Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Education & Ministry’ Category

[As mentioned in my last post, I’ve asked Ann Riggs if she would contribute to this discussion as the voice of someone who works closely with FUM and within FTC. I am grateful for her perspective here. When I raised questions about US  and Kenya Friends I did so in response to conversations and observations in general, not as an insider with FTC. Therefore, I am even more appreciative of the contribution Ann makes to this conversation. –David Johns]

I write as the head of Friends Theological College. FTC was indeed founded in 1942, under a different name, and operated for many years at a much lower level of academic expectation than the current programs. The current courses of study almost all presuppose a completion of secondary school. All are currently carried out according to the same requirements as apply to similar institutions of higher education in Kenya and the same standards used by accredited institutions of theological education across Africa.

At the time of Kenyan national independence 1963-4, the college was made a responsibility of East Africa Yearly Meeting. In the 1990s that yearly meeting and the FTC board asked Friends United Meeting to assist them by taking the college under its care. As noted in other posts, Friends United Meeting does not “oversee” its member yearly meetings. Indeed the yearly meetings oversee Friends United Meeting, an organ created by and for the yearly meetings. But FUM does oversee Friends Theological College, in service to all the African FUM yearly meetings. The principal of the theological school – a role that in the US would be called its president – works as a member of the FUM field staff and reports to the FUM general secretary and the chairperson of the FTC board of governors. The FTC board and its chairperson are appointed by the Africa section of the FUM general board. The college is lead by an appointee from the United States, then, because African Friends have requested such care.

The burden of David’s discussion, however, is not entirely addressed by simply stating this datum of historical and institutional information. The faculty and administration of Earlham School of Religion are scheduled to visit FTC in June 2011. How might such a visit be thought of so that it makes sense as a gift rather than an imposition, an instance of a larger relationship that serves the needs and dignity of all? Are there paradigms that might be applicable to broader questions of relationship in the post-colonial era?

First and very importantly, most African Quakers are grateful that someone brought them the Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ. While there are exceptions, most are appreciative of the introduction of new technologies and new forms of social life. They value modern medicine, cell phones and the internet, and a greater equality between women and men than their traditional cultural patterns used. My presence in Kenya and the expertise I bring seem to be viewed by many in similar ways – as an importation of desired resources rather than as a resented intrusion.

In a recent conversation I heard a recent graduate of FTC’s bachelors in theology program, who is now an adjunct faculty member at Friends Theological College, and an applicant to the Earlham School of Religion Access program, speak on the relationship he saw among the secular democratic societies and governments of England, the United States, and Kenya. He described England as the mother country of both the US and Kenya and the US as the older sibling of the more recently independent Kenya. There would certainly be other matters on which this man would speak of Kenya in African terms or of his tribe or sub-tribe in ways that made no reference to England or the US. Yet, the vantage point his remark creates is very important for understanding Kenyan Friends. He thought and spoke in terms of relationship not separation. And the root metaphor of his sense of relationship was familial.

How different from both David’s initiating post and the perspective of the conversation partners he references.
The adage made so widely familiar by South African Desmond Tutu makes African sense not just of the inherently relational character of individual human persons but of larger human communities as well: I am because we are. We are because we all are. Kenyan Friends are because the wide community of the Religious Society of Friends is. The teachers and administrators of Friends Theological College are because there is a wider community of theological educators of which the faculty and administration of Earlham School of Religion are also a part.

Kenyan Friends think very much in terms of ordered family relationships. People introduce one another to their “first born” and “last born” children, to their “elder brother” and “eldest brother.” If Friends in the United States are elder, predate the introduction of Quakerism in eastern Africa by two and a half centuries, then there is an expectation that Friends in the US will have some life experience, some accumulated wisdom gained over those centuries that we have a responsibility to share, especially when requested to do so.

Yet, African Friends also expect to be treated with the life-promoting respect and care that the elder sibling is traditionally expected to show to the younger, the parent to the child. Perhaps a reference to the three-fold understanding of community in African Traditional Religion is helpful: the ancestors, the current generation, and those yet unborn. In this understanding, a family, a community is not complete without this last group, without those yet to be born. Those who lie sleeping in the future generativity of our younger siblings’ children are also members of our community now. In this world view the education of students at Friends Theological College is an appropriate concern of all Friends because these students are the future theological parents of the spiritual children of us all.

