Tony Jones is a wonderful thinker who rejects institutional church thinking for a wide variety of reasons. I keep track of what he writes over at Beliefnet and follow him on Twitter.

Over the course of the past few days, I fear that Tony has finally taken a leap that I can’t quite follow. Indeed, I have found myself compelled to speak out in favor of repairing a system that is truly broken rather than abandoning that system. Ordination is the issue of the day (week? year?) for Tony. He wants to see it changed so drastically as to be practically unrecognizeable.

I want to see our United Methodist (and other institutional models) system refurbished and drawn closer to the notions that were instrumental in establishing leadership in the early church. 

I’m reposting Tony’s most recent blog entry, and I’ve added the comment I posted at his site.

Reconsider Ordination. Now.

Sunday May 10, 2009

Categories: Church, Emergent Church

I’ve got a bunch of people upset at me for encouraging my friend, Adam Walker-Cleaveland, to forsake the ordination process of the Presbyterian Church (USA) denomination. I even went so far as to post an online petition to attempt to convince Adam to drop out of the PC(USA) process and consider himself “ordained” by the Body of Christ — that is, by all of his fellow believers.

Over the weekend, I’ve been inundated by emails and tweets. Some have been from those who, like Adam, have found the denominational system of ordination to be abusive and are wondering what to do. Others have asked me to write more abut my theology of ordination. And still others have expressed “disappointment” (a truly patronizing word) at the tone of my Friday post. They’ve said things like, “As a Christian leader, you need to be more gracious in your writing.” Well, I call bullshit on that. When a friend of mine suffers abuse, I do not plan to be gracious about it.

My long-time friend, John D’Elia has posted the most thorough and evenhanded response to my Friday rant. John is the pastor of the American Church in London, he’s ordained in the PC(USA), and I respect him deeply. I ask you to go read that, then come back here and read my response to him. You’ll find it below the fold.

John,

Before I begin the substance of my response, let me remind you of this: I’ve written often of my understanding of the medium of blogging. It’s not academic work — not even close. It is not careful work. It is immediate work. I’ve had a couple UCC pastors write me recently to say that they’ve quit reading my blog — and one even de-friended me on Facebook because I wasn’t responding to his many emails. Why? Because I called their denomination “notoriously liberal.” They thought I should be more sophisiticated, nuanced, and frankly, academic in my characterization. So let me say this:Don’t expect too much of a blog.

1) You title your post, “An Emergent Discussion.” That is a misnomer. Virtually every emergent leader I know is ordained — most by a denomination. In my evolving opinions of denominations and ordination, I speak for myself alone. I think that the minority of people in emergent churches agree with me on this.

2) Solomon’s Porch is not a house church. We are a body of 250ish persons with 501(c)(3) status from the IRS. We rent an abandoned United Methodist Church building. And we have an “ordained” pastor. But our deal is this: We ordain everyone. If you want to be ordained to perform a wedding, or to be a lawnmower repairman, we’ll ordain you to that ministry.

This is not to vaunt everyone to a high position, but to subvert and deconstruct the very notion of ordination. It is NOT like what John Wesley did (although there are some interesting parallels — see below) or like what the fundamentalists did or the Lutherans or the Calvinists. We ordain everyone, and I started an online petition to ordain Adam, to be ironic. It’s to point up what I consider to be the arbitrariness of the bureaucratic systems, and, to be honest, the tax benefits, of ordination. In other words, this is the opposite of a YoungLife leader who writes away to some dude to get ordained for the housing allowance write-off. This is, instead, to show how that entire system leads to such ridiculousness.

3) Hey, thanks again for preaching at my ordination in 1997 (I preached at an ordination service myself a couple years ago; I’ll post my sermon on Wednesday). I remember my ordination well. But let me remind you about my ordination: It’s not from a denomination. As a Congregationalist, I was ordained by the Colonial Church of Edina, the discrete, local church body in which I was raised, full of persons who have known me and my family since my grandparents co-founded the church in 1946. Those people told me, beginning in 7th grade, that I was “called to ministry,” and they have nurtured me along that path all the way till now. I consider ordination in the Congregationalist setting very different from one ordained by a national assembly or by a bishop (that is, the presbyterian, synodical, or episcopal systems).

