Faith Questions
Rev. Mark Schaefer
Kay Spiritual Life Center
February 3, 2008
Job 7:17-21; Matthew 17:1-9
Job 7 17 What are human beings, that you make so much of them, that you set your mind on them, 18 visit them every morning, test them every moment? 19 Will you not look away from me for a while, let me alone until I swallow my spittle? 20 If I sin, what do I do to you, you watcher of humanity? Why have you made me your target? Why have I become a burden to you? 21 Why do you not pardon my transgression and take away my iniquity? For now I shall lie in the earth; you will seek me, but I shall not be.”
Matthew 17 1 ¶ Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. 2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white. 3 Suddenly there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. 4 Then Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I will make three dwellings here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” 5 While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, “This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!” 6 When the disciples heard this, they fell to the ground and were overcome by fear. 7 But Jesus came and touched them, saying, “Get up and do not be afraid.” 8 And when they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus himself alone.
9 ¶ As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus ordered them, “Tell no one about the vision until after the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”
Questions were submitted anonymously via e-mail or note card and read by a designated reader during services. The chaplain had to answer the questions without having seen them before. Remarks in brackets are editorial comments that did not occur during the service, but serve to supplement or correct things said in the original answer.
5:00 p.m. Service
I've said it before, and I usually give the same introduction every year when we do this service. The title of this sermon "Faith Questions," is both a description of what is we are doing and a statement in and of itself. That faith, questions, that a healthy and mature faith is not afraid of asking questions and seeking understanding. And that indeed we understand that the application of reason and looking into our own experience, our own tradition, is part of how God's message is revealed to us. It's part of how we understand how God moves through our communities and through our lives. And so without much further ado I turn it over to Carolyn for the first question.
Q: I have always wondered how the Methodist Church feels about the Virgin Mary? I know what Catholics think about her but I haven't heard mentioned that much during services, and was wondering.
A: We profess the ancient creeds in that we maintain that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, as foretold in scripture and suffered under Pontius Pilate and all that. But is fair to say that Mary does not occupy quite the same level of devotion and place of reverence that she does in the Catholic Church. That is not to say that individual United Methodists do not find Mary as an inspirational figure or someone worthy of admiration. But she not hold quite the same place of veneration. That is we do not pray to the Virgin Mary, we do not invoke her in blessings, as we do not for many of the other saints and apostles that the Catholic tradition does. It is fair to say that we do not have developed doctrine specifically about other complex issues revolving around Mary that the Catholics do such as perpetual virginity of Mary or the immaculate conception of Mary [the idea that Mary was born sinless], or other things like that. In fact in much of that we side with the mainstream of Protestant thinking in that we dismiss such doctrines as non-biblical and arising specifically out of a tradition that we don't necessarily affirm. Can a United Methodist believe those things? Absolutely. But as far as our church goes it is very much fair to say that you'll probably here a lot more about John Wesley in our churches than you'll here about Mary. Although perhaps we have done a disservice in that for many people, especially in the Catholic tradition, Mary, as an expression of a feminine understanding of spirituality and God is often seen as something that people can hold on to and intersect with. And it may be that in all our talk about John and Charles Wesley and [William] Otterbien and [Jacob] Albrecht and Francis Asbury nothing but dead white men are ever the talk of hagiography. And it may be that we need to reclaim some of the female heroes of the Church, and Mary would be a good place to start.
Q: How does the Christian tradition view laws of state? I think if a law prevents us from practicing our faith, we're on good grounds to ignore it. How should we view most laws that don't keep us from practicing our faith, but aren't right there in Scripture, either?
A: What is the interrelationship between the Christian believer and the laws of the State? That is a complex question and one that has been [discussed] from the very beginnings. St. Paul instructs his believers that they should obey lawful authority on the idea that all lawful authority is instituted by God and therefore the laws of the Roman empire are in fact in some way divinely ordained. That they are part of God's ordered system for humanity. Now of course Paul was writing when things were relatively good for Christians in the Empire. Forty years later the author of Revelation had a very different attitude about Roman law and Roman oppression.
