UMR Communications is offering the latest headlines in the RSS format.
Commentary
WESLEYAN WISDOM: Road to ordination: Is our process grieving the Spirit? Donald W. Haynes, Sep 18, 2007
Donald W. Haynes
By Donald W. Haynes Special Contributor
Rebekah Miles is right when she articulates the position of a minority (Aug. 31, Reporter) on the General Conference Commission studying the United Methodist ordination process.
The process reflects an old paradigm, it’s tedious and it makes candidates vulnerable to petty questioning from older clergy who are not in tune with missional ministry today.
Dr. Miles reflects the frustration of younger people who are called to ordained ministry, but we are also seeing gifted and devoted persons who are being called to ordained ministry at middle age and later.
At Hood Theological Seminary in Salisbury, N.C., where I teach, our 316 students have an average age of 44. We are celebrating the presence of a 23-year-old in the entering class this fall.
Persons who are seeking probationary membership receive their questions on Bible study, sermon, theology and doctrine, and call/disciplined life in September and have to turn them in by January. They also must complete a psychological exam.
This is all helpful. The Boards of Ordained Ministry at the district and conference levels are the gatekeepers for the church. The role of the conference in ordination is integral in our denominational heritage.
My complaint is that many Board members have been out of seminary a quarter century or more. Homiletics, pastoral care and counseling theory, and parish ministry priorities have changed so much that there is a generational disconnect between the candidate and the Board member.
The candidate is nervous. Sometimes they are asked intimidating questions, and their answers are interrupted with comments such as, “What do you mean you are not sure; you are in seminary aren’t you?” What is redemptive in that? Where is grace?
Because bishops appoint members to conference Boards of Ordained Ministry, the Boards are a direct extension of the bishop’s office. The interviewing style, the interrogating language and the theological posture of those nominees should be monitored. Every Board chair should give the bishop feedback from candidates on their experience before the Board.
My other concern is age. It can be devastating if a candidate in his or her 50s fails to pass an interviewing subcommittee in mid-to-late winter and is delayed a full year before reconsideration. One man who was 59 years old and having an effective student pastorate was told: “You are not articulating sufficiently your Wesleyan doctrine. Your paper is fine, but you should be able to ad lib more freely. Come back next year.”
Back when I chaired a conference Board of Ordained Ministry eight quadrennia ago, a candidate who failed to get approval from one of the interviewing committees was able to appear before the Board for a second interview before annual conference. This prevented the candidate’s losing an entire year. To an older candidate, that’s a long time.
Regarding itineracy, Board members tend to reflect a time when spouses were either wives who did not work or who subordinated their own vocation to their husbands. The reality today is that spouses—female and male—often have income that is vital to the family and cannot be easily transferred.
Why can’t we say to the spouse who is being called to ordained ministry: “If your spouse cannot relocate, this places a tether on your itineracy. It will deny you some options for career advancement. It will limit what the Cabinet can offer you when you need or want to move. Are you willing to serve faithfully and in good faith with that encumbrance?”
This does not mean that the pastor cannot be moved; it simply limits the geographic radius within which one must serve. Many second-career seminarians have already been on the corporate ladder and are quite willing to accept career limits if they can stay in one area. Their reasons are not selfish; they may need to serve in a specific area to care for aging parents, provide opportunities for children with special physical or mental challenges or help maintain the careers of spouses.
A sense of call for younger candidates is often rooted in seeing parish ministry modeled well, being encouraged as a young person and hearing a positive attitude at home or church toward pastors.
If pastors take no personal interest in youth, how much is the Holy Spirit grieved in reaching youth with a call? If families serve “roast preacher” for Sunday lunch, how likely are the children in that household to enter ordained ministry?
Do district superintendents invite inquiring candidates to lunch? Do pastors encourage the spouse and children of someone who is struggling with a call to ordination, by lifting up the positive dimensions of parish ministry?
How many local churches invite their candidates to share their call with their home church? How many candidates are given roles in worship leadership? In short, how “special” does a person become once she or he publicly acknowledges that God is working in one’s life mission?
Dr. Miles and her minority group are correct—the fault is partially in the angst of the long and cumbersome process itself. But we need to call on the church leadership at every level to flesh out a process of grace with integrity.
It’s time for General Conference to grapple with our ordination process. It’s time to be sensitive to new realities. It’s time to let God’s call take precedence over denominational process.
The majority is not always right. Hear the minority voices!
Dr. Haynes directs the United Methodist Studies program at Hood Theological Seminary. e-mail:dhaynes11@triad.rr.com.
Donald W. Haynes
