Brannon's First Reply
by Brannon Hancock
Hi Joseph:
That's pretty funny. Just a few thoughts, and feel free to share them with whomever might be interested (I hate it when other people "reply to all" so I refuse to do so in this case). First of all, as I understand it, Darlene Friend is just flat wrong: one is not a "Reverend" until one is ordained an elder in the Church of the Nazarene. She seems to be erroneously applying the title "Rev." probably simply out of ignorance or misunderstanding, or the ignorance or misunderstanding of those senior to her on the district. Also, while I agree that our allowing yet-to-be-ordained ministers to administer the sacraments is highly problematic, it shouldn't be surprising given our low view of the sacraments in both theology and practice. "Sacramental Nazarenes" like us will do well to remember that, by and large, the Church of the Nazarene does not understand and never has understood what we believe about the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist/Lord's Supper, nor why we undertake such practices outside of the fact that they are (arguably) "biblical" and that Jesus made reference to them somewhere in the NT – which I'm actually not convinced is a good reason to do anything, but that is another matter. All this is to say, of course we allow licensed but not-yet-ordained ministers to administer the sacraments, and for a number of reasons: one, which you have already mentioned, is pastoral need; another is for the training that the duration of one's licensed ministry is to accomplish prior to becoming an ordained elder; another is our commitment to the Protestant Principle, our orientation as a "priesthood of all believers", which is to say, our decisively egalitarian polity – the logic would be, if only "ordained elders" can administer the sacraments, then haven't we just made our pastors into priests and so gone and undone the entire Reformation? (An exaggeration for sure, but I'm sure a part of the reasoning). Now, saying that a licensed minister must be supervised or overseen in his sacramental administration is quite a different thing than saying who can and can't administer the sacraments; a licensed minister can administer the sacraments with the permission and blessing of an ordained elder, which would be "overseeing" or "supervising" without necessarily being present in body (note that many other denominations do this, too). Interestingly, if you read the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene closely, I think you will find (if I recall correctly) that the only real "vocation" to which Nazarene elders are ordained is the preaching of the gospel – sacraments, in keeping with our tradition, are really by the by. So this all to say: while those of us who have glimpsed a larger vision should work hard toward overcoming these lousy traditions and instituting a more comprehensively sacramental way of "being Nazarene," really, none of this should be surprising to us.
Finally, we must keep in mind the way the CoNaz goes about the process of ordination. Granted, I don't fully agree with this process and prefer the way many other churches go about it (I will outline this in a moment and describe what I think is the ideal), but still, we have a long-standing tradition of doing things the way we do them. And that just happens to be: 1) get your local pastor to give you a local license and "oversee" your ministry at your local church in a sort of mentoring role; 2) with the support of your local pastor, approach the district about a district license, which usually denotes the beginning of one's pursuit of ordained ministry (whether pastoral or deaconal); 3) after 2 years of full-time local church ministry as a licensed minister (or more if one's ministry isn't full time), and after completing the course of study and receiving the endorsement of the district credentials board, you may be accepted for ordination by the district, as overseen by a G.S., which is the closest thing we have to the laying on of hands by the bishop in something like "apostolic succession". Our requirement of 2 (or more) years of full-time ministry before one is ordained is something like what the Episcopal (and other) churches do with "curacy", but for them, this comes AFTER ordination. Prior to ordination (and I admit I don't fully understand the process but have picked up quite a bit), the process is very similar to ours as well, consisting of approaching one's local church about what one feels is a calling; the church – not the priest only but perhaps the vestry (church board) or some committee participates in the "discernment" process before referring a potential ordinand to the bishop; the bishop and his council discern further one's fit-ness for ministry before one is invited to become an ordinand, which then involves taking up both local church ministerial duties and academic study; and after sufficient time has passed and studies have been completed, one is ordained as a priest in the Church of God. It is significant to note that, for example, an Episcopal priest can never "lose" his ordination – once he is made an elder/priest in the church, he will be so forever, even though his licensure may be revoked (preventing him from serving as a local minister, administering the sacraments, etc) – because ordination is a sacrament, it is something GOD does, not the church/district, and so, like baptism, it cannot be undone. So, a newly-ordained priest becomes a "curate" which is kind of an assistant priest usually working under a more experienced priest in a local parish, and serves as a curate for 2-3 years before being able to be considered for taking a parish of one's own. Of course, many pursue ordination with no intention of serving as a full-time or "senior" pastor/priest – some desire only to assist, or to be deacons, or to just do "supply" work, or whatever. But the point is, because these other churches take the sacramental life of the church (of which preaching is a part but certainly not the whole – anyone can deliver the homily in Episcopal, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, etc, churches, but only a priest can consecrate the Eucharist or baptize a new Christian), over which the ordained minister presides, more seriously than we do, it follows that we would have a different way of doing things. It's not without its problems, and it's not necessary right, but there are legitimate reasons behind it. I'd prefer something more like what the Anglicans/Episcopalians do, but it would take time for us to move toward that kind of ideal.
