Question About Methodist Pastors!

[jinc1019]

Hello All,

I have a very simple question I'm having trouble finding an answer to: What, specifically, are Methodist pastors required to affirm for ordination? I'm referring to the United Methodist Church, specifically, but I'd be interested in other Wesleyan churches as well. Thanks!

-Justin

 

[circuitrider]

Justin,

I don't have my copy of the Discipline in front of me. But I would be happy to respond when I'm in the office next and can copy some of the relevant paragraphs.

If another pastor sees this first maybe you'll get your answer quicker. You might also note that we have two categories of the ordained. We have Deacons and Elders. The duties are not identical. Usually an ordained pastor is an Elder but I have heard of cases where a Deacon is pastoring a church. Also we have Licenced Local Pastors often pastoring smaller congregations who are not ordained but are considered clergy.

 

[jinc1019]

Justin,

I don't have my copy of the Discipline in front of me. But I would be happy to respond when I'm in the office next and can copy some of the relevant paragraphs.

If another pastor sees this first maybe you'll get your answer quicker. You might also note that we have two categories of the ordained. We have Deacons and Elders. The duties are not identical. Usually an ordained pastor is an Elder but I have heard of cases where a Deacon is pastoring a church. Also we have Licenced Local Pastors often pastoring smaller congregations who are not ordained but are considered clergy.

Very thankful for your response. I'm appreciative!

From what I can gather, it seems as though pastors are asked to adhere to the Confession of Faith and Articles of Religion, but both, in the spirit of Anglicanism, are pretty broad. I have heard that some of Wesley's sermons and his notes may be required, but the language read doesn't seem very clear. They are called "standards," but it never says they are requirements that all pastors must adhere to. Any help sorting this out the next time you're in the office would be just wonderful!

-Justin

 

[circuitrider]

As to the standards, you have noticed that we are not a "confessional Church." And that even Wesley's own sermons aren't a systematic theology. Wesley in fact changes his mind and modifies his views over time.

So there is an inherant flexibility in UMC doctrine.

 

[circuitrider]

Here are the historic questions asked at ordination gleaned for a website I googled.

Have you faith in Christ?

Are you going on to perfection?

Do you expect to be made perfect in love in this life?

Are you earnestly striving after it?

Are you resolved to devote yourself wholly to God and his work?

Do you know the General Rules of our Church?

Will you keep them?

Have you studied the doctrines of The United Methodist Church?

After full examination, do you believe that our doctrines are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures?

Will you preach and maintain them?

Have you studied our form of Church discipline and polity?

Do you approve our Church government and polity?

Will you support and maintain them?

Will you diligently instruct the children in every place?

Will you visit from house to house?

Will you recommend fasting or abstinence, both by precept and example?

Are you determined to employ all your time in the work of God?

Are you in debt so as to embarrass you in your work?

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.

 

[jinc1019]

Here are the historic questions asked at ordination gleaned for a website I googled.

Have you faith in Christ?

Are you going on to perfection?

Do you expect to be made perfect in love in this life?

Are you earnestly striving after it?

Are you resolved to devote yourself wholly to God and his work?

Do you know the General Rules of our Church?

Will you keep them?

Have you studied the doctrines of The United Methodist Church?

After full examination, do you believe that our doctrines are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures?

Will you preach and maintain them?

Have you studied our form of Church discipline and polity?

Do you approve our Church government and polity?

Will you support and maintain them?

Will you diligently instruct the children in every place?

Will you visit from house to house?

Will you recommend fasting or abstinence, both by precept and example?

Are you determined to employ all your time in the work of God?

Are you in debt so as to embarrass you in your work?

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.

Very interesting...

What is understood to mean "the doctrines of The United Methodist Church?"

Does that refer to the Articles and Confession? I guess I just don't understand how the UMC determines whether a pastor believes what it teaches? It asks if the doctrines are one and the same, but which doctrines is it referring to? Thanks for your time; this has been very helpful!

-Justin

 

[circuitrider]

The doctrinal standards include the Articles of Religion, the Confession of Faith, Wesley's Standard Sermons, and Wesleys commentary on the New Testament. (That isn't the proper title but it is slipping my tired brain.)

Clergy tend much more to be held to standards of practice, that is obeying the Discipline, than standards of belief because there is a lot of wiggle room for interpretation.

I'm not saying a pastor couldn't get in trouble for doctrinal issues. But I don't see it as common.

