Or.

Might it be possible.

That Tony Jones has jumped the shark.

I'm just asking.

In North America, there may be benefits (health, pension, tax deductions) to ordination but in many parts of the world there is no such system. You are right that the system of ordination leads to a certain level ridiculousnes but so do many aspects of the whole Western system of church.

As for ordination, it is one of the trappings of the system that promotes the clergy/laity dichomoty. This dichotomy is oppressive and controlling and I often wonder if the devil actually loves our "ordination" process because instead of helping to promote the church, it actually hinders the full involvement of the whole church - and that it would be scary! (Scary for the devil and scary for many denominational leaders!)

It's not often that I find myself the subject of a blog posting on Out of Ur, so I just wanted to clarify one thing.

I have not been denied ordination.

In my post, which you can read here, I talked about how I have come up against another potential roadblock in my process toward ordination. If anything, my ability to proceed has been slowed down and blocked - but there have been no final decisions made re: my ordination. I haven't been denied ordination.

Just wanted to clarify.

Hey Bill (Kinnon),

I realize your comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek (perhaps) and meant to be funny (ha ha), but ...

Why not answer the question about your view on ordination instead of taking a cheap shot at Tony?

I have a lot of respect for you, so I'd really really rather read what you think about ordination than what you may think of Tony and/or this particular petition.

Thanks.

I'm a recent seminary grad who isn't really called to be a traditional pastor. But, I am trained and called to ministry (writing, teaching, music, etc.). I hadn't really thought of the tax benefits of ordination, but it is often hard to get the respect of fellow ministers/pastors if you're not ordained (i.e., to network with them and help them). Also, I'd like the opportunity to do hospital visits and such, but don't want to shepherd a whole church. You can't get such a license unless you're ordained by somebody. And no, I don't want to get one online. As someone with my calling, ordination is more about removing obstacles to ministry than anything else.

I agree with John Michalak. While there is a lot to be said about the problems with denominationalism in the western church, I don't think ordination practices are one of them.

First of all, there is the matter of authority recognition. If everyone is "ordained", then who are the recognized authority figures within the church community? It is completely scriptural to have designated leaders within a church community, in fact, Paul himself "ordained" Timothy and Titus, marking them out as the leaders of their respective communities. This had nothing to do with their tax status or other benefits, but simply to give indication to the community that these are the leaders to which they can look to for vision, guidance and teaching.

Second of all, as John Michalak points out, even our increasingly secular society has certain rules about who can do what in what capacity. A minister who wishes to do ministry in an institutional capacity not directly linked with a church (such as a hospital, legal weddings, etc) needs to have some sort of credentials from a recognized body in order to do so. By not having those credentials, their ministry is hindered not helped. Again, credentials for secular purposes are scriptural. After all, Paul used his "credentials" as a Roman citizen to bring the gospel to Rome via the means of his trial.

Denominations do indeed need to take a look at what it means to be credentialed. Even the non-denominational denomination is guilty of some exclusionary practices. But this does not mean that the practice of formal ordination and licensing is wrong from a moral standpoint.

I think there will be a day when the "body" will truly function like a body. Likely not in my lifetime, but someday - when the greatest servants are ordained, not by committee, not via centralized mandate, but organically, via a broadly distributed consensus of the reasonably engaged.

We take religion WAY too seriously (in the wrong ways) and not seriously enough in ways that truly matter. Jesus had no "credentials."

Adam--

Thanks for the clarification. We've changed the wording in the post accordingly.

Url

I wrote a more lengthy comment on Tony's blog, so I'll abbreviate here. I had a long, arduous and very frustrating ordination process to become ordained in the PC(USA). I fought the process, whined about it, complained, bitched, moaned, you name it. I worked so hard to find ways around what I saw as arbitrary and capricious steps that I lost sight of what God was teaching me through God's wisdom and sovereignty.
And what God was trying to teach me was this: Humility, Submission to God's Will, Discipline and Humility. I said Humility twice. I know. When I got out of seminary I thought that I knew everything about everything. I didn't. And the thing I needed to learn more than anything else (and this lesson seems to be lost on so many of us ministers, would-be ministers and pop-theologians) is that God is God and I am not. I am still learning that each and every day of my life. I have got to stop praying for patience and humility because God keeps messing with me on both counts.
Now I know that I am called to the PC(USA)--in part because God gave me the grace to make it through the process. I took that as a sign that I was supposed to be in this denomination that I have grown to love.
Quite simply, if you struggle so hard against the process to be ordained, perhaps this should give you pause to think about a couple of things. Either God is directing you through a time of learning, or God may be sending you a not-so-subtle message that you should move on.

