Although there has been a "big" push for younger vocations - there are fewer "youth" in seminary than ever.

I felt called when I was 20 or 21 and was made to wait until I was 33 for others to discern my call and to be ordained priest. I don't regret the wait, though parts of it were difficult and painful. I certainly matured (some would say not enough). I think that the lack of opportunities for curacy is a major issue. We need to deal with financial barriers to effective formation both in the seminary and afterwards. Some of the seminarians I taught used to go on Medicaid and had little or no support from their dioceses and parishes.

I don't think that I would recommend making everybody wait, but I would recommend some real attention to seminary and post-seminary formation. I was lucky to have a curacy with a good priest. Many go straight into being vicars, which is not the ideal.

Liz, I think that you're making a serious error in logic here, and it could result in great harm to our clergy and our church. I agree with you that our clergy (of any age) should be as spiritually prepared and mature as they will need to be in order to face the spiritual crises that they will be asked to deal with. But do you really think that three years, or even five, are enough to gain that perspective all on their own? Seriously?

I'm in a seminary community every day, and I promise you that the age of the seminarian has no effect whatsoever on the ability of people to process their own emotional struggles, let alone those of their future parishioners. The task of the seminary is to train people to learn to distinguish their own issues from others' issues, and to develop the tools necessary to process them both. No amount of pure time passing, whether bagging groceries in the Safeway or backpacking in Europe, or working as an investment banker, or pursuing some other career will get you that, just by magic.

Now, if you want to stop blaming seminarians (of whatever age) for the kind and amount of training they get in the seminaries, then we're at least in the right ballpark. But even then, you're going to get a lot of pushback from me.

Some of those who have made criticisms like yours think that we should not be giving seminarians the academicly-focused program that they are currently receiving. What good will knowing about the Venerable Bede do in my parish, they ask. Well, pastoral care is not the only task of the parish priest, as I'm sure you well know. Bible classes, history classes, liturgical theology, and the other topics proper to seminary coursework are the organic chemistry of priestly formation. That is to say that they are the necessary foundations to the professional practice, even if they are also invisible to those who are receiving the care.

You are right about the harm that the loss of the curacy system has done to clergy formation. I fear that the solution to that problem is fewer, larger parishes. So long as we pretend that the Episcopal Church can afford to provide "boutique" Christianity to an increasingly small and homogenous community, we are tightening the noose around our own neck.

This is one of those rare "big problems" that cannot be solved by asking institutions to throw money and programming at them. This problem will only be solved by experienced priests intentionally seeking out mentorship opportunities and sharing their wisdom with the newly ordained. A relationship with a mentor (whether issued by the diocese or found on their own) is among the most important indicators of effectiveness of clergy of any age, according to some fascinating research done recently by the Rev. Drs. David Gortner and John Dreibelbis (of CDSP and Seabury, respectively).

Seminary training is about giving up oneself to the process of clerical formation, and having your worldview changed from that of whatever you were before, to that of an ordained leader in the Church. It has been my experience that younger seminarians often have less invested in their previous identities, and are sometimes able to make that shift more easily. Though it's also been my experience that older seminarians who are willing to trust the process are also formed into incredibly strong clerics.

Yes, Liz, you're right that there are problems with the way that clergy are trained in our church. But let's stop blaming the victims. It isn't the youth of the seminarians that is the problem. It's the oldness of our thinking.

Micah Jackson

There's a whole lot I can and want to say on this topic as--like Micah and many others--one who works closely with seminarians and priests of all ages. However, there's one point I simply can't let go of right now...

The church says that it wants young priests.

The church says it wants women priests.

Yet how many parishes will hire a young woman priest in her child-bearing years with small children and the potential of more on the way?

It's an absolute disgrace... Does the church really believe in ordaining women--or in ordaining women if they'll promise to act like men?

Seems to me that the question is not properly one of what age someone should be permitted to attend seminary, but rather, what age is appropriate for ordination?

Our canons dictate that one must be 25 to be ordained deacon or priest, and 30 to be ordained bishop. If one would argue that life experience outside the church is necessary to good presybteral leadership (and I *might* agree, although the sort of experience which would be helpful certainly needs to be a matter for discussion as well), then those are the parameters to address, not the age of seminary admission.

