Looking Again at Confirmation

Whether or not you have taken the class, what would you like to see done differently in the Confirmation Class?

No strong views (1)

Difficult to comment, to 12 weeks and 2 weekends. Launches varied in effectiveness. Perhaps 2 sessions instead of one. (2)

Use the best people as teachers. On-the-job training should be offered elsewhere. (3)

Since it has been so long since I took the class, I'm not sure how to answer this. But I can say that I am rather Funk-Ed-ed. out -- period. (4)

Adequate as is. Must have good teachers. (5)

My proposed changes:

1) Better integration of functional education and more traditional Christian Education. In my class, we had a yearning to know how stuff fit into traditional Christian doctrine. In discussing liturgy education the Worship Committee commented on the dearth of information about the Episcopal Church and saw that as a weakness for both the class members and the church. I think those connections can be made without being oppressive or sacrificing the personal exploration part. Indeed, because of the power of some Christian beliefs as metaphors for life (e.g. the body of Christ for the community), I think the better integration of "Christian" into Christian Education would enhance the experience. A related approach would be to create an additional module that focused on liturgics and Christian doctrine. That module could be taken separately and probably would not be necessary to take the confirmation vows, but maybe there could be a commitment to take it within a defined period (e.g., two years).

2) Figure out a confirmation class experience for our youth. We should be able to give our teens an initiation process into adulthood and our community and the opportunity to become confirmed if they want that.

3) Figure out the logistics: time and money. Maybe one of the retreats could be in town (e.g., Friday night, all day Saturday, worship at church at one of the Sunday services, and finish Sunday afternoon). Raise money for an endowment to lower the costs. Provide child care on site (even away at weekends) for classes with enough participants. We might even have a child friendly class one out of three classes (so it rotated from spring to fall to spring), where the structure was significantly different to accommodate families with small children.

4) I am unfamiliar with dissatisfaction from recent classes, so I ask that you consider ways to improve the teaching/support of participants without knowing whether there's any need. So I offer these suggestions for your consideration as examples to stimulate your thinking. Consider opening more of a line from the students to the supervisors. I know that's not traditional, but it might be appropriate given the intensity of the experience we want. Also, you might want to consider new approaches to teacher training, selection, and evaluation, e.g. have an intern program, where new teachers can have less responsibility for the class until they demonstrate proficiency. Consider setting up some sort of support program for the weekends, e.g. have a chaplain (someone who is experienced with dealing with person issues who is not on the teaching team) on-site or available by phone. Consider the costs and promises of giving the students/prospective students more information about the process and the purpose of the components. (6)

I'd like to see more room made for discussions of theology and church custom (its origins), to satisfy people's curiosity and/or whet their appetites. I'd like to see the whole process demystified a bit and hyped less. I'd like to see some time devoted to the subject of how, as St. Mark's members and Christians, we relate to the wider world. (7)

As far as the class I experienced, I cannot imagine an improvement. I wish something similar could be instituted at my own church. (8)

Our class did not enjoy an evening session about boredom (9)

It's been so long since I've taken it or been involved with the class in any way, I can't comment. (10)

It worked well for me, but if its not working perhaps some things need to be done differently. (11)

What could be done differently? Should be either renamed as "Intro to Func Ed" or content should be changed to prepare members for confirmation. I was not an Episcopalian before and learned virtually nothing about the church from class. I did not like the class at all (other than meeting people in the class). I was at that time working as a nurse in a neonatal intensive care unit, deeply involved with critically ill and dying infants and their families. I found the Ann/Tom scenario contrived and phony. Not sure if I'd find it so if I took the class again but don't really want to find out. I haven't taken another Func Ed class since the teacher training right after confirmation class. (12)

There is much I would like to see done differently. Interestingly, when I was telling another parishioner about some of our concerns when we were taking the class - the offensiveness of not being told what was going to happen - she said that she thought all that had changed after her class had complained vociferously. I came to believe that whenever a class does complain, a few changes are made for the next class, and then it just reverts - but people actually think real change is happening.

It is amazing to me that when so much has been learned about group dynamics, training, etc. since this class began, so little, if any, of that is being used. We seen to think that this func. ed. method is so perfect (i.e. we worship it) that it can't be changed. Frankly, as far as I can tell, no one on this committee is a critic of func. ed. - the result is that a number of people I spoke with told me they weren't going to bother with the survey because it would be ignored anyway. And it has been duly noted that people weren't asked if they wanted to be on the committee, but it was simply announced. I fear people are so protective of this class that they are afraid if they change one thing, the whole house of cards will fall down. (13)

1.) Theology-the theology of the categories is obscure, narrow and old. It should be looked at, up-dated, and then taught in an effective manner, so that the teachers have a better grasp of it.

2.) Use of theology in class. In our class, the students had a desire to explore theological issues as they impacted their lives. This assumes that we will be given what is at stake theologically in any given class with enough time to discuss it, and that we will be allowed to discuss it. The class leaves the theological part until so late in the evening, that is seldom dealt with in any detail.

3.) Pedagogy. The previous point assumes that anyone cares what the students want or think. My experience of the class is that this was not the case. I saw this at three levels. A.) We asked very clearly on the last weekend that we stop being manipulated and stopped being pushed into issues which we didn't have the trust and the teachers didn't have the skill to deal with. This desire was ignored one night later. B.) We asked repeatedly if we could get to the theological content sooner, because we had a deep desire to explore theological issues in some depth. This request was denied repeatedly. C.) As I am now learning about Func Ed, it seems that a great deal of the process of setting up a curriculum involves the teachers exploring their own experiences, and setting up a progression of concerns to work with that comes out of those experiences. The assumption is that this will resonate with the students, and so, thus far, any attempt to ask how the students wants, needs, or experiences fit into this process has been ignored. From my experience teaching, this is pedagogically bankrupt. From my experience in confirmation class, I now understand why the class seldom met me in my world. It's not clear that my world ever entered into the planning process.

