From the order for ordination of elders in The United Methodist Book of Worship:
In covenant with other elders, will you be loyal to The United Methodist Church, accepting its order, liturgy, doctrine, and discipline, defending it against all doctrines contrary to God’s Holy Word, and accepting the authority of those who are appointed to supervise your ministry?
I will, with the help of God
From the order for admission into full membership of the annual conference:
Have you studied the doctrines of The United Methodist Church?
I have studied them.
After full examination, do you believe that our doctrines are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures?
I believe that they are.
Will you preach and maintain them?
To the best of my ability, I will.
When I read these words that I one day may say before God and the church, I think of other vows I have taken. I think of my baptismal vows. Those are vows that I cannot renounce or ignore without renouncing my baptism. I think of my marriage vows. Those are vows I cannot decide no longer bind me without breaking faith with my wife.
Is it any more demanding to ask that I maintain fidelity to my marriage and my baptism than it will be one day to ask that I stay true to my ordination vows, if the Lord grants me the opportunity to make them?
As I move toward (possible) commissioning this year, (I have to pass the BoOM, but otherwise I’ve met every other step.) this is how I look at it.
In my theological questions they ask about the nature of ordination. I answered partly that ordination is something is given by both God and the Church; it cannot be deserved. I also noted that in seeking to join the ordained I understand that the ordained are bound to the Church, deeply surrendering control of their lives to God in obedience.
I’m thankful that I’ll be able to answer all of those questions honestly and in the affirmative. It pains me to know other people may only do one of those things.
I am reminded of Jesus’ warning to count the cost before following him.
Is this another post about the gays? Or is there some other kind of vow-breaking that’s got you worked up? If this is about the gays, don’t you think it’s a little bit dishonest and privilege-exhibiting of you to treat it as though the only question is whether a vow is a vow? It’s not an apples to apples comparison with whether or not you cheat on your wife. Sorry there’s just a tone here that’s troubling to me. I don’t do well with rhetorical questions about unstated issues.
It is actually a post about exactly what it says.
I am puzzled by pastors who deny our sacramental theology of baptism. I am puzzle by pastors who deny the physical resurrection of Christ. I am puzzled by pastors who preach “once saved, always saved.” (And so on.) I am not putting a target on any one particular issue here.
I bring up marriage (and baptism, which you did not seem to take note of) because these are vows I have taken.
The problem is, that if the vow involves an action, it’s pretty easy to decide whether the vow is broken. Sleep with someone other than your spouse and you have broken the vow not to commit adultery. Refuse all parents who want their infants baptized and you have broken the vow to baptize babies.
My problem is with all the mind policing. I never vowed that the doctrine of my church was inerrant and infallible and I never vowed not to have sincere and well-reasoned opinions that were different from the denominations. I simply vowed to follow their rules. And if I feel I can’t do it in good conscience, then I would leave.
And I’m tired of people being called vow-breakers for using their brains instead of following the institution like lemmings over a cliff.
But preaching or teaching doctrine contrary to the doctrine of the church is an action, isn’t it? It is not a question of what a pastor thinks but what he or she does.
And isn’t it a false-dichotomy to set “using their brains” against “following the institution like lemmings” as the only two options. At the very least it calls those who value obedience to vows brainless lemmings, which hardly seems charitable.
Well, we should consider what it means to be “loyal” or to accept “the authority of those . . . sppointed to supervise . . . ministry.” Does loyalty mean that one does what its harmful to the word of God and to the United Methodist Church? Does loyalty mean ignoring what one knows to be true and morally right? In what way does one “accept” authority? By being obsequious and blindly obedient–even to the detriment of those in authority? In our denomination, let’s not encourage hypocrisy, duplicitousness, and submission devoid of a moral conscience.
How is posting our ordination vows and comparing them to wedding and baptismal vows encouraging hypocrisy?
Ordination vows couple service and salary. Wedding vows couple fidelity and love. Baptismal vows couple Christian life and acceptance into the community. All these vows can be renounced if the person has a change of heart, or if circumstances change. A person may feel unable to preach the doctrine, or a spouse may cheat, embezzle from the family, or one may become a Baptist and have to be dunked totally to be in that faith. In each instance, the vow is rescinded, not partially, but totally.
If you were in the military and began to believe that killing in war was a violation of your conscience, would you continue to serve?
