Thursday, April 24, 2008

Re-Formation

Last week, I spent a few days at a retreat center with about 15 others, including the Bishop of Kansas and the Canon to the Ordinary, talking about our diocesan school for ministry, and by extension, all of theological education in the Episcopal Church.

Everyone knows by now the crisis - freestanding seminaries are struggling to pay their bills; Seabury-Western has ceased offering Master of Divinity degrees, and others may follow, and yet the church still needs fully formed leaders for ordained ministry.  Still, a variety of factors, not the least of which are economic, make it ever harder for students to travel away from home for a three-year degree.

What to do?  This was the question at hand in Kansas last week, and although we were mostly discussing theological education for deacons and lay leaders, the topic of local formation for priests was on the table, too.  Those of you who know me will not be surprised that I was fairly vehement that priests need very rigorous education and Anglican formation before they should be allowed to lead congregations.   But this was part of a conversation with deep divisions - first, about what, exactly, is the specific definition of Anglican formation and second, about how we can best get priests formed while fully facing the reality of real hurdles to the traditional seminary model.

And it seems to me that these two issues are the whole seminary crisis in a nutshell.  What IS Anglican formation, exactly, and how important is it?   And how does it happen?    I find that what I understand this formation to be - learning the history and the traditions and the sacraments of the church, but also learning them in a specific context - is not a universally shared opinion, is not seen as crucially important by everyone in the church, and is the source of a great deal of frustration about the best way to have it happen.

My main point on the subject in conversation was that Anglicanism is no something you learn, it is something you 'catch,' and that I caught it by being at seminary, day in and day out, living and learning and worshiping with my brothers and sisters in a specific setting, until I felt like I really GOT it.  And although a lot of that experience was pretty difficult (and 9 years out, it will still be years before I pay off all my loans), I cannot imagine learning what I did, no matter how many books on Anglican history or theology or liturgy I read, without having lived it in community.  For me, this is foundational to Anglican identity, and it pains me to think of priests being formed outside of this kind of context.  I fear that we will lose something extremely valuable, something incarnational and sacramental and virtually indescribable, if we start forming our clergy entirely online, or in a program where they meet together only one weekend a month.

On the other hand, my experience of the Episcopal Church has been formed entirely on the east coast of the United States, and now I live in Kansas.  In our entire diocese, the number of full-time, seminary-educated priests is 26.  Never before have I fully understood that there IS a clergy shortage, that most parishes are small and struggling, and that if we insist that all of our priests have a three-year seminary degree, both these situations are going to continue to bring more hardship for dioceses like mine.   So the second major question, exactly HOW are we going to get priests formed, became the dominant one for us.

It was a great experience, having this conversation with the group that I was with, who all feel as passionately as I do (though not about the same things!), in the place where we were having it.  But now I find myself truly torn, because I see the issues plainly for a small diocese like mine, and yet I know how valuable my own formation and education have been, and I am reluctant to endorse a process that would not include the same level of preparation.   And into this mix is the evidence that as a church we are becoming increasingly 'post-denominational,' and so there is the possibility that not all of this formation is as important as I think.

What to do?  How do we define Anglicanism, exactly, in terms of formation - what is the minimal foundation?  And how do we ensure that locations with fewer resources and longer distances from theological education centers do not lose out on having fully prepared lay and ordained leaders?

6 comments:

bls said...

How about this for some ideas?

Ann said...

Come visit us in Wyoming and learn how we do it.

Anonymous said...

This is a terrific article. I think Cathie should guest blog again in the future.

Greg Jones said...

Cathie is not a guest but a part of the group!!! And one of the finest priests in our Church to boot.

Ormonde Plater said...

If the only way we can catch Anglicanism is by being at an Anglican seminary for three years, how can all those who never go to seminary catch it?

frcathie said...

they can catch it from leaders who are well-formed. but if the leaders themselves don't have that formation, how will they translate it to others?