Lancaster Theological Seminary : 2004 Seminar
Narrative
How Many Paths to Ministry Can One Seminary Provide?
Lancaster Theological Seminary
For years, rumors had circulated that the UCC denomination was considering creating alternative tracks to ordination that would bypass seminary education. No one at the seminary quite believed it. After all, it was a bedrock assumption of the United Church of Christ that an educated clergy was important.
With 15 faculty members and an ecumenical student body of 160 students in three degree programs (M.Div., MAR and D.Min.), Lancaster Theological Seminary had enjoyed a privileged place among its constituent churches in Central Pennsylvania. Begun in 1825 by the German Reformed Church, the seminary had been faithfully serving the church for 178 years. Our reputation in our support region in the mid-Atlantic was good. Churches continued to send a majority of full-time students for the master of divinity program, and with only a small number of part-time students, a carefully sequenced curriculum focused on formation for ministry. This curriculum, along with the relational ethos of the seminary, was affirmed by our graduates as one of the most positive characteristics of an LTS education. Our graduates were serving hundreds of churches and reports on their service were largely positive.
All seemed to be going well. At a regional “hearing” meeting four or five years ago, the area clergy and laity resoundingly rejected the idea of any track leading to ordination that did not involve a seminary education.
Then word trickled down that the rumors were more than just rumors: the various pressure groups seeking alternatives had gained strength and allies in the denominational headquarters. Licensed ministry was not considered good enough. Alternative tracks to ordination were being designed. The seminaries, viewed as ivory towers who had no interest in serving small churches or racial-ethnic minority congregations, were being ignored.
The faculty held an emergency meeting: many were incredulous: how could this happen behind our backs? Where do these stereotypes of the seminary come from? How should we respond to this challenge to our place as a significant educator of pastors and lay leaders in our denomination?
One faculty member, representing one of the more traditionally ‘academic’ disciplines, proposed that perhaps we could organize a campaign to persuade the denomination to reconsider this ill-advised move. “Christianity is intrinsically a textually mediated religion and therefore a high degree of competence in the interpretation of texts is a requisite for all wise church leadership,” she argued. “The literary-critical and historical-critical skills are difficult enough to communicate in a three year full-time program.” “Besides,” she added, “How would we provide the necessary support for students who are shaken by the critical approach to scripture and theology if the education was as episodic as is the case in most licensed lay ministry programs?”
“I agree that we should consider trying to persuade the denomination to reconsider this course of action,” said another faculty member, “but I am coming from a different perspective.” “My concern is that Christianity has become a highly diversified phenomenon in an increasingly religiously pluralistic culture. The church of the future must be capable of dealing constructively with multiple perspectives, ambiguity, and the absence of agreed-upon foundations. Persons who have not been adequately immersed in this ideological flux will be ill-suited to function in this heterogenous cultural environment.” “How,” he asked, “will individuals who have not had the full seminary experience appreciate the wide range of Christian beliefs, values and behaviors that characterize the contemporary church? Will they be able to deal with this diversity in an open-minded and dialogical manner?”
In the middle of the discussion, the lone faculty member from a free church tradition started laughing out loud. Disapproving stares from his colleagues hardly discouraged him. He suspected that the faculty members’ lack of sympathy for the proposed alternatives to ordination might just represent our own myopia, prejudice and self-interest. “Since when does a seminary education guarantee that someone will be a better pastor than someone who doesn’t go to seminary? Instead of arguing that people should have to get an M.Div. as a requirement for ordination, maybe we need to make a different argument. Maybe we should argue for the benefits of a seminary education, but offer different kinds of seminary education to different people. And with so many churches needing pastors, and with so few seminary graduates to serve them, why not follow the examples of the Baptists and Methodists and train people the best we can? By participating in the flow of alternative education rather than resisting it, maybe we can contribute to a higher level of excellence in ministry.”
Various faculty members took exception to the former Baptist’s comments. (Many of these faculty members had grown up in mainline traditions that held to a highly educated standard for pastors.) “Besides,” one pointed out, “we are a member school of the ATS, and the ATS holds certain standards for a seminary’s student body and curriculum.”
“But is our three- or four-year master of divinity curriculum really viable for all prospective ministers?” asked another faculty member. “We need to look realistically at the cultural and economic situation facing small churches located many hours away from a seminary.” He knew that area conference ministers in the UCC, and judicatory officials of other denominations were clamoring for the seminary to become involved in the creation and maintenance of licensed lay ministry academies that were springing up all over the region to help educate laity both to become more skilled in their service to the church to which they belonged, and to serve small churches that could not afford full-time pastors.
