This past week has been very interesting as I’ve been watching the conversation take place about my post, “When an M.Div. from Princeton isn’t Enough…” I’m sure that many of you have been following all of what transpired, but let me just catch you up to speed:
- I initially felt frustrated with a preliminary decision about what additional courses the Presbytery of San Francisco was going to ask me to take. So I wrote “When an M.Div. from Princeton isn’t Enough…” As I mentioned in my initial post, I have had some really good interactions with folks from the Presbytery of San Francisco. This post was never meant to be an attack on the Presbytery or the Committee on Preparation for Ministry; it was a frustration with the process that we have in place for ordination.
- Tony Jones, a good friend and someone who has often been frustrated for me and many others in the ordination process, thought this was just too much, and he wrote a series of posts concerning first my ordination ordeal, and then more broadly on a theology of ordination. His posts included: Let’s Ordain Adam, Reconsider Ordination. Now., Reconsider Ordination. Now. (Continued), My (Anti-) Ordination Sermon, Ordination: Housekeeping, and finally Is There Ordination in the Didache. Tony was also the creator of an online petition to ordain me (which he has admitted was more of a stunt than anything) – but it has around 138 signatures at this point. Finally, Doug Pagitt interviewed Tony Jones about all of this ordination business on his radio show, which you can listen to here.
- One of most in-depth comments on Tony’s post came from PC(USA) minister Rev. John D’Elia, who has continued the conversation about a theology of ordination on his blog here.
- Christianity Today’s Out of Ur blog posted about my ordination and Tony’s response in their post, Tony Jones: We Ordain Everyone.
- Since this continued to go viral, many others in the blogworld have weighed in with their thoughts on the issue, most talking more broadly about ordination. The following people have written about this issue: Erik Ullestad, Andrew Tatum, Mike Morrell, Tim Ghali, Emerging Methodists, Amanda Cash, Greg Bolt, The GA Junkie, Drew Tatusko, Chad Holtz, Dave Wainscott, Neo-Baptist, The Pink Hammer, lukefourteenthirtythree, Transforming Seminarian, Minutes from the Last Meeting, Lars Rood, The Post Christian, Queer Messages, probably others I’m mising and last but certainly not least, the Christian Research Network now has even more reasons to call Tony Jones a heretic!
So, while I was hoping that people would read the post, I wasn’t thinking it would take on the viral nature that it did and become the impetus for a really interesting (and controversial) discussion on the nature and theology of ordination. It also, of course, brings up a question that more and more people who are in the ordination process are thinking about is the issue of transparency: How transparent or authentic can (or should) you be in the ordination process?
It’s probably not a big surprise to see which side I’ve fallen on. I don’t think it’s helpful to keep things hidden or secret. I had many people, including some very close friends, tell me that I really should have deleted my previous post. They said that it wasn’t going to help my relations with the CPM. I understand their point and I respect my friends who told me to delete the post. However, as mentioned previously, the root of my frustration is a frustration with our process as it stands. I think it’s important to open and honest about our experiences with the process.
Some people, in their hopes of making me feel better, have let me know that I am not the first one to go through this type of situation. Many people have had similar experiences in a variety of different presbyteries. Is that supposed to make me feel better? If anything, that should be more of a sign of a broken system and process. More and more you hear about how mainline denominations are struggling with numbers and there is a huge need for pastors. Moreover, there is an increasing need for young, creative pastors who can help forge a new path forward for our denominations.
And yet…we have systems in place that place a seemingly higher priority on rules, hoops and checklists that have the potential to stall and re-route pastors who are seeking ordination. So if everyone were to keep things quiet about their experiences with the process – nothing would ever change. Being open and transparent is not necessarily going to help me whiz right through the system – but I’ve found that for me, it’s important to be open and authentic.
I want to leave you with this video of Dr. Barry Schwartz, Professor of Social Theory and Social Action at Swarthmore College, giving a talk on “practical wisdom” at TED. Someone sent this to me and I thought it was very interesting in light of the situation I’m facing currently on my path toward ordination. If I had the power to do so, I’d love it if every Committee on Preparation for Ministry would watch this video. I think if you watch the video while thinking about our current ordination process, it could lead to some really interesting conversations.
