Looking Again at Confirmation

Is it doing its job?

No rating (20, 25, 26, 30, 31, 33, 50, 51, 62, 68, 70, 73, 83)
-5 (14)
Not at all
1 (12, 22, 24, 54, 74)
1.5 (15, 16, 82)
2 (2, 19, 27, 45, 49, 78, 79a, 79b, 81)
2.5 (23, 64)
3 (1, 4, 7, 10, 28, 29, 37, 41, 58, 61, 67)
3.1 (72)
3.5 (40, 72)
3.75 (6)
4 (3, 17, 36, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 53, 55, 59, 60, 63, 69)
4.5 (5)
5 (8, 9, 11, 34, 35, 52, 56, 57, 76, 77, 80)

Please explain your rating.

You are not truly plugged in unless you keep devoting hours to various projects -- which makes sense. I learned much more about examining issues by taking the func. ed. training class in the spring and then by teaching a class for which I had to meet with a co-teacher and develop lesson plans each week. (1)

Just have heard "through the grapevine" that the course needs "re-engineering" for the 21st century! (2)

It has done its job. Whether it continues to do it job is more difficult to say; but I think yes. (3)

I do like to pay attention and to listen well to alternatives expressed by others. I have sometimes swung a bit to another perspective as a result. (4)

Evoked strong reactions needed to take Christianity seriously. (5)

In terms of the past, I think it has served me well and the community well and thus would merit a rating of at least 4.25. But I am concerned that it hasn't achieved that in recent years. My concern comes entirely from hearsay and it basically reflects the factors you cite in the introduction to this survey (small/no classes, dissatisfaction in recent classes.) To them I would add comments by some younger newcomers about the logistical problems with juggling the time/money commitment with having small children. I add this comment with the caveat that Nat was 9 and Lilia was 5 when Julia and I took the course together and we made it work, so I know it's possible to make the commitment and have it work out. But I still think we need to consider how to make it work for as many people as possible. I really don't find it helpful for Christian Ed veterans to basically say this class is so valuable that you should be able to make it work for you. If the class is valuable, then WE (i.e. the Church/Christian Ed) should make it work for them. (6)

It is an initiation rite, and reportedly one still based on Func Ed. It reportedly still neglects discussion of Christian belief and Episcopal rite and customs, although participants want to know about both. And it still ticks people off unduly. (7)

I can only rate the confirmation class in 1987. I hear recent graduates expressing disappointment which I do not understand (8)

I can only speak of the experience we had, so many years ago, which was remarkable. (Our staff was composed of Jim Adams, Marilyn Meek and Buzz March.) I do know of the excellent experience my brother Don Sarles had in his class, and the equally fine class my husband Leo Karpeles (as a total Unitarian) participated in about 10 or 12 years ago. (9)

New people don't seem interested in taking it. It no longer seems to be a uniform experience. (10)

I fell in love with this parish and came to feel a real part of it. I felt "entitled" to begin to fully participate. (11)

It not only is failing, from my perspective, but it is also hurtful and dangerous. (14)

This is a difficult one to answer because so much depends upon one's time horizon. If the question were, "How well has it been doing its job over the course of its 40-year history at St. Mark's?", I would have to give it a solid 4.5. If, however, the question is: "How is it doing its job RIGHT NOW," I'm so sorry to say I have to give it about a 1.5.

I have several close friends who were in the class that just ended. The stories they have told about their experience disturbed me greatly. Especially since I had had such a good experience with Confirmation Class, it was painful to hear how bad that class was, the real sense they had that they were being abused in the name of religion. Even more disturbing were the cavalier responses given by people to whom I spoke about how distressing I found the situation. These people included past co-directors of Christian ed., people who were currently supervising or teaching other classes (not the confirmation class in question), and other high-ranking members of the Func Ed nomenclature. The responses were essentially that functional education succeeds or fails on the skill of the teaching team. The problem with that particular class, so I was told, was that it had inexperienced teachers (one person who really prefers to supervise, new clergy, one first-time teacher, etc.) So -- too bad, so sad. But confirmation class is what it is, and to change it would be to turn our backs on our heritage. Then I was regaled with stories, presented humorously, of classes that had gone even more drastically wrong in the days of old.

So it seems to me that what these people were saying is that there is full conscious awareness that the course material is potentially volatile, that in inexperienced hands it can blow up, and that this is nevertheless a risk to which they are willing to subject other people.

