Here are a couple of things that I think should be included in the UMC process for ordaining ministers:
1. Drug testing -- if we do extensive medical and psychological testing, why not run a urine sample for narcotics? Most employers do it now. We don't want cokeheads under guaranteed appointment.
2. Doctrinal checklist -- run though major issues like virgin birth, resurrection, original sin, and infant baptism to make sure that a candidate lines up with UMC orthodoxy.
Both should be done very early in the process, probably before Certification.
What do you think?
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
As a person being ordained this summer I think these are good ideas. I also believe that we should do away with guaranteed appointments.
However, in some conferences agreeing with your checklist might get you black balled.
1. Drug testing -- I agree. Like you said, with the extensiveness of the medical exam (turn your head and cough) I don't think its unreasonable at all to have drug testing. Coming from a military background, I think it should also be ongoing and on a random schedule. Elders are still just as prone to sin via drug use as any other person.
2. Doctrinal checklist -- I agree. The problem lies in that some of the UM doctrine is a bit wishy washy on the harder issues, or at least, uses slightly antiquated language geared toward a different cultural viewpoint. How would we start or enforce this? There are Elders out thee now that don't line up with UMC orthodoxy.
This should be done during Inquery, the stages of Candidacy, and throughout an Elders time in service.
Also, I agree with everything Jared said.
There are Elders out thee now that don't line up with UMC orthodoxy.
That's the problem that this would solve. But as Jared points out, espousing orthodoxy could get one blackballed.
Number two will be a big problem for a number of reasons.
1. Our official doctrine is found in the Articles of Religion, the Confession of Faith (EUB) and Wesley's Standard sermons & notes.
2. These documents all have a particular history. The Articles of Religion are Wesley's edition (with lots of cutting) of the Anglican 39 Articles. Since the Anglican articles were composed to differentiate that church from Catholicism, they reflect the controversies of that era. Which, as you may have noticed, are not the major controversies of OUR era. According to our official doctrine, Methodists (and other Protestants - AND Catholics) all believe in the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Trinity, Original Sin, etc., so each of these can be treated minimally. Our official doctrine does not engage the controversies of the modern age - the controversies we have to live with today. Because of the difference in cultural/historical/philosophical setting between our own day and the period of origin for our official doctrine, a large degree of interpretation has been considered necessary. So we have folks who "believe in" the resurrection, virgin birth, original sin, etc., in a "metaphorical" or "figurative" sense.
3. Another way to say this, is that our official doctrine addresses issues we no longer feel the need to address and say nothing about issues we do feel the need to address. Because of this conservative doctrinal stance, some consider our official doctrine to be at worst irrelevant, at best mere "sign posts" leaving us free to do pretty much whatever we want.
4. That's all the de jure (legal) point of view. You may have noticed, however, that we don't always (in any organization or enterprise) get everything we want. Although the de jure doctrinal standards in the Discipline (1988 statement) are pretty good, the de facto standards often remain normative doctrinal (and theological) pluralism of the 1972 statement. We shouldn't be suprised by this since most of our top leadership was formed theologically in that era. The only restraint by these de facto standards is the Wesleyan Quadrilateral - and you can justify whatever you want with the Quadrilateral.
5. We have big name church leaders - pastors of large churches, bishops and leading theologians - who model a pluralistic approach to doctrine that sometimes looks thoroughly modern with little or no theological grounding in the historial Christian tradition beyond "Jesus loves me this I know (or feel) because the bible (the parts I haven't cut out or identified as merely the opinions of a despotic patriarchal culture) tells me so."
6. Since Wesley presupposed basic Christianity, his distinctives were built upon those assumptions. Doctrinal necessities from a wesleyan perspective then would include Holiness (perfection) and assurance.
7. You may observe the one doctrine you mentioned that I haven't. It's become the sine qua non of United Methodist theology. Why? Because too often the only thing we're SURE about theologically is that we're NOT baptists.
I forgot my shameless plug. If you're concerned about doctrine in the UMC, go read my book, The Recovery of Doctrine in the Contemporary Church
Our Dist. Committee on Ministry essentially does ask candidates the doctrinal questions. It's worked well for us...I wish every district in our Conference would do this (perhaps they do!).
We are asked to take this vow at ordination:
Will you be loyal to The United Methodist Church, accepting its order, liturgy, doctrine, and discipline, defending it against all doctrines contrary to God’s Holy Word, and committing yourself to be accountable with those serving with you, and to the bishop and those who are appointed to supervise your ministry?
I will, with the help of God.
Perhaps if we all just took our vows seriously...
Shoot, let's make that vow mandatory at Certification.
I'll second John's motion. If you cannot agree with the vow (or some form of it) at certification, then there is no need for you to proceed any further as a candidate within the United Methodist connection. A persosn can still be called, just not to ministry within the UMC.
Isn't it interesting that we're all talking about making candidacy harder than it already is?
But it'd be harder for a reason.
Talking about doctrine is so 20th century. There are plenty of pastors that have the "correct" doctrine but are worth a hoot when it comes to leading a congregation. How is that James says it? "Show me your faith without works, & I'll show you by my works." Something like that any.
I'm not suggesting that doctrine is unimportant, there's plenty of bad doctrine floating around. I'd just rather see good action.
I don't really believe in original sin. Do you think I am unfit for ordination?
In the Wesleyan tradition? Yes. Maybe in some other denomination it would be fine, but original sin is a core feature of Wesleyan theology.
Do you agree with Wesley's understanding of Original Sin?
That would disqualify just about every UMC pastor I've ever known (and being a PK I've known a good number). Of course my mom serves in Cal-Nevada, so that may explain the lack of orthodoxy.
BTW, drug tests are bad at catching hard drugs because they pass through your system quickly. But pot stays for a good while. So drug testing can actually encourage people to use harder drugs.
Post a Comment