If you look at the Articles of Religion you'll find we take most of our doctrines from our Anglican history. Methodists really didn't leave Anglicanism over doctrine but more over a sense that the faith was not being fully lived out and that holiness of heart and life had been forgotten.

IMHO, when Methodism is at its best is when it finds the balance between head knowledge of God, personal experience with God, and then faith acted out in what Methodists call personal and social holiness.

If you are looking for a rigid set of beliefs for clergy to be held to you aren't going to find them because Methodism isn't rigid.

 

[GraceSeeker]

If you look at the Articles of Religion you'll find we take most of our doctrines from our Anglican history. Methodists really didn't leave Anglicanism over doctrine but more over a sense that the faith was not being fully lived out and that holiness of heart and life had been forgotten.

I can't speak for what happened in the UK, but in the USA I'm pretty sure that a little something called the American revolution had something to do with the clergy representing the Church of England not being so well received by the citizens of England's former colonies after they had won their independence. Apart from that accident of history, I wouldn't have been surprised to see the Methodist Societies remain as a revivalist movement within Anglicanism.

 

[circuitrider]

I can't speak for what happened in the UK, but in the USA I'm pretty sure that a little something called the American revolution had something to do with the clergy representing the Church of England not being so well received by the citizens of England's former colonies after they had won their independence. Apart from that accident of history, I wouldn't have been surprised to see the Methodist Societies remain as a revivalist movement within Anglicanism.

Agreed, as well as the fact that most clergy of the Church of England were payed by the Crown and opposed the Revolution.

 

[circuitrider]

Justin,

Do you have particular doctrines that you are most concerned about?

I know you asked about infant baptism in another thread.

 

[jinc1019]

I can't speak for what happened in the UK, but in the USA I'm pretty sure that a little something called the American revolution had something to do with the clergy representing the Church of England not being so well received by the citizens of England's former colonies after they had won their independence. Apart from that accident of history, I wouldn't have been surprised to see the Methodist Societies remain as a revivalist movement within Anglicanism.

Very interesting...I agree, having read quite a bit about that particular time period!

 

[jinc1019]

Justin,

Do you have particular doctrines that you are most concerned about?

I know you asked about infant baptism in another thread.

Thanks for asking...

I'll just lay it all out for you so you have an understanding of where I'm coming from. I was born Catholic, but never believed in Jesus or any of that stuff. The Bible was always half true/half mythology to me. My parents/family/friends were all pretty agnostic or "spiritual," but not religious. I got married while I was in graduate school at a Christian college, and my father-in-law was and still is very, very Catholic. He challenged me to give Christianity a chance, along with a professor at the college, so I did.

A year later, I became a Christian.

That was in 2011. Since then, I've been rigorously studying the various denominations/attending services, etc.

My goal is to be in the church that most closely matches the church of the apostles, and I have taken that very, very seriously.

Having studied quite a bit, the three churches I think are most close are Anglicanism, Methodism, and Lutheranism. Each has its strong points and weak points.

If I had to characterize my beliefs, it would probably be closest to an orthodox Anglican with a strong view of the sacraments and a view of predestination that both balances the concept of the "elect" with the concept of free will. I also admire much about Eastern Orthodox theology and have a fond view of theosis. Sound familiar? I think my views are pretty Wesleyan (although I would say my view of predestination is a little more reformed than Wesley's, although not enough to make me a Calvinist or even Lutheran).

I guess my concern about Methodism is this...

1. I love 18th century Methodism, but we don't live in the 18th century. Wesley was far more sacramental than many Methodists today...and that bothers me (I prefer a more sacramental approach).

2. I don't like confessions, because having studied them very closely, I've found that they force people into boxes they may not necessarily naturally end up in had they studied the issues themselves independently. For instance, I love Luther, but some of his beliefs about the papacy or six days creation were clearly heavily influenced by his time. It doesn't make sense that people today should have to hold the same exact view to be "confessional" (which is the case with the papacy stuff). I realize Methodism isn't "confessional," but pastors are still required to accept Wesley's sermons and notes as "standards," and while I agree with the vast majority of his sermons and notes (of the ones I have read, which is a decent number), I don't agree with every word of them. I'm concerned that by making his sermons "standards," the church has effectively locked pastors up in a pseudo-confession.

3. Finally, Methodism is in crisis right now. There is a huge gulf between the "liberals" and "conservatives," and I'm worried about joining a church with so many internal issues. I just want to focus on faith and growing the church. I am pretty orthodox on nearly every issue, and I feel uncomfortable joining churches that question the resurrection, promote sex before marriage, etc...and in Chicago (where I now live), many UMC churches do that.

