Would this faith be better served by having one or no theological schools? Would we prefer more or fewer of our UU ministerial candidates to be attending non-UU schools, basically "out-sourcing" most of the training of our ministers? And what are they missing if they do? Though we hear the oft quoted number that two thirds of our ministerial students are attending non-UU schools, to what degree do "our" schools provide the ministerial leadership in our congregations? Are our schools viable without the level of support we have been providing?
These were some of the questions I explored this afternoon with Rebecca Parker, the president of Starr King School for the Ministry. This conversation, our first, was direct and honest, with both of us struggling to look for a path less painful than the one we currently appeared to be on.
This is not the first time these questions have been raised - Robert West's memoir, Crisis and Change, talks extensively about the same issues raised in the 1970s and into the 80s. All organizations have to make tough decisions, but as we move through the discussion on this one I will look for clarification on some very basic things:
- what decision are we making? are we clear about the impact of the actions we are proposing to take?
- how much of this decision has been overtly delegated to the Panel on Theological Ministry?
- how does the timing for the study results interact with the schools' curriculum and scheduling, as major cuts typically involve programming and staff?
1 comment:
Hi Linda-
Thanks again for coming to visit our class.
You ask: "Would we prefer more or fewer of our UU ministerial candidates to be attending non-UU schools, basically "out-sourcing" most of the training of our ministers? And what are they missing if they do?"
Being in close community with similar-minded people (in this specific case, seminarians) is empowering and sustaining for me. Having that solidarity, and the feeling of strength in numbers--rather than being one of a small handful of UU students at another school--allows for a wide range of deeper dialog based on UU theologies and values, rather than feeling at the margins. In the courses I've taken at the Pacific School of Religion, for example, while there is plenty of material available for us to glean from and apply toward a UU setting, the courses somehow feel as if they're really more for Methodists, Presbyterians, or UCCs.
To reallocate economic resources away from the core UU learning institutions IMO would be to weaken the spine of our UU theological "think-tanks," if you will. At the same time, it is very important to support those students financially who are unable to pack up and move for any number of reasons. It seems that the economic resources in question appear to be part of a zero-sum either/or situation, in which monies must be taken from one location to put toward another. Is there a way to develop a both/and approach and get financial support for the students at SKSM and M-L and for the students who study elsewhere?
From an investment standpoint, wouldn't you put money toward things you want to grow? The return on investment from supporting ALL UU seminarians is having more UU chaplains, more UU community ministers, more quality ministers available for parish ministry, and better-developed theological underpinnings through advanced dialog.
Joel
Post a Comment