Colonial Barriers in Seminary Education

I’m glad to see the conversation taking place in the Patheos forum about whether Seminary as an institution is on its way out, headed for radical reform, or if the cries of “fire” are overblown. Many of the issues that concern me have been addressed, but there’s one particular issue I see as central to the problem.

Several contributors have talked about the prohibitive cost of seminary education, and that given the challenges graduates have in finding sustainable employment after seminary, they are set up from the start to struggle or fail. While this is true, there are other considerations related to this that perhaps we all have overlooked.

That, or I missed the point in someone else’s post, which is entirely possible. But we’ll assume it’s an unexplored issue.

I’ve spent much of my ministry focusing on the issue of privilege within organized religion and its effects on both those within and outside the walls. I usually start with a fairly benign example to explore the notion of invisible privilege by asking a few folks to cut some simple figures out of a piece of paper. After some moments of fumbling the participants realize that the scissors are left-handed. Someone inevitably adapts, or the lefty in the group prevails from the beginning. But all players, the lefties included, start with the assumption (though never stated) that the scissors will be for righties.

This is privilege. And although I talk about it being invisible, that’s only partly right. Right-handed people don’t spend much time thinking about being right handed – definitely not as much as we lefties think about being left-handed. This is because in most cases, the world accommodates righties and the rest of us have to adapt. We’re made aware of our difference whenever we have to adjust to a world that doesn’t conform to the way we are, while the right-handers generally just assume that’s “the way the world works.”

For the righties, their privilege is invisible. And it usually takes someone without that privilege to notice that the privilege exists in the first place.

So how does this apply to seminary education? Start by asking those who serve in churches, but who have not had the opportunity to receive a seminary education. Often the reasons are because the tuition is too high, but there are other reasons as well. From geography to access to technology, inability to take time away from work, a lack of connections for references, scholarships, etc., or even a lack of a sense that the education holds the value required to help them fill their call to ministry all are reasons offered. I’m sure there are others, but these are at least some I’ve heard first-hand.

And for most of the items listed above that prove prohibitive for people to participate in seminary, there is an element of privilege at the heart of the issue. Our institutions of higher education emerged from colonial models of our culture, catering to an inherently privileged group. In turn, those with privilege have continued to support those institutions, so there is little impetus from the inside for them to change. Meanwhile those who lack access to this resource adapt, developing more grassroots lay ministry training, opting for hands-on experience over rhetorical or theoretical education.

I’m generalizing here, of course, but the point is that the institutions haven’t adapted because they haven’t had to adapt. It is in an institution’s basic nature to maintain a status quo unless forced to change in order to survive. That external pressure to change hasn’t come from those without privilege for two reasons. First, they generally lack the power to exert such change on an institution from the outside, and second, they have found ways around the seminary track to the point that it doesn’t seem particularly relevant to their own call to ministry.

I’m not sure if it’s entirely a bad thing if some – or even most – of the seminaries as we now know them become relics of a modern past. It’s not that I’m rooting for this; on the contrary, I’ve done work for two seminaries in the past, and my wife benefited greatly from her seminary training. But trying to cut tuition or putting some classes online doesn’t address the fundamental problem that we have a colonial education system trying to remain relevant in a post-colonial culture.

Maybe calling us post-colonial is too idealistic, but suffice it to say that our postmodern, integrated, fluid and pluralistic reality is struggling to emerge from colonialism and its effects. So what would seminary education look like in a post-colonial reality? I’m not really sure, and as one who speaks from a place of privilege, I probably shouldn’t be the one trying to craft that future story.

but as they say in twelve-step recovery groups, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. And that problem isn’t budgetary, and it’s not about butts in the institutional seats. It runs deeper, and the solution, far more complex.

Christian Piatt is an author, editor, speaker, musician and spoken word artist. He co-founded Milagro Christian Church in Pueblo, Colorado with his wife, Rev. Amy Piatt, in 2004. Christian is the creator and editor of “Banned Questions About The Bible” and “Banned Questions About Jesus.” He has a memoir on faith, family and parenting being published in early 2012 called “PREGMANCY: A Dad, a Little Dude and a Due Date.” For more information about Christian, visit www.christianpiatt.com, or find him on Twitter or Facebook.

An Ironic Problem for “Occupy Wall Street”

I’ll start by saying I agree with the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, at least in principal. Anyone willing to take the time and effort to stand nonviolent against systems that oppress on behalf of the marginalized has some merit.

That said, I, like many others, am a little baffled by the intent of the movement. Is the goal to influence public policy? To move public opinion? To propose a radical alternative form of government or commerce? I’m not so sure. Fellow Patheos contributor Brian McLaren is vocal in his support. Though I respect Brian and his focus on social justice informed by his faith, I’m still not entirely sure what I’m supporting by standing behind the so-called “99 Percent.”

But that’s not the point of my post today. I heard NPR’s New York Bureau Correspondent Margot Adler talking about an interesting problem the New York movement – and some of the other groups, too – is facing. Apparently, the protesters have access to pretty good food for the most part. Ms. Adler spoke of being served homemade cornbread and fresh guacamole when she visited the Wall Street camp. But I guess some of the local homeless people have gotten wind of the good eats available at the rallies and have decided to crash the party.