I believe that ordination serves a useful purpose, as it gives the church the opportunity to ensure that people being commissioned for ministry know what they're doing. We preach a gospel which we have received, not invented. It matters whether people can trust that we're passing on the same faith that was entrusted to us.

I understand Tony Jones' frustration. I've had friends denied ordination for (what I think are) silly reasons. But we have to draw lines somewhere, don't we? The Episcopal Church just appointed as a seminary President Rev. Katherine Ragsdale, a practicing lesbian who preaches on the "blessing" of abortion as "holy work."

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/08/high-priestess-of-abortion

There has been a tension through out the history of the church between organic decentralization (think the reformation / printing press / monastic orders) and a desire to have theological accountability to the community (think the didache / early church membership requirements). This tension tends to be a seesaw motion, which is unfortunate but by no means new - maybe less bloody this time around.

Ordination should be a method for accountability, to make sure the shepherds of the congregation are diligently following their calling and fit to faithfully serve the church as shepherds. Like any process, it is subject to abuse.

I've witnessed the ways in which mainline denominations are quenching the Spirit and sucking the life out of thier churches and their pastors by ridiculous, oppresive beaureacratic processes. It is something to decry, to rightly identify as sin. But it's the abuse that is sin, not the rite of ordination itself. I believe ordination can be a great blessing to pastors and congregations alike.

In this case, what initially derailed Adam's ordination seems exactly why ordination exists: He chose to ask a gay friend to preach at his ordination ceremony. I'm not making a judgment about the morality, propriety, wisdom, courage of his decision. But it is the responsibility of the ordination committee to determine the candidates adherance to orthodoxy and orthopraxy. If they, like many Christians, have objections to practicing homosexual persons teaching in the church, we should expect such a decision to have implications in the ordination process.

Again: I am NOT saying Adam shouldn't have asked his friend to preach. I don't know the details of the situation, and I resonate with, admire, and support my friends whose calling it is to challenge the Church toward a truer Love of homosexuals. I am just saying that when you ask a gay friend to preach at your ordination ceremony, you shouldn't be surprised if some people have theological objections and that it might have implications for your ordination.

We can debate wether anyone should have theological objections to that, but the ordination process is precisely the time to have those debates. And if your calling is prophetic--to expose sin in the church and call it toward a new way--then you'd better get used to facing opposition. If that's really your calling, too, you don't need an ordination committee's stamp of approval.

Reading Adam's blog, there have been other obstacles to ordination that are patently absurd. I think those obstacles need to be abolished, and quickly. God will keep working, whether or not denominations can keep up. I just don't think discarding or demeaning the entire notion of ordination is helpful.

In the scriptures, every time the crowds chose a leader rather than God, the leader has turned out wrong. The crowds can recognize charisma and talent, but God looks at the heart—looks for humility and obedience. A committee of humble, obedient pastors are much more likely to recognize this than a large congregation who don't have the time or capacity to look beyond the superficial.

Jones may be frustrated with the ridiculous hoops many denominations set up for candidates to jump through. I understand this, but his solution isn't borne out the Spiritual fruits of peace, patience, or kindness, and won't produce such fruits either. Look at Jones's language. He's angry, and he's encouraging strife, discord, and division—works of the flesh. Since when is it of God to damage relationships rather than restore them?

Here's the most concise working definition we used in the latest revision of the Ordinal of The United Methodist "Church:

"Ordination is an act of the Holy Spirit through the church conveyed by the person of the Bishop, the people consenting."

1. "an act of the Holy Spirit": We call on the Holy Spirit to be poured out "for the office and work" of the order (deacon or elder) to which one is ordained, or the office (bishop) to which they are consecrated. The Spirit's gifts are irrevocable.

2. "through the church:" The church is the "proximate agent" in ordination. It sets standards for who may be ordained and "vets" those who are preparing to live among us in these roles.

3. "conveyed by the person of the bishop"-- Bishops are the "immediate agent"-- the ones who pray themselves (actually leading the people in prayer) and lay hands on those receiving the Spirit for their work. The bishop also authorizes persons (laying hands on hands) to use those gifts in the church.

4. "the people consenting"-- all along the way-- from local church recommendation, to district and conference boards, to the service of ordination itself. The consent to use the gifts can be withdrawn from either side, but not the gifts.