And so we've seen that in the context of Christian faith the understanding of the Christian to the state has been complicated. There are passages of scripture that tell Christians to be good citizens, to obey the laws of the land, to be responsible. Many of those passages seem to be written from a point of view that this is so no bad reputation will fall upon the Christian Church. So that we cannot be accused of being lawless or a threat to the society. That we are seen as good citizens. And yet as has been pointed out, I believe that Martin Luther King points out, that every single law in Nazi Germany, everything they did was "legal". And everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did was "illegal". And so we understand that a Christian is called to a higher law than simply the laws of the state.
And there are some laws that Christians in good conscience may conflict with an overarching value of their faith. In which case Christians throughout history have engaged in civil disobedience and non-violent protest but always with the willingness to suffer the consequence of breaking the law. So that even in rebellion as a Christian statement against the law, there is a submission to the legitimacy of the law. And to the power of the state to punish. That is there is no attempt to evade the consequences of breaking the law you feel is immoral. And so our relationship then is a complex one.
Some thinkers; John Calvin saw the law as necessary to restrain evil and the law formed the civic function that helped preserve order. That it had a good element to it. And others have viewed it as an appropriate response as Christians to order their lives and liberty. But I think as in all things we are required to remember that our first allegiance is to God. And to the kingdom of God that we see represented in Jesus and in Jesus' teachings. And that may put us in an uncomfortable spot where we find ourselves in tension with the laws of the place we call home. That begins a very difficult and a very serious process of discernment as to what our response should be. So I don't think there is one solution. I don't think you can say if you disagree with it, don't do it. I don't think you can say you should follow them all. I think, as in all things the Church has to discern these things together. That we have to weigh the benefits and the challenges of the laws. And that we need to speak out and engage the world in acts of justice, so that we cannot simply say those laws do not effect me, therefore I will not follow them, not worry about them. But that we should champion their change if we believe them to be unjust. And we should make and effort to engage the world. But as I said, always with an eye to being in responsible covenant and the contract we have as a society.
Q. Does the Methodist Church condone the practice of abortion? Why or why not?
A. I dare say there is no church that condones the practice of abortion. The United Methodist Church likewise does not condone abortion. It understands however that there are occasions and in the language of the church, there are "tragic conflicts of life with life", that may necessitate the procedure of abortion. Now what that means--and the Church is very clear--is that it does not support abortion for what we may call 'convenience' reasons. It does not support abortion in order to select the gender of the child you are going to have. It does not support abortion for any of the reasons that might have to do with our own interests rather than the interests of the child.
But as I said it is not an absolute and it recognizes those instances where there is that tragic conflict. And that what it does, is it says we will not prejudge such a circumstance, that we will say that that is when the woman and her pastor and her doctor and those that she trusts should consult and should reflect and decide on a course of action. Even it doesn't say what ought to be the outcome. It makes very clear that a question like this is if the utmost seriousness and cannot simply be divided into the two easy camps of always or never. That there is reflection that needs to take place as a result. And so the answer is, the Church does not condone abortion. But it understands that sometimes it may be necessary and hopes and prays that those times will be very, very few. But that when such times takes place, that counseling needs to continue beyond that as well. That abortion is not simply a decision that you make yes or no, and that's the end of it. That there are consequences, that even when it is necessary the woman who undergoes the procedure, often feels a sense of spiritual loss. And that this needs to be addressed as well. And so we understand that the whole process is one for very serious and thoughtful reflection, in which the community needs to be engaged.
[For more information, read the relevant section of the Social Principles ]
Q: How does the Methodist church reconcile its open and inclusive stance on homosexuality with the verses in the Bible that condemn the homosexual lifestyle?
