“Competency-based education” is an approach to education in which the standards are high and inflexible, but the time that a student may take to achieve the high standards is allowed to vary.
I am experienced in “competency-based education” when it comes to skilled trades. I know it from the US Dept. of Labor Registered Apprenticeship type system and the German "Duale Hochschule" method. Both have differences, advantages/disadvantages, but the similarity is this: The competency based model is usually used for careers that involve physical labor and practical problem solving. The problem solving model that fits this is plan, do, check, adjust. It is meant to address problems where the root cause is identifiable without complex methodology. Sometimes you encounter problems that require statistical problem solving methods or design elements. This is usually left to engineers to solve, who by and large, had a traditional education - many times they come from the trades, but not without having to go through traditional education to become an engineer. These people normally teach the trades people how to fix something, or design something new for them, when the problem cannot be solved by returning something broken to its original design state.
For pastors, I guess you could take a competency based education approach, but it does not lend itself to being "apt to teach". It lends itself to being "apt to do", which is also necessary, but is not one of the primary qualifications of a pastor. The competency method would probably be great for deacons, if we Lutherans saw that as an office in the Church.
Apt to teach, apt to do. That's a great distinction. It reminds me of the adage, "Those who can do, and those who can't teach," but I know that's not what is meant here.
"Students complete a program when they demonstrate sufficient competence in all program competencies." Whenever I encounter a circular sentence such as this, I am already suspect. Competence in competencies. Oh, for lack of definition!
Ii think the underlying issue here is who evaluates the candidates for ordination. In 16th and 17th centuries, it was the regional consistory, which was a mixture of qualified clergy and laity. I would like to see something similar today in place of the seminaries certifying their own work product. It's a bit like the contractor being the building inspector or the butcher being the health inspector. Certainly the seminaries should have some say in the matter, but the examination of candidates should be something for which the whole church has a stake.
This probably tracked with how all education in all fields occurred in the 16th century. Training until you were ready to be examined for your degree. That probably served the church well. Unfortunately the world commodified education and created the current system. You take certain number of classes and then you get your degree. Perhaps not as useful for Church purposes. The old system more closely tracks with how Jesus trained His disciples. Develop the man not sell the degree.
Just a posit to extend a Quality Control type understanding within ministry. The formation process is discussed but how is this maintained? As a tradesmen myself, I must undergo continuing education within the licensing organization’s expectations. Electricians cannot get credit for items not directly related to their expertise.
I recently suggested the idea of continuing education for called staff (on the payroll) not trained as professional church workers to an elder, pastor at my church. When I was an elder at a past church, I tried having a discussion about this concept and got nothing back in both cases. We could call it mini sabbaticals, or Continuing Education but I have experienced churches without a sense, the need to maintain certain quality’s that represent practical theology. Practical theology that is in the catechism separating Lutheranism from other sources generating methodology’s.
I believe people mistake pastoral gatherings at a district level as a continuing educational experience because they discuss topics in the original languages. I have never attended these meetings, vaguely discussed what happens because of the subjects at the time. It is my hope, this posit would generate clarification on this aspect of a ministry within Quality Control.
For instance, the Momento70.com daily experience is getting off the ground. In it, one finds a metric like private confession and absolution (PCA). As an elder, I was the only one to completely call everyone on my list on a monthly basis to offer prayer. Their culture and customs at this church appeared to not understand this aspect of an Elder. I have done PCA in the past, others have received absolution from me informally (with using a standard order). With so many people with good intentions, a base synergism at times, I believe it helps to return to the basics along with modern trends as people move forward in ministry. Set a standard and train for it, in the laity especially. This would help identify solid church workers for the Office of the Ministry and its extensions for review. It could illuminate issues if one cannot accept or function within theological practice as well after leaving a Seminary. Colloquy because we are the same Christian’s, verses pre hire standards is only evident based on practice.
My idea is about closing the circle from mother church to produce offspring that are truly gifts in our Saviors ascension. Short on time, thanks for the review.
Whether talking about "alternative routes" or "competency-based" pastoral preparation, the elephant in the room is the lack of commitment to sound doctrine and liturgy. Without united understanding of and commitment to these things no amount of discussion or tinkering will be helpful.
Digging into the "how" of pastoral preparation without agreement to the more critical questions of "what" and "so that" (desired outcomes) serves only to prolong our 40-year wandering (20 on church growth and 20 more on missional).
The man of rebellious spirit who who resists correct and uniform teaching and practice and who does not want to submit to the authority of the church--and seemingly not even to the authority of Christ himself--prefers not to be inconvenienced or discomforted by instruction and examination by those who know and love Christ's commands.