More can be said on all these points-- but no room here!

Peace in Christ,

Taylor Burton-Edwards
Director of Worship Resources
The General Board of Discipleship of The United Methodist Church

K.W. Leslie may want to re-read Acts 6 before declaring again that "In the scriptures, every time the crowds chose a leader rather than God, the leader has turned out wrong."

Besides, to say that it's "the crowds" choosing "rather than God" would be to miss the Holy Spirit at work in the body of Christ. Most churches that ordain see it as a God-led process from start to finish.

Well said Joel. Satan is a corrupter and a twister to subtly draw believers into nullifying the commands of God all the while claiming to be godly. The NT description of identifying leaders is not about men seeking to be dubbed "official minister status", but existing leaders watching for those who are living out oversight behaviors and acknowledging them for it. Ordination, as it is practiced institutionally is, to a certain extent, about protecting the clergy class of minister and keeping it confined to those who buy into the bogus notion that to be truly godly you must quit your "secular" job and get on the church payroll. Paul told Timothy "Here is a trustworthy saying: If ANYONE sets his heart on being an overseer,he desires a noble task." Clergyism has no heart to challenge ANY or EVERY brother to seek out being an overseer in the household of faith. Traditions die hard, specially when there is money to be made or an elevated title to be gained from them.

Interesting dynamic.
I have seen the upside of ordination (Educational qualifications along with life experience that showed a whole slough of mistakes, and spiritual maturity that grew out of those experiences and a heart for people to grow closer to G-d), and the down side (A couple of guys fresh out of seminary who saw ministry as a career tract that would land them the phat suburban Church job, and yes, I openly questioned the one and his motives which I hope he has chosen wisely in his decisions).

"And if your calling is prophetic--to expose sin in the church and call it toward a new way--then you'd better get used to facing opposition."

However, Nate has the right of it, regardless of the topic, or subject, if you, the individual, feel called to address a certain aspect of the church don't expect everyone else to be on board...we're allegdely a communicative species, not a pack of willing drones.
Be ready to give a reason, and defend your reasoning realizing that it may not be the devil you are up against, but rather individual concepts and perceptions that guide us all, rightly or wrongly, through this journey we call life.

Some years ago, I was leading a small church after the "senior pastor" suddenly resigned. The church knew me and we simply picked up and continued on. Giving went up, attendance never blinked, and God was moving among his people. However, the denomination insisted that I be "licensed." Apparently success was not enough.

In the end, the denom refused to approve me because I had been married too many times for their taste (they were and are pretty conservative), and they sent me a letter saying that I was clearly gifted, and God was surely moving among us, but... That was not enough.

Here's the end: The denomination actually killed the church -- intentionally -- when they couldn't find a pastor, and wouldn't accept me.

Now, if Tony wants something to be pissed about, that might be a good place to begin.

(Incidentally, this was a denomination I had been with before, on staff at one of their larger churches.)

Ordination is in part not unlike a trade. To get your papers requires time in both learning and doing. There are a lot of hack plumbers out there who do jobs they really shouldn't be doing. The process of ordination allows denominations to asses the gifts and graces of people in terms of suitability for full-time ministry. It allows a certain level of confidence in church leadership (unless of course the process is all academic).

Many churches low-ball salaries to take into account any financial benefits of ordination. I know of no pastor who is in it for the money.

Our denomination has a Course Of Study costing $3600 ($150/course, 24 courses). You don't need to spend $60,000 to be a servant leader, but you do need God's graces. I have also recognized that God's timing is invariably much longer than mine.

Why are we of all religious group rebellious? Ordination - to set apart for the work of the ministry is biblical. Shall "we" who are supposed to call sinners to obedience in Christ be disobedient our selves. I have been through ordination process and I am glad the church takes its time in choosing who the are going to lay their hands upon. I suggest that we read more of the old testament and Paul's letters to the bishops, even though we live in a different time and culture it should be clear that we serve the same God that sets principles for his own.

My experience is that I have been ordained within a church that is marginally connected to a baptist denomination. I had been attending the church for 5 years when I sought ordination. I met with the pastor a couple times (who I knew well and had interned with a couple years earlier). I met with an ordination committee of pastors and church leaders that I knew before and respected. And I was ordained, start to finish in a couple months.

My brother who is in a different baptist denomination, has been out of seminary for six years, serving as pastor of a small church for 3 (almost 4 years). But he is not ordained because area where he is being ordained hasn't ordained anyone in a while. The process has changed three times and a number of new processes have been added. Several of them (like pych profiles and ministerial consulting) are fairly expensive. He doesn't have an end in sight at this point because the group hasn't agreed to the final process. Clearly that has nothing to do with seeking out God's calling in his life.

