Remit 6: One Order Of Ministry

[revjohn]

In the first 5 years of a career, there was significant difference in the knowledge of the University educated person versus the person who had taken focussed programs, and on-the-job training.

The UCCAN recognizes this to a degree. Which is why we have implemented different paths. Candidates for Ordination can opt for a 5 year on-site program in which they provide ministry (less than full-time) and study online and on-campus during summer semester. This is becoming more attractive for a number of reasons.

One, it allows the Candidate to receive a greater income during time of study. As one who did not have this option available I can tell you that the work study offered by my Seminary was enough to pay tuition and educational expenses. Housing, clothing and food were still my responsibility.

Two, it allows the Candidate to move up the Salary grid employed by the UCCAN (minimum allowed not maximum) while studying so that after 5 years they are ordained and qualify for Category C whereas those who take the three year academic route will only qualify for category A upon ordination.

So why would anyone with half a brain choose the 3 year academic route when there will be an appreciable financial burden incurred and pay penalty as a result? And what will happen to the Seminaries when they loose their full time students? Same thing that has been happening to the seminaries since Denominations scaled back funding Seminaries. They will close meaning that all the training will eventually be handled by the last Seminary standing or we need to turn to sister denominations for training because we cut back so much.

By year 15, the education difference was not noticable based on education alone. A person who took training, and kept current in their field, could not only catchup but surpass the university trained.

The same would be true in ministry, provided of course the university trained stayed static. If all ministers moved forward at the same pace (it is a hypothetical) then those with the head-start would stay at the front of the pack.

That this isn't true also points to problems arising in the administration of the Church.

Why do we have a document seeking to enshrine the abuses of the system past? Because expedience has been declared trump. The One Order of Ministry Paper basically says, "We've sucked at this so long why not make that suckage the norm." As a result it diminishes everything rather than elevating it. The United Church of Canada for years has been proud of our trained and educated clergy on the one hand and dismissive of them with the other.

I dont' buy the premise that university training alone is sufficient to call out separation or hierarchy throughout the career.

First, let's take a moment to call the hierarchy argument for what it is. bulls**t. This is not about hierarchy. There is no position in the Church that I, by virtue of my Ordination, can hold that a lay person can't. If we talk Offices then only the Ordained can hold the office of Ordained Minister.

Moderator of the UCCAN is open to Clergy and Laity alike.
GC staff is open to Clergy and Laity alike.
Conference Staff is open to Clergy and Laity alike.
Conference President is open to Clergy and Laity alike.
Presbytery Chair is open to Clergy and Laity alike.

Does my one vote trump any vote of any Diaconal, Designated Lay, or Lay member? Absolutely not.

Does my office make my voice more persuasive in discussion? It might? Should it? Nearly 20 years of ministry should count for something when discussing the Church shouldn't it? And of those 20 years I have been an active member of Presbytery, Committees and Executive, Conference Committees and Executives which means I have been elbows deep in the workings of the Church. Hopefully, that counts as well. In some quarters more than the 3year Master Degree.

That said, without that 3year Master Degree it is unlikely that I would have had those same experiences.

That isn't me climbing up any imagined hierarchy. That is me simply participating in the life and work of the Church.

This is about ministries, how they have been identified and what they are trained to do.

A Designated Lay Minister is not trained to be a Diaconal Minister or an Ordained Minister. They are different offices, with different intentions. A Podiatrist, Endocrineologist and an Oncologist are all Doctors. If you want a Podiatrist treating your Cancer be my guest. And when you think about it, who says a Podiatrist shouldn't be thought of as the equivalent of an Oncologist? Anybody find that hierarchy unjust?

Edit: Salary also tends to average out if based on performance, and role. The individual without the degree starts out at a lesser salary than that with the University degree. Fair: normally a significant difference in investment, and absence from wage-earning. As time passes, salary should be based , in my opinion, based on roles & responsibility. If you can deliver the product, and yes, worship is a product, as is care of a church congregation,then you should be paid for it.....not based on years of service or education alone.

