UMR Communications is offering the latest headlines in the RSS format.
Commentary
WESLEYAN WISDOM: Ordination—time for a new paradigm? Donald W. Haynes, Nov 14, 2007
Donald W. Haynes
By Donald W. Haynes Special Contributor
Demand for ordination reform seems to be a rising tide across United Methodism. History does not demonstrate much willingness on the part of General Conference to do more than tweak the status quo process.
From 1792-1824, there was a constant demand for change in the authoritarian manner of Bishop Asbury’s appointment making. Even after Asbury’s death in 1816, Bishop William McKendree and Bishop-elect Joshua Soule overruled the action of the conference, which had called for reform. The result was schism eight years later.
After the 1824 General Conference, the die was cast for the formation of the Methodist Protestant Church—a church with Wesleyan theology and a presbyterial style of polity.
Preachers in Methodism’s “Episcopal” branches were moved every year until 1866, when the Methodist Episcopal Church, South adopted four years as the standard for staying in one appointment.
Throughout the 19th century, facing issues such as the abolition of slavery, integration and the inclusion of women, the General Conferences were characteristically slow in changing the status quo.
When M.D.C. Crawford was asked to address a “Conference of Presiding Elders” in New York City before the 1884 General Conference, he made two profound observations: “Changes are caused by changes in the condition of the Church. Great changes have taken place in the duties of the Presiding Elder. Relatively the quarterly meeting has become unimportant, and, in its old-time grandeur, an impossibility. ...In this Centennial Year of our Church but one watchword will save us from dishonour—'Speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward'” (Ex. 14:15).
And one cannot ignore Bishop Gerald Kennedy’s comments in his 1952 Episcopal Address to the Methodist Church’s General Conference: “Our fathers have been churchmen for two thousand years or so, and to every new proposal, they have always answered, ‘no.’
“Like a mighty tortoise moves the church of God; brothers we are treading where we’ve always trod.”
These anecdotes simply illustrate the historic hesitancy of the General Conference to strike the note of reform. The people who vote at General Conference and the Bishops who collectively address it are the people to whom our system has been both beneficial and protective. Is this a factor in their hesitancy to embrace change?
The impending General Conference will look at the report of the Study on Ordained Ministry. First, let me say that two points are well taken.
The Church indeed is responsible to have standards for its ordained clergy and has the appropriate role of gatekeeping. Everyone who seeks ordination, after all, is not called of God. Everyone who feels called might not have either the gifts or fruits of parish leadership. And some people cannot honestly espouse the church’s doctrine and discipline. To maintain integrity, the church must sometimes say no.
Secondly, in our concern today over drawing more young clergy, we must not forget the value in older candidates for ministry. I understand the concern of having fewer years of service following seminary, but as a seminary instructor I must say that the middle-aged candidate brings gifts and life experience more valuable to parish ministry than the person who moves immediately from college and seminary to first appointment.
Local pastors
Refugees from the corporate world or retirees from other professions understand conflict and time management, goal setting and spiritual journeying. Many have revolutionized churches that were small in numbers and vision. I salute their sacrifice in submitting to the itineracy, uprooting their families, short-circuiting their pensions and giving up the corporate goal of “climbing the ladder.” We certainly want to give God opportunity to call more young persons into ordained ministry, but let us not denigrate the second-career pastor.
Rather than critique negatively the current process for ordained ministry—and it is indeed a long road—I want to propose a new paradigm:
First, put more weight on the local church’s recommendation for candidacy. The present guidebook, “The Christian As Minister,” is a misnomer (since we affirm the ministry of all Christians) and is woefully dated, showing an embarrassing level of naiveté. Rewrite this book to reflect the wide range of ages when persons are called to ordination.
The issues related to what we define as “call and disciplined life” should be examined at the local church level. A Church Conference should hear the inquiring candidate’s preaching. A serious examination based on Wesley’s questions in Paragraph 310 in the Book of Discipline should be given. A criminal background check should be made. Consideration should be given to responses about lifestyle, nutritional discipline and order in one’s private life. And the local church should hear any concerns based on a psychological exam conducted by a team of professionals (and appointed by the District Superintendent).