I spent a good amount of time reflecting on this article after I wrote it and have found my understanding changing. No -- age is not the issue. But for me, it's age that represents something deeper. So I've moved away from age and into life experiences, and how they relate to expectations of our clergy. I think I addressed some of this on my own blog last week.

There's never any guarantee that increased age will equal increased maturity. And there are always exceptions. We certainly do need younger clergy -- no argument about that. But I also continue to believe that we're doing our younger clergy and parishes a disservice -- possibly even harm -- by not providing better training for our younger clergy in particular. A two-year, supervised curacy program would make a difference. As would an intensive parish-based CPE.

I tend toward Jane's suggestion that we address the ages for ordination of priests and bishops, not for seminary training.

I'm certainly not blaming the victims, Micah. I'm putting the responsibility directly on the institutional church. I do believe that our seminaries provide a relatively solid academic preparation for spiritual leaders, just as med schools do for future doctors. But it's that practical application and experience that neither newly graduated doctors nor newly graduated seminarians have, and neither should be "let loose" on an unsuspecting population.

And yes, I do believe that the longer we live, the more real-life experiences we have to address and those experiences have a high potential for increasing our maturity. A colleague wrote to me that when she was 32 she thought she knew an awful lot about real life. She continued to learn otherwise. There are certainly a lot of situations where a 26- or 27-year-old priest, on her own, could do more damage than good -- just because she thinks she has the skills needed when she really doesn't.

But back to the Dr-Rev analogy. New med school grads know that book learning only gives them a foundation -- not the expertise to treat patients on their own. I don't think our seminary grads understand that. There is not time in the three years of a seminary program to provide both academic and practical training. The practical training that is needed after seminary is what is seriously lacking -- it's an institutional problem. I really wish we (the Episcopal Church) could get our act together and address it.

So at this point, I'm all for a required parish CPE program for ordinands and a quality curacy program for new priests before they are made rectors and vicars.

I appreciate the lack of blasting on me in this venue. It would have been so easy, I know. So thanks Micah and Jane and Derrick and Ann and Bill. I think there can be some real mutual learning here, and maybe the beginnings of better clergy preparation.

Liz Zivanov

I'm not often in a seminary community, but I deal regularly with seminarians in our System's CPE program. I would concur that new clergy - really, whatever their age - need mentors as they make the transition into professional clergy life. That's one reason (although not the only one) that I believe the required transitional diaconate ought to be extended (and not eliminated).

My greater concern, though, is one I have seen in CPE students and have heard from seminary faculty members: that students come to seminary, and so have come through diocesan assessment processes, with inadequate formation in the faith, independent of social maturity. I remember well the CPE student who taught me that enthusiasm is no substitute for groundedness.

I agree with both Liv and Micah: preparation for ministry is about formation, personal, social, academic, and procedural; and while each person brings unique qualifications, three years may well not be sufficient. There need not be a single answer, whether more curacy or mentoring programs, or the old "deacon-in-training." model. There is need for continuing formation for all of us in all four orders of ministry.

Marshall Scott

I tend to say that God calls those that God calls, and if that call is duly and fairly tested, whoa to anyone who would stand in the way.

Sometimes life experience can be an asset, sometimes it can be a liability, debending on how it has shaped the heart.

BTW...anyone notice the age of our newest Bishop (NW PA)? 32.

Grace and Peace,

Joe Snavely

Morning all -

Just a reminder, if you've made a comment to this blog (thanks!), and you aren't seeing it appear, it's most likely because you haven't used your real full name in your post.

