Category: Catechesis

What does ordination mean?

United Methodist clergy are asked 19 historic questions at the beginning of their ordination. A good friend just asked me which of these are binding, and which are simply a nod to our history.

That’s a difficult question to answer when you look at them. I’ve just said that the biggest lie told at every UMC Annual Conference is when ordinands respond to the question, “Will you visit from house to house?” As I look at these other questions, I wonder how many of these we are telling the truth about.

How many pastors recommend fasting or abstinence by both precept and example? How many have avoided massive debt? How many actually approve our church polity and government?

Are any of these still standing but the first: “Have you faith in Christ?”

By winking and grinning at the other 18, are we compromising even the expectation of faith in Christ?

How do you think these historic questions should be used? Binding? Nod to history? Should we consistently evaluate whether clergy are adhering to any/all of these? Which ones?

The historic questions:

  1. Have you faith in Christ?
  2. Are you going on to perfection?
  3. Do you expect to be made perfect in love in this life?
  4. Are you earnestly striving after it?
  5. Are you resolved to devote yourself wholly to God and his work?
  6. Do you know the General Rules of our Church?
  7. Will you keep them?
  8. Have you studied the doctrines of The United Methodist Church?
  9. After full examination, do you believe that our doctrines are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures?
  10. Will you preach and maintain them?
  11. Have you studied our form of Church discipline and polity?
  12. Do you approve our Church government and polity?
  13. Will you support and maintain them?
  14. Will you diligently instruct the children in every place?
  15. Will you visit from house to house?
  16. Will you recommend fasting or abstinence, both by precept and example?
  17. Are you determined to employ all your time in the work of God?
  18. Are you in debt so as to embarrass you in your work?
  19. Will you observe the following directions? a) Be diligent. Never be unemployed. Never be triflingly employed. Never trifle away time; neither spend any more time at any one place than is strictly necessary. b) Be punctual. Do everything exactly at the time. And do not mend our rules, but keep them; not for wrath, but for conscience’ sake.

Subscribe by e-mail to get regular updates on theology, ministry, and life with God.

For more UMC-specific posts, go to my UMC Posts page.

The Modern Pastor and the Reformed Pastor

“There’s really only time for two things in ministry. Lead a fine worship. Visit the people. The program, leave to volunteers and gung-ho seminarians.”

Several years ago, I came upon that provocative advice from a man named Sam Stanley. It has constantly challenged me regarding the duty of the pastor.

Then a couple years ago I discovered Richard Baxter’s brilliant book, The Reformed Pastor. George Hunter calls it “the most influential book that most pastors today have never read.” That book probably influenced Sam Stanley considerably, whether or not he ever heard of it.

I wish the modern pastor could look much more like Baxter’s Reformed Pastor.*

The Reformed Pastor doesn’t have time for running a big enterprise. Only two things: worship and visit.

The Reformed Pastor can’t be consumed with climbing the career ladder or making more money. If they were unable to visit all of their people, Baxter told pastors they better cut their salaries and hire enough assistants to do the job. Here’s one of his not-too-subtle challenges for anyone whose congregation is too large to visit them all:

If you have but a hundred pounds a year, it is your duty to live upon part of it, and allow the rest to a competent assistant, rather than that the flock which you are over should be neglected. If you say, that is a hard measure, and that your wife and children cannot so live, I answer, Do not many families in your parish live on less? Have not many able ministers in the prelates’ days been glad of less, with liberty to preach the gospel?

Tell us what you really think, Mr. Baxter. The work is so good that I’m fighting to control myself from copying pages’ worth of direct quotation.

The value of visiting from house to house seems utterly lost. I heard almost nothing of it in seminary. I haven’t seen “model pastors” celebrated for it. I’ve practiced it far too little myself.

Before people are ordained in the United Methodist Church, they are asked, “Will you visit from house to house?” They affirm that they will. My friend Aaron calls it the biggest lie told at Annual Conference each year.

Why forsake more study, more sermon prep, more e-mails or strategic planning meetings, more church administration so that we can visit more?

A few reasons to focus on visitation, taken rather directly from Baxter:

  1. Evangelism – We have the best opportunity to convince people of the truth when we speak to each one’s particular questions and situation. We need to be able to say to the sinner, “You are the man!” and plainly mention his particular case. Too direct? Perhaps more later on our terrible inability to identify sin with clarity and care.
  2. Education – Visiting from house to house comes from Paul’s example in Acts 20. He says he taught in public and from house to house. Our people need personal instruction in the faith, not just public preaching. By the way, Baxter used a catechism for this.
  3. Preaching – Our preaching is much better when we know the people hearing it. This is the Word of God for the people of God. We preach best when we know both. I fear that more sermons now originate in the boardroom (the strategic direction speech) than a living room. I even worry that too many sermons originate only in a pastor’s study (the academic treatise or the personal reflection that misidentifies where others are).

