Do we need a new clergy order?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Tom Arthur, a student at Duke Divinity School, is proposing a new order for clergy, which would be called the Order of St. James. You can see his post about it here. As a way to respond to the rampant materialism of our age, this order would covenant around the practices of simplicity and hospitality. The group Tom is gathering has devoted an entire blog to their ongoing conversations, and they are beginning a process of discernment about intentional practices in which the order will engage.
I think the issue that Tom and this group are pressing is an important one. In more and more interactions that I have with other clergy, the need to covenant around something deeper than just our common ordination vows often comes up. The reasons for this are many: For one thing, the level of accountability both in ministry and in the church as a whole is extremely low. For another, the very issue that this nascent Order of St. James is responding to - materialism - is so pervasive in the culture that it is sometimes hard to even see. When everything around us is devoted to mammon, it makes it difficult to remember how deceptively idolatrous mammon can be.
One other reason an order would be helpful is that it's becoming less and less clear what the mission of the church truly is. Many Christians - and I include Methodists here - don't take salvation very seriously. We've become soft universalists, assuming that our choices have no real bearing on whether or not we are saved eternally. In that milieu, a rededication by the clergy to living and preaching according to the gospel is desperately needed.
When I was in Nashville, some close friends and I entered into a process of discernment over whether to move toward living in an intentional community of some kind. We had lived and studied together in divinity school for a couple of years, and a number of us had been active in an anti-death penalty movement where we experienced a special call from the Holy Spirit. The text we kept coming back to was John 13:34, where Jesus gives a mandatum novum, a new commandment, that the disciples should love one another as they had been loved by Christ himself. Most of us were headed toward ordained ministry, and at some point the conversation came around to whether we should found an Order of the Mandatum, whose members would covenant to live in intentional communities and engage in certain biblical practices.
More recently, I have talked with friends here at Duke about an Ordo Missionis Wesleyani, an Order of the Wesleyan Mission, which would essentially be a preaching order for Methodist clergy. Its members would commit themselves to faithfully preaching the "three grand doctrines" of Scripture that Wesley said were indispensable: Original Sin, Justification by Faith, and the Holiness consequent upon that justification. Though such a doctrinal orientation might at first seem very different from either the Order of St. James or the Order of the Mandatum, it's not. When you understand what Wesley really meant by holiness, it becomes clear that doctrine and practice are twin sides of the same coin.
I will say that I think this stuff is much harder than it might at first appear. The Order of the Mandatum floundered, due largely to competing understandings of how it should be constituted and diverging desires on where to live and what to do. That group read Jean Vanier's Community and Growth together (a book that I highly recommend anyone read who has an interest in either a religious order or an intentional community), and I was struck at Vanier's comment that any group of people who have an idea of what a community will look like before it is actually formed are setting themselves up for failure. As I remember it, Vanier suggests that such an approach shows a lack of faith in the Holy Spirit's ability to shape and form communities according to God's desires. That, I think, was what my Mandatum friends and I did wrong. I would be curious to hear from anyone who is in the Order of St. Luke or who is a part of an annual conference where the Order of Elders and Order of Deacons are taken seriously.
The problem we American individualists have in terms of really entering into an order is that we can't really submit to the ancient monastic vow of obedience. We are too committed to making our own decisions and living our own lives. And yet, it is that very quality of obedience that we most need to learn. If the church is to have a future in this land, it will be through a renewed obedience to God rather than the superficial triage techniques that you see lining the bookshelves of Christian bookstores. "Church growth" is not the church's salvation.
An order for preachers, to guide their lives and help them better pastor the flocks God has given them ... Is it needed? Desperately so. Is it possible? For us? For Methodist elders and deacons? I don't know. But I'd like to find out.
I think the issue that Tom and this group are pressing is an important one. In more and more interactions that I have with other clergy, the need to covenant around something deeper than just our common ordination vows often comes up. The reasons for this are many: For one thing, the level of accountability both in ministry and in the church as a whole is extremely low. For another, the very issue that this nascent Order of St. James is responding to - materialism - is so pervasive in the culture that it is sometimes hard to even see. When everything around us is devoted to mammon, it makes it difficult to remember how deceptively idolatrous mammon can be.
One other reason an order would be helpful is that it's becoming less and less clear what the mission of the church truly is. Many Christians - and I include Methodists here - don't take salvation very seriously. We've become soft universalists, assuming that our choices have no real bearing on whether or not we are saved eternally. In that milieu, a rededication by the clergy to living and preaching according to the gospel is desperately needed.
When I was in Nashville, some close friends and I entered into a process of discernment over whether to move toward living in an intentional community of some kind. We had lived and studied together in divinity school for a couple of years, and a number of us had been active in an anti-death penalty movement where we experienced a special call from the Holy Spirit. The text we kept coming back to was John 13:34, where Jesus gives a mandatum novum, a new commandment, that the disciples should love one another as they had been loved by Christ himself. Most of us were headed toward ordained ministry, and at some point the conversation came around to whether we should found an Order of the Mandatum, whose members would covenant to live in intentional communities and engage in certain biblical practices.