The comment policy for Episcopal Cafe can be found here:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/feedback/

I'll be glad to edit your comment to add your name (so that I'll be able to post it for you) if you'd like. Just shoot me an email at
nick@wnknisely.org

This is a difficult topic to discuss dispassionately, and I appreciate the conversation. I am a physician( four years, not three, in medical school and four years in a highly-supervised residency) and a very involved lay person in a large Episcopal parish. I started private practice at age 30, with two great, experienced physicians available 24/7 to help guide me in my chosen profession, and it still was not easy. No newly-ordained priest, of any age or gender, should be placed in parish ministry without an engaged mentor willing to spend time and effort with her. Most of us pew-sitters are smart enough to appreciate the often clumsy, but usually enthusiastic, efforts of a new priest. Unfortunately, I've seen a couple crash and burn, largely because of inadequate nurturing, unresolved personal issues, or sheer hubris. I could never be a parish priest, and I have incredible respect for the women and men who choose this vocation. However, the church needs to assure adequate, mentored experience for its new seminary graduates, especially if they lack the gray hair life's progress has given the rest of us.
I've now been in practice nearly 25 years, and I appreciate the wisdom those years have provided. However, I was a good physician when I started, and I hope my early enthusiasm for my work provided my patients something unique that they sought in a young doctor.I think my professional experience is almost exactly analogous to that we should ensure for young priests.And, my parish loves hiring young women: at least four in the last twelve years.

John Donnelly

I didn't think I would EVER disagree with Elizabeth...on anything....but...

If you have a graying clergy, you will probably have a graying congregation.

The real problem, as I see it, is that people with experience in business, military, whatever, more often than not transfer the standards they learned in that life into their life as clergy. The MBA tends to overwhelm the MDiv! And so we see the Church operating more and more solely as an organizational institution. Witness the recent "military-rather-than-pastoral" interventions of an ex-military bishop!

Back in the dark ages of my youth, a majority of seminarians were directly from college or no more than a year or two from there. I was one of those, and went directly into care of a mission as vicar - without CPE or Interning. And I did, indeed, screw up here and there and did a lot of learning "on the job", but I also built a church and doubled a congregation, drove 200 miles between the four congregations (no churches!) every Sunday. And that mission is now two fully self-supporting parishes!

I couldn't (or wouldn't) have even tried that if I had a lot of "worldly expertise", and I was also not impeded by thinking of my work as "a job" nor my parish as "an organization."

I must add that I am not an Luddite - indeed, I was a professional organizational development consultant for more than a decade - but I know that it was the zeal of youth (and an untarnished and hugely impractical faith in God) that made those early gains possible.

The other thing I've noticed is that interning often merely leads to perpetuating the prejudices and blind-spots of the overseeing rector.

I think the REAL answer is deep, close, and significant mentoring (even "parenting") of the young clergy - by mentors OF THEIR CHOICE.

I was just thinking of a moment in a COM interview. In my diocese we did them in groups, four aspirants and four interviews. It was a little more relaxed that way.

At any rate, one of the interviewers gave us a "what if" scenario. What would you do if...

I declined to answer the way the others were. I said, "If there's one thing I've learned, it is that 'what if's' are pointless. You haven't described the people involved in such a was as I would know them if I were their priest. You haven't said much about the dynamics of the parish. So I don't know what I'd do, there's not enough information."

That came out of my experience of working with computers, not people.

We never do know what experiences will be helpful and what won't.
And there's no way to measure how much is enough.

Mark Juchter

I just graduated from VTS this past week and was ordained to the diaconate Saturday. I also recently turned 29, so I suppose I fall within the acceptable age parameters Liz originally laid out, and I hope the life experience I have had has prepared me, in some small way, for the work I am about to enter.

Having said that, I must also say, from all the work I have ever done, that the only way of learning to do something new--in this case, lead a parish--is to do it. I agree with John: you cannot learn how to be an effective priest by leading a business, or practicing law or medicine. Along the way, you will make mistakes--that's just how you learn. And as people have pointed out, not everyone the church ordains and who enters ministry will make it.

When I first began the discernment process, the church was at the very end of an era in which "life experience" was the catch word of commissions on ministry across the country. It was very difficult for young people to get through the process in this environment--after all, who would you pick, if you were a room full of doctors and lawyers and business professionals? The succesful bunisnessman of 52 ready to enter a new phase of life? Or the college grad with the degree in English? Young people, on paper, can never compete with older folks who have years of career accomplishments behind them.

But this meant that, contrary to how things were in the 1950s and 60s, the church, for many years, ordained people in mid-life. And something of a clergy crisis did develop.