I am experienced in “competency-based education” when it comes to skilled trades. I know it from the US Dept. of Labor Registered Apprenticeship type system and the German "Duale Hochschule" method. Both have differences, advantages/disadvantages, but the similarity is this: The competency based model is usually used for careers that involve physical labor and practical problem solving. The problem solving model that fits this is plan, do, check, adjust. It is meant to address problems where the root cause is identifiable without complex methodology. Sometimes you encounter problems that require statistical problem solving methods or design elements. This is usually left to engineers to solve, who by and large, had a traditional education - many times they come from the trades, but not without having to go through traditional education to become an engineer. These people normally teach the trades people how to fix something, or design something new for them, when the problem cannot be solved by returning something broken to its original design state.
For pastors, I guess you could take a competency based education approach, but it does not lend itself to being "apt to teach". It lends itself to being "apt to do", which is also necessary, but is not one of the primary qualifications of a pastor. The competency method would probably be great for deacons, if we Lutherans saw that as an office in the Church.
Apt to teach, apt to do. That's a great distinction. It reminds me of the adage, "Those who can do, and those who can't teach," but I know that's not what is meant here.
"Students complete a program when they demonstrate sufficient competence in all program competencies." Whenever I encounter a circular sentence such as this, I am already suspect. Competence in competencies. Oh, for lack of definition!
Ii think the underlying issue here is who evaluates the candidates for ordination. In 16th and 17th centuries, it was the regional consistory, which was a mixture of qualified clergy and laity. I would like to see something similar today in place of the seminaries certifying their own work product. It's a bit like the contractor being the building inspector or the butcher being the health inspector. Certainly the seminaries should have some say in the matter, but the examination of candidates should be something for which the whole church has a stake.
This probably tracked with how all education in all fields occurred in the 16th century. Training until you were ready to be examined for your degree. That probably served the church well. Unfortunately the world commodified education and created the current system. You take certain number of classes and then you get your degree. Perhaps not as useful for Church purposes. The old system more closely tracks with how Jesus trained His disciples. Develop the man not sell the degree.
Just a posit to extend a Quality Control type understanding within ministry. The formation process is discussed but how is this maintained? As a tradesmen myself, I must undergo continuing education within the licensing organization’s expectations. Electricians cannot get credit for items not directly related to their expertise.
I recently suggested the idea of continuing education for called staff (on the payroll) not trained as professional church workers to an elder, pastor at my church. When I was an elder at a past church, I tried having a discussion about this concept and got nothing back in both cases. We could call it mini sabbaticals, or Continuing Education but I have experienced churches without a sense, the need to maintain certain quality’s that represent practical theology. Practical theology that is in the catechism separating Lutheranism from other sources generating methodology’s.
I believe people mistake pastoral gatherings at a district level as a continuing educational experience because they discuss topics in the original languages. I have never attended these meetings, vaguely discussed what happens because of the subjects at the time. It is my hope, this posit would generate clarification on this aspect of a ministry within Quality Control.
For instance, the Momento70.com daily experience is getting off the ground. In it, one finds a metric like private confession and absolution (PCA). As an elder, I was the only one to completely call everyone on my list on a monthly basis to offer prayer. Their culture and customs at this church appeared to not understand this aspect of an Elder. I have done PCA in the past, others have received absolution from me informally (with using a standard order). With so many people with good intentions, a base synergism at times, I believe it helps to return to the basics along with modern trends as people move forward in ministry. Set a standard and train for it, in the laity especially. This would help identify solid church workers for the Office of the Ministry and its extensions for review. It could illuminate issues if one cannot accept or function within theological practice as well after leaving a Seminary. Colloquy because we are the same Christian’s, verses pre hire standards is only evident based on practice.
My idea is about closing the circle from mother church to produce offspring that are truly gifts in our Saviors ascension. Short on time, thanks for the review.
I encountered this Chemnitz quote this week:
"As far as the ministerium is concerned it is necessary that the honorable Council
will hold to the concept that unity must be preserved within the ministerium, and
thus no preacher can be received or called into the conference, without the consent
of the conference or ministerium, who has not met with and been examined by the
conference, and no person may be installed in office without the consent of the
superintendent and the ministerium." ( quoted with attribution in: https://scholar.csl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=stm )
Whether talking about "alternative routes" or "competency-based" pastoral preparation, the elephant in the room is the lack of commitment to sound doctrine and liturgy. Without united understanding of and commitment to these things no amount of discussion or tinkering will be helpful.
Digging into the "how" of pastoral preparation without agreement to the more critical questions of "what" and "so that" (desired outcomes) serves only to prolong our 40-year wandering (20 on church growth and 20 more on missional).
The man of rebellious spirit who who resists correct and uniform teaching and practice and who does not want to submit to the authority of the church--and seemingly not even to the authority of Christ himself--prefers not to be inconvenienced or discomforted by instruction and examination by those who know and love Christ's commands.