Theological Foundations and Policies and Criteria for the Ordering of Ministry of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

NO. 0922

AdoptedAdopted

(OPERATIONAL BUSINESS ITEM)

Theological Foundations and Policies and Criteria
for the Ordering of Ministry of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

WHEREAS, the contexts in which the church finds itself call for fresh attention to the theological foundations and the practical protocols for the ordering of ministry; and

WHEREAS, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) does not presently have a formal denominational statement that seeks to state the theological foundations for our ordering of ministry, as understood in light of our history and polity; and

WHEREAS, our ability to be clear about our understandings of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) foundations for the ordering of ministry is crucial for conversations with our ecumenical partners in the Body of Christ; and

WHEREAS, the present Licensed constituents of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) through the Nazareth Consensus have responsibly explored with the larger church the manner in which Licensed ministers

a) might be provided a track whereby those with adequate preparation could seek Ordination; and

b) might be afforded more mobility for circulation in Search and Call; and

c) might be designated by a more Biblical nomenclature; and

d) might be valued as partners within the whole order of ministry; and

WHEREAS, a few Regions are already utilizing processes that allow for Ordination without a full Association of Theological Schools (A.T.S.) accredited seminary preparation; and

WHEREAS, a policy and procedure for ministerial credentialing is necessary to address exceptional life situations, including the diverse needs of clergy in the many new church starts we are celebrating in the life of this Communion; and

WHEREAS, the proposed policy:

 ~ provides a theological foundation for the ordering of ministry that is specific to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ);

 ~ affords a necessary statement that will serve us well in our ecumenical conversation with other Communions in the Body of Christ;

 ~ responds in an appropriate manner to the Nazareth Consensus by:

a) designating non-Ordained clergy with the more Biblical nomenclature of Commissioned rather then Licensed;

b) creating an Apprentice Track of preparation leading to Ordination without a Master of Divinity degree; 

c) affording mobility through Search and Call for Commissioned Ministers who complete the Apprentice Track and are Ordained; and

d) strengthening the recognition of those who serve the church faithfully with this preparation; and

~ recognizes and expands upon those procedures instituted by Regions with alternative paths to Ordination based upon the exceptional life situations, communities, ministry settings, and cultural and ethnic contexts of their ministry candidates;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the General Assembly of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, July 29 to August 2, 2009, adopt the document, Theological Foundations and Policies and Criteria for the Ordering of Ministry of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), replacing the 1971 Policies and Criteria For The Order of Ministry document, which was last revised by the General Assembly in 2003; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the church utilizes the next biennium, August 2009 to August 2011 for a period of implementation. This ordering of ministry will become effective August 1, 2011; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Commission on Ministry convene a task force to develop a template for an Apprentice Track program addressing the competencies in section II. C. 2 of the document; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that General Commission on Ministry will collaboratively work with Regions to:

  • develop their own Apprentice Track (AT) program or one in collaboration with Regional Fellowships [cf. section II.C.3., footnote 12 of the document], theological institutions or ecumenical partners;
  • share their program design with other regions for networking, feedback and sharing best practices;
  • determine how work done in previous Licensed ministry continuing education applies to the Apprentice Track;
  • review the status of each current Licensed minister to determine which category of Commissioned Minister is most appropriate; and
  • revise as necessary any Regional policies to facilitate this transition; and

FINALLY, BE IT RESOLVED that the present nomenclature be used for clergy until this policy takes effect on August 1, 2011.

General Commission on Ministry

The General Board recommends that the General Assembly
ADOPT Business Item No. 0922.  (Debate time:  24 minutes)

Please refer to the PDF version of Resolution No. 0922 for additional materials.

Discussion on this Resolution

This discussion board is closed to new comment submissions.

Comments from the Community

102 total comments.

