Oh no, not it's Testamur-granting ability! Anything but that!

 Why its Testamur granting ability, DKS?

The funding I can see, but dropping Testamur? That doesn't make sense.

Christ's peace - r

Sorry but I don't know what Testamur is. 

In the United Church, in order to be ordained, you need one of our colleges to grant you Testamur.  In essence this is the college saying that in the opinion of the faculty you are suitably prepared for Ordained Ministry.

For a school to lose the Testamur-granting ability effectively shuts that school out of the running for UCCan ministry candidate.  One can get her/his degreee at school that does not have TEstamur but will then be required to do further work with a Testamur-granting school to be ordained.

The Testamur is the foundational document saying that a candidate for ordiantion or commissioning has met all of the qualifications for ministry required by the United Church of Canada. Without the Testamur a candidate can not be ordained or commissioned and admitted to the order of Ministry of the United Church.  Basically, VST can not prepare candidates for ministry for the United Church after June 30 2011.

I would not expect you to understand the seriousness of this decision. You are a Baptist.

It makes emminent sense. With no denominational funding, there is no denominational interest and therefore no Testamur.

Thank you Gord and DKS (I think that you were both posting at the same time) for your clear explanations. 

Does the United Church not like the Vancouver School of Theology anymore?

If students can no longer train for ministry in Vancouver where can they?  Does this mean they must all relocate to Toronto or somewhere?

What? I get it, it means that a whole host of people will go elsewhere for their education. They want to be ministers in the United Church. It could conceivably lead in time to the closure of the school in question. It is, for those involved, a big deal.

Jae - be honest.  Did you even know what testamur means before Gord and DKS explained it?

 Sorry, DKS - 

There seems to be some faulty logic here.

Is VST going to change its programme from what it currently is? If not, then there would be no need to remove Testamur granting status, because the current programe is acceptable to the UCCan. If, on the other hand, the programme changes so that it no longer fulfills the requirements of Testamur, it would make sense that it be dropped.

If the VST programme stays as it is, the only reason for taking away Testamur status that I can think of would be to force students to enter into UCCan-funded colleges. Not a particularly good idea if we're facing a shortage of UCCan ministry personnel, because there will be a number of quality candidates who will not or cannot relocate to study. Even if we're not putting funding in, there is "denominational interest". VST might not be interested in us anymore... though there are still UCCan students applying for entry.

It should be noted that the removal of Testamur is pure speculation. If it were more than that, the Principal of VST would probably have raised it as a possibility in her letter.

So far, VST is the only theological centre that has stated that UCCan funding is going to be cut... and nothing has been posted to the GC website. When I take a look at what they were receiving, I don't think it adds up to the 10% cut to theological school funding that GCE mandated. I wonder which of St. Stephen's, St. Andrew's, University of Winnipeg, Queen's, United, Atlantic School of Theology, and Emmanuel will be added to the list? (I don't think the Center for Christian Studies would be touched, since its the only centre for diaconal education in the UCCan.)

Christ's peace - r

Any other schools get cut?

Actually, yes. I used to be a member of the United Church, seeler, and at several times in my life considered seeking to enter the ministry.

I am hearing that from a VST alum saying that word came in an e-mail to them. If anyone has a copy of the e-mail, please confirm.

There is no word on the web sites of the other theological colleges. I doubt Emmanuel, UTC, Queen's and AST will be deeply affected as they either have fairly deep pockets (AST) or they provide (Emmanuel does, at least) the majority of candidates for ministry to the United church

Hi, DKS...

The email that I got from VST on May 20 is the same as the letter that was posted to VST's website (linked in my previous post). I'd be interested to hear if there is additional information out there, as well.

*wry smile* So, DKS, does that mean that you think St. Stephen's, St. Andrew's and U of W will be deeply effected? Doesn't bode well for us in the west, now, does it? 

Christ's peace - r

Richard,

ST. Stevens and UofW are already not Testamur granting (haven't been for 40 years although there are still apparently people who like to believe that UofW will get that staus back) nor do they prepare students for one of the ministry streams.  I believe they get some funding from the UCC but what percentage?

THe church needs a testamur granting, funded school West of Ontario.   Does it need 2?  Not sure.  ANd remember that 50 years ago there were 4 and the stories of consolidatiing ministry prep on the Prairies into St. A's show that their were some hard feelings about  that move.

 Hi, Gord - 

Yes, I realized that St. Stephen's and U of W are not Testamur granting - I was just noting that everything in DKS' post was Toronto and east of it.

Every single one of the Testamur granting theological colleges could make a case for their continued existence, I'm sure. I'd just be quite saddened if there were to be no Testamur granting colleges west of Toronto. I hope that at least one of our colleges has developed (or is developing) a 100% distance education model, because we've got great candidates who are prepared to move at ordination, but won't be able to pay for their accomodations and studies without working at the same time - so aren't going to be able to leave their current communities.

Perhaps we'll drop Testamur granting from all of the colleges - have people take their M.Div. from any ATS accredited institution, and then have an additional 'denominational formation' program designed and overseen by GCO that all candidates would need to successfully complete prior to being considered for ordination. NOTE: The previous comment is speculative, no one that I know of has suggested such a thing.