4) Psychological model. One premise underlying the Func Ed model of confirmation class is that every group moves through psychological stages, and the teachers are supposed to plan a class that will allow us to move through these stages, and then understand the dynamics of the class in terms of these stages. This model is problematic in at least two ways. A.) The teachers of the class are, in fact, not trained therapists, and so it is really quite dangerous to use a therapeutic model. Func Ed encourages folks to practice therapy without a license, and I find that appalling. This ties into my complaint above about the class manipulating us into unpacking a lot of baggage for which there was little skill to put it back together. Interestingly, one comment I heard about a func. ed. class that did work was that the class (teachers and students) set boundaries for themselves, and they worked will within these. There is some safety for unpacking baggage if the class as a whole has bought into that concept and are allowed and encouraged to support one another in that. But for this to happen, the class has to be allowed a great deal of ownership of the process. Confirmation allows us no ownership. B.) This model is dangerous in a second way, even if those using it had the training they need. It encourages a kind of "behind the back" mode of therapy which is disempowering and inauthentic to the human project. The teachers take the place of a Freudian therapist, who sits behind their subject, listening from a God-like distance, diagnosing their client with no interaction on the clients part. The client may think he or she knows what's going on, but the therapist knows better. This is in contrast with what I would call a Jungian approach to therapy, in which the therapist and client sit facing one another and work out together what is going on. Confirmation class falls into the former model, insofar as the teachers decide where the class is in its movement through the units, interpreting what the class has to say about itself through this lens, rather than taking what the class says on face value. It was this that allowed the teachers of the class to think that everything was proceeding apace, even though the class was crying out for something different and trying to express how unsafe it felt in the process. The teachers only got the point when the class blew up at the end-though some were clued in earlier and tried to negotiate a change of course.

5.) Real life? The class is supposed to help folks deal with their real, day-to-day lives, but we spent so much time in artificial launches, that we seldom had time to get to the real stuff of out lives. (14)

Some of the things I would like to see done differently pertain to confirmation class itself, and some get into what I see as bigger, structural problems. The core problem, I believe, the one to which so many others can be traced, is that Christian Education is a self-electing, self-perpetuating committee. Leadership is shared among a small group who appoint each other in a sort of oligarchical model -- this effectively shuts out other voices and is a recipe for ossification. In those rare instances where an unusually motivated person who is dissatisfied with the status quo steps up and DEMANDS a platform, unsurprisingly it is met with significant resentment and resistance. The example of Children's Chapel leaps to mind. The fact that there are so many people in the parish involved, in one way or the other, in functional education does not, to my mind, argue against its essentially closed nature. It just means that that nature has found a lot of adherents. But genuinely minority viewpoints, a la Children's Chapel, are not in fact respected. So I think we might either make more of an effort to truly value diversity, or else shut up about it already.

A good analogy of the systemic problem was made by a friend of mine. He likened it to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court followed the model of Christian ed., then when a member of the court died or retired, the other eight would decide amongst themselves who the new justice should be.

I would like to see all the people, through their elected representatives the vestry, decide who will lead something as important as Christian education. As it is, the vestry pretty much rubber-stamp the hand-picked successors. I'd like to see the vestry liaison much more pro-actively move among the parish, hear what people want, and nominate people who are not necessarily among the usual suspects.

I know a lot of the people on the Confirmation Class Review Committee to whom this questionnaire is being sent. And I like and respect them all. But I do wonder why no one from the recent disastrous class (no layperson, that is, who was not one of the teachers) was invited to take part. I think it would have put some heft behind any reassuring words that their anger and dissatisfaction mattered. And -- mirabile dictu! -- I think they might have brought valuable insight and life experience to this project. If it's not too late to add to your numbers, I strongly recommend that you invite one or two of them to your table.

As for confirmation class itself, I suspect the chemistry of every class is different and so anything I might propose might prove beside the point depending on who's in it. I know there are efforts underway to restore Penniman's theology to its roots in the gospel and deliver it from the more psychoanalytical model it has been following. Though I don't know anything about psychoanalysis, still less about Penniman's theology, I have to intuitively believe that that is a good thing. In fact, the frustrating thing about functional education, at least in its current manifestation, reminds me of the frustrating tautology of old-fashioned Freudian psychoanalysis, i.e., if you respond to it, then it's working, and if you don't respond to it, your resistance is a sign of "repressed issues", and that means it's working. There doesn't seem to be any room in the equation for: maybe this is not working, or not working for these people, or not working as well as it used to.

Confirmation class reminds me of the trusty old horse pulling the milk delivery truck who always stops in front of the houses on his route, even if those people died or moved away years before. It worked great for me, because I happened to live in one of those houses, and I happened to really need the milk. I don't know if I just got lucky, or if the recent class just got spectacularly unlucky. My point is, something this important shouldn't be a matter of luck.

Pay attention and listen -- really listen -- to what people are saying without patting them on the heads and saying that they couldn't possibly be expected to understand the process and that they'll see in the end that there was a method the whole time. If the script isn't working, THROW THE SCRIPT OUT. And above all, be mindful of what you're doing and the effect it's having on others. Anytime you dismiss someone's reasoned complaints with "it's for your own good," it almost never is, whether you say it out loud in so many words or not. (15)

As strong as that statement is, I do want functional education to work. I believe that honest examination of our daily struggles is an appropriate and worthy introduction to St. Mark's peculiar brand of Christianity. And I believe that we can reform the process in a way that honors the concerns of everyone at St. Mark's.

I will give you a couple of examples of the abuse I feel we experienced as a class. The first is the Tom/Anne scenario of the first weekend. I have never been in an educational environment in which class leaders lash out at students in the manner that they did that night. The entire weekend's objective - to examine our values, and then to demonstrate (wrongly and unfairly) that we do not honor them - was abusive and manipulative. I believe this exercise is irredeemable.

Another example of this abuse was the disrespect we were shown as a class on the second weekend. Our first evening's exercise, cataloguing and distilling the issues we wanted to discuss, was encouraging to us - we thought that we might be heard. I distinctly recall personally recording the four issues on an index card so that we might be able to refer back to them throughout the weekend. That was the last time we discussed those issues that weekend or for the remainder of the class. We had selected serious problems to discuss, and I might have been able to salvage some value from them. Instead, they were ignored and we weren't heard yet again. And I don't even want to talk about what we did instead that weekend.