The worst of all was the blame-the-victim category of response. It was noted that the confirmation class in question contained a number of stubborn, we-can-see-the-gears-turning, too-sophisticated-by-half people who in their professional lives were therapists, retreat leaders, whatever. They, so this line went, refused to do the necessary work of "letting go" and "letting the process take over" or "hid behind" their intellects. (This to me was passing strange considering how much our parish claims to value intellect and skepticism.) One woman even said, "The problem with that class was, in addition to an inexperienced teaching team, you had a lot of collars. The whole point of confirmation class is to rigorously examine your beliefs and values, and the whole point of getting ordained is not to have to do that anymore. So they just put up too much resistance, and the teaching team was too inexperienced to overcome the resistance, for the class to succeed."

This kind of patronizing, if-something's-wrong-it-must-be-you, attitude to me epitomizes the problems with confirmation class, and also doesn't make me very hopeful about the prospects of fixing them. (15)

Unfortunately, St. Mark's Confirmation Class fails to do what I believe it ought. I am hesitant to quantify this with a number. But, again, hoping to be heard, I reluctantly say 1.5.

The ends of functional education are quite promising. The means, however - this god awful process - are abusive. I have been told that this has not been the case for every class, that most people in the past have found it wonderful, etc. But as I recently read Mr. Kelley's book, I find that this is not the case at all. He described people who were put off by the class, people who endured the class just to get by, and, yes, people who left the church because of confirmation class. I was angry to read that our church, which claims to be open, pushes people out the door because they feel abused.

Simply put, my passion for this church has everything to do with its openness. I believe that our community has an uncommon ministry those who are alienated by traditional Christianity, to people who have been abused by faith. It is not enough to assume that if people don't find what they like here, that they will find it elsewhere - I truly believe that St. Marks is that different. I feel that this church needs to decide today which it values more: openness or the functional process (as it stands today). (16)

I take off a point simply because it's obviously not working the way it was. (17)

Explanation: Class was very good at quickly developing a sense of community. However it is a community born of an "us v. them" experience, i.e. a common enemy. I can only speak for myself when I say that whatever its other goals, they were not met for me. (19)

I honestly don't know what it's really intended to accomplish so it's impossible to know. (20)

My wife and I were both very disappointed in the class. We were taken by surprise as to the format and lack of structure to the class. It was a nice opportunity to meet other members of the congregation and clergy, but my only strong memory of the class is that it was rather long and almost totally lacking in intellectual stimulation. Even now, I can't for the life of me figure out the so-called stages. In its present form, I would not recommend the class to anyone, and especially anyone with young children. (22)

The Intro. and Confirmation classes are the "gateway" experiences to belonging to St. Marks. In my case, this worked very well, but it does not always work well. Overall, I would give Confirmation Class a rating of 2.5 - sometimes it works well and sometimes it bombs.

I had a very large Confirmation Class, and very few are now members of St. Mark's. As other, recent classes have indicated, many members of my class were angry with what they felt was manipulation by the teaching team, particularly on Saturday night of the second weekend. Many members also expressed, that, though it was an adult class, they felt the teaching team "talked down" to them at times, that issues were given a superficial or kindergarten-level treatment, and that the techniques for dealing with issues could have been more creative and original (we particularly disliked skits). (23)

The class does nothing to prepare members for confirmation or "to follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ." The class is damaging, and is the opposite of life-giving. Further, the class does a lousy job of using the functional process because it is stagnant. (24)

The most recent confirmation class certainly bonded as a unit. So the first purpose, above, seems to have been fulfilled. However, in terms of most of the other "purposes" the most recent class (fall 1999) seems to have been problematic. I could guess at numerous reasons for this apparent failure, and it isn't the first class to have ended on a sour note. Over the past 21 years, I can recall at least four classes which have been notoriously bad (from both the teachers and the classes' perspective), and another 6 or 7 (possibly including my own Winter 1981 Class) which have not been "whopping successes". In addition, in almost every confirmation class there are a few people who simply "don't like it," and therefore decide that St. Mark's is not the right church for them.

The concerns about Confirmation Class seem to center on:

Low enrollment in Confirmation Classes during the past 3 years.

Cancellation of scheduled Confirmation Classes.

Vocal resistance to taking Confirmation Class on the part of some long-term parish members.

Difficulty of working parents with young children being able to take confirmation class….Time,

Money and Baby Sitters.

Bitter complaints about manipulation; "dated" launches and pop-psych interactions.

Residue of hurt and anger, recriminations and misgivings affecting class leaders and participants.

Confirmation Class as a "gateway" to belonging at St. Mark's and also as a pre-requisite for taking other adult functional class.

Apparent difficulties during the past two years with teaching team recruitment, team dynamics, charisma, marketing, chemistry and "balance."

