Speaking the Truth in Love 4: Standards

It’s time for me to finish my series on the Conference Board of Ministry, and specifically the process of evaluating candidates for ordination. Most people know the United Methodist church still has a two-step process for becoming ordained. A candidate first applies for Provisional Membership in the Annual Conference as a Commissioned Minister. Then following two years of serving under full-time appointment, the completion of the Residency Program, and the completion of any remaining educational requirements, the person may apply for Ordination and Full Membership in the Annual Conference.

The words we use to define the different stages of evaluation are “Readiness” and “Effectiveness.” At the Provisional level we try to ascertain a candidate’s “readiness” for ministry. Does the person have the skills, the knowledge and character that says they are ready to assume the tasks of ministry? At that point proficiency is not necessary.

When the Provisional Member returns to the Board seeking ordination, we are looking for “effectiveness.” What has the candidate gained in the provisional period through the regular practices of ministry and through applying the knowledge of their education (in Bible study, theology and administration)? Does their work demonstrate they can effectively fulfill the responsibilities of their calling?

While “readiness” and “effectiveness” are nebulous terms, they do reveal that the standards are set higher for the second evaluation. Once a person is ordained and made a full member of the conference, he/she in a sense has tenure. Misbehavior or disobedience to our Discipline could result in charges (that may result in an involuntary leave or removal from ministry), but excluding that, the minister is guaranteed an appointment. There are annual continuing education requirements to keep up, but essentially the pastor operates as a free agent in determining how he/she works (or doesn’t work) with other pastors, how the day to day responsibilities of ministry are handled, and where the priorities will be set for their ministry and their growth.

So the evaluation for Ordination and Full Membership is the last chance the Board of Ministry has in determining whether we can entrust the church and its members to the leadership of the person before us. Those on the Board know we are all human and except for the grace of Christ in all our lives, we are inadequate to the challenges of ministry. We have, and will, make mistakes in our evaluations. We know we must make room for the Spirit to work in and through the process and yet we also know there are times when we do not yet see signs of “effectiveness” and must speak that truth in love.

What are some ways we evaluate effectiveness? First of all, does the candidate communicate well in written and verbal forms? That assessment of course includes the use of good grammar, inclusive language, and the proper use of references and quotes, but it also has to do with whether the average person can comprehend what you are saying. I have at times asked a candidate to explain a Wesleyan understanding of grace as if they are teaching a confirmation class. In other words, can the person make sense of the human predicament, and prevenient, justifying and sanctifying grace to a twelve year old?

One thing we run into on the Theology and Doctrine Committee is formulaic responses. By that we mean the person includes all the right terms, but there is no personal engagement in the answer. In fact, I have noticed in the past few years a shift from expressing one’s considered theology to giving the right answers to the questions. If we were only looking for “right answers” we could just go to a multiple choice test.

For instance, the first question asks how the practice of ministry has affected the candidates understanding of God. We often get several statements on particular attributes of God, such as God’s love, God’s mercy, God’s faithfulness, God’s sovereignty, etc. However, if you speak of God’s sovereignty, then what role do you give to God’s passion (involvement in human free will)? If you emphasize God’s mercy, how do you reconcile that with God’s justice?

This question also calls for some kind of Trinitarian statement. But rarely now do answers reveal any Trinitarian struggle - and I’ve yet to meet a person (myself included) who has the mystery of the Trinity down pat. We each tend to emphasize the work of one of the persons of the Trinity more than the others in our practical theology. I want to know how the candidate assessed herself/himself in this and what it means for her/his ministry.

I guess overall, and to bring this long post and series to a close, the big underlying question is, “Do you have something to say, and where does your voice fall in the theological understandings we share?” Has your preparation and engagement in ministry produced a proclamation that reflects your journey? Can you “rightly explain the word of truth?” (2 Tim 2:15)

Can this candidate effectively proclaim, teach, and defend the gospel? “Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence.” (1 Peter 3:15)

Thanks be to God for the grace that makes possible our participation in God’s redemptive work. And thanks be to God for those who “study to show themselves approved” and offer themselves to the Church for the sake of Christ.

Speaking the Truth in Love 3: The Board’s Process of Evaluation

As I said in the last post in this series, there are so many variables in the process that it is impractical for a person to compare their experience with the Board to another’s. Of course, that’s done all the time with questions like, “How did she get through and I didn’t? She had me read her work and it was hardly different from mine!”

Here’s what happens. The candidates come to an orientation session in July where they are given instructions for their written work. The candidates report there is heavy emphasis on no plagiarism, so much so that they are afraid not to attribute every idea they write down. Secondly, a gap in good communication can occur when sometimes the persons doing the orientation are not the persons who chair the evaluation committees.


The written work is divided into four categories for four corresponding committees: Proclamation, Bible Study, Theology and Doctrine, and Call and Disciplined Life. All work has to be postmarked by a stated deadline. Then it is distributed to the committees.

The committees divide themselves into “reader teams” of two persons each, and each team then reads/evaluates the work of usually four to five candidates. The readers evaluate the work, then get together to discuss a shared assessment. After that one of the readers writes a response. In the past we would allow sub-standard parts of the work to be re-written, but that changed this year. Now we identify the parts that need improvement, and we specify issues that will probably need to be addressed in the interview with the committee. The overall written work is then graded acceptable or not acceptable.

Here’s an issue the Board will have to deal address with this “no-rewrite” policy. Do the written and interview parts of the evaluation stand alone, or are they complimentary? In other words, does a candidate have to be graded “acceptable” on both parts to get approved, or can excellent work done in one section compensate for sub-standard work in the other?