Are North American Friends able to think less individualistically, more relationally? Are North American Friends able to accept, despite our anxieties about being paternalistic, the family metaphors that Kenyans find so congenial? Might there not be a richer and more abundant life in so wide a family?

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

The response to my blog entry concerning Friends, US and Kenyan, has been lively and vigorous.

Yesterday, while attending the American Academy of Religion sessions in Atlanta, I had the opportunity to speak with the current Principal of Friends Theological College, Ann Riggs. We spoke about this issue and about whether a fuller explanation might help us understand better the relation of Friends in Kenya, and specifically, at FTC. Thus, I’ve invited her to contribute a series of two or three short essays, as a guest of Theography, to help place this in a broader perspective. The conversation will be open. I’m not sure she and I are in agreement on some of these points, but I welcome the contribution of someone working very closely with the situation (as I value Johann Mauer’s reply to the initial post).

I’d encourage you to check out Micah Bales new work on Missional Quaker Faith where he is also raising some of these concerns.

So, please stay tuned… this conversation will continue.

Read Full Post »

Not long ago I had a conversation with three Quakers, each from a different part of the US. We talked about Friends in Kenya, the east African country where the largest concentration of Quakers live. I expressed my concerns about an upcoming seminary faculty trip there and how I did not want us to continue the long history of cultural imperialism that dishonors the Other by assuming we have what they need.

We then discussed briefly the denominational body, Friends United Meeting, that provides oversight for many of the yearly meetings (i.e., regional associations) in the country [CORRECTION: ‘provide oversight,’ was my original phrase but is probably not the best description…perhaps, instead: ‘that works in a partnership with’]. I commented, as I often do, that given the demographics and population density of global Quakerism, that the denominational office should relocate to Nairobi or, that we should have more Kenyans working in the central offices here in Richmond, Indiana, or at minimal, we ought relinquish US oversight of Kenyans Quakers.

Since we were talking about education, I mentioned the irony that STILL, we (i.e., white, US Quakers) were in leadership of the major Friends theological training institute in the country, Friends Theological College (FTC).

I’m a professor so I am accustomed to having a room full of people disagree with me. It’s part of the job. However, this conversation was startling. Each person, two women, one man, in his or her own way, stated that Friends can’t be trusted…at least Kenyan Friends. I wasn’t prepared for that.

“They’re not ready yet to have leadership.” (Really? FTC was founded in 1942…that’s 68 years ago.)

“There has been so much corruption in the past, I’m not sure it’s time.” (Friends are no stranger to scandals: financial, sexual, political. To suggest, however, that having a white North American in leadership is a guarantee this will not happen in Kenya is nothing short of insulting.)

“They need someone in leadership who has academic credentials the Kenyan government will acknowledge.” (Ok. I understand this argument.  For accreditation and for public recognition, academic qualifications are crucial. However, what I do not understand is how in over half a century of involvement we have not been able to do what is necessary to minimize this dependency.)

Then came the final blow. One of my conversation partners said: “They don’t trust each other. They want us to be there.”

I do not know whether this is true, but I suspect it is just another one of the self-assuring justifications that have been used for centuries by those who colonize and who subjugate others in the name of a great ideal. In this case, the “ideal” is a version of Quakerism I simply do not recognize.

I want to state in no uncertain terms that I have a great deal of respect for the persons who have been and who are presently providing leadership in FTC. Some of them are personal friends of mine. My concern is not about the personalities but with the principle. This is, it seems to me, the inverse of the last comment made in my conversation with these three Friends. For some, at least, the principle is: “We do not trust them. We want to be there.”

What do you think?

Read Full Post »

As a follow up to my previous blog post, I’m curious what signs of new life bring you hope?

For me, I am energized by the creative, edgy, visionary leadership among a number of Friends. As important as some of the existing Quaker organizations have been (and, in some cases, continue to be), I am hopeful when I hear people thinking outside those categories–not only outside the present structures, but also outside the “brand identity” of Quakerism for the sake of Quakerism.

I am hopeful when I hear people talking about ministry and leadership as living out their faith in the living Christ, not as means to perpetuate familiar patterns of organizational life.

What do you think?

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

This conversation is life giving.