The name "Confirmation Class" possibly misleading those who think they are going to get a class in

"What Episcopalians Believe?" or "Catechism" - the litmus test for those who get "confirmed" by the Bishop.

Confirmation Class as a "symbol" of (and surrogate for) many more deep-seated, hard-to-address tensions between old-time advocates of "func. ed." and fans of other educational models (EFM, Catechisis); and between progressive Christianity, skeptics, cradle-Episcopalians and "faith-based" believers; between aging hippies and "boomers;" between liberals and conservatives; straights and gays and issues of race, economics and class playing out at St. Mark's. (25)

I am not sure what "job" it is supposed to do, so the scale is hard for me to use. Let me describe what I have the most difficulty with regarding the approach. I experience this as a teacher centered modality, where the teacher sets up the sessions, is purposefully opaque when it comes to revealing desired goals, objectives, outcomes, and where sessions are structured to elicit certain feelings/emotions artificially. We used to do this in Advanced Personal Growth workshops but that approach has many problems when done without the personal agreement. The power distribution between the "student and the teacher" is unequal and disturbing and, from the beginning, sets up counter-dependence in the participants or worse, dependency, which later erupts. An aside, last Saturday night was a good example as I reflect on what I mean by teacher-centered. . When Janice was confronted because of not calling on someone who wanted to speak, a learner center approach/value would be to act by asking the group if they were willing to take another 5-15 minutes (whatever time) to hear the remaining hands in the air. This way you get the group deciding as opposed to the teacher. Interesting to me was the group's response, they silently sat without offering that suggestion, even though I suspect a few thought of it. I did, but felt extremely caution because of my quasi role as supervisor. (26)

That depends on what the "intended purpose" of Confirmation class is. That purpose is not articulated by "management" very well in my opinion. What people in my class came for and what they got were miles apart. While friendships were made, our bonding as a class came largely from our rebellion against what felt like a manipulative and secret process. I did not feel like the process treated me like an adult. (27)

I give Confirmation Class a rating of "3." It does earn a "5" for meeting the goal of providing people with an introduction to functional education. However, it also earns a "1" because a number of "graduates" of the course, people who are currently living, breathing, contributing members of the St. Mark's community have become averse to taking more "functionally" based courses. Additionally, a certain number of other current living, breathing, contributing members of the St. Mark's community, who meet every qualification for becoming "conferred communicants" are barred from doing so, because they refuse to enter into such a "functionally" based course. The average of "5" and "1" is "3." (28)

This is a compromise rating. I believe it does some things extremely well and others very poorly. It establishes its graduates in an immediate community and bonds them to one another very well. But at least of late, it does this in a context of lingering resentment that gets in the way of appreciating func. ed. more than furthering the discipline. (29)

It sounds to me like the class has been in trouble for some time. I haven't been to a town meeting to discuss it - has there been one? What exactly is the problem? Poor teaching (closed, cliquish, manipulative, unimaginative and unloving, smug, without religious principles)? Spoiled Students (resistant to discipline, used to being "supported" not challenged, insecure and unused to talking about "private" things or dealing with feelings, unused to being "in community" with all the intrusions and obligations that implies)? WHO KNOWS?? Without an interested and charismatic leader (Adams of course) the whole enterprise founders. It has, as Winston Churchill famously said about the pudding, "no theme." (31)

This question can only be adequately dealt with after we come to agreement on a definition of "the job." (33)

Self growth and connection to (though most often not full comprehension of) core value of St. Marks. (34)

For me it worked extremely well, and continues to have a powerful influence on my life. (35)

I believe that the class I attended succeeded. There were many emotions involved -- the process was somewhat manipulative but, if taken with a grain of salt and keep the overall objectives in mind, the process did achieve what I think were its objectives. (36)

It turns off many people -- detracts from good purpose (37)

It does educate and create community (38)

Trial by fire gets in the way for many people but the threatening stuff is really important. (39)

This is a subjective answer as I have not been directly involved for years. Some of the discussion, debate and arguments I hear are similar to those over the years. However, I am concerned at the intensity or perhaps just numbers of complainants has increased. (40)

There is a new time commitment a lot of people here. There are more busy activities to attract newcomers -- choir, players, outreach. Does one have time to commit to time for teaching and following the complex structure? (41)

Does superb job of helping people connect with one another; teaches people to express themselves from within; helps people to value their experiences (both positively and negatively); offers the possibility of a connection between their experience and the Christian tradition (Bible, Prayer Book, Hymnal) (42)