Thanks for the post roundup, Adam, and for keeping us up-to-date. I’m with you; transparency in this process is a good idea for all parties concerned.
Keep on my friend. Our ordination process sucks the creative thinking and life out of original and different candidates for the process. We want everyone to have grandfathers who laid the cornerstones on 100 year old churches and know how to talk nicely to elderly Presbyterian women. After 3 hours of questions on the floor of Presbytery I learned a valuable lesson about professional hazing and after close friend’s terrible abuses in the process I vowed I would never just placate institutional unjust behavior. The exams need to go, committees must have more local, relational flexibility and the educational requirements should not be an undue financial strain on individuals candidates. You can tell that I find this issue frustrating. I value the mentoring system that many of my African American colleagues experience than the convoluted system that allows us to act as if we believe in being an “educated” clergy.
Oh yeah and I mentioned transparency being essential on Tony’s blog, but I will repeat it here.
Adam, for what it’s worth I’m glad you are sticking to your guns and leaving the post up. We need space for people like you (and Tony) to hold the system and the process up to a mirror. I really hope that eventually we’ll see more transparency in our ordination systems for the sake of a generation of leaders that may be lost without it. Until then, keep it up bro!
The Bible tells us to be as meek as a lamb, and shrewd as a serpent. If you had any wisdom you’d have gotten ordained, and only then criticized the process. Now you’ve just exposed yourself as a “trouble maker” and a persona non grata. Unfortunately once people go through the gauntlet to enter the guild they no longer care if somebody else has to go through what they did. In fact they buy into the very broken process they had to endure. It protects their own investment in the guild. And why should somebody else have it any easier? Much the same way someone buys into the Princeton seminary gauntlet once they graduate. Why should Princeton lower their admission standards for somebody else? Same thing here.
@ Jake,
The Bible also tells us to let our yes be yes and our no be no. Certainly you are not suggesting that God wants us to be dishonest?
As an ordained minister in the PCUSA who was “transparent” in his own process, and criticized it prior to ordination, I certainly have not bought into the the broken system and in no way do I desire that others go through any kind of hazing to gain admittance to my “guild”. I know many other ministers who agree with me. You are, alas, correct that SOME ministers behave this way, but I hope not the majority.
@ Adam,
Transparency and honesty are all very good things, and I agree they are worth the cost. People’s feelings can be delicate in such a situation, however, and it is good to take extra precautions to ensure that you are not perceived as being passive-aggressive by posting something on your blog without communicating it to your CPM first. You’ve done a very good job keeping your criticism impersonal, and even repeatedly affirming the positive elements of your interactions with CPM. If you aren’t already, I would gently recommend that you send email copies of everything you write to your CPM liaison, maybe even giving advance notice – so they don’t feel like they’ve been stabbed in the back.
Ideally everyone is confident and mature and handles criticism with equanimity. Unfortunately we know this is not the case. Especially since there has been some suggestion by people who don’t know you that you are being disingenuous and not telling the whole story, my advice is to be even MORE transparent, not less.
It’s a tough tough road. Feel free to ignore all my meddling advice, of course. God bless.
Adam,
I, too, appreciate your honesty and transparency. While I agree with everyone here that the process can always use tweaking and honing it is still a valuable one.
The one thing that Tony nor anyone else has answered that I have asked numerous times now is this: Is God still in the business of calling teachers, pastors, evangelists and prophets? Is the Holy Spirit still gifting whom the Spirit will for certain tasks for the purpose of building up Christ’s church? If the answer to these questions is “yes” (which I believe it should be) than we are faced with a God-given reality that we are called to live faithfully into. Obviously, the way to live in that reality is in love. So the question is not whether or not we create a new reality for ourselves but how we live into the one God has seen fit to establish. God is calling up pastors. I praise God for that. So, how do we proceed from that point?
grace and peace,
Chad
And yet once they are admitted to the guild their outrage about the broken process hardly registers anymore. And that’s why the process remains broken and needlessly exclusionary– because they got theirs.