Just my thoughts. And as I wrestle with my own calling and whether or not the Lord wills that to involve ordained ministry, it is very useful for me to think through some of these things and figure out what I think, where I stand, and why or why not I might want to pursue ordination in a particular ecclesial tradition – that's the BIG question for me at the moment: should I approach the Nazarene church about ordaining me to a pastoral vocation that, for Nazarenes, does not consist of what I feel particularly called to? In think in many ways you are right: the ordination itself is, for Nazarenes, IN PRACTICE if not in doctrine/principle, simply a piece of paper for the wall, a feather in one's cap, an extra little bit of credibility. Thanks for provoking these thoughts by sending this email. I look forward to talking about such things with you here on British soil sometime in the near future.
In peace,
Brannon
Hi Joseph:
That's pretty funny. Just a few thoughts, and feel free to share them with whomever might be interested (I hate it when other people "reply to all" so I refuse to do so in this case). First of all, as I understand it, Darlene Friend is just flat wrong: one is not a "Reverend" until one is ordained an elder in the Church of the Nazarene. She seems to be erroneously applying the title "Rev." probably simply out of ignorance or misunderstanding, or the ignorance or misunderstanding of those senior to her on the district. Also, while I agree that our allowing yet-to-be-ordained ministers to administer the sacraments is highly problematic, it shouldn't be surprising given our low view of the sacraments in both theology and practice. "Sacramental Nazarenes" like us will do well to remember that, by and large, the Church of the Nazarene does not understand and never has understood what we believe about the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist/Lord's Supper, nor why we undertake such practices outside of the fact that they are (arguably) "biblical" and that Jesus made reference to them somewhere in the NT – which I'm actually not convinced is a good reason to do anything, but that is another matter. All this is to say, of course we allow licensed but not-yet-ordained ministers to administer the sacraments, and for a number of reasons: one, which you have already mentioned, is pastoral need; another is for the training that the duration of one's licensed ministry is to accomplish prior to becoming an ordained elder; another is our commitment to the Protestant Principle, our orientation as a "priesthood of all believers", which is to say, our decisively egalitarian polity – the logic would be, if only "ordained elders" can administer the sacraments, then haven't we just made our pastors into priests and so gone and undone the entire Reformation? (An exaggeration for sure, but I'm sure a part of the reasoning). Now, saying that a licensed minister must be supervised or overseen in his sacramental administration is quite a different thing than saying who can and can't administer the sacraments; a licensed minister can administer the sacraments with the permission and blessing of an ordained elder, which would be "overseeing" or "supervising" without necessarily being present in body (note that many other denominations do this, too). Interestingly, if you read the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene closely, I think you will find (if I recall correctly) that the only real "vocation" to which Nazarene elders are ordained is the preaching of the gospel – sacraments, in keeping with our tradition, are really by the by. So this all to say: while those of us who have glimpsed a larger vision should work hard toward overcoming these lousy traditions and instituting a more comprehensively sacramental way of "being Nazarene," really, none of this should be surprising to us.
