Plainly Pagan: Unqualified Hireling Ministers
I'm still floored whenever I hear about anyone in the paid ministry who has not completed a graduate education. How does that work, exactly? With a graduate degree, one can justify asking for a salary. A qualified minister has undergone coursework in topics such as biblical scholarship, theology, hymnity, and pastoral counseling. Their parishioners can expect a level of expertise, discipline, and access to information that will enhance the well-being of the community. But what if they just show up for work filled with the Spirit of the Lord but pretty light on credentials? What gives them the right to dispense religious teaching any more than the next person? Because they want to? Because they have a special interest? I'd like to teach anthropology to grad students. I've taken two introductory classes in community college. That should qualify me, right? My husband would like to fly a helicopter. He does own a model that actually flies. Maybe that's enough. I say we let him wing it. My father used to assist in autopsies. I say he should give surgery a shot.
Sure, some people are called to the ministry. Fine. So minister. But when you get paid to do that work, you set yourself up as one with authority to whom people in really serious trouble will turn. People respect that authority and they can be hurt by that authority. Badly hurt. I've seen it happen far too many times. This is why responsible people insist upon certain protocols in determining which individuals may provide which services and under what circumstances. Professional clergy must be responsible to a set of standards to which they are held not only by their congregations but also by a governing body outside the congregation.
I see the role of professional clergy as educators, advisors, and administrators. Their usefulness rests in their training and they should be trained to execute the tasks of research, counsel, and business. Their spiritual authority should not exceed that of any other member of the congregation. We should not hire clergy primarily because of their enthusiasm for their faith any more than we should hire college presidents for their enthusiasm for academics. How would that look, anyway?
Read more...
Posts
12 comments:
I understand the feeling behind that. I was raised Catholic and just assumed that other Christian ministers had gone through some form of training similar to Seminary. Then my husband informed me that Evangelical churches (which he was raised in) are led by the common person who is charismatic and has something to say about the Bible. He also said that almost every church he attended disbanded because of disagreements over Biblical interpretation or social problems, whereas I've never seen a Catholic church disband for those types of problems.
Paganism presents a different problem, which we talked about in class at CHS: we're so full of individualism and until CHS we didn't really have ways to train. But our goals are also different from more organized religions.
Overall, I'd prefer pagan leaders to have a formalized training.
Graduate school is a privilege of rich people. Do we want to limit our religion by class?
Laura, I think the difference is centralized hierarchy vs. decentralized, not Biblical interpretation. The Pope can silence dissenting Catholics (Matthew Fox) but religions with less centralized authority can't.
I prefer clergy with an active connection and channel to Diety to those indoctrinated in classes.
Querki, you said, "Graduate school is a privilege of rich people."
Really? I guess I must not exist then. ;-) I come from a poor background, I've never been rich in my life, and I'm a grad student now.
Seriously, though -- that graduate school is open only, or mostly, to rich people certainly doesn't square with my experience with grad students, and I have a fair amount. I have friends who work with graduate employees who are forming unions, so I know quite a bit about graduate students' economic issues overall, going back about ten years. In addition, a few years ago, my wife had a leading to change careers and go back to grad school, plus I'm now also a grad student, so I have plenty of first-hand experience of this, too, now.
Most grad students I know are neither rich nor well-to-do: most of them are struggling financially. And fewer than you might expect come from middle-class backgrounds, although it's certainly true that most people who get bachelor's degrees in this country come from middle-class or upper-class families. Funding in grad school in the US has almost nothing to do with family size and income, as it does for undergrad.
I grew up working-class. Nowadays people take me for middle class, and in many ways I am; but where I came from is still a lot of who, and where, I am today, and that's a consciousness I bring to my Pagan community and my Quaker community. And my seminary.
"Do we want to limit our religion by class?"
But we do already. Because in both Paganism and unprogrammed Quakerism we have, essentially, volunteer ministry; therefore, ministry is only open to people who can afford to do it -- people who aren't working two or more jobs, or aren't single parents, or can afford babysitters so they can come to committee meetings and such, or who have family support. And because unprogrammed Quakers have our heads up our butts about paying ministers, we don't always provide the kinds of financial support that makes it possible for the poorer members of our communities to engage in ministry. This is an issue of social justice and economic access within our own Meetings and Circles.
(But that, one of these days, will be a different blog post over at Musings of a Quaker Witch.)
In general, I trust Quaker Meetings to be able to provide a certain level of pastoral care to folks in Meeting communities. But who do we tap to serve on pastoral care committees like Ministry and Counsel? Often, people with professional degrees in helping professions.
