What does ordination training need to include?
by Ian Paul, Psephizo:
We are once again undertaking a review of ordination training in the Church of England, technically known as IME 1–3, Initial Ministerial Training years 1 to 3, to note that initial training continues in curacy prior to anyone becoming an incumbent (sole leader of a congregation). The reason for this is that all previous discussions have been beset by conflicts of vested interests, and effected only by decisions made with a lack of transparency, accountability, and participation for all those involved. The complexity for the C of E is that there are at least four parties to questions of training, each with their own concerns which in some way clash or are in tension with each other: bishops and dioceses; training institutions; central church management and decision-making (Ministry Council); and ordinands themselves, along with those who support and sponsor them.
In the debate in Synod last week I made this short speech, outlining some key concerns:
I am very encouraged by the new and refreshing tenor of these discussions about ministry training. For many years—decades even—these discussions have been beset by playing off vested interests, with a lack of transparency and accountability—until very recently. I welcome the change of tone.
In this spirit, could I make a plea for four issues to be addressed.
First, we desperately need to rediscover a depth of biblical and theological engagement in our pre-ordination training. Everyone I speak to—training incumbents, bishops, even ordinands themselves—recognise the continuing decline in biblical and theological literacy in the newly ordained. This is not the fault of the candidates—it is a failure of our current system.
Secondly, please can we find a common core for training. Deacons, priests and bishops are ordained using the same vows to a shared ministry. It makes no sense that they do not cover much of the same issues in their training. Without this, we continue to sow division into the future of the church.
Thirdly, we must find a way of equalising hours of study across different pathways. I fear we have succumbed to a missional pragmatism in some of our pathways which undermines depth engagement with key issues.
Fourthly, can we please abandon the idea that ‘formation’ is something separate from study of Scripture and theology. Reading scripture is deeply personally formational, and learning how to read and study scripture aright is a preparation for a lifetime of continuing formation.
If we address these things, I really hope after RMF, we can avoid RMG, RMH, RMI and RMJ in years to come!
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