Finally, we must keep in mind the way the CoNaz goes about the process of ordination. Granted, I don't fully agree with this process and prefer the way many other churches go about it (I will outline this in a moment and describe what I think is the ideal), but still, we have a long-standing tradition of doing things the way we do them. And that just happens to be: 1) get your local pastor to give you a local license and "oversee" your ministry at your local church in a sort of mentoring role; 2) with the support of your local pastor, approach the district about a district license, which usually denotes the beginning of one's pursuit of ordained ministry (whether pastoral or deaconal); 3) after 2 years of full-time local church ministry as a licensed minister (or more if one's ministry isn't full time), and after completing the course of study and receiving the endorsement of the district credentials board, you may be accepted for ordination by the district, as overseen by a G.S., which is the closest thing we have to the laying on of hands by the bishop in something like "apostolic succession". Our requirement of 2 (or more) years of full-time ministry before one is ordained is something like what the Episcopal (and other) churches do with "curacy", but for them, this comes AFTER ordination. Prior to ordination (and I admit I don't fully understand the process but have picked up quite a bit), the process is very similar to ours as well, consisting of approaching one's local church about what one feels is a calling; the church – not the priest only but perhaps the vestry (church board) or some committee participates in the "discernment" process before referring a potential ordinand to the bishop; the bishop and his council discern further one's fit-ness for ministry before one is invited to become an ordinand, which then involves taking up both local church ministerial duties and academic study; and after sufficient time has passed and studies have been completed, one is ordained as a priest in the Church of God. It is significant to note that, for example, an Episcopal priest can never "lose" his ordination – once he is made an elder/priest in the church, he will be so forever, even though his licensure may be revoked (preventing him from serving as a local minister, administering the sacraments, etc) – because ordination is a sacrament, it is something GOD does, not the church/district, and so, like baptism, it cannot be undone. So, a newly-ordained priest becomes a "curate" which is kind of an assistant priest usually working under a more experienced priest in a local parish, and serves as a curate for 2-3 years before being able to be considered for taking a parish of one's own. Of course, many pursue ordination with no intention of serving as a full-time or "senior" pastor/priest – some desire only to assist, or to be deacons, or to just do "supply" work, or whatever. But the point is, because these other churches take the sacramental life of the church (of which preaching is a part but certainly not the whole – anyone can deliver the homily in Episcopal, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, etc, churches, but only a priest can consecrate the Eucharist or baptize a new Christian), over which the ordained minister presides, more seriously than we do, it follows that we would have a different way of doing things. It's not without its problems, and it's not necessary right, but there are legitimate reasons behind it. I'd prefer something more like what the Anglicans/Episcopalians do, but it would take time for us to move toward that kind of ideal.
Just my thoughts. And as I wrestle with my own calling and whether or not the Lord wills that to involve ordained ministry, it is very useful for me to think through some of these things and figure out what I think, where I stand, and why or why not I might want to pursue ordination in a particular ecclesial tradition – that's the BIG question for me at the moment: should I approach the Nazarene church about ordaining me to a pastoral vocation that, for Nazarenes, does not consist of what I feel particularly called to? In think in many ways you are right: the ordination itself is, for Nazarenes, IN PRACTICE if not in doctrine/principle, simply a piece of paper for the wall, a feather in one's cap, an extra little bit of credibility. Thanks for provoking these thoughts by sending this email. I look forward to talking about such things with you here on British soil sometime in the near future.
In peace,
Brannon
posted by Scott M. Collins | 11:44 AM
1 Comments:
Joseph's reply
by Joseph A. Wood
Brannon,
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I took the liberty of forwarding it on to my cousin who is a student at Asbury Seminary in Kentucky. My comments will be including in your message, so as to keep continuity of thought in order.
Funny you mention [the Rev. thing], and I do not know the correct criteria for the importation of the title, Reverend on another, but here's some food for thought. I have been a licensed minister for over a year now and my "licensed minister ID card" says, "Rev. Joseph Allen Wood". Let me transcribe to you the text of the card:
Church of the Nazarene
Certificate of Standing
This is to certify that
Rev. Joseph Allen Wood
is a minister in good
standing in the Church of the Nazarene.
International Headquarters
Kansas, City Mo., USA
(AND ON THE BACK IN BIG, BOLD LETTERS:)
This card is issued for identification purposes and is not and Ordination Certificate
or Minister's License.
For identification purposes only? Not a minister's license? Then what is the purpose of this little paper card I carry in my wallet? Is it to prove to myself that I have a certificate on my wall at home? Interesting.
"Also, while I agree that our allowing yet-to-be-ordained ministers to administer the sacraments is highly problematic, it shouldn't be surprising given our low view of the sacraments in both theology and practice."
