Background: In the United Methodist Church we go through an extensive process of discernment and preparation toward becoming ordained as an Elder in Full Connection. It's called candidacy.
To whom it may concern:
The process of candidacy should be a grace-filled time of personal reflection and discernment, of celebrating that myriad ways God calls people into ministry and the diverse gifts that each of us have been given. It should be affirming, strengthening, growth-inducing.
Sitting around the lunch table at St. Paul School of Theology today, I heard a sadly common story of a recent candidacy interview with a District Committee of Ordained Ministry. The interviewee was spoken to condescendingly, broken down, beaten up, actually insulted and eventually not allowed to be certified a candidate because he was too intellectual. The person was treated as an inferior. He was told that teaching was not a job pastors were supposed to do. He was told that instead of entering into a conversation with a troubled youth, he was supposed to tell them God loves them and give them a hug, and then shown by one of the committee members what a hug looks like. He was asked how old he is, 23, and told that he has some more learning to do and to come back in a few years, delaying even further the age in which he could ever become an ordained elder. He was asked a question by one committee member who then immediately left the room to answer a cell phone call and told to answer to the committee. He was told, basically, that he was wrong, that he needed to get right, and that right meant the opinion of the committee.
I have typed for too long and too much about this. This is not the exception, this is the common experience of my friends and colleagues. One friend will not be commissioned this year, not because he is not eligible and certainly not because he is not ready, but because the district committee lost his paper work. One person who mentioned the desire to transfer conferences was told by the conference she would be leaving that she could leave, but don't expect to be welcomed back.
There is so much that the process of candidacy should be, so much that it should accomplish, so much ministry that it should build, so many gifts that it should affirm and strengthen and explore. Unfortunately, a grace-filled, affirming, collaborative, learning, diversity-celebrating, conformity-avoiding, empowering experience with the District Committee on Ordained Ministry and the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry is the exception, not the rule.
I don't want to draw lines. I don't want to talk about us and them. I don't want to speak for young adult clergy, or candidates of all ages. But, the stories are piling up.
As I prepare to answer questions for commissioning in the United Methodist Church (the very same questions, btw, that I have answered twice a year for 8 years now), I should be excited about the freeing process of self-reflection, looking forward to working in collaboration with the Board and my mentor to become the best possible pastor I can be, I should be examining my own gifts for ministry, lifting them up, strengthening them, sharing them with others.
Instead, the only thing I feel is fear. Will I pass or not?
Dear Bishop, Cabinet and Board of Ordained Ministry,
We need to fix this and we need to include the voices of the people GOING THROUGH IT in order to do so. There is so much more that this process could be.
Dedicated to answering God's ever-changing, life-changing call on my life,
Reverend Brad Bryan
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Maybe you need to write a book called, "The 5 Practices of Fruitful Boards of Ordained Ministries." Peace out, Moore Boy
While much of what you say is truly regrettable, from the Board's perspective (speaking from 8 years experience), the discernment process is not as simple as "So you want to be ordained? Okay."
This is not to justify harsh treatment of candidates, but...
--I have seen candidates with significant psychological problems who, for their sake as well as for the sake of the churches they would serve, did not need to be put in that position.
--I have seen candidates with no Wesleyan background or understanding wanting to transfer from their previous denominations largely because of our guaranteed appointments and benefits.
--I have also seen candidates deemed to be "ideal" get into serious trouble (legal, financial, sexual)once they were turned loose in the pulpit.
And I have seen Board members shed tears while trying to discern God's will in these matters.
I know God spoke to Balaam through even an ass, and I wish the Board could simply welcome any who feel called to ministry. Unfortunately, in the litigious world in which we operate, we have to be more cautious.
thank you for adding to the conversation, rev. garrett. its important for me to hear from the Board's side of things. I don't envy the members of the board, or the cabinet, or the bishop!
I understand the need for at least part of the process to be about identifying patterns of ineffectiveness or even dangerous theological and ecclessiological stances.