I think it does a good job of forming communities. It think it does a poor job of bringing people into the larger community and of articulating much about faith or belief. (43)

I can only speak for my own experience -- I became a confirmed communicant and looked for ways to become more engaged at St. Mark's and be supportive and received support. My expectations have always been exceeded. (44)

Not a real situation. Facilitators are not trained to deal with people who need help and the roles are too contrived. It is fake and doesn't deal with people as they are. Real communication is very (?) and frankly too risky in the contrived situations. (45)

The true believers and dedicated members of St. Mark's obviously feel confirmation class is extremely important to the church and their own spiritual journey. Therefore, it appears to be at the root of the healthy, active community St. Mark's has been in the last decades. (47)

We do value being and becoming your truest self. I feel that the "ground rules" of how we operate here are pretty well understood and followed -- and if not, followed, I realize that my responsibility is to address the issue, not complain behind someone's back. This general atmosphere at St. marks come from the Christian Ed. exposure we share. (48)

There was manipulation, a sense that the teachers knew what you were supposed to feel. A professional social worker familiar with groups, what was in my class, was outraged. She felt humiliated and used the work "exploitation." I wouldn't go that far, but had some of the same reactions. (49)

I really don't know. (50)

What is its job? I did meet people. You have a lot of defining of terms to do on this one. I can't explain further when I don't know what you are asking. This course needs a lot of reworking. If we are confirming baptismal vows -- it missed big time. It could be effective in exploring vows and faith but the format would have to be reworked. (51)

When I was in Confirmation Class, I could not make head nor tail of it. And when it was over, I still had only an inkling of what had transpired. In the months and years that followed, I saw myself growing, taking risks, talking about feelings and experiences, "hearing" others in their pain and vulnerability. (52)

The confirmation class worked for me as a structure for assimilation and belonging. I was disappointed with the level of theological dialogue given the exceptional intellectual and commitment level of the class. The structure is so teacher dominated that participants are "managed" rather than engaged as partners in learning. I also see the Penniman material as focusing on the human search for God with no attention to God's outreach to us. Wish I could discuss this at length with the committee. That, in my judgement, is very one sided. (53)

For me, the exercises we were asked to participate in were at best irrelevant, and at worse quite troubling. The class left me questioning whether I wanted to continue my pursuit of membership within the St. Mark's community. Through my other classes I was gaining a growing understanding of the Christian faith and of the Episcopal tradition. The liturgy at St. Marks's was providing me with this as well. So I felt quite comfortable in my belief that I was becoming an Episcopalian. I wondered, though, if I might not be better off joining a different church.

Confirmation Class left me feeling very disturbed. Part of this was due to the fact that the exercises conjured up memories and feelings within me that harken back to times in my life when I was dealing with depression. While I am comfortable in the steps I have taken to work through this, then and now, I do not think that the class provided the necessary support. I also believe that it was unfair to ask me to participate in psychological exercises designed to elicit these feelings without a clear indication from me that this was something that I wanted. In this I felt manipulated, and I left the class feeling hurt and emotionally fragile. Had I known that this was going to happen I would not have taken the class, even though this would have meant that I could not become a full fledged member of the church. I find it appalling that others have been, and may continue to be, put in this position.

I will say that I have new friends at St. Mark's because of the class, and standing with them at my confirmation was memorable and quite moving. This happened, though, despite the experience of Confirmation Class. And it is only through conversations and shared experiences with these folks since taking the class that I feel that I am getting to know who they really are. My fellow classmates are wonderful people, and we talked and laughed a great deal during the classes and the weekend retreats. However, we all felt that we were going through a negative experience, and I think that our camaraderie was more like a coping mechanism that it was a shared good time. By the end of the second weekend I wondered if I would be associating with them in the future because I was afraid that the experience of taking the class was so negative, and so weird, that we would simply move on in our own directions. (54)

Maybe new times ask a new language, but I would hope to the same end. (55)

I was very upset when the spring class was canceled, because it is as worthwhile for a small group as it is for 30 people in the Spring 1988. (56)

I think it does its job well. (57)

I don't participate in St. Marks much (1 or 2 times a year since I live overseas) so it is now around "2". (58)

Although many people feel strongly about some negative aspects for the class for them, they none-the-less seem to feel challenged and really dive in to many aspects of life at St. Mark's. (59)

Is the class doing its job on a 1-5 rating? This is a difficult question to answer because of the "is." I assume classes vary according to the teachers and each one is different. My class probably accomplished its goals, and I would give it a 4. Most participants went on to become confirmed communicants and also active in the church. Only about three withdrew from the St. Mark's community. But I really can't speak for other classes. I give my class a 4, holding off from a 5 because I would have liked to have had more knowledge of the Episcopal Church. (60)