No, but you would become a conciencious objector, and be honest about it, not pretend things hadn’t changed. And yes, I’m a veteran who has two friends who took that route.
I’m troubled when people dismiss these vows as merely “historical”. It is as if they are answering with their fingers crossed behind their back. But I’m very aware it happens. In fact we’ve had people who told the Board of Ordained Ministry they would be fully itenerant and then, without some kind of emergency/major life change, were no longer willing to move when asked after being ordained. The clergy covenant matters–or at least should. (And yes I believe violating our discipline to do gay marriages as a violation of that covenant. But as John points out there plenty of other ways to violate it.)
This is an important post. If after full examination, you DON’T believe that our doctrines are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures, then don’t take the vow.
I have been attending a large United Methodist Church that seems to stray a great deal from the Book of Discipline, the doctrine of the United Methodist Church, and the standard liturgies of the church. For example, the administrative council does not meet every quarter; it really serves no meaningful function. Decisions are made by the pastor and the church staff. The pastor is reluctant to use the word “sin” in preaching; he ignores some of the foundational doctrines of Wesleyan theology, (I haven’t heard a sermon on justification by faith in 9 years, and the possibility of going on to perfection is rarely mentioned.) The pastor usually improvises the Eucharistic prayer at the contemporary worship service, and he has been known to eliminate it completely. The church is thriving and vital according to the standard metrics.
I have not discussed all of these issues with him, but I have discussed several of them. The fact that the church is growing, and is actively involved in mission projects seems to make the other lapses insignificant in the eyes of everybody (except me).
I am wondering if I can remain loyal to the United Methodist Church at this point. I have honestly tried to continue to support it with my prayers, presence, gifts, and service; but my heart isn’t in it these days.
I have valued my ordination, and I have tried to be faithful to the vows I made; but it has become very difficult to do.
If any clergy member is led to believe the rules and discipline of the UMC are wrong, the choice is accept and obey, or resign salary and benefits. There is no choice according to the vows taken, to disobey or publicly advocate opposition. Advocacy by a clergy needs to be souly in-house.
I retired early. As a clergywoman, I am very proud that I was a “pioneer” clergywoman. I am still in good standing in the church, and I have engaged in “in-house” advocacy–most notably by writing a petition for consideration at the last General Conference.
http://hollyboardman.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/a-more-equitable-salary-petition-to-general-conference/
I feel as though I HAVE given up my life for the United Methodist Church. I never married, I’ve remained celibate and have no children. I endorse our church’s doctrine on virtually everything; and I see no other Christian denomination that is in agreement. My main issue with the UMC concerns our misuse of resources by concentrating them in large churches, and by making our appointment system a joke by allowing churches to purchase clergy by paying exhorbitant salaries. Money is power in our church and the Holy Spirit is pushed aside.
By attending a UMC mega-church as a retired clergyperson I hoped to continue to address this issue. Instead, I am even more deeply dismayed. In retirement I have taught small group classes, assisted the appointed pastors in serving communion when requested, and I have faithfully visited shut-ins. I helped to organize some ongoing prayer ministries in the church (there were NONE when I first came here).
Church is an unhealthy place for me. My predominate spiritual gift is prophetic, and I am not being heard. It feels healthier to dust off my feet and move on; but it is hard to do.
Hollyboardman, Methodism is inclusive. If the mega-church congregation does not meet your spiritual needs, there are other congregations. The problem that this discussion deals is public advocacy, not private theology. Some feel called to continue in an unfriendly environment to be a gadfly, suffering occasional swats. Others seek solace and support of a more compatible congregation. Let God be your guide. To what are you called?
I know this has been a long struggle for you, Holly. You raise an issue that extends the cases i had in mind when I wrote this. I think of people who openly oppose the doctrine and discipline of the church (liturgy is an interesting case and worthy of its own discussion).
But you raise the case not of opposition so much as neglect or omission.
You say the congregation is vital. Do you see what we call biblical fruitfulness there?
I see wealthy and middle class people doing a lot of charitable work. I hear great music on Sunday, and I see a lot of families who believe they are raising their children as Christians by taking them to our various children and youth programs. The church is doing some excellent work in partnership with some congregations in Kenya, and a young adult from the congregation is now working as a missionary of our church (not the denomination) digging wells in Costa Rica in a ministry we have created called Agua Viva.
