Clergy Training

Trainers, academics and emergents - new allies?    

Back in 2004 I offered this post in response to a blog discussion which Maggi Dawn and Jonny Baker had initiated. Although I would want to de-link it from that discussion several people have asked to me to offer the post again to increase awareness of how people are trained today.

In the post below here you can follow a link to Steve's  blog where he refers to a new route to train which will offer a specialised route which is in the process of being developed nationally, though it is being pioneered in certain regional locations. This post however refers to the existing methods.

Click on continuation to read post

As a teenager, I experienced Cuddesdon Theological College set in the countryside outside Oxford when my Dad went through ordination as a rare ‘mature’ candidate in his mid forties. He was nearly the oldest student among a group of young men (some of whom are now senior clergy and diocesan bishops). Cuddesdon was changing from being a pseudo-monastery to something more human, which acknowledged the existence of families. So in his first year women were only allowed on site at certain very restricted times of the week!

I myself went through initial clergy training in the 1990s on a non-residential CBDTI training course based in the North West of England and then served a three year curacy. Aged 39 when I started training I was among the youngest students (men and women) and trained with lay readers within the Church while continuing to work.

What concerns me is that the too much of the assessment and comments of “theological training” seems to more accurately describe the first situation than the second.

So let us focus on some of the facts of training today which often seem forgotten in the debate:

How do people train?
In the Church of England (and in most other denominations except the Roman Catholic Church) there are four basic ways of training:

Stage 1
Residentially at a college (1 - 3 years), (about 34% candidates in 2004 )
On a ‘non-residential’ course ( 1-3 years) ( about 41% of students )
Being licensed in a parish working as lay worker while training at a college on block placements. ( 1- 3 years) (about 5% of students)
or on a Diocesan course, being run in a while working a local setting and primarily for people who are to serve as locally ordained priests whose ministry will be to a specific parish. ( about 20% of students)

Stage 2.
Critically important to understand is that everyone then continues their training for an equivalent period (1-3 years) as a curate where they learn leadership skills etc. Only when they have completed their curacy have they "completed" their training and given pastoral responsibility for a parish or mission role.

The length of time spent training (including any accepted previous experience) is on average 6 years which is roughly the same as a GP, vet etc. So when critics say that people “emerge from college without leadership skills” then it’s a little like criticising someone half way through training as doctor for not having the skills to run a GP practice. No-one coming out of college is equipped yet to “lead” anything – let alone an emergent church.

What is interesting about the four different routes is that some Diocese are already changing the fourth pattern because they have discovered that when training is too localised then people find it hard to move to other situations which in our mobile society is becoming essential.

What is included in the course?
It is sometimes suggested that the problem is that the course part of the training is too theological and aimed at being teacher /pastors with very little missional material.

Even accepting the focus on study, this simply isn’t true. I have in front of me three college outlines, and one detailed course scheme - which I am currently supporting an ordinand through

I would say that the weakness is that there is too little biblical material (about 1/10th of the course - which could be contributing to weak preaching – lay readers in the Diocese get far more) and hardly any theological study in the doctrinal sense t.

So the first student assignment of the course is to provide a detailed assessment of “ the theology of mission which is guiding the life and outreach of your local church” and the accompanying notes describe a process of assessment and review of the Church and its social setting. The reading list would be instantly recognised by any widely read emergent: Bosch, Bruegemann, Robert Warren, Grace Davie, Graham Cray but the focus is absolutely focussed on the local real setting.

Over the three years, there is a healthy emphasis on pastoral (in the sense of developing and sustaining faith) and a certain amount of training for functional tasks – but the missional task of the church is to the forefront.

Why do we need mission shaped Church?
Well we need reports like Mission Shaped Church because they help to change the general orientation of the Church. One of the frustrations which curates face is precisely that they have been prepared for a mission role, but when they are asked to serve with clergy and parishes that do not share the perception and they end up focussing on maintenance tasks. However, I think there is very little in Mission Shaped Church, which I did not come across in the more creative parts of my course training 8 years ago – obviously, things progress but the basic ideas are there.

Is there a connection?
So you may hear lots of clergy bemoaning the lack of connection – and I agree it’s a very common clergy bleat – but is it real? Curates who leave college thinking they are ”trained” inevitably spend three years discovering just how little they know – those who grasp that the training and formation is just beginning and they have far more too learn tend to be able to recognise the value of the course element.

I could be naughty and name some colleges who think they are sending the complete article out into a grateful Church. I have heard of a Principal of a college preaching an end of year sermon, which included the statement “you have completed your training go into the world to put it into practice”.