As far as I can tell, Confirmation class is meant to be an experience of epiphany. We spend two hours poking around an issue, and then we get a revelation from Penniman at the end. This model sets the class up for failure, especially if the hard work of creating a safe space is not done at the beginning. When the epiphany never came for me, I was angry at the wasted time and energy. That's why I think this model needs to be scrapped altogether.

At the beginning of every class, we engaged in some exercise that was generally abstract - and was often a stumbling block to intimacy. By starting off the class with unreality, we take longer to get into real-life situations. Instead, teachers ought to be direct about the discussion topic for the evening, right from the start of the class. Then the class should get right at the issue, without dilly-dallying on distractions.

I also sometimes felt the issues on a particular evening weren't particularly incisive, for example, the tension of "I want to make a commitment, but…" I remember walking away from that class thinking that it had all the depth of a Seinfeld episode.

Finally, I would give an entire hour to the Penniman category, and I would start the categories on the first night of class, or soon thereafter. That's when our class began to enliven, to engage, and to enjoy itself. This would help satisfy those who are looking theology while remaining within the func. ed. framework. (16)

I would suggest re-naming it to more accurately reflect its purpose, whatever that may be. The title is a set up, just the first of many manipulations the class will experience. I felt totally blindsided once I was in the class. It was most definitely NOT what I had thought I was signing up for. I also suggest very strongly that the leaders respond to the messages they get from the class. In spite of several times expressing my extreme discomfort with the Ann and Tom role-play, not one of the leaders ever acknowledged my discomfort. The leaders are not in a position to know the life experiences of each member, or what emotions might be set off by the Tom/Ann role play. I think this is a very dangerous situation to put someone in without some sort of emotional support. To say "You'll just have to trust us" is not satisfactory. I understand that Paul is sensitive to this issue and has tried to put in place some changes. (19)

I'd like to see the class take into account that people today, at least intelligent and healthy people (who I believe are the ones St. Mark's wishes to attract, and most certainly does attract) have a greater understanding of their own mental health and the problems of the world than when this class was first conceptualized.

Jim Kelley explained in his book that Confirmation Class was often a difficult or horrifying experience for the students and that often people left the church after the class. I'd like this Confirmation Class Reassessment Committee to consider that fact.

He also outlined the Tom and Ann weekend and it was considerably different from what we encountered in our class. In his class, Tom and Ann had terminal cancer. In our class, they insisted they weren't depressed and yet they exhibited the classic symptoms of clinic depression. I doubt that when Jim Adams designed this class that many people actually knew about clinical depression or how one deals with it. Today intelligent, healthy people know. They know how to deal with it and they know how to help their friends who are ill. Today people deal with cancer much differently than how they deal with depression.

In our dealings with Tom and Ann and the leaders, I first felt the abuse that would be commonplace in the class. Our class was actually very thoughtful and feeling through out the weekend; our reactions to Tom and Ann were what we indicated we would have wanted ourselves. But the leaders, or at least most of them, gave no positive reinforcement and were not only cruel in their assessments, they were very wrong in their the assessments. I have felt similar emotions in my life as the ones I felt that weekend when we were blasted by the teachers; the familiar emotions were first generated when I lived with a physically and mentally abusive man. I honestly can't believe these emotions are desired by the good people of St. Mark's.

The Christian Education Committee recently outlined their underlying concepts for Christian Education at St. Mark's; I hope they review Confirmation Class with these guidelines. (20)

MAKE THE CLASS FOR THE STUDENTS. I hate to shout that, but it's such a basic principle that the St. Mark's Confirmation class apparently has failed to grasp. Time and time again I hear people make comments about how teaching the class is when it all really sinks in. People talk about the profound experience of teaching. Sure, teachers always learn more than their students; they have to in order to teach the material. BUT THIS APPROACH IS BACKWARDS. The class should be taught from the perspective of the participants in the class, and maximizing their growth and spiritual maturation. They should not be a laboratory for a failed experiment.

LISTEN! I'm shouting again. But I can't begin to convey the level of frustration of being unheard. When people are repeatedly saying they are being abused, don't simply move forward with confidence that the model says people will come around in the end. You're dealing with real people, with diverse experiences, which necessitates individual attention. Don't disregard people's complaints. Our class didn't work in the end, at least not for me.

Don't stir up stuff the class is not prepared to deal with. The class is based on a therapeutic model (in practice if not design), but (generally with the exception of the clergy) dependent upon untrained teachers. Maybe the class works 95% of the time (I doubt it; but I'm trying to be generous), yet even if 1 in 20 depart the class in a damaged state, is it worth it? There has to be a mechanism in place to deal with worst-case scenarios.

Update the sources. 1956 Theology? 1980 Teachers manual? The world's a different place in 2000.

Link the class to concrete objectives. "Becoming steeped in the St. Mark's tradition" is inadequate. As I understand what transpired on June 4, I was confirmed in the Christian tradition... at St. Mark's. I was not confirmed in the Gospel of St. Mark's on Capitol Hill. Whatever is meant by being a Christian (and I'm not suggesting this must be a doctrinaire notion of Christianity) should be the focus of the class.

Don't manipulate.

Allow for people to prepare for the class. I understand from the intro to teaching class that teachers write PAD's. That kind of exercise is very valuable for students, not just teachers.

Be flexible. If the class is not doctrinaire, why not let the class talk about what they want, and not steer the students to foregone conclusions? If the class is going to be doctrinaire, be honest about it.

Consider the possibility of welcoming people into St. Mark's rather than frightening them away. I know the base of pledging units has been in decline. I can't help but wonder whether the Confirmation class is not living up to its potential to attract people into the community. Maybe "func. ed." should be a separate class from the Confirmation class. The continued involvement of my classmates and I should NOT be perceived as a mark of success for the class. Rather, our commitment to the church endures in spite of the class.