And while, overall, I trust Quaker process to provide Spirit-led pastoral care, not only are there times when we fall down on that job, but there are plenty of times when we are out of our depth, and additional training can be life-saving. People with no background in trauma recovery, for example, should not be the primary counseling support for trauma survivors who are full in the emergency stage of recovery: it's not fair to them or the survivor, and what's more, it's dangerous. Same thing with severe depression and suicidality.
I think we -- Quakers and Pagans both -- need to a little more honest with ourselves about issues of both trained clergy and paid clergy.
Like Laura, I would also prefer leaders to have formalized training - but perhaps the focus would based less on spirituality, as it might be in more traditional seminaries where theology is stressed, and more on the practical how-to's of running a congregation / Circle / what-have-you. Our paths will be so dissimilar that theology classes would take a back seat to issues of counseling, advocacy, group dynamics, legal issues, etc.
Theology-based classes are certainly interesting and valid for personal enrichment, and to provide a basis for talking to people of other traditions, so don't think I'm advocating doing away with them altogether. But, perhaps Pagan clergy especially - given the wide range of people they will be dealing with, many of whom have a strong sense of individuality - need to have great leadership skills, some of which you can pick up in the field but also some of which, I think, needs to be formally taught by professional mentors as well as peers. And that's where formal seminary training comes in.
And I also don't agree that graduate school is the privilege of the rich - I know that from experience. ;)
Like Laura, I would also prefer leaders to have formalized training - but perhaps the focus would based less on spirituality, as it might be in more traditional seminaries where theology is stressed, and more on the practical how-to's of running a congregation / Circle / what-have-you. Our paths will be so dissimilar that theology classes would take a back seat to issues of counseling, advocacy, group dynamics, legal issues, etc.
Theology-based classes are certainly interesting and valid for personal enrichment, and to provide a basis for talking to people of other traditions, so don't think I'm advocating doing away with them altogether. But, perhaps Pagan clergy especially - given the wide range of people they will be dealing with, many of whom have a strong sense of individuality - need to have great leadership skills, some of which you can pick up in the field but also some of which, I think, needs to be formally taught by professional mentors as well as peers. And that's where formal seminary training comes in.
And I also don't agree that graduate school is the privilege of the rich - I know that from experience. ;)
I'm with Stasa on this - I work at Wal-Mart for a living and I'm going to Cherry Hill. Every graduate student I've ever known has been working class while going to school, putting themselves vastly in debt so that education will hopefully pay out in the end.
The Pope can make official statements and give official Catholic doctrine, but that doesn't mean that every priest will preach precisely that.
Personally, I wouldn't trust anybody who claimed to be an authority figure because they had an active connection and channel to the gods. I've known folks who insisted that people listen to them simply because of age or length in the religion, not because they actually had anything to offer besides a connection to Deity. That works great for an individual, don't get me wrong, but when coming together in groups, more training is needed.
Not qualified to comment on the clergy question, but I'd be interested in what your (any of you) experiences are with regard to SES of grad students before they got there. My first reading of "grad school is a privilege for the rich" wasn't any sort of statement on the status of current grad students, but on the environments that lead poor kids not to realize that grad school isn't just for doctors and lawyers, isn't paid for the same way as undergrad degrees, and might just be an option after all. It's not that the door is locked, it's that too many kids who can just barely squeeze through the crack in the undergrad door grow up taking it for granted that any further door is locked, barred, and barricaded.
Sorry for the sidetrack, ya'll can go back to talking clergy issues now. :-)
Bedawyn, I don't think it's a side issue at all! Socioeconomic status (SES) is tied to all kinds of issues within both Quakerism and Paganism.
In Paganism, many groups and traditions want to be inclusive of outcasts of different stripes, and that includes the non-rich. Recently (Laura, remember this?) I was in a discussion on diversity where we talked about a certain suspicion that people in Pagan circles who have money are treated with -- often, it's almost like, what suspect thing did you do to get that? But it's equally true that we're not always aware of the economic barriers to full participation in our groups (bus fare? (bus schedules?) gas money?), and that we don't always have good tools to talk about those issues. We muddle along.
So: many Pagan groups, and most Quaker ones, profess some concern and some commitment to social justice, including economic justice and economic accessibility. Also: SES and socio-economic background play a big role in whether or not one sees graduate-level theaological education as a possibility, much less a realistic option.
One of the things you ask is, how does one come to see it as an option?
