I well remember standing before the annual conference and answering the questions put to me by the bishop who ordained me as a deacon, Jack Tuell. Three years later, I again responded to the historic questions asked of me by Elias Galvan as I became an elder in the United Methodist Church. (Back in those days, United Methodists followed a two stage ordination path, from a transitional deacon to elder... an anomalous practice unique at the time to the UMC, but clearly set forth in the Book of Discipline. Years later, in an effort to bring our denominational polity in line with traditional AND Biblical precedents, the Book of Discipline was changed to the current ordering of ministry. Imagine that... changing the Book of Discipline... such a radical concept!) It is quite true that several of those historic questions were about my understanding of, and willingness to support, the church’s doctrine and discipline.
One of the questions was “Are you in debt so as to embarrass you in your work?” In my ordination service, and just about every such service I have witnessed over the years, that question resulted in a chuckles and ripples of laughter, from the presiding bishop, to the ordinands, to the conference congregation witnessing the questioning. Surely John Wesley, author of these historic questions would have considered the seminary debt carried by most of the ordinands to be embarrassing.
It certainly seemed to me then at my ordination, and at similar services in which I have been privileged to participate in my role as a member and officer of the Board of Ordained Ministry, that these historic questions were not as weighty as some today would assert they should be, especially in the context of recent and pending church trials. In the ceremony, these questions merely represented the much more thorough and heavily nuanced process of discovery and discernment conducted by a Board of Ordained Ministry. They were like a decorative cornice adorning the exterior of a carefully crafted building… pretty to look at, but hardly instrumental in the strength of the structure. The truly substantive questions asked by the Board, frantically answered in writing in our papers and verbally defended in our interviews, moved far deeper than the simple public ascent to the historic questions asked as part of the show on ordination night. The real decisions had been made in the sweat and tears of the process, in the scary room populated by “THE BOARD,“ and of course by vote of the executive session when we were applauded and taught the secret handshake.
Those Board of Ordained Ministry interviews came only after a local congregation had affirmed our giftedness for this work we aspired to do, district committees had identified our graces for the work, and the Board itself had examined our readiness for the work based on interviews and psychological exams, and thoroughly reviewed the transcripts of our work at denominationally-approved seminaries, where we were expected to develop skills in critical thinking about a wide variety of fields, as well as grow deeper in our passion for following in the way of Jesus Christ, who we were taught loved the stranger, walked with the oppressed, and often challenged the authorities. Our lives were expected to be Christ-like. No, we might never walk on water, but we certainly could embrace the outcast, try to heal the broken, and stand up to the high priests who would try to silence us from speaking the truth we have heard from God.
In those interviews with the Board of Ordained Ministry, we answered the questions asked of us honestly and fearfully. We shared our passions and convictions, and the wise elders who examined us asked questions much harder than the historic ones. Describe your understanding of an inclusive church? What is the meaning of ordination? What is your understanding of Scripture, tradition, experience and reason? What is your understanding of the primary characteristics of our United Methodist polity? How do you interpret the statement Jesus is Lord? What is your conception of the activity of the Holy Spirit? The answers to those questions and others like them could not then and cannot now be contained in a book of rules written by legislative committee and revised every four years. To imply otherwise is to cheapen the sacramental nature of the act of ordination and the uniquely personal understanding of a call from God. The vows we took are not carved in stone, but are rather living commitments to a living God. The historic words are but filigreed accents to deeper explanations of faith commitments that were carefully explored in our ordination process and which have continued, by the grace of God, to become clearer and stronger as we have faithfully lived out our call as your pastors.
There are parts of the Book of Discipline that need to be challenged in our day, and I stand with many other clergy colleagues who say that our vow to obey the Gospel call to love all of God’s children far outweighs any other vows we have made in ritualistic celebrations of belonging, read from the very book which needs reformation. We did not vow to obey a book. We vowed to obey God.
Rev. Peter K. Perry is the senior pastor of Saint John United Methodist Church in Anchorage, AK and a member of the Desert Southwest Annual Conference.
No comments:
Post a Comment