also rhetoric. And of course, if you envision the minister to be a pastor, it would do well that he or she has some basic education in counselling.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
We're seeing the trend of "locally raised up" Anglican clergy, and training of a sorts, non-university. It troubles me due to lack of breadth in understanding, both of approaches to faith, and approaches to people.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Formation for ministry must be rigorous if priests are to be able to function as leaders, teachers, administrators and pastoral workers responsible for the oversight of ministerial teams and for the outreach of the church into the community.
To learn about the history and traditions of the church, the books of the Bible, their interpretations, the influential theological thinking over the last two thousand years, along with the symbolism and importance of liturgy and its uses, buildings, music etc is surely of vital importance in such a role.
Is the calling of a priest one which should necessarily catapult an individual into this man-made role? Where should the lay/ordained line lie? I will be interested to read on in this discussion.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RainbowGirl:
During a bible study last week one of the parishioners got quite up in arms about what he perceived as unfair selection criteria for priesthood. Specifically the requirement that priests be capable of completing a university level of theological degree.
I suppose my basic thought is that the parishioner is incorrect.
The Quality of Mind (scroll down) criteria for selection for training for ordained ministry are much more generally stated than that. In reality a person needs to be able to operate at a higher education level, but people can be ordained with a Higher Education Certificate or Diploma (Cert HE or Dip HE).
While some argue that a lesser level of qualification would be sufficient for someone to preside at the eucharist, the Church of England has remained committed to the idea that in principle, someone who administers the sacrament ought also to be an adequate minister of the word.
[ 16. September 2016, 16:29: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
In my kind of Church tradition, we don't have 'priests' in the sense some churches do, as people set aside from the laity to do quasi-magical things. And we don't necessarily have just a single 'minister' as we are more likely to call him/her, often we have groups of elders. In such a case we may value education especially in those whose primary job will be teaching; but we also value other qualities which are not necessarily accompanied by academic brilliance.
Aspies like me are rather aware of the fact that it is rare to find people who are simultaneously academically good AND also good counsellors and pastors in matters like marriage guidance etc. Interestingly even the role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons recognises that by having Character qualities of 'Intelligence' and 'Wisdom' as separate concepts.
So - 'elders' (and probably in multiple) rather than what is usually implied by the word 'priests', and in that plural leadership recognition of qualities other than academic brilliance.
(A tangent, but reading all the relevant texts suggests that a 'bishop/episkopos' is in NT terms not a superior grade of clergy but simply another word for the 'elder/presbyter' office)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
It is more desirable that a minister be educated than not. That's pretty simple.
A person can evangelize without having a formal theological education. But such a person need not be in orders. It would, however, be a grave mistake to lay hands on someone who couldn't tell the difference between orthodox Christology and Arianism, or who was unclear on what the Church teaches about the Eucharist, or who was completely innocent of moral theology.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
I suspect that there is an issue relating to whether central boards/burocracies approve ministers and control their appointment, e.g. CoE, RCC, in which case they will feel responsibility (and the need for CYA) and so have a list of objective qualifications.
In your Bappy or Congo church this doesn't happen so if a congregation just recognises that someone is right for the ministry, they are the only ones who will be affected if the decision is wrong, so they're more prepared to be informal.
Like the difference between registered and alternative medicine.
As a PS I strongly agree that the study of NT greek is usually somewhere between a waste of time and positively harmful. The number of muppets I've heard going on about "the original"!
I've studied Greek - up to a point - but it adds nothing really. I just did it to argue with JWs.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rowen
Shipmate
# 1194
|
Posted
The Uniting Church in Australia requires Uni education before one enters seminary... To have seen some of the world and begun to understand why... To explore the differences between the different helping professions especially those with similarity to ministry.... To understand research methods.... To choose subjects one might not study in a theological degree - philosophy, history of one's country, sociology and the like.... To have a doorway into another career, should the worst happen, and one leaves ministry for some reason....
Then you go to theological college, for all the good reasons mentioned by others.
Does this work? Very often, yes..... I am a minister, first and foremost, but my social work degree and some years of practice are valuable to what I do.
--------------------
"May I live this day… compassionate of heart" (John O’Donoghue)...
Posts: 4897 | From: Somewhere cold in Victoria, Australia | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I suspect that there is an issue relating to whether central boards/burocracies approve ministers and control their appointment ...
In your Bappy or Congo church this doesn't happen so if a congregation just recognises that someone is right for the ministry.