One final point is very important. I have profound respect for the teachers of my class, who are well-intentioned people who dedicated much of their own time to what they perceived as enriching the lives of others. The problem is the structure. I'll say it again: the problem is the structure. Ultimately it is not an issue of the teachers or of the composition of the class, it is about an outdated pedagogical method that is disposed to failure. I respect the functional method in concept and am committed to improving it. But Confirmation class is taught dysfunctionally (21).

I wouldn't call it a Confirmation Class. As I said before I found this very misleading. It was more of a group therapy class that taught me very little about the Episcopal Church and its beliefs and rituals. (22)

In terms of what I would like to see done differently, I think the basic structure of the weekends should be revisited. Particularly the second weekend, in which my class was put through and exercise which was designed intentionally to pit us against each other by encouraging "truth-telling". I think this was, and is destructive of the purpose of the class.

I'd like to see a lot of Functional Education jargon thrown out, particularly references to the Units ("I'm in Unit 4" is a pretty chickenshit way to talk about being in despair). One fellow St. Mark's member put it thus - "she'd like to see the "Amway" taken out of Functional Education". I agree wholeheartedly - I think the jargon is a shorthand which allows those who have taken Func courses to be part of an exclusive club or cult, which distances us from members who have not taken those courses. But, worse still, I think the jargon is lazy, and it enables us to hide from issues by speaking in code rather than struggling to find the words to express difficult ideas and feelings. (23)

The confirmation class should dump the functional/psychological process and focus entirely on exploring spiritual issues, liturgy and lore in order to prepare the communicant to understand his/her relationship with God. (24)

This question is a little like "If I Ran the Zoo Said Young Gerald McGoo." I lobbied to become a Co-Director so I could do something new and after battling for two years and making no appreciable changes during my tenure, it's pretty amusing to be asked this question now.

In advance of any efforts to "redesign Confirmation Class," I think the Task Force needs to look at the audience. People coming to St. Mark's in 2000 are not the same as people who came in earlier years….nor are they coming to church looking for the same things. The core issues may be similar - but their circumstances and life experiences are different. Without understanding who these folks are, we can't market a class that takes as much time and money and proposes to do as many ambitious things as Confirmation Class does.

It seems pretty evident that there are more believers at St. Mark's these days. Confirmation Class seems harder on believers than on skeptics because one of the basic designs of Confirmation class has been to generate a re-evaluation of "beliefs." Some "believers" adopted their particular belief systems in order to uphold and justify themselves in a world filled with dangers and temptations. Strip away those beliefs and you may well have people feeling threatened and assaulted - and thus angry and righteous about holding even more tightly. One possible way to handle this very thorny issue is to make the distinction Adams uses in "So You Think You're Not Religious" between the words OPINIONOR and CREDO - I long in my heart. I think people can grasp this distinction and won't feel made wrong later in the class process.

Another generational or era difference may concern a willingness for public disclosure of private information. As we explored during Shrinemont, this may translate into this upcoming generation being more comfortable with the anonymity of chat rooms as well as viewing "sharing" (consider the terms "did I really need to know that?" or "too much information!") as inappropriate for social discourse and a detriment to professional advancement. After Shrinemont, Larry observed that neither of his daughters in their 30's would be very comfortable at St. Mark's since they find personal exposure awkward and unnecessary and are quite "outer directed" in terms of career and life goals.

Value aside and notwithstanding the relative merits of what it would cost to spend two weekends in the countryside with meals, it is simply ludicrous that St. Mark's continues to demand that people who have just walked through the door shell out hundreds of dollars of their own money to do Confirmation Class. It is a financial burden on parents and on younger people. The money poses a barrier to participation. Underwrite at least some of the cost of this class for everyone - not just those on scholarship. Or experiment with a format that permits use of less expensive retreat centers - use FLOC, Blue Ridge Summit.

I share the view of those who feel that the term "Confirmation Class" can be off-putting. In some ways, the name accurately describes what happens in the class - but it has become too loaded and obscure to pose anything but another excuse. Get something neutral - St. Mark's Adult Gateway Class or Personal Values and Christian Symbols: First Exploratory Class - and relegate "Confirmation Class" to history.

Confirmation Class has been reinvented more times than Al Gore. With the exception of the Tom and Ann role play, I don't think there is anything sacred about any part of it. Buzz, Betsy Athey and several others revamped the entire class ten years ago. The real question as far as I am concerned is not whether "it" works - because clearly it does when it does and it doesn't when it doesn't (just like most "experiential" education) ….the most elusive part of this is "transformation" - experiencing a new beginning, new possibilities, a "rebirth", a new way of being - ontological in nature.

Whether a particular class is "transformational" in turn, hinges on an almost mystical dynamic between the teaching team and the class. I would be interested in what determines whether the class leaders end up going through the motions as an exercise in fidelity to the Manual or the dictates of Charles Penniman/Jim Adams or whether the leaders can risk it all to walk on a faith journey with the class.

Sometimes teaching teams have seemed to include a disproportionate number of leaders with personal agendas, ego problems, less than compelling personal presence's, weak grasp of Penniman's categories, inability to recall the basics of functional planning or unfamiliarity with Christian underpinnings and resources. There have also been CC teachers with time and scheduling constraints who have not been able to be focused and attentive enough to "do the work." The last several Co-Directors' efforts to be "fair", "inclusive", "bring along younger or newer people" or "give every func. ed. veteran the opportunity to occasionally lead a confirmation class" all may, in fact, have weakened or gotten in the way of the impact of the confirmation class process. These multiple agendas may be at cross purposes.

Class leaders must work to keep this class experience from becoming rote. One of the most difficult aspects of our functional discipline - as a class leader or a supervisor - is the fact that it's not "nice" and that for some part of the time, the folks you are teaching or supervising may not "like you". In addition, leading this class calls for creativity, flexibility and superb listening skills. If class leaders fear the class' rebellion, their anxiety could result in formulaic responses, an "inability" to "dance with the specific needs of the class" and polarization between class and leaders.