A: I might go on record and say that the United Methodist Church as an institution has an open and inclusive policy towards homosexuals [as members of the church]. Some elements of the Church [seek full includsion of gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgendered persons], some elements of the Church don't, some are in between. We are required--and as the policy of the church says--that we consider homosexuals to be "persons of sacred worth", no less than their heterosexual brothers and sisters, and that they are to be welcomed. At the same time, in our discipline it says that the practice of homosexuality is "incompatible with Christian teaching." And of course we understand that this Christian teaching is meant to be reflective of the passages in Leviticus and in Romans and elsewhere.
Now, I look at this and in my own biblical reflection, in my own understanding of those texts I believe they are about another phenomenon. In Leviticus, I believe that those texts have more to do with the holiness code that defined Israelite religion from its Canaanite neighbors. The Canaanites had pagan shrines in which temple prostitutes, male and female, were part of their worship. Which I realize is a lot more exciting than some of the things we do here (laughter) but we are not about to change that in our worship committee.
The Israelites found these practices abhorrent, that sex, male, heterosexual and homosexual sex was part of this idolatrous worship. And so I find it interesting that the provision says, "a man shall not lie with a man as he does with a woman", is surrounded on all sides by things that have to do with idolatry in worship and not necessarily about sexuality. So as I look at it, considering that it's a text only about men with men and not about women with women, and surrounded on all sides by the holiness code, to me that verse seems to have more to do with pagan worship.
The same way Paul's injuction about sexual immorality [suggests a different focus than the one we often think of]. The words he uses are complex words [arsenokoitai and pornoi] and one of the possible definitions--and the one that I think Paul means--is practice of what we would call "pederasty", of older men who had sex with younger man and boys which is an explotational relationship. The biblical world did not understand homosexuality in the way we do--a couple of men get a apartment in the Village and live in a committed relationship together--that's not the phenomenon that the ancient world understood. SO, i don't know that homosexuality is anywhere expressed in scripture in the way that we know it, except in some of its particulars.
But that being said, and my asnwers not withstanding, I don't think that'sthe answer to the question. Because--for me--the question in the church has been the wrong question for a very long time. One side has asked, is not the bible authoritative? The other side says, the question is: is God not loving of all? The answer to both those questions is yes.
Sometimes on the left people have too easily overlooked the fact that we can not just simply ignore what the bible says. But people on the right have overlooked the fact that we have done exactly that over the years. That is, as the church has reflected on its own understanding of God's love and grace and the message of God's word, we have determined that there are things in our scriptures that we will no longer continue to affirm. We have decided that the prohibition against women speaking in church--which I would like to point out Carolyn is doing tonight--no longer apply to us. We have decided that certain other practices, that slavery, condoned and sometimes almost required in some elements of scripture, is incompatible with our understanding of God's love and grace. We have decide that our Christian faith is no more diminished if we wear clothing of mixed fabric, or if we eat shrimp, any other of the many other prohibitions we would be appalled to discover are on the books in the bible. Like stoning children who are truculent and talk back to their parents--we've gotten rid of that one too.
So what I mean to say in the church's struggle with homosexuality, the question is neither of the questions we have been asking. The question is not really about whether that passage is really about Canaanite sexual cults or about Greek pederasty. The question is not really about whether God is love or the scriptures are authoritative. The question is: is this one of those fundamental truths that we believe Christianity can not survive without? And if we believe it is, then that changes our answer. And if we believe that we would not recognize Christianity but for the prohibition on homosexuality then that's the decision we come to. But I am one, and this is my opinion, that our Christian faith is not diminished when we come to a different understanding of that. In fact my personal opinion is that our faith is expanded. But that is not an universal opinion, I realize. But I believe that the question needs to be differently asked. We need to understand that there is a process by which the Church has discerned that shifting understandings of its own truths over time. And this is one of those times where we will have to discern this question. But we need to do so with some honesty. We can't just say "The Bible doesn't matter, whatever it says doesn't matter." And we can't just say that everything in it is of equal weight. Because that simply is not true from our history. And so therefore, I would say that as a community that is welcoming and a reconciling community, we do so not out of a disrespect or ignorance of the scriptures, but out of a deep wrestling with those scriptures and a weighing as to how those scriptures are informed in the light of our Christian experience, and what we understand the spirit of God to be calling us to do.
