Last year I was part of a discussion
around the book Educating Clergy:
Teaching Practices and Pastoral Imagination prepared by the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
This in-depth study addressed the formation of clergy from the
standpoint of the Jewish, Roman Catholic, and Protestant (including
Evangelical) traditions. The book raises
some challenging questions, but since it was written in 2006 based on field
research in the years before, its picture of theological education is already
dated in many ways.
One of the issues addressed which is still
relevant and has become even more critical in recent years is diversity. The authors comment, “The increasing diversity of students in
programs of clergy education has significantly challenged the ethos and mission
of seminary education during the past forty years.” (p. 54) This diversity includes
the greater involvement of women (both as students and faculty), historically
marginalized (ethnically and racially) students, older students, and the variety
of religious traditions (or lack thereof) within a student body.
If a seminary professor
really wants to connect the subject matter with the student, then he or she must consider how to provide spaces for dialogue
while not abdicating teaching goals. Communication is a two way
enterprise. Just because I say something
does not mean that you understand me, especially if we come from widely
divergent cultural, racial, social, or ethnic perspectives.
I have experienced
this challenge myself as an adjunct professor. I have particularly enjoyed the dialogue with
African-American clergy in class. They
bring a rich, layered, and alternative point of view to many discussions. Often when have I talked about the way that
things are done in the church, I have heard the response, “That’s not how it’s
done in our church.” This has taught me
a great deal, including some humility.
I have learned much
about sensitivity from the women in my classes.
While some are young adults, most women that I have taught are
mid-career people who grew up in a church culture where their gifts and
insights were not greatly valued. With
the hope for a new way of doing things comes a great deal of frustration if not
anger.
Another challenge is
dealing with the various vocational expectations of students. In addition to
the varied types of ministry goals represented in a classroom (pastor, youth
minister, Christian formation minister, etc.), there are those who are not
seeking ministry preparation but plan to pursue an academic career. Others are committed to starting new
ministries that will be faith-based but not necessarily church-sponsored. Some are lay people who have no plans to be
ordained but simply want to deepen their spiritual lives.
The authors of Educating Clergy ask, “[T]o what extent do seminaries accommodate—in the institutional
culture, public mission, and teaching practices—the presence of differences
among students?” (p. 58) There are no easy answers to this question but it is a
wonderful opportunity for mutual learning.
Comments