It is (was) effective (under Jim Adams) in its mission. It seems to not be so now. (61)

I don't think we are speaking in a language that is being heard in the XXI Century. The categories are ageless, but the launches seem to be missing the mark. We could redesign a course that might have a different length and maybe over a single weekend. (62)

It deserves a "5," but sometimes doesn't get the job done. Perhaps US is culturally in a different place (such as when we changed the shaking of the foundation -- Tom and Ann 1st weekend -- from emptiness to meaninglessness to fate to death). (63)

In the past 5 years, the energy required to recruit, plan, and carry a confirmation class has been very spotty. It also seems that there has been a great deal of nay saying by both supporters of functional education and those who are opposed to functional education. (64)

a) (note rating of "1") Does not fill the learners needs in joining an Episcopal church. b) (note rating of "5") Does develop a strong small community! (65)

My experience was very good, though some in my class would not say the same. Recent classes seem to be reporting more dissatisfaction. Something isn't working! (67)

I can't say, whether the current classes are doing the job. In '83, I would rate it "5." (68)

Not a 5 because it seems to be struggling, but if the purpose is as I stated, it does its job. We need a real confirmation class which includes late teens and we need a strong community building tool/class extended experience. (69)

I don't know whether it's doing its job or whether this generation has already learned to be authentic and find it superfluous. Or perhaps they've had things so easy, they don't want to do the hard work Confirmation Class requires. (70)

It does introduce newcomers to the functional discipline and to each other. It worked for me although it was too long and too incomplete. (71)

1) The issues mentioned above -- I don't believe it is necessary to manipulate people to bring them to a place where faith issues can be explored. Its OK to include "lore!"

2) The other Adult Ed. classes I have taken (many of which were "functionally led") have been more rich and valuable to my spiritual journey. (72)

I cannot comment because 1) I don't know what it is now. 2) My recollection of what it was 25 years ago is . . . suspect. (73)

I found the class to be amateurish group therapy and to be psychologically manipulative and cruel (see attached) (74) (separate text located at the end of this report)

For me, I was recently divorced and a single parent. It gave me the courage to go on with my life in a more positive way. It affirmed my day to day living in many ways. (76)

I think that the class is a fabulous creation of func ed. I rate it a 5 in terms of how well it is laid out. I think that some teachers may not rise to the material but that is a different topic.

Also, I think that the course drops significantly in effectiveness both as a class and for the group being taught when the Rector or Associate Rector are not part of the team. I taught on a team that did not have clergy and we lacked in many respects.

In terms of increasing members at St. Marks, I think that the confirmation scores a 1. For whatever reason, there are obviously fewer people taking the course and, although I have no empiric data, my perception is that fewer in that number are becoming pledging members and a strong part of the church fabric.

Now, I can look at a recently elected member of the vestry who only took the class 2 years ago and my point is overturned. But in terms of numbers, I think that we are retaining fewer new pledge units out of the recent classes than in the past. (77)

As it was being done in 1982. There may have been changes since. (78)

There was manipulation, a sense that the teachers know what you were supposed to feel. A professional social worker familiar with groups, who was in my class, was outraged. She felt humiliated and use the word "exploitation." I wouldn't go that far but had some of the same reactions. (79a)

I would go that far. In addition to the manipulation the party line was that this was supposed to be the most MEANINGFUL thing in your life. Since I was on a political list to be fired from my job at the time, I did not find this so. (79b)

It is a carefully designed course that really works in terms of Func. Ed. (There are courses that Func. Ed. techniques are limiting/phony.) (80)

With no clear purpose, a rating is a shot in the dark. Nevertheless, I'd give it a 2. The class does build a sense of community, but so would putting strangers in a barn with snipers outside. The process of the class and manner of the leaders was so disturbing that I was appalled that people who claimed faith would treat others in that way. I nearly left not only the class, but also St. Mark's as a result. (81)

It seemed that it was more important to adhere to the "program" than to deal with the real people and their issues. If there were an open background of understanding, it could have been negotiated but the faculty had an agenda (Moving through the units) rather than dealing honestly with the class--it plays off people's naivete and assures that people have no expertise in these kinds of activity. The faculty are "Beyond criticism" in the epistemology of Func. Ed. (82)

Yes. 1 for some; 5 for some. A mixed bag that is too important not to closely examine and take the time needed to do it faithfully. (83)

Return to Questionnaire