Jake,
That seems to me overly pessimistic. While not perfect, I have hardly found the process I am presently in with the UMC to be exclusionary in the least bit. I have found them to be overly gracious, in fact.
Perhaps we have had different experiences? Surely you aren’t suggesting that what you describe is the norm, are you?
peace
Chad~
Are UMC African-American ministers in the deep south able to be ordained and placed in UMC caucasian pulpits by the Bishops?
Brian,
Yes, and vice versa. While this may not be the “norm” I have seen it done. However, I would say that this is not the fault of the ordaining committees or the denomination itself but is an accommodation made for the sin of segregated churches. In other words, the real problem here is not whether a black pastor is at a white church or vice versa, but rather, why do we have black churches and white churches in the first place?
The problem of racial segregation at 11AM on Sunday’s is a hot topic for me. I recently wrote about it here: http://chadholtz.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/it-aint-about-you-worship-through-the-eyes-of-st-john-the-divine/
Peace,
Chad
Brian, I feel I should probably say more about that… (you raise a good question).
When it comes to making a determination to place a black pastor in a white church or vice versa the bishop and the district superintendent take into great consideration the needs of the individual parish. In fact, they take that into account regardless of the scenario presented. But in this issue particularly, they would discern along with the congregation what pastor would fit best with the mission and vision of that local community of faith. Granted, this is the ideal. It doesn’t always work out that way. When it comes to race, lets face it – most congregations will opt to have a pastor that is more like themselves. Therefore, you are more than likely going to get a white pastor at a white church and a black pastor at a black church and a hispanic pastor at a hispanic church. To be honest, it is in these particular situations that I wish the bishops would trump the “needs” of the congregation and appoint a pastor of a different race just to stir things up. This would be one example of where having an episcopacy in place can offer a built in way to correct the collected sins of the majority – sins that a congregation so used to looking alike may not be able to notice about themselves.
peace.
>>>That seems to me overly pessimistic.
I’m a realist. Pessimism is a word that applies to something negative likely to happen in the future. Expecting the worst is going to happen. What I’m doing is describing human nature and institutions based on past experience and observation. It’s already happened.
The people who create the weeding out process are protecting a guild. They don’t want young upstarts like Adam diluting the brand name. There are more people on this planet than kickass jobs. So the one’s with the kickass jobs protect their turf. This is how they do it. Keeping the supply low increases it’s value.
Not that I feel that sorry for Adam. Princeton seminary is a brand name too, and he doesn’t want it diluted either. The fewer Princeton diplomas, the more value they have.
Jake,
While it may happen in *some* cases it is not happening in all.
You say “the people who created the weeding out process are protecting a guild” as if this is some universal principle. I’m not sure what past experience or observation you are speaking of but it has not been mine.
I have found the people on these committees to be not about “weeding out” at all but rather about affirming people’s unique gifts and abilities and encouraging them (and myself) in their journey. What I have seen is a great desire for “young upstarts” and people who push the envelope. Case in point: my present bishop is disliked by many of the “established clergy” because he is not afraid to put a young, new pastor in a bigger, more promising appointment because the pastor has fresh, engaging vision. This is but one example.
One final thing. As a realist I would think you’d recognize that a pastor is not a “kickass job.” For the amount of money and time spent in school to become a pastor I could be a doctor or a lawyer or a any number of things that pays a lot more, has less hours, less demands, less phone calls, less pain, grief and suffering.
I think it takes a lot of guts to do what your doing. Guts I am not sure I have. Proud of you brother.
I’ll chime in with the chorus here. You should absolutely blog about this, and invite your CPM to both view and participate in your blog conversations. Send ‘em a link. Show ‘em how it needs to be done.
Other posters have noted and I will affirm that the way you’re approaching this is completely respectful. The language and tone of your prior post and of this post manage to be gracious in resistance. If you’d approached this through a snarky rant, it wouldn’t be constructive. But you’ve done this right, and by “right,” I mean the way the Nazarene would have done it.
Keep resisting, and keep up your commitment to transparency. It will serve you well in the ministry. Correction. It *is* serving you well.
