Tony continues a discussion on ordination here.
Ten years ago the process killed my passion in calling. Seven years ago the ordination process is what sent me packing from church. Only in the past two years am I going back. Why?
I learned to separate the calling from God, which never went away even though I have suppressed it for many years, from people's institutions and ideologies which were quite damaging to the notion of calling. The PC(USA) process is supposed to create a challenging and supportive environment in which a young person called to ministry can discern that call and serve the body of Christ in an ordained function. To be sure it is not structurally designed for those coming into ministry after years of experience as adults in the world, at least in the process that I went through.
Historically the Reformed ordination process is what took the place of the legitimacy that priesthood gave to a minister. By opening the Scriptures to anyone and not limiting anyone to an authoritative interpretation from the church like the magisterium, boundaries had to be created to legitimate people to leadership positions. Academic distinction is what essentially took the place of the bishop and the priest. Rather than wear a collar alone, the minister wore the academic robe in order to communicate that the true church is the one that offers the right teaching. This continues to be the mark of social distinction in many if not most Protestant churches.
While the PC(USA) seems to be rather consistent with the idea of education as a source of authority, although the examination system is quite faulty and archaically subjective, the supportive function of discernment seems to have lost its apprenticeship function entirely. Before Protestant ministers were required to achieve professional distinction through degree conferral, it was through apprenticeship with another minister that one learned the ropes and discerned a calling to serve the church. Now we do discernment by committee and have developed a bureaucratic structure that serves the purpose of the community participating in a discernment of one's call to ministry.
But in the process something can go terribly wrong: people's own ideological commitments can become confused with the God's call for the church. The discernment process should not be just to challenge and support someone living into their calling, but should be a process in which the church discerns their call to serve God anew. Without an understanding of the discernment process as something for everyone involved, it thus becomes a system of social control rather than discernment when the only will discerned is that of the people who stand between the candidate and his or her calling from God.
This is a problem with how we confer legitimacy to those who believe they have been called to serve the church. That there are many who have been called who cannot serve functions for which their God given talents would be of great benefit is why the structures of legitimacy in ordination demand change, and reform.
Related posts:
Drew,
I agree that it is a shame that some gifted, called individuals are not granted access to serve the church in an ordained office. I also agree that there "should be a process in which the church discerns their call to serve God anew." Well said! I think that is what our process is intended to be, and while it certainly does not always live up to that standard, I can personally testify that there are areas of the church where that is going on.
Here is where I disconnect with you, however. In what you say, I do not sense a balance between the inward sense of call and the outward confirmation of that call by the body (or representatives of the body) to which the person will be ordained to serve. In the case of the PC USA that is the ideal to which we strive, even though I acknowledge that we often fail or allow other ideological or political concerns to override the task of discerning God's call.
Surely there is more to be done than just confirming someone's inward call. Having served on a CPM for many years, I can attest to the fact that an inward call is not enough. The community must sense a certain giftedness and preparedness in the individual as well. Ironically, my own experience serving a CPM was an unwillingness to say "No" when that was clearly the right decision both for the church and individual. I can also personally attest to the tragedies that occur when the community does not have the courage to speak the truth in love and simply confirms another's inward calling.
This is where I disagree with Tony too by the way. From what I read, he makes it seem like it is a faceless national denominational institution making a top down decision and imposing its will. Nothing could be further from the truth in the PC USA. It is local ministers and elders who are elected and often not given the training they need to do their job well. I guess one could argue that is an indication that the system in place should be scrapped altogether. But if one takes time to learn what the intention of the system is, it is precisely what Tony and others are trying to create: one that confirms the call of all individuals of faith as a gift of God for the building up of God’s kingdom on earth. Furthermore, it is not a rigid system as he portrays it, but an evolving one that allows for appropriate reform, both from within and without. This is why whenever I hear someone with a legitimate gripe about their experience of the process, my comment is to do something about it. If they have been ordained, get on their local CPM. If not, then share their concerns with the EP and Presbytery counsel. Help the church correct its mistakes and reform to better serve.
Here are the two main areas where I see the need for reform: as you mention, the process is designed for nurture young people, yet increasingly people are entering the ministry later in life and with previous experience. Our system is actually flexible enough to handle this change; however, most CPMs have just not done the necessary reflection (Although, as I said, this is changing in a lot of Presbyteries). Another related area is the role of the local congregation. The process is designed for heavy involvement from the local congregation. They are a part of the process, although most have no clue to that fact. So the people who know the candidate the best and can advocate most effectively are usually left out, although this too is easily repaired. A related side effect that is very frustrating for CPMs is that people are thus entering the process much later; say their middle or senior year of seminary. Then they are distraught to learn of the CPMs requirements, most notably the BoO mandated 2 years (which is to ensure proper time for discernment and preparation). However, increasingly seminarians are coming toward the end of their M.Div, looking for a rubber stamp, not understanding that discernment is a two-way street.