However, as we continue this conversation on the St. Paul campus today, we go around the circle and talk about how the process is draining, driving and chasing the passion for ministry out of people. If we make it to ordination, we're ALREADY burnt out.
I hope we can agree that reform is needed (i would argue that reform is constant) for the life of our church and the future of our clergy.
Brad
Brad, I completely agree with you that the struggles we hear colleagues going through in the candidacy process makes it more difficult for me to push through with a postive attitude.
I understand the need for tough interviews, but the interviews do not need to be hurtful. I know enough people who were good candidates for ministry but quit after being personally attacked in interviews.
We can not attract young adults into the ministry if they feel as though they will be attacked. The process is draining and exhausting.
There must be a better way.
Shane
Brad,
I know Andy and found this post through a link in his blog.
As you stated, we've heard variations of the stories you relate too many times. I appreciate the perspective Rev. Garrett provides, but I don't believe that's what you are touching on. Rather, I remember two incidents from my "process." Once, a cmte member pushed on a recent, and deeply painful, experience in my life for more than ten minutes. I eventually shed tears and the questioning immediately stopped. I spoke with folks I trusted later and discovered this had happened to several FEMALE candidates (by the same interviewer). In another instance, I came for continuation during my probationary period and was held through worship and into lunch answering the questions of one (different) interviewer. I was exhausted and stressed out (the drenched in sweat kind) only to discover the Board thought I was a strong candidate and had no reservations about my continuation.
I relate all this for more than catharsis. I continue to believe that significant, if minor, elements of the district cmtes and conference board either do not comprehend or do not take seriously the gravity of the situation for those of us who come before them (see the lost paperwork example - and the lack of remedy for such a mistake). In addition, the treatment of candidates, from condescension to ageism, does not parallel other fields as we are so often told. As I now participate in training for another profession, I can tell you 23 year olds are taken very seriously, their talents and gifts are deeply respected, and nothing but the highest of expectations are put before them. Why does the church behave so differently? I have theories, but they really aren't important. What is important is that if we don't change, I can't imagine a competent, qualified young adult who would want to be part of our system. (To be clear, I can imagine him or her being called by God and drawn to Wesleyan theology and worship, but I can't imagine why he or she would want to be part of a system that is so disrespectful of his or her gifts and call.)
Okay, you will never want to hear from me again after such a long comment from someone you don't know. Keep slugging away. It's going to change one way or the other, and I'd love to see you and Andy helping to guide that change.
Thanks, Stephanie. And you're wrong, I now want to hear from you over and over.
You know, I was rereading this post today and I want to repeat what I think the point is:
All I feel is fear; will I pass or won't I? There's so much more that this process should be.
What's at the core of the fear you and other candidates experience? Is it that so much has been invested and can disappear so quickly? Is it that one capricious, mercurial, or fill-in-the-blank interviewer can dominate or determine the process? Is it the lack of knowledge as to what it means to this group what it is to be prepared for a particular stage of the process? Is it simply a matter of will the have and have read my materials and know what they have to do to forward my process? Any professional accreditation process will have a fear element - there's a lot at stake. What makes ours so different and unbearable or inappropriate? What do you, and others in process now, think?
God's involved, that's what's different!
We are called into ministry by God, not the United Methodist Church, and standing between us and answering that call from God the Creator Almighty is this board.
Of course, for me, a lot of the fear is family related, living up to expectations.
But mostly its that I'm trying to be accountable to my call and gifts from God, and i feel the board, instead of trying to help me do the same, is standing at the gate between here and there with the big golden key, the ONLY key, and its totally up to them.
Brad
Brad - I don't know a lot about the process but it sounds to me like you make some very good points. I can certainly understand your frustration. But I would like for you to get rid of the "expectations" fear, the family thing. You do not have to live up to anything. You just stay true to who you are and you will do well. I personally think you are wonderful! Love, cb
If I was on the BOM, I might "push" you to say some more about how "God's involved" makes the professional accreditation in ordained ministry in the UMC different from other professions. Does that difference play itself out in your understanding of baptism and the call to ministry of the baptized?