Secondly, eliminate the District Committee on Ordained Ministry. The disparity between the examining process of the District Committees and Conference Boards of Ordained Ministry force one to question this bi-level interviewing, which leads to either duplicated effort or theological contradiction. Scheduling these sessions requires an unnecessary sacrifice of money and time for the candidate if he/she lives in another region. Since each district already has two members on the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry, these persons and the District Superintendent can oversee the progress through candidacy, recommend local pastor’s licenses and their annual renewal to the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry. The conference board can send teams to visit seminaries where the conference has students.
Third, we must lift up the office of local pastor without confusing “license” with “ordination.” Indeed, some second-career persons in their middle fifties or older should be encouraged to serve the kingdom with high honor as a local pastor rather than encumbering themselves with the debt and emotional stress of seminary and the process of ordination. The local pastor would not be required to itinerate, with the understanding that this could mean lack of appointment. This is not ordination, but a license to practice ministry within the parish to which he/she is appointed because the church’s demand exceeds supply of ordained clergy. There should be no limit on the number of years a person can remain a part-time or full-time local pastor provided he or she is in seminary or does required continuing education in a setting comparable to the course of study.
If a person is the pastor of a church, she or he should be allowed to vote as a clergyperson at annual conference. Persons whose churches are paying into the Ministerial Pension Fund should be allowed to pay into the individual account of their pastor, whatever the clergy status. Medical insurance should be required for all pastors, including part-timers. The local pastor should be forbidden to wear a stole or a clerical collar, both time-honored symbols of ordination.
Fourth, the probationary period should be eliminated. Though it is rich in Methodist practice and nomenclature, this transitory status has little ecumenical parallel and few probationers are discontinued unless moral turpitude is involved. If the local pastors’ limitation of renewal were removed, the local pastor license and its corollary, parish appointment, can replace the need for probation.
Fifth, the master of divinity degree and two years of parish experience, potentially concurrent with seminary, should make a local pastor eligible for ordination as Deacon or Elder. This experience gives the Church two years to have the candidate under the supervision of a District Superintendent and receive evaluation from a local church Pastor-Parish Relations Committee and the field education or supervising pastor program of an approved seminary—all of which would be required to report annually to the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry.
The student in the last year of M.Div. studies should be able to apply for ordination after receiving the academic degree. The norm, however, would be to apply after graduation so that conference requirements wouldn’t overlap with seminary curriculum requirements.
Sixth, clear and precise requirements for ordination should be posted on every annual conference Web site and posted in the student lounge of the seminary, if possible. Annual Conference Boards of Ordained Ministry should be encouraged to send “recruitment teams” to any seminary, and these visits should be clearly posted. This provides a more level playing field for conferences with less proximity to seminaries.
Redemption, integrity
Seventh, in the year the candidate applies for ordination, all requirements for study, papers, sermons, Bible study and questions relating to theology, doctrine and polity should be in the hands of the candidate at least six months before the completion deadline. This means that the Board of Ordained Ministry would invite potential candidates to meet with the Board a year before their potential ordination. The candidate should be required to bring a profile that includes a transcript of seminary work as well as the detailed record of local church examination and recommendation, and subsequent evaluation of District Superintendents, local churches and seminary supervising ministry/field education faculty. Permission should be given the conference Board to immediately access results of psychological exams. The Board Executive Committee should then appoint a mentoring committee of at least three Board members plus the candidate’s District Superintendent to advise the candidate as the requirements are pursued.
Eighth, when a candidate is not approved by the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry (and such refusal is based on extenuating circumstances or tentative discernment by the Board), the candidate should be given the right to appeal for re-consideration before the ensuing session of Annual Conference. This can eliminate an entire year’s delay and would merely require a late spring meeting of the Board, often not more than one day. In short, every candidate should see some pastoral, practical and redemptive dimension in the ordination process, while every Board of Ordained Ministry and Cabinet should see integrity in the Board’s role as gatekeeper.
Ninth, the course of study should be seen as a theological and practical requirement for local pastors, not as an alternative route to ordination.
Tenth, the “commissioning” process will already be headed for elimination if the recommendation of the Study Committee is adopted.
Dr. Haynes directs the United Methodist Studies program at Hood Theological Seminary. E-mail:dhaynes11@triad.rr.com.
Donald W. Haynes