A personal example: In a pastoral visit I made a while back, I ended up being able to confront someone very directly, yet lovingly, about some sin in his life. I also learned that he doesn’t read Scripture because he doesn’t feel like he knows how to, and I was able to give some instruction. I ended up standing in his doorway answering his questions about what sanctification is and how we receive it.

Yes, I believe visiting from house to house is one of the most important things for me to do as a pastor. I also know I do it far too little. My challenge is to find a way to give it the pride of place it deserves on my agenda. How about you?

So much more to say about The Reformed Pastor, visiting the people, Church discipline, etc. But I’d also like to get to some other topics. How interesting is this to you? Stay here or move on?

* George Hunter argues that Baxter was “a major source of error” and that John Wesley properly damned his work with faint praise and mainly ignored it. I get what Hunter is saying – that it shouldn’t just be the ordained acting as pastors – but I disagree with him on the value of Baxter’s work and how Wesley handled it. I think John Meunier gets it right on this.

The Modern Pastor – Sent or Called?

 

This is the first of several posts on the Modern Pastor.

The methods we’re using to choose local pastors are a problem.

Most churches identify their pastors by some sort of “calling” method. That usually involves the equivalent of an extended job application process and some form of vote. If the church approves, they “call” the pastor. The United Methodist Church prides itself on “sending” pastors instead. We tout that as the better way, saying something like “pastors are called to be sent, not called to be called.”

Both methods have major problems and actually strike against the typical model found in the New Testament.

Whether a church’s pastor is identified by a “calling” model or a “sending” model, both tend to begin with the same assumption: the pastor is an outsider.

We start by assuming that whomever the church’s next pastor will be, he/she will come from somewhere else. We ask where a pastor is called to serve.

No Basis in the New Testament

The first major problem with this: it’s a model with no basis in the New Testament. From all that we see, we would reason that the local pastors mentioned in the New Testament (elders, sometimes called bishops) were existing members of a certain community who were appointed to give their community pastoral oversight. See Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5. Scripture never suggests that one of these pastors is sent, or called, to another location.

A point while we’re on calling: no pastors in the New Testament are called. Calling is used in two ways in the New Testament. There are many references to the calling of all Christians, and twice, Paul writes about being called as an apostle. That’s it. We come across a number of elders and bishops, but never are they “called.” How much stock should we put in the pastoral “calling” that gets so much attention today?

Pastors as Outsiders

The second major problem: all of our pastors are outsiders. We have established a system where it is assumed that the pastor of a congregation is a temporary outsider. I recently heard someone tell the congregation’s pastor, “I was here before you got here, and I’ll be here after you leave.” She was right.

In the UMC, the pastor is not even considered a member of his/her local church. Therefore, the one providing our pastoral leadership is always someone sent from the outside and likely to be “sent” away from us. Someone who is specifically recognized as a non-member of the local community is sent to lead it. Is this a healthy system?

Furthermore, this system assumes that pastors are developed and come from somewhere else. What would it change if local congregations expected that their next pastor was someone in their midst? Would it give them an increased urgency to disciple and develop leaders?

Outsiders can certainly play an important role in the life of a community. They are able to see and speak from a different perspective. See Paul’s letters to the Corinthians and Galatians. The person from the outside with a certain prophetic authority is important. But that doesn’t negate the need for people who will shepherd a community from day to day.

Where Have the Apostles Gone?

The third major problem: we have lost the role of the itinerant apostle. Moving around is institutionalized in the UMC and relatively expected elsewhere, as pastors climb the proverbial career ladder (a whole other problem to deal with later). By making our pastors itinerant, we have not only lost the role of the truly local pastor, we have also forgotten the role of the itinerant apostle.

The roles of apostle and elder are distinct. Paul never claims the role of an elder. John Wesley noted that they were entirely separate roles, and claimed that his itinerant preachers were not pastors, but apostles who traveled “to proclaim glad tidings to all the world.”

Where are the true itinerant apostles in America today? Those who claim no pastoral authority over a particular congregation, but instead have the freedom to travel from community to community proclaiming good news? Those who are identifying and appointing local pastors to shepherd their communities?

The itinerant evangelist proclaims broadly. The local pastor disciples deeply. By taking these two roles and creating one hybrid itinerant pastor, what have we lost in the way of evangelism? What have we lost in discipleship?

What do you think? What questions or thoughts does this raise for you? Can the American Church re-embrace truly local pastors and traveling apostles? Should we?

Subscribe by e-mail or RSS to get regular updates on theology, ministry, and life with God.