Yes, but of course the Baptist and Congregational denominations do have an accreditation process for ordained ministers ... not that a church has to have one, of course!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm another in favor of more rather than less. (And my denom requires quaternary qualifications, if that's a word!)
The problems with just turning people loose on the church are these:
You get pastors who haven't a clue how to counsel effectively or (more important) when to hand someone off to a psychiatrist, social worker, doctor, etc. etc. etc. They do a lot of damage.
You get pastors who are and sound ignorant of basic things their parishioners mostly understand, and as a result, they lose the respect of the congregation--particularly if they are fool enough to spout off on those subjects anyway.
You get pastors who can't "give a reason for the hope that is in you" in any coherent way, which means that preaching and evangelism suffer.
And LC's post continues to give more examples. You get her drift, and it's correct. So is what Raptor Eye says.
Trying not to breach any confidences, in the last decade I had occasion in my professional life to look at various forms of Anglican training. Moore College was the most rigorous in Australia, with Trinity College in Melbourne not far behind. Then came Ridley, also in Melbourne - Trinity is liberal catholic, Ridley open evangelical - followed by St Marks Canberra and finally the others rather further down. My investigation also included England but not elsewhere in the Communion. It's fair to say that none of the English training I had to look at came anywhere near Moore, Trinity or Ridley. Very few had detailed examination of any Gospel or Epistle, some had none at all. Church history was glossed over and the great ecumenical councils barely mentioned.
If you're looking for priests/pastors/ministers with the sorts of qualities LC, Raptor Eye and others have referred to, you need detailed training across biblical and theological studies, counselling, basic administration and a range of other matters. Otherwise you're going to end up with people like that young fellow the subject of his own thread on not kissing before marriage - after having a congregation for a decade, he's at last seen that he needs to study and has decided to go to what he calls a seminary. Better late than ever, perhaps, but who knows what damage he's caused up to now.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RainbowGirl:
During a bible study last week one of the parishioners got quite up in arms about what he perceived as unfair selection criteria for priesthood. Specifically the requirement that priests be capable of completing a university level of theological degree.
I'm surprised at the parishoner's comment. Was he originally from a different denomination? Mainstream historical denominations preserve their status partly because they expect high educational standards of their clergy, and you would imagine that their congregations realised this.
In an era when newer Christian groups are challenging, and in some countries have already overtaken, the historical denominations in numerical terms you could argue that academic achievement among the clergy in the latter category should become even more, not less important. Ever better quality training for the clergy is one way for the mainstream to continue to distinguish itself - especially as the newer groups are themselves increasingly expecting their clergy to receive some sort of theological education.
Now, whether the education they all get is adequate is another matter. The criteria by which we're expected to judge that question are rather vague.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
In any other profession we expect top qualifications so that we get the best service. I can't see why ministry would be any different. When untrained people set thmselves up in ad hoc arrangements problems usually arise.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Then there is the concept of universal priesthood of all believers. It is a Hebrews concept.
Basic Lutheran Confessions would say that a person can become a pastor if he or she is duly called by a congregation. Says nothing about academic qualifications.
Academic qualifications did not become all that important that important until after WWII and the military chaplaincy wanted Masters level people as chaplain.
Now that there is getting to be a shortage of seminary trained ministers in the US we are looking at other ways of ordaining people based on their life experience and also minimal theological training.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Now that there is getting to be a shortage of seminary trained ministers in the US we are looking at other ways of ordaining people based on their life experience and also minimal theological training.
Some people are academic scholars. Some are good at counseling troubled people. Some are good at encouraging people to find and develop their talents. Or many other things, all valuable. Big mistake, I think, to pretend only academic scholars can lead a church; more likely those should be specialist consultants the way computer tech people are consultants, not usually running an organization. Different set of skills.
We need some Greek scholars but more often we need street smart people who can help people help each other see God in daily life. That's not an academic skill set.
I've been intrigued how many seminarians these days don't learn any Greek, and many others are aware they don't learn enough Greek to be useful except superficially.
A book I read said Methodist seminarians typically don't study Greek at all. I don't think they are noted for being crackpots s a result! Don't confuse academics with knowledge, it's a narrow and stylized kind of knowledge.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leftfieldlover
Shipmate
# 13467
|
Posted
The priest at the church I have recently moved on from after more than 30 years (see other posts!)has a massive chip on his shoulder! It took several attempts for him to be accepted for ordination training and then he took a diploma rather than a degree course. He despises those who use their academic qualifictions, i.e., the Revd Dr... I found his sermons uninspiring and many of his opinions uninformed. Maybe I am being mean, but like another poster, I prefer those in professional positions to be educated.
