Our ordination problems ... I mean, process
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
I was on an e-mail list that received a request from Dr. Rebekah Miles at Perkins School of Theology, about a piece she is working on related to ordination candidacy and the probationary process. The problems with candidacy are felt pretty universally across the church, I think, which is demonstrated every four years when the General Conference tweaks the Book of Discipline to try to improve it.
Dr. Miles is trying to gather opinions from recently ordained clergy for the project she is working on. As I was writing my own thoughts, it made me want to hear the thoughts of others. So to any of you probationary deacons and elders (and recently ordained clergy) what was the best and worst of your experience with candidacy?
My main concern with the ordination process is that we've allowed the whole thing to take on too much of a bureaucratic feel. We've created this system that, in theory, is supposed to aim toward good ends: making sure that candidates are qualified, that they are truly called to ministry, and that candidates with 'red flags' get weeded our before they reach ordination. But the net result of all of it is that we have handed over too much of the candidacy process to the process itself and distanced candidates from the real human nurturing and formation that should be a part of bringing someone into the clergy. We've all experienced this bureaucratic aspect with the seemingly endless checklists, forms, and tests that have to be completed and sent in to Nashville, the D.S., the DCOM, the Board of Ordained Ministry, etc. It also greatly increases the time it takes from the beginning of candidacy to actual ordination (for me, it was about six years, and I think I did it much faster than some).
I don't know how to untangle this knot. But for starters, if a candidate's bishop, district superintendent, and clergy mentor were trained to understand their roles in the ordination process differently, perhaps the whole thing could be 'humanized' or 'personalized' to a greater degree. That would seem to get us closer to the supremely important spiritual formation aspects that need to be a greater part of our ordination process in general. I am a clergy mentor to an elder candidate right now, and I am trying to be as 'hands on' and supportive as I can. Of course, all mentors, bishops, and district superintendents have to do their best to work in the present (dysfunctional) system.
As a sidenote, I have always suspected that our fears of being personally responsible for telling anyone 'no' has led to our willingness to hand over the ordination process to a bureaucratic system. Our present American conception of individual liberty has led us to never want to presume to tell anyone 'no' in any instance. That is particularly the case when it comes to discerning a calling from God, which each 'called' person believes is authentic. So by handing over ordination to a bureaucratic system, we can be relieved that we don't have to ever say 'no' and hope the 'problem candidates' get weeded out in an impersonal way. This is, I believe, exactly an area in which we need to be countercultural. We have a responsibility to God & the church to say 'no' when 'no' needs to be said, and ultimately that is a much more pastoral attitude to have toward candidates anyway.
posted by Andrew C. Thompson at 4:00 PM
11 Comments:
The lengthy, bureaucratic process still has the feel of one designed for young candidates who knew they wanted to be clergy right out of high school; which means it is designed for a minority of the candidates going through it. At 38 I am in the middle of my ordination class - there are as many older as younger relative to my age.
I think you make a great point, Will. In my M.Div class, I had many people who were entering the ministry as a second career. For them, the mountain represented by the ordination process seemed a lot bigger than it did for those of us in our mid-20s. In that sense, it could actually be an impediment to seeking ordination for people who have a true calling. And that's a big problem.
Your last paragraph touches on something that really needs to be talked about. Since the process involves having the charge conference affirm one's gifts for ministry thus sending the person on to the DCOM, the problem does lie at the beginning. I wonder how many local churches, especially in rural Arkansas, are prepared to speak about "Call" and how vital that is to ordained ministry. The pastor and the charge conference would do well to start praying and discerning whether or not a person's sense of call is legitimate and whether or not the person has the character and gifts for ministry (heavy emphasis on character).
I understand this place in the process is one that gets discussed in the BoOM because they are charged with the task of "weeding out" those who aren't fit for ministry and, understandably, it isn't a pleasant job (albeit one that must be done).
I wonder if part of our problem isn't an attitude of "Well, if we say 'no' to these three people then in 2012 when x number of people retire, we're really going to be hurting. So, even though there are some question marks, we're going to allow this person to get into the process."?
I could have a littany of reactions to this issue. I was ordained elder 2 years ago, and have a few things that I think are really hindering the UMC from attracting the best quality clergy candidates.
In no particular order:
1. More and more people are going to seminary with no particular denominational affiliation. At my seminary, no one was really going to choose the UMC once they heard the ordination requirements, and the PCUSA (and others, but I attended a PCUSA school) will ordain you right out of seminary? I thought about jumping ship myself . . .