From: Rev. Jared Trullinger - Wednesday, August 05, 2009
I must amend the prior comment, as it has at least one blatant error. Master of Divinity degrees had existed for a number of years, but they were revised to be equivalent to prior ATS B.D. degrees in the late 1960s to early 1970s. My apologies for the error.
From: Rev. Jared Trullinger - Wednesday, August 05, 2009
In the late 1960s to early 1970s, I believe, the ATS replaced the B.D. with the M.Div. Prior to the creation of the M.Div., those seeking the Bachelor of Divinity were required to complete "4-year" bachelor's degrees first. Then, they had approximately 3 more years of study to the B.D. The M.Div. was an effort to properly recognize the degree for ministers as both graduate and professional. At least one individual was calling for a 3-4 year Doctor of Divinity, much like physicians and attorneys move to the M.D./D.O. and J.D., respectively. If I had that article from the Christian Century - sometime in the 1960s - in front of me, I would properly cite it. Regardless, the "M.Div." eventually took as the standard. At present, B.D. degrees which preceded the creation of the M.Div., are viewed as equivalent an M.Div. For us to return to the days of a B.D. track, it would be important to discuss what that would look like. I too am thankful that this measure has passed, and I look forward to reviewing and dicussing its outcomes within the CC(DOC) community.
From: Gregory Nichols - Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Is it not possible for our seminaries to offer a track to a Bachelor of Divinity? Is it necessary, always, to obtain a Bachelor's Degree in order to enter seminary? After all, some B.D.s are irrelevant to the Masters Degree that follows?
From: Rev. James Rawlins - Tuesday, August 04, 2009
I wish to add an addendum to my previous comments: My heart felt thanks to everyone that was able to travel to the General Assembly to conduct the business of the Disciples of Christ! My thanks are to God for your dedication and concern!
From: Rev James Rawlins - Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Where possible, ministry candidates should seek M-Div., but my question is how many M-Div ordained ministers are willing to accept a smaller Church that can only pay $150 to $400 a week? Many of these (growing in numbers daily) smaller congregations were previously served by M-Divs. and now they don't have the numbers to support one. You want to live in and see the real world?!: Just go to some of these Churches and visit with ministers that have served this area for decades with little or no pay and certainly receiving no grants for three month sabbaticals to regenerate their spiritual self. They wouldn't have time from their duties to accept one anyway. These ministers have paid their dues and do educate themselves whenever the opportunity arises. They are not a bunch of hay-seeds! Wake up and smell the roses of this God-given supply of ministers that work for the glory of their Lord that placed them with these challenges.
From: Tracy Dunn - Monday, August 03, 2009
Will the passing of this resolution make seminaries or a Masters of Divinity degree obsolete?
From: Tracy Dunn - Monday, August 03, 2009
Will the passing of this resolution make seminaries or a Masters of Divinity degree obsolete?
From: Pastor Joel Tucker - Saturday, August 01, 2009
Success in medicine is health, survival rates, cure rates, recovery rates. In oncology, it's measured in days or years of life extension. In obstetrics, it's measured in healthy deliveries. That's the measure of success patients seek in a physician. Every medical school expects to make "better" doctors in that sense. Those that are discovered to fail in that sense soon lose their accreditation. No analogy adequately describes what "fruit" is to ministry -- indeed, Jesus' use of the term "fruit" is itself an analogy. So what is the desired fruit of Disciples ministry? Is it increased by seminary training? Surely the fruit of ministry is pertinent to the resolution.
From: Rev. Laura Phillips - Saturday, August 01, 2009
In response to Joel Tucker's post: "the quality of doctors is measured by outcome" - what measure of "doctors" is measured by outcome? The success of their own personal practice? Are you referring to Medical doctors? Becuase the success of a medical doctor is not measured merely by outcomes - M.D.'s must first pass stringent tests and go to years of medical school - not to mention that an individual medical practice is also a "for profit" organization, which the process by which a doctor serves her/his patients is colored by many other factors such as contracts with drug reps and insurance companies. Licensed ministry is a very important aspect of our church and our ministry as a whole, but the "outcomes" of a minister, ordained or licensced, and her/his congregation do not determine the success of a minister. Statistics and surveys mean nothing in this particular resolution. I give applause to your success, but your "outcomes" which can be measured by financial statistics and growing numbers have absolutely no bearing in this discussion or resolution.
From: Rev. Laura Phillips - Saturday, August 01, 2009
In response to Joel Tucker's post: "the quality of doctors is measured by outcome" - what measure of "doctors" is measured by outcome? The success of their own personal practice? Are you referring to Medical doctors? Becuase the success of a medical doctor is not measured merely by outcomes - M.D.'s must first pass stringent tests and go to years of medical school - not to mention that an individual medical practice is also a "for profit" organization, which the process by which a doctor serves her/his patients is colored by many other factors such as contracts with drug reps and insurance companies. Licensed ministry is a very important aspect of our church and our ministry as a whole, but the "outcomes" of a minister, ordained or licensced, and her/his congregation do not determine the success of a minister. Statistics and surveys mean nothing in this particular resolution. I give applause to your success, but your "outcomes" which can be measured by financial statistics and growing numbers have absolutely no bearing in this discussion or resolution.
From: Rev. Laura Phillips - Saturday, August 01, 2009
In response to Joel Tucker's post: "the quality of doctors is measured by outcome" - what measure of "doctors" is measured by outcome? The success of their own personal practice? Are you referring to Medical doctors? Becuase the success of a medical doctor is not measured merely by outcomes - M.D.'s must first pass stringent tests and go to years of medical school - not to mention that an individual medical practice is also a "for profit" organization, which the process by which a doctor serves her/his patients is colored by many other factors such as contracts with drug reps and insurance companies. Licensed ministry is a very important aspect of our church and our ministry as a whole, but the "outcomes" of a minister, ordained or licensced, and her/his congregation do not determine the success of a minister. Statistics and surveys mean nothing in this particular resolution. I give applause to your success, but your "outcomes" which can be measured by financial statistics and growing numbers have absolutely no bearing in this discussion or resolution.
From: iluminado castellano - Saturday, August 01, 2009
I'm Happy because the resolution was adopted.there are many licenced minister who want to be ordained and now is a better opportunity.
From: Pastor Joel Tucker - Saturday, August 01, 2009
I regret that I am unable to attend General Assembly this year. I am a licensed minister, and I have the privilege of serving a growing, dynamic Disciples church. We have nearly doubled in size over the past three years. Last year, for instance, we added 49 new members, and we've added 20-something this year, as in 2007. Our financial standing is sound; our debt-level is zero; our support of missions is growing; we have scores of success stories about how the Gospel changes lives for the better. What are the measures of ministerial competence? Do ordained, M.Div. ministers literally exhibit greater competence than licensed ministers? The question can be answered -- statistics exist, and congregants can be surveyed -- but do we dare publish those numbers? The quality of interns might be measured by education, but the quality of doctors is measured by outcome. I salute and admire everyone who pursues ministerial training. I wish I had taken that path. But here in the real world, I don't have time for such regrets; I have a growing church to serve and a Gospel to preach! Call me licensed, commissioned or unqualified, but call the Elders before you change my assignment.
From: Pastor Joel Tucker - Saturday, August 01, 2009
I regret that I am unable to attend General Assembly this year. I am a licensed minister, and I have the privilege of serving a growing, dynamic Disciples church. We have nearly doubled in size over the past three years. Last year, for instance, we added 49 new members, and we've added 20-something this year, as in 2007. Our financial standing is sound; our debt-level is zero; our support of missions is growing; we have scores of success stories about how the Gospel changes lives for the better. What are the measures of ministerial competence? Do ordained, M.Div. ministers literally exhibit greater competence than licensed ministers? The question can be answered -- statistics exist, and congregants can be surveyed -- but do we dare publish those numbers? The quality of interns might be measured by education, but the quality of doctors is measured by outcome. I salute and admire everyone who pursues ministerial training. I wish I had taken that path. But here in the real world, I don't have time for such regrets; I have a growing church to serve and a Gospel to preach! Call me licensed, commissioned or unqualified, but call the Elders before you change my assignment.
From: Shawn - Friday, July 31, 2009
My call is from God. It is not determined by a title or another college degree. I continue my studies willingly without worry about who is keeping track of them because I want to be the best Pastor to the community of which I serve. I do not understand how we can call on ourselves to be a movement of wholeness in a fragmented world when we do not recognized God's calling that is obvious. The resolution provides for steps, it provides for additional education as Ben Bohren points out below and it asks that accountability be set up for the alternative track. Most of the comments below state that we would not ordain Paul or the Disciples. Definetely not Timothy and Barnabas, nor the thousands of clergy that have served for the last two thousand years, nor the majority of clergy that served our denomination when it was growing instead of declining. I have faith that we can see the call of God through the fruits of the labor and I have faith that our judicatory leaders would be able to recognize that also. A title will not change my calling, but I will still be fragmented from those who refuse to look with me on the levelling field of Christ's work.
From: Rev. Jared Trullinger - Wednesday, July 29, 2009
I certainly agree with this comment from Ms. Denise Hamilton: "Pastors need additional training in seminary - not less!" However, I think that we might disagree on what is essential. I personally believe that there should be far more training in non-profit leadership (with some grant-writing, organizational theory, conflict resolution, and finance coursework), perspectives on religion through the social sciences (rather than just theology), etc. Despite my own affinity for polity and history, I think that more of the practical would be great for those seeking to serve churches. In other words, if someone doesn't know how to work with those whom they do not agree always, if someone doesn't know how to read and understand church and nonprofit financial reports and budgets, and if someone doesn't understand that there are reasons why people believe what they believe which have nothing to do with theology, he or she is not truly prepared for congregational leadership.
From: Denise Linam Hamilton, MDiv. - Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Many of our churches are dysfunctional family systems and ordaining persons who are not seminary trained is only going to make this worse. Pastors need additional training in seminary - not less! The church needs to deal with the real world, face real issues, and be a healthy church. Our Regions and our National level all too quickly “sweep things under the rug” rather than wrestle with difficult issues at the risk offending anyone. It is past time to define who we are as The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) even if that means we will upset some folks. Are we going to define ourselves as a denomination that ordains the non seminary trained clergy? We need to place boundaries on our inclusive acceptance of everyone. Just because one might find a way to get a square peg in a round hole does not make it a round peg. Those seeking ordination need to get the seminary training then they will be that round peg that fits in place. Please defeat Resolution 0922 Thank you.
From: Chris Carathers - Monday, July 27, 2009
