Here’s a different idea. You’ve all probably heard about the term “Anglican Alphabet Soup.” I’ve recently learned that the Lutherans have “Alphabet Soup” as well. But here’s how what I’m talking about relates to the current subject.

I believe the key to adequate support of Priests and their families is viable strong and healthy parishes.

The challenge for us is that many of our parishes are small. This is especially the case in The Western Rite of Antioch.

Here’s a proposal: Why not participate in “Ecumenically Shared Ministries” like the Roman Catholics do in certain cases?

As an example, there is a church in Hampden Roads Virginia called Church of the Holy Apostles that is a joint parish shared between Episcopalians and Roman Catholics.

They have separate altars for the Eucharist but share “The Ministry of the Word” together.

At least in the “Western Rite” an Ecumenically Shared Ministry / Parish might be possible due to the similarity of liturgies involved. This would be much tougher for an “Eastern Rite” parish to do.

Picture a Western Rite parish shared between an AMIA / CANA parish on the Anglican side, an LCMC parish on the Lutheran side, and an OCA or Antiochian parish on the Orthodox side.

The LCMC Lutherans and AMIA / CANA Anglicans could share an altar because they have “Open Communion” and the Orthodox could have their own altar.

The advantage to this idea would be larger parishes that could support full-time and fully compensated pastors and priests.

This could really help in terms of salaries, pensions, and theological education costs. A larger church could help defray the cost of an M. Div. and once completed, the Saint Stephen’s course would be free for the Orthodox clergy involved.

If the M. Div can be knocked out locally, things get a lot easier for the seminarians and their families.

This would not be “Ecumenicism as Usual” because all the groups involved would be “conservative” by nature and not theologically “liberal.”

I know getting permission on the Orthodox side would be tough. But would it be impossible with Bishops like Metropolitan Jonah who seem willing to take some risks to advance Holy Orthodoxy?

Just a little “out of the box” thinking for those of us who feel “boxed in.”

Sincerely,

Christian Cate

Fr. Basil is correct. The St. Stephen’s Course is not at all equivalent to the education you would get in one of the traditional seminaries. And (with the exception of the UOC-USA, as Fr. Anthony points out), no one can do JUST the St. Stephen’s Course and be ordained to the priesthood, unless he already has an MDiv from a non-Orthodox seminary. However, I’m not even sure if any of the American Orthodox jurisdictions allow this any more (they might; I just haven’t personally heard of it happening lately).

But for someone who has no MDiv, the traditional seminaries are the ONLY route, at least as I understand it. I would like to see this change; I would like to see someone who has no seminary training at all be able to get their MDiv from an Orthodox seminary via distance learning.

Also, with the St. Stephen’s Course, you miss out on the benefit of the lectures, and the readings are not quite what you would read in the seminaries. What I would like to see is the possibility of going through the same curriculum that you would go through at St. Vladimir’s, St. Tikhon’s, or Holy Cross, but without having to actually move up to one of these seminaries. As I mentioned earlier, students taking the distance learning option would be able (or maybe required?) to watch the lectures on DVD or online.

I agree with Fr. Basil that this is a better option than just building more seminaries, which is very expensive and doesn’t solve the problem of students having to go deep into debt to study.

Briefly, the St Stephen’s program (http://www.antiochian.org/638 ) is, as far as priesthood is concerned, primarily for those who already have an M.Div. or similar (such as what a clergyman from another church body would bring with him). At least this is what I understood. (If anyone from the Antiochian Archdiocese wishes to elaborate, please do.) I am not sure to what extent exceptions are made to this policy. Otherwise, completion of the St Stephen’s course leads to the diaconate. Having said that, St Stephen’s would be a good place to start.

As for more seminaries, I don’t see that the current enrollment and demand for clergy fully justifies all the seminaries that are already there.

Parochial schools? I love the idea, but they are ALL hurting right now. We’d be competing for the same declining bunch of students, and parents who are increasingly unwilling or unable to pay the very real and very high cost of tuition. The future for this likely lies with fostering cooperative groups for homeschoolers.

You pretty much describe what my diocese (UOC-USA) is doing for “non-traditional” seminarians. We augment the St. Stephen’s program with three years of weekend study at our own seminary and an apprenticeship with a priest.

While it has its downsides and risks (for example, the quality of the apprenticeship varies based on the abilities/initiative of both the priest and the seminarian, among other things), it avoids debt. Not only do I agree with Fr. Basil about the dangers of debt, I think is so unhealthy as to be sinful and that one’s debt and attitude towards it is an indicator of maturity. As it stands, we are NOT setting our seminarians up for success.