And, how ironic, in a way, to say “life-giving” when we are also talking about decline and demise. But this should not be surprising.

New life abounds, Spirit-energy pulses, and before long we have an institution on our hands! What the heck!?!? No one planned for this! In fact, everyone hoped against it. But it happened. It happened and it will happen again, against our designs and against our will.  And it will happen to the renewal movements we form to combat the institutions we don’t like and don’t want to become.

This is just the way it works with human organizations (and it does no good to say everyone else is an institution but Quakerism is not…Quakers are NOT exempt from this).

But there comes a moment every once in a while when we look at what we are holding on to and we ask ourselves whether it is worth it, and whether what we are holding on to is what really is important.

This time comes for all sorts of reasons…maybe we see the thinness of what our lives have become, or we wonder why the same conflicts badger us that plagued the group we thought we were improving, or we sense a huge disconnect between the gospel of Christ and into what we are investing our time and money and sweat and the best years of our lives.

Are we holding on to Christ or to Christianity? Are we holding on to love or to programs of measured compassion? Are we pouring our lives into the new work of God into which the Spirit is breathing life, or are we trying to resuscitate yesterday’s glory?

It’s hard, and anyone who says this is not a scary place to be is lying. We care about the things we hold on to; they become precious over time. But faithfulness to the living God means we will be on the move and that we will need to hold lightly, even those things that mean the world to us. The call to be disciples, friends of Jesus, is to keep our eyes open and to press into life, into the good creation of God.

Whatever postmodernity means, it is one of those moments when we look at what we have in our hands and ask whether we are where we need to be…whether we are doing and being what we need to do and be.

The familiar patterns of church/meeting life have wonderful, life affirming dimensions which we would be crazy to throw away. And at the same time, the structures, practices, activities, and forms, are often premised on a world that does not exist in the same way it did when those were put in place.

Likewise, the seminaries where we form women and men to vocation and where we strengthen gifts, have done and continue to do some things right. However, the realities of living culture, the growth and decay of creation (God’s and humanity’s and GodHuman), and the shifting ways we interact with each other and the world mean that, if we are not careful, our seminaries will be little more than institutions that perpetuate a status quo that cannot even see today, much less tomorrow!

We can hold on tightly and run with confidence toward yesterday, but God will not be there. God was there but is no longer. In fact, neither will be anyone else be there. It is a desolate place and populated only by the ghosts of our memory.

But God calls us to a future that will take all our energy to imagine. God is there and so is everything that pulses with life. I for one, want to press into that future.

Read Full Post »

(At the request of BY I’ve moved this Facebook discussion here to Theography where we can continue it and perhaps expand it differently than we might in the other context.)

David Johns is wondering a lot about seminary education, ministerial formation, and the movement from modernity to postmodernity (as well as the emerging church phenomenon). Are seminaries, his own included, so wedded to modernity that they are unable to imagine (and prepare for) ministry in living and birthing contexts?

LisaJoy Zillgitt-Stowers good queries to explore…I have to admit that what I learned about ministry I learned in CPE and other ‘real life’ situations…some things just can’t be taught in seminaries no matter how ‘good’ they may be. I, and other seminary grads, …have thought of writing a book to be given to incoming seminary students, “What to expect in ministry that Seminary does not have a class for”…you’d be in seminary for a lifetime if there was a class on everything you might encounter. CPE is an action/reflection from of education/ministry and thus you learn quickly how to use the framework from classes/education and build it into a real life experience. I learned quickly not to say, “God is always with you and working in your life” to a patient in the state hospital in Indpls when she said, “So YOUR God was there when I was abused and is working through my borderline personality?”…you also learn to be careful what scripture you share as well because it can be used to ‘harm’ in the midst of profound mental illness….just my thoughts.

Erin McDougall David, I am really interested in this query but would love to hear more from you about what you mean by “living and birthing contexts” …

David Johns

‎@Erin: I mean by that the realities of our moment in history and the ones coming into being. Some of the theological discussions we rehearse repeatedly have either been resolved or they are weighted by cultural dynamics, epistemological as…sumptions, et al., that are not overwhelming present concerns and understandings.

