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.