I am all for discerning God and rejecting ordination in some cases. But in many cases, it is just a matter of poor organization. There is no justification for poor organization holding up the work of the church.

Do I believe in ordination?

Well, do I believe in teacher certification? Do I believe in gun registration? Do I believe that "impersonating a police officer" should be a crime? Do believe in sanitary standards for restaurants?

The answer is yes. In a community, we need community standards that are clear and recognizable.

Why should preachers / pastors / elders be immune from recognizable standards?

I agree with Jarrod, but the problem is that the standards are often arbitrary and not helpful to the process for all of those areas. There is always buracrecy from the guild to limit the number of people authorized to have that role.

I am confused...

If Adam has not been denied ordination doesn't that make that whole post one big moot point?

Or did Out of Ur keep the post to 'foster' conversation?

Maybe I am missing something...

Out of Ur posted a rant by someone, based on incorrect information, and the person the article was based on had to come and clarify under the comments section?

Hmmm.....

As an ordained pastor in a particular tribe, I have seen first hand how "pastors" are lifted up above others inthe church. I think this is wrong. Why should I be introduced as "Pastor Chris"? Pastor is a spiritual gift that is equal to the other spiritual gifts. I don't introduce others as "EVangelist Bob" or "Administrator Sue." I believe that ordination does promote (although maybe not intentionally) a divide known as "the clergy/laity split."

What has jumped the shark is the PCUSA, perhaps the most disfunctional and theologically adrift American denomination.

The question should be asked: Why would anyone want to be ordained by this institution?

He asked a for a practising homosexual to preach at his ordination?
I would imagine the apostle Paul might have a word or two to say about that, regardless of the rantings of Tony Jones. Well done to the denomination for stepping in to prevent this happening.

Tony writes:
"When rules and regulations trump common sense, then the shark has officially been jumped."

I would write:
"When 'my common sense' trumps scripture, then the shark has officially been jumped."

Dare I even ask, "What about the trained, called and gifted women, who are never even considered for ordination simply because they're female?"

It doesn't look like any women are even participating in this discussion.

Should we?

I don't know this situation well enough - and I don't know Tony or Adam. But I will say this: We can talk all we want about the ideals of ordination, and I understand alot of what Tony is saying.

But at the end of the day, this is about a particular person's unique calling which always trumps whatever opinions or ideals that any of us could have.

My prayers are with Adam in wherever or however he chooses to go forward with what God is calling him to do.

Despite being late on this one, the last few comments intrigued me. In particular, I find out some of the comments on personal "calling" troubling.

For instance:"But at the end of the day, this is about a particular person's unique calling which always trumps whatever opinions or ideals that any of us could have."

And: "What about the trained, called and gifted women, who are never even considered for ordination simply because they're female?"

I don't find all ordination processes entirely biblical. But one thing that seems to be missing here is that so-called "callings" are supposed to be affirmed by current, qualified leaders. I don't get to, my heart and track-record unquestioned, get to say "I have a calling, therefore you have to give me authority over God's people". NO! Wolves still exist and the most likely wolves are those that claim a "calling" from God. Have you ever heard of a wolf that felt called to pick up after church? I doubt it. It's those that are "called" who prey. Therefore, it is the job of qualified leaders to affirm the calling for the good of both the "called", who may just end up crashing when they actually aren't called, and for the flock, who are vulnerable to poor leaders.

I don't usually get aggressive with my comments. But those who believe that "individual calling" always trumps current, qualified leadership on just word of one's so-called "calling" are quite likely either very ignorant sheep or very wolfish themselves...they certainly aren't shepherds.

I was a part of the opposing dialogue to Tony's attack on denominations and traditional ordination. If you'd like to see the full conversation, visit this site:

http://www.ministryintheuk.blogspot.com/

Tony Jones jumped the shark a long time ago.

I really like Tony Jones, but I do have to disagree with him about this. I'm a firm believer in the priesthood of all believers, yet denominations do have the right to lay down certain rules to make sure that they're putting a qualified person into a pastor's position.

I think Bill in comment #1 has a point.

While Jones is coming from a place of anger, to call the institution of ordination a "sinful system" is just the polemical tone of another self-proclaimed emergent prophet. Please.

If Tony objects so heatedly to demoninational ordination, why did he accept it for himself?

