Chutney writes of the gifts and graces of ministers, and relates that he was brought up in "a crossfire between free range charismatics" and Methodists so that "[o]ne half of my church life taught me that anyone with the gifts and graces for ministry was a ministry and that we are all called to be ministers. The other half taught me that ministry was something conferred by graduate professional degrees and power hungry old men with black robes."
Ministry flows from the mission of a religious community, it is giving concrete expression of the mission of that religious community. All members of the religious community are called to give expression to the ministry of that congregation, but most religious communities have found that functionaries aid the community in giving expression to its ministry. In most healthy congregations many members are doing the ministry of the congregation, but the congregation has authorized one or more individuals to lead the community, and to aid the members of the congregation in doing the ministry. Let us call these functionaries clergy. Clergy do ministry, and may have the title Minister. All committed members of a religious community may be called to do ministry, but traditionally clergy have been authorized to teach and to lead the ministry.
The ministry of the clergy does not flow from individual feelings of being gifted and graced, but rather from a community recognizing those "gifts and graces" and authorizing that person for ministry (as clergy.) If a religious community of charismatics authorizes someone with the gifts and graces as their clergy, presumably that community has some standard for recognizing those gifts and graces. I think that it is goes without saying that different communities may designate different "gifts and graces" as essential to their clergy.
The tradition from which the Unitarian Universalists emerged created an association wide process for the formation, education and authorization of ordained and fellowshipped clergy. That tradition has included seminary education for more than a century. While many Unitarian Universalist lay members perform ministries as an expression of their congregation's mission, most Unitarian Universalists find that their ordained and fellowshipped clergy help focus the congregation on its mission and give leadership both to the prophetic and pastoral dimensions of ministry. In our tradition we call these clergy Unitarian Universalist Ministers.
Before the founding of seminaries and before seminary education became required liberal congregationalists (the tradition that most influenced the Unitarians and the Universalists) looked for college educated young men to become their clergy. Most men graduated from college at 19 or 20, todays institutionalized secondary education followed by university undergraduate education was not the norm.
These young men would then teach (elementary level) school, the pastor of the church was also in charge of education of the town and while both the boys and girls schools were fee for service they were approved by the town's Pastor who also had the title Teacher. (Some towns had a ordained minister as Teacher and another as Pastor.) The Teacher would invite promising young scholars to teach (and thus to make a living) and read divinity under his direction. If we read the biographies of clergy before the founding of Andover Theological School (the first graduate level seminary in the United States, founded with an evangelical orientation) and Harvard Divinity School (the Unitarian response to Andover) we find that the clergy were formed from college educated young adults who had spent a few years reading under an ordained pastor of a congregational church, and teaching, preaching, and pastoring under this mentoring supervision. (The internship was combined with the advanced study.) The ordained ministers selected from among the promising candidates who they thought had "gifts and graces" and sent them out to do some supply preaching and teaching in congregations looking for a Minister. If the congregation found the candidate gifted and graceful, they ordained and settled the young man who was expected to grow old with that congregation.
What do we learn from this social history?* While ministry was done by the congregations, they sought someone to be their Minister. The primary function of the Minister was to be the Teacher of the congregation (and the wider community as well.) Since Teaching was the primary function of Ministers, education was assumed and scholarship was desired. The dairies of both Universalists and Unitarians show that pastoral skills of these teacher preacher clerics was not always what the congregation expected. There are articles in the religious magazines about how to turn a shy young scholar into a pastor. (Usually involving mentoring by wise lay leaders, thus the birth of the Ministerial Relation Committees.)
We should also note that the primary formation of the future pastors was done by the clergy who acting as office holders and as colleagues one with another work to assure the future of a learned clergy. Seminaries were founded to help educate a learned clergy, who in our tradition continue to have the function of teachers. It has always been the assumption that the development of "gifts and graces" of any particular candidate would be overseen by the collegial community of ministers who continue to play a major role in the formation of new ministers through supervision, mentorship and teaching courses in seminaries. The recognition of "gifts and graces" is given over the lay members of our congregations in three forms: each candidate for Unitarian Universalist Ministry must have sponsorship by a congregation; each candidate must complete a internship (not in their home congregation) in which they learn the arts of ministry but also in which their "gifts and graces" are discerned by a lay teaching committee and finally by the congregation that ordains the candidate into the Unitarian Universalist Ministry.
Unitarian Universalist Ministers are not the only ones who do ministry among Unitarian Universalists. It is a good thing that Chutney experiences most of those who minister to him to be among the laity. I believe that the growth of Unitarian Universalism requires more and more lay ministers. But I also believe that to assure that those lay ministers serve Unitarian Universalist congregations and not themselves we must increase the number and quality of Unitarian Universalist Ministry (the clergy.)