Adam,
In many ways I appluad you for what you are doing. And I agree with Drew, it takes A LOT of guts. I also agree with your general point that the system needs updating and I say that as someone who has sat on both sides of the table in question. When I first read your post and Tony’s reaction I had a pretty defensive reaction. (Probably more from Tony than you.) As the conversation has progressed, I have softened quite a bit and come to realize that, in large part, I agree with you AND Tony. So I very much so appreciate the mirror that is being held up here.
One of the things that still bothers me, though, and it is what I think you are addressing here, is the means by which this change is to happen. Tony’s proposals all strike me as unnecesarily radical and reactionary. He seems to find little to value in the current system and uses this as an example of how all denominations are broken beyond repair. I resonate much more with what I hear you say, that the system is outdated and broken, but there is still value. Hence your motivation to speak up.
And while I am grateful for all of these wonderful thoughts and this important and intriguing conversation, I wonder if, for your sake, it would not have been better to raise these concerns to your CPM directly and in a more private way. (IDK, maybe you have.) I understand it is important to you to be open and honest. Good for you. But I suspect you will create a lot of resistance for yourself because you have chosen to broadcast your frustration in a public forum, instead of working within the covenant relationship you have established with your CPM. If they were not hearing you and your frustration (which, I am sure happens all the time) you still have advocates (your local congregation and pastor) to help you work to make the process the honest give and take it is supposed to be.
There is one other thing that bothers me and it comes more from those who have responded than you, although it seems to be implicit in your position: the idea that the individual knows better than the group. Certainly might (#s and/or authority) does not make right. But there seems to be a general attitude that those outside the system (ie., Tony esp) know better than those who are inside the system b/c they are blinded. I would suggest a more balanced approach that both the inside and outside voices have value. Erring too much in either direction is not helpful it seems to me.
CPMs deal with all kinds of circumstances and individuals. They deal with a lot of resistance from those who do not want to do what they do not want do and who resent someone else judging THEIR call to ministry. You are right that open and honest communication is the key in this process. Individuals have the right and responsibility to voice their frustrations and concers, and CPMs have the GREATER responsibility of making sure they listen, hear and respond without dismissing or simply asserting their authority because they can. Yet, what can get lost when one begins to feel unfairly treated, is the sense of wisdom that is still present (or at least possible) in the system. It may be outdated, even broken, but there is value in past lessons learned. Whether or not they know it, CPMs are carriers of that wisdom.
I would encourage you and all other candidates to be honest and open with your committee in the context of the covenant relationship that you have with them. Inquire about the process and their requirements. Why is it important? What do they want you to get out of it? How will it help you prepare for ministry or validate your call? Don’t accept, “because we told you so” as an answer, but also don’t dismiss their “hoops” as unfair before fully attempting to understand them. If you are not given the chance to voice your desires and questions in a fair and balanced way, rely on those whose job it is to advocate for you. Work within the system you have agreed to before going to those who are outside to seek validation for your own position.
In short, get on the other side of the table and join me and many others in working to make this an open and authentic process for all. We need you.
Adam – I think the process needs to be far more transparent than it is. As one who has been both through the ord process and also one on a CPM for 6 years, I know that so much of it is behind closed doors, cloak-and-dagger, etc. The one thing that I would be sure to do is inform your CPM people when you do make posts regarding the process. As part of the transparency process, it would be important that they feel you are being open about this because the last thing that you would want at this point is for them to hear an interpretation of your posts form another source.
So, if you are informing them that you have made a new post about your process, it shows that you are not using this just to vent your feelings or to complain about them, but instead to open it up to a larger dialogue to ideas, thoughts, opinions, etc. And of course, that’s what our presbyterian process is about isn’t it?
I consider Adam a friend and colleague and I applaud his desire to keep things “in the light.” Not allowing secrets and shameful practices to dwell and fester in places that we don’t speak of or much less go, that’s great. I’m not quite sure if there is a line, however, regarding what should be blogged about.