Christ's peace - r

One of the demands of health care is that everyone expects to be able to have access to every type of care right where they live. The reality is that it is neither good stewardship of health care resources nor fiscally possible to do that. I can't expect high level neurosurgery in my 30 bed local hospital. So why should we expect high level theological training in every part of Canada? The scenario that is unrolling seems to look like this:

LPM training at Calling Lakes, Saskatchewan.

Diaconal training at CCS in Winnipeg

Ordination training at St. Andrew's, Emmanuel, Queen's, UTC and AST.

No idea. However, given the size of the United Church west of Ontario, a geographic case could be made for one school. St. Andrew's hasn't updated their web site in a while, so no idea what they are thinking.

That could have some interesting results; and costs. An M.Div at Union in New York, for example, costs $75,000 plus accommodation and meals.

Ah, but DKS, one wouldn't have to go international, which is why the cost you quoted is so high.

Canada has quite a few ATS-accredited non-United Church of Canada theological training centres.

Christ's peace - r

Any of the TST schools are. And I know a few who have done the first two years of their MDiv at Waterloo Lutheran nd then a year at TST.  

A grad of Regent College, however, would be interesting to the mix. Same with  Tyndall.

This was visible a long time ago. It could have been avoided. I am sad now that it has come to pass.

Might make us define a bit more clearly just what size the UCCan umbrella is.

Christ's peace - r

Just wondering - anyone know the rationale for retaining Queens, considering it is such a small school and graduates very few ministry candidates per year?

As a Queen's grad, I have to say I am asking the same question.  I went to VST for one of my 3  years, and if you'd said I had to choose, VST would have won. 

QTC has already changed and positioned itself for the future. It is now Queen's School of Religion.

http://www.queensu.ca/religion/index.html

Note the complete absence of any mention of any denominational affiliation.

That's kewl, I like that, I'm a Baptist.

Can't really comment on the schools for education of UCC clergy, as it's outside my realm.  But perhaps the time is here for  new models to be considered.

From my own professional perspective (occupational therapy), our national association accredits schools at various universities across the country, in a fairly rigourous process, and requires therapist to pass a national certification exam, along with completing extensive clinical placements and internship requirements.  A number of years ago, research indicated students  who leave their "home" region to attend school elsewhere usually do not return - rather they remain to practice in the region where they were schooled - often having met life partners & settled into their new area while studying for many years.   This understanding led to the development of a programme in the Maritimes to resolve manpower issues - this has been quite successful.   Likewise, McMaster medical school opened a 'satelite' med school campus in Thunder Bay.  No doubt there are other such examples. 

Somehow, it seems to me, the church needs to be ensuring wider opportunities for education of clergy - not a narrowing. 

AST is offering a really good program whereby students can obtain their Master's Degree in Divinity while serving in a pastoral charge.  We have one student in our Presbytery in his third (out of five) year and it's working out really well.  He earns a salary and get the practical experience while doing courses online and Summer school.  A rural multi-point pastoral charge gets ministry for 5 years.  Win/win imo. 

I am at best uneasy with the trend towards distance eductation as preparation for ministry.  I am convinced that we lose something important.  Yes we may gain in some areas but there is great value in sitting witht he smae people class by class, in different fields of study, challenging each other.

Maybe there is great value in it but it's a luxury many are no longer able to afford.  My husband and I had a large debt that took years to pay off.  I wonder if many are deterred from entering ministry because of the prospect of 6 years plus internship of study?  Culminating in large debts and a low starting wage.

The impo folk go through with the same people and they get together yearly for intensive class and look forward to it.  Plus they are utilizing internet technology like we are now to engage in conversation and learning.  I am friends with two people going through this program and they are very happy with the program for the most part.

I believe that the way we train ministers must change if we are ever going to attract people to ministry and maintain our standards around an educated clergy.  Streamline the course to two years plus practicum as one option and 5 year in ministry as another option and phase out designated ministry.

If we think we are alone, the Church of Scotland is looking ata 5.7 million pound defecit in 2010 and looking at slashing 234 funded ministry positions (that's terminations, folks). other strategies include selling all manses and refusing any new admittands, especially from South Africa. Read more here:

http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/generalassembly/downloads/gareports10ministries.pdf

Well one of the reasons that I am going into nursing NOW is that it is totally distance ed.   I can keep my job and work on my studies.  I don't have to move.  It is expensive to live in the city.

If the program was not totally distance education I would not have even considered it.  I do think that classroom is better but I don't think that is possible for everyone and we would lose good people who have the call but cannot make it happen by the traditional means.

Yes, but afaik, they still get denominational money.

That is not yet clear.

well, the 1st yr mDiv program at Emmanuel is only 10 students this year.  They  have other programs, but Emm doesn't count as BIG either. 

Yes. That's what the Registrar told me in March. And all of us who were ordained in the 1970's and 80's are coming up on pension time...

How many new ministers per year does the UC need to turn out?

How many colleges are needed to create these trained people?