More recently, I have talked with friends here at Duke about an Ordo Missionis Wesleyani, an Order of the Wesleyan Mission, which would essentially be a preaching order for Methodist clergy. Its members would commit themselves to faithfully preaching the "three grand doctrines" of Scripture that Wesley said were indispensable: Original Sin, Justification by Faith, and the Holiness consequent upon that justification. Though such a doctrinal orientation might at first seem very different from either the Order of St. James or the Order of the Mandatum, it's not. When you understand what Wesley really meant by holiness, it becomes clear that doctrine and practice are twin sides of the same coin.
I will say that I think this stuff is much harder than it might at first appear. The Order of the Mandatum floundered, due largely to competing understandings of how it should be constituted and diverging desires on where to live and what to do. That group read Jean Vanier's Community and Growth together (a book that I highly recommend anyone read who has an interest in either a religious order or an intentional community), and I was struck at Vanier's comment that any group of people who have an idea of what a community will look like before it is actually formed are setting themselves up for failure. As I remember it, Vanier suggests that such an approach shows a lack of faith in the Holy Spirit's ability to shape and form communities according to God's desires. That, I think, was what my Mandatum friends and I did wrong. I would be curious to hear from anyone who is in the Order of St. Luke or who is a part of an annual conference where the Order of Elders and Order of Deacons are taken seriously.
The problem we American individualists have in terms of really entering into an order is that we can't really submit to the ancient monastic vow of obedience. We are too committed to making our own decisions and living our own lives. And yet, it is that very quality of obedience that we most need to learn. If the church is to have a future in this land, it will be through a renewed obedience to God rather than the superficial triage techniques that you see lining the bookshelves of Christian bookstores. "Church growth" is not the church's salvation.
An order for preachers, to guide their lives and help them better pastor the flocks God has given them ... Is it needed? Desperately so. Is it possible? For us? For Methodist elders and deacons? I don't know. But I'd like to find out.
Labels: Clergy, Orders of Ministry, UMC
posted by Andrew C. Thompson at 10:39 AM
4 Comments:
Dear Andrew,
I can now say that something I have done has hit the blog-o-sphere. And not only that, but it was a fairly positive review. Thanks be to God!
I see and experience your thoughts about obedience and its tension with our American individualist culture. The whole idea of an Order of St. James is a community trying to not fall into that individualist mentality that permeates everything we do. And the tension is in the proposal itself: a "voluntary" order. So do you want to join us in working through this tension?
I also like your idea of an Order of Wesleyan Mission. When do we start? Oh...I've already been preaching those three grand doctrines. :)
Peace,
Tom
Andrew, et al.
I've mulled over your idea about a Wesleyan Order since you approached me about it. I've given thought to the Order of St. Luke, too. But I've been thinking: do we really need another religious order?
You yourself emphasized the religious orderliness of Methodist clergy - "Order of Elders," "Order of Deacons." If people can't keep their vows of ordination, will adding another set of vows really help? Aren't the people likely to keep their vows in an order also the ones likely to keep their vows of ordination?
I also question religious orders that are as scattered as one such as St. Luke's. At least with Roman Catholic religious orders, even the mendicant ones, there tend to be pockets of ordered communities here and there. Can we have an Order of St. James or St. Luke or St. Wesley "intentional community" (re: monastery)?
I'm not shooting down these ideas, just asking the tough questions that need to be asked. The only vows beyond marriage that I've taken and felt compelled to oblige have been a) church membership, and b) Covenant Discipleship. Any more and John Wesley may pop out of my head.
Probably the biggest changes in my current ministry life and my original expectations and intentions have been brought about by having a wife and children, especially a special needs child. The question I regularly wonder about is whether having a family is compatible with ministry.
One the one hand, I'd like to think it is. I'd like to think that the sanity that can be associated with raising children (and frequent types of insanity). Must we maintain the American way of ministry life with incessant meetings and gatherings that preclude family time?
On the other hand, I realize that Jesus wasn't nearly as keen on family as some of as nostalgic Americans. Instead of sticking to the familial model of Mediterranean culture, he redefined "family" in terms of relationship with him.
I know that UM ministry life in my AC is not very family friendly. We're expected to sacrifice our children for the same of the appointment system - which, as far as I can tell, largely ignores family needs. We schedule AC so that it is difficult for families to participate.
What about a new lay order? "Lay Speaking" is like calling a car mechanic a "Automotive Technician." Laity should be able to speak about their faith (testimony).
But we do little organized training. What if we had Elder, Deacon and (((insert lay order here))) and these laity could serve both within their congregation and be used during church transitions as preachers, teachers, etc.
Post a Comment
<< Home