TCR EDITORIAL – WHY DON’T BISHOPS JUST SAY…: Dr. Calvin H. Sydnor III The 20th Editor of The Christian Recorder This will not be a popular editorial. There will be clergy and maybe some laity who will disagree with the position of this editorial. Let me digress When I use to do family and marriage counseling sometimes we would be in a situation that if the person was being counseled had said “No” they would not been in their present situation. I found it amazing how hard it was for some people to say, “No.” I developed an exercise where “no” was always the appropriate response. It was amazing how many people were uncomfortable saying “No.” Sometimes a “no” can be uncomfortable and even inappropriate as when a child says “no” by word or action in response to a parent’s decision. There are other times when a “no” is appropriate as when someone asks or tries to entice one to do something wrong. Sometimes a “no” is just as difficult for the person uttering the word as it is for recipient of the word, “no.” I suspect we have that problem in relationships, family systems, on the job and even in churches. Some parents find it hard to say “no.” Young people, influenced by peer pressure often find it hard to say “no.” Even in the Religious realm Apparently pastors, local churches, presiding elders, quarterly conferences, district conferences, annual conferences, boards of examiners, ministerial and lay delegates at the annual conference and even bishops find it hard to say, “no!” The word “no” has not been banned, it can still be a relevant word. “No” and “yes” keep organizations functioning more efficiently. For example; “‘No,’ you are not qualified and we will not hire / promote you” or “‘Yes,’ your qualifications meet our standards and you are hired /promoted.” In the secular world Financial institutions and other lenders say “no” to people with poor credit. Colleges and universities say “no” to low-achieving students. Employers say “no” to unqualified job applicants. Married couple and lovers sometimes say “no” to each other. Students say “no” to their teachers, most often not doing their homework. State Bar Associations say “no” to law graduates who cannot pass the Bar Examination. Accrediting agencies say “no” to those entities that fail to meet accreditation standards. A “Yes” or “No” makes a difference Every “no” in not inappropriate and every “yes” is not appropriate. In ministry a “yes” or “no” can make a difference; and as a matter of fact a “yes” or “no” can make a “world of difference!” This is not the first time I have addressed this ministry issue and I don’t mean to sound like a “broken record” or a CD playing the same thing over and over again. I feel strongly about the itinerant ministry. The itinerant ministry of the AME Church is compromised because we have too many itinerant-credentialed preachers serving in local relationships or not doing any ministry. We have itinerants who have never served a day in Itinerant ministry; not even one day as an itinerant preacher; and sitting in the pulpit on Sundays is not itinerant ministry. In some areas local preachers are serving as itinerant preachers and the AME Church refuses to reobligate them as itinerants; while at the same the time the AME Church refuses to reclassify itinerant- credentialed preachers as locals. It’s not all their fault I am sure there are itinerant-credentialed preachers willing to serve as itinerant ministers, but they haven’t been given an opportunity to do so. It’s not their fault that they do not have a pastoral appointment. It’s the fault of a flawed system that the AME Church has let “get out of control” in ordaining preachers without regard to pastoral appointments. The foundation of the itinerant system or Itinerancy 101 has been a pastoral appointment or its equivalence for ordained as itinerant preachers. And sad to say, a lot of women have made sacrifices earning seminary degrees and going through the ordination process, only to be denied pastoral appointments. In many cases, women clergy have not been given pastoral appointments commensurate with their theological and academic training, and abilities. Too many inappropriate “yeses” The Church has allowed too many cowardly inappropriate “yes” responses to persons seeking Itinerant Orders. The Church has said, “Yes,” when it should have said, “No.” Of course there are several ways to say “no” and the polite way to say “no” is to say, “No thank you” with an explanation of why and how the itinerancy works and why they may not be acceptable as ordinands. The cowardly “yes” responses begin with the local church pastor, the local church conference, and the quarterly conference. I suspect some local churches give a cowardly “yes” even when they are not confident that the applicant would make an effective itinerant pastor. If an applicant has a high-paying job and seems to be firmly settled in his or her career and the community, it might be more appropriate and courageous to recommend that person for local orders. Church pastor should have courageous “heart-to-heart” conversations with those who aspire to the ministry. A part of the problem We, the clergy and members of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, have, by our “thoughts, word, and deed,” subordinated the local-track ministry to “second-team” ministry. Nobody wants to be on the second-string; everybody wants to be on the first-string. Somehow we treat local deacons and local elders as second-class clergy. We have a culture of celebrating the itinerant ministry and ignoring the local-track ministry. Very little vetting When a person acknowledges what he or she thinks is a call to the ministry, very little vetting is done. We rejoice and accept their word and get the ball moving as quickly as we can. I suspect there is not enough “eyeball to eyeball” contact, not enough deep questioning and counseling. I further suspect that even if the pastor or any of the parishioners thought the person was not acceptable for ministry, no one would have the courage to raise objections. Across the AME Church, we let people “slip through” the church conference, quarterly conference, district conference and the annual conference and many bishops just won’t say, “No” and they slip past the bishop, the “gatekeeper.” The work of ministry is just as important as the medical, legal and other professions and we should carefully vet and scrutinize those we approve for ordination. A glut We have a glut of itinerant elders and in any profession or business, extreme surpluses are indications of lowered standards or not high-enough standards. Surpluses are eliminated by more stringent scrutiny and higher standards. Top-tier schools have rigorous entry standards and that’s how they maintain their standards, and their reputations. If the AME Church is going to correct the itinerancy, there has to be a systemic change from top to bottom; from Episcopal Districts 1 – 20; and everybody has to be on the same “sheet of music.” The decision to “attack” the issue has to be uniform across the church. The most sacred duties of bishops The most critical responsibility and commitment of the episcopacy is the bishops’ answer and promise in response to the question, “Will you be faithful in ordaining or laying hands upon others?” The local church, the quarterly conference, district conference, board of examiners, the annual conference all bear blame for abdicating their responsibilities in allowing persons to be ordained who should not be in the ministry. I will say it again, the bishop is the bottomline and it is the bishop who promised to “be faithful in ordaining or laying hands upon others.” The bishop is the “gatekeeper” of the itineracy. The bishop is the “doorkeeper” and the “doorkeeper” is the person who allows or denies entry. The door to the itineracy must not be a revolving door, but a door that requires the highest theological, spiritual, academic, ethical and moral standards. “No” needs to be heard more often It’s hard to say “no,” but sometimes a “no” today is better than the heartache of dealing with extended legal and negative ecclesiastical issues, which a simple “no” could have prevented. Not enough “no” And, I will say it again, it’s hard to say “no” to a son or a daughter of one of the “old saints” of the Church; and it’s hard to say “no” to the son, daughter or grandchild of a pastor, presiding elder or bishop. It’s hard to say “no” to a person who seems excited about ministry. Yes, it is hard to say “no,” and it takes courage, but bishops need to just say, “No” when they know that “no” is the appropriate response. Things that can help bishops and Boards of examiners say “no.” Bishops and boards of examiners should require official transcripts sent directly from academic institutions directly to the office of the presiding bishop. Photocopied or scanned documents are not “official” and should not be accepted. Anyone who says he or she has served in the military should be required to provide an “official raised copy” of the DD Form 214, which shows a complete “picture” of person’s military service and the type of discharge. Background checks and credit-checks should be required. A person who enters the ministry should be able to pass the scrutiny of a background and credit check. Poor credit risks and people who don’t pay their bills will probably not be exemplary members of the clergy. Vetting and scrutiny must be ongoing throughout ministry The AME Church should raise the bar of professionalism by rigorous training, supervision and accountability and dealing forthrightly with pastoral issues and accusations. There should be mandatory recertification training for all members of the clergy. Let me say this again The biggest challenge for those being ordain itinerant elder is their response and intention to the question in The Ordination of Elders: “Will you reverently obey your chief ministers to who is committed the charge and government over you, following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions, submitting yourselves to their godly judgments? We have too many preachers who refuse to be obedient to their bishops and we have too many parishioners who refuse to be obedient to their pastors. Pastors must trust God and commit themselves to reverently obey their chief ministers to whom is committed the charge and government …following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions, submitting to their godly judgments. Pastors can only do this if they sincerely believe that God is ultimately in charge of their ministry. The challenge for bishops If the itineracy is going to survive, the African Methodist Episcopal Church must have bishops who will be committed to their promise to “be faithful in ordaining or laying hands upon others”; that is “guarding the gate” for those wishing to be ordained itinerant elders. And, when guarding the gate, bishops will sometime need the courage to say, “No!”
Posted on: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:29:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015