Coherence and variety in ordained ministry
One of the many fascinating debates at Synod this week was on the proposals for Resourcing Ministerial Pedagogy (RME) on which I have written a couple of times earlier. I had put down 1 of four amendments to the motility from Steven Croft, Bishop of Sheffield, and I was asking for work to exist done to check that RME was not undermining 'our shared, catholic understanding of ordination equally expressed in the Ordinal' prior to implementation in September 2017.
At that place was little time for argue on this, which was a shame, since it was clearly felt to be an important issue from all sides. Andrew Atherstone, from Wycliffe Hall in Oxford, sent me what he had planned to say, and he makes some important historical observations:
Obligatory theological grooming is a mod invention in the Church building of England. Just 100 years ago, there was no national standard – every diocese had a different policy, every bishop did what was correct in his own eyes. Sometimes ordinands simply read a few books with a senior rector, during their summer holidays, or a couple of evenings a week. Sometimes they had to rely on their previous degrees in philosophy and ideals every bit undergraduates at secular universities – inappreciably sufficient training for Christian ministry. Anglican entrepreneurs began to fill up the gaps. Artistic, innovative pioneers set up new seminaries, linked to cathedrals (Chichester, Salisbury, Lincoln), or linked to celebrated universities (Oxford, Cambridge, Durham). Nosotros need innovation in every generation.
Only in those days there was no national standard, no agreed Church of England policy. Bishops fabricated it up equally they went along. The result was a huge variation in the way ordinands were trained. Some read widely and vigorously, across the range of theological disciplines, taught by leading scholars and practitioners. Others were very poorly prepared. There was an outcry in the parishes that the quality of clergy was completely unpredictable. So the Church Associates (the forerunner of General Synod) in the 1920s introduced a national standard and a national policy, and invested the necessary funds.
These new RME proposals have much to commend them, but without sufficient safeguards they volition potentially drive united states of america back to the dark quondam days of the 19th century – where every diocese makes upwardly its own rules, decided, well-nigh likely, non by the bishop and DDO, only by the diocesan accountant. Nosotros've heard a lot about subsidiarity this calendar week. Yes, the context of a parish in Cornwall, or Cumbria, or the Home Counties may be widely different, but the ministry we demand from our clergy is broadly similar, whatever their context – women and men who love the Lord Jesus, who know their Bibles well, who are equipped in evangelism and pastoral care: articulate public ambassadors of the Christian gospel. They demand to exist nationally trained so that they are nationally deployable.
After the debate I had a fascinating conversation with a bishop which was hit in its unlike focus. I had spent the three days of Synod asking around for what additional 'diversity' and 'decentralisation' was needed that RME would lead to which was not available in the present organisation. Having spent well-nigh a decade as a Dean of Studies, creating taylor-fabricated flexible pathways for ordinands which would build on their prior learning and meet Bishops' Regulations, I wondered what kind of road of training for what kind of person would now be available which nosotros could non already offer—granted that the administrative processes to become there needed simplification? This bishop was the but person who offered me a convincing answer. He recounted some exciting examples of innovation, talked of people conspicuously called by God to be ordained, who would equally conspicuously not come across the current criteria, and even gave an instance of a whole congregation, with its pastor, who came and asked 'How do nosotros become function of the Church of England?' He offered a fascinating instance for the release of entrepreneurial development. But even more fascinating was the terms in which he expressed information technology:
I need four kinds of priest.
This is of import, since I think this language highlights exactly the issue which is being raised. Exercise we need 'four kinds of priest' or do we need 'priests doing four kinds of things'? And how is our answer to that and so related to the nature of training, and the administrative and financial processes by which that preparation is organised and delivered? The differing answers to this practise not autumn along any obvious lines of theological tradition. Andrew Atherstone is an evangelical, and evangelicals have frequently in the by been the nigh pragmatic and 'skills based' when talking about training—not least because they have had a then-chosen 'functional' rather than 'ontological' view of ordained ministry. The bishop I spoke to really comes from a tradition which you might accept expected to exist more than concerned virtually the agenda Andrew raises.
This tension is represented in the comments on my previous article on this question. Tim Evans from Manchester Diocese has some suspicions almost the motivation for the procedure:
The RME plea is for greater flexibility, but the by 20 years have seen the TEIs existence ever more flexible and accommodating to the needs of the Church, individual students, dioceses, parishes. Or is 'flexibility' one of those words which actually means greater ability for some at the expense of others? Is information technology similar to a 'flexible labour market place' which in practise means things such as naught hours contracts where all the power is on ane side of the human relationship?
He then raises the equivalent to the historical question of Andrew Atherstone: 'And why remove national regulations if we are a national church?' And he goes on to offering practical problems that might arise:
- Many people practise not stay in the diocese in which they were selected and/or ordained, and so to train them for that diocese specifically is brusk sighted. I have served in 2 episcopal areas of London, Blackburn, Carlisle, West Yorkshire, Blackburn and Manchester. What is needed is not always priests trained for ane context but priests who can adapt and read the context they are in.
- Regional Courses have been ane of the unsung success stories of the Church over the past 50 years merely they nearly all serve several dioceses. How volition they manage if each diocese/bishop interprets the Bishops' Guidelines differently, uses its Vote 1 money in different ways, etc. Bishops' Regs give some consistency beyond diocses to which bishops are bound – what is the problem with that in a national church?
- And under RME when a diocesan bishop moves on training priorities shift and carefully constructed pathways will be thrown out on the whim of a new bishop.This is a recipe for further fragmentation.
In reply, Ali Campbell from Chichester draws the obvious comparing with training for youth ministry building:
Most grooming for Christian youth ministry (which, if y'all agree with the recommendations from the Evangelism Task Grouping yesterday, could soon exist recognised every bit a "calling" and a "specialism" in it's own right) is role fourth dimension, with placement practice being an integral part of the equipping process. Whether that is CYM, OASIS, Cliff Higher. As someone who has been in this "calling" for near xxx years, I am increasingly puzzled at the rings within rings of grooming, formation, discernment, process and and then much other stuff that is attached to pursuing "ordination" this special "set apart" ministry.
I'm longing for "Re-imagining ministry" in the Church of England to do just that – actually re-imagine it, rather than make manoeuvres (whatever they might be) to tweak what continues to exist the dominant form "a calling to the priesthood". Of class, I empathize part of the trouble—whether it is preaching or pedagogy (happening in children's and youth groups every week); pastoral care (children'southward youth and families workers involved in this a lot); leading on new forms of church and mission (again, frequently children's youth and families workers at the forefront)—is a nagging question for the ordained equally they think about themselves is: what is a priest?
In other words, our theology of ministry is going to inescapably shape our view of training for ministry—not just in its contents, merely in its delivery, organisation and financing.
Steve Croft 'resisted' my subpoena, and did point out that the thinking about theology was going to happen. My amendment was lost—past 154 votes to 204—but the question is not going to go away.
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you take valued this mail, would you lot considerdonating £1.xx a calendar month to support the production of this weblog?
If y'all enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you tin make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, tin add together existent value. Seek first to understand, then to exist understood. Make the near charitable construal of the views of others and seek to acquire from their perspectives. Don't view debate equally a disharmonize to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/coherence-and-variety-in-ordained-ministry/
Postar um comentário for "Coherence and variety in ordained ministry"