Posts: 164 | From: oxford | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In my kind of Church tradition, we don't have 'priests' in the sense some churches do, as people set aside from the laity to do quasi-magical things.
Value judgement, Steve Langton ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
The point here isn't primarily whether there is some kind of sacerdotal understanding of Christian ministry but the academic level to which pastors, leaders, clergy - whatever we call them - are educated.
I'm with chris stiles and L'Organist.
I've seen the damage done by theologically-lite church leaders/elders. So, whilst I'm not advocating that every single minister/leader/priest be educated to a hi-falutin' level I do think that academic standards should be raised - right across the board.
Alongside that, as Lamb Chopped suggests, there ought to be some pretty robust training in emotional intelligence, how to deal with people who have doubts or who are suffering in some way - that goes beyond throwing Bible verses and platitudes at them - and a whole range of other stuff besides.
It ain't easy and no-one individual is going to fulfil all those requirements in themselves. All churches claim to have some form of plurality of leadership - even the more heirarchical ones - so there should also be a sense of shared responsibility too - and extended beyond those officially 'designated' as leaders in some way.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Many lay people are better educated than their clergy as it is.
Such churches obviously need highly educated clergy. It's hard to imagine university educated Western laypeople routinely attending churches led by ministers without qualifications. Socially that would be rather odd (which is not to forget the theological issues).
The problem (if it is a problem) is that as the clergy become better and better educated, they seem less able to speak to those with the fewest qualifications, or to the least upwardly mobile. (But they're probably more capable of speaking for them.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It probably happens less nowadays, but it wasn't unusual for university educated people to attend church where the leaders were less well educated than themselves.
That used to happen a lot in the new churches'. They'd bring in some guy who'd been a salesman (nothing wrong with that in and of itself) and plonk him in charge of a congregation in a university town and then wonder why, after an initial flurry of growth, the studenty types would start to rankle and rebel or vote with their feet and clear off somewhere else.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
Ah well, you've made my point for me. Those experiments were obviously not very successful, so things changed.
One wonders why they didn't send the salesmen-pastors to working class communities instead of studenty churches, though. Did they miss a trick there?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Then there is the concept of universal priesthood of all believers. It is a Hebrews concept.
Basic Lutheran Confessions would say that a person can become a pastor if he or she is duly called by a congregation. Says nothing about academic qualifications.
Academic qualifications did not become all that important that important until after WWII and the military chaplaincy wanted Masters level people as chaplain.
Now that there is getting to be a shortage of seminary trained ministers in the US we are looking at other ways of ordaining people based on their life experience and also minimal theological training.
But whoever is called still has to be able to quote:
to preach in accord with the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions
and the calling congregation is expected to submit the person thus called to examination quote:
If the person called [der Erwählte: elected] accepts the vocation [den Beruf: call], the congregation shall present him, if possible, to orthodox pastors who already are in the ministry [office] (Acts 6:6....), in order that they might prove or examine him if this has not yet been done (1 Tim. 3:10....). Then shall they declare, obligate, and confirm him by public ordination according to apostolic order (1 Tim. 4:14....) or else publicly and solemnly induct him into his office [installation] (Acts 13:2,3....) (65).39
(From Theology and Practice of “The Divine Call")
The idea of priesthood of all believers does not imply that all believers have the gifts or calling for preaching and for pastoral ministry.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In my kind of Church tradition, we don't have 'priests' in the sense some churches do, as people set aside from the laity to do quasi-magical things. And we don't necessarily have just a single 'minister' as we are more likely to call him/her, often we have groups of elders. In such a case we may value education especially in those whose primary job will be teaching; but we also value other qualities which are not necessarily accompanied by academic brilliance.
But even a Baptist Church authorises or permits some to teach, preach, lead worship, or lead a communion service, and not others. The decision of and for one congregation is not, of course, in Baptist ecclesiology binding on another.
Other denominations have different structures of authority, and while most allow the local call to have a definitive say for a particular pastoral ministry, they usually have a more centralised structure for deciding who is in principle fitted for such ministry.
A Baptist Church can call a minster who has no accreditation other than that Church's approval, although there are also structures of accreditation as well which expect a prospective minister to undergo theological and vocational training.