With all that said...I am going to be moving in a few months (probably to North Carolina, but it could be St. Louis also), and there are more conservative churches of every denomination in both those areas, which is a very good thing!

Anyway...That's where I'm at. I'm considering Methodism very seriously, but I worry about those three points a lot. (By the way, some of this difficulty stems from a desire I have to be more than just a laymember. I do feel called to be more involved than that...exactly how much more, I'm not sure!)

Don't get me wrong, Lutheranism has its problems too (it's a little too fundamentalist and confessional for me) and Anglicanism's issues are apparent (many of the same liberal vs. conservative issues, plus not a great emphasis on holy living in many parishes).

If you've read this far, I'm very appreciative! I know I went on and on, but you asked! Also, I think it's important to set the context. Any advice, thoughts, guidance, etc. you can give would be very much appreciated.

-Justin

 

[circuitrider]

Thanks Justin. The background is appreciated!

I would suggest that as far as UM Churches go there is such a diversity that you might be very happy in some UM church and feel uncomfortable with others.

You will find that Methodism is Arminian. We don't teach predestination and nor do we accept the idea of a predetermined "elect."

You are right that the UMC is in disagreement on issues of sexuality. It sounds like you and I are on different places in that discussion. But that doesn't really matter in this conversation.

What you may not realize is that most every denomination in the US is dealing with very similar issues with sexuality including Lutherans, Anglicans, and others. The only way for you to avoid that is to join a denomination that has already taken a strong stand that fits your viewpoint. But that is really no guarantee in that over the next 20 years I think there is going to be a huge shift in the attitude of many churches towards issues of sexuality. I'm not trying to discourage you. But that is what I think will happen in all but the most conservative denominations.

I honestly can say I've never met a United Methodist pastor that questioned resurrection. I've also never known a UMC pastor to "promote" sex before marriage. They may not condemn it. Or they may be seeking to be understanding as to the life situations in the community around them. But some how I'm betting "promote" might be a little unlikely.
The opposite of not condemning isn't necessarily support.

As to the sacraments, I very much sympathize with you. Not all Methodists take the sacraments as seriously as I wish they did.

Some pastors are very slipshod about how communion is served. I'm quite Anglican in my thinking about the sacraments and if I had my way I'd want the Bishops of our Church to set down some minimum guidelines for communion and baptism so that we don't come off looking like Baptists rather than Methodists.

If you were to be interested in ministry, particularly ordained ministry, you'd have to eventually come to large agreement with some denomination and you'd have to go through the process of ordination for that group. Requirements vary. But Anglicans, United Methodists, and Lutherans all have a required ordination path including examination of gifts and graces, appropriate schooling, and oversight from a Board of Ordained Ministry or some similar group.

Lastly, United Methodist Elders (our equivalent of priest) accept a call to itineracy in which we promise to offer ourselves without reserve to be appointed as our Bishop sees fit for the sake of the ministry of the conference. That isn't an easy or a light promise to live by. It is a calling to a very specific lifestyle.

 

[GraceSeeker]

jinc1019, I took a leave of absence from the UMC and served in the Lutheran Church (ELCA) for four years. If you want more attention to sacrament than you are finding in the UMC then you might want to look at the Lutheran Church (and Anglicanism also). If you are conservative then you're going to want to stay away from the ELCA and probably go with the Missouri Synod or the new North American Lutheran Church (which are those churches that couldn't accept the ELCA's openness to homosexuality and left the denomination).

An interesting thing about the UMC is that there are those pastors who belong to the Order of St. Luke that might provide that high view of the sacrament you mentioned above. If you can't find anyone who belongs to it, you may find that the smaller, rural UMC churches tend to be less and less distinguishable from Baptists churches as you move south. The larger city churches are less likely to exhibit that assimilation of the culture, and in terms of ritual some will be attempting to be contemporary and others at least somewhat high church.

The use of some sort of "standard" is a far cry from being confessional. I doubt if there is a more pluralistic church than the United Methodist Church. I've never felt like the standards were more than what I would call doctrinal distinctiveness. There are things in Wesley that every Methodist thinks differently about. We don't just rubber stamp his writings uncritically. Oh, and it isn't *all* of Wesley's sermons that were consider the "standard" anyway, just the 55 standard sermons. They were so named because Wesley wrote them to be used by the lay preachers who were a key to the spread of the Methodist Bands and Societies.