Likewise, much of our formation is oriented toward helping keep alive institutions and organizations (movements, denominations, et al.) that have largely run their course. (Some of these, perhaps many, are structured appropriately for the 1940’s or 50’s and are speaking to cultural realities and religious sensibilities of such eras–and if our intention is to preserve them, then preaching, pastoral care, theology, leadership, spirituality, religious education, et al., will take on a particular tone, and it will not be one of new life). When do we offer thanks for the long run of our religious organizations and then allow them to pass away or to be reborn into something completely new? How do we imagine new ways of being the people of God that speak grace and gospel in our time?

This is, of course, a deep concern of mine with regard to Quakerism (and anyone who has walked with me in class has heard this before)…even the wonderfully energetic renewal movements within Friends (such as YAF), will simply reinvent the institution of Quakerism (complete with our oddities and two centuries old debates) if they do not allow Quakerism itself to break open into something very different (this is what I have begun discussing (see the most recent Quaker Religious Thought issue) as a postQuaker Christianity).

I think a lot about my vocation as a seminary prof. Am I preparing people to preserve the structures of what has been rather than to prepare people to move into the new things that God is doing (that look little like the familiar shapes of church and denomination and seminary and and and)? I can not prepare my students for yesterday and I’m not even sure that it is wise to prepare them for today. How, on the other hand, can I press into the future of God and enliven imaginations to join in those edges?

Thanks for the question, Erin. It’s just another Saturday of wondering for me.

David Johns ‎@Erin: I have to say also that I am co-clerk of our Meeting’s pastoral search committee. So, ministry, leadership, and risky (vs. tame) vision are very much on my mind.

John Price David, did not the early Quakers strip Christianity down to its very bones? If Christ is with me at all times then how am I to live? It seems to me that this simple premise and query are immutable, that terms like post-modern, modern, eva…ngelical, liberal, and conservative are irrelevant. Forms and rituals presuppose that Christ is not immediately available to me. Why do I need a water baptism or a communion ritual when I am bathed in the breath of Christ every minute of every day? These are symbols, not reality, just as wearing gray clothing today would be a symbol, not an actual act of faith or conscience, so they are irrelevant as well.

The exercise of my faith is fluid, not cast in concrete. The question is constantly in my mind and heart: What would Christ have me do in this situation? The answers that flow from these simple, yet powerful questions guide my actions and my words. They cannot be codified, compiled, nor extrapolated to someone else’s life. These questions and answers are uniquely mine. I cannot look for comfort and reassurance through conformity to a doctrine or creed, nor agreement from my neighbor. Each one is a decision I make in consultation with Christ and I must be strong enough in my faith to bear the consequences. If I am not then I will need and crave the approval of men because I am not in touch with Christ. It seems to me that the argument is how best to be reassured by other men, which is also an irrelevant argument.

Eden Grace Very interesting discussion. I can say several things from my own experience — Firstly, I was schooled in “post-modernity” twenty years ago. It did a lot of damage to my faith. Whatever we’re looking to emerge now, hopefully it isn’t that…. Secondly, while my seminary education was deeply formative for me as a Christian and as a leader, the content of my education has been almost completely irrelevant to my ministry in Kenya. I would have been much better served if I’d done an MBA or economics degree. Thirdly, the more I grow in the present reality of a living faith, the more I yearn to be steeped in the living Tradition. I worry about the utter subjectivity of the comment from John Price. I don’t know if I am representative of my generation or not, but I am not particularly comfortable with framing things as post-anything. Maybe I’d rather the pre-something. Mostly I want to stand in the living stream of 2000 years of faithfulness to Christ, and allow myself to be shaped and corrected by that Tradition.

Raymond Ontko is wondering whether the unity we seek as Quakers and modernists is in fundamental conflict with post-modernism.

Al Dodson David, I think you are struggling with a hugely important set of ideas. Might I suggest a conversation between you and Russell Haitch on the role of the Spirit in education? Both you and Russell have outstanding minds and sensitivities and seem to be thinking in related directions on this topic.

Erin McDougall David,

These are ideas that I have struggled with for some time now and continue to struggle with and I am glad to hear of your struggles with them. Personally, I am at a place where I feel that institutions are essentially un-Quaker. Afte…r all, the meeting structure was invented by G. F. after some time when he was concerned about Quakerism becoming something he didn’t think it was. (I know it’s more complicated than that, but there is some truth to that.)