Q: I am an AU alum who is currently halfway around the world. I know that the work I am doing will help people and it will get easier, but right now I feel caught in the middle of a hurricane, alone and overwhelmed. How do you explore faith when you are alone, have few resources, and have a tendency to get scared of religion? What are a bunch of good verses and when looking at the bible alone, how do you keep it making sense? And keep it from converting it to something that makes no sense?
I would say often that it is precisely in the midst of doing difficult work that we experience God. That, we often in this culture view material success and gain as a sign of God's presence and blessing. "Look how wealthy I am--God has surely blessed me." There are a couple of guys on TV who will sell you that line until the cows come home, with a 1-800 number at the bottom you can call to pledge money to prove it.
The way I understand the operation of God is that we see God most fully in those places of poverty in our midst. And I am not talking just economic poverty, but even that spiritual poverty where we ourselves feel bottomed out. There is opportunity there for God to enter into our hearts. Now, I think part of the problem is that we have sold Christianity as a bill of goods that means that we're going to be happy and smiling all the time. That everything is wonderful. When you're a Christian life is great! You never get speeding tickets, your tax refund comes in early, everyone is nice to you and the world is a wonderful place to be when you're a Christian. Except that we know that the cross mocks that understanding. The cross says--here is a person of perfect faith in the midst of this kind of suffering. And so, part of what we as a community need to do to help people like this alum who is around the world and is hurting is to understand that this is exactly the kind of thing that can happen in the context of Christian faith.
The Psalms make that abundantly clear. So if you're looking for Scripture, I would say the Psalms are those passages where the author deeply struggles and wrestles with the absence of God, with the pain of one's own shortcomings and fears. Where the full spectrum of human emotion is preserved in those writings. And so you begin to develop an understanding of faith that is much broader than simply the happy-happy-joy-joy kind that everyone likes to think is Christian faith. The Book of Job that we read tonight is nothing but one long question---that's why we read it on Faith Questions Sunday--one long question of Job asking why is the world like this? What have I done to deserve this? And ultimately Job is answered only by mystery. God comes and says there are things you won't understand.
And so I think we need to be better as a community at letting people know that we're not going to have all the answers worked out. Letting people know that sorrow and suffering are a part of our Christian journey. Not something that happens to prevent it or something that happens outside of it. But that all these things, that the difficult times are in a way the most Christian thing we can do. Because, [those who are in difficult times], like Christ, are experiencing suffering for the sake of others. Experiencing that kind of poverty--the poverty of Christ--that is, the most self-sacrificing love we know. And in a way, it may be that our friend overseas is experiencing and sharing and maybe even living Christian faith in a way that we all could do well to understand and to emulate. Giving fully of oneself almost to the point of emptiness and allowing God to fill us.
Q: How does the United Methodist Church reconcile the torture of those in Guantanamo Bay?
The short answer is, we don't. (laughter) I would point out that there are two United Methodists at the forefront of that policy, namely the President and the Vice-President. So we certainly do not insist on doctrinal orthodoxy in our denomination either but we condemn torture and oppose it in all its instances. Now, the church only gets to official speak every four years and we will do so again at General Conference and only the General Conference can speak for the entire church. Now the situation in Guantanamo has become much more of a known entity in the four years since the last General Conference. I imagine that you probably will see some resolutions and statements come out of General Conference exactly about this issue.
Now you can find a lot of this information in our Social Principles, which are the official social justice teachings of the church. And we make it clear that our stance against war except when absolutely necessary as a defensive measure, against torture, against human rights abuses. So the fact is that we are opposed to those things as a church. However, individual United Methodists are free to act as they will and there is little the church can do to stop them. Perhaps if we were more prophetic we might start excommunicating folks but that has never been our way.