I want to echo some things that I've already seen in response. I have been watching as our denomination has wrestled with this process in its formation. I know that people are concerned about standards and educational requirements. Yes, we do have a relatively easy ordination process (as opposed to our Episcopalian or Catholic friends) but it is also more difficult than some Church of Christ or Baptist traditions who simply pray over someone and they are then a minister. At the same time, I do think that this document falls short in that it doesn't address a fundamental issue of the costs associated with seminary nor the issue of what to do with people who can't uproot their families and lives to go to one of a couple a DOC schools. If we want the best trained and most gifted people in ministry then we should find ways to support them financially and otherwise in any seminary, not just DOC schools. I went to a non-DOC school and felt largely forgotten by my denomination b/c I wasn't going to Brite, LTS, or CTS. Either way, our declining numbers of seminary trained pastors has been an issue for many years already and we continue to fall behind in recruitment and support. I understand the need for a track such as Commissioned Ministers, but I think it needs to go hand in hand with a broader effort of support for all of our clergy both present and future.
From: PK - Monday, July 27, 2009
In a decade this will be meaningless!
From: Tracy Siegman - Monday, July 27, 2009
To Ben Bohren's comment: if 3/4 of DOC churches have 120 or less average worship attendance and may not be able to afford a seminary trained pastor but not all candidates seeking ordination will be approved for the alternative track, how does this resolution address the problem?
From: Peggy Stott - Sunday, July 26, 2009
This sound incredibly good! I look forward to more details and discussion.
From: Pat Glover - Sunday, July 26, 2009
Ben - One answer to your question “Who will serve these churches when many cannot now or will not be able in the future to adequately compensate a seminary trained pastor?” The self-fullfilling answer, based on the proposed resolution, is that ministers “ordained under an alternative track” will likely serve them. A possible corollary is that seminary trained pastors will meet other callings, and the dilution and decline of our franchise will continue. This resolution is a stop gap measure, and only extends the disappearance of a denomination which started out on the premise that there should not be denominations; Christians only. I believe we are answering the wrong question with this resolution. We should be building up seminary education and making it more accessible to those who have been called.
From: Ben Bohren - Friday, July 24, 2009
Please know you are welcome to the GCOM Resource Group at General Assembly, Friday, July 31 from 2:00-3:30 pm for further discussion and dialogue. Before this gathering, it is most helpful to have read the "Frequently Asked Questions" document which can be found at the end of the "Ordering" document itself.
From: Ben Bohren - Friday, July 24, 2009
I enter this discussion honoring the many opinions and statements below. Over the six years of development of the "Ordering" document, GCOM has seriously sought input from a very wide array of persons across the denomination. I came into this conversation as a member of GCOM three years ago and it has impressed me to see the way in which disagreeing and differing ideas have been carefully and prayerfully weighed-over 600 responses in the last year; each one has been considered. I offer a few comments hoping to guide conversation further. 1. Please read carefully the section on Commissioned Ministry and see that there are strong criteria to qualify for AT candidacy. 2. The 16 competency areas require AT LEAST 250 contact hours-additional reading and writing and study may be required. 3. If this document passes, GCOM will be working diligently with the whole church to establish guidelines for the curriculum of 16 competencies. 4. Anyone entering the AT track will be under the supervision of a Regional COM-just like a seminarian. 5. Candidates for ordination are EXPECTED to follow the seminary track. There is no guarantee that a person desiring the AT track will be granted that option. 6. Each Region is encouraged to offer an AT track which will give a solid foundation across the denomination for both AT and ST candidates for ordination- 16 competencies. We do not have that now in either licensed or ordained ministry. Seminary education varies widely as do expectations for licensing. 7. Over 3/4 of Disciples churches currently have an average worship attendance of 120 or less-nearly 1/2 have 60 or less. Who will serve these churches when many cannot now or will not be able in the future to adequately compensate a seminary trained pastor? Hopefully this document addresses this issue by encouraging the best trained pastors possible in a very rapidly changing landscape for ministry in our denomination and in our culture and society. Please know you are welcome
From: MIchael Davison - Friday, July 24, 2009
The change in language from licensed to commissioned is not my concern with this resolution. I am concerned that the rewrite moves Disciples away from the standard of the MDiv as a part of the journey of ordination. I am further concerned because the Nazareth document nor any of the Regional policies that are available on this topic do not mention any academic evaluation of those in an alternate track for ordination or those seeking commissioning and ordination. A move back to bi-vocational days does not mean those were our best days. Finally, because we ordain persons into Christian Ministry for persons in all times and in all places and not simply our brand of Christian witness, it should be harder rather than easier, even in this cultural context, to become ordained in Christian Ministry. As it stands right now it is easier to become an ordained minister in our denomination than it is in the Unitarian expression of faith. It also seems to me that this rewrite of the order makes what would have been exceptions in Regions now the norm. And finally, the rewrite of the order of ministry makes me wonder why any young person would go ahead and study for ministry via a college and seminary degree given the alternative track. I am concerned.
From: Rev. Jared Trullinger - Friday, July 24, 2009
Contiued from Prior Post: A shift back to the frontier days in which ministry was more bi-vocational and/or part-time certainly may be in our future. It would be nice, then, if our ordination policies reflect the realities of current trends in the denomination.
From: Rev. Jared Trullinger - Friday, July 24, 2009
I am sensing that some of the differences here may be Regional as well. I'm not sure with which DOC Regions all of the folks in this discussion are associated, but the Upper Midwest Region has a quite extensive Licensed Ministry Educational Program already in place. The rigors, in terms of reading and writing, are quite significant, and the students of the LMEP program read some of the same books that I did as an M.Div. student. It is my understanding that not every Region has an equivalent program, and therefore, may not have a frame of reference for how wonderful an alternate track to ordination could be. As far as the matter of ordination of GLBT persons, the 2008 Upper Midwest Regional Assembly voted 169-80 to respect the decisions of a congregation with regard to the gender identity and/or sexual orientation of a minister: http://uppermidwestcc.blogspot.com/2008/12/upper-midwest-changes-ministry-policy.html . The move seemed true to the Disciples' history of valuing congregrational polity. By comparison, the budget for the Region passed on a narrower margin later in the day, 76-69. Regarding women in the ministry, women have been instrumental to the region for years. I can't name the source off the top of my head, but I recall reading that our region elected a female moderator in the 1970s. Our GMP and some regional ministers are women. Sure, in a congregational system, there may be individuals or even entire congregations out there who are opposed to the ordination or ministerial service of women, but I would think that those voices certainly are in the minority. A larger issue, for me, is that I think the denomination needs to rethink its model for ministry altogether. Too many churches - for better or worse- try to hold onto the "good old days", when they easily could afford to support a full-time, seminary-trained clergyperson, and increasingly that may no longer be possible. A shift back to the frontier days in which ministry was more bi-voca
From: Joel M. Saucedo - Friday, July 24, 2009
The creation of new clergy has been the presumed focus of an alternative track to ordination, but the alternative track to ordination is also meant to strengthen and better educate Disciple of Christ Pastors who are already involved in church ministry. Without this resolution what are we as a church doing to further the education of licensed pastors who serve our churches? I find it disheartening to read comments that seem to portray the pulpit/ordination as an entitlement gained after a price has been paid. If this is the mentality that seminary produces then I believe we need to revisit the confidence placed on seminaries to prepare ministers. I have enjoyed the last three years of seminary and I find the education I have received invaluable towards the continued discernment of my calling. The wisdom that my professors have imparted has always denoted that seminary can not prepare you for everything involved in ministry. Now more than ever I find we have to become less so that Christ will become greater. These licensed pastors that serve our church have received only what has been given them from heaven. Support for this resolution means empowering these women and men in their continued ministry of a wealth not their own and paid for with a due none of us have paid.
From: Chaplain Bob Haskin - Friday, July 24, 2009
Thanks, Andrew. I've never been involved in a computerize comments line before, old as I am, but I guess I am involved this time. All I know is that our church in a major metropolitan area called a woman, who is a very intelligent and well read Licensed Minister. It took her several years to complete the program. She has been a leader in our region. All I know is that our region approved churches calling GLTB clergy, based on congregational choice. All I know is that my parent's DOC church in Nebraska has had a wonderful ordinated female pastor for years and years. Change is difficult and takes a long time. The truth is I think that seminary probably does provide the very best training, but there is no reason an alternate track toward ordination can't also provide good education and be an opportunity for strong Christians who want to serve, but have valid reasons for not attending seminary. This resolution calls for an "alternate" track toward ordination and not the "primary" ordination track. It shouldn't be the "primary" track. By the way, thank God, the D.O.C. allows all views to be put forth. There's a place for both points of view. I told my wife this morning "there's always two sides to every issue," and she reminded me there always "more" than one side, as in this case! Again,thanks for the feedback, Andrew.
From: Andrew Raker - Friday, July 24, 2009
Bob - if I had confidence that the alternate track would prepare ministers as well as you hope they would, then I might be willing to support this resolution. However, I feel, based on recent history, that it will not live up to its supporters selling points. We Disciples have been talking about talking about ordination of our LGBT members for at least a decade, and have gotten no where, except that we lose more and more bright minds to other denominations each year that our Commissions on Ministry refuse to recognize how God is working in the world. We are not providing the support that ministers in congregational settings need, which is why too many are getting burnt out too early. Congregations are not calling qualified ministers because they are women. If we, as a church, are not even working towards these problems, how are we going to be able to make the alternate track work?
From: Chaplain Bob Haskin - Friday, July 24, 2009
Thanks, Ron, for the comeback. Here is mine. Last night I watched a video on the Disciples web site describing our denomination as a fast growing, vibrant, and multi-cultural organization. Then this morning, I woke up thinking about the film, Nine to Five. It was the Lilly Tomlin character who had "apprenticed" at the company for years, as JUST a secretary. She knew everything, all the ins and outs, could handle seven phone calls at once, and who had natural gifts to be a leader. And it was she who helped the company become "multicultural, vibrant and growing,"--not the new MBA graduates. There appear to be lots of strong feelings here from those who went the seminary track, but I still think that an alternate ordaination track could allow our denomination to allow create the kind of denomination revealed in that video--a multicultura, growingl and vibrant denomination, just like the Lilly Tomling charcter created when she ran the show in Nine to Five. Ron, I appreciate where you are coming from, and I apologize for using the terminology of dues paying, and in no sense am putting down an M.Div. I am a life term learner. I agree M.Div. graduates have more than paid their dues and make outstanding ministers. However, if the alternate track really has a solid curriculum, good supervision, and continuing education, the Disciples of Christ could allow appropriate and selected Disciples to have a chance to become ordained ministers. That track could allow the denomination to live out what is described in the video on our website. Ordination is more than a degree.