(BTW, I don't think any communion sees itself as appointing anyone to do "quasi magical things", so that language comes across as rather derogatory IMO)
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BabyWombat
Shipmate
# 18552
|
Posted
Some TEC dioceses have tried an approach along the lines that all ministries needed for health in a parish need to be present in that parish, but not necessarily residing in one person. So someone may be ordained priest, to do those things restricted to priests. Another, perhaps better educated and with rhetorical skills, called forth to preach, and so on for pastoral care, administration, etc. Educational standards were set for each, although none at the seminary level. There were those who cried that it “parceled out the priesthood.”
And it did, if one considered priesthood including all those ministries. And therein is the rub IMHO. We have for some time identified the priest as the one who “does it all”, and expect education to match. (Although most priests -- including me! -- haven’t a clue about what to do when the furnace does not start on a cold morning.)
In theory the team approach is beautiful: a team of non-stipendiary members working together to meet the needs from within. It summons lovely romantic imagery of the early church (as we wish it had been.)
In practice, it flounders all too quickly. Parishes and communities have become too long accustomed to the “Father does it all” paradigm. Soon either the poor sod who was ordained gets saddled with things someone else was suppose to handle, or the biggest ego or loudest member becomes de facto “person in charge.” Or both occur!
Parishes are sold the model as a theological one, but really buy into it as a financial solution. But the model only works if the diocese continues education support, mentoring, gentle correction, etc., and that costs money, so the diocese then charges the parish for the consultations. Anger on the one hand and neglect on the other lead to a less than helpful situation.
One diocese has made a grand success of this model, I believe. But that took years of education prior to starting, and years of continuing education and support once in place.
--------------------
Let us, with a gladsome mind…..
Posts: 102 | From: US | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Interesting, Baby Wombat. I think that every member ministry could work, but only in a culture of every member humility and service, with training and self- awareness thrown in, sufficient but not necessarily to degree standard.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It probably happens less nowadays, but it wasn't unusual for university educated people to attend church where the leaders were less well educated than themselves.
That used to happen a lot in the new churches'. They'd bring in some guy who'd been a salesman (nothing wrong with that in and of itself) and plonk him in charge of a congregation in a university town and then wonder why, after an initial flurry of growth, the studenty types would start to rankle and rebel or vote with their feet and clear off somewhere else.
I have problems understanding why people would be fool enough to think that salesmanship is at all parallel to preaching the Gospel. A good salesman is one who can* sell you something that is not in and of it itself clearly worth buying; a good preacher of the Gospel is someone who can show you what is already there in the Gospel--opening your eyes, not pulling the wool over them.
* Note: this is not condemning the morals of good salesmen! A person can have this gift without in fact misusing it; the point is that he or she is sufficiently gifted and practiced to be able to do so, if so inclined.
But back to the preacher of the Gospel. It seems to me that such a person, far from reaching for sales tricks, ought to stay religiously clear of them. So many of us have been burned by unethical salesmanship that we have an automatic tendency to discount anything that smells of it; this is a disaster if the thing we are put off thereby turns out to be the Gospel. Give me a preacher who studies to be like Paul--to be humble, to know his weaknesses and to expose them rather than to hide them, to put the emphasis on the truth of what is really there rather than running a flimflam show.
And that goes for those who glory in their education as well. Education can be used or misused, can become a flimflam show in itself; if someone can only preach to the educated, they have not yet learned to preach as they ought. So too with the un-educated "just folks" preacher who glories in his lack of education. Both are bad.
[ 18. September 2016, 01:28: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
On the subject of "why Greek"--
This is actually of value when dealing with troubled people. For example, the verse in 1 John 3:6 about
quote:
No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
This has been translated by some versions (here the KJV) thus:
quote:
Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
You can easily see how a person of tender conscience would read the KJV version, recall some recent sin (a family spat, maybe?) and come to the conclusion that they were in fact not a Christian at all but a damned hypocrite in danger of hell fire. At which point if you're lucky, they come to the pastor for help. If you're unlucky, they torment themselves for weeks and months, putting themselves through ridiculous emotional gyrations trying to be sure that THIS time, they have really repented and believed.
The antidote for this begins by explaining to the person that the Greek present tense used here ought to be translated as a continuous habitual verb (in English, an -ing verb)--"whoever goes on sinning, habitually, as a matter of course, without any desire to be otherwise, but simply as a regular and uncontested ordinary fact of life." The verb does NOT mean "Whoever slips and falls into sin here and there" as we all do, and as the rest of 1 John so movingly gives us comfort and healing for. The KJV is simply a poor translation on this point. But how are you going to deal with this quite common stumbling block if you've never learned the basics of Greek? And yes, it is common--I've come across it in people I don't know how many times.