Specific aspects or areas of attention:

Disclosure: In the Winter 1981 Class, Kay Keeler did something like an informed consent during the first night of the class - she told us about the purpose of the class, what the process would be like, what some of the pitfalls might be. This advance information didn't help reduce the emotionalism later on, but remembering it helped class members put their upsets in some perspective. In addition, Kay also explicitly took time (I think it was somewhere during class #3 or #4) to show us what a lesson plan looked like, how to diagram an issue, deal with questions about transcripts and confidentiality, answer questions about Charles Penniman and the genesis and evolution of functional education. I recall we didn't learn about Units until later in the class process but I remember feeling that there was nothing deliberately with-held about what was going on.

Launches: What you use to launch the class is so dependant on where the class is and the composition of the class itself that I am really concerned about proscribing launches in the Manual. If we discontinue use of skits or role plays, the class could become intellectualized, didactic or denuded of times for group work or moments of manic hilarity. On the other hand, reliance on too many role plays or skits could be a way of copping out and thus avoiding more risky, innovative or interesting launches. With so much evocative literature, music, photography, movement, exercises, journaling, meditation, poetry, paired sharing or Gospel study at a team's disposal it seems unnecessary to rely on "Cranberry Sauce and Cranberry Relish", "Dying Grandmother," "Lifeboat", "Power Line" "Animal Game" or even "Tom and Ann" to launch the class into a deeper experience and discussion of "the issue."

"Encounters with Tom and Ann" - Having said this I would, however, observe that Tom and Ann has had such a long run because it has had a profound impact making us encounter people (including ourselves) experiencing a "shaking of our foundations" - and what we do when we feel helpless. With three possible options for "onsets of the shaking" (meaningless, guilt, Cancer) it doesn't seem to me impossible to select one which will seem the least contrived to the class. Just because members of the fall 1999 confirmation class are in an uproar about "Tom and Ann" doesn't mean that it isn't an effective launch. I don't think this has anything to do with the antiquated references from the 60s or too much "navel gazing." We never know when we will find ourselves shaken up and thrown down by life - a robbery or physical assault, a car accident, the loss of job security or the change of administration, the diagnosis of a life threatening illness, the death or loss of a child, a parent or a spouse, changes in a neighborhood, losses on the stock market. And at those times sometimes prayer fails us, our belief in God falters, our community lets us down, and people are determined to fix us.

Timing and Theology: Confirmation Class may now be too long for working parents with young children or those with hectic travel schedules. But, on the other hand, without a sufficient time building trust during Unit I, the teaching team will be unable to develop the kinds of intimacy that will enable the class to successfully approach Unit Four. Recent efforts to offer "short" classes have felt rushed. I suspect we may be devoting inadequate class time to Unit I (Introduction to Life at St. Mark's may be helpful but it is not a substitute) and we have never ever given sufficient time to Unit V. Having just led a functional class with SIX Unit V classes, I will say that while they tested the faith and courage of teaching team, they were important and novel in the life of the class. If we deliberately devoted one less class to Unit IV and two more classes to Unit V, the confirmation class experience might feel less like an encounter or psychology group and more like a theological exploration.

Liturgical Underpinnings: From the perspective of the Worship Committee, Confirmation Class utterly fails to ground people in the basic information about liturgy. I don't think it is remotely possible to add another five or six sessions of confirmation class to do a "Liturgics" or "What do Episcopalians Believe" class BUT regularly scheduling a class of this type in May-June of each year, AND letting the incoming class know about the "follow on" class even as they register for Confirmation Class might alleviate some of the angst about Confirmation Class not adequately covering "religious" information.

Reflections: One of the things I think has been inconsistent in the St. Mark's functional education program is the quality of categorical or scriptural reflections. And this becomes pivotal because of the nature of experiential education - without sufficient reflection learning may be impaired and inquiry thwarted. Not all members of a teaching team are skilled at not only giving categorical or scriptural reflections, but then enabling the class to develop their own reflections. Were I to strengthen anything in the program, it would be the capacity to do this.

Personal styles: One of the important things I learned teaching with Celia Hahn which I have incorporated into every class I have subsequently led is that introverts and extraverts require very different modes of presentation to feel engaged and drawn in. Quiet time, prayer, meditation, journaling, time spent in diads or triads are all important to introverts. The design of Confirmation Class - and in fact, any class needs to be attentive to these differing modes and offer a sufficient range of experiences to serve both types of people.

The Way to Belong: It is completely egregious to assert that Confirmation Class is the way to belong to the St. Mark's community. Nothing infuriates people more. There are a great many gateways - choir, Players, outreach, yoga, EFM and all of them are portals through which newcomers arrive at St. Mark's and begin to explore our community. Our language about the necessity of taking Confirmation Class needs to change. We need to be much less proscriptive and more inviting and we need to urge people to do Confirmation Class when it works for them and not condemn them to second class citizenship until they do Confirmation Class. Furthermore, at least one person on the Teaching team needs to be attentive to marketing the class and church office support (pretty lacking during the past year) is really important for lists, mailings, manuals etc. (25)

Now back to the 1997 group.

In our group we had several professional adult educators, so we could see what was occurring and gently intervene when it got to be troubling for folks. We would talk in our small groups about what was occurring. All of this is distracting from what I think could be very engaging content. For instance, many times the role plays trivialized the content instead of helping us go deeper. We went for the laughs instead of the gold. The lack of theological reflection was quite disappointing. Reading a scripture at the end of the evening just didn't do it. We could have had great conversations/dialogues if given the opportunity. When we were in the large group and a conversation was developing the teachers had little ability to facilitate a 30+ group discussion. There was a lack of skill in giving a task clearly and enthusiastically, facilitating and helping to build a dialogue, and knowing what is this most effective intervention to make at a given time. I am well aware of the time and effort that currently goes into preparing and conducting these classes and they would benefit greatly by an intense communication/facilitation skill development program. One of the historical reasons the National Episcopal Church decided not to adopt Penniman's approach (and instead went with the Seabury Series) was the realization that it would take a high level of individual skill to successfully facilitate this process/model--not to mention the theological grounding teachers would need to have.

