Scandalous……
Pastors seem to be only somewhat less likely to be involved in scandals these days than anyone else…….as attested to by some statistics in a recent sexual ethics workshop for clergy. People are still people, subject to the same brokenness of temptation and sin even after the laying on of hands, it appears.
I overheard a member of the UMC Board of Ministry about a month ago telling someone in a dining room serving line behind me that the Board was looking for clergy candidates who were “self-aware, scholarly, and serious.” That was another of those moments when I knew that my candidacy for ordination as a deacon had been merely endured and tolerated by some on the Board, and would never be celebrated and affirmed. I have heard repeatedly from members of the Board interview teams that I lack “self-awareness” or “discernment”. They have seemed to think that I didn’t know how they reacted to me being me. They did not seem to consider me a serious candidate. I was not enough like them to be considered legitimate in the circle of “self-aware, scholarly and serious” individuals who could bear the mantle of representing Christ’s church in the world. What a shame that there seems to be an attitude on the part of some that clergy should all be cut from the same cloth. Since those to whom God calls us are so very diverse, one would think that there would be some appreciation for more diversity among ordained clergy, especially deacons who serve in many diverse roles. I am well aware that I am not everyone’s “cup of tea”. There are, however, others for whom my gifts and graces, meager as some view them to be, are a healing cuppa brewed encouragement. Bishop Graves said that we are to be well grounded in our identity in Christ and not attend to the opinions and expectations of others. Ahhhhh, but it was the fact that I was not attentive enough to the opinion and obedient enough to the expectations of some on the Board that appears to have been objectionable. Be you! I would submit an additional few S’s for the Board to consider adding to their staid list of “self-aware, scholarly, and serious”- try scriptural, spiritual, sincere, successful in ministry, and willing to be even a little bit scandalous at times in advocacy for the sake of Christ’s call to love and serve the least, the last, the lost, and the lonely!
3/21/2017
At one point in last year’s appeal preparation for the Board’s Conference Relations Committee after the 2016 discontinuation from pursuit of ordination, I was going through the Board of Ministry’s file on me and saw a note in the February 2014 interview notes summary page ” Bible literal ? ” There was never a question asked of me about whether or not I interpret the Bible in a literal way. The closest the interviewer came to it was asking me why I repeatedly wrote in my Bible study on Ephesians, “Paul said” or “Paul writes”, etc. Then the interviewer asked if I had ever heard of historical-critical analysis of the Bible that questions Paul’s authorship of Ephesians. I responded that I was aware of such questions about authorship not only of Ephesians but of most of the books of the Bible. (My internal aside to myself was, “One cannot attend seminary without being thoroughly schooled in historical criticism.”) The interviewer asked why I did not include such disclaimers in my Bible study. I responded that I teach at a very basic level to women who generally do not have a lot of Bible knowledge and that it is more important for me to teach them basic Bible literacy and principles and how to apply them, not confuse them with academic issues. It appears that the implication of my answer was that I was assumed to interpret Scripture literally and apparently, could therefore be dismissed as “unscholarly”….a big black mark against ever getting ordained in The UMC as later appeared to be the case. Then, this year, in questions about my Bible study on Joshua, one said, “We’ve all read your Bible study and it is rather academic. (“Academic”, not scholarly.) You have said you teach women who are not biblically literate so how did they receive and respond to this study?” I explained that I took a “big picture view of the Old Testament concept of covenant in this study and set out to help them understand the history of the covenant with Abraham and its transmission through the generations of the patriarchs, through the years of the Exodus and in Joshua as a significant part of it was finally realized for the children of Israel about 500 years after it was given. It was a fun study to write and teach, inspired in part by the work of Dr. Sandra Richter in Epic of Eden and by an outline that the Lord gave me in the middle of the night that I had to get up and write down after I had labored for two weeks over how to get my arms around outlining and breaking down the content into manageable sections to bring out the concepts and themes I wanted to emphasize in Joshua: Covenant (promise) and Obedience. The women I taught loved it, finally seemed to get their arms around the Old Testament, they said. One even said, “Joshua is my new FAVORITE BOOK OF THE BIBLE!” So, if one is too face-value literal in the use of Scripture to teach, she is suspect. And if one is ambitious in striving to teach big concepts in a personally applicable kind of way, then she is also suspect. There are some people who will never be pleased. It makes one question the basis on which decisions to approve or discontinue are made. But they will never tell you straight up. That was a criticism that an ordained Elder had after sitting in on an interview committee’s discussion of a candidate. (The Elder called it gossip disguised as discussion) As this Elder described it, the “discussion” was more about the candidate’s style than his substance. This Elder felt led to say (but didn’t), “If this isn’t someone you’re ever going to accept in ministry why don’t you just tell him the truth and quit wasting his time and yours bringing him back every year.” It seems to be more about personality, appearances, expectations for “fitting the mold”, and preferences for one candidate or another than looking for and affirming one’s call and competency. The Board has to be very careful and cagey, though, because saying some things about a person will get them sued…..something they are apparently very cautious about. (I also discovered in the appeal process that, at one point, the Board had sought counsel as to whether or not they could sue me for libel about something I said regarding the conduct of a couple of the interviewers. The legal opinion apparently was that I was stating an opinion and I did not name the individuals, therefore it was not libelous.) They had no trouble seeking legal advice to sue me when, in my frustration after 9 months of trying to talk to someone in authority with knowledge and insight about the process and about the situation I had encountered, I went “public” in November 2014 with my reaction to the process in a deacon’s facebook page asking if others had encountered such communication obstacles elsewhere.