If I could put words in your mouth, I think you meant to say that the process in a faith-based institution should be filled with the fruits of the spirit that the institution says it values highly, whereas in other professions the process might not because of different institutional values; but regardless, God is still involved in the calling of folks regardless of the where they might serve. Peace, Moore Boy
Okay, I probably don't have anything good to add at this point. However, the emphasis on being called by God but having the Board in the way leads back to Rev. Garrett's comment. I can tell you from sitting on the district committee and from serving in a variety of places, there are people who are convinced they are called by God to serve in set apart ministry. However, that call does not hold up in the light of communal reflection. The BOM isn't perfect, but it is there for a good reason and, sometimes, it helps the church and the people who come before it by naming the fact that they may not have the gifts and graces for ministry BEFORE they do real harm to churches, communities, and individuals' faith.
As "Moore Boy" discusses, the process should look different when carried out by the people of God in the name of God. (One of my biggest frustrations with the church is when they try to act "business" when they don't know how. They often act far more unprofessionally, and unkindly, than any corporation.) But, just because it should look different, I don't think either of the Board's two functions in tension, encouragement and gate-keeping, can be done away with.
Obviously the Board has an important role in the discernment process, I don't know that anyone is arguing against that. The problem is when they are given absolute power to say yes or no to a candidate with little or no accountability. Right now as a candidate if you go in front of a board that doesn't like your understanding of God, your age, what you look like, or any other factor that might offend them personally you are told that you are not called to ministry. In my own experience and in many of the experiences that have been shared with me, the board has been belittling, patronizing, and down right offensive. The board should be about nurturing the calling of candidates, and as a church we believe that all Christians are called to be ministers. If they don't believe that call is to ordained ministry, it should be about discovering what their true calling is.
And of course, the board like the rest of us are human. Thus accountability is needed.
Thanks for your post Brad, keep fighting the good fight.
Kyle
Last observations on this great blog topic:
1. I do like that many BOMs are saying "No" upfront instead of later on the life of a clergy person.
2. I would like the process to be shaped where a person on track of ordination gets "credit" for going to a United Methodst Seminary. One year of probation should be credited.
3. Since we claim we are a "connectional" church we need more mutuality between Annual Conferences and our seminaries. Either the seminary can verify someone can preach and teach, or they can't. Someone needs to say that out loud.
4. We need to recognize that seminaries and BOMs might be stretched in two different directions. Seminaries needs students to stay afloat. BOMs need to be selective in giving lifetime appointments. Always follow the dollar.
Peace out, Moore Boy
r.patrick.moore@us.army.mil
My issues with seminary education is a topic for another time.
Thanks for all this, folks.
B
What's wrong with you people?! Clearly "Return of the Jedi" is the greatest Star Wars film! You've got Vader's Redemption...and more importantly you've got Ewoks! Who doesn't love the Ewoks?! Some poeple...jeesh!
The Ewoks are the worst thing about ALL OF THE Star Wars movies!!!
It goes like this, Jar Jar Binks then Ewoks. The Empire toppled by a bunch of teddy bears. Argh!
I beg to differ my friend...those cute, cuddly guys (or maybe girls...who can tell) get me every time...the weakest shall be the strongest.
We have an imperfect system because we are imperfect people. The "ordination" track has been in a constant state of transition, updating and overhaul since at least 1996. My experience was different than the people 3 years after me and so forth. Part of the problem is just when the board thinks they have it perfected, a whole new board comes in and changes everything. It is very sad and heartwrenching to see people we know and candidates for ministry treated poorly. I will also say, that I have seen people treat the process as a hoop and that since they have a seminary education, they deserve to be ordained. Not everyone who earns a seminary degree should be ordained. I appreciate your words Brad and found your blog through Andy. Most of my seminary class are not pastors in the UM church or anywhere. The process at it's best helps us discern our calling and helps us discover through conversation if this is really what we need to be doing with our life. At it's worth, it's a hoop or a check on a long list toward ordination. I've experienced both versions. Usually, the exeprience is heightened or lessened by the people leading the process. Peace, Jeremy
Post a Comment