The church has a nuanced understanding of the understanding of force when it comes to war and understands that there are those times when in defense of justice force needs to be used. You can't stand by and turn the other cheek as the Nazis are ravaging Europe. At the same time, the application of force is very prescribed, and there is to be no application of force when that force is unjust, and torture is universally viewed as unjust.
7:00 pm Service
Q: How is Eastern Orthodoxy different from Protestant Christianity?
Well for one they have much better looking robes than we do. (Laughter) Eastern Orthodoxy differs in terms of its splendor. That is the first, and most obvious, thing you would notice. If you were to walk into an Eastern Orthodox church you would notice the entire sanctuary would be covered in icons, gilded icons representing biblical scenes and biblical figures. The air would be filled with incense; the priests would be more ornately dressed with robes decorated with symbols of their office. Most interestingly, much of the activity that occurs in an Orthodox service would occur behind a barrier that we couldn't see. There is a gate--an iconostasis --behind which the priest would prepare the Eucharist, recites the prayers and you would almost feel like you didn't even need to be there. There is a certain amount of splendor to it.
Theologically there is actually not that much that divides us. There are some differences between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity (as Protestants we come out of that Western/Roman Christian tradition). Their priests can be married but cannot get married. I have a friend who is an Orthodox priest and he recounts to me that he got in right under the wire, so that he got married and then became ordained. If he had been ordained as a single man, he would have had to stay single. For our Catholic brothers and sisters, their clergy can never get married or be married should they be called to the priesthood and our Protestants can both get married and be married.
In the west we tend to look at Jesus's sacrifice as satisfying a legal judgment that humanity was judged guilty and had a penalty to pay and Jesus paid it for us, in the east they tend to say there was no penalty to pay, Christi took on our sins and died with our sins as a statement of God's love for us.
They have different understandings of the operation of the Spirit. They believe the Spirit comes from God the Father, while in the Western tradition we say that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son." It's a minor theological point but it is the one that split the two churches. They understand something called sanctification, and that humanity is in a divine-human synergy for our own salvation. They believe that the human being is not as wretched and depraved as St. Augustine believe humans were, which has influenced western Christianity. And there is an opportunity for the human being to become better through the operation of God's grace. What is interesting about this, is that and English clergyman named John Wesley became very influenced by this idea and thus United Methodism shares with Orthodox Christianity the belief in our sanctification. That the spirit can work within us to make us better, that there is a cooperative, collaborative relationship between us and God for our salvation. Now there is a lot more obviously that goes into it and those are some of the more visible things. The other mainly being that if you receive communion in an Orthodox church, which you would have to be Orthodox to do, to do they would take a piece of bread and serve it to you on a spoon dipped in the wine and you would eat it together. But like us they also have bread that is blessed that is eaten by all after the communion as a sign of fellowship. They also use leavened bread as opposed to unleavened bread, which is what we use as well.
Q: Is there a Hell?
Yes, most certainly there is a hell. Now the question is, "Is anybody in it?" That is a different question. Hell, if you understand it biblically, is the realm of the dead. Hell is evolving understanding for us as Christians. If you pay very close attention to how hell is described in the scriptures, especially the Old Testament, the word "hell" is never used. "Sheol" is the word that is used, or "the pit". And Sheol or the Pit is a lot like Hades was in Greek mythology. It is a place where the dead go and are specters, shadows of their former selves. It is not a place of punishment--it is merely your life after life, and its not much of a life to look forward to. The Psalmists will say "In Sheol is there any remembrance of God?" That is, can God even be praised in the pit? That is we don't have a body anymore, we are merely shadows of our former selves. Many ancient cultures understood that. The term that you find in the new testament, Gehenna is from a Hebrew word Geh-Hinnom , meaning "the valley of Hinnom" referring to a valley outside of the city of Jerusalem, it is where fires were burning constantly because it was the place where trash was thrown and burned. And so the idea of an apocalyptic judgment where the righteous are raised to new life but the wicked are cast into the fires of the valley of Hinnom has a symbolic value of God's justice in raising the dead to new life out of Sheol and casting the wicked in the fire where they are consumed and destroyed.