This is, most likely the next step down the road after One Order of Ministry. When there is no longer a distinction in Office those who have made significant investments in con-ed will want to ensure such are recognized. I have colleagues with the exact same service I have under their belt. They have added Doctorates along the way. Salary Grid currently doesn't recognize that. We are, fiscally, equally weighted. And the reality is that our salary grid tops out after a number of years of service. They only way to move up a grid for me is to find a General Council Position or find a very generous congregation to negotiate with.

With the new Office of Vocation coming into play there will most likely be a push to find ways to recognize con-ed in the salary grid, like teachers with AQs (Ontario College of Teachers).

Of course the danger of that is that those who do push for higher wage brackets will price themselves out of ministry positions.

Which ironically is what has happened with the Ministry Based Training.

Designed to put a minister in a rural or remote location that could not afford experienced clergy the Ministry Based Training Programs looked like a good solution, until somebody pointed out the injustice of Candidates providing ministry and not being able to move up the grid. So that was fixed and the congregations that couldn't pay higher than A found those bandages ripped off and relocated to congregations that could pay B and when those congregations couldn't manage C the bandage was ripped off again.

Good for the Candidate? Not when they had to find their own Church as a training site.

One thing One Order of Ministry does is that it says everyone in training has to finish at the same point. How you get there is up to the individual. I have no quarrel with that. If it is all about equality then those ministry positions that required less training should have to put in more time training. The idea that they could get away with less training and still be considered the same is not just in any way, or shape or form.

 

[revjohn]

Was she in tears because the comments were nasty, or was she in tears because she just didn't like the fact that not everybody was lining up and saying what a great remit this is?

Good question. My experience of the discussion, which was brief and shoehorned someplace into already anxious discussion was not that comments were nasty so much as they were emotionally manipulative. Only one speaker really stands out in memory and that because it was such a transparent attempt to curry support for a tremendously hideous paper that it was almost laughable. There was, in my mind, no way that the comment covered over a naked grasping for more perceived power, prestige and notoriety.

It was nauseating.

The issue is not so much that we're short of ministers as it is that we're short of congregations that can afford full time ministry - a point you note below. We are perhaps short of ministers who are willing to serve on more remote charges. But there are also Presbyteries that have a glut of ministers. In some places we have a problem with "retired" ministers who take "retired supply" appointments and then seem to forget that they're "supply" appointments and they just get re-appointed year after year after year after year, etc., etc., etc. sometimes to very healthy pastoral charges that have become comfortable with the supply minister and don't really think they should have to continue looking even though there are perfectly capable non-retired ministers looking for opportunities. Having chaired pastoral relations in one such Presbytery, I know that was an ongoing problem and issue that bugged a lot of ministers who were either unemployed or underemployed.

This.

Again, Presbyteries taking the easy way out instead of honouring process makes things difficult for all.

If memory serves the Church has plugged the hole on this. Ensuring that congregations who employ Retired Supply Ministers continue to make Employer contributions to the Pension Plan.

Carolla - it's been defined as a "justice issue" by DLMs. Which means we're not really allowed to question it - which is why (back to your first point) people get angry and upset and weepy in many contexts when it is questioned. You're questioning "justice." Once someone raises the "justice" word over an issue, that's it. Case closed. You can't question it. Not for any reason. Never. You're just supposed to fall in line and go along.

Again, this.

It is tried and true and despicable tactic routinely employed in the UCCAN.

 

[revsdd]

Again, Presbyteries taking the easy way out instead of honouring process makes things difficult for all.

Not convinced that the Presbyteries have much choice but to "take the easy way out" - if by that you mean continuing to re-appoint retired supply ministers.