Finally, I do wish to add my encouragement for you to pursue your calling within the PC (USA). You may have a different experience this time around and, I hope, more willingness to join together in the process of discernment. If not, I hope you will continue to push for reform through the appropriate channels. Just be aware of the difficulty of pushing for reform, while advocating your own completion of the process. Sometimes you just have to get through it, in order to be in a position to effect reform. My own sense is that our whole community would benefit greatly from the gifts and perspective you have to share.
The end
thanks for the thoughts! i do think that discernment is needed not just as an individual item as was one big issue with the old light/ new light controversy. the problem is that my experience and that of many others has been that the COM caring for a candidate often sees its job as making sure that a candidate can "pass the test" rather than look at the presence of a new candidate as a discernment for everyone. if the candidate is there only to "pass the test" that is where ideological opinions of people block the function of discernment. it is also one reason why the process needs to be readjusted along the lines you mention and probably many more…
what i know now, that i did not know then, is that it is a two way street that the holy spirit should be there to gel together. we need better mentoring of young candidates, better apprenticeship opportunities for which current field education is insufficient, and better discernment for presbyteries to understand their role in the church as new candidates come up under their care, among other things.
Drew, 20 years ago, I was angry at 'the church.' It wounded me. But I also wounded it. To be more specific, I was angry at/in/with a particular denomination and angry at/in/with a particular congregation. (I am starting to not write about 'the church' as much as I am responding to my experiences with a local church (of which I have served 4 in over 20 years) One of the experiences I had in coming back to 'the church' and 'the ministry' was learning to separate my calling from, as you put it, 'from people's institutions and ideologies which were quite damaging to the notion of calling.' I have been an ordination mentor in my current denomination and it has been a privilege to do so. I have learned as much from the experience as the ordinands. A good post. Thanks
I agree that the "pass the test" criteria is not sufficient. Tests do have their place though, but should only be a tool to aid discernment and not replace the discernment itself. A lot of times the CPMs list of requirements have formed from experience. It can be helpful to inquire about their intention and use in an open and curious way.
The two areas I mentioned are just a start for readjusting, as you indicate. From my experience on both sides of the table, these are the areas of most pressing concern within reach that can enact the change that will start us moving in all directions. The local congregation involvement is a big one though, bigger than I ever thought. The process really begins there and the CPM comes in later on the conversation. Lacking this, the process is usually rocky at best. There is a neccesary power dynamic involved. Having a congregation that backs you helps to even this out a bit.
I think all agree that more preparation and more discernment only help all involved. The issue is how to balance this with time requirements and limited resources. (Not a minor issue buried here is the disconnected relationship between seminaries and denominations. I can tell you that was one of my main frustrations from serving on CPM. A lot of times seminary administration's involvement or advice was actually counterproductive.)
When I first entered ordained ministry, I petitioned to get on CPM so that I could be an agent of change. (I had a good experience myself, which I wanted to duplicate for others.) What I found was that it was a lot more complicated than I had at first suspected.
My advice to those entering the process is to begin as early as possible. Don't wait until you are certain that ordination is necc. for you to fulfill your calling, but enter into the process to find out and learn more about yourself and ministry. Begin the conversation in your local congregation and when appropriate involve the CPM. Be vocal about what kind of process you want, but open to the input of the committee. Above all, be proactive in your own preparation without being presumptuous. In other words, tell them what you think you need, but don't make the mistake of thinking that you know everything you need on your own.
As with most things in life, communication is key.
Drew,
I agree that it is a shame that some gifted, called individuals are not granted access to serve the church in an ordained office. I also agree that there "should be a process in which the church discerns their call to serve God anew." Well said! I think that is what our process is intended to be, and while it certainly does not always live up to that standard, I can personally testify that there are areas of the church where that is going on.
Here is where I disconnect with you, however. In what you say, I do not sense a balance between the inward sense of call and the outward confirmation of that call by the body (or representatives of the body) to which the person will be ordained to serve. In the case of the PC USA that is the ideal to which we strive, even though I acknowledge that we often fail or allow other ideological or political concerns to override the task of discerning God's call.
Surely there is more to be done than just confirming someone's inward call. Having served on a CPM for many years, I can attest to the fact that an inward call is not enough. The community must sense a certain giftedness and preparedness in the individual as well. Ironically, my own experience serving a CPM was an unwillingness to say "No" when that was clearly the right decision both for the church and individual. I can also personally attest to the tragedies that occur when the community does not have the courage to speak the truth in love and simply confirms another's inward calling.
This is where I disagree with Tony too by the way. From what I read, he makes it seem like it is a faceless national denominational institution making a top down decision and imposing its will. Nothing could be further from the truth in the PC USA. It is local ministers and elders who are elected and often not given the training they need to do their job well. I guess one could argue that is an indication that the system in place should be scrapped altogether. But if one takes time to learn what the intention of the system is, it is precisely what Tony and others are trying to create: one that confirms the call of all individuals of faith as a gift of God for the building up of God’s kingdom on earth. Furthermore, it is not a rigid system as he portrays it, but an evolving one that allows for appropriate reform, both from within and without. This is why whenever I hear someone with a legitimate gripe about their experience of the process, my comment is to do something about it. If they have been ordained, get on their local CPM. If not, then share their concerns with the EP and Presbytery counsel. Help the church correct its mistakes and reform to better serve.