Some of the protesters complained that the non-voluntary street dwellers were gobbling up resources, and generally showing a lack of regard for the cause. Of course, I’m guessing if anyone understands being a part of the disenfranchised citizenry, it’s the homeless.

Anyway, the solution some protesters have come up with is to slash rations and make the food as undesirable as possible, at least temporarily, until the intruders move on.

Does anyone but me see the irony in this?

I don’t want to beat an obvious horse to death, so I think I’ll leave it at that, and let others chime in if, in fact, I’m missing something.

Christian Piatt is an author, editor, speaker, musician and spoken word artist. He co-founded Milagro Christian Church in Pueblo, Colorado with his wife, Rev. Amy Piatt, in 2004. Christian is the creator and editor of “Banned Questions About The Bible” and “Banned Questions About Jesus.” He has a memoir on faith, family and parenting being published in early 2012 called “PREGMANCY: A Dad, a Little Dude and a Due Date.” For more information about Christian, visit www.christianpiatt.com, or find him on Twitter or Facebook.

We Can’t Un-Open the Postmodern Box

Adam, a friend on Facebook, sent a couple of questions to me via chat yesterday that I thought could be more easily answered in a blog than in shorts bursts on instant messaging. I’ve written about my thoughts on postmodernism, its effects on theology and the church before, but it’s an important enough subject to revisit from time to time.

Adam’s first question was (and I’m paraphrasing):

What do you think about the emerging church movement?

First, I think he rightly identifies it as a movement, more viral in nature than any particular institution would tend to propagate a set of ideals. I told him that I felt that emerging church, as an idea, is a natural byproduct of postmodern culture. In short, postmodernism challenges the more dichotomous, black-and-white, either-or thinking of modernism. Postmodernism suggests that the dualistic attitudes of modernism that began as early as the Enlightenment paint an overly simplistic picture of reality. In the United States in particular, postmodernism has found voice as our culture becomes increasingly pluralistic and those lines we believed were clear before begin to blur.

As for the emerging church movement, I told him that I see this as a natural response to postmodern thought. Though our understanding of what exactly emerging church is varies by individual (typically postmodern, isn’t it?), there are a handful of general attributes that I see as defining what emerging church is:

A value of community over institutional membership.

An emphasis on service-based ministry over traditional evangelism for the sake of conversion.

A call to live out ministry in the cultural context where you find yourself, rather than expecting the community to come to you through the institutional church.

A focus on trying to live as Christ lived and taught, rather than propping up church dogma, doctrine or any one particular statement of faith.

As for defining emerging church beyond this, I find it hard to do. Some claim it’s a predominantly liberal movement, and in so much as one defines “liberal” as downplaying the importance of institutional and doctrinal authority, I suppose that’s accurate. But I know social conservatives and progressives who identify as part of the emerging church movement, along with agnostics and evangelicals. Emerging church does not promote a specific Christology or set of theological ideals, as this would be contrary to the very concept from which it came. This doesn’t mean that, on occasion, some folks won’t try to co-opt the emerging church label on behalf of their own particular agenda, but such labels end up falling away.

Adam’s second question was:

Isn’t postmodernism giving way to a kind of hyper-modernism?

I think this is an astute observation, especially with the growing visibility of such people as John Piper and Mark Driscoll. However, my short answer to his question would be “no.”

I think that, any time a new worldview begins to take hold, there will be some degree of push-back from those entrenched in the prior way of seeing things. This is especially true for individuals and institutions that stand to benefit from things staying the way they are. In this case, religious fundamentalism – whether from the right or left – depends on a more dichotomous, either-or way of thinking. So any alternative to this understanding of the world is considered a threat.

Although more fundamentalist, doctrinal and/or dogmatic approaches to religion may be more vocal in their reaction to postmodernism and the emerging church, this does not necessarily mean that they are gaining popular momentum. On the contrary, as a more people understand the world in pluralistic, fluid (some might argue relativistic) terms, such vocal opposition seems increasingly out of step with reality. As technology allows us to exchange ideas and experiences more easily and rapidly, and as our communities reflect an increasingly heterogeneous face, efforts to draw clear lines and define life with absolute, monolithic clarity simply begin to lose credibility.

So in short, though there are “hyper-modern” advocates who would have us believe that postmodernism and the emerging church are merely the passing fad of the moment, a longer-term, broader perspective reinforces the idea that we cannot simply go back to old ways of thinking when the world around us is so much more integrated, fluid and diverse than ever before in history.

Such changes simply can’t be undone, despite the vocal cries for a return to the ways of the past. You can’t un-open the box.

Christian Piatt is an author, editor, speaker, musician and spoken word artist. He co-founded Milagro Christian Church in Pueblo, Colorado with his wife, Rev. Amy Piatt, in 2004. Christian is the creator and editor of “Banned Questions About The Bible” and “Banned Questions About Jesus.” He has a memoir on faith, family and parenting being published in early 2012 called “PREGMANCY: A Dad, a Little Dude and a Due Date.” For more information about Christian, visit www.christianpiatt.com, or find him on Twitter or Facebook.