Wesley depended a great deal on lay preachers and there is still an emphasis on lay ministry in the UMC, both in terms of general ministry, but also the offices of Lay Servant Minister and Lay Speaker.

 

[jinc1019]

Hi Again,

Thank you so much for answering my questions and taking the time to consider each of my points. I'm very thankful!

First, when I said "predestination," I didn't mean the Calvinist understanding of predestination. I was referring to the Wesleyan understanding of it, which I read about in several places, but most directly here: Sermon 58 - On Predestination - General Board of Global Ministries

Second, you are very right that every church is dealing with issues related to sexuality. Personally, sexuality is not a major issue at all for me. The major issue for me is the authority of the Bible, the traditional teachings about Christianity, etc. The problem I have found is that many of the liberal pastors in the area where I live who believe homosexual sex is permissible also tend to be the same people who have a very low view of scripture.

In regards to denying the resurrection, I actually attended a UMC church when this occurred. The pastor of a very large UMC church in the area suggested the resurrection may not have happened and that's why Mark's gospel doesn't tell us much about what happened after the empty tomb is revealed.

I realize this is a rather extreme position and that the vast majority of pastors wouldn't question that, but here, liberalism has gone too far in the churches I've been a part of. One church here, which is known for being especially supportive of gay rights, has been known to basically discourage Methodists who disagree, even those that do so peacefully. One local pastor told a parishioner who quietly approached him about homosexuality that the parishioner was no longer welcome there. Of course I wasn't there to hear it for myself, but judging by just how liberal things are here, I wouldn't be surprised.

Again, the issue for me isn't homosexuality or sex in general. It literally is one of the issues I care least about one way or the other. The issue is biblical authority in general, and I have found that in my experience, the two are linked. That may be unfair...and I certainly don't mean to insult you or anything like that, but that has definitely been my experience.

Also, the reason I brought that up was not to talk about liberalism so much as I wanted to talk about unity. The UMC is not united. It is going to break apart eventually...Liberal pastors are openly defying the leadership of the church the same way conservatives did in the TEC, etc. In the end, the two groups cannot exist. With all that chaos, I don't know how anything gets done...I'm just fearful because I want to avoid these giant schisms, but maybe it's unavoidable.

I'll carefully think over everything you said....Perhaps I need to reevaluate my concerns.

I do have one more question for you...Given your view of the sacraments, etc. Why didn't you join the Episcopal Church? Why be Methodist? (I promise that's the last question!)

Thanks again for your time!

-Justin

 

[jinc1019]

jinc1019, I took a leave of absence from the UMC and served in the Lutheran Church (ELCA) for four years. If you want more attention to sacrament than you are finding in the UMC then you might want to look at the Lutheran Church (and Anglicanism also). If you are conservative then you're going to want to stay away from the ELCA and probably go with the Missouri Synod or the new North American Lutheran Church (which are those churches that couldn't accept the ELCA's openness to homosexuality and left the denomination).

An interesting thing about the UMC is that there are those pastors who belong to the Order of St. Luke that might provide that high view of the sacrament you mentioned above. If you can't find anyone who belongs to it, you may find that the smaller, rural UMC churches tend to be less and less distinguishable from Baptists churches as you move south. The larger city churches are less likely to exhibit that assimilation of the culture, and in terms of ritual some will be attempting to be contemporary and others at least somewhat high church.

The use of some sort of "standard" is a far cry from being confessional. I doubt if there is a more pluralistic church than the United Methodist Church. I've never felt like the standards were more than what I would call doctrinal distinctiveness. There are things in Wesley that every Methodist thinks differently about. We don't just rubber stamp his writings uncritically. Oh, and it isn't *all* of Wesley's sermons that were consider the "standard" anyway, just the 55 standard sermons. They were so named because Wesley wrote them to be used by the lay preachers who were a key to the spread of the Methodist Bands and Societies.

Wesley depended a great deal on lay preachers and there is still an emphasis on lay ministry in the UMC, both in terms of general ministry, but also the offices of Lay Servant Minister and Lay Speaker.

I'm very thankful for your comments here...All good suggestions, and I am encouraged by your assessment of the "confessional" concern I had.

I know about the Order of St. Luke, but I don't know how to find a pastor who belongs to it. I haven't been able to find any sort of a search function on their website. If you know how I could find a St. Luke pastor, that would be wonderful.

