Categories: uncategorized
Date: 08 November 2010 12:49:04
I got Ichthus through the post today, the magazine of the LWPT. It had an interesting article by John Lampard within it about "Twenty Years of Faith and Worship". For those of you who aren't experts on the various theological education options offered by the Methodist Church, Faith and Worship is the course that the majority of local preachers currently do, although I understand alternative options are being developed and rolled out in different areas of the country.
Now, I know that this is one of those posts I will have to be careful with. Not least because I am commenting on a course I am currently part way through. However, I want to comment on the basis of Lampards article more than the course itself...(well that's the idea anyway).
The first paragraph of the article makes the point, "Apart from a light revision ten years ago F&W has remained essentially the same for twenty years and a successor is years overdue." This raises the question for me, a current student - am I doing a course which is fit for purpose? Well actually, generally I think it is. I mean some of the language and references or lack of references to certain technologies are very clear, but alot of the stuff within it is sound. But the fact it was put together in the late 1980's does contextualise it in a certain place with certain ideas in both education and theology which were dominant at the time.
He goes on to question whether "the Connexion has the energy, the commitment and the funds to produce a new course", stating later in the article that the cost is likely to be something like "£250,000". This together with the element of ecumenicalism he moves onto later in the article raises a whole different set of questions. Do we actually need a generic course throughout the Connexion or do we need a set of assessment criteria which different local theological learning partnerships are showing they are meeting. If the latter how do we (i) ensure uniformity across different areas?, (ii) ensure a distinctive Methodist flavour still is there?, (iii) allow people to move across courses bearing in mind the increased economic mobility of people? and (iv) provide for those who still need to take a distance leraning approach and require the flexibility that F&W provides? If the former, how do we do this without just rehashing F&W with a few more references to Fresh Expressions and new technologies?
Also, the money thing. With individual circuits struggling and this increased mobility of people during or after completing F&W who should fund the theological training of local preachers? One of the reasons I think this is a real issue is because of the way that completion of F&W or a worship leaders course is a step to candidating within the Methodist church. Should there, with a full knowledge that people may or maynot have their calling confirmed by the church at a later date be funded according to whether they are likely to stay in the area for good or are likely to either candidate or move around the Connexion? After all is it fair that local circuits who have larger numbers of students for examples have to pay for the training of this transient population who are likely to move out of the circuit upon completion of their studies? How could this latter model of two tier funding work in practice?
It was interesting about Lampard in his reflections on the future mentioning the issue of exemptions. Me, despite having my MA in Practical Theology and current M Litt studies have decided not to go for any exemptions, mainly because I think there are elements in each unit I will find useful to go over. Also, though, because there are not clear guidelines set down as to what exemptions should be given for what study I couldn't be bothered arguing the toss. What I am concerned about though in discussion of possible changes is the expectation that what people will find hardest is the academic element. Lampard points out in his article that just because sometbody is an expert on Mark doesn't mean they can teach from it. For me, as I've said before, it's been the confidence in leading worship that I've most struggled with. My concern is that any new course may automatically assume it is the academic side which needs building up, (particularly because of the demise of Foundation Training - a factor which I think looms large in some of these discussions but nobody mentions). Um, some of us have the academic side and find F&W useful because of the practical side of it. Also my worry is that any replacement should not be eliteist. The current tutor system supports differing abilities.
So my final observations on the article and matter are: 1) it is interesting and Lampards observations have been useful for me understanding how it happened this way but he is right something designed two decades ago does need to change. 2) But the conversations need to be occuring on a broader level. Should one question be whether Worship Leader Training should be further developed and promoted?