Devil in the details
Friday, October 05, 2007
The outpouring of commentary I've read the past few weeks over problems in our ordination process - in blogs, columns, and e-mails - has been both surprising and encouraging. So I took stock of it all and penned a Reporter column sketching some things to remember as we seek to reform our process. These include:
-- Holding on to the idea that there is nothing wrong with rigor. It's not the seriousness of the ordination process that is the problem. It's rather the fact that "rigor" takes the form of "mind numbing bureaucracy" in our current system. And that leads to...
-- Fighting bureaucracy. We all know about this: forms, timelines, intricate steps to follow, and lots and lots of repitition. Which leads to...
-- Avoiding needless repitition. I know the process reflects our connectional structure of charge, district, conference, and general church. But a slavish adherence to this hierarchical structure can quench the fire of the Spirit. And besides, can't we somehow involve our seminaries in the process, since a great deal of a person's formation for ministry takes place there? That leads to...
-- Engaging the seminaries. It's no secret that UM theological schools are completely off the leash. That leads to the teaching of ridiculously un-orthodox theology at times, but probably more importantly, it means that they are not accountable for helping shepherd their students through candidacy. They offer the courses required by the Discipline, but not much else. All of this together makes me want to cry out...
-- Humanize the process! The system itself, and the various levels where it is played out, all need to re-orient themselves around people rather than paperwork. We've got to get the devil out of the details! And until that happens, a candidate's best friend has got to be her candidacy mentor. Mentors, you're the last line of defense!
I know it seems like we've talked this thing to death on the 'sphere the past few weeks, but any suggestions you'd like to add are welcome.
-- Holding on to the idea that there is nothing wrong with rigor. It's not the seriousness of the ordination process that is the problem. It's rather the fact that "rigor" takes the form of "mind numbing bureaucracy" in our current system. And that leads to...
-- Fighting bureaucracy. We all know about this: forms, timelines, intricate steps to follow, and lots and lots of repitition. Which leads to...
-- Avoiding needless repitition. I know the process reflects our connectional structure of charge, district, conference, and general church. But a slavish adherence to this hierarchical structure can quench the fire of the Spirit. And besides, can't we somehow involve our seminaries in the process, since a great deal of a person's formation for ministry takes place there? That leads to...
-- Engaging the seminaries. It's no secret that UM theological schools are completely off the leash. That leads to the teaching of ridiculously un-orthodox theology at times, but probably more importantly, it means that they are not accountable for helping shepherd their students through candidacy. They offer the courses required by the Discipline, but not much else. All of this together makes me want to cry out...
-- Humanize the process! The system itself, and the various levels where it is played out, all need to re-orient themselves around people rather than paperwork. We've got to get the devil out of the details! And until that happens, a candidate's best friend has got to be her candidacy mentor. Mentors, you're the last line of defense!
I know it seems like we've talked this thing to death on the 'sphere the past few weeks, but any suggestions you'd like to add are welcome.
posted by Andrew C. Thompson at 9:37 AM
3 Comments:
Andrew.. (hope all is well in Durham and Rome -- two great places to be these days).
I read your column in the reporter and wanted to wave a red flag. You mention the position that the ordination process should include an engagement of the seminaries. The column as opposed to the post had language that was stronger -- the sentence that I would want to flag is... "The church should re-exert its control over them."
How is this approach different from the events of 80s and 90s in the Southern Baptist Convention and its choice to 'exert control' over its seminaries?
I agree with your points. But collaboration may have been the word you were shooting for -- and control is what came out. Certainly Dean Jones and Duke Divinity School is a great example of the collaborative environment that is needed in the connection.
Peter -
Thanks for your comments. I understand your concern. I think a lot of people get jumpy whenever language like that is used. But I think the difference is in what kind of 'control' one is talking about. Control as a way to enforce some type of fundamentalist view on Scripture or the church is not in keeping with the UM heritage, of course. But the flip side is this - why would the church ever want any other body (a university, a renegade board of trustees or faculty) to have control over the very institutions that are training its future elders and deacons? Why would the church not want to maintain a rigorous oversight on these institutions? Why abrogate that responsibility to any institution or body that is not the church? Such a reality - which is what we have at present - seems to me to be a dangerous innovation. I have never seen any account given as to why this is a preferable way to do theological education.
Oh, and by the way, I think you are right on about Duke. The job Dean Jones has done there over the past few years is nothing short of remarkable. I am biased, of course, but I think his leadership is a model for all other seminaries in the connection.
Andrew- As someone who is in the candidacy process I cannot aggre with you more! We need to remember the people. The process of "hoop jumping" as I call it has got to be re-evaluated and redesigned to eliminate repitious paperwork and bureaucracy. As a pastor I try to consider everything I do and my interactions as minstry. As a candidate It is unfortunate that I am expected to minister to others without the church minstering to me in this process.
Don't get me wrong were it not for my mentor I would not have made it through to this point. Through the grace of God people are in my life who do minster to me and assist me during this process. However I do think that the church and our seminaries must begin to work together to equip the called to ministry.
Post a Comment
<< Home