Resourcing Ministerial Education: back to the egg
As part of the 'Reform and Renewal' process, one of the 4 main papers looked at the future needs and funding for ministerial grooming. Written past a group chaired by Steven Croft, Bishop of Sheffield, I recall it was one of the better papers. There were some first-class and need changes, some of which are already being implemented. The most strategic of these is the reorganisation of Ministry Division of Archbishops' Council, so that information technology is focussing on national vocations strategy—but at that place are a good number of other sensible and practical changes which almost everyone can agree on.
Having said that, I noted previously that the report likewise included some potentially disastrous recommendations. Chief amongst these was the suggestion that both funding and conclusion-making exist devolved back to dioceses, and that support for married ordinands should no longer exist centrally pooled. I was not the only one to blanch at this; 17 professors of theology in universities wrote to the Church Times expressing their business organization at the potential loss of a national structure for theological education, and Alistair McGrath besides interpreted this every bit a loss of commitment to theological instruction.
To his credit, Steven Croft has been very responsive to this feedback—more than so than another members of the R and R grouping. He offered a clarification on financial matters in response to the things I had observed, and has at present issued a 2nd comment on feedback and the procedure from here on. (I as well appreciated a personal conversation with him along the way.) The latest response tackles criticism head-on, and though there are some important clarifications, I am not certain nosotros have yet got to the nub of the event.
The first major criticism was whether there was a practiced theological rationale for what was proposed. Here, Croft is clear that there was never intended to be:
The report is most the futurity resourcing of ministerial education. It is fundamentally well-nigh how all-time to get best value from and where necessary increment the resources available, ensure that theological educational activity is lifelong, more flexible, extends to lay people as well equally the ordained, and that the best possible such pedagogy is offered to the largest number of people.
That is good equally far equally it goes—if it weren't for the fact that the initial reportdid offer some sort of rationale, or at to the lowest degree an evaluation. A meaning piece of enquiry from the Institute of Learning at King's, London, led to a 66-page report based on…nothing at all. The evaluation of different forms of training was based on whether those trained 'felt' that their grooming was useful, rather than any objective measure out of what the training delivered. I think most people reading this felt that information technology would have been more honest to say 'We are not going to make any assumptions about the relative merits of different forms of training', since that appeared to exist the goal of the exercise. Simply of course making that explicit would have looked very odd in a report on 'value'. Why pay x for not very good training when you could spend y on better training—and how do you make any judgements if you have no idea of the relative effectiveness of these two approaches?
The 2nd major issue related to theology, and in item the criticisms from McGrath and the university professors. Here, Croft sounds baffled:
I've reread the study several times for annihilation which might indicate this and I tin't find it. Nor can I observe whatsoever bear witness for the view that theological engagement with ministry is seen as peripheral, a luxury or divisive. The RME Task Group would have identified wholeheartedly with Alister'due south paragraphs on theological vision for ministry building. We simply assumed that this would be shared basis.
I sympathise with Croft's predicament here—because the sense of loss of commitment to theology was notexplicit in the written report, merely implicit, arising in two areas.
Commencement, if I am deciding whether to buy apples or pears, and I find that apples are 50p each just pears are 30p each, and I have produced a 66-page report demonstrating that apples and pears are equally proficient for me—and I am focussing on best value for coin—which volition I buy? Answer: pears! And if I am told I need more fruit than previously, and that budgets are tight, will I purchase some apples and some pears? No! I will buy nothing but pears. This is the logical outcome of the argument that residential training and part-time training offer no difference in effectiveness. And this is where most readers of the initial report saw a lack of delivery to theological training.
Secondly, the loss of residential theological preparation will be the inevitablealbeit unintended outcome of the proposal to devolve budgeting and planning to diocese. Yep, Croft is right:
The evidence from all across the Church of England is that bishops, parishes, and clergy all place a high value on residential training equally part of the mixed economy of training we need for the future.
Simply when bishops are faced with serious budget issues in their dioceses, most if non all will want to investing in training which is best value for coin—and given that pears are cheaper than apples, much equally they are committed to a mixed economy of apples and pears, the nutrition will exist pears alone. It is worth remembering that the C of East is something of a specialist in unintended consequences; after all, the rapid decline in the number of stipendiary clergy, which Croft is and then concerned about, was itself an unintended upshot of changing the average age at which people entered training. And so nosotros really do demand to call back these things through.
On the other issues, I mostly concord with Croft's responses. But mid-fashion through, he highlights the issue we must wrestle with:
However, the present arrangements also have some serious disadvantages. They are complicated and inflexible. Decisions nearly an ordinand's training are separated entirely from the consequences in terms of costs. The consequent feedback from Bishops and Dioceses is that theological preparation institutions need to be more than responsive to the irresolute ministerial needs of the Church every bit a whole.
Hither is the cardinal question: should 'decisions nearly an ordinand's training are separated entirely from the consequences in terms of costs'? In the past we have said 'No'; a candidate should be trained in the best way for that person'south development, regardless of whether they are single or married, with or without dependents. Merely if the number of those in training is to increment, and diocesan budgets remain tight, tin we afford this luxury? Will residential preparation in futurity only be an selection for the single or cocky-supporting?
In that location are and then many skillful things in this report that I hope the majority go through. Only I doubtable this will only happen if the key issue most value for money, and the unintended consequences of structural change, are engaged with head on.
I work freelance. If you accept valued this post, would you considerdonating £1.twenty a month to support the production of this blog?
If y'all enjoyed this, exercise share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is washed on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, y'all tin can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that appoint with the content of the post, and share in respectful fence, can add real value. Seek showtime to empathize, and so to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view fence as a conflict to win; address the statement rather than tackling the person.
montejanohateardideft66.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/resourcing-ministerial-education-back-to-the-egg/
0 Response to "Resourcing Ministerial Education: back to the egg"
Post a Comment