I haven’t read every word of these comments, if someone already mentioned this, forgive me, but Adam has the ability to say whatever he wants regarding the process, while those on the other side of the table (the CPM) are able to say NOTHING. An Inquirer/Candidates records, reports, etc are held (and must be held) with the utmost confidentiality. To Blog in general regarding places of brokenness, discrepencies, impractical criteria within our system is helpful. Especially when engaging in the conversation the people who are actually in positions to make changes (not just the people on the outside who like to complain). To Blog about a specific situation (ie Adam’s very personal story) without the ability to engage in dialogue with the specific people/ committee who is involved, would likely be frustrating for those involved.
I’m Ordained PCUSA, I serve on our Presbytery’s CPM and I’m listening. In response to Jake’s “realist” perspective, I see NO VALUE in perpetuating a system that is broken (even if i myself may have had to “endure” it). It’s for this very reason that I, as a recently ordained Pastor, would accept a position on a CPM to make the path smooth, more relevant and more accessible for those who would come after me.
Those are my views. I think there are very few in the PCUSA who think everything is “perfect.” I am glad that our denomination is one that is so significant to people that it could evoke such impassioned responses. Will these responses be merely critical or will you find ways to work on a solution? Will you shoot holes in a sinking vessel and then jump ship or you will you find ways to bail water and steady her on course?
It seems to me that if you understand certain parts of the blogging culture then you understand why things like this need to be blogged about. Indeed it is a risk and followers of this blog know of instances where it has burned Adam.
For people like me, who have only met Adam a few times, our appreciation for him is that he is willing to use himself to begin conversation that hopefully leads to change. He doesn’t need to be the poster child for such things but he continues to volunteer himself to be a magnet for criticism. You don’t even have to consider him to be a prophet, but he is a guy saying, “Hey this is messed up. Maybe we should do something about it.” While he may not be right on everything (I don’t have an example) he’s not reckless.
I mean on offense to anyone who offered Adam the advice of taking down these posts. Know that you are respected and I believe I understand where you are coming from. However, to me, asking someone to do that is a mild form of censorship and contributes to the bigger problem of this flawed system (in this case, ordination). It’s ok to change. If the organized leadership in denominations allowed their shortcomings to be called out and made their changes public, I think that would actually gain the respect of many, including their faithful, their ministers, their critics and non-believers. By hiding it, we only confirm the popular suspicions made by people like Dan Brown. I would be inspired if a denomination or a some institutional office repented of something. Aren’t we as a church supposed to be known for that kind of change anyway?
Speaking of change, I appreciated AdamK’s comment. Sir, I hope others share your mentality to this degree. If this becomes the case, then it appears that it will be a healthier process in the future.
Just to be clear, I never said that Adam should take down the post. I am grateful for the conversation and insight. My suggestion has to do with the means to effect real change. In this case, as interesting as this dialogue is to participate and benefit from, I am not sure it is the most effective tool at Adam’s (or any other candidate or inquirer’s) disposal. I am all for having an honest, open and transparent process, but does that mean that we should all have access to all the details of everyone’s individual process?
It seems to me like some are talking Adam’s specific case and generalizing it, making judgments of the whole process. Adam’s experience is important and should be heard, but without the response of those on the other side of the table (who as AdamK points out cannot, because of confidentiality, participate in this discussion or at least respond to the specifics) it is an incomplete story. This is not to suggest that Adam is being honest or open, just that there are more voices and other perspectives that need to be considered.
Furthermore, the choice between being broadcast on an open forum and being purposely hidden behind closed doors seems to me to be a false dichotomy. Isn’t there room for work to be done within a covenant community without it being suspicious? Maybe the privacy is intended to protect the candidate.
My point is that the process is designed to be worked out in covenant community between individuals who are willing to do the hard work of discernment together. (An aside point, in my experience discernment is HARD WORK. It is frustrating, challenging and uncomfortable. It does not come easy. It is not always a kind pat on the back, but sometimes takes the form of another’s challenge to do something that we do not want to do or that we do not see the wisdom in. The tough side of discernment almost always strikes me as unfair at first, until its wisdom has time to sink in. This is not to say that CPMs are always right when someone cries foul. But nor are they always in the wrong.)