Also, just so you know, I won't be moving to a rural community. It will be a fairly large city.

I have considered Lutheranism, but I don't agree with all of the Book of Concord, so LCMS and the other confessional Lutheran groups won't work. Same goes with conservative Presbyterians.

That leaves Anglicanism and Methodism, which is basically the choice I'm trying to make at this point.

Thanks again for everything!

 

[GraceSeeker]

That leaves Anglicanism and Methodism, which is basically the choice I'm trying to make at this point.

Thanks again for everything!

You may want to make that determination based on the local congregation more than the denominational affiliation. Within both of those denominations you may find more variation within the denomination than between the denominations.

 

[jinc1019]

You may want to make that determination based on the local congregation more than the denominational affiliation. Within both of those denominations you may find more variation within the denomination than between the denominations.

You're probably right. If you don't mind me asking...Why are you Methodist vs. some other branch of Christianity?

 

[circuitrider]

I know you asked Graceseeker and I'm sure he will answer for himself. But, I grew up Baptist and chose to become a United Methodist. My greatest attractions to Methodism Wesley's understanding of grace and how that effects the doctrine of soteriology, that is how God redeems people.

My previous Baptist family often viewed salvation as a single event of confession while Wesleyan theology views salvation not as an event but as a journey. I see this as much more in keeping with the New Testament.

As an aside. I would disagree with you on the issues of homosexuality and sexuality in general being about Biblical authority. Most all theological difference among Christians are about Biblical interpretation and not authority.

It isn't that liberal and progressive Christians don't view the Bible as authoritative. It is that liberal and conservative Christians interpret the Bible differently.

 

[GraceSeeker]

You're probably right. If you don't mind me asking...Why are you Methodist vs. some other branch of Christianity?

Primarily because I was born and raised within the context of Methodism. My father was a Methodist pastor. I was heavily involved in the youth ministry of our annual conference. So, I was so soaked in Methodism that I never really considered anything else seriously.

I say "seriously" because there were times that I did. I can remember rebelling against my father as a teenager and telling him that the only reason that he insisted I go to church was because he was the pastor. He called my bluff, reminded me that he hadn't always been a pastor. And said that if he had continued in sales, such as he was employed before I was born, that he would still have been taking his family to church every Sunday. He also told me that if I didn't want to attend his church I was free to attend another, but that he still expected me to go to church on Sunday morning. If not at his, then somewhere else. So, I took him up on that for about three weeks, and visit other churches that my friends attended. Then, after about three weeks I asked myself why I was getting up early to go to these other churches, when there was a perfectly good one across the driveway from my own house that I could pretty much roll out of bed and walk to in just seconds.

But, I have served in other denominations. While in seminary I served as the Christian Education/Youth director of a UCC church. I never seriously considered it, and found nothing in it that was particularly attractive for the long term.

Now, my leave of absence to work in the ELCA is a different story. In some ways it was the best years of my ministry. It was the perfect type of ministry for me providing leadership to the larger church as the synod youth coordinator and then being on staff in a local congregation as their youth pastor. I was teaching youth Sunday school, confirmation, adult Bible study, and youth (fellowship) group on a weekly basis, preaching about once a month in the local church, and then working with representative youth, youth group leaders, and others from across the synod to help build the youth programs in other congregations by providing large-scale events and other programs that a congregation might not be able to do on its own but that we could when working cooperatively, as well as providing guidance to congregations exploring new directions in youth ministries. I could have stayed there, probably forever. But, my immediate supervisor had a health issue and have to leave his position. At this level there is a political aspect to ministry (and I don't mean that in a bad way) and the new person who took his place had the right to bring his own staff on board with him to synodical staff. The bishop did offer to find me another place to serve in the ELCA, but as I thought about it, I realized that I was more of a Methodist than a Lutheran. And it was primarily over baptism. I had a sense that among my Lutheran colleagues they not only saw baptism as being grace-filled, but the actual means by which God irresistibly made a person a Christian. Now, they never said that. But, it was just something I felt below the surface. (Just like when I was appointed to serve a church in extreme southern Illinois I had a sense that most Methodist laity there were in fact Bapto-Methodist.) So, having opportunity to serve in either the ELCA or the UMC, I just decided that I was still more UMC in my heart than I was ELCA. But, in truth I'm ecumenical enough (and the UMC is imperfect in other areas) that I would feel comfortable in many different denominations.