Trust the Process

As many readers of this blog know (all five or six of you), I continue to travel a long road through the Presbyterian ordination process. The Committee on Perspective Ministry in Grace Presbytery has many candidates before them, and through the four years of seminary and three years after, I have wandered weak and weary, while their only request has been that my paperwork be done on time and that my meetings occur at the appropriate intervals. Four assigned liaisons have worked with me in the past six years, although, I use the word "worked" very casually; I only speak with or hear from my liaison when it is time for another Annual Consultation, when my paperwork is delayed, or when their time on the committee has ended.

I hunger for a process of discernment, where paperwork and review meetings are not the signposts on this journey. I hunger for a process of nurture and support, of discussion and debate and new understandings. This committee will recommend my ordination by the wider church, so why shouldn't there be a give and take and mutual development? Why can't there be an exploration on both our parts, discovering what it means for individuals to be called to ministry and for Presbyteries, not local congregations, to ordain them? Shouldn't we grow together--meaning both closer and concurrently?

Bruce Reyes-Chow recently posted an interview with a San Francisco Seminary student named Jenny Warner, who, when asked to describe her own journey with San Francisco Presbytery, called the process, "better than I thought... And, um, very discerning, and very caring, and nurturing." Almost to the word what I feel has been missing from my own journey. Bruce then presses her on to the future of the Presbyterian Church, and you can hear the rhythms of hope in what follows.

I want to continue the conversation that we started on this blog two months ago, but also to bring more voices to it. What hope do we have for tomorrow's Presbyterian Church if paperwork and meetings still rule the day? This is an overworked question that is a part of an overdone and, perhaps, hackneyed conversation; everyone these days seems to be talking about "the future of the church" and asking "can the church survive". Jared said it best over a beer the other night, "I want a church where we can stop asking 'what is the future of the church?'."

Fine, Jared. I'm ready. My first question to you is this: If we cannot discover the path of the church in those kind of overreaching theoretical questions, then in what smaller conversations do we work to change so that we can stop worrying about what the next turn in the road brings? Since I'm preparing to move, I'll use that as a metaphor: Everything lies before us, the whole of church and everything about it. Taking those neat-freak inspired colored tags in hand, how do we label the small conversations, actions, and... general stuff of our daily church lives, signifying what stays and what goes, what is meant for the living room of change for all and what for the bedroom of more intimate, private, and personal change?

This question outlines the first part of what has taken me so long to travel through the ordination process. I don't want to be ordained by a church unwilling to let the small conversations change us. I don't want a new Karl Barth to re-define the theology of the church and then wait fifty years for his thoughts to trickle down to local congregations. I don't want a Brueggemann or a Guthrie to write the book that is all the rage in Sunday School and then passes into obscurity when the next theological darling comes along. I don't want a church that waits for a prophet (John 6:14) but one that becomes prophetic itself by listening to the voice of the Spirit in all people.

Comments

[Chris]

Hey there Bill,

Just a few thoughts from an ELCA Lutheran not privy to the questions and concerns unique to your PC(USA) world, or to the conversation you and Jared have been having . . . so please, excuse me if I'm out of line.

I'll be ordained in two weeks, more than 12 years after I first applied to seminary and the Candidacy Process (in the ELCA). I have found that the process can, at times, be adequate or adversarial, supportive or absolutely sucky, dysfunctional or disciplined. But never in my experience have I found the formal process itself to be nurturing.

What nurture I received I received from a very informal network of friends, family, professors, a home congregation, and a caring pastor. At times I lacked these - my home congregation closed down while I was at seminary, I moved a few times (thus ripping up any roots and networks I had sewn with a local pastor or congregation), and I went through some family turmoil.

The ordination process is intended, above all else, to evaluate the candidate and determine whether she or he is qualified for the office of ministry. Being nurtured and prepared to meet those qualifications is not necessarily the responsibility of the evaluative process, but the responsibility of the seminary, home congregation, and indeed, the candidate herself.

(As an aside, I also think the idea of seminary as nurturing community is overblown. Seminaries are schools - classes are offered, grades are given, tuition is paid, etc. etc.. To me, the spiritual/emotional nurture for ministry comes primarily from the candidate's home congregation, relationship with peers and pastor(s), family and friends, and own faith disciplines. The seminary and the judicatory can only do so much.)

Church structures and ecclesiastic processes themselves do not minister to others, or nurture souls, or proclaim the Gospel, or grow the church . . . but if done right, they provide a framework for great things, for holy things to happen.

OK, enough out of me. Keep an eye on my blog in your feedreader . . . hopefully I'll post tomorrow or over the weekend.

Peace to you.