We tried to deal with the issue in Niagara Presbytery when I was PR chair there. Retired supply was (probably still is) a huge issue in Niagara Presbytery (because of the presence of Albright Gardens in the Presbytery) that several of our underemployed and unemployed ministers brought to my attention. Many of them were finding it impossible to even get interviews with pastoral charges that in theory still had vacancies and searches going on for ministers. PR members who had been on search committees simply couldn't get the Search Committees to meet. Inquiries were being received and just summarily rejected. Because - "We love our retired supply minister. This person might not be as good. Why do we need to look for anyone else?" So after much discussion in the PR Committee we presented a motion to Presbytery that would require a pastoral charge that had declared a vacancy in its last JNAC report and was being served by retired supply to do a new JNAC after their fourth (4th!) retired supply appointment. (That means 4 years of retired supply in a pastoral charge that was supposedly vacant and searching and located in what by all accounts would be a desirable Presbytery for active ministers to come to.) The motion passed. I felt it was reasonable. The basis for the motion was that after four years of supply a supply position had become a de facto settled position without any oversight or approval from Presbytery PR, and that as a result even the intention of doing a proper search as decided when the JNAC report was approved by the congregation had ended. We did not say that they couldn't continue with retired supply - only that they'd have to do a JNAC to justify why retired supply had become the preferable ministry option for them. The retired supply ministers were up in arms. One complained to the General Council Office. Our Committee got our hands slapped by the General Council Office who told us that we couldn't implement such a policy. It was discriminatory. We were told that we had little option but to simply re-appoint the retired supply minister at the request of the congregation unless there was disciplinary action being taken against her/him. Apparently the GCO found that actually expecting a pastoral charge to abide by its own JNAC recommendations was some sort of a violation of process - a decision that still makes me fume when I remember the smugness of at least one of the retired supply ministers when I had to report to the Presbytery that GCO had told us that we couldn't implement the motion that Presbytery had passed dealing with an issue that in my opinion was completely within the Presbytery's jurisdiction and that did not violate any policy or rule of the United Church.

 

[revjohn]

I would like to know this more clearly & factually. Is there a source for background on who/how/why the remit was actually initiated? I don't seem to be finding that specifically.

I did link to the study guide in the OP. I have yet to check and see if the link is still active. There is probably some backgrounder element to the document. Of course the One Order of Ministry Paper which I have commented on should still be around for viewing. I will see what I can find and provide hotlinks here.

Re the shortage/glut of ministers - do you think this is a rural/urban difference primarily? I imagine the financial abiity to support full time minister is felt in both locales. My own experiences are with urban churches - so it was interesting for me to listen carefully at the GC meeting to understand and appreciate the differences regionally.

Mostly rural although some urban churches have certainly said through their JNAR (Joint Needs Assessment Reports--a document required by the Church prior to declaring a vacancy) they were not open to clergy higher than category A on the salary grid. Which is actually a two year window which only those in a Ministry Based Program or fresh out of Seminary qualify for.

Which eliminates anyone with more than two years of ministry under their belts.

 

[revjohn]

Not convinced that the Presbyteries have much choice but to "take the easy way out" - if by that you mean continuing to re-appoint retired supply ministers.

Obscene.

I understand that there is no mandatory retirement and I know that the Pension Plan can be somewhat lean.

If you are Retired and providing supply then that should be a limited deal, from the time a vacancy is declared to the time a minister is called and if congregations are not actively searching it is no longer supply and that minister is no longer retired but active.

As far as GCO involvement in the issue I am unimpressed. I can understand a Presbytery not wanting to go head to head with GCO.

Which affirms my ongoing lament that for a Church which prides itself on its social justice there is a tremendous willing ignorance about what is or isn't just.

 

[revjohn]

My chllenge with this whole ordained versus diaconal versus DLM is the hierarchical and skills based discussion.

Again the hierarchical discussion is bulls**t. It doesn't exist.

Skills based discussions are fair and right. If all are going to be considered equal then there must be a way to ensure that all are, roughly equal.

To date that has been the training provided for all streams of ministry. The training, has been different. Different emphasis on skills for different needs of the ministry. Ordained are trained differently from Diaconal and Diaconal are trained differently from Designated Lay.

Sacramental Privilege has been the primary distinction.