2. It is too rigid for the wrong reasons. For example, there was one young man (early 20s) I graduated seminary with who had attended the UMC his whole life but never joined the church - nobody ever told him he was supposed to! He was so discouraged that he couldn't even begin the candicacy process until he had been a member of a local church for 2 years. He had a church home, was committed to Christ, and I am sure he upheld the vows of membership although he had never taken them. How ridiculous a letter from his pastor couldn't clarify things and allow him to move ahead!! I understand the need to belong to a local church, but I wonder how many more of our young people are called to ministry but are falling through the crack of never having joined the church formally.
3. I don't know if every annual conference requires covenant groups for clergy during the probationary years. Mine does, and it was pretty helpful. However, a friend of mine in another conference that requires it tells me there is no theological balance in the leadership of his group (that is, they all to have read books that he feels are slanted in the same direction). Unless they are all Wesleyan in their slant, that just doesn't sound right (the books were not Wesleyan in their slant in my friend's experience). In other words, if you're going to mandate a covenant group experience, make it fair and worthwhile.
4. Local charge conferences and DCoMs need to do the hard work of filtering people out of the process. Nobody should ever come to the BOM in his/her conference with acculumulating seminary debt and be told for the first time that he or she does not have what it takes. Not that it should be easy at the BOM level, but how do we allow people to proceed to seminary who we have serious reservations about? Someone I know has his MDiv from a well known seminary but will probably be a local pastor his whole career because nobody had the guts to tell him that he really didn't have the gifts and graces for being an elder, and now he is digging out from an awful burden of educational debt.
Just my $0.02.
I have written a much longer response to the original blog posting, but I wanted to make a comment about the attraction of being ordained right out of seminary (as in PCUSA). I had a good friend who graduated from Princeton same year as I graduated from Duke. He was ordained that fall, and I saw him about 6 months later. We were talking about my process of covenant connection (our probationary time), and he said that he was envious--that the Presbyterian church just dropped him in and told him to do stuff without any support system. I really think that if anything, the UMC needs to do a better job at saying *why* we are requiring these things--because we don't just want to leave people unattached and unconnected and potentially unsupported.
I personally think an even bigger program than the candidacy process is our theology of ordination (or to me, lack of). The whole commissioning idea seems like a bureaucratic attempt to further weed out clergy. Once a person has been a candidate though, shouldn't he become ordained? The idea of a commissioned member is absolutely contrary to any historical notion of the ordained. Further, that we allow commissioned people to serve communion is another sad sign that we often sacrifice theology to pragmatism.
Why not ordain everyone after seminary as an elder and simply refuse to guarantee a person a church until after his third year? At least this manages to allow for the mentoring program and still have good theology of ministry.
Great post and discussion.
I'm soon to be 40 and have spent the last nine months trying to get into the mentoring process for pre-candidacy. The mountain of seminary does seem insurmountable right now - three kids, one about to go to college.
I read recently that the UMC decide to put off changes to the system for another 4 years. This seems foolish to me.
I am starting my second year of the probationary process. So far I have not found it overly burdensome. However, I do think some consideration should be given to those who have served as local pastors. As it was explained to me in my probationary retreat recently, the candidacy proces is all about judging whether someone has the gifts for ministry, the process to become a probationary elder out of seminary is to judge fitness,especially theological understanding, and the probationary process is to judge effectiveness in ministry. If someone has already been a local pastor for more than three years haven't they already demonstrated effectiveness. I was not a local pastor before seminary, but it seems redundant to me. Also I don't think enough BOM explain what the different parts of the program are designed to do, maybe they don't even know. I think understanding what each processes is designed for better helps us to look critically at each portion in are attempt to critique it.
i just spent a bit too much of my day ranting a bit on this topic over at ye ole' blog. so before i join some of this discussion (which looks excellent from glancing) i'd like to mention that you can find a stemmed response from me. thanks for the easy procrastination
http://www.gavoweb.com
John M. -- It hasn't been officially decided that they're going to put it off four more years. And I've heard a significant amount of opposition to that recommendation, including the minority report coming from the Study of Ministry Commission.
Be on the lookout for Rebekah Miles' upcoming commentary in the UM Reporter. I'll probably blog about it here on Monday morning. Would love to have y'all come over to add to the conversation.
As someone who is going through the process and is finding difficulty in every part of the way. I must say I read most of these comments with interest. There are many problems with the process. So far the only good thing has been the freindship I have formed with my mentor. As someone who has served as a local pastor and am considered gifted and good to do that role, the probationary period seems strange. Why doesn't the time I have already served as minister count? Or at least some? Three years as a local pastor must account for something. The requirements are not clearly stated either. Many time I have have gone to interviews only to find out something was required and was not told until the week before. It feels very much like a paper process and maze. As someone who has had a very successful career before becoming a pastor I am seriously reconsidering being a pastor in the UMC. Through the process I have found paper is more important than God or neighbor (me). A few of my friends and I (also pastors) are considering leaving, and seeking ministry where we can truly get to loving our God and neighbor.
Post a Comment
<< Home