Now the tables seem to have turned. There were many mid-life and older seminarians who graduated with me last thursday, but there were slightly more younger adults--of which set, I was one of the oldest. And I am grateful that these young folks are going out into the church. Speaking for myself and many people I know, I would seek out a church with leadership that looked (sort of) like me--I do think younger priests are better able to attract younger parishioners.

One final point--although the curacy system is probably not as formalized as it once was, I know of only one graduate in the "young adult" category who has been called to lead a parish on his own, and in fact, only a handful of everyone I graduated with. So something of a "deacon's training period" does still exist, and maybe the answer is to encourage the church to formalize the phase of formation I am entering on now, regardless of age of those entering this phase. It should be noted that the the Lilly foundation is currently funding just such an initiative--see http://www.lillyendowment.org/religion_tim.html. Perhaps the church could learn from this initiative.

Jason Cox

I probably fall into the category of person who had more life experience at 23 than many people do at 50.

I believe that no one can better minister to 20- and 30-somethings than 20- and 30-somethings. I'm not discounting the experiences of Boomer and older priests in my own spiritual formation, but I do find a disconnect between me and the Boomers sometimes. Not all of them, mind you. And I'm always grateful when people older than I am are willing to *trade* experience rather than say they know better than I do.

I mean, who's to say that our two latest gen-x bishops, Sean Rowe especially, don't have enough life experience to be bishop?

Lastly, I wish that politicians had to undergo the scrutiny of a discernment process before being able to get on the ballot.

I've just written a long posting but will let it sit overnight before posting it to make sure it's not snarky. Thanks for the responses....

Liz Zivanov

I agree with the primary point that the article is making: "We're putting new clergy into situations that they might not be prepared for."

My own experience over the years is that it's an issue with both first and second career ordinands.

My own solution to the issue is that we all need to be very intentional about creating more "teaching" curacies than we have now. I know from personal experience how much I learned from the two years I spent as an assistant to a much older and wiser priest after my ordination before I was sent out to be rector of my first congregation on my own.

I'm happy to report that we're trying to be proactive here in Arizona and have plans in place to be able to offer traditional curacy positions for most of the newly ordained priests in our diocese.

It seems to me that the bishops and Commissions on Ministry who raised up these new priests, whatever their ages, might have some interest in making sure each one gets the kind of formation he or she needs. If they don't know their postulants/candidates well enough to know what sort of formation they need, why are they sending them forward into the church? It's not just the seminary's job to prepare them ...

I believed for a long time that you couldn't have the wisdom/life experience you need to be a good priest in your 20s. Thank goodness my younger colleagues have disabused me of that notion. There is a lot of wisdom in those folks. Maybe not based on real life experience, but to seek ordination in this era, in this culture, in your 20s, calls for a level of introspection and self-confidence that can begin to offset the inexperience and lack of life experience.

I hope this is an on-going discussion in seminaries and diocesan COMs. The practical training and experience is critical for all new priests -- regardless of age. Generalizations just really don't work, do they? I haven't read one (including my own) that cannot be matched with a "Yes, but..." I'm getting to the point where I think we might want to put age at the bottom of the list of criteria and focus on the skills and development of newly ordained priests.

What we want are good priests who can help and guide congregations in sharing the Good News and who can provide the kind of careful pastoring that our parishioners deserve. For that to happen, we need to provide better real-life training.

Thank you, Liz, for your insightful comments. I don't agree on a minimum age for entering seminary, but I do agree that we should start mentoring mechanisms for priests.

I think that those who are truly called to seminary will seek out the life experience necessary to minister to others. I don't think that just because someone is just out of college, that she can't make an effective priest - if she's really called to be a priest, she's probably sought out opportunities to minister to others.

Perhaps the model of the priest as someone who can help with anything is an unrealistic model. To go along with your Revs and Drs model, expecting doctors to be effective after a 30-hour shift is as realistic as expecting them to be effective after a few alcoholic drinks - and yet, the profession expects that of doctors, and lay people often buy into that. Well, doctors aren't machines. If I see a plastic surgeon about getting a hypertrophic scar treated, she's going to advise me about excision followed by light radiotherapy, not about laser treatment. She's not going to know everything, and it's impractical to expect that. The same is true with priests.

There are plenty of old fools around. Check the White House.

- Weiwen Ng