(Yes, I stole the title from Grumpy Cat....)
Sooo.....it finally happened. After years of discernment, consideration, and more than a little "hoop-jumping," I finally got ordained.
Not, "licensed," or "approved ordination pending call," or anything else, but full "can do the magic with the bread and pour water on the baby's head" ordained.
It's all a bit surreal. In fact, I've been trying to wrap my head around it in the past few weeks. Though, I think that's probably normal with things that you work towards for a long time. You strive and you strive, usually with a few tears thrown in as well, and then when you get to your objective it's like "Whoa, where's the kaboom?!"
Don't get me wrong, I had an amazingly pertinent, funny, and fun ordination service filled with friends, family, and colleagues. I even joked with my parents that this was my "marriage to Jesus" and that I was hurt they didn't buy me a robe from Vera Wang. (That's a joke, I swear...) Still, all the same, I've found myself mulling over the concept of ordination and what it means to me.
The honest truth is that it doesn't mean a huge amount.
That's not to say that I don't take ordination or ministerial standing seriously. I do. It's not to say that I don't recognise ordination as a "setting-aside" and a special and sacred rite between a minister and the wider church. Again, I do. It's just that, well, I don't know that ordination means a lot with my own personal concept of ministry and the workings of the church.
There are some folks and some traditions where ordination is something of the penultimate step of ministry. The ordained are the certified and true leaders of the church. The ordained hold the power. The ordained set the agenda and the tone of the church. The ordained decide who's in and who's out.
Mind you, I'm not saying this is inherently wrong per-se. There is, in fact, some very serious sense and safety in letting the ordained do the things I just mentioned. We, the ordained, are almost always pretty well trained for this gig. Some of us even have doctorates in things like ministry, counselling, history, and exegetics. So, yeah, we do, often, know quite much about quite a lot and it's probably good to listen -somewhat- to the advice we give.
However, there are also some REALLY big problems with this form of ministry. The most glaring, to me, is that it sets up a situation where the minister becomes something of a demigod amongst their own congregation. This almost always leads to a slew of problems: from pastoral burn-out, to spiritual abuse, and even physical or sexual abuse. Moreover, this understanding often leads to a situation where the pastor "does" everything in and for the church. I almost think this is more dangerous than some of the other issues I mentioned as laity, within said church, never get to "spread their wings" with such a minister. They never get the opportunity to DO ministry. Oh sure, they definitely hear quite a bit about it and maybe are even involved in ministry to an extent, but so often they aren't really DOING ministry. They aren't provided the option or opportunity to lead, to dream, to dare, and to do. In sum, they're often taught to quash the still-speaking voice of the Almighty because "that's just not what we do here" or "our pastor does it differently."
In the business world, we might look at this as a vertical structure instead of a horizontal one. There are defined tiers of leadership and authority, in this world and those who have the power generally dictate what it is that the others, without the power, should do. Again, there are some benefits to this. There's a lot of order, habit, and understanding in this vertical structure. However, there's also not a lot of dreaming, input, or collaboration. (All things a healthy church needs, IMHO.) On the other hand, a purely horizontal structure, where all are equal and all participate in the leading, the dreaming, and the doing has some pretty huge benefits. It also has some pretty huge pitfalls in that it lacks all the things which are strengths in a vertical model. <sigh> So what's a Rev. to do?!?
Like I said, I've been giving this some thought as of late. I've come to the conclusion that neither a vertical, nor a horizontal, understanding of ministry can really work. Both are too inherently flawed. Instead, I think that ministry, in and out of community of faith, requires us -as in the ordained, the non-ordained, the believing, the unbelieving, and everyone in-between- to be involved in a circular covenant of ministry. Circles do not have a beginning or an end. There's not a distinct person who starts or ends one. (Though, yes, you could argue that the one doing the drawing does...but that's a theological discussion for another time.) In a circle, the minister might be the impetus for one activity, but be the conclusion for another. Or they simply might be a stop in the middle of things. Leadership can come from any spot in a circle, it just simply has to pass through the rest of the circle as it moves along.
Call it collaborative-leader-stry if you want, but I think it's one of the things which needs to be done -and is being done in a number of places- for ministry to be sustainable and productive. That may mean that, as an ordained minister, I take a role as more of a "spiritual coach" or "theological midwife" than as an "answer-book" or administrator. But I'm okay with that....
Besides, I'm pretty sure that a position as "spiritual coach" or "theological midwife" comes with a much better uniform than a burlap alb. (Which was the only actually terrible part of my ordination!)
No comments:
Post a Comment