I’ve just read Chris Tessone’s recent blog-reflection on priesthood with interest. In it he suggests – and to some extent I agree – that what he refers to as the “European model” of preparing candidates for the priesthood is not necessarily the most effective method.

This “European model”, however, began to take shape in the 17th century, and was intended to combat a very real problem, one that is both highly relevant, and plagues the contemporary OC/IC community – the ignorant priest.

At the dawn of the Reformation, across Europe there was a very real problem of local parish priests being illiterate (or barely literate), aping the rites of the church from memory (and often very badly), and having no working knowledge of the richness of theology, symbolism, or heritage shaping the life and action of the community. The problem was wide-spread, and is well documented.

Sound familiar? It should! One need look no further than the internet to see this very problem repeating itself over and over across the spectrum of OC/IC web pages and chat groups. Groups for example, that on one hand proudly tout there Old Catholic credentials with long (often inaccurate) recitals of the Utrecht schism, and biographies of Archbishop Matthews, and Archbishop Vilatte, and in the next paragraph affirm their acceptance of the “doctrine” of the Immaculate Conception, and wax lyrically about the benefits of auricular confession. The ignorant priest lives!

I said earlier that I agree with Chris Tessone that the existing model is not always the best one. University (especially in the US) is extortionately expensive – and in today’s American work place, where even minimum wage jobs now require a BA, most people will not reap a real financial benefit from their investment. Clergy – in all denominations, will not, and OC/IC clergy, unless they are lucky enough to find a university job, or a well-paid position in the non-profit sector, most certainly will not see any financial benefit of a degree. It is for this reason that I am a big fan of well read, well mentored, well grounded home-grown candidates for ordination – also known as “reading for orders”. The big tent church still does this – albeit quietly, and under very unusual circumstances, so its not something we should be ashamed of, rather we should as a whole community celebrate it, develop it, and make it even rival the university training in the level of our understanding and development of theology, of our pastoral skill – skill that should be grounded in our theology, and not the re-used theologies of the various big-tent churches.

Unfortunately, rather than celebrating and developing something our community can do – we suffer from another problem “paper-universities”. Like “paper-churches” these are basically rip-off schemes to aggrandise synods and make them look bigger, better funded, better “situated” than they truly are. Their “degrees” are ostensibly meaningless – and there is apparently such a flood of them in the US that the universities (the real ones) are starting to look at other “accreditation” schemes. Do we really want to be a part of this? Do we really want this to be part of this generation of OC/IC clergy’s legacy? I should hope not! Lets abandon the fake universities, the internet degree farms. Not only are they unethical, they are yet another symbol of the OC/IC community, collectively looking to outside formulae to validate our existence. We are not the ugly step-sister of other churches! It’s time we invested in our own models – models that work. Models that with cooperation, innovation, and consistency will become the envy of other churches! Let’s bury the ignorant priest! His time has come and its time for it to go!

So what’s the way forward? First we must openly acknowledge the problem – I know I’m not the only bishop in the community to raise this issue. I need not look too far to see other blogs by other OC/IC bishops to see that it is something we can come together and work on. The answer I think is not one of creating paper-universities, rather it is one of networking, encouragement, and fellowship. But before I get to that point there is another “quality control” issue that has to be raised.

In our movement it is all too common for bishops to ordain people almost on “first meeting”. I know, it practically happened to me with my diaconate. Thankfully I had a very supportive, engaged community, and loads of resources. But in hind-sight, my bishop was not doing me any favours. In fact he was out-right irresponsible. Collectively, we must cultivate a culture of development, discernment, and commitment. Across the board in our community these three things are woefully lacking in the vast majority of synods. People should not be ordained unless they have been active members of the local and regional community for X number of YEARS not months, not weeks, not days . . .YEARS (my personal feeling is between 3 and 5). One very important aspect of this time frame is that it allows for converts (few of us come from OC families) to adjust to a completely different way of thinking about, and experiencing Christianity, and “church”. While this is a topic that deserves a fuller argument, the point I am insisting on here is that before our communities invest in mentoring good candidates for service in the ordained ministry, candidates seeking ordination should show their commitment to their local and regional community, the vision and values of the synod they have joined, and . . .AND fidelity to that synod (another problem entirely the roots of which are intermixed with the lack of a culture of development, discernment, and commitment).

I worked for four years in a seminary environment. One thing that stands out for me is that the “European model” as Chris calls it has one very big failing. University education in theology is great for teaching individuals “orthodoxy” or “correct thinking” one thing it does not do – at all – is to teach “orthopraxis” or “correct action”. This is something that a well-developed mentoring program CAN do, because it is able to put the theology in context – on the ground, in the community. This very important element of formation is where the point I made above comes into play. A candidate who has lived the life of faith from the perspective of a given community, for X number of years, who then is mentored by the community towards eventual ordination, has an opportunity to take the “orthodoxy” of the community, and put it into “orthopraxis” – having already experienced it for some time before embarking on the journey towards ordination. University theology programs simply cannot do this effectively.

So what is a possible model for providing a solid formation and training for ordinands? First we need to open doors of fellowship amongst ourselves. An engaged network or OC/IC folks accomplishes two very important things. First is provides an opportunity for us to develop, and distribute our own theological, and ecclesiological voice. Some of us – like +John Plummer are already making this very important contribution. Second, based upon those relationships, and turning to those bishops, laity, and clergy who have particular specialities, skills, and research interests, we can develop a network of trusted mentors within the wider community; mentors who are willing, and available to train and educate our own. Finally, we need to encourage one another. We need to encourage those who are doing research in areas of OC/IC interest both within the traditional university context, and without, to publish their findings, and engage with others in the community on their topic. We need to encourage our laity, and our candidates for ordination to seek these resources out – to engage with them, and learn more about our traditions, and our heritage. Because it is only when ALL of our members are fully grounded in the ideals of the movement, and the theological voice of their home synod, that we will truly bury the ignorant priest (and bishop) – because the whole community will expect more than just a fine liturgical performance.