However, I strain to hear Wesleyan preaching. I do not see evidence that people are being born again. For about two years, I was noticing that Jesus was absent from the preaching. I finally pointed out this omission to the senior pastor, and I have seen some improvement.
Recently, the senior pastor has decided that he needs to focus on raising up new, young leaders in the church; and he has made it clear that my role as a retired pastor is to support these young leaders. If I saw evidence that they had experienced the justifying grace of Christ, I could do that enthusiastically. Instead, I see bright,ambitious, young people being designated as proteges of the pastor.
I am really feeling outcast in my own church.
Thank you, Holly, for the reply. What I hear is frustration about the way your vows bind you to a church that does not appear to honor the things that you have vowed to be faithful to. And worse it rewards those who do not take those vows as with as much seriousness.
John,
These are important questions. I’m surprised to see some of the reaction against it. A vow is a vow. No one has forced you to take it. But should you choose to take it, to then do anything but honor it is infidelity, right? I find the comparisons to marital and baptismal covenant highly appropriate.
For what it’s worth, this is the reason I haven’t pursued ordination. I’m serving as a licensed local pastor and think I can do that in good faith. I’m not sure I can take and keep the ordination vows, though. Several people have urged me to be ordained regardless – for the doors it opens – and if I run into a situation where I can’t be true to the vows, I can turn in my credentials. That’s not advice I would give to a person being baptized or a couple getting married, though, so I don’t think I can go that route in good faith.
One other issue this presents – If we’re all serious about these vows, what room is left for changes in doctrine (and polity) positions? If everyone who’s “in” has affirmed our doctrines and agreed to maintain them, where is the place for continuing discussion about doctrinal revision? I think what you’re addressing is why a friend of mine refers to the ordination vows as “the biggest lie told at Annual Conference every year.”
Spot on, Teddy! My vows require me to support a polity that changes; and that is where I run into difficulty. I also struggle to live under authority. Over the years I have seen bishops and district superintendents “fall”. One bishop (from another conference) turned in his credentials because he fell in love with a woman who was not his wife. In the not too distant past, two district superintendents in my conference ran into trouble over financial issues. If I were serving in the Western Jurisdiction, I would probably have supervisors who did not uphold our BOD with regard to sexual standards. Clergy vows are difficult to live with, and many in positions of power in our church seem to take them too lightly.
Teddy, the question you raise about doctrinal change is one I often wrestle with. For me the issue is less “can doctrine change?” than what happens to my vow if the doctrine changes in a way that I can no longer keep faith with. I think that situation is the same as what happens if I come to the place where I reject the church’s doctrine — I have to renounce my vow and my fidelity to the church and leave.
The other vexing question for me is how to live out the vow if the church’s doctrine in practice bears little relationship to its doctrine as stated in the Discipline?
I also declined to follow the ordination path after five years as a supply pastor. I saw ordination as a guarantee of position and an obligation to obey tenets that I did not accept. I miss not shepherding a congregation, but feel I am doing God’s work as a committed layman.
Pingback: The absurdity & necessity fidelity | John Meunier
A word about these vows…
They are not merely historical, though they do have deep historical roots.
In fact, the Ordinal Revision Task Force, which I convene, reviews the entire ordinal, including the vows, every quadrennium, and recommends changes where we believe they may be beneficial or where other General Conference action requires us to do so.
Our understanding, supported by the Council of Bishops, is that ordination vows are a specification of the baptismal covenant. They are a Rule of Life and Service that specifies how the persons taking these vows and entering these orders (deacon or elder, or Council of Bishops in the case of bishops) will focus their lives as disciples of Jesus among us to help us all be faithful to “seek peace among all, and that holiness without which no one will see the Lord.”
We see the Ordinal, then, as a living document– and a document those who participate in these services– lay and clergy– should be diligent to revisit, review, and use to ensure that, indeed, all of us are being faithful to the covenants we have made first in baptism, and, for the ordained, in ordination or consecration.
A major problem is there are too many people who want the protections and privileges of being an ordained clergyperson in The United Methodist Church while they do not want the duties and responsibilities that come with it. If you do not feel able to uphold the doctrines and laws of The UMC then you should not put yourself forward for ordination or should relinquish it.
Creedpogue is correct that a vow must be either totally observed, or totally rejected. One should not accept salary and privileges if one rejects the Discipline.