I have no problem with Adam raising questions about the process or challenging its fairness or suggesting it needs to be updated and fixed. And while he has every right to do so, I am just not sure broadcasting his individual case is the helpful way to do it. Nor is it necessarily fair to his covenant partners on the CPM of care. I do not mean this as criticism of Adam, really I do not. I have a lot of sympathy for his position and that of many others with similar feelings and concerns, which is why I care to respond at all.
I also respond because I care about the process, all of the people in it, those who serve the church through it and the churches who rely on it for pastors, as well as the whole Church. It seems to me that everyone who has entered this discussion cares about these things as well, which is why we speak up for change. But what kind of change are we talking about? And how do we get it? This is the conversation that interests and matters most to me.
I appreciate your attempts at transparency in what can be a rather opaque process.
I think that the reason that transparency in the blogosphere gives the older crowd ulcers is the disparity in value of the printed word. As recently as a few years ago, anything that appeared on a website would have undergone the same scrutiny as a book, journal, magazine, or newspaper. Obviously these editorial processes still exist for many sites…but not for blogs. Seeing a website that is open about the seminary / ordination process (warts and all) brings about a whole different kind of accountability to the system…something that the “institution” doesn’t know what to do with…YET.
Ultimately, I think that this can be an effective model of institutional self-regulating, provided that the candidate with a blog uses this medium to benefit the entire process and not themselves. I fear that not all Ministers (I use that term in a broad sense) have your level of boundaries. I think that, more than anything, the viral nature of blogs and networking sites scares the shit out of people who have been called to positions of denominational leadership.
I believe that transparency will bring about an entirely different process for Protestant folks someday, but probably not until you’re a grey-haired bishop or something. That said, I think this will happen sooner than later if you and others continue to offer personal testimonies that share the joys and sorrows of the process without throwing fellow pastors under the bus. As one who continues to wrestle with the notion of ordination in a Lutheran context (one of your partners in full Communion, I might add!), I am hopeful and optimistic that the labor of love that people like you are enduring today will be the seeds that one day bear fruit for those that come after us.
Blessings along the journey…
Being open and transparent is not necessarily going to help me whiz right through the system – but I’ve found that for me, it’s important to be open and authentic.
Of course no one can make you change things. You aren’t really open minded when it comes to the nature and place of your blog. It is one issue, among others, on which you are not likely to change your mind, because you have very firmly established convictions. In some sense, you’ve given yourself over to a strange ideology in a blinding way. “Open” and “authentic”? What’s authentic about a blog, really? How “authentic” is a 300-word missive posted electronically on the internet? What makes internetting “authentic”? What is authentic is what you’ve probably done with actual human beings and not your computer: prayer and serious conversation with the San Francisco Presbytery, prayer with your wife, friends, and colleagues, soul-searching, hard work, devotion, hope, and yes, prudent resistance to problems conducted in the proper context and in the spirit of Christian love.
Adam, don’t be duped by people like your friend Tony Jones. The way the Church makes decisions is not and never will be conducted like a 21st century American general election. Democratic struggle and protest has its place in society at large, but it is not relevant to the Church in the same way. You probably cannot be convinced of that, because you’re too blinded by contemporary politico-theology to think otherwise. Nevertheless, Mr. Jones is a church unto himself. Literally. He pastors the church of Tony Jones. If you think the Church is bigger than you, and I know you at least think that, then you need to seriously rethink your association with Mr. Jones and his ridiculous tactics.
All of that about Tony aside, it still isn’t too late for you to do the right thing for your own survival. Don’t be deluded into thinking that, if your post didn’t exist, the “struggle against the evils of ordination” would somehow be diminished. All the “authenticity” on the internet will not change such evils, when and where they exist–your case included. Only the Holy Spirit can and will exorcise such demons, in and through the Church and her ministers–sinful though they indeed are (Tony!). So keep trying, praying, struggling, and hoping in the Church. Your attempts to operate beyond the bounds of human ecclesial interaction cannot be tolerated under the guise of “authenticity.” To the contrary, it is inauthentic and disingenuous to attempt to pass off electronic missives as a genuine attempt to forge ahead and to work with those actually involved in your struggle, and who actually can (and yes, maybe even will!) help you.
The average internet user is as authentic as the average pomo is intellectual.