I agree with the effort Paul is suggesting that we "reground" the approach in its theological underpinnings. But that alone won't do it. I suggest that you revamp the design so it is learner-centered which is not a minor face lift. The content would be exciting and engaging and I don't believe it would be experienced as so "manipulating."

Learner-centered would involve transparency of desired goals/outcomes at the beginning of the event, asking learners what they would like to learn(that data probably exists or could be easily obtained, providing content and methodologies more creatively and integrating new types of exercises. (26)

In the future, I would like to see:

-- The intended purposes of this class clarified and expected outcomes for this class clarified so that participants are clear what they are getting into and not getting into.

--An articulate and complete explanation of the pedagogy to be used

--Get rid of the "mystery" that shrouds Confirmation

--Give participants an outline of the process and content to be covered in writing

--More focus on the Episcopal Church and what it means to be Episcopalian.

--Better training of facilitators on appropriate boundary issues so that Confirmation class stays far, far away from pretending to be group therapy. Some people are inclined to dump inappropriate stuff with any group.

--Replace Tom and Ann with some other named personalities. Put them to bed or have a funeral for them. Lets introduce some new personalities into the process to symbolize something new and creative, a new chapter. The parish could have a really fun event around this….and learn something too. (27)

The Confirmation Class should decoupled from functional education. By definition, being a "confirmed communicant" has to do with what I/we (as a community) do on Sunday, how this reflects what I/we believe about God, and how what I/we do on Sunday affects what I/we do the rest of the week. (28)

I developed this point a few weeks ago in an e-mail I sent to Paul, among others. This piece is presently inaccessible to me due to ongoing problems getting my computer repaired. (Don't buy Gateway.) I doubt that I can do as well this time, but I shall try to summarize. (I believe Paul does have a copy of my comments.)

Don't call it Confirmation Class. I'm serious. When people want to be confirmed and take the present class, they feel cheated. It's not a Confirmation Class. People do not get confirmed as members of St. Mark's. They are confirmed as Christians. Develop the What Episcopalians Believe into a real Confirmation Class with sections for adults and teens.

Much of the rage, and that's what it is, arises in the manipulative aspects of the Confirmation class. Now, I don't mind this as much as some folks do. I think it is a part of making the whole thing work. It may be less of a problem if the present class becomes separate from Confirmation and is perceived as less of a requirement for life at St. Mark's. To be forced into something, pay through the nose for it, and then get manipulated is indeed infuriating. Actually, I think there are sort of two levels of manipulation that occur in func. ed. classes, but I'm foggy on how to explain my ideas, and I won't try now, as it is late. One, I think, is unavoidable; the other is unacceptable. Gotta think this one through.

If the classes were separated in this way, I really wouldn't change a whole lot about the retitled class.

The new "real" Confirmation class must be free of charge. You shouldn't have to pay for a sacrament of the Church. And we should have special fund-raising for the other one. Scholarships just don't do it. A person can feel the price is too steep while not really feeling a scholarship is in order for himself or herself. And a "gate course" shouldn't be so unaffordable for those of us who are comfortable enough but in less affluent professions. (29)

I'd like to see us try honestly to figure out the problem here. I bet that we will discover that the enemy (if any) is US!! I think that we should just decide to drop the whole thing for a year, and use that time to talk about whether we want to bring it back. People who I've mentioned this to say "O NO WE COULDN'T IT WOULD DIE ETC ETC" But that's exactly the point. If it goes it's because it was time to go. If we all decide to keep it, it will be with a renewed commitment. It's leap of faith. Maybe if we let go we'll find out who we REALLY are. (31)

1) Truth in advertising. The name need to be changed; it is misleading to people who are already confirmed. 2) Since more than 20 years have passed since I took the class, I'm sure changes have been made of which I am unaware. (33)

Exclosure of the process so "vulnerable" persons might be better informed about their choice. Language changed to more culturally current. Some process changes and yearly or semi-yearly evaluation relative to the overall positive effect it has on our community in terms of connections and understanding. Shorter commitment (time). More accessible financially, if not free, recognizing difficulty of couples taking it together when that creates conflicts and tensions for families. Remove the myth that "you have to take it" in order to "get it" or fully participate in our church community. Eliminate jargon mixed groups. Make it both teacher owned and student owned. (34)

The name "Confirmation Class" is an obstacle for some people who consider themselves to be already confirmed and resistant on that basis. It could consider finding another name for it. (35)

I believe the process is a good one and can be used well and effectively if the instructors are carefully selected and properly trained. The process can be very delicate and requires a great deal of maturity and sensitivity to pull it off properly -- otherwise there is so much potential for pain and unnecessary damage! It is a big responsibility but, if properly done, has great potential and very worthwhile results. (36)

Kill Tom and Anne. Recognize we've all had therapy. Be open about topics, purpose. Don't cut off discussion when we aren't going where you want us to go -- which we don't know. Have student evaluations. (37)

I'd like for people to have a "taste" of confirmation, and introduction, before committing to it, to explain why it is so important. (38)

Clearly -- remove the confrontational staff and be more nurturing. (39)

I am of the Older generation and am not aware of some of the changes. I do think that the basic structure should continue. I like the fact that the staff are not so secretive as they were about what is happening. (40)

I really don't know. Make it just another activity? Something one takes after being around a while? Can the program be shortened? Have a segment on "community;" the thrust and emphasis is "me" not "we." (41)

Less reliance of the teachers on the Confirmation Class manual; encourage the teachers to invest more in the design of their class; basically get rid o launches after the first weekend -- get the class into their own lives earlier in the session so that the teachers can spend more class time on reflecting that experience back to the class. (42)

I hate the antagonism between teachers and students which happens in many classes because I think it is completely unnecessary. I think that the Saturday night tell-off on the first weekend ruins the class for many people. I think it is important for the class to face a situation which they can't fix. But I think it could be designed in such a way that the student's reaction is examined and analyzed rather than condemned. There is much more opportunity to learn if you learn it yourself, not have it laid on you. (43)

Explanation of the Anglican Church. What Episcopals believe and the differences between other denominations of the Protestant faith. (44)

