Min. stembridge's question has prompted a question of my own. I have read the discipline and am wondering the following: What is the purpoes of Conference Institutes in the modern church? It is my understanding that they were originally developed as a way to train those interested in becoming clergy when Seminary was not available to many. Now that Seminary is a prerequsite for ordination, has the Institute in it's current form out lived it's usefulness? There are some that believe that the Institute should be redefined and others who belive it should be abandoned all together. As a woman entering ministry I am trying to decide on a seminary and do not want to stray too far from home if attendence in the Institute is mandtory or beneficial. Does anyone have any thoughts on any of this?

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Answers

I have found that my time at the institute has been enlighting and the exposure a vital part to my ministry. I have learned/discussed things that you may not find at seminary. In addition the institute is a credit to African Methodism because of the doctrine and discipline that we study. Finally you have a better spiritual base because not everyone who teaches at seminary believes exactly what we believe. Knowing Jesus is not exactly a pre-requisite. Seminary provides a great deal of training and development. I find that it helps to create a well rounded ministry that you may not find in Bible schools, etc.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Seminary provides one a chance to broaden their views and horizons. I am weary of any organization that relies only on its own to indoctrinate those that follow. Where I am from that is called inbreeding and is ultimately disastorous. Going to a seminary where people do not belive what you belive gives you a chance to strengthen your beliefs as well as convert others. Only learning from those who are exactly like you, only serves to retard and ultimately stunt your growth.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

In the "modern" context, the Ministerial institute fills in the gaps specific to African methodism, and the homiletics specific to people of color. Our polity does require a little more detailed knowledge to administer than we lay may comprehend. As a connectional church there are also the considerations of understanding how polity is manifest across national borders.

Not all of our seminarians have the benefit of homiletics that are "relevant" to reaching the African American masses. The Institute's focus on preaching the word in a context that reaches the specifics of each district may provide some of that supplement.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

One can not be taught how to preach. Homeletical trainging in seminaries is not ment to be a how to course but rather a chance for one to learn to find their own "preaching voice." I echo the comments above that teaching must come from a broad spectrum of sourecs for progress to continue. The word of God can and does reach the hearts and minds of all who are open to it. Stylistic concerns change the art and science of preaching into no more than mere showmanship. Different people recieve the word in different ways even within a specific cultural group. The notion that there is a specific mode of homelitical expression that is relevant to African Americans discounts the ability of preaching to cross barriers of color, sex, age, and race. When God calls a person to preach he will give them the words to speak to the hearts and minds of his people. Learning to preach in the voice of others is untimately futile and damaging to the young preacher.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

I must say that many need to be taught how to preach not in method but in theory. I value the things that have been taught to me in regard to my preaching because I have been taught to preach meat and not milk. I have been taught structure for a sermon that guides the listener to where God wants them to receive. I listen to many sermons that don't have propositions and that is a valuable component to every sermon. I look back at some of my early sermons and I wonder what was I doing. After this I gained a level of understanding that helps me to be more mindful of what I am looking to acheive with my sermons. I find that my sermons have more strength based upon what I have been taught in the Ministerial institute. For those who know Rev. Oneil Mackey you know that he is strict when it comes to sermon preperation and the sermons that pass by him. I still recommend "On the preperation and delivery of sermons" by Broadus as a sermon tool that is timeless.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

What about the Lay Preacher and sermonic preparation? Are they schooled in the art of preaching? Please comment.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

The Lay are encouraged to attend the Ministerial Institute here in the NY Conference.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

I disagree Min. Jerome.

The fact is where you direct people in a sermon may or may not be where they find the word of God. While I am sure that Rev. Mackey can give helpful hints, that were good for him, I agree with the earlier stetement that a person has to find their unique preaching voice. The Institute is a great tool but the fact is preaching is an art that can not be taught. If one learns to paint like picasso the greatest value of their work will only be that there art looks like picasso's

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000

I take nothing away from anyone's "preaching voice", but you must have a structure to your sermon if not you may as the older preachers used to say "don't lead the people through the woods when there is a perfect road for them to take." We are taught to create a may in the proposition so that the people can see what it is that you are looking to preach about. eg. I propose to show... This is very important because too many times we get a great deal of milk but many times not enough meat. I for one like to have a good bone to chew on especially after I have taken off all of the meat. I like to have a direction instead of trying to figure out what the person may have been attempting to do for 45 minutes as well as preachers need a road map so that they do not go off into irrelevant subjects. Mnay times we have preachers who start off on one runway but than can't get the plane off the ground.

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2000

On the notion of "art" vs. "training". I am a musician, alebit by hard work and repetition rather than formal training. In that discipline it takes months to years of work to master the fundamentals. ONce you have mastered the techniq

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2000

(Oops)

On the notion of "art" vs. "training". I am a musician, alebit by hard work and repetition rather than formal training. In that discipline it takes months to years of work to master the fundamentals. ONce you have mastered the technique, though, you can begin to explore the "art". For example, I had no particular "style" while I was learning the insrument, but now, having learned various techniques of prior practitioners, I am more capable of creating a style. Rahter than parroting back a hymn as transcribed in a hymn book, artistic interpretation through the application of technique allows me to render it in a baroque fashion, a fugal fashion, an Italian romance fashion, a dirge, a rondo, or a blues/gospel/jazz setting. By understanding underlying techniques, I am more able to explore and present using my own imagination. The culmination of this is the creation of something either totally new, or something interesting through synthesis.

Perhaps it would be helpful to view homiletics in a similar way.

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2000