Here are the two main areas where I see the need for reform: as you mention, the process is designed for nurture young people, yet increasingly people are entering the ministry later in life and with previous experience. Our system is actually flexible enough to handle this change; however, most CPMs have just not done the necessary reflection (Although, as I said, this is changing in a lot of Presbyteries). Another related area is the role of the local congregation. The process is designed for heavy involvement from the local congregation. They are a part of the process, although most have no clue to that fact. So the people who know the candidate the best and can advocate most effectively are usually left out, although this too is easily repaired. A related side effect that is very frustrating for CPMs is that people are thus entering the process much later; say their middle or senior year of seminary. Then they are distraught to learn of the CPMs requirements, most notably the BoO mandated 2 years (which is to ensure proper time for discernment and preparation). However, increasingly seminarians are coming toward the end of their M.Div, looking for a rubber stamp, not understanding that discernment is a two-way street.
Finally, I do wish to add my encouragement for you to pursue your calling within the PC (USA). You may have a different experience this time around and, I hope, more willingness to join together in the process of discernment. If not, I hope you will continue to push for reform through the appropriate channels. Just be aware of the difficulty of pushing for reform, while advocating your own completion of the process. Sometimes you just have to get through it, in order to be in a position to effect reform. My own sense is that our whole community would benefit greatly from the gifts and perspective you have to share.
The end
thanks for the thoughts! i do think that discernment is needed not just as an individual item as was one big issue with the old light/ new light controversy. the problem is that my experience and that of many others has been that the COM caring for a candidate often sees its job as making sure that a candidate can "pass the test" rather than look at the presence of a new candidate as a discernment for everyone. if the candidate is there only to "pass the test" that is where ideological opinions of people block the function of discernment. it is also one reason why the process needs to be readjusted along the lines you mention and probably many more…
what i know now, that i did not know then, is that it is a two way street that the holy spirit should be there to gel together. we need better mentoring of young candidates, better apprenticeship opportunities for which current field education is insufficient, and better discernment for presbyteries to understand their role in the church as new candidates come up under their care, among other things.
Drew, 20 years ago, I was angry at 'the church.' It wounded me. But I also wounded it. To be more specific, I was angry at/in/with a particular denomination and angry at/in/with a particular congregation. (I am starting to not write about 'the church' as much as I am responding to my experiences with a local church (of which I have served 4 in over 20 years) One of the experiences I had in coming back to 'the church' and 'the ministry' was learning to separate my calling from, as you put it, 'from people's institutions and ideologies which were quite damaging to the notion of calling.' I have been an ordination mentor in my current denomination and it has been a privilege to do so. I have learned as much from the experience as the ordinands. A good post. Thanks
I agree that the "pass the test" criteria is not sufficient. Tests do have their place though, but should only be a tool to aid discernment and not replace the discernment itself. A lot of times the CPMs list of requirements have formed from experience. It can be helpful to inquire about their intention and use in an open and curious way.
The two areas I mentioned are just a start for readjusting, as you indicate. From my experience on both sides of the table, these are the areas of most pressing concern within reach that can enact the change that will start us moving in all directions. The local congregation involvement is a big one though, bigger than I ever thought. The process really begins there and the CPM comes in later on the conversation. Lacking this, the process is usually rocky at best. There is a neccesary power dynamic involved. Having a congregation that backs you helps to even this out a bit.
I think all agree that more preparation and more discernment only help all involved. The issue is how to balance this with time requirements and limited resources. (Not a minor issue buried here is the disconnected relationship between seminaries and denominations. I can tell you that was one of my main frustrations from serving on CPM. A lot of times seminary administration's involvement or advice was actually counterproductive.)
When I first entered ordained ministry, I petitioned to get on CPM so that I could be an agent of change. (I had a good experience myself, which I wanted to duplicate for others.) What I found was that it was a lot more complicated than I had at first suspected.
My advice to those entering the process is to begin as early as possible. Don't wait until you are certain that ordination is necc. for you to fulfill your calling, but enter into the process to find out and learn more about yourself and ministry. Begin the conversation in your local congregation and when appropriate involve the CPM. Be vocal about what kind of process you want, but open to the input of the committee. Above all, be proactive in your own preparation without being presumptuous. In other words, tell them what you think you need, but don't make the mistake of thinking that you know everything you need on your own.
As with most things in life, communication is key.
[...] The polity in the end does matter. What matters is that those in that polity strive to make their form follow their function which is to serve the Kingdom of God which is revealed through all of those who proclaim Christ as [...]
[...] on ordination and social control [...]