Is there any evidence that people become 'better'  ministers if they have 5 years of education rather than two+practical, supervised experience?

Are there areas that have trained minsters who are not working within the church?

What has worked to get trained ministers into areas that have many churches without trained staff?

What has worked to assist trainees with avoiding overwhelming debts from training?

Lots of questions.  I wonder how seriously they have been addressed.

Kay the issues you raise have been on the churches agenda and in all churches in North America for years.

I was on the committee that deals with schools= one of the experiements was to do education by placing people in a charge - did not work and was cancelled.

Actually the thinking is the 3 year MDiv is too short given the explosion in knowledge - The UCC has been committed to an educated clergy because that is the type of church we are- short courses are ok but not the full deal - it works for those who committ to on going study and bring experience. 

The issue of numbers is complicated we have both a surrplus and shortage - we do not produce enough each year for rural cong and non urban - and we have ministers in other professions ( and they are happier there) - and we have in some urban centers ministers without call but are looking.

Then David points out there will be a number retiring in the next 5  to 7 years - more than we are training.

The UCC underfunds are schools and there is no plan on dealing with debts  - some schools have money for students - it is possible to have your tuition paid at Queens for example.  Another issue is housing and here it can be expensive and different schools have different plans. Thus there is some need for local schools.

We also have the issue of non UCC schools - in Canada they are evangelical.  In the usa there are many liberal schools but when you come to Canada even with a degree the UCC makes one take 5 courses to contextualize the person.

We make those who study in Canada study in one of our recognized schools.  The question is will VST still be even without a grant?  And will grants be cut to all?  And the church will create its own testing mechanism?

As been pointed out Uof W and St Stephens are not MDIV schools and may not get grants now.

We have too many schools for example UTC in montreal has one graduate this year.

Kay all your questions have been seriously looked at.

In speaking with Pat Lawson-Paul who is involved with Education and Students and Candidacy Pathway, she has said:

Testamur is not being taken away from any school, so that information is incorrect.

So, just to keep everyone on the same page: VST is not losing this granting ability. (again, DKS, where do you get this stuff?)

Ahhh - the questions are easier to find than the answers eh.

In an effort to be as helpful as I can, I'd like to join this conversation.  In my position as the Program Coordinator for Education & Leadership Development, I am the General Council liaison person with the theological schools, and the primary author of the report that served as background to the funding recommendations which will go before the GC Sub-executive.  This report, and the funding recommendations,  will be posted on the UCC website by the end of the day, and they should help dispel some mis-understandings.

It is being recommended to the sub-executive that VST, St. Stephen's College, the faculty of theology at the University of Winnipeg, and Queen's School of Religion no longer receive core funding from the United Church.  Other sources of funding will continue, including student aid funds, and 3 special grant funds.  Even with the core funding being eliminated, however, the United Church will remain in significant relationship with these schools.  The relationship between the church and its schools is about much more than the 9% (average) of the schools' operating budgets that they receive from the UCC.

VST has not lost its right to grant testamur.  Nor has any other school that currently possesses it.   As you will see when you read the report, testamur was not part of the funding discussion.   An important consultation regarding testamur will happen in the months ahead.

I hope this helps.  Feel free to ask me any questions.    Steve Willey

Steve:

Thank you for the helpful clarification. I do note, however, that there is some substance to the speculation:

That does not predict any specific outcome, but it does indicate the matter appears to be open for discussion.

David there have been discussions of using outcomes as a guide - that discussion was being made about 4 to 6 years ago - that would detemine the ucc needs and thus testamur -

as side note I never got a testamur coming from a school in the usa - it was easier in those days and the quality was determined by the quality of the school...  I think there is a move in canada and the us for churches to resist schools that are too open - one of my schools ( where I went) is under question because it is too ' ecumenical'.  They are like Emmanuel - offering training for Moslem leaders and the Methodists are worried -  is this one of the negative signs of this whole issue of testamur?

It is, indeed, open for discussion--and has been for almost 20 years, without resolution. 

One of the key issues that the church and the schools will be wrestling with is this:  Should testamur continue to be granted to the existing list of testamur-granting schools that need a steady flow of candidates to sustain their M.Div. programs and faculty, or should the church "take back" testamur altogether and provide  a much-expanded  list of academically accredited, M.Div.-granting schools to its candidates?   Choosing the latter option might make it more possible for some candidates to attend a school where they live, but it would also likely spread a relatively few number of candidates over a greater number of schools, few of which could sustain an M.Div. program and faculty on the small proportion of students who come their way. 

One thing that should be clarified at this junction of funding changes, however, is that those schools that could have their core funding eliminated are in no greater danger of losing their testamur now than they were before the funding recommendations were formulated.

I think you are right, George. A degree from PSR would be a much more liberal education than one from, say, Princeton. At the same time, the testamur is the "common ground", is it not? The standard for ordination or commissioning which applies to all?

And can you say more about outcome measures? I know what it means in health care, but this is the first I have heard it applied to our discipline.

That's clear, Steve. At the same time, the gorilla in the living room is here:

We have a recruitment problem upstream of the theological colleges.