The other day I was speaking to a friend who is associated with the MFC (Ministerial Fellowshipping Committee). He said that there are many myths about it.
"Myth" is one of those funny words that has two meanings: one of which is nearly opposite the other. (If there's a technical term for this, please let me know.) The first meaning is archetypal story. The second meaning is a commonly believed falsehood. It was this second meaning to which my friend was referring.
When a subject is veiled in myth, it usually means that there is a shortage of evidence. The evidence shortfall may be a consequence of its unavailability, an unwillingness to look for or at it, the desire to tell a good story, or all of the above.
In the "good story" category, someone observed that before and during MFC interviews, the level of anxiety among candidates from UU seminaries is higher than that of candidates from non--UU seminaries. Is this a consequence of more reliable evidence, or less?
Posts
The Major Cost of Entering MInistry
7 years ago
Applying my law school experience, I would guess it is a consequence not of knowledge, but of being surrounded by people who are stressed about the same thing you are and freaking each other out.
ReplyDeleteCC