The Rev. Daniel L. Garrett feels proposals to change the
church’s ordination process fail to clarify its ministry.
 | ||||
| The Rev. Daniel L. Garrett. Courtesy photo. |
By the Rev. Daniel L. Garrett*
In response to the World Council of Churches document Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry,
which outlined the broadest ecumenical theological convergence in modern church
history, The United Methodist Church conducted studies on baptism and on the
Eucharist. Those studies produced two documents – By Water and the Spirit and
This Holy Mystery – that now guide our church both theologically and practically
in our understanding and practice of the sacraments.
The first United Methodist Church Ministry Study Commission
drew excitement across the church as many of us hoped for the same process that
guided our studies of baptism and Eucharist. The theological convergence that
grounds our sacramental life in the best biblical, theological and historical
wisdom is also available to guide our understandings of ministry and ordination.
Yet, for two quadrenniums, we have walked away from the ministry
section of Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry and produced a report that offers
little theological clarity on the meaning of ordination, orders and the
practice of ministry. Without a coherent understanding of ordination, the
proposal coming to the 2012 General Conference wants us to ordain people at the
entrance to a provisional process where, if they fail to meet the requirements
for full conference membership, they face the prospect of something like being “unordained.”
No guiding
understanding of ordination
The study commission states that it was operating under a
mandate from the 2008 General Conference to separate conference membership and ordination,
and the result is a proposal in which conference membership obviously trumps
ordination. Not only have we separated them; we also have demonstrated that our
preference for practical solutions to ministry issues operates without any
guiding understanding of ordination.
Another puzzling proposal on sacramental authority attempts
to solve the ecumenical embarrassment we face in authorizing non-ordained persons
to celebrate the Eucharist by clarifying that it resides in the office of
ordained elder. In the same breath, it grants bishops the authority to give
that Eucharistic presidency to non-ordained licensed persons as well as
ordained deacons in certain missional settings. What guides our understanding
of ordination, not to mention Eucharistic presidency? It is obvious we have no
coherent theology of ordination and continue to justify various proposed
actions out of supposed missional urgency.
You do not solve practical ministry issues such as
guaranteed appointments and new forms of leadership by disregarding the theological
underpinnings of ministry. Our preference for functional, organizational
tinkering creates more problems than it solves. John Wesley’s practical
solution to a ministry urgency problem in 1784 was to send a chalice to America
and instruct us to ordain people for Eucharistic presidency.
The opportunity and necessity to clarify our ministry is at
hand. The proposals before the 2012 General Conference miss that opportunity
once again.
*Garrett, interim co-lead pastor at Braddock Street United
Methodist Church, Winchester, Va., teaches United Methodist studies at Eastern
Mennonite Theological Seminary.