In our popular understanding of Heaven and Hell, Hell owes itself much more to the works of the Italian author Dante Alighieri than it does to anything in Christian canon. The portrait in the divine comedy of Hell is much more of what most people think Hell is like than any biblical source, which is either the "pit" or the fiery consummation and annihilation.
So the question is "is there a Hell?" if you believe in the justice of God than you believe that there is one. But if you believe in the mercy of God than you have to ask the question of what is Hell's population? And that we don't know. My great-grandmother on my father's side believed that we were in hell already. That earth was hell. There are a lot of people who think that way. I think that Hell is that state at which there is is the greatest alienation from God. And if that is the definition of Hell, then there are people who are already there, there are people in Hells of their own making. We make hell. And let's not doubt that our sinfulness and the violence in our world create creates enough of a Hell on earth that we really need not worry about whether there is a real Hell after death. It is enough that we trust in God our eternal faith that is what it means to trust in God's grace. But it's an understanding that we have the power to alleviate the hell suffering of people here, and that is something we are called to do as well.
Q: I've heard some hype about these being the "Last Days". Do you think that is likely true?
Again the answer is "yes", but of course we have been saying that for 2000 years. But what do we mean then, when we say that we are in the last days?
The Christian affirmation that we are in the last days has been something that we have been saying since Jesus himself, "Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand." That is the ordinary flow of history is about to be ended, the last days are upon us, the Kingdom is at hand. Any student of history will tell you that was a long time and so God's definition of "at hand" is either really different or we need to understand things differently.
Our task is not to interpret the signs and figure out when exactly the world will end, we keeping getting that wrong. The Millerites of the 1800s claimed that the world would end in 1844--it didn't. Hal Lindsey wrote in the 1970's, in his book, The Late Great Planet Earth that the world would end on the 40 th anniversary of the founding of the modern state of Israel--which was 20 years ago. So the world keeps failing to end as we predict it will. Nevertheless in every generation someone comes up and says that we are in the last days and here is what it looks like.
Now there is a difference, I think, between saying that we are in the last days and generating a lot of fear and anxiety about the cataclysm at the end of the world, and the proper Christian application of the Last Days as the world as we know it is in the process of changing, of being radically transformed by the power of God. That is as true today as when Jesus said it. We are in the midst of the kingdom breaking into our reality. When will it come? We don't know and Jesus said we wouldn't know. It would be like a "thief in the night"--something we'd be unaware of. And so our task is not to be anxious about whether the world is ending next Thursday or 10 million years from now. Our task is to testify to what that world is changing into, what that kingdom looks like that will come and replace the world we know. That kingdom of perfect love and perfect justice and perfect peace, that kingdom of perfect fellowship. What does that look like? How do we live that out as a proclamation that we are in the last days, however long those days are. But our task is to understand that the last days is meant to be a hopeful thing. It is not meant to be something that causes anxiety or fear. It is meant to be something by which we view our own world, and which convicts and converts our world, and helps it to be the kind of thing that God will bring into our midst.
Q: Is premarital sex a sin?
Well, I have to be honest and admit that there are very few places in the bible, if any, that come right out and say "Thou shalt not have premarital sex." Adultery is forbidden, sleeping with a virgin, if you're a man, that you do not intend to marry is forbidden, or sleeping with a virgin betrothed to someone else. Most of these seem to be concerned primarily with property crimes than with sexual morality. Thus if you have sex with a virgin you must marry her because otherwise her value has gone down.