In the Theology and Doctrine committee we have always seen them as complimentary. A person may show us in the interview a good grasp of theological issues and how to handle them, a skill that did not reveal itself in the written work. And honestly, since the committee votes on approval or non-approval right after the interview section, a good showing in the interview carries more weight.

Other committees, such as Bible Study and Proclamation, might see the written and verbal portions as independent. Once the Bible Study and Sermon are written, they are done. I’m not sure how you would defend or explain your work to a degree that would move it up the acceptable scale.

Each committee divides into interview teams of four to five persons each. After interviewing the candidate, the interview team votes “approval” or “continuance” (which means they recommend the person be continued to the next time). Then representatives of the four committees meet with the Board leadership to assess an overall picture of the candidate’s work.

On our Board, if all four committees report approval, the Board votes, but it’s pretty automatically an “approved for ordination” outcome. If only one committee reports a “continuance,” then the Board usually allows the person to come back to that committee at its next meeting for a second chance. If two committees report continuance, then the Board’s practice has been to vote continuance of the person until the next year. The candidates are informed in person that day, and in writing within a couple of weeks.

If a specific problem in a candidate’s work is identified, the Board will ask one of its members to serve as a mentor to that candidate. When the candidates take advantage of having an assigned mentor, the results at the next Board meeting are usually very good.

So, an individual candidate will have eight to ten people reading their work. He or she will have four interviews before sixteen to twenty people. The assessments will be discussed by an additional four people and the whole Board of 40 persons will take a final vote. Simple enough? Next time I’ll write about some Standards that guide this work.

Speaking the Truth in Love 2: The Candidates

Those submitting work for ordination have been on a long journey in their call to ministry. By this time they have been through the Board for commissioning, been in relation with a District Committee on Ordained Ministry for several years, completed a Masters of Divinity degree (for Elder) or equivalent/professional certification (for Deacons), and have been in a continuing formation program while serving in an appointment. In our Conference the three year program (changing to two years beginning Jan 1, 2009) of continuing formation is called Residency.

Because of my work the Residency program I know each of these candidates personally. I have worshipped and prayed with them and shared with them in reflection sessions. I know some who are excellent pastors, and some who are still struggling to find their voice in ministry. I honestly want each one of them to succeed in responding to God’s call on their lives.

I have sensed the stress the candidates feel toward both the written evaluation and the oral examination coming up next month. They know that if they do not get approved, it means going through the whole process again next year. And usually, they are very self-conscious about how they measure up among their peer group. Further complicating the picture is the difficulty of explaining to local church members and family members the pressures and complexity of the process they are dealing with.

I have expressed over and over that there is no way for one person to compare their experience with the Board to another’s. There are simply too many variables. Their fate is affected by which readers their work is assigned to, who makes up the various sub-committees that interview them, and a host of other arbitrary decisions. Still, they are under the gun. Their “effectiveness” in ministry is being evaluated one last time before the Church sends them forth with its seal of approval.

One colleague suggests viewing the process as a dialogue for professional assessment. Learn through the evaluations what you need to address to become the best pastor you can be. Draw from the experience of those who do the evaluations. Don’t view it as a pass/fail trial, but as part of the ongoing journey of professional development.

My colleague’s perspective leads to a final comment. All of this work must be grounded in prayer, for you cannot be open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit without prayer. I pray before assessing a paper that I may have insight into meaning of the words, and the abilities of the writer. Surely those who are writing have bathed their efforts in prayer as well. Perhaps what’s missing are the intentional prayer support groups that will uphold the candidates, and the Board of Ministry, during this important time.

Speaking the Truth in Love 1: The Evaluation

One of the toughest jobs I have is serving on the Theology and Doctrine Committee of our Annual Conference’s Board of Ministry. It is our task to evaluate the theological readiness of the candidates seeking commissioning for ministry, or ordination. Right now my co-reader and I have evaluated five papers, twenty plus pages each, and are writing responses to their work. This post is the first of five. I will also write about the candidates, the process, the standards and some observations. Maybe these posts will help others seeking ordination, or help those not involved have a better understanding of what the process requires.

The theological questions the candidates have to respond to are the historic ones from our Book of Discipline and address for example, the nature of God, the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit, the nature and mission of the church, the sacraments, the nature of grace, the way of salvation and the Wesleyan quadrilateral for determining doctrinal authority. There’s an allowance for a lot of personal variety in the responses, but there are also some core concepts that must be addressed. Overall we want to see if the candidate can handle the theological issues with understanding and integrity, and if she or he can demonstrate an ability to teach them and apply them to daily ministry.

We understand we have a responsibility to the Church, and to the churches these persons may serve, to gauge their readiness by high standards. We want some assurance that their teaching and preaching about the things of God will do good, and do no harm. We who must do the evaluation are not of one theological mind and neither should we be. We are not looking for uniformity of thought, but ability in theological reflection. We also know that a person’s submitted work is only one indication of a person’s abilities as a pastor. Here’s where Ephesians 4:15 gets tough. How do you speak the truth in love?

Some of the submitted papers are clearly excellent work. Some are immediately identified as being hastily thrown together with the content being unacceptable. But most are in that gray middle ground – some excellent answers along with some responses that totally miss the question. From our perspective, we feel the need to address the good of their work, as well as the inadequate parts of it. As difficult, and in this case, as subjective, as the truth may be, it still must be spoken.