More emphasis on what is going on at St. Marks. Opportunities to serve and a way to develop ones talents at St. Marks and a little history of the church and some biblical work would be good. (45)

Show respect for people's backgrounds. Less pop psychology. A Confirmation Class based on biblical readings -- structured on the psalms? Respect for people of faith would be novel. If there were a Confirmation Class that included use of daily offices, for instance, I'd pay attention to that. (46)

Less time commitment. (47)

Provision for parents of young children to take the class. Recast session seen as too manipulative. Address barrier of cost. (48)

Fewer games, fewer role plays, more theology, more in-depth discussion of the words of the prayers. (This last was one thing that was done in 1983.) Less self-centeredness. (49)

More integration of social issues/concerns into the curriculum. (50)

1) Name the class appropriately. 2) Name the class appropriately. 3) Find an appropriate name for the class. 4) Define what the class is about 5) be truthful in naming the class. (51)

I think the ability and personality of each member of the teaching team is vitally important -- focus on good teams. I wouldn't change the class much, perhaps update the role plays, perhaps make the class a little shorter (e.g. fewer sessions). Two weekends are vital. The church office and staff must take a proactive role in promoting confirmation class, e.g. letters to newcomers from rector, lists of newcomers for teachers to telephone. (52)

As a start I think there needs to be a 1-2 session orientation to the class which introduces the Penniman methodology at least to the level of explaining the units as a framework for the course and the use and purpose of launches. If the purpose of the course is to stimulate private self-reflection to the point of limiting participant sharing, this needs to be made clear and explained. (53)

I have given this a great deal of thought. I think that people come to church for many different reasons: to worship in a Christian community, to meet people and be part of a fellowship, and to learn about who they are and the tradition they are part of. I would like to see Confirmation Class provide people with alternatives to pursue an avenue into St. Mark's that they feel comfortable with. For some time I felt that "functional education" was the problem, but now I don't think it is.. I think the problem with Confirmation Class is that people are thrust into a particular method of facilitating psychological self-exploration that leaves them with little control of their experience. I find it reprehensible that I and my class members were not in a position to participate in creating an experience that was positive for us. I would like to see future classes be more organic, with power shared between the facilitators and the class members. I also think that a course ostensibly preparing people for confirmation, some time should be spent studying and talking about the Christian tradition that we are part of. We all say words at our confirmation, and each week in the Eucharist, that we need to understand and make our own. A class preparing us for confirmation should be a place where this happens.

By no means do I want to suggest that such a class should not also include those elements of Christian education that make St. Mark's unique. And in this, I think it is entirely appropriate to engage in exercises that help us understand how we can draw on our faith, our community, and our experiences, to enrich our lives and strengthen us in difficult times. However, I believe that this should happen in a process that empowers each individual in the group, where the agenda is transparent and the lines of communication are open. This does not seem to be the process, or the methodology, that is currently employed in Confirmation Class. Along these lines, I think that the Introduction to St. Mark's class quite successful, and it may offer a model for us to work with. In that class we engaged in skits and role plays through which we explored our own life experiences. We also explored the Nicene Creed, discussed the Bible and the Anglican tradition, and briefly examined our place in the church and community. I would have liked to see this experience amplified in Confirmation Class, and in fact this is what I expected. (54)

Paul made an announcement about teacher training "including more of our religious life in Func. Ed.." In my experience the class reflects the students, leaders, Penniman and Func Ed tradition. In my class, we had 40 somethings who had never been baptized as well as someone who had been baptized 5 times. We were truly a ban of seekers, and there was no need to impose "bible study" on top of Func Ed. I am in the 3rd year of Education for Ministry, and there is still much about the Bible and Christian tradition that I want to learn. I find EFM more similar to Func Ed, with its emphasis on real life experience and small group discussion, than to "bible study." (56)

I guess the rector needs to be more steeped in the functional tradition, and as a chief evangelist for the program. I think that is the role Jim Adams filled. (57)

Be very clear about the purpose of the class and each session. Often summarizing and making connections to the daily life of each member. (59)

I would examine several areas about the class to see if certain things could be done differently: 1) Does it have to take so long? To join the St. Mark's community, does it take 13 sessions and two retreats? 2) Should it be called "Confirmation Class?" Is this misleading? 3) Now that we're in the year 2000, does the class need a continued emphasis on group therapy? I believe the class can be taught functionally without trying to be so psychological--issues come up that the teachers can't handle and that there isn't time to resolve. There should be an equal balance on spirituality, Christianity, and liturgy. After all, most people are clueless. A further danger of the purely psychological approach is that it tends to put the emphasis on me, me, me, which I believe to be the opposite of what the search to experience God in one's life accomplishes. (60)

Supply funding and sitters to young families. Build community, track St. Mark's lore, but also fill the requirements of a confirmation class. (61)

1) Update classical launches, inventively. 2) make it available to people with babies -- perhaps a Sunday a.m. course, scholarships, babysitting, etc. 3) Make sure the process is transparent, not secret, so the rebellion is not against the process, but against the resistance to personal discovery. (63)

Understanding that the staff must recruit the class members. (64)

1) Not call it Confirmation -- perhaps an inclusion experience a la St. Marks. 2) more careful effective training for staff. 3) skillful evaluation of each session, plus final evaluation. 4) Identify learners' needs and design from there. (65)

I think we should offer two separate classes -- a real "Confirmation Class" that teaches about the meaning of Christianity and something about the Episcopal Church (like the "What Episcopalians believe" class offered a few summers ago). Then another class could do the func. ed. thing, providing people with a place and a context for exploring issues in their lives that give them trouble and binding people together into community. These really are two separate things. I don't think I would have resented Confirmation class half as much as I did if I had gone into it expecting the semi-therapeutic approach. it was partly the disappointment of not getting what I had expected that made me dislike it so much. Also, I do think the relentless focus on self is a problem I almost everything we do, starting with Paul's regular Sunday morning mention of "this wonderful community of St. Mark's." I try to get away form that self-congratulatory thing in my own life and as a community I think we should too. At the time, by the way, I sent Jim Adams a long letter about how I felt about the class. It may be in the files somewhere. (66)

1) Change the name. Confirmation Class implies and should be reserved for a class that focuses on confirmation of Baptismal vows; If the theme of exploring Baptismal vows in depth is desirable for this class -- a different title may be less misleading -- e.g. "Meaning and Community" or "Into the Depths."