When I think carefully about it, I hear many curates complaining and I wonder why – perhaps it’s because the college training does not become fully applicable until you have moved onto full pastoral responsibility of being an Incumbent – in charge of a parish.

What interests me is that I hear different clergy complaining and also praising the same college/course. With some hindsight, I think I am growing to understand that courses have a dynamic life – people inevitably are dependent on key people within courses such as tutors. So courses/colleges have good years/cycles. I went through my training at a difficult time - but am delighted to see how "up" the same course is today

Reflecting back on my course training I had the misfortune to train at a time when the course as a whole was in disarray (weak leadership etc) but nevertheless gained much from a superb personal tutor. Now as trainer I look back and realise ironically that the weakest input came from the people who I most advocated ie the practioner led sessions – people who came from local settings who were able to tell their story but lacked the skills to analyse what was happening, or to help students reflect on it. We had some seriously duff weekends folks!

But then we just have to accept that some people have a rough time on courses and don’t gain much. Given the diversity of people who come forward for ordination that is inevitable

Is the Church in huge decline and has training responded?
The statistics don’t lie but they don’t tell the full story. I think that "church- going" is declining – but I think faith (both inside and outside the Church ) is growing. I agree totally that local churches are often not answering the questions or concerns that people are asking – but I find it hard to attribute that to the training courses.

The courses provide the training, which the Church requests – the Church has yet to fully address the missional agenda – but I actually think most of the courses are ahead on this agenda – as are most of the academic theology departments. Whatever view I would never ever suggest that this is something other than an urgent task to address – but we need to avoid falling into the trap of mission for the sake of numbers or the survival of the Church. Whatever the Church is or isn’t doing, God is certainly at work and inviting to share in his work.

So is it all wonderful
No of course it is not – nor was I ever saying that it was. However I am convinced that theologians (whether as academics or trainers) would be among our allies in changing the Church and in encouraging missional and emergent churches to grow and develop.

I fear that the kind of stereotyping which the blogsphere tends to engage in will simply mislead people into believing that there are few goodies ( Maggi Dawn) and that no-one else is interested. Similarly it simply isn’t good enough if we genuinely want to encourage missional vocations among those who serve the Church as priests to perpetuate myths about training.

What needs changing and how can alliances be built?
Firstly the recent Church of England Report on training has the potential to transform how training is provided – old churchmanship issues will be tackled with colleges of different persuasions being forced to join up and collaborate.

A missional agenda is one of the points of agreement – can those who share a missional preference exploit that?

The emphasis on residential training will be reduced – and most importantly the age restriction (you used to have to be over 40 to train non-residentially ) will be removed. So younger people will be able to train non-residentially – but some bishops will resist this - so will clergy and others support those whose vocation, personal circumstances, and sense of mission suggests non-residential or in- place training?

While I appear to be critical of residential training I am not: but we need to be clear about its purpose in the overall framework of training. One of the main reasons will be to provide the church with an available body of clergy who have been academically trained in theology (clergy –theologians) and who are linked into and comfortable with academia.

How can the quality of second-phase training in curacies be improved – what training will be provided to training incumbents – what kind of parishes will offer curacies – will that include settings with a clearly missional agenda? I would suggest that where the weakness does exist in mission orientation is in the second phase where curates are placed with well established clergy in strong parishes who may be among last to adopt the missional phase. Could training clergy undertake compulsory training ( on courses/colleges) as trainers before being allowed curates to avoid the “second pair of hands” trap.

How can the many excellent down to earth real world academics and trainers be encouraged to take note of that relatively obscure and little known world that is the blogshere. Could a college or department be encouraged to start a shared blogsites so that the barrier of ignorance and suspicion is broken down and real partnerships emerge. They would certainly challenge some of the woolly theology which is perpetuated on blogs!

The age of candidates has been a widely highlighted issue – but we will only lower that be really encouraging role models – “young curates breed young candidates” is a motto of the Anglo-Catholic end of the Church which has been noticeable more successful in lowering the age of candidates for ordination. At the very least we must stop the silly nonsense of sending post-university candidates away to “gain more experience of the world” – for they tend to go and not come back.

Enough for now – I hope that this is seen as a positive response to a vital issue – I believe that the trainers and academics of the Church of England could be great allies of emergent missional people if we can get beyond the stereotypes. All major changes in Church have been resourced by the academic as well as the practioner – if we are committed to a missional church we need to remember that.