Called out of ministry

Much of the ordination process of the UMC is built on an idea that we feel called into ministry.  It took me ten years, from start to finish, to become ordained in the UMC.  There is a long and comprehensive process for identifying a call into ordained ministry.  

A mentor and friend whom I deeply respect and admire mentioned recently that we ought to consider the a process for those people who feel God calling them out of ordained ministry.  

As our lives change and we gain wisdom over and our sense of self change over time, so to would one's sense of call.  Are you the same person you were 10 years ago?  Will you be the same person 10 years from now?  

Of course not.  

What happens when a life of an ordained person in the UMC changes, and they no longer sensing a call in ordained ministry?  Do we allow them to continue to do ordained ministry and limp along?  Do we instead build into the system a process for transition out of ministry?  

What would a process of being called out of ministry look like?  Would that be something that would be an appreciated process for those ministers who can move out of ministry with dignity?  It has to be better than surrendering credentials with a sense of shame and/or disgrace.  It has to be better than "plugging along" until retirement.

Don't congregations deserve ministers we are called into ministry and not called out ministry?  

Romanticism of the past reveals shared values

Church leaders generally speak of the 1950's as the "golden age" of church in America.  Loads of churches were built, loads of people attended these houses of worship, and the church was at the center of the cultural square.  Church leaders have a tendency to romanticize the 1950's.

Many people I know romanticize their time in college.

Many others still romanticize the time they "were single".

There seems to be a large number of people in my tribe who romanticize a version of pre-industrial, agrarian America.

I wonder if the age in which we romanticize is an expression of our personal values?

Those of us who have fond thoughts of pre-industrial America seem to uphold a set of values which seem to be embodied in that age:

1. Shared economy
2. Emphasis on that which is 'local'
3. Tools that are not dirty to the environment
4. Smaller numbers of everything and simpler 

Of course, we also forget that that time also:

1. Highly segregated 
2. Malnutrition
3. Limited access to resources
4. Hard manual labor

Perhaps one of the ways we can build bridges between one another is to discover what age they romanticize and uncover the values that person is cherishing.  

If I know you are a minister who loves the1950's church, then I am willing to bet that you and I have different values.  This gives us a chance to build a relationship knowing right off the bat that we have different views of what Church is, but also we have a chance to build a relationship on shared values.   

This is also true for hot button issues.  Say a pro-lifer and a pro-choice person are meeting.  It is easy to quickly point to the difference in their views, but I am willing to be that they have a shared value - quality of life.  Build the relationship and conversation on the shared value and not the divergent views and see what happens.  

Jesus and the religious order had different views (how to live out Sabbath), but they had similar values (Sabbath is important).  

Republicans and Democrats have different views (the role of government) but shared values (safe and prosperous society).  

You and I have different views (theology), but I am willing to be we have shared values (Peace).

I may not care for the 1950's but I can appreciate that you too romanticize the past, because I do that as well.  

Examples or Metaphors - not both

At most conferences people who are giving speeches take the approach of sharing metaphors or specific examples of what they are talking about.  I have found this to be radically annoying and not helpful.  

Why?  

When someone gives a few examples of how "this thing" works, they give a specific example.  The problem is it is generally too specific and people are curious, but quickly discount the example as "able to work there but that would not work in my setting."  So a couple of specific examples are generally flashes in the pan.  Cool to see, but difficult to cook with.  

Another 'write off' of a few specific examples is that people do not own that idea.  There is some program that works in some area, people are generally not able to sustain that idea in their context because they really do not own the idea.  This 'lack of ownership = unsustainable" idea is on display when someone tells you, "you know we should really be doing ______.  You should make that happen."

If, however, you were to give more that a couple of examples for an idea then you are onto something.  If you were able to give somewhere in the ballpark of 20 examples of where/how this "idea" is working, then you begin to shut down the thoughts of "that will not work in my context" because you give people the ability to see how their context can be navigated to implementation.  If I hear of a prayer program in schools in one location, I will discount it.  If I hear of 20 prayer programs in schools, I am more apt to get excited on how I can implement that in my context.  

On the other end of the spectrum of giving a few examples, a speaker will often give one metaphor.  However, these metaphors are often 'heady' and the fear is getting too heady without giving specific examples of how the idea looks on the ground.  Which is why speakers do not spend much time developing the metaphors too much and jump right to sharing a few examples.  Then we are right back into the problems of sharing just a few specific examples.  

However, if a speaker develops a metaphor deeply and fully then it will capture the imagination of people to problem solve their own context.  When we problem solve ourselves then we have ownership to the idea and thus up the chances of success and sustainability.  

Let me violate my comments above and give just one example.  

Recently I heard the metaphor of the church as an airport.  The speaker went on to say that airports are never destinations in of themselves.  No one takes a vacation at the airport for a week.  The only time the airport as a destination was a good idea it was made into a fictional movie with two big movie stars in order to sell the movie.  

That was all the development the presenter did on this metaphor and the metaphor was dead in the water.  The metaphor was too heady and too abstract and people forgot the metaphor all together.  If however, the presenter had developed the metaphor more it had the chance to capture the imaginations of people.  Perhaps he could have asked:

• Where do people check their baggage?
• Who is responsible for flying the plane?
• Who is designated to work in the lost and found area?
• What does a passport look like in your church?  
• Do you have a security check point?  
• Are you profiling?

And on and on.  This metaphor, when developed, leads to a number of ideas on how to do/be Church.  

When the metaphor is not developed in favor of giving a few examples, then both the metaphor suffers and the people listening discount examples and do not build the metaphor.  

So give me examples or a metaphor.  Don't try to do both.