That being said, the Church has very clearly affirmed that we can only fully affirm sex in a fully committed relationship, a married relationship as the Church describes it or a fully committed relationship. And what I think we must understand--and I am of an ethical persuasion like Reinhold Niebuhr--that there are no ethical absolutes only ethical ideals. I cannot say with absolute certainty that every single act of sexuality outside of marriage is sinful, because I know that I cannot say that every act of sexuality within a married relationship in sinless. And unless we are to reduce marriage to simply a license to have sex then there has to be some great ethic beyond that, there has to be a greater understanding of what our sexuality is.
And our sexuality is a powerful thing that is not meant to be used lightly and so there is great value in the idea that our sexuality is meant to be reserved for those for whom we commit ourselves utterly, because we wind up in a lot of trouble often if that is not the case. What I understand of the church's teachings is that our sexuality is precious gift that ought not be treated like something for which we have no respect, that is given away without any sense of its value. And so we strive for a sexuality that is within those committed, loving relationship, knowing that in the brokenness of our humanity we will not always succeed. And so we ought not heap up a lot of guilt and blame upon ourselves for failing to meet that. But we ought to understand that our goal is try to preserve the integrity of the gift that God has given us.
[For more theological reflection on this topic, see the Sermon "A Particular Gift from God" at , or read the Social Principles, ¶161. G]
Q: As clergy in the [United] Methodist church are always well educated, what is your opinion on churches that rely on charismatic or informal pastors?
Well, they are out drawing us in attendance so...
The church broadly needs both. Now, obviously, I am in a tradition where they made me and are making our friend here go through years of training to become a pastor. You need 90 credit hours of post-graduate study in order to get a Master of Divinity degree. It is a six year evaluative process within the church itself, where you declare your candidacy, and then you go through a guidebook with a mentor, and then another guidebook, and then a two day retreat in which you're examined by committees from the Board of Ordained Ministry (after having written pages and pages of essays), and then after a three year probationary period they do the same thing again and ask you a bunch more questions, and you have to write even more pages of essays... And six years later you finally get the bishop to place his hands upon your head and ordain you.
Now the idea that I could enter a Charismatic/Pentecostal church and be ordained tomorrow is really attractive, because you skip over all that. But at the same time there is an awareness that the church broadly needs people of all different gifts and the scriptures speak of the fact that there are those who have the gifts of preaching, and the gifts of teaching, and the gifts of interpretation, and the gifts of tongues, and the gifts of service, and music, and leadership and we understand all these diverse gifts.
Different traditions weigh those gifts differently. In our tradition, the United Methodist tradition, education is seen as prerequisite, not because it is seen that only those who are thus educated have the gifts for ministry--we know that's not true: we understand that the laity, as they are, have tremendous gifts for ministry. But my education is more to keep me accountable to the church than it is to be able to be a good pastor. The church is concerned to know that when they put me here to be your pastor that I know what I am talking about. That I can represent the church's message well, that I can do so with a certain degree of competence. And so they have these restrictions and these stages that they have set. It's much more about holding me accountable than it is about saying to you that ministry requires this kind of training. The Pentecostals understand that the gifts of preaching are available immediately. But of course if one's faith journey, as a leader of a religious community, is left at the charismatic stage, without exploring more about the calling to which they have been called, they are missing out too. We must embrace both the charismatic gifts to preach and teach and we must embrace the responsibility to study and to learn, to make of yourself a scholar of the tradition.
So different denominations have different emphases and so in that you will see different requirements as to what makes a "clergy person". But that doesn't have anything to do with what makes a minister . I am a clergyman--you are all ministers. That is available to you now, through the power of the Spirit, already. You don't have to go to seminary in order to be a minister and a servant of God except to let the Spirit work its way through you and speak to you. If you want to represent the teachings of church, you'd better study. And that's where my denomination comes out on that.
Back to Sermons page
Back to AU UMC Home
Copyright © 2008. Mark A. Schaefer.
No part of this text may be reproduced or otherwise disseminated without the express written consent of the author.