For the record, I am a pastor and a shepherd, and qualified leaders have confirmed that.

In light of Paul's comments let me clarify: My comment on individual calling was not to say an individual claims power to do whatever he wants. All I was trying to say was if the person being discussed felt called to go through this ordination process, that is more important and "trumps" whatever opinion I or others may have here in blogosphere - not all leadership in general. I'm not trying to make some grand theological statement or anything, and that's exacly my point here. He should go through with what he feels God is calling him to do, irregardless of what I (or other bloggers) think about it. I don't think any of us on these comments,Paul, are the "qulified leadership" that you are talking about. And of course I agree that respected leaders and qualified leaders in this situation should inspect and affirm that call. And if that's not happening fairly as Jones claims, then I trust God will lead this person appropriately as to what to do. That's all I was saying.

The ordination issue doesn't end when a pastor is ordained and installed. It continues throughout his or her ministry. It is not a once done, always done. It requires annual compliance with the standards of ordination. It is a relationship of accountability.
As a PCUSA minister for 28 years, and one who has served primarily outside traditional parish roles, I find great value in being ordained. I am required every year to submit a report on my compensation and my ministry to my presbytery. That accountability forces me to realize that I am not an independent contractor free to do whatever I decide God has called me to do. I am under obligation to function as a servant of Christ in compliance with the standards set by our Book of Order. As illogical or antiquated as they may seem, I believe they are for our benefit.
What I've discovered is that our system of ordination is burdensome to those who believe that Christian discipleship and ministry is a function of personal preference. Our tradition says is that it is the church that confirms the call through the ordination process. It happens with the pastor nominee, the church and the presbytery. At its most basic level, it is for the benefit of the pastor and the congregation to protect them from too quick, emotionally manipulated decision-making processes. It may not be perfect, but it does force a seriousness about call that is refreshing, I find. What it tends to do is weed out those whose sense of call is for their own personal spiritual validation. To be ordained means that we are no longer our own. And it is the Body of Christ through the institutional structure of the church which validates that call. If there is no structure, there is no accountability. As one who is about as non-institutionally oriented as you can find in the PCUSA, I do prefer our call system from the kind of arbitrary ones in other traditions.

At first I did not understand how the young man, Adam, went to Princeton and received an MDiv degree and still was being asked by his judicatory to take at least eight core seminary courses to be ordained. I have since found out that Princeton allows students to craft their own course selections based on their personal preferences. I am going to make a big assumption that Adam did not use good judgment in selecting his courses and that he neglected to take some basic core courses that any student preparing for ordained ministry should be required to take. What is sad is that this young man spend three or four years at an outstanding seminary and may have not taken advantage of increasing his biblical scholarship and practical ministry knowledge. I believe that the real problem is that students often do not have interaction with a judicatory until after they graduate from a seminary. The United Church of Christ in-care process tries to address this by requiring students on an ordained ministry track to have an in-care relationship with a local congregation and a local judicatory throughout their seminary process. As someone who serves on a judicatory board, my prayer is that the ordination process would be an affirmational and supportive process, not a process of creating barriers to entry. Ordination should be the culmination of a shared journey between the called person and the greater church.

Maybe Adam is facing obstacles due to his views on things. For example his view that maybe the bible should be put away in order to embrace homosexuals.

http://pomomusings.com/2008/12/15/the-bible-and-homosexuality/

You do the math...

It seems useful here to think about the distinction between ordination and licencing. This is informed, I admit, by my denominational background (Anglican in Australia) where there are separate processes for the two.

Ordination might be thought of as the 'spiritual' bit, and 'licencing' the practical bit. Ordination recognises the person's call to ministry, licencing allows them to live out that call in a particular ministry in a particular place at a particular time. Both require discernment, of course.

Conflation of the two is inevitable, but not necessarily helpful. I imagine there are any number of people who are called and could be ordained, but might not be licenced in particular situations.

My understanding of ordination is that it is within something - the body of Christ, and the body needs to recognise that particular calling. We're all speaking from particular cultural positions where ordination means setting apart which means setting above - what if it meant something else?

It’s a fastidious and instructive article. Things are ordered wellspring. Get to bonk lot’s of thing which were not region to me. It’s truly one of the most encouraging article I’m ever read. Thanks for to apportion from you. Even I bookmarked this as advantageously for to get improve from it in incoming.

Scholars want to find the doctoral thesis about this topic. When they get know about your best selling theme, they will plausibly purchase the thesis.