2) Do not make it a gateway class, but advertise it as a challenging and bonding experience that opens doors to belonging at a deeper level (67)

If it, indeed, is a confirmation class, then it needs to include a focus on the faith and the liturgy , what being an Episcopalian means -- how does the church work to express the faith we are confirming? If the class is to build community, to bring newcomers into the "fold" then focus on that and look at a shorter confirmation class for confirmation work. (69)

I don't know that either. I see it something like circumcision is to some people: a painful ritual of passage -- a symbol of commitment -- part of belonging in St. Mark's. (70)

It should be shortened (the second weekend did not work) and there should be more explicit attention to how the Christian tradition provides valuable resources about how to find value in the tensions and contradictions of aware life. (71)

(And other classes where possible) End the autocratic TEACHER-student framework, if it is still in use. The spirit has a way of working through any and all of us; each person has something to bring to the table.

In confirmation class, after "Tom and Ann," or "Esther and Marcus," or whoever, make the rest of the class transparent -- like, have a plan written on paper re: topics to be discussed, what the Unit is, etc. As the time to end nears, give a "head-up" and offer another option if discussion is flowing. (i.e. teachers have other obligations -- to close-up church and get home, but suggest continued talking for those who wish at Xando's, etc.) (72)

More people take it? (73)

None (76)

I think that the teachers must be selected carefully. The team I taught on had 2 younger teachers and two older ones. I found that none of us had enough lore and that the older teachers tended to want to "get" the class members if certain of them did not seem to be as engaged as hoped.

I think that a main objection to the class is the manipulative element. I am unlike many teachers in that I think we sometimes do manipulate and that often when we think we are skillfully leading the class feels another sort of emotion. This is a problem but I don't see how you get around it with the Tom and Ann launch. And I think that this launch is amazing. Do not lose it.

I agree with Paul's idea of putting the theological back into Penniman. I might suggest that we work rewrites of Penniman's categories, based on the Adams stuff. I have come to believe that all they do is confuse the hell out of the class when you present them. They are unnecessarily obscure and obtuse.

I think that there has been a lot of bad PR done to the class over the past few years and that is part of what we are up against.

I also think that some of the launches in the confirmation class guide are not relevant any more and should lost. Others are still really impressive.

Feel free to use my name (77)

Either de-emphasize or drop Penniman altogether. I have been disappointed to hear Paul endorse Penniman repeatedly. Penniman's "notes" are largely gibberish. The man scarcely writes in the English language. The five "units" don't characterize my experience of reality. People don't live in Penniman boxes. St. Mark's is, as far as I know, one of the very few churches who choose to canonize Penniman. I find it embarrassing that we continue to cling to such a lightweight.

In any event, cut back on the functional exercises and examine the ones you use more critically. Perhaps even Tom and Ann have outlived their usefulness.

People go to confirmation class expecting to learn what the Episcopal Church stands for. They should be told. (78)

Fewer games, fewer role plays, more theology, more in-depth discussion of the words of the prayers. (This last was one thing that was done in 1983.) Less self-centeredness. (79a)

Less self-centeredness and more Christianity (79b)

Keep it as it is. (80)

First, I would recommend creating a new "confirmation class" that serves the purpose of a traditional confirmation class in the Episcopal Church. Several people have felt insulted when they were told that they had to take confirmation class before taking other classes, even though they were confirmed Episcopalians. Perhaps it could be part of the current class, but not required for confirmed Episcopalians.

Second, I'd use the concept of the current confirmation class as a basis for a renamed class called something like "living in community," or "St. Marks Life."

In that class I would make a number of overall changes to the approach taken by the leaders. In the current class, an adversarial relationship tends to develop between leaders and participants. The class and weekends seem more about the leaders and their process than about the participants. The focus should ALWAYS be on the participants, and the tone should be supportive, not adversarial. This is not only Christian, but practical. With the leaders running off constantly to their own program room, they frequently left the participants completely on their own. No one was keeping an eye out for anyone having emotional problems or needing support. That is not only insensitive, but dangerous.

Second, I would change the exercises. The Tom and Ann role plays may have made sense at one time, but the way they have evolved, at least by the time of my class, was senseless. We were presented with such an unbelievable scenario, that we reacted to how stupid the scene was rather than seriously. Later we were raked over the coals for our reaction. We felt set up.

I personally do not find many role plays to be useful unless working with a specific person on a specific issue to which you both can relate. I would reduce the use of role play in the weekend retreats and look for other ways of raising discussion points. Small groups and stories, writing, even skits. Let the issues that people are really dealing with in today's world surface. Then work with those rather than sticking to the prescribed Tom and Ann scenarios.

Third, I would take a new look at the second weekend and the reading of the Book of Mark. While I think that some Bible passages should be included in the weekends, it was bizarre not to even mention God or the Bible during most of the class, and then be thrown into a morning of obligatory Bible reading for no apparent reason other than that it was on the agenda.

Fourth, if people are clearly not happy about the process during the class, I would strongly encourage not only a discussion, but also giving people more information about the class/weekend agendas. I was told to "trust the process." The process seriously let me down--was hurtful--so I asked to see the materials. I was told no, with no hint of any concern for how I was feeling. The message was "put up with it or get out." I nearly got out. I still have unresolved feelings of having been betrayed by some of the "leaders," and have advised other newcomers not to take the class unless it is revised. (81)

Open epistemology -- introducing a new category -- Joy --We learn a lot about difficulties but not to cope with success and to believe in Joy -- perfectly natural in the context that Penny was in -- after the war where people were dealing with serious disillusion and pain -- we live in a society of plenty in a time of peace and need to allow ourselves joy. (82)

To be discussed later (83)

Return to Questionnaire