4) Both you and others have questioned whether Adam has been entirely forthcoming in his posting about these matters. Maybe, some have implied, there’s a back story of disobedience that Adam is hiding from the blogosphere. I can assure you that Adam is being candid about his candidacy. In fact, he runs the distinct possibility of getting dooced for his public honesty about the process’s abuses. There’s a reason that most ordinands don’t start to bitch about how they were screwed by the system until after they’re ordained — because if they do it any sooner, the system will have its retribution.

TO BE CONTINUED…

With all due respect to the previous posters [in Tony’s comments section], I do not believe that “calling someone a pastor” makes that person a pastor any more than I might call someone a duck and “create them a duck.”

Scripture denotes a set of requirements for service as a servant-leader in the Church. I would say that if we ordain everyone, then we ordain no one. Ordination is about ordering one’s life to the rule and discipline of the sacred.

Yes, we are freed from human roles of rich and poor. But we trade one yoke for another. We become subservient to Christ and seek to live the holy life–holy as in set apart. If everyone is “set apart,” then no one is set apart.

I don’t think that Tony’s comments point us to “no ordinations.” But I also have a hard time reconciling ordaining everyone to be the leader. We aren’t talking about ordaining everyone to ministry–we’re talking about establishing the resident theologian, the shepherd of the flock, and the prophetic voice of responsible leadership. That requires standards–biblical standards, no less. And the standards would imply a process of measurement and examination.

What I can agree with is the fact that the processes are flawed in many quarters.

I do not seek to refute the claim that ordination in the United Methodist Church can be brutal. The process is carried out, in my conference anyway, by folks who don’t always have the time (or take the time) to get to know the candidates.

The process is begun at the local church level. It is often a quick process. I was, in fact, approved in absentia because I was a couple of minutes late to the called meeting. They met me at the door with a unanimous decision to pass me to the District. I often wonder how qualified many of the folks who are doing the examination at that level. This is not to say that they are bad people, or bad Christians. I simply wonder if they are sensitive to the nature and purpose of a person’s calling and the ordination process.

The District level (think of a 4 or 5-county regional body) has folks who are a bit more discerning, but how well do they get to know the candidate? Many Candidates for ministry are most often “grilled” at the Conference level (regional, often state¬wide) because candidates are examined in cursory ways at the primary levels. This leads to the infliction of grief and misery at the later stages.

I like the fact that the candidate is well known to the examining body in the congregational model. But I prefer the connectional system for a variety of reasons.

I believe that whatever steps are taken to rectify the situation, the only ones that will mitigate success are those which will require a greater amount of contact hours between those responsible for examination and those who are being examined.

I don’t have any problem with requiring psychological testing or medical testing. I think that all candidates should be examined for ability and aptitude for preaching and teaching. I certainly agree that doctrinal standards should be maintained.

So what is the problem? A lack of interpersonal, networked, accountable relationship.

Most people find it easier to be crass, cold, and harsh to someone when that person is a stranger. “The process” takes over and the red rubber NO stamp comes down with impunity. That is harder to do with someone with whom we have taken the time to corne to know.

While the process can still lead to a rejection, it does not have to be so cold, clinical, and harsh. The vast majority of problems come when the candidates are unknown to the examining body. Paperwork is shuffled, confused, and sometimes lost. People are placed in holding patterns to repair issues–and sometimes forgotten or even discontinued.

Candidates are often left to wander the maze of ordination alone. We require mentors. Some candidates have as many as five before the process is completed. Many go without mentors for weeks at a time. Some have mentors in name only.

Each of these issues lead to cursory examination and snap-judgments. And all of these issues go back to the simple fact that very few people of authority in the United Methodist Church are taking the ordination process seriously enough. If we were, we’d have full time people monitoring candidates. We’d have healthy support systems in place instead of plans that are partially implemented due to “personnel shortages” or “financial shortfalls.”

In short, the congregational model is more successful in this light because it is contact intensive. If we can find a way to incorporate the best of both models (and I am sure that we can if we so desire), then I am sure that the ordination process in the United Methodist Church can return to health.

I look forward to your opinions. Thank you for accepting mine.

Grace and peace,

Rev’d Joey Reed, OSL
Pastor, Raleigh UMC