[As you know, I drank a full pitcher of the Dave Ramsey kool-aid.]

Any solution to training priests must deal with this (kudos to Fr. Basil for brining it up), and if we can’t produce enough debt-free seminarians through the “big three” Orthodox seminaries, then there are other useful alternatives.

- fr anthony

PS I won’t be adding much to this discussion over Lent (I’m trying to fast from all that isn’t strictly necessary), but that doesn’t mean I’m not interested … I’m probably just lurking.

Isn’t this “Distance Learning” idea already somewhat in effect in the Antiochian Archdiocese in the form of the Saint Stephen’s course? From my understanding, you read for Holy Orders while remaining at your home parish and then spend two weeks a year at one of our seminaries for additional coursework.

Am I missing something?

In my opinion, one of the best things we can do to insure a decently paid clergy is to be aggressive church planters along the lines of Grace and Saint Stephen’s Orthodox Catholic Church in Massachusetts.

This parish, along with other incoming parishes that were formerly in the Charismatic Episcopal Church are bringing some of their good habits and strengths with them into Holy Orthodoxy.

One thing Protestants know how to do is to support their pastors and provide may avenues for seminary training. We really need to do a better job of this ourselves while maintaining our Orthodox standards, of course.

If we ever want to see Holy Orthodoxy become more than a “niche” religion in this country, we need to develop and build a lasting infrastructure of healthy parishes and even a school system like the Roman Catholics and the Lutherans possess.

And we need a seminary in the midwest. Having one seminary in Alaska and two other seminaries on the East Coast just doesn’t cut it. All of our major competitors have seminaries spread across the U.S. in every major region.

Growing the Church is the biggest answer.

Sincerely in the Holy Trinity, One God

Christian Cate

I, for one, would like to see the Orthodox seminaries in the U. S. offer TWO options for working toward a degree: the traditional method and distance learning.

Students who opt for the distance learning track would stay in their home city and attend their home parish for the first four years of seminary (I’ll explain why I say FOUR years in a minute). They would continue to work their current full-time job. They would watch recordings of the lectures online or on DVD’s and complete all the same assignments that students who are on the traditional track do. They would submit their papers and tests via “turnitin.com” or by some other secure online method.

Of course, this would require that the distance learning students go through the course of studies much more slowly than traditional students. Due to their work responsibilities, they would be able to take at most two courses a semester (perhaps three for single students). This is why I said “four years”–it would take most distance learning students four years to complete the first two years of seminary studies.

Distance learning students would also go up the the seminary campus once a year durig the summer for a week or so for some in-residence studies, by which they could meet the professors in person and attend some lectures, workshops, and (most importantly) liturgical services with the professors and their fellow students from around the country (and maybe the whole world).

(In short, this would be a sort of 21st century ramped-up St. Stephen’s course, but using an actual seminary curriculum).

As for liturgical life, the students obviously couldn’t attend daily services at the seminary, but they could be placed under the tutelage of their parish priest and required to attend as many services as possible (with a minimum of Vespers, Matins, DL, and hopefully one mid-week service), while serving actively as a chanter, altar server, and/or SS teacher. They could be given a ministry and/or service project to complete each Spring.

For the final year of studies, the student would move to the actual seminary campus and do the last year of studies there. (Or, even better, they could actually complete the whole degree via distance learning).

I’m sure this system would have some disadvantages, but I see mainly advantages:

1. The cost would be much less.

2. The student (and spouse if applicable), since they continue to work full-time, could live simply and thereby pay off their debts and save for that third year of seminary (Maybe even require that they go through Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University!) In other words, they wouldn’t have to go deep into debt to finance their seminary education.

3. Although it would take longer, maybe this is actually a good thing. Candidates for the priesthood would be older at ordination if for no other reason than the fact that seminary took longer!

4. I think more people would take advantage of seminary, including people who actually have no interest in the priesthood. Many people who go through the distance learning track could end up becoming permanent deacons, catechists, SS teachers, or just plain-old ( theologically well-educated) parishioners.

I could write more, but that’s enough for now. I’d love to hear what everyone else thinks of this idea.

It would be difficult for a priest to feed the flock with the Word of God and the Bread of Life when he is worried about putting food on the breakfast table for his family.

Our new auxiliary Bishop, His Grace Irenee – who himself served faithfully for decades as a mission priest while also requiring full-time secular employment – told me recently that he has never known a faithful priest whose family starved. God is faithful and we can trust Him to provide, but we as the Church can also help by encouraging healthy starts to ministry and finding ways to ease the crushing debt loads of our new clergy.