And there are many other issues like this. Another that comes to mind is the Greek word for "hand," cheiron, which actually includes the wrist area and a bit up the forearm. So what, you may ask? Well, when you get some fellow Christian who is concerned because they've been taken to task by some smart ass who has informed them that the stories of the crucifixion are unreliable because they have Jesus nailed in the hands, and then backs it up with data about how the palms aren't strong enough to hold a body's weight--do you see why that bit of Greek language trivia becomes useful? It's helpful to be able to tell your brother-in-law he's talking out of his arse. Preferably before he springs the same crap on some Greekless individual who is prone to doubts.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RainbowGirl
Apprentice
# 18543
|
Posted
To answer a question upthread as far as I know this parishioner has always been Anglican, I believe it was more that he felt excluded from pursuing such a calling because he did not have the university qualifications. I don't know, he didn't really explain why he took such umbrage, but it certainly triggered an interesting discussion on the ship!
I'd agree that the theological colleges in Australia were surprisingly rigorous, I'm doing a Masters via distance at the moment at TCTS. I was surprised at how intense the classes are. I admit I had been anticipating a slightly easier go of it after slogging through a law degree.
To me it just seems natural that we would want priests that are preaching and teaching to have university level qualifications, in order to provide a source of knowledge for people with questions, but I admit I do see his point that a degree at a theological college is unlikely to change a persons ability to, say, give the Eucharist.
Local ministers are also required to spend at least twelve months studying at a theological college, and I believe similar requirements are in place for lay preachers, though I'm less certain on that. Lay preachers are a pretty rare breed around here.
Posts: 32 | From: Australia | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, Lamb Chopped ...
Some of the best preachers I've known have worn their learning lightly.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It's helpful to be able to tell your brother-in-law he's talking out of his arse. Preferably before he springs the same crap on some Greekless individual who is prone to doubts.
I'd like to emphasize the above. It's hard to explain the power of such things to someone who hasn't seen it - but in some evangelical circles 'the original greek' (usually a garbled version of some bit of pig greek) is used as a wax nose to push the latest pet theory of the movement/pastor.
I've seen the same thing on the very fringes of traditional denominations - but it tends not to spread very far because the preachers peers generally have enough Greek and good sense to know that they are talking arse.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In my kind of Church tradition, we don't have 'priests' in the sense some churches do, as people set aside from the laity to do quasi-magical things.
Value judgement, Steve Langton ...
Alongside that, as Lamb Chopped suggests, there ought to be some pretty robust training in emotional intelligence, how to deal with people who have doubts or who are suffering in some way - that goes beyond throwing Bible verses and platitudes at them - and a whole range of other stuff besides.
That's exactly why the Baptist Union (amongst others) have been calling Ministers who have had some life experience outside the church, as the norm. Most of the group who trained alongside me were 35+, I was 42 when I graduated.
I have Masters in two different disciplines, one academic one practical, part from theological qualifications. I am part of a church where people know a lot more than me about lots of things. Quite a few years beyond "ordination" I don't know it all but perhaps have more idea of my gifts and limitations. I work within a plurality of leaders (male and female, older and younger) - all unpaid apart from me but means we try and cover all bases such that in this case Father doesn't know/do best. Hopefully everyone feels they are consulted, included, invited and inspired by what we do.
AS BT says, Baptist churches can call a minister who is neither trained nor accredited. It's pretty unusual though in this day and age -- not least because accreditation hopefully means that degree of formation and testing has happened.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RainbowGirl:
To answer a question upthread as far as I know this parishioner has always been Anglican, I believe it was more that he felt excluded from pursuing such a calling because he did not have the university qualifications.
In the British Methodist Church there are a lot of lay preachers (far more than ordained ministers), and degrees aren't required to fulfill this role. If this is the same for Australian Methodism perhaps the gentleman you were referring to might consider switching denominations.
Regarding some of the other comments here about educated laymen in churches led by the non-educated, this strikes me as a very interesting phenomenon.
Small, breakaway movements have traditionally begun as the preserve of the uneducated; the leader would be ministering to his social and educational equals. But social uplift as well as a growing appeal among the better off would bring a different sort of person into membership. This is presumably when complaints about un(der)educated clergy would begin.
