Education for clergy

I think the question is: What does the Church wish to sustain as the norm for the education and preparation of its clergy? There are always exceptional persons with exceptional circumstance who follow a path outside what seems to be the norm. Those of us who have attended seminaries or divinity schools know well that most of the people attending have come there in routes there were more circuitous than linear. There really is no norm in practical experience. However, the Church needs to be clear about its expectations for the normal preparations and education for clergy. Otherwise, who is to say?

Many have noted that creeping parochialism and congregationalism are hazards worth tending; unless we decide that we want to surrender the Church model (cf. Ernst Troeltsch) and go more toward independent congregationalism. By the way, if people have a hard time deciding why not, I would suggest that this may further indicate the value of a serious formal education.

My insistence on distinguishing between 'being' a priest from 'doing the work of a priest' is likely rooted in my identity as an ENFP. Priests are not properly regarded as merely functionaries, and this pertains to the liturgical, pastoral care, and teaching aspects of ministry. All of us clergy can speak well of the many duties, responsibilities, and sacrifices born by ourselves and our families in responding to our respective vacations to ordained ministry. In addition, we have the responsibility of raising up and empowering the ministries of the lay people with whom we serve. The number of licensed Lay Ministers here in our parish congregation is really quite numerous, statistically. We even have a licensed Lay Preacher, a licensed Lay Catechist, as well several Lay Readers (e.g. lay officiants), and many Lay Eucharistic Ministers (chalicists) and Lay Eucharistic Visitors. The clergy person's responsibilities are numerous indeed;l just as regards ministry in and among the parish.


A clergy person has also the responsibility to engage the wider Church, and to help the congregation to do the same. I've noticed, sadly, that among especially those clergy who are trained informally rather than formally educated, the ability and facility for doing this is markedly less than that of their peers. This, I think, bodes very badly. It suggests two things to me. One, that clergy trained instead of educated are vulnerable to the undue influence of the opinions and perspectives of either the local bishop who oversees the training, or that of the person or small group of persons providing said training. Or, the trained clergy are largely deprived of a sound education in the history, appreciation, and function of the larger Church altogether. I've seen it and heard it. This deficit is present enough in formally educated clergy; It is far more so in clergy who have been trained rather then educated. It is not their own fault; but it is so nonetheless. Some will take personal offense at this observation, but this is not my intention.

I'm wondering if the Church might do well to look into urging its seminary system to develop an EMDiv., rather like an EMBA that some university business schools are offering. This could help ensure a high quality of education and would also provide academic accreditation. Again, I think another question we want to ask ourselves is, if I value the education that a teacher has received in order to be hired as a teacher, even though it may prove to be more than the teacher ever needed to do his or her work as a teacher, (though without it, the teacher wouldn't know enough even to ask the question), or if I value the education that doctors, nurses, veterinarians, architects, lawyers, funeral home directors, officers in the military, and other professionals are required and fortunate to receive before they can make their services and wisdom available to us, then why would we cut corners with clergy?

Would we recommend to a parishioner that they go to someone for professional counseling who was not properly credentialed with a formal education? Why, then, cut corners with clergy?

I fail to see why a formal education necessarily eliminates persons who seem not to fit the mythological norm. Certainly sustaining formal graduate-level education as the norm of preparation for the Church's clergy does not eliminate the opportunity for people to pursue alternative tracts to Holy Orders. I simply believe that the Church could be doing a much better job of focusing on reinforcing and supporting the normal and formal tract than to turn ever more readily to alternatives simply because in the short term they seem cheaper.

Becoming a clergy person is not easy for any of us. Most, if not all, of us has sacrificed mightily. I know my family and I have. But something worth doing and being simply cannot be easily attained. It shouldn't be, anyway, lest we and others value it too little. Likewise, and I'll know I'll get flack for this, ordained ministry is not a right, it is a responsibility. Certainly, access to the system toward Holy Orders is most certainly a right, and people who know me or have read my writing on LGBT inclusion know well that I mean this. But ultimately, ordination per se is not a right. It is a burden of responsibility and, God willing, a blessed manner of life.

Jim +