From: Ron Sumter - Friday, July 24, 2009
Paying dues! Were I a professional counselor, yes, a PhD would be my dues! I am, however, an ORDAINED clergyperson and I paid my dues, an M.Div. Were I an educator...a financial analyist.....
From: Chaplain Bob Haskin - Thursday, July 23, 2009
A lot of assumptions are flying around in these comments. The false assumption that is toughest to take, as a Licensed Minister, is that only seminary students "pay their dues" and sacrifice. Licensed Ministers may in fact sacrifice a lot also. People put extra burdens on themselves and their families to become Licensed Ministers. For example, after already having an M.A. and Ph.D. in counseling fields and 33 years of work experience, I "paid my dues" by undergoing an extensive Licensed Ministry Education program in my mid-50's, leaving less time for work and family. I paid my dues while I completed two extended units of CPE during the day, even though I was holding down a full-time job and a church visitation job. I paid my dues by completely leaving my good-paying career and entering the parish ministry as the sole minister at a D.O.C. church 90 miles from my home, putting stress on my wife and me. Frankly, my wife had to take a higher-paying job so we could make it financially. I paid my dues by after the parish ministry, by completing a full-time chaplain residency and over the past ten years continuing to take continuous distance learning coursework and doing extensive reading n theology and ministry, all which is generally equivalent to an M.Di.v., but sitll not "enough" for ordination. I provide these specifics to contradict the idea of "dues paying" as solely the private realm of seminary graudates, who I actually respect a lot. However, I ask everyone: aren't we all in the same boat together, all "paying our dues" and sacrificing together--seminary-trained and alternately trained ministers alike? Shouldn't we all have a way to be "ordained" by all striving to have, as Carolyn Higginbotham states, "competencies in 16 areas." Both tracks represent sacrifices and "dues paying," depending on the age, the situation,and other issues of the individual.
From: Joel M. Saucedo - Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Experience has proven that contemporary seminary education does not guarantee the ordination of called, qualified, spirit-led, effective candidates for ministry. Some of our current, gifted, effective, pastors who have been called to ministry lack the seminary track qualifications for current ordination standards. Defeat of this business item will not help them or the church and its need to become equality focused. We need to utilize education as strengthening agent for ministry and not as exclusivist agenda-driven attempt to form a church based on privileged standards. We are a church who believes in the priesthood of all believers! It’s time we act like it. Seminary level education for non seminary tract ordination is already a reality at some of our institutions. It just needs to be strengthened and sanctioned. We should not fear a perceived fundamentalism from non-seminary tract ordination, but we should fear the limiting of God’s calling by requirements that serve to maintain a status quo. There is a growth in our church that has not been met with adequate intentions to empower it. This resolution is a step in the right direction.
From: Joel M. Saucedo - Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Experience has proven that contemporary seminary education does not guarantee the ordination of called, qualified, spirit-led, effective candidates for ministry. Some of our current, gifted, effective, pastors who have been called to ministry lack the seminary track qualifications for current ordination standards. Defeat of this business item will not help them or the church and its need to become equality focused. We need to utilize education as strengthening agent for ministry and not as exclusivist agenda-driven attempt to form a church based on privileged standards. We are a church who believes in the priesthood of all believers! It’s time we act like it. Seminary level education for non seminary tract ordination is already a reality at some of our institutions. It just needs to be strengthened and sanctioned. We should not fear a perceived fundamentalism from non-seminary tract ordination, but we should fear the limiting of God’s calling by requirements that serve to maintain a status quo. There is a growth in our church that has not been met with adequate intentions to empower it. This resolution is a step in the right direction.
From: Carolyn Higginbotham - Wednesday, July 22, 2009
I appreciate the concern that has been expressed about the impact of the proposed revisions on the qualifications and preparation of future ministers, but I’d like to suggest another way that we might think about this within a broader context. The proposed revisions can be seen as representing a shift from a degree program-based approach to educational preparation (emphasizing the completion of a set of courses) to an outcomes-based approach, in line with current trends in higher education. If the resolution is approved all candidates for ordination will be expected to demonstrate competence in each and every one of the sixteen competency areas, including candidates completing the apprentice track. The revised text clarifies the right of the Church to expect more than just an academic degree as evidence of adequate preparation; candidates must also demonstrate to the satisfaction of their Regional commission/committee on ministry that they have knowledge and skill in  Biblical Knowledge;  Church Administration and Planning;  Communication;  Cross Cultural and Anti-Racism Experience;  Ecumenism;  Education and Leader Development;  Ethics;  Evangelism;  Mission of the Church in the World;  Pastoral Care;  Proclamation of the Word;  Spiritual Development;  Stewardship;  Theology;  Understanding of Heritage;  and Worship. That’s a lot more specific that the current policy (which can be found on the DHM website at http://www.discipleshomemissions.org/Ministers/MinistryGuidelines/Order1.htm) which lists only “an understanding of the Christian faith, the Bible, the church, the history and polity of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the world in theological perspective, and the Christian mission.” Thus, if we think in terms of outcomes, the goal and expectation is that candidates for ministry achieve a common standard in terms of knowledge and skills. The revised policy proposes that we consider multiple educatio
From: Samuel Simon - Tuesday, July 21, 2009
While recognizing that there are people who are called into ministry, but for whom seminary is not an optional choice, but whose gifts are such that ordination should be extended, I have a very real problem on the whole of ordaining people who do not go through the discipline of seminary. If a person can be granted ordination without seminary, what's the point of going? Along with many other clergy, I paid my educational dues requijred for ordination, and I have a problem granting ordination to those who don't.
From: Andrew Raker - Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Also, after reading the document, I have a question. The paragraph in lines 803-805 seems to suggest that the AT would be open to those who do not have a Bachelor's degree. The only requirement is "some post-secondary" work, not a degree.
From: Andrew Raker - Tuesday, July 21, 2009
This resolution is misguided in its attempts to solve the problems facing the CC(DOC). We should instead be looking at ways to make a M.Div. more affordable to those who have a call to ministry. (And, to those who say that seminary is unaffordable, I can say that my M.Div. was quite affordable, thanks to the generous support of my fellow Disciples., and I know recent CTS students who had a full ride AND a stipend.) Finally, we have many qualified M.Divs. in the denomination who are unable to find a church because of their gender and/or their sexual orientation. Rather than honestly grappling with how we can make education, which is so central to what it means to be a Disciple, more accessible to all, and with how we, as a church, can be receptive to all those who God has called to ministry in God's church, this resolution offers an easy-out. I cannot, in good conscience, support a resolution that leaves so many problems unaddressed.
From: Richard Spellman - Monday, July 20, 2009
Resolution 0922 is a challenging one. It is really a call to the CC(DC) to rethink its reason for existence. It beckons us to examine who we are and how ably  we proclaim the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. The issues that 0922 raise are not new in our history. Just 200 years ago Thomas Campbell dealt with them in his Declaration and Address. I encourage each of you to read them again before you vote on 0922.Barton Stone desired that we sink into union with the greater body of Christ. BUT, he always wanted to be true to the teachings of Holy Scripture. The Campbells agreed. Thus, our creed was only “No creed, but Christ." Persons came apart of His Church by accepting Jesus Christ as their only Lord and Savior!” Our theology developed in to “ Christ is the only Savior, no book, but the Bible, and no name but the Divine. “Alexander Campbell wanted new Christians to be grounded in Bible; so he started a Bible Study Group. I was amazed to learn that with all this scholastic study that the Movement did not grow. It was Walter Scott’s 5 Finger Exercise that caused persons to understand the Gospel and then the Movement surged forward.As we journey back in history to Martin Luther’s day that we hear the phrase, “priesthood of all believers.” Where and how does this concept fit into the “theological naming” picture?Our basic “naming” guidance should come from the New Testament beginning with our Lord Jesus and the original 12-Apostles or Disciples. When we move into Acts and the Apostle Paul’s letters,   specific names begin to emerge i.e. deacons and elders…teachers…evangelists…preachers…Note the medical profession. All doctors have a basic medical degree. Some have studied more in a special area but all seek to heal the patient. Let the Church take seriously its mission and “train” each and every person in the basics of our faith in Jesus. This "basis training" may lead to specialized training to share our Lord's Gospel. But are those wiith "higher degrees" of training an
From: Chaplain Bob Haskin - Monday, July 20, 2009
One last note for Ron. It's easy to say, let's dispnse with "Pastor" and other designations like "ordained" when you HAVE such a designation. But it's not so easy when you can't say you are "ordinained" when working among Lutherans and Catholics,when to them ordination is a very big deal. I recongize there are always more than two sides to the story, but that is one of the sides.
From: Chaplain Bob Haskin - Monday, July 20, 2009
Thanks, Pat Glover, for responding. I agree with you in much of what you say, but still would like to see an alternate ordination track for ordination. (In my mid-fifties and with two graduate degrees, I went with the LMEP, was a parish minister for a while, continued to take theological coursework and six units of CPE, and have been a chaplain for six years. I feel I am "ordainable" in my knowledge base and experience, but without a a full seminary, I am still a "Licensed Minister." I know someone who started seminary when she was my age and she thinks she is going to be paying off educational loans AFTER she has retired.) Michael Swartzentruber summed it up well: "The trust of my concern is to make congregational ministry, in various capacities, a real possibility for those who are unable to afford a traditional MDiv....but with similar rigor demanded by seminaries (ideally anyway)." As Groucho Marx might say, "Thank you Michael Swartzentruber, wherever you are!" You know what is most needed for the Disciples of Christ today! Our denominatoin believes in many ways: "There is more than one road to the same destination." Let's put it into practice by adopting this resolution!
From: Michael Swartzentruber - Monday, July 20, 2009
The discussion below has been helpful for me to gain a sense of the issues at play. While I am sure there are other unmentioned issues lurking, I am basically in favor of "opening up" ministry for those who do not pursue formal seminary training. The thrust of my concern is to make congregational ministry, in various capacities, a real possibility for those who are unable to afford a traditional MDiv. Yet, the rigor and commitment demanded by seminaries (ideally anyway) needs to have an appropriate analog in the apprentice track. If that condition is satisfied, then I would be in full favor of this measure. How strongly do we feel that this condition could be satisfied with the current proposal?
From: Rev. Jared Trullinger - Monday, July 20, 2009