However, people like the man mentioned in the OP will always become frustrated if their willingness and ability to serve is thwarted by their lack of academic credentials. Some will leave to start new movements among others like themselves, and the process will begin again.
So, for those who only want the academically-minded to be ordained it seems the only option is to champion the process of upwardly mobility in lay church culture. I've read that Pentecostal churches in general move in this direction fairly rapidly, and the charismatics even more so. However, uni degrees today are no guarantee of intellectual rigour or of professional success, so perhaps the process is becoming more complicated.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
So university degrees are dumbed down these days?
Coming back to an earlier point, yes, I think it's generally axiomatic that most new or enthusiastic church movements are led by people who may be less well educated - in the classical sense - than many of their adherents.
That doesn't mean they are 'thick'.
The issue I had in mind with the example of the salesman/entrepreneur in charge of a studenty church and it all going badly wrong wasn't so much about academic levels but more about different types of thinking and approach. The salesy guy was a more 'directional' thinker - goal and target focused - whereas many of his congregation were more 'divergent' thinkers - more philosophical perhaps - and that's where the clash came.
In the 'new churches' I knew they were fine with engineers, medics, nurses and so on - the people they struggled with were Fine Artists or English students or arty-farty types.
I don't say that to set up some kind of arts and humanities versus the sciences and professions dichotomy - but as an observation. The arty students were drawn in, as the others were, by the sense of community, the lively worship and so on - but would subsequently find it harder to fit in and accept the status quo.
I don't mean that as a value judgement on people with backgrounds in other disciplines, simply making an observation from my own experience.
We need a balance and blend of directional and divergent thinkers but in my experience most evangelical congregations have an imbalance towards the former.
I suspect in other traditions the imbalance may be in the other direction.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
So university degrees are dumbed down these days?
It's hardly an original observation. Perhaps it's not even a big deal. But if it feeds into an overall slowing down of upward mobility it could have an effect on the theological development of certain kinds of churches. That remains to be seen.
quote:
In the 'new churches' I knew they were fine with engineers, medics, nurses and so on - the people they struggled with were Fine Artists or English students or arty-farty types.
Yes, that rings a bell.
quote:
We need a balance and blend of directional and divergent thinkers but in my experience most evangelical congregations have an imbalance towards the former.
I suspect in other traditions the imbalance may be in the other direction.
Most traditions and congregations are imbalanced. We fantasise about the congregation that can satisfy everyone's needs, but I'm less and less convinced that such a thing can exist, least of all in a culture as complicated as ours.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Fair enough, I can see good grounds for what you are saying but would like to think differently - even if it is a vain hope ...
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
In what way does the thing about arty-farty graduates and so on not 'fitting in' to certain types of church ring a bell with you?
It rings a bell with me because that's what happened to me ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
Professionally, I'm a teacher, so I've a hobby horse on the subject in question, but I look at most church leaders and their preaching and think 'pedagaogically the church is stuck in the end of the 19th/start of the 20th century'. I preach as frequently as I'm asked to (which really depends on clergy needs) but I mostly get up and tell some stories that I link to the passage of the day. I have a Masters degree in Biblical Studies and absolutely love deep in-depth exegesis and getting to a text (and when I was doing it, a few years ago, had a good working knowledge of Biblical Greek!) but your average congregation doesn't need that. A good teacher knows how to hit their class where they are, and a good story, well told, hits everyone differently. Scrap teaching clergy Greek and Hebrew, teach them about good open questioning, story-telling and how to get people to think. Far far more useful...
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by RainbowGirl:
To answer a question upthread as far as I know this parishioner has always been Anglican, I believe it was more that he felt excluded from pursuing such a calling because he did not have the university qualifications.
In the British Methodist Church there are a lot of lay preachers (far more than ordained ministers), and degrees aren't required to fulfill this role. If this is the same for Australian Methodism perhaps the gentleman you were referring to might consider switching denominations.
As in Canada, the only Methodist church remaining is very much a tiny fringe organisation - the principal Methodists have combined with the Congregationalists and most Presbyterians into a Uniting/United Church. Here that was 40 years ago, in Canada coming up to its century.
And would not be simply a question of switching denominations for many people. Their particular credal paths may well not otherwise be comfortable in another tradition. A Catholic woman feeling a call to ministry must look and decide whether the strength of that call outweighs her commitment to some of the beliefs held in the Catholic Church but not in others. For most people, switching denominations is not the simple step that your post here (and similar posts on other threads) depends upon.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