Our meetings themselves are also institutions. How do we allow for enough risk and freshness in a movement if we must follow a certain way of being? A very simple example is one of ministry given in a unprogrammed meeting. When I lived at PH, I had a dear friend who sometimes danced for his ministry and discomfort with that by others was very interesting. Why would that kind of ministry be uncomfortable except that it is not “normal” and a regular part of how we experience the institution of Meeting?

I have been convinced (at times) that institutions are also important for passing along information. I think this is true and so am not sure that I would get rid of institutions altogether. But I do think that our isms get in the way of thinking freshly about issues. For example, I think ageism is a HUGE reason why institutions become stable – and stagnant. If you look at the history of Quakerism, it is often the YAFs who shake things up and make new exciting things happen. But how many Quaker institutions are headed up by YAFs? Or even have YAFs in positions of power? How many institutions are even taking the YAFs seriously that are among them?? (Including meetings?)

Would a seminary be a more vibrant place if they allowed for young (and I don’t mean 40 – I mean mid-20s) people to teach there or to head it up?? Would a meeting be more vital if they took a giant leap of faith and asked someone to minister who was one of the people-on-fire who was a YF or YAF and didn’t have any formal training? (Of course, one would have to have a strong pastoral care committee and a strong meeting who was putting it’s own energy into the Meeting, not just waiting for a leader to pull them along …)

This is an issue close to my heart these days – and I appreciate being able to “talk” about it with you … Thanks for taking the risky step in asking the difficult/hard questions out in the open.

John Price While the application of Christ’s teachings to my particular life situations must of necessity be subjective, Christ’s teachings are not. To the extent that we hear the same message from Christ concerning our universal questions, so we com…e together as a denomination, affirming that we have all heard that one voice in matters of shared concern. The forms and rituals adopted by that denomination are an expression of that commonality of understanding, but they are not essential. And once they become more an end in themselves than an expression of common understanding they too are irrelevant.

Josie HermioneGranger Tolton Over the past decade I have worshiped across the continuum of ritual with people who gather for Buddhist meditation without instruction on how to do it and unprogrammed Quakers on one end Greek Orthodox, Anglican Catholic and old style Cath…olic on the other. I have found myself settling on an approach to ritual that requires detachment (in the Buddhist sense).

Ritual allows us to connect with our community both in the present and ancestors in the faith. Ritual is a way of acting out our relationship with God. Ritual serves to create meaning. The community recognizes the important moments of our lives, both joyful and sorrowful.

If ritual does not serve a community then it should be discarded. The emergent movement has reminded us that neither abandoning ritual entirely nor holding to it too tightly serves us well.

I am also a bit of a moderate on the absolutist vs. subjectivist controversy. I believe that there is truth out there, reality out there even if we cannot determine it. By training I am a social constructivist. In my communication training I was taught that communication creates reality and that you cannot avoid communicating (even your avoidance is, in fact, communication). In a similar sense it is impossible to have no ritual for whatever you do that you/your community finds important and whenever/wherever you/your community finds meaning there is ritual. Thus, the modernist rejection of sacred actions is ineffectual.

We cannot reject the concept of sacred space and, thus, be wholly modernist. Despite our attempts and rational arguments, having sacred space seems to be part of the way humanity functions. In the US we have had the illusion of having no sacred space because the ancestors of many present residents left sacred spaces behind in Europe, etc. while those who had sacred spaces here were by and large killed leaving few descendants to remember. Over time we are still building up our own collective memory. Again, what we must learn is how to do this rather than focusing on rejection. What stories will we tell and how will we choose/create sacred space.

Oh, and you wanted to know about seminary 😀 People do need to know themselves and be able to communicate that with others. I think this is seminary at its best. Yes, knowing resources like what our ancestors in the faith did is important too, but claiming our own identity and knowing how to live in community with others is the key.

Kimberly Rochelle Hampton hey David…
I’m wondering what are we considering post-modern and when the post-modern era started. Look at who the “post-modernists” reference…Hegel and Schleiermacher. So haven’t we been in the post-modern world for a while now? 🙂

Brian C Young David–any chance you could move this to your blog, or re-start it there? I’d like to read the whole thread and comment later, but FB makes it hard to find stuff once it falls off the news feed… thx.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: