Calvin Synod Herald, 2017 (118. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)
2017-07-01 / 7-8. szám
4 CALVIN SYNOD HERALD all its benefits. The problem is that there are less and less churches which can (or willing) to pay the price for one of these highly trained professionals. But since they are the ones who do some of the most important “church stuff’ (i.e., authorized to perform the sacraments and rights, and many of the executive actions), something must be done. The Habakkuk Group’s solution to this problem is to eliminate the differences between the three categories of ministry (i.e., commissioned, licensed, and ordained), and have only one category, that is “ordained minister.” In other words, the difference between lay and professional ministry is being eliminated. According to the proposed changes, in the future, the way toward ordained ministry leads through a six-year procedure which might or might not include seminary education. Thus, we will have one process of ordination, and one kind of ordained ministry. In other words, seminary education is not going to be a test of authorized ministry anymore. The “new” test is the life of the person who wants to be ordained. “Discernment” is the word usually used here. Discernment is overseen by the given association’s Committee on Ministry (COM—sometimes it is called Church and Ministry Committee). Another commendation of the new proposal is to encourage future ministers to move toward part-time and bi-vocal ministry. In part, this vison is already well established in our denomination where we see more and more retired ministers serving in our churches on a part-time basis. But the essential point here is that professionals are too expensive, and there is no need for them anyway. Our General Minister and President, John C. Dorhauer, goes as far as to declare that professional ministers are part of an old system which misses our postmodern society.2 Undoubtedly, this change will speed up the current trend of churches not hiring seminary trained ministers for fulltime ministry. Although I highly appreciate the work of the Habakkuk Group, there are many reasons why I cannot support this segment of the new MOM.3 First, there is a wide difference between finding solution for a problem or just coping with it. Our problem is that church membership is shrinking. One way to cope with the situation is to eliminate trained professionals from the church. Maybe it is inevitable, but please do not call it a solution! Instead of trying to find ways to feel good about it let us mourn. Maybe our mourning leads to repentance, and repentance to renewal... Another problem with this proposal is that it puts unprecedented pressure on COM members. The fact that one holds an MDiv degree is not makes her or him automatically fit for ordination, but it is a very good indicator of her/him stance in life. But even more importantly it is an indicator that such person is trained to fulfill the position s/he is applying for. According the renewed MOM it is up to the members of the committee to decide about this part of one’s credentials. Who, when, and how will train COM members to take up this task? And even more importantly, where we will find people who is going to sign up for such a task? These questions were asked during Q&As in the AM21 conference, and the answer was that the details need to be worked out... One might also say that instead of the diploma, in the new MOM, we have the “new” test, the life of the candidate. S/he is being monitored for six years before the decision for or against ordination takes place. But seminary education was never intended to substitute for discernment. The real test of a minister was always (and remains forever) the conduct of their lives. Mission and Ministry I do not want to simply dismiss the questioning of the rationale behind keeping “professional” ordained ministry alive. We live a totally new era, why would we cling to something that is not relevant anymore? However, if we about to eliminate this category we ought to have good reasons for it. One (and I think the main) reason is monetary. Are we going to get rid of professional ordained ministry because we cannot afford it anymore? If yes, please make it clear, and, as I already indicated, let us lament. We give up another crucial tenet of our faith. Another reason is Dorhauer’s. His whole argument is based on the notion that our society is a postmodern one and professional ministry simply cannot fit into it. My answer to that is twofold. First, it is evident from his book that our General Minister and President has a very limited concept about what “postmodemity” is.5 Second, even if Dorhauer is right about postmodemity, he says very little about why “professional” ministry is not compatible with it. He only seems to accept it as a fact. I agree that we need to be open for radical changes in our approach to ministry in the twenty-first century, but why not do it while keeping professional ministry in the scheme? Why we have professional ordained ministry in the first place? How and when professional ministry became part of the church? According to the Bible, professional ministry started almost simultaneously with the establishment of the Qahal (the religious community) of YHWH (e.g., Exodus 19: 24). After priest were not needed anymore to conduct sacrifices, other kind of professionals took their role, the rabbis.6 When we go to the New Testament, we see again that from the very beginning people were chosen and dedicated into ministerial roles in the early church as their professional occupation (e.g., Acts 6:3-4). Already there are three different kinds of ministry found in the NT: the e/ftveo/mv/bishop/overseer, 7 the presbyter/priest, and the deacon. As early as the beginning of the second century, this structure already became the norm for the churches. At least one of them, the overseer, was a professional person,