[abby king kaiser]

hey bill.

i too am in the ordination process in the PCUSA but have not been on the journey as long as you have. i have at times found my process to be ridiculously bureaucratic, and at other times, full of discernment. as the process varies form presbytery to presbytery, there seems no way to talk across experiences and i certainly do not know how to fix it.

but, it does commit me to want to radically change the system. i am beginning to see rays of hope across the PCUSA. i am not a member in the SF presbytery, but have been able to watch them work on changing the way they meet--to reflect the true intention of presbytery meetings and build relationships rather than frustration. these kinds of changes, these kinds of moves, show me that i can be a part of the process that moves the church forward (maybe even helping to make the ordination process more nurturing, compassionate, and full of discernment for those who will come after me).

i know this is not much hope to offer, but it is all i have. there are days that i want to join the club of folks who want to scrap the whole archaic system.

and yet here i am plugging along...

[Chris]

Hey Bill,

I apologize for being a bit harsh in my comment above . . . I've been lonely and hurt and left for dead in this process at times, and it sucks. I apologize for not acknowledging the suckiness of the process and your angst as a participant in it . . .

As for how to reform it . . . that'll be a good conversation.

Peace . . .

[Bill]

Chris,
I get that it's an evaluative process. But every part of the process is evaluative. My home church had to recommend me at the outset (and will hopefully do so again soon). Columbia Seminary had to make sure I could speak in Biblical and Theological language while still being pastoral. The ordination exams made sure I could spew out Book of Order and Book of Confessions references when confronted with complex theological issues in a shortened time frame (in case I'm ever confronted with a situation where an emergency Book of Order reference was needed--"Quick! Get me G-6! Stat!"). So I get that the role of my Presbytery or your Synod is to be evaluative. But why not more? My Presbytery's committee has been evaluating me for growth in my time at seminary and the years since. And that's good. But I want something more. I'm not asking for a process of pats on the back and sugary treats in the mail. But I do want a process in which we both are growing.

Abby,
Thank you for your words and insight. Would you (or anyone else reading this) outline what in particular SF Presbytery does for its process?

To all,
I don't want this to be a question only about the ordination process. In the three years since I finished seminary it has become increasingly clear how we can all be ministers without being Ministers of Word and Sacrament. I have been a DCE and a committee member, a web consultant and a Sunday School teacher, a preacher and unpublished writer, and I am more assured now than ever that we don't need a Rev. before our names to be ministers. I know we hear that often; it is a stock sentiment for churches to announce in their weekly bulletin. However, I'll take it further and tell you that I envision a church where "Rev" simply means "Board of Pensions participant".

[Jared]

I just wrote a huge comment about Medical Doctors, Ministers of the Word and Sacrament, Labor Unions, and Seminarians....but it was way to harsh to post (I could say it to anyone in person...but written text doesn't allow for that kind of communication.)

I don't want to ignore Bill's post...but I need some time to formulate a written response that doesn't blast the church and ordination in general (sorry for the cop out.)

[Mark Baker-Wright]

Two responses:

1. To Chris, who said As an aside, I also think the idea of seminary as nurturing community is overblown. Seminaries are schools - classes are offered, grades are given, tuition is paid, etc. etc.. To me, the spiritual/emotional nurture for ministry comes primarily from the candidate's home congregation, relationship with peers and pastor(s), family and friends, and own faith disciplines. The seminary and the judicatory can only do so much.

I actually agree with this statement, but am concerned about how this can play out most positively. I first entered the PC(USA) ordination process some 15 years ago (am just coming off of a 7-year hiatus. Long story). Even when I started, my home church was based in KY while I was either in NC or (later) CA. I therefore had to find local home churches to provide some of the care and nurture that seminary can't (not that seminary can't provide any, but we agree that it has a certain purpose and certain limitations). But these local churches didn't have the history my home church in KY had, and so their ability to provide care was more limited. Since most seminarians will probably also live and study far from home, I wonder how seminarians are to be effectively nurtured?

2. To Bill, who said I don't want this to be a question only about the ordination process. In the three years since I finished seminary it has become increasingly clear how we can all be ministers without being Ministers of Word and Sacrament.

I want to ask a different question. Other than being ordained, what is a seminary degree good for? And why should a person spend all that time (and money!) getting a degree (especially if NOT to be ordained)? I am called to serve the church, but I may never be a head pastor. I may never have a full-time paying church job. Was I foolish to go to seminary?

[noe]

i don't think you're foolish mark. i think everyone should go to seminary...it's an opportunity to stretch the mind, think outside the box, challenge, and be challenged... i think seminary forces us to really reflect on our faith and beliefs... i am unlikely to be ordained when i'm done with the hoops and the process, but i'm thankful for the growth and reflection...

i am frustrated when i sit in classes with folks who are there to finish off their checklists and be ordained already... those people kind of scare and worry me...

and i agree with bill that we don't need a rev by our name to be a minister... aren't we all ministers in the priesthood of believers?

i am sorry that grace pres has been difficult... i was under their care for 2.5 years an my experience was quite similar to yours... my other friends under their care have also expressed frustration...

it is possible to change membership and trnsfer your status to a different presebytery... obnoxious, but possible...