The trouble was, many faculty members were already serving individually as instructors in the various conference programs, and reported varying levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the quality of the programs and their requirements. The problem with the programs as they were configured currently was the drastic differences in quality between them. Could the seminary become a partner with the conferences to help create standards and offer resources for this kind of lay ministerial preparation?
As this question surfaced in the meeting, grumbling was heard from several faculty members who had previously been quiet. One of them spoke bluntly: “Are you going to ask us to start yet another program on top of our three degrees and the two Lilly-sponsored programs we are already committed to?” “Who is the ‘you’ to whom you are referring?” countered the dean. “This conversation is about us. It is about our mission and identity as a seminary of the church. What we are trying to do here is be clear about the issues to which we must respond, whether that response is to clearly indicate the limits of how we can be a resource for the church or to make changes in our programs.”
But in her heart of hearts she worried about the impact of new initiatives on the already-stretched energies of the faculty. Lancaster Seminary faculty had a reputation as excellent teachers; involvement in multiple programs could jeopardize their classroom preparation time and attention. She sighed as she felt, once again, the weight of trying to balance the church/academy tension that seemed to permeate all faculty discussions these days.
Before this conversation could be pursued, another faculty member raised yet another level of discourse about lay education, this one fostered by her belief (shared by a significant number of faculty members, both lay and clergy) that the health and vitality of the church (and its clergy) have a great deal to do with a strong, educated laity. She spoke out: “I am concerned that the church’s interest in increasing the numbers of licensed lay ministers to serve small congregations will obliterate the distinction between clergy and lay roles in the church. I worry that laity will not be viewed as ministers with a distinct role in the church, but as ‘pale and inferior copies of the clergy.’ Should lay ministry take as its model the liturgical and pastoral functions ordained ministers perform, or is there a distinctive role for laity serving in the world beyond the walls of the church?”
Just as this larger question of ecclesiology surfaced, the ending time for the meeting sounded, as all breathed a sigh of relief that the faculty could put off these complicated (and threatening?) issues for another day. The meeting broke up with the majority of the faculty agreeing to a cautious exploration of alternative educational delivery systems, so long as the three-year master of divinity remained as the seminary’s central program. As they exited the room, the dean and the president shook their heads. The discussion had surfaced the reality that the questions had not only to do with faculty load in creating a new program, but also had to do with larger questions on the nature of the church and what kind of theological education is needed to best serve it. They pulled out their palm pilots to schedule yet another round of discussions...
How Many Paths to Ministry Can One Seminary Provide?
Lancaster Theological Seminary
For years, rumors had circulated that the UCC denomination was considering creating alternative tracks to ordination that would bypass seminary education. No one at the seminary quite believed it. After all, it was a bedrock assumption of the United Church of Christ that an educated clergy was important.
With 15 faculty members and an ecumenical student body of 160 students in three degree programs (M.Div., MAR and D.Min.), Lancaster Theological Seminary had enjoyed a privileged place among its constituent churches in Central Pennsylvania. Begun in 1825 by the German Reformed Church, the seminary had been faithfully serving the church for 178 years. Our reputation in our support region in the mid-Atlantic was good. Churches continued to send a majority of full-time students for the master of divinity program, and with only a small number of part-time students, a carefully sequenced curriculum focused on formation for ministry. This curriculum, along with the relational ethos of the seminary, was affirmed by our graduates as one of the most positive characteristics of an LTS education. Our graduates were serving hundreds of churches and reports on their service were largely positive.
All seemed to be going well. At a regional “hearing” meeting four or five years ago, the area clergy and laity resoundingly rejected the idea of any track leading to ordination that did not involve a seminary education.
Then word trickled down that the rumors were more than just rumors: the various pressure groups seeking alternatives had gained strength and allies in the denominational headquarters. Licensed ministry was not considered good enough. Alternative tracks to ordination were being designed. The seminaries, viewed as ivory towers who had no interest in serving small churches or racial-ethnic minority congregations, were being ignored.
The faculty held an emergency meeting: many were incredulous: how could this happen behind our backs? Where do these stereotypes of the seminary come from? How should we respond to this challenge to our place as a significant educator of pastors and lay leaders in our denomination?
One faculty member, representing one of the more traditionally ‘academic’ disciplines, proposed that perhaps we could organize a campaign to persuade the denomination to reconsider this ill-advised move. “Christianity is intrinsically a textually mediated religion and therefore a high degree of competence in the interpretation of texts is a requisite for all wise church leadership,” she argued. “The literary-critical and historical-critical skills are difficult enough to communicate in a three year full-time program.” “Besides,” she added, “How would we provide the necessary support for students who are shaken by the critical approach to scripture and theology if the education was as episodic as is the case in most licensed lay ministry programs?”