I totally agree, and I would venture to say that this is a very weakening point of our church. Our low view of the sacraments yields our low view, no, our low standard of what it means to be Christian. Most Nazarene churches in East Tennessee could replace Church of the Nazarene with Southern Baptist. We have no catechism, we have low expectations, we have a dismal respect for traditional worship, and we have hardly any respect for our theology. This is spitting in the face of John Wesley himself! Many Nazarenes I have spoken to do not even know who John Wesley is! Not to mention that he participated in the Eucharist 4 or more times each week! What does this say to our manual's mandate of 4 times per YEAR?
"if only "ordained elders" can administer the sacraments, then haven't we just made our pastors into priests and so gone and undone the entire Reformation?"
Agreed. But what other Protestant Church allows the Laity to serve the Lord's Supper? Has not there always been an effort to keep somewhat of a priesthood, apart from the laity, in all Protestant churches?
"a licensed minister can administer the sacraments with the permission and blessing of an ordained elder, which would be "overseeing" or "supervising" without necessarily being present in body (note that many other denominations do this, too)."
That is a good observation, and one that I had thought of.
"really, none of this should be surprising to us."
It has become "old hat" for me as well. One effort I, with the help of the Spirit, have made at my local church is the teaching of a Nazarene Catechism. Utilizing the catechism co-written by Hoskins, Spaulding, Heneke, et al, I have formed a series of lessons that I have been teaching to my small youth group on Wednesday nights since February of this year. It is a grass-roots effort to get the kids thinking in a sacramental and respectful way about Nazarene theology. I'm sure you are not surprised that majorily I get blank stares and moments of silence upon asking a question, but my hope and prayer is that one day these kids will remember what has been said. I have faith in the Holy Spirit to do the work that cannot be done singularly in me. This has been a blessing to me, as well as it has kept me on my toes in my thought. Eventually, I would like to write, or help write, a catechism for the church. Ultimately, I would like to see a mandated catechism for all new believers and children in the Church of the Nazarene. I don't think this catechism should occur in the youth class, but in the children's class and then beyond. Yes, I am an advocate of the Roman Church's recommendations of teaching young. Even the Methodist Church has a Confirmation. Why not us? Why not take pride in teaching our members the Faith and not leaving it up to the sermon, or the Sunday School class?
Interesting story about the ordination service the other night: The General Superintendent Middendorf continually said that these people are being, "ordained into the Church of God, under the auspices of the Church of the Nazarene". Keeping this in mind, when he recognized the ordination of the two who were transferring their ordination to the CoN, he said, "we recognize the ordination of those who have laid their hands on you before us, and we believe that their ordination is an ordination into the Church of God, but now you wish to transfer your ordination into the auspices of the Church of the Nazarene, so we are not re-ordaining you, but we are recognizing the ordination you have received, and we are charging you to live out your ordination, now, under the auspices of the CoN." (paraphrased by me of course) Now, here is the interesting part. Although the GS said that we recognize the ordination of the church before, he did not say that the CoN decides whether to accept the ordination of other churches. In other words, the CoN will NOT recognize some ordinations and the pastors must begin the process of ordination in the CoN. For example, we will recognize an ordination from the United Methodist Church, but we will not recognize an ordination from the Baptist Church. So when the General says that we recognize your ordination as one that is in the Church of God, he means that we recognize that your ordination is one that is acceptable to our understanding of who BELONGS to the Church of God. Therefore, the CoN decides who is the Church of God and who is not! Very interesting!
"I'd prefer something more like what the Anglicans/Episcopalians do, but it would take time for us to move toward that kind of ideal."
Once again, totally agree. And I plan on attending the Anglican and Episcopal Churches when I move out of Jamestown. Also, as of this time in my life, what you just said is one of my goals. But my main purpose in life is, "To eradicate ignorance in the Church". I believe that ignorance is one of the largest tools of the devil. If one doesn't know, then one doesn't feel responsible. Wrong! We must know, we have to know, and we must teach all to know and to do the Will of God.
"that's the BIG question for me at the moment: should I approach the Nazarene church about ordaining me to a pastoral vocation that, for Nazarenes, does not consist of what I feel particularly called to?"
That's where I have been for two years now and it will continue and probably deepen in content over the next few years. Only the Lord knows, and I actually believe He might not know, but I am not worried either way! Tell that to a typical Nazarene and get the "You're going to Hell" stare.
Post a Comment
<< Home