Only Ordained Ministers are inherently given the ability to preside over the sacraments by the nature of their office. With that is further educational requirements and competency. Other distinctions have been the understanding that our Office is permanent and can only be removed by an action of our own (voluntary request to be placed on the Discontinued Service List) or as a disciplinary action of a court with accountability (Disciplinary decision to be placed on the Discontinued Service List). There are ways off of the DSL for both. Each require oversight of the appropriate court and each Court to be satisfied.

Diaconal Ministers were never intended to be the sole clergy on a Pastoral Charge. They were a support position not a lead position. Their Office is also permanent and there are more Diaconal Ministers than there are Multi-Staff positions. Rather than tell Diaconal Ministers that they cannot serve in a lead ministry position they were allowed to apply for lead positions but must ask permission to administer the sacraments. They get that permission after educational upgrade (not onerous by any stretch). This is not a permanent solution. They must reapply and once they leave the pastoral charge they cannot take that permission with them. They must reapply in a new position if they are once again the sole clergy.

Designated Ministers were intended to be stop-gap. They were a local solution to a local problem. Their office is not permanent and it exists only as long as they are in the Presbytery recognized pastoral relationship. They do serve in lead ministry positions and like the Diaconal Ministers they do not have the inherent right to preside over the sacraments. They must apply and take the requisite training before given approval and like Diaconal Ministers they must continue to reapply and should they move to a new pastoral relationship they must reapply for the privilege of administering the sacraments.

Nobody who has been through the training is made to train again.

What One Order of Ministry does is say, okay, there will only be one order and that one order will be Ordained. Those who are not ordained currently will have to undergo further training and education to qualify. There will be no Diaconal or Designated Lay designation moving forward. Essentially the offices of Diaconal and Designated Lay Minister will be eliminated. Any currently in those offices who refuse to comply with the education program they are mandated to take will have their minister status revoked.

At present Diaconal Ministers seem to be offended that their office is being declared unneccessary and they are actively attempting to maintain the existence of Diaconal Ministry.

That becomes an issue moving forward. How does the Church honour an office at the same time as they are wiping it out?

Designated Lay Ministry is the stream that has been driving this movement and I don't think that most are going to be pleased with the fact that they will have to undergo further training in order to qualify. Some were simply hoping to have their office regarded as equivalent to Ordained as is. They want to be grandfathered into Ordination. Others recognize that there are different levels of training and accept that they will have to do more to qualify as Ordained.

Example: a person who has taught school, has her teacher's degree, decides to retire and go DLM. She has taken years of theology programs but online, in small groups, at university, but, doesn't have the MDIV.

This actually begs the question of whether or not the online course was actually for academic credit/competency or general interest. There is a difference. I can take an introductory course on any discipline, it is required that I will be examined to see that I have actually learned sufficient material to move on to more intense study. General interest courses don't require any evaluation of competency. I could audit an entire medical degree without ever having to prove I have retained what I have been taught. Wouldn't make me a doctor. Wouldn't even qualify me to intern.

How do you value that person?

This is where the conversation goes off the rails. That person and that ministry should be valued. To what degree? To the degree that they are doing what they are expected to do. I am ordained to the Office of Word, Sacrament and Pastoral Care. If I am passing any of that off to another then there should be some discussion about whether or not I am fulfilling the role of the Office. It becomes disciplinary.

Are they lowest paid due to DLM status?

The issue of wage has been difficult. Traditionally there has been a perceived inequality in wages. Ordained Ministers were given an annual salary and allowances. If they occupied a Manse they didn't qualify for a housing allowance but a Manse is considered a benefit.

Historically Lay Pastoral Ministers were paid more because the housing allowance was built into their salary. As the manse went the way of the dinosaur this became more of an equal practice. They new compensation model only distinguishes between who lives in a manse and who doesn't. All ministers are paid at the same rate according to where they fall on the salary grid which is based on years of service and not educational accomplishments.

Ministers working less than full-time receive the proportionate rate.

DLM status does not equal less pay.

In multi-staff situations base salary is the mimimums per category (years of service not office held) plus whatever you can negotiate extra.

 

[revjohn]

The link in the OP is still good.

It does not get you to the brutal paper which proceeded.

 

[paradox3]

The link in the OP is still good.

