Can you know it works if you don’t look inside?

The Methoblog is discussing Will Deuel’s BOOM hazing experience.

One of the commenters mentioned some cases he knows.

A friend in Florida has been deferred twice because of having significant student loans, all of them for his M.Div and Ph.D. work. That conference does not want to put him forward for ordination because he owes money for school.

Here was my response when I read this.

Ack! Being in debt is a reason not to be approved by the Board of Ordained Ministry! Do we only want ministry candidates who can pay for their M.Div. with daddy’s trust fund? (If there is some unspoken debt threshold out there, I’d like to know about it.)

Here is what I think the UMC needs. It needs someone to start collecting these stories from all over the country. There needs to be some sort of systematic look at the process. We need data and information.

What we have now are lots of anecdotal stories that float around. For those who see no problem, anecdotal cases can be dismissed on a case-by-case basis. They are unique. Sure, some will say, the process is more byzantine or obscure than it was back when, but it is still working. Besides, I know those people on the BOOM and I don’t want to be seen to be criticizing them.

There is a new interest in many quarters in collecting data. Why not do so here? Some have said that building up a new generation of leaders is a key to the future of the UMC. Oh wait, that was not “some”; it was the General Conference and bishop’s council.

If that is a goal, then why not a real, hard, and clear-eyed look at the process? Not just the process as it appears on PowerPoint slides, but as it actually works in different conferences.

I know there are voices that will say the process is working fine. My response: How do you know? What is your standard for saying that? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

Can we even articulate in a clear way what the goals of the process are? Can we even describe what a good system of clergy development would do or look like? Do we systematically survey or inquire of new clergy whether they found the process constructive and challenging in a positive sense?

I am willing – eager even – to be shown that the system is working well and doing exactly what the UMC would have it do. But I am doubtful that anyone can show that it is. Rather, we assert claims in the absence of evidence on either side of the question.

How about we recruit a laity committee of people with experience building such systems? Give them a budget and let them spend a year making the most aggressive evaluation of the system they can. Let’s hear what someone with no vested interest in the system has to say about it. And then let’s make the changes that will serve the purposes and needs of the church and the kingdom.

We try to judge the tree with only a vague idea what kind of fruit it is producing. Isn’t that foolish?