Memorandum 31
Submission from the Institute for Orthodox
Christian Studies, Cambridge
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies
advises that the proposed change to government funding for so-called
"second first degrees" would have most destructive consequences
for its educational programmes for clergy and lay-leaders, and
might well lead to the collapse of the only higher education body
dedicated to serving the Orthodox Churches here and to the loss
of a major educational opportunity in English for the ever-growing
Orthodox ethnic minorities. The proposal also runs counter to
government policies that aim to assist ethnic communities to integrate
into mainstream British culture and to encourage church communities
to take on a wider social role.
1. I write as Principal of the Institute
for Orthodox Christian Studies, which is a member of the Cambridge
Theological Federation, but also the only institution teaching
Orthodox Christian Studies in English in the whole of western
Europe. We are a pan-Orthodox body providing theological and pastoral
education both to British-born Orthodox and to the substantial
and fast-growing Orthodox ethnic communities in this country from
Greece, Cyprus, Russia, the former countries of the Soviet Union,
Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia and eastern Europe, Lebanon, Syria and
the Middle East. We train clergy and laity in a situation where
there is no functioning Orthodox seminary in the British Isles.
2. The impact of the directive from John
Denham to the Higher Education Funding Council for England to
deny funding for courses deemed "a second first degree"
would be disastrous, not just for the educational work of the
established theological colleges of the Cambridge Federation but
also for our own nascent body. It would mean closure of most of
our educational programmes and would probably entail collapse
of the Institute itself, thus setting back education in Orthodox
Christianity for a generation. What seems primarily to have been
a cost-cutting exercise, whose wider implications went unconsidered,
runs quite counter to other government policies that aim to support
and integrate ethnic minorities and to encourage and equip religious
communities to play a more substantial role in the life of the
nation. The training programmes of a whole range of church bodies
would be undermined: not just those of Anglicans and Roman Catholics
who have had wind of what is contemplated but also the wide spectrum
of Caribbean, Pentecostal and ethnic Churches who as yet have
little understanding of the problems that will confront them.
3. For the small numbers of our clergy and
lay-workers who currently seek qualifications such as the Bachelor
of Theology and the like, training costs would triple and be beyond
the pockets of almost all, since most of our students already
have a first degree. The bulk of our students, those who undertake
Certificate, Diploma and Advanced Diploma course at undergraduate
level yet also hold first degrees, stand to lose their educational
opportunities entirely, since universities are unlikely to accredit
courses for which no funding is available. The result would be
to trap the Orthodox Churches again in ethnic ghettos, staffed
commonly by ill-equipped imports from overseas who have little
or no English, and with a laity to whom religious education in
the language of their adopted country is largely denied.
4. The Institute's undergraduate-level courses
have been accredited since inception by the Cambridge University
Institute for Continuing Education, and we are aware of the negative
impact of the proposed changes on the work of that body and also
on educational and re-training opportunities for mature students
across a wide spectrum. The proposed policy would once again seem
to restrict educational opportunities for the less well-off, whether
recent migrants, one-parent families, or those who can only re-train
in their spare time. Its impact is socially regressive.
5. The Institute, along with similar theological
foundations, and in parallel with other socially effective groups
such as doctors and teachers, seeks exemption from the proposed
restrictions on funding of "second first-degree" qualifications.
We hear that Muslims have been assured that the religious training
of imams will not be affected. Given the background of many of
our students, it would be dynamite if the training of Christian
ministers and lay staff were to be discriminated against, and
we presume that a similar exemption as that accorded to the Muslims
would be extended to us.
6. Last, the Institute regrets that this
radical proposal has been made without consultation, or (at the
least) that news of it reached us only in early December and has
not yet permeated to some of our Christian brothers and sisters.
Good government requires adequate consultation if mistakes (and
in this case very serious mistakes) are to be avoided.
January 2008
|