For me, it was meeting someone working for social and economic justice for graduate student employees, then my spouse becoming a grad student: I needed to see how it worked in the lives of people I knew before it ever occurred to me to consider it was possible for myself. I went to an academically-challenging college where we had no preparation at all for how to decide to go to grad school, how to decide where to apply, how to decide where to accept... I've talked about this with several other alums, and we wonder: Do they just assume we know, because of our backgrounds? In spite of the socioeconomic diversity there, does the college still essentially assume a middle- or upper-class background?
I guess I didn't communicate this clearly in my earlier comment, but I was talking about family SES background of grad students, not current/situational SES. For me, when I started meeting grad students, that was when I learned they didn't all come from privileged families. It was really surprising for me.
Laura, Querki, Riella, Bedawyn, thank you. This is such a great conversation. I'm wishing I'd posted this entry over at Musings of a Quaker Witch. In general, I hope you'll feel free to start conversations over there, too.
Blessed be!
Actually, Bedawyn, you make an excellent point, and you're completely right. It's not the actual cost of attending that might be problematic but how someone from a lower status perceives that cost and their ability to work with it.
For the pagan community, at least, we're blessed with very low rates at Cherry Hill. I don't know how expensive it is to study to become a Rabbi or a Priest.
I still think it's strange that pagans living in the upper-middle class are viewed so suspiciously. It hasn't occurred that way in my experience, but I was from a fairly well-to-do town where most of us were at least considered middle working class. We had to work hard, but we had money for things we needed and then some play money. There were a couple of exceptions (those who were involved with forest service and could only work seasonally were much more careful with their money), but they were the minority.
I'm short on time this morning, but since I'm *both* a strong supporter of formal education and a strong supporter of community/folk learning models (eg, Camp Sister Spirit's folk school), this discussion intrigues me.
My quick contribution is to peek at some of the research regarding socioeconomic status and graduate school enrollment. Here are a couple links worth visiting:
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/review_of_higher_education/v027/27.1walpole.html
http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=PB&pubid=252
http://www.springerlink.com/content/lj72244837h53p75
At least the abstracts of these quick three articles suggest that lower SES students are indeed less well represented in graduate school.
I wanted to grab the census numbers, but it'll take a few more minutes than I have right now; the right cross-reference isn't in an already-prepared, quick-link table that I saw, but can be pulled from the published detailed tables, at least for the 2000 census.
Anyway, interesting discussion here! I look forward to reading more!
As an “paid & unpaid minister” in the Religious Society of Friends (RSoF), who came out of an Evangelical, pastoral background, I have a few observations to add, if that’s okay. I work for FGC, helping to support various ministry programs. Am I paid? Yes. Do I have a degree in this area? No. Do I provide helpful, grounded support for these programs? I like to think so. I also provide various kinds of ministry formally & informally in my home meeting and among Friends outside of my meeting, which might fall under the label of “eldering” and spiritual care.
In the RSoF, these are roles which many Friends play in informal ways or through committee service. Friends have traditionally shied away from “paid ministry,” mainly, I think, because there was a growing awareness that the folks served as ministers were “professors” only, and had not had an inward experience of the Light. But I think there are some differences between “lay” pastoral care & “lay” spiritual guidance and the care that a “paid professional” can give. It can be tricky to know the difference. Friends who give spiritual guidance without support & accountability from their spiritual communities can get into hot water, especially if they’ve moved beyond their own base of experience. I’ve seen that it’s necessary for Friends with professional backgrounds to serve with non-professionals on pastoral care committees. I’ve seen meetings get into trouble when trying to provide “amateur social services” without the benefit of professional advice.
I’m also a huge believer in Spirit-led wisdom inherent in the corporate body. Would I want an “amateur” to write my meeting’s child-safety policy for our insurance without input from a lawyer & other qualified professionals? Probably not. Do I trust that there is wisdom in the meeting to help the body deal with such a painful situation in the meeting should it occur? I sure do.
Having been a member of a church within the last 10 years, one of the benefits I see in “educated, paid clergy” is not necessarily in terms of providing the sermon or vocal ministry on Sunday or even being the only person providing spiritual guidance in the church. But in the non-Quaker world, ministers are required to undergo training, and even counseling, before being sent to a church to provide pastoral care. They also serve as facilitators or coordinators of the church’s work, which I have seen many Quaker meetings lack, despite having a clerk.
I would not want to replace “inspired” ministry in my meeting with that of a paid professional - I’ve seen that inspiration truly does come from Spirit and can be a temporary gift, as Spirit chooses. Having a handy degree does not guarantee continued inspiration. But training can help with some of the complex matters which may require more professional & psychological skill than the average Friend has.
- Eric Evans, CPMM
Laura and Sterghe, thanks.
Eric, a lot of what you say makes sense to me and fits with my experience. Thanks for posting.
Post a Comment