I understand your point with regard to higher education, Dr. Sumter. Believe me, as a Ph.D. candidate in higher education administration and someone who is employed by a public institution of higher learning, I sincerely value further education, not only in areas of professional training, but also for the esoteric pursuit of knowledge and understanding. By the same token, however, judges and sheriffs in some states are elected to their positions. Those sheriffs may not hold bachelor's degrees in criminal justice, any sort of higher education background, or even, in some cases, any sort of police academy/law enforcement training. Certainly, there also have been elected county judges without J.D. degrees. In both instances, those individuals are referred to as "sheriff" and "justice of the peace", even though they may not have the higher education credentials which typically correlate with such positions. Granted, "ordination" would carry with it a more permanent professional designation, though - as we know - standing is annually under review for everyone.
From: Ron Sumter - Monday, July 20, 2009
A moniker that is attached to a clergy person's name is not our issue. Neither the word of God, nor the compassion with which is administered is in anyone's cross hairs at our assembly, at least I hope not. And yet what do "cpa, dds, gyn ob" tell us about certain professions? Aside from graduate school knowledge and the expense and sacrifice to attain it, any "called" Christian can minister in Christ's service, so should we dispense with all titles save "pastor," or "minister?" This may well fly, but as I survey the terrain of today's vocations, I doubt it. I hope I am not perceived as calloused to the wonderful work licensed clergy are doing. Yes, many are more passionate, and dedicated than those who possess theological school degrees and their insights are valuable, but I still think a seminary experience is a source of inestimable knowledge and wisdom.
From: Brad Edwards - Sunday, July 19, 2009
Too bad our open and diverse belief system doesn't apply to those men and women who have dedicated their lives to the call of ministry as licensed pastors. I, too, have wonderful memories of spiritual discussions and studies with classmates preparing for ministry...but in my case, it's licensed ministry.
From: Rev. Jared Trullinger - Sunday, July 19, 2009
I'm intrigued by the fact that several have cited that they could not imagine ministry preparation without the M.Div. and the seminary experience. While I appreciate the opportunities which were afforded me in a divinity school education, in no way could I ever argue that the M.Div. track is the only way which someone could prepare for ordained ministry. I've said it once, and I'll say it once again...Several of my licensed minister friends and colleagues in this region have far greater gifts for parish ministry than I and would be far more deserving of the title "ordained minister".
From: James Rappleye - Sunday, July 19, 2009
While I agree with the intent and most of the reasoning of this resolution, I object to assigning different titles ( AT or ST ) to the title of ordained clergy. It seems to me that this leads to seperate classes of ordained clergy. If one is worthy of ordination I do not believe any further classifaction is necessary and is reminiscent of the "seperate but equal" tried and failed policies of the past.
From: Ronald Sumter - Sunday, July 19, 2009
Now retired, I still cherish the days and nights of seminary study, exploration with peers, and the stimulation of lectures that prepared me for my ministerial calling. Building on that academic/spiritual basis has been the staple of my career. I can not imagine how I could have done ministry without this shaping of my thinking and spiritual prep. Please do not take from our ministerial vocations the edu. stepping stone of a theological education. The Catholic Church is experiencing a crisis of vocations to the priesthood and a prayer is offered at most masses for more to be called to this sacred life. Let us, too, pray before we omit a time of degreed theological exploration.
From: Pat Glover - Sunday, July 19, 2009
Bob, of course there are differences from M.Div to M.Div. Not everyone can graduate at the top of the class; neither is everyone else at the bottom. Likewise, some near the "academic bottom" can still make valuable contributions in their area of ministry. Like siblings, even two “raised” in the same household/seminary will produce different results. But please tell me the seminaries are accredited. We have to have some standards! I suppose at less than 5 months from 60, I now fall into the old fogey category, and exemplify every generation which complains about the failings and weakening of the standards of the generations that follow them. I’m sure there are many individual examples of individuals without M.Div’s who do excellent work in their service to God’s people. But can’t they do that without changes to ordination? I read with interest the subsequent postings on Lexington’s innovations, but it sounds like it has a way to go. It would seem to me that focusing on getting such programs off the ground, and finding ways to subsidize any necessary travel expenses for those to whom the required travel would be a hardship, is the way to go. Keep ordination a distinctive designation.
From: Rev. Jared Trullinger - Saturday, July 18, 2009
This is great work in innovation on Lexington Theological Seminary's part: http://www.lextheo.edu/reinvention/ . It's about time, but as the video below discusses, trips to Lexington - though easier than relocation - will be required. Flights across the country from, say, Washington and Oregon still would be quite expensive. I'd like to see the ATS completely change their stance on the M.Div. to allow fully online education. Still, this LTS proposal is a start. Another place in which ATS institutions have limited themselves financially is by requiring 3 years of field experience for admission to the D.Min. Sure, I understand that the there are both philosophical and practical reasons for delaying the pursuit of the D.Min., but has it hurt the seminaries financially to delay progression toward the terminal professional degree in theology? Regardless, let us commend LTS for trying to be part of the solution. Dr. Sumney's discussion was intriguing to me, though. I like the movement toward less focus on grades. What particularly intrigued me though was that Prof. Sumney said: "Grades will obviously have to play a role in any serious curriculum...". It was my understanding from a conversation that I had with an LTS grad that there was a point in time in the 1970s when LTS did not give grades. I can't say for certain, though. I wasn't alive in the 1970s, nor have I seen any LTS transcripts from that time period. As one in the field of education, I generally would prefer some measure of mastery to grades anyway. Lankmark qualitative research on preoccupation of grades amongst University of Kansas students was published over 40 years ago by Becker, Greer, and Hughes in "Making the Grade: The Academic Side of College Life" (1968). The researchers made a pretty compelling case for the abolishment of traditional letter grading and GPA calculation.
From: Chaplain Bob Haskin - Saturday, July 18, 2009
Rev. Ev., that is wonderful to hear. I hope LTS will work with those who want an M.Div., and also with people who have completed a Licensed Minister Education Program and give them credit for previous education and experience. I also hope LTS cooperates , supports, and give seducational opportunities to people in the proposed apprenticeship ordination program. This on-line program means the denomination is entering the twenty first century by using available technology. Now that is "Good News" for the spreaders of Good News!
From: Rev. Ev - Saturday, July 18, 2009
LTS will be online for an ATS approved M. Div in Fall 2010. www.lextheo.edu
From: Chaplain Bob Haskin - Friday, July 17, 2009
As well as a Licensed Minister and chaplain, I am also a Licensed Professional Counselor, licensed in my state. There are now on-line programs for regionally accredited master's degrees in counseling, including mental health counseling leading to licensure. That was unheard of when I received my M.A. in counseling in 1972. Then I received a Ph.D. by distance learning, followed by the LMEP, a distance learning M.Div. (not ATS approved) and six units of CPE. Frankly, some people, including myself, learn best by individual study and "apprenticeship" which is really what CPE is. Again, I think the Resolution which calls for an apprenticeship program leading toward ordination could be a strong educational option for some people, if designed well. This in no sense diminishes what a good seminary education can do. I am just saying the alternative ordination training being proposed doesn't have to be "Mickie Mouse" school for "Ministerial Wannabees."
From: Rev. jared Trullinger - Friday, July 17, 2009
I'd be on board for the denomination as a whole pushing for fully online, Association of Theological Schools (ATS) accredited M.Div. programs. However, for that to happen, the ATS would have to CHANGE its standards. Keep in mind that the ATS does not just represent Disciples' institutions but an entire professional discipline, 231 different schools, and a host of different religious expressions: http://www.ats.edu/Pages/default.aspx . Again, if nurses, teachers, engineers, and enivronmental specialists can be trained through online coursework and degree programs, why can't ministers?
From: Keith Lewis - Friday, July 17, 2009
I am a PK....AND a Licensed Minister for 12 years....having a clear protocol for the denomination is great...spell it out...abide by it...somehow I think that this issue will continually need revising just to stay current with the times... in 25 years will this matter? That is the question to ask. Ministry begins with a "higher calling"...where it goes from there...we don't get to make the ultimate decision do we?
From: Chaplain Bob Haskin - Friday, July 17, 2009
Pat, isn't there actually an uneven hodgepodge cardre of ministry, even from those with M.Div.'s? Further comparing the very specific scientific requirements for PA's, CNPs and physicians with the requirements for ministers is not comparing apples to apples. Along with knowledge about theology and pastoral care, ministers also need some "spiritual gifts," which can't necessarily be given in the academy. As someone who has worked with the medical community for over 35 years, first as a counselor and now a chaplain, I have an example. Some of the best chaplains I have seen are a former nurse and a former physical therapist who went through "alternative" theological programs, not an M.Div. program, and then "apprenticed in CPE residencies to become chaplains. Further, someone referred to crafts. Actually many of the crafts train people through an apprenticeship program, just as is being proposed here. All I can say is that the Licensed Ministry Education Program in our region, which often takes three years to complete, has produced some very good people. I noticed that one of the people on the committee who came up with the Resolution is a former regional minister whose church called a Licensed Minister. He saw what talent a Licensed Minister could provide for his own church. Think about it.
From: Pat Glover - Friday, July 17, 2009
We have a shortage of physicians in our area. When I make an appointment, there are some ailments for which I am perfectly happy seeing a Physician’s Assistant, or a Certified Nurse Practitioner. They can meet ordinary needs on ordinary days. There are other times when I really need to see an M.D., or even a specialist. I think it’s also important to keep professional designations for our spiritual healers clear and undiluted so that I can make that choice as well. To continue the analogy, the proposal under consideration also does not even appear to rise to the level of PAs or CNPs. If there are no stipulated criteria to qualify for the alternative track and it is left to different regions to make those decisions, I see a hodgepodge cadre providing uneven leadership. I agree with Bill Dorman. This proposal does not provide clarity of choice in leadership, or a path to excellence in ministerial leadership. I haven’t seen any response to the counter-proposal to providing innovative seminary education as a means to maintaining a high level of ordained ministry. What about the suggestions for web-based learning; distance learning; satellite seminaries? Re-think the alternatives before approving this proposal, please.
From: Tracy Siegman - Thursday, July 16, 2009
I have to agree with Rev. Dorman - this resolution needs study by the local church. I know of two elders at two separate churches in two different states that had no idea this item is on the business docket. This resolution affects local congregations unlike other items on the docket and many voting delegates are coming unaware of how their congregation would vote on this issue. I am concerned this resolution will be primarily decided upon by ministers (ordained and licensed) and may not represent the opinion of the local church.
From: Chaplain Bob Haskin - Thursday, July 16, 2009
Someone referred to "250 hours" of education for commissioned minister trainees in this proposal. I reviewed the full Resolution No. 0922 and it notes "at least" 250 hours; however, that implies that someone studies for 250 hours and then "boom" he or she is ordained, which is completely incorrect. The proposal calls for commissioned ministers studying equivalent areas of study as seminary students. Further, this proposal is not going to stop people from going to seminary. It just is an alternate route for appropriate people and appropriate situations. This is a well thought out Resolution!