It does not get you to the brutal paper which proceeded.

Are you referring to the 19 pager? I saw it somewhere but I don't remember how I located it.

 

[revjohn]

I did link to the Brutal Paper in another thread, that link is now resulting in Document Not Found.

My rough draft of a response is still present but that is it.

Some discussion on that Brutal Paper can be found here:
Thinking About One Order of Ministry

 

[Mendalla]

This whole discussion intrigues me. UU'ism is quite simple. A "minister" is one who is ordained to spiritual leadership and called by a congregation. It is preferred that they be in full fellowship with the UUA Ministerial Fellowship Committee but, being congregational, congregations aren't necessarily bound by that unless they want the UUA's support for that ministry. Ministers in full fellowship have educational requirements, generally an M.Div but I don't know that's a hard and fast rule. With only two actual UU seminaries in existence, many of our ministers have degrees from Christian (more rarely other traditions; I know of one UU minister in the US who trained as a Reform Jewish rabbi) seminaries. Emmanuel degrees, for instance, are accepted though some additional training in UU history and polity may be required IIRC. In fact, the London fellowship's current part-time contract minister is a doctoral candidate at the Lutheran seminary at Laurier in Waterloo.

The closest we come to a DLM is the lay chaplain, which is a lay member who is ordained locally (normally nominated by a chaplaincy committee and voted on at a congregational meeting) and receives training and a license to marry under a program administered by CUC. They are only for providing rites of passage (weddings, funerals, child dedications, etc.) though and are paid on a fee-for-service basis by those using their services. They are in no way regarded as a substitute for a minister save in that one respect. If a congregation has full-time ministry, the minister generally does rites for members, the chaplains serve non-members. In congregations that have part-time or no minister, chaplains handle all requests for rites of passage. However, chaplains are tied to their specific congregation and if they join a different congregation, they lose their status unless the new congregation calls them as a chaplain (though they wouldn't have to repeat the training if they already had it from a previous congregation).

If a congregation does not want, or can't afford, a minister, then they are lay-led, usually by teams of volunteers. They can certainly pay lay members to do ministry tasks but they won't be recognized as "ministers" outside that congregation and aren't governed under UUA guidelines for things like salary and benefits.

 

[Mendalla]

I suppose two aspects of UU'ism play into that approach to ministry:

• We are congregational in polity so that congregations make the ultimate decision about who is doing ministry and how. There is no higher court involved beyond the UUA committees that provide advice and assistance.
• We don't have sacraments. Each congregation has rituals that they follow, some of which are widely used in the movement, but they can be led by anyone that the congregation permits to do so. I've led the water communion at London, for instance. So you don't have this concept that you must be an ordained minister or have special permission to offer sacraments.

 

[revsdd]

This whole discussion intrigues me. UU'ism is quite simple. A "minister" is one who is ordained to spiritual leadership and called by a congregation. It is preferred that they be in full fellowship with the UUA Ministerial Fellowship Committee but, being congregational, congregations aren't necessarily bound by that unless they want the UUA's support for that ministry. Ministers in full fellowship have educational requirements, generally an M.Div but I don't know that's a hard and fast rule. With only two actual UU seminaries in existence, many of our ministers have degrees from Christian (more rarely other traditions; I know of one UU minister in the US who trained as a Reform Jewish rabbi) seminaries. Emmanuel degrees, for instance, are accepted though some additional training in UU history and polity may be required IIRC. In fact, the London fellowship's current part-time contract minister is a doctoral candidate at the Lutheran seminary at Laurier in Waterloo.

The closest we come to a DLM is the lay chaplain, which is a lay member who is ordained locally (normally nominated by a chaplaincy committee and voted on at a congregational meeting) and receives training and a license to marry under a program administered by CUC. They are only for providing rites of passage (weddings, funerals, child dedications, etc.) though and are paid on a fee-for-service basis by those using their services. They are in no way regarded as a substitute for a minister save in that one respect. If a congregation has full-time ministry, the minister generally does rites for members, the chaplains serve non-members. In congregations that have part-time or no minister, chaplains handle all