“I agree that we should consider trying to persuade the denomination to reconsider this course of action,” said another faculty member, “but I am coming from a different perspective.” “My concern is that Christianity has become a highly diversified phenomenon in an increasingly religiously pluralistic culture. The church of the future must be capable of dealing constructively with multiple perspectives, ambiguity, and the absence of agreed-upon foundations. Persons who have not been adequately immersed in this ideological flux will be ill-suited to function in this heterogenous cultural environment.” “How,” he asked, “will individuals who have not had the full seminary experience appreciate the wide range of Christian beliefs, values and behaviors that characterize the contemporary church? Will they be able to deal with this diversity in an open-minded and dialogical manner?”
In the middle of the discussion, the lone faculty member from a free church tradition started laughing out loud. Disapproving stares from his colleagues hardly discouraged him. He suspected that the faculty members’ lack of sympathy for the proposed alternatives to ordination might just represent our own myopia, prejudice and self-interest. “Since when does a seminary education guarantee that someone will be a better pastor than someone who doesn’t go to seminary? Instead of arguing that people should have to get an M.Div. as a requirement for ordination, maybe we need to make a different argument. Maybe we should argue for the benefits of a seminary education, but offer different kinds of seminary education to different people. And with so many churches needing pastors, and with so few seminary graduates to serve them, why not follow the examples of the Baptists and Methodists and train people the best we can? By participating in the flow of alternative education rather than resisting it, maybe we can contribute to a higher level of excellence in ministry.”
Various faculty members took exception to the former Baptist’s comments. (Many of these faculty members had grown up in mainline traditions that held to a highly educated standard for pastors.) “Besides,” one pointed out, “we are a member school of the ATS, and the ATS holds certain standards for a seminary’s student body and curriculum.”
“But is our three- or four-year master of divinity curriculum really viable for all prospective ministers?” asked another faculty member. “We need to look realistically at the cultural and economic situation facing small churches located many hours away from a seminary.” He knew that area conference ministers in the UCC, and judicatory officials of other denominations were clamoring for the seminary to become involved in the creation and maintenance of licensed lay ministry academies that were springing up all over the region to help educate laity both to become more skilled in their service to the church to which they belonged, and to serve small churches that could not afford full-time pastors.
The trouble was, many faculty members were already serving individually as instructors in the various conference programs, and reported varying levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the quality of the programs and their requirements. The problem with the programs as they were configured currently was the drastic differences in quality between them. Could the seminary become a partner with the conferences to help create standards and offer resources for this kind of lay ministerial preparation?
As this question surfaced in the meeting, grumbling was heard from several faculty members who had previously been quiet. One of them spoke bluntly: “Are you going to ask us to start yet another program on top of our three degrees and the two Lilly-sponsored programs we are already committed to?” “Who is the ‘you’ to whom you are referring?” countered the dean. “This conversation is about us. It is about our mission and identity as a seminary of the church. What we are trying to do here is be clear about the issues to which we must respond, whether that response is to clearly indicate the limits of how we can be a resource for the church or to make changes in our programs.”
But in her heart of hearts she worried about the impact of new initiatives on the already-stretched energies of the faculty. Lancaster Seminary faculty had a reputation as excellent teachers; involvement in multiple programs could jeopardize their classroom preparation time and attention. She sighed as she felt, once again, the weight of trying to balance the church/academy tension that seemed to permeate all faculty discussions these days.
Before this conversation could be pursued, another faculty member raised yet another level of discourse about lay education, this one fostered by her belief (shared by a significant number of faculty members, both lay and clergy) that the health and vitality of the church (and its clergy) have a great deal to do with a strong, educated laity. She spoke out: “I am concerned that the church’s interest in increasing the numbers of licensed lay ministers to serve small congregations will obliterate the distinction between clergy and lay roles in the church. I worry that laity will not be viewed as ministers with a distinct role in the church, but as ‘pale and inferior copies of the clergy.’ Should lay ministry take as its model the liturgical and pastoral functions ordained ministers perform, or is there a distinctive role for laity serving in the world beyond the walls of the church?”
Just as this larger question of ecclesiology surfaced, the ending time for the meeting sounded, as all breathed a sigh of relief that the faculty could put off these complicated (and threatening?) issues for another day. The meeting broke up with the majority of the faculty agreeing to a cautious exploration of alternative educational delivery systems, so long as the three-year master of divinity remained as the seminary’s central program. As they exited the room, the dean and the president shook their heads. The discussion had surfaced the reality that the questions had not only to do with faculty load in creating a new program, but also had to do with larger questions on the nature of the church and what kind of theological education is needed to best serve it. They pulled out their palm pilots to schedule yet another round of discussions...