From: Kristy Ehlert - Thursday, July 16, 2009
My apologies, the proper designation for the PC-USA is Commissioned Lay pastor.
From: Kristy Ehlert - Thursday, July 16, 2009
The Presbyterian Church (USA) ordains not only Ministers of Word and Sacrament, but Elders, Deacons, and Certified Lay Pastors (CLPs). Ordaining sets these people apart, not as better than others, but for a specific ministry. Certified lay pastors provide valuable and authentic minstries and yet the seperate title allows clear communication about the path in which they have been prepared for the ministry to which they are called.
From: Chaplain Bob Haskin - Thursday, July 16, 2009
By the way, the United Methodists also have a non-seminary track for orindation too. Also, I looked for on-line seminary coursework a few years back. After completing the Licensed Minister Education Program (LMEP)of our region in my mid-50's, I looked for on-line M.Div. programs, and the only ones were not approved by ATS, so I completed a very good non-ATS-approved M.Div., but it does not allow me to be officially ordinaed. I chose that route because of my age, a few health issues, and the incredible expense of seminary I am glad of the choices I made. In the CPE courses with seminarians, I was alway able to keep up with theological discussions. For me, the Licensed Minister Education Program and further study was a good preparation for ministry.
From: Rev. Jared Trullinger - Thursday, July 16, 2009
Continuation of Prior Comments: With regard to the community aspect, people in online programs could have scheduled retreats with others who are pursuing such online programs to discuss coursework, create a sense of "community", and offer the metacognitive environment which I believe is the driving assumption of the ATS standards. In fact, the adragogical capabilities of online learning environments often are better for the non-traditional student audience, who continues to dominate seminary/divinity school enrollment. If the seminaries/divinity schools really are concerned about alternate tracks to ordination, they should be doing something about online education and pushing the ATS to adapt their policies to the 21st century. Of courses, all of this assumes that our seminaries are not pushing the ATS toward online M.Div. programs. So, if I am wrong about that assumption, I invite our seminary/divinity school faculty and administrations to correct me. Otherwise, I continue to encourage delegates to vote for this measure which allows alternate ordination tracks.
From: Rev. Jared Trullinger - Thursday, July 16, 2009
I had heard that there was some sort of language requiring at least one year of an M.Div. to be done on site, and here it is from the ATS Degre Program Standards: "A.3.2 Location A.3.2.1 MDiv education has a complex goal: the personal, vocational, spiritual, and academic formation of the student. Because of the importance of a comprehensive community of learning, the MDiv cannot be viewed simply as an accumulation of courses or of individual independent work. In order to ensure an appropriate educational community, at least one year of full-time academic study or its equivalent shall be completed at the main campus of the school awarding the degree or at an extension site of the institution that has been approved for MDiv degree-granting status. A.3.2.2 If requirements can be completed in extension centers or by means of distance learning, the institution must be able to demonstrate how the community of learning, education for skills particular to this degree, and formational elements of the program are made available to students." (Retrieved from http://www.ats.edu/Accrediting/Documents/08DegreeStandards.pdf ) It is precisely this kind of backward thinking - that online education is somehow inferior and that there is no way to design a comprehensive online track with a logical progression toward the M.Div. - which really needs to end. Honestly, an online program could be more structured and require students to progress in a specific sequence, unlike on-campus M.Div. programs in which many classes have limited or no prerequisites and there are very little requirements for sequencing of courses. From my experience in my Ph.D. coursework, which included online, hybrid, and face-to-face coursework, online and hybrid coursework generally is as rigorous, if not more rigorous, compared to what happens solely in the classroom. People can't "space off" the same way in asynchronous online discussions like they can in face-to-face lectures. With regard to
From: Rev. Jared Trullinger - Thursday, July 16, 2009
Thanks for the insight, Jonathan, regarding our Episcopalian brothers and sisters. I wonder, though, how much the ATS institutions themselves are part of the problem with regard to their financial circumstances. In a day and age in which there is greater and greater movement toward online education, where are the ATS institutions? Harvard and Columbia offer degrees online. Several Big 10 and Big 12 universities (e.g. Penn State, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas State, Texas Tech...) offer both undergraduate and graduate degrees online. These are prestigious schools, or at least institutions in the upper tiers. TCU, Midway, and Drury - to name a few Disciples higher education institutions - offer online degrees. Online programs also have expanded beyond just the humanities and education into fields like engineering, sustainability, and even nursing. If education, engineering, and nursing of all things can be done online, why not theology? Where is the ATS as a whole with fully online M.Div. degrees? Where are the Disciples seminaries/divinity schools with regard to online M.Div. degrees?
From: Rev. William E. Dorman - Wednesday, July 15, 2009
A word about the process by which this document was requested, drafted. reviewed, discussed, and adopted. GCOM circulated Draft 9.5 to General Ministries Presidents, Commissions/Committees on Ministry through Regional Ministers, Council on Theological Education and the Standing Committee on Renewal and Structural Reform for comment by January 30, 2009. I attend my church, read my church's newsletter, read my Area Minister's communications, subscribe to "Disciples World," and attend our Area Assemblies. Our Elders have not studied and discussed this document. I have not seen any publicity of a forum where this document could be studied and discussed. It seems that a wider circle of conversation would enrich the dialogue, and perhaps spark creative and imaginative ideas!
From: Rev. William E. Dorman - Wednesday, July 15, 2009
While supporting the language of “Commissioned,” I object is to the "alternative track" to Ordination, a 250 hour "track”-32 8 hour days! There is a huge under-statement in the document --declining ordained ministers, and dwindling congregations. This document’s answer to these two realities is to create an "alternative track" to ordination. Other faith groups are facing our dilemma: Roman Catholics, Presbyterians USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the United Methodists, and the Episcopalians, who maintain the requirements for ordination, while creating assistant and associate roles. If someone desires ordination, how about satellite seminaries, distance learning, web-based learning?, or providing financial assistance that fully underwrites seminary? The document lacks compelling reasons that would necessitate the "Commissioned" minister to seek ordination via the "alternative track,” since the "Commissioned" minister (non-ordained" is authorized to perform all ordained minister duties and roles, without any supervision or oversight! Our communion, and our ecumenical partners, understands that ordination identifies a person who has attended seminary, moved through the ordination process, and is in good standing. The "Commissioned Minister" role provides an adequate pathway to ministry, while at the same time making available ministerial leadership to congregations. In all these instances, "Ordination" maintains its distinctive meaning. I advocate reserving the term "Ordained Minister" for those clergy who have completed seminary, the M.Div. degree. Other professions, crafts, and trades face a similar demand for trained individuals, and have created “associate,” “mid-level,” or “assistant” roles while maintaining the lead role or identity. Ministry is not unique in this challenge. I seek excellent ministerial leadership and care for congregations. I seek ways for those who wish to serve the people of God to have such op
From: Rev. Ev - Wednesday, July 15, 2009
I dont think we need an additional track. This is like me wanting to be a doctor and going to a hospital and telling that I should be a doctor but forgo medical school. PLEASE make a resolution to unify the regions in their requirements of ordination. For those who cant move their family wait until LTS starts their online program and get a degree from the comfort of your home. http://www.lextheo.edu/reinvention/
From: Rev. William E. Dorman - Wednesday, July 15, 2009
While supporting the language of “Commissioned,” my objection is to the "alternative track" to Ordination, a 250 hour "track," which is 32 8 hour days! There is a huge under-statement in the document --declining ordained ministers, and dwindling congregations. This document’s answer to these two realities is to create an "alternative track" to ordination. Other faith groups are facing our dilemma: Roman Catholics, Presbyterians USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the United Methodists, as well as the Episcopalians, all of whom maintain the requirements for ordination, while creating other roles and positions to assist and cooperate in ministry. If someone desires ordination, what consideration has been given to alternative seminary settings (satellite seminaries, distance learning, web-based learning?), or providing financial assistance so that persons may acquire a seminary education at little or not cost? The document lacks compelling reasons that would necessitate the "Commissioned" minister to seek ordination via the "alternative track,” since the "Commissioned" minister (non-ordained" is authorized to perform all ordained minister duties and roles, without any supervision or oversight. Our communion, and others of our ecumenical partners, understands that ordination typically indicates a person who has attended seminary, who has moved through the existing ordination process, and is in good standing. The "Commissioned Minister" role provides an adequate pathway to ministry to those who are responding to God's call to serve, while at the same time making available ministerial leadership to congregations. In all these instances, "Ordination" maintains its distinctive meaning. I advocate reserving the term "Ordained Minister" for those clergy who have completed seminary, the M.Div. degree. Other professions, crafts, and trades face a similar demand for trained individuals, with each maintaining the lead role, while creati
From: Rev. William E. Dorman - Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Initial Thoughts Regarding the Proposed Changes to the Ordering of Ministry From Rev. William E. Dorman, D.Min. Ordained Minister, Disciples of Christ Theological Foundations and Policies and Criteria for the Ordering of Ministry of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) NO. 0922 (OPERATIONAL BUSINESS ITEM) Theological Foundations and Policies and Criteria for the Ordering of Ministry of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Last week, I had my attention called to this pending Business Item, scheduled to come before the 2009 General Assembly. What caught my eye in particular is the discussion of the categories of "Commissioned non-ordained,” the "Commissioned Ordained," and the "Ordained." (Please refer to the attached Adobe document for the full text of the Business Item.) While the change from "Licensed" to "Commissioned" makes sense, and is a term used by many faith groups, my questions arise around the "alternative track" to Ordination, by which a "Commissioned Minister" make request admission to the "alternative track" for Ordination. This "alternative track" is in lieu of the M.Div. degree, and entails 250 hours of study. Each Region would establish this "alternative track," and how it is managed and implemented. Here are some of my initial thoughts. The document states that it is theological at its root, and devotes much of its content to discussing Campbell and Stone's approach to the ministry, particularly the ordained ministry. In addition, there is a succinct review of the history of the Disciples with regard to the "licensed" and ordained ministry. What I find understated is the sociological component of the current situation facing the Disciples: declining ordained ministers, and dwindling congregations. The combination of these factors raises the question: "How will the Disciples provide ministers and ministerial leadership in the foreseeable future?" This document provides an answer to that pressing ques
From: Jonathon Moyers - Wednesday, July 15, 2009
