Heya all,
Yes, I know, it is a long time since this lurker contributed.
:)
Others (Darren, Bruce, Greg) have dealt with other matters raised
in Charles' e-mail, but let me comment on this bit . . .
The Uniting Theological College is largely (entirely?) to blame, one can not hold it against these ministers, they were lambs to the slaughter, presumably went in with Christian beliefes but came out with educated agnosticism. Though a natural reaction is to protest that observation, it is patently obvious after a weeks of reading emails on this site, not to mention being involved in the Uniting Church. I know a few ministers who deliberately chose not to train at UTC, for this very reason. I also chose not to train at UTC, for the same reason, but I only trained as a missionary and was not ordained.
I have been in ministry so long (I was ordained in 1970) that UTC
didn't even exist when I was trained. But the sort of comments Charles
has made were made way back then about the predecessors of UTC. It
seems to be fair game always to attack the current theological college
as if it is the source of all evil within the church.
I must say that, although I came from a quiet and conservative
country congregation when I entered theological college, I would never
have described myself as a "lamb to the slaughter". As to
whether I "came out with educated agnosticism", others will
have to be the judge. I am wary of such labels as I find
"agnosticism" is a favourite vehicle of insult and often has
a different meaning when used by an attacker than it does when used
according to the dictionary.
Then, having been a field work supervisor for students from UTC
over a couple of decades, the label of "lambs to the slaughter"
sits even more ridiculously on the students with whom I have had
contact, some of whom have become significant movers and shakers
within the Uniting Church.
I suspect there are two main reasons for the regular criticism of
the theological college. Whether either of them applies to Charles or
not, I have no way of knowing:
- Some, particularly those from the more conservative end of the UC spectrum, often confuse a theological college (which the UC and a few other denominations have) with a Bible college or a "Missionary" college (which many other denominations have). The curriculum of a Bible or Missionary college tends to be fairly straight-forward with a heavy emphasis on imparting to the students a standard block of Biblical knowledge, mostly pre-digested with very little (if any) provision for serious discussion and debate. A theological college, on the other hand, tends not to say "this is what you should believe" so much as ask "why do you believe what you do?" A theological college demands a certain level of Biblical competence from candidates before they enter and then assumes they have knowledge and experience on which they can call as they explore the intellectual basis of their faith.
- Sadly, in my own experience, those who are loudest in their criticism of the theological college have never darkened its door. They have never attended a public function at the college (such as a public lecture -- several of which are offered in any given year by any theological college) and have never discussed any theological matter with any member of faculty. They have never browsed in the college library and probably have never spoken directly about the standards of the college with more than one or two students or former students of the college, except, of course, those who have failed.
Of course there are features of UTC that are open to criticism
and I have had occasion to voice my own criticisms from time to time.
But, having experienced a huge awakening and enlightening of my own
faith during theological college days (an awakening and elightening
that has continued ever since); and then, as a field work supervisor,
witnessing the enormous growth in faith that goes on among students of
the current generation, I am very thankful that my church has such a
body that takes both faith and intellectual honesty very seriously
and, by its challenging of stereotyped answers, encourages maturity
and growth in its students.
Or perhaps I should add a third reason: a significant number of
the critics of the theological college that I have encountered over
the years have suffered from a severe dose of anti-clericalism. Their
criticism of the college tends to be a thinly-disguised vehicle for
saying that all ministers are wrong (add whatever adjectives you may
wish, like currupt, sinful, apostate etc.) Related to this, there is
within our church (and, let me admit, within a large section of the
Australian public generally) a frightening anti-intellectualism that
regards ANY learning with deep suspicion. It is almost impossible to
make progress in any argument or een discussion with a person holding
that position.
-- Tom.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Pardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Coopernook Web site: <http://www.ozemail.com.au/~pardy>
AUSTRALIA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