In the age of on-line classes, and week long seminars that allow people working in churches and agencies a way to access theological education, we may find that graduate theological schools are not the best way of providing the education necessary for Unitarian Universalist Ministry. When they were founded the theological schools were a reflection that the"gifts and graces" that our tradition required in its clergy was not the same as the gifts and graces of that Catholic parishes, Hindu temples, or free range charismatics sought in their clergy. We believed in the priesthood of all believers, we did not look for our clergy to have a monopoly on priestcraft. We believed in the prophethood of all believers we did not look for our clergy to have a monopoly on leadership. But our spiritual ancestors believed and we continue to believe that it is wise to authorize some among us to be teachers of the arts and skills of ministry, and such a body of clergy would help us all become ministers as well.
I recognize the justice of Chutney's charge that the present system reflects classism and elitism. But the labor movement has some experience in opposing classism and that movement evolved a mature way of dealing with the classism of the education system. Primitive radicalism recognized that schooling bestowed privilege and schooling was difficult for those lacking privilege. The populist response was to rage against learning and the intellegensia. American anti intellectualism has deep populist roots. But early in its history the labor movement recognized that anti intellectualism simply perpetuated the monopoly on learning by the elite, and they joined the fight for a free and universal public education system. I would argue that we can learn from this example, rather than become theological levellers, we need to find ways to open access to theological education for everyone who seeks to grow as a minister.
*Besides the obvious - our system of fellowshipping ministers evolved from a patriarchial "old boys club" - so true- but so did our the systems of training lawyers, professors, and physicians. Transformation sometimes takes the form of renewing institutions that reflected oppressive systems and have proved useful for advancing inclusion and equality when under new management.
I've been a Unitarian Universalist for three years. I applied to Starr King seminary and was rejected. I have not received much ministerial guidance from our one local offically ordained minister, though I am often in his congregation offering advice on the ministry to his lay leaders. Rather, I was embraced by the other UU congregation in town, and offered the opportunity to preach to them and lead them. Looking back on a year and a half since my seminary rejection, I am convinced that I have learned more about being a minister here with these independant charismatics than I could have learned there with the officially sanctioned.
Suffice to say, I do not hold the ordained UU ministry in very high esteem. I recognize that my rejection from the seminary may be unwisely guiding my feelings. However, when given some say in the hiring of a minister, I will be advocating that we view UUA seminary training as merely informative, rather than required. If UUA ministers can compete in such an environment, more power to them, but I think they're dragging themselves and the denomination down when they're given a monopoly on our paid positions.
Finally, I'd like to caution you not to confuse anti-academia with anti-intellectualism. My academic education, though high-calibur for my whole life, ended with an undergraduate degree in the fine arts. I highly value thought and intellect, and yet I find that beyond a solid general basis in the liberal arts and sciences, education is better pursued by doing than by studying. Graduate schools that keep this in mind tend to be excellent, but schools that view themselves more as licensing bodies tend to concern themselves with standardization and public perception at the expense of education.
In my opinion, much of academia has become so self-absorbed with its licensing power that it's losing its grip on the quality of its work. And so, I'm an anti-academic intellectual. I grant academia no licensing authority, but I delight in the smart people I sometimes find there.
So? Starr King is competive. The whole process between the time a person thinks that they would like to be a Unitarian Universalist Minister and the time that person receives Final Fellowship is also a process of eliminating people who think they are meant to be clergy from the folks that really are. Many are called and few are chosen. The religious community of Unitarian Universalists chooses who will be Unitarian Universalist Ministers.
I hold a graduate degree in history and as such I studied constitutional law. I can hold my own in a conversation with a lawyer about the constitution, but I am no lawyer.
Someone might have read all the books and have all manner of related knowledge but academic degrees in related subjects do not substitute for the supervised formation of ministerial practice. Just like the surgeon is trained by doing supervised surgery, the clergy are trained by supervised internships.
Getting an audience with a UU fellowship for a speaking engagement does not prove much to me. I try to get about 16 lay preachers a year. No one thinks they are Unitarian Universalist Ministers.
"The whole process between the time a person thinks that they would like to be a Unitarian Universalist Minister and the time that person receives Final Fellowship is also a process of eliminating people who think they are meant to be clergy from the folks that really are."
As a Unitarian Universalist, I don't think they're doing a very good job of it. Whether or not I "really am" a minister is a question I let each individual of my congregation decide for themselves, but I haven't stopped practicing my vocation simply because a seminary rejected me.
The religious community of Unitarian Universalists chooses who will be Unitarian Universalist Ministers.
You miss my point: As President of the Board of Governors at a Unitarian Universalist foundation, it is myself and my peers on the board who choose who will minister to us. When I am called to make that choice, I will not consider a seminary degree to be a requirement. If seminary training is as necessary as you claim in the formation of quality ministers, then seminary-trained ministers should get the job no problem, but I'll hold no position open exclusively to them.
Just like the surgeon is trained by doing supervised surgery, the clergy are trained by supervised internships.
I agree, but I do not think a denominational licensing body is a necessity, or even very helpful. I can see on a resume what past experience a given member of the clergy has, and there are plenty of decent opportunities for members of the clergy who have never had a seminary education to build up experience. There are many paths in life that are perfectly acceptable substitutes for a seminary education.
"Getting an audience with a UU fellowship for a speaking engagement does not prove much to me."
I'm not trying to prove my qualifications to you; rather, I'm discussing how I judge the qualifications of others.
"No one thinks they are Unitarian Universalist Ministers."
I don't claim to be a Unitarian Universalist Minister. I am a Unitarian Universalist who is a minister, and I minister to Unitarian Universalists, but by the standards of the Unitarian Universalist Association, I am not a Unitarian Universalist Minister.
Your lay board can choose who you wish to minister to you, but choosing a non fellowshipped minister to be the Minister is like choosing a disbarred lawyer to represent a non profit corporation in court. Fiduciary responsibility is a legal requirement, that means that board members must assure that they have contracts with qualified professionals for responsible positions. Unqualified ministers are dangerous. Boards that refuse to exercise fiduciary responsiblity invite law suits from disgrunted members, cancelled insurance policies and in some cases criminal neglect indictments.
You seem to believe that ministry is a game, where you can express yourself. Ministry isn't about you.
You become a UU and immediately apply to theologial school. It isn't until after they turn you down later that you begin to have a little congregational experience. And it is on the strength of your absurdly limited experience that you decide that our association of congregations shouldn't be responsible for maintaining a qualified list of Ministers. Go to the General Assembly and put it on the agenda, we will vote it up or down. Democracy means working with 1000 other congregations, not playing "I know best, they are stuck in back ward ideas."
Is that the kind of arrogance you put into your Starr King appliction?
I have been so changed by my two years of seminary ...
I still have one year of my M.Div to complete and then CPE and an internship. I feel I'll be well prepared when all is said and done. I am afraid to imagine what my "ministry" would have looked like had I not experienced the formation I have over the past two years. Clyde, I'm sure you could paint a picture of what could have been. :)
I was arrogant and thick-headed, personally and spiritually. Now, I'm simply hoping I possess a message that will help those I will someday be called and approved to serve. A good seminary facilitates this process. This can not be purchased at Amazon or Barnes & Noble.
The seminary AND institutional process is invaluable. The cumulative effect the combination has had upon me has been profound not only as it concerns my 'approach to' and 'philosophy of ministry,' but also as it concerns my own internal spirituality and being.
The UUA process is there to help all who aspire to serve in approved ministry. I suppose the first step is to determine one's actually understanding of service and UUA ministry. Sometimes people don't want to hear or accept the help offered.
So, I'm guess I'm saying a religious movement or institution is only as strong as the training demanded of its clergy. I've seen movements on both sides and personal experience leads me to consider seminary as a very, very important piece of the pastoral formation process. Seminary may not be the only piece, but it is one of the most important pieces.
"The whole process between the time a person thinks that they would like to be a Unitarian Universalist Minister and the time that person receives Final Fellowship is also a process of eliminating people who think they are meant to be clergy from the folks that really are."
I also have to take issue with this. Only god can truly know if someone is called to ordained ministry. A bureaucracy certainly cannot know this (and that's what the credentialing process is, after all).
I'm not proposing that we do away with ordination or ministerial education. I'm saying that the way we do it is broke. I think the old school process you mention---a two year ministerial education followed by an apprenticeship---is the way to go. I proposed something along on the post liked to in my link-name below.
Chutney,
I am not the first to note that God may call people to the ministry but it is human beings who will employ them. The church (a human institution) has been in the process of choosing ministers for millennia, what is different today is that we are using 'free market' principles. What eliminates the candidates is not some bureaucracy (what bureaucracy????) but rather an amazingly challenging and disjointed process.
They must get congregational endoresement, see a career counseling center, get admitted to a school and pass 30 courses, find an CPE site and an internship site without any central direction.
Very few candidates have problems with MFC, long before they experience the process telling them that this was a bad idea. In my experience those that do have problems with the MFC would have been problematic ministers, so it Godly work to tell them that. Since I counsel and mentor candidates and followed folks who came through the process as their a mentor through the final fellowship stage, I have come to conclusion that human beings can make discernments, and we should be making them sooner rather than later.
But humans don't communicate in a timely fashion. The result is survival of the fit, or connected. Many have criticized the Darwinian nature of the process, but until we are willing to find a alternative for the schools, many will apply and a few will be choosen (or survive) depending on how one reads the process.
By bureaucracy, I meant exactly the sort of process you outlined.
I agree with your diagnosis. There is little to no shepherding. The MFCs of the mainline denoms turn few down, and turn few down that ought to be turned down. I hear there are improvements in trying to help folks discern this well before the end of the process, but it still seems like a patchwork solution to me.
No issue here about making discernments. I just wanted to point out that those discernments are always incomplete, and that certification by a credentialing process cannot change that very human fact.