I offer this comment in correction to Joel Walkley. The Episcopal Church in the United States of America has a non M.Div. track to ordination, and thus should not be on the list of M.Div. requiring communions. However, I will say, for the benefit of my DOC brethren (in whose number I do not stand), that the non-MDiv track has become a laughing stock in the Episcopal Church. Proceed cautiously... it is interesting that our sudden jettisoning of academic standards and the importance placed upon academic work has come at a time of such economic despair. Our seminaries are in trouble, our parishes are in trouble, so now we do not value academic formation for the clergy. Jonathon Moyers Lexington Theological Seminary
From: Jonathon Moyers - Wednesday, July 15, 2009
I offer this comment in correction to Joel Walkley. The Episcopal Church in the United States of America has a non M.Div. track to ordination, and thus should not be on the list of M.Div. requiring communions. However, I will say, for the benefit of my DOC brethren (in whose number I do not stand), that the non-MDiv track has become a laughing stock in the Episcopal Church. Proceed cautiously... it is interesting that our sudden jettisoning of academic standards and the importance placed upon academic work has come at a time of such economic despair. Our seminaries are in trouble, our parishes are in trouble, so now we do not value academic formation for the clergy. Jonathon Moyers Lexington Theological Seminary
From: Chaplain Bob Haskin - Wednesday, July 15, 2009
I agree with both Elizabeth and Jared. As a D.O.C. chaplain in an overwhelmingly Lutheran and Catholic area, I have come more and more to believe in and hope for Christian unity in the form of understanding of all points of view. This is why I strongly believe in the concept of "conversational theology" among all Christians. It has been an incredibly eye-opening experience to work as a chaplain with many different denomination and to see that notions of what "conservative" and "liberal" Christians are like are often quite wrong. As a moderate-to-liberal person myself (yes a Licensed Minister can be liberal...), I have found that some of the most loving and open-minded Christians consider themselves "conservative," and some of the most opinionated and "one-way-or the highway" Christians consider themselves liberal. Yet, obviously, the opposite is often true. The wonderful thing about our denomination is our willingness to listen to the other side, and to include into the fold everyone who is a "disciple," a learner, a listener, a life-long student, who konws he or she will never learn it all. That's how Presidents "liberal" Johnson and "conservative" Regan could both have a Disciples background. And that's how academically trained "ordained" ministers and how apprenticeship- program "ordained" minister can all add to the Christian faith. Both have gifts to give. Both have powerful ministries to offer, if they are properly selected, trained, and overseen. Amen.
From: Rev. Jared Trullinger - Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Great comments, Elizabeth. What you describe is precisely why a rather vocal minority of us harbour disdain for the "Sense of the Assembly" resolutions. Such resolutions do more to divide than unite. Honestly, I probably am more theologically liberal than just about anyone in the denomination (as theologians like John Hick and John Spong seem conservative to me at times), but S-o-t-A resolutions drive me nuts. I'm for unity, and given some run-ins with Disciples Heritage Fellowship, Christian unity - and more specifically Disiples unity - has become the single most important vocational calling for me. At our core, as long as one is willing to welcome those who believe both similarly and differently from himself/herself under the umbrella called the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Disciples of Christ can be an appropriate expression of faith.
From: Elizabeth Hellwege - Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Founders of the Disciples movement developed their notions of ministry out of their disdain for formal clergy, their distrust of authority and their firm belief in the concept of congregational freedom. From the authority received through Christ, each congregation was empowered to ordain and employ persons for pastoral leadership. The office of ministry in a Christian Congregation rested primarily in the eldership, a select body of upright men ordained to preside over the life of the church, to exercise pastoral oversight to teach the word of God, to maintain discipline, to minister oat the table and to set an example to the flock. All members are "ministers" entitled to interpret the scriptures and perform church functions. (taken from http://www.discipleshomemissions.org/Evangelism/WhatDisciplesBelieve.htm) I find it disturbing that there is so much chatter about this new track possibly leading to more conservatives. Are we, as Disciples of Christ not all called to discern scripture? Do we not declare ourselves open and welcoming? As a conservative on many issues political and some spiritual/biblical subject matter, I once again feel the push that there is no place for "my kind" here amongts the DOC. I do believe if we actually believe there is a priesthood of all believers, maybe we should actually live it and stop worrying so much about people that think differently than we do. It seems different thinking would be the result of such an open doctrine. I have to wonder if all the resolutions and declarations we make only work to narrow our denomination, not widen it.
From: Daphne Reiley - Tuesday, July 14, 2009
As a person currently in care of my congregation for licensure to a ministry of spiritually supporting caregivers and as a person who also feels a call to a pastoral relationship with a community of believers, I find this resolution exciting and one of promise for someone in my situation. My life is such at this time that I find it beyond my resources to obtain a bachelors degree and then on to a masters in divinity. Licensure is a way of my receiving preparation to pastorally care for caregivers and at the same time begin preparations for a more formal pastoral relationship in the future. I believe requiring adequate scholarship in addition to the practical, apprentice-type service in the field will prepare many who find themselves in the same position for service as pastors of communities of faith in need of spiritual leadership and guidance.
From: Neil Allen - Tuesday, July 14, 2009
As more and more churches seek out quality leadership in an on-time basis, it behooves the church to do, whatever it takes to provide that leadership at the highest quality ever. With a small percentage of Disciple Seminarians finishing their career in the ministry, it seems most logical to consider this resolution. While there is work to be done on the definition of the contact hours, it seems very wise for the church to move in this direction. There are some who may argue that an Apprentice Track diminishes the quality of our pastorate, or may pull folks away from a seminary track, I have found the opposite, that persons whom have been licensed have all desired a formal seminary education. Some simply lack the ability to complete that course. After carefully reviewing the materials and sharing ideas with our Regional staff in Oregon, a solid and workable plan can be hatched by every region very quickly, which, in my opinion, will produce a quality candidate for ordination. Keep in mind, the AT does not mean an individual will pass their ordination council. The burden of maintaining quality of the ordained body of the Christian Church (D.O.C.) still rests in the councils of our regional manifestation. Until that trust is broken or diminished, there is no good reason to vote against this resolution.
From: James Cotten - Tuesday, July 14, 2009
I think that this resolution is about time. Again I agree with the poster who reminded us that the M.Div. is a requirement of job placement NOT vocation. And I for one do not feel that someone else, called by God, who is ordained through a non-M.Div. track in any way cheapens my efforts and/or accomplishments. (Really aren't some of us really talking about the fact that we might not be so "special" anymore if they let non-M.Div.'s into the 'club')
From: Rev. Jared Trullinger - Monday, July 13, 2009
There are a number of folks in licensed ministry who have far more talents in church leadership than I do as an ordained clergyperson. Why should they be denied ordination, particularly for those who already have advanced degrees or significant experience anyway? Who is to say that a Ph.D. in Sociology or Psychology (a few cases I recall) isn't a better preparation for church leadership anyway? Who is to say that 15-20 years of licensed ministry isn't better preparation than seminary? Now, I know that a number of folks will disagree with me, and one of the arguments I have heard is that licensed clergy are more likely to drive the denomination toward more theological and socially conservative agendas. My experiences with licensed ministry folk in the Upper Midwest, though, has been quite to the contrary. Licensed ministers are just as diverse as those ordained, and some of the most theologically liberal people I know are, in fact, licensed ministers. Likewise, some of the leaders in the Disciples Heritage Fellowship movement were trained at our own seminaries. If a standardized educational track to licensing is created like the Upper Midwest version, then ministers can be trained appropriately with denomination input. Given my current position as an advisor to Distance Education students, a position in which I strive to provide access across geographical and socioeconomic divides, I believe that the Association of Theological Schools institutions is missing the boat with regard to opportunities in online education. If seminaries really want to compete for the education of those preparing for ministry, ATS accredited institutions seriously need to work on Distance Education development. With the many capabilities of Adobe Connect, Elluminate Live, and 2nd Life is no reason why an entire accredited M.Div. program should not be attainable online.
From: Joel Walkley - Monday, July 13, 2009
After sleeping on it for about an hour, I believe I need to revise my earlier comment. I think this proposal raises questions about the names for the Order of Ministry in general. Lets examine our assumptions here. What do we mean by an "ordained minister?" And what does it mean to be "not ordained?" I believe an ordination occurs at every baptism. That every Christian is ordered, commissioned, and ordained for ministry primarily through baptism. A similar ordination happens when one accepts a call as a licensed minister (though we don't call it that now). And a similar call also occurs at (what we presently call) ordination. Perhaps we need to consider changing the nomenclature of what we presently call "ordained minister" in order to better honor the very real ordering (ordination) for ministry of every believer. For example in the Catholic Church both priests and deacons are ordained. They are ordained to different functions and with different requirements, but both are considered ordinations. Or (I believe) our Presbyterian brothers and sisters call their clergy "presbyters." I believe the discussion here is a testimony to the need for a liturgy of ordination for licensed ministers, an affirmation of the ordination of every baptized believer, and need for a new label for what we presently call ordained ministers. I encourage your questions and responses. I revised my earlier blog post here http://bit.ly/iU5ul
From: Joel Walkley - Sunday, July 12, 2009
As a recent seminary graduate, I strongly oppose this resolution. The quality training and education I have received in seminary could not have been accomplished by an apprentice track. Removing the requirement for an MDiv would not aid ecumenical dialog, it would significantly harm it. The Roman Catholic Church, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Orthodox, etc all require an MDiv. We should have the same academic credentials as our ecumenical partners. Ordained clergy are expected to properly discern scripture and present the Christian faith. Seminary education is invaluable for that role. A lack of education leads to fundamentalism and/or heresy. Lets makes seminary more accessible for those who are called to it; not remove the requirement. Please oppose this resolution. More thoughts and discussion at my blog http://bit.ly/15UueL
From: Darrell Vandervort - Saturday, July 11, 2009
The apprentice track is not just a way for bi-vocational people, but also an opportunity for leaders from other cultures where pastoral education in less significant than say spiritual gifts to seek ordination and connection with Disciples in the US.
From: Chaplain Bob Haskin - Saturday, July 11, 2009
