Bishop Breidenthal on Gathering the Pieces
The future of theological education and the future of the local congregation are closely connected. In both cases, and for similar reasons, the past is largely shattered, and we are engaged in gathering the pieces that are left.
We all understand what congregations are dealing with, so let me start there. The old parish model, with priest as service provider and congregation as passive client, is dead. We tend to think it is dead because we can’t afford it anymore. I don’t buy that. That model is dead because, given the marginalization of religion in our culture, people of faith are no longer content to be passive, and people who are curious about faith are quickly bored by this arrangement. Congregations are responding by exploring new patterns of organization and authorization that stress the shared responsibility of laity and clergy to proclaim and witness to the Gospel. In my diocese we call this common ministry, and we are working hard to explore ways to make the ministry of all the baptized a reality.
Unfortunately, this is happening against the backdrop of huge declines in church attendance, dwindling financial support, and the alarming absence of young adults. The emergence of the “fresh expressions” movement is seeking to respond to this crisis by focusing on house churches; worship gatherings in coffee houses and bars; the exploration of intentional community in the so-called neo-monasticism; the recovery of mystery and invocation of God through all-night vigils, drum circles, incense, silence and contemplative prayer; the development of a sense of common mission through shared community service; and the promotion of intellectual enquiry through dialogue sermons, study groups, and interfaith engagement.
This is all good. But what strikes me about all these initiatives is that none of them addresses the central problem, namely, that the regular gathering of the church on the Lord’s Day is in peril. The shards of a shattered tradition of assembly are being taken up by a new generation and developed as fragmented alternatives to it. I hope that these ecclesial initiatives outside the local congregation will ultimately bring congregations back to life as centers of witness, intellectual ferment, and encounter with God – at whatever time of day they meet. In the meantime, the danger is that we will forget that the regular coming together of the people of God is essential, since we are called to be a microcosm of the human race and a community in which the disciplines of reconciliation and cooperation across all lines are practiced and modeled. This is, in fact, what young adults are yearning for. My prayer is that the “fresh expressions” movement will keep this larger goal in mind, and not content itself with spiritual adventures for small groups on the edge.
This brings me to the situation of our seminaries and of theological education generally. Here, too, we are dealing with an old model that is no longer viable: providing an intense formation experience for an elite group set apart for ordained ministry. But there is much that is good in this kind of formation, and we need to retain it. For almost two centuries, our seminaries provided an opportunity for rising clergy to experience church as a communal spiritual discipline centered on mutual accountability, common worship and energetic debate. That we survived the old parish model as long as we did is due in large part to this vision of the church as a school for ministry. Our seminaries shored up clericalism, but they also promoted socially engaged and theologically fluent congregations. Indeed, these days, our seminaries continue to hold up this congregational ideal, even as – especially as – they reject clericalism in favor of common ministry. Many of the elements of the emergent church are present there – experimental liturgy, neo-monastic community, a balance of action and contemplation, with plenty of opportunity for individual exploration – within the framework of a still-unfractured over-arching community. At their best, our seminaries are brilliant models of congregational life.
So it is all the more important that we don’t allow the whole edifice to shatter, as it has in so many of our congregations. We are not yet at the point of gathering together scattered pieces of a lost seminary tradition, but as we are close. This is the moment to seize the heart of this tradition and run with it, not only for the sake of theological education in the church, but for the eventual recovery of a robust congregational life across the church. The heart of this tradition is formation in community through shared witness, constant study, common worship, and community service. We cannot do without institutions of learning that live out these disciplines in close engagement with dioceses and congregations. Nor can we do without leaders, lay and ordained, who have been shaped by these disciplines.
This does not mean that the old M.Div. model needs to be retained in every case. Seabury-Western has bravely jettisoned that dimension of its ministry, and should be applauded for its courage. But the notion of the church as a community being shaped through witness, study, worship and service is central. This is what our seminaries have really been about, and this is what our congregations really need.