Don't assume all Licensed Ministers are poorly educated, low-level ministerial "wanna-bees," as some are implying here. At age 55, after 30 years of teaching and counseling, with an M.A., and Ph.D., I studied in our region's Licensed Ministry Education Program (LMEP)(ordinarily about a 3 yr. program.). I had already studied for a lifetime as an active bible student, church worker, chair of the elders, and board chair. From my church experience, I had already learned a lot. The LMEP was actually quite extensive and prepared me well. I became a part-time visitation minister as I continued to work, and then went into full-time parish ministry, and then into chaplaincy. The Disciples of Christ endorsed me for chaplaincy. Since I finished the LMEP, I have continuously taken extensive distance learning coursework in ministry, theology, Christian education and Christian counseling. I completed six units of CPE, including a full-time hospital chaplain residency. I have become a Licensed Professional Counselor. licensed by my state. As a chaplain, I also continue to regularlly preach, teach, give funerals and weddings on evenings and weekends. I have taught several seminars on theology, grief, and ethics. For me, at my age, seminary would have been too long and far too expensive. I have always been able to keep up with seminary-trained clergy and they usually never knew I was not trained at a college seminary. I strongly hope the resolution passes. We ordain elders but not Licensed Ministers. There's something wrong with this picture. It is my undestanding that Alexander Campbell never really completed seminary. but just kept reading and studying, as I have. I currently know several well-educated, well read, and highly professional Licensed Ministers, who would benefit from this proposal. It needs to pass for many reasons, not the least is to allow the older person to share his or her knowledge, wisdom, and energy in the name of Jesus. I am 64 but still want to
From: Janet Fowler - Saturday, July 11, 2009
I certainly agree that licensed ministers need more training, accountability, and supervision. I don't see a need to develop an alternative, non-seminary, track to ordination. A seminary education is invaluable and prepares one for ministry beyond just the academic classes. Ordination should stay linked to an M.Div. More financial assistance might be made available, but don't water down ordination.
From: Tracy Siegman - Friday, July 10, 2009
Once ordained, will candidates ordained by an alternative track then be willing to move their families and leave their jobs? I commend the attempt in this resolution to address the special circumstances of those who are unable to complete theological education; however, commissioned minister status should be sufficient for bi-vocational ministers, especially those serving churches unable to sustain a full-time ordained minister. More and more seminary students are second-career candidates preparing for ordination. These men and women, like myself, have left the financial security of careers, moved families, and left familial support networks in order to pursue the current theological education requirement for ordained ministry. We have made sacrifices to answer the call of God as one set apart for ordained full-time ministry. Allowing for an alternative track to ordination dismisses the sacrifice offered in service of the Church.
From: Brad Edwards - Friday, July 10, 2009
Why would a licensed pastor be considered "underqualified?" Some are - some aren't. The same could certainly be said for some seminary trained pastors. I am pursuing a call to full-time ministry in the DOC that may or may not include seminary (and that will be my decision) and I am NOT a pastor wanna-be. I am every bit as serious about serving God and the church as anyone, and I can do that as a licensed pastor. Do we want to put ministry (and God) in a little box that says, "Open only if ordained?"
From: Dave Yonkey - Friday, July 10, 2009
Considering what some of the Schools of Theology are teaching, or failing to teach, I believe that this could be a great step in the direction of calling ministers to serve. Whether we, as individuals, will feel slighted because we had to work for it, or, I had to so make the others do it as well, is irrelevent to the task at hand. My biggest concern would be the non-recognition of these new ministers by churches and others within both our denomination and outside our denomination. The validity of their calling is not based on an M.Div, but on a true mission from GOD. An M.Div is a job prerequisite, not a vocation requirement.
From: James Gleaves - Thursday, July 09, 2009
Changing the title to Commissioned from Liscensed Ministers sounds good. On the other hand we should not lower our standards of Ordination below requiring an M.Div. There can be no valid reason to retreat on qualifications for ordination. I am reminded when one of our theological schools many years ago began requiring a college degree for entrance an aplicant ask, "Could we pray about it." He was told, "Get the degree and them we will pray about it." Shalom, Jim Gleaves
From: Josephine Manns - Thursday, July 09, 2009
I do not intend to minimize or belittle those who feel called to ministry, however I do feel after four years of preparation and study to be totally prepared to pastor, I feel my education has been trivalized. If it were necessary for those of us who received an M. Div. if passed this would devalue what we have strived to accomplish. We have so many seminarians without pastorates - what is happening that we now need to 'commission' others rather than to use the ones we have who are ready and willing to serve? Will the standard be lowered for seminarians?
From: Michael Fetty - Thursday, July 09, 2009
By passing this resolution, I truly believe without the requirement of the Master of Divinity degree, the caliber of ordained ministers in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) will decline. Further, I personally had the option of licensed or ordained ministry and chose the later, knowing that I owed it to the church to get the best education possible in order to share it with the congregations I would be serving and to follow in the foot steps of many great men and women who have served our church. If the church wants to do something with policies and criteria, there needs to be uniform guidelines for ordination that each region follows. Further, for those who have attended seminary and made sacrifices to meet those requirements, perhaps the general church could come up with a seminary debt assistance program if they are going to allow future ordianed ministers to bypass the seminary tract.
From: Rick Rintamaa - Thursday, July 09, 2009
The new plan seems to revert to anti-intellectual roots that plague us today. The focal point of preparation for ministry is being shifted to a mentor-based on-the-job style rather than an academic model. The material required during academic training is still most important in my view, but how the learning takes place is now qualified by funds and geography. I am not in favor of the change due to 40 years of ministry which was well grounded in academic breadth of understanding. If that foundation is weakened, then the message is easily diluted without the minister knowing it is weakened. Most candidates are not relgion majors in college so their background is very limited in its expanse of coverage throughout the field. I still hope there is a significant amount of study and material required however or whoever becomes responsible for that evaluation. The mentor should require many books to be read in the process whether course work is required or not. The candidate must be well read and prepared to manage many questions they do not even know as they start. The responsibility of training is to introduce the questions, and help find answers. I hope the new plan maintains a high level of expectation or else we lose the quality of leadership and dilute God's work accordingly.
From: Dan Jones - Wednesday, July 08, 2009
I certainly don't want to minimize the importance of my licensed colleagues, but having read the resolution I have more questions than answers: 1. Is there any difference between a seminary-trained minister and an alternately trained minister? The resolution seems to suggest there is not. 2. What does this issue have to do with ecumenical conversation? 3. Is this an issue mostly driven by necessity? "Practical protocols?" Or is there some other agenda? 4. What does this resolution say about the importance of our seminaries? 5. Do the writers of the resolution imply that an M.Div. is an unnessary credential? To which I ask, "If credentials are secondary to 'the call' why would we feel compelled to name our 'licensed/commissioned' pastors 'ordained'?" The call and practice of ministry validates itself. 6. Does this resolution indicate a difference of opinion about the greater validity of life experience (practicality) as opposed to formal education (a more studied approach to ministry)?
From: Ann Dotson - Wednesday, July 08, 2009
I have been a licensed minister in the DOC churches for 17 years and have never felt unworthy of my calling by God until I read some of these comments. Some theologically trained ordained ministers come straight out of seminary with now where close to the "training" I have received over the years. I would hope and pray that the apprentice program would be set up to give licensed ministers every opportunity to gain the training necessary to answer their call by God with confidence. I also hope that we could have enough faith in this process that those passed on to "ordination" without an M. Div would be seen as nothing less than a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ..... just as M. Div gratuates would be.
From: Harold Elias-Perciful - Wednesday, July 08, 2009
It seems moving backwards to allow the underqualified to be ordained, quality not quanity. Change licensed to commissioned but not status as to ordination.
From: Stephen Goss - Monday, July 06, 2009
I am a little scared about this measure, but realize it must be out of necessity, and I want to trust the leadrship of the denomination. I am in transition right now myself, as an ordained Disciples minister, but If this passes and Regions begin to set up Apprentice programs for ordination, I am willing to help in whatever way is possible, whether I stay in Albuquerque; take positions in Georgia or Tennessee that I'm looking at; or return to Texas, where my wife remains in our home. It would seem to me that If we are going to make this change, it should demand our best effort to provide a quality program of nurture and education to support our licensed ministers.
From: Buddy Ray - Thursday, July 02, 2009
There are so many small, especially rural congregations, where elders now serve some or all of the time as pastors. Why does it hurt to increase the knowledge and standing of those who, usually on a part time basis, wish to serve these congregations. In addition, many of our larger congregations have people serving in ministry, not as the Sr. Pastor but in various support postions. Some are retired and don't wish to return to school full time, some serve the church in addition to full or part time secular jobs. They don't have time or desire for a full theological education. And they don't need such a complete education for the tasks they are called to do. Lets not look at this resolution as "lowering the ministry" but as "raising up" and providing better traininig and recognition for these people whom we so desperately need to carry out the work of our Lord. No one should feel threatened by the education of others. The value of being ordained will never decline but the Kingdom may be increased by this resolution.
From: jane pekar - Thursday, July 02, 2009
To my knowledge this is very real in the Canadian Region. The Apprenticeship will give more opportunity for mentoring along the route to ministry which like our colleagues in other denominations might include the equivalent to permanent deacon with designation or "commissioned ministry" rather than pushing people beyond their abilities to "ordination" to fulfill their call. This would also provide a venue for training para-ordained ministries.. i.e. pastoral counsellors and chaplains non-ordained .
From: Margaret Lamb - Thursday, July 02, 2009
PLEASE let's not water down this process. Minister wanna-bes can do the finances for an education if they really want to do this and churches should be financially responsible to properly compensate ministers. I'm reminded of the treasure and heart thing. We, the church, need to be living UP to challenges, not bringing the task down to our comfort level. Thank you.
From: James C. Gleaves, D.Min. - Wednesday, July 01, 2009
It seems to me that it is counter-productive to weaken standards for Ordination. Let us continue the high standards for ministry we have had for many years. Amen.
From: Robert Belew - Wednesday, July 01, 2009
This is a good move in the ordering of ministry. It will afford ordination. The church needs to move forward in yolking churches together that would help commisioned ministers to have a a salary that would sustain yolked churches.
From: Dr Ralph Steele,BCPC - Monday, June 29, 2009
I basically agree with this resolution. I would be willing to serve on the committee and I would add that the apprenticeship program allow for persons who receive ordination at least go through a licensing process then after completion of the apprenticeship program be ordained. I also would add that the apprenticeship program be named Theological Colloquy Ordination Program. Finally that the TCOP program has the foundational theological courses from Pastoral Care, Systematic Theology, Historical and Biblical New and Old Testament with Homiletics, and Church Conflict and Mediation. Thanks Rev Ralph Steele--817 729 0543, from the Christian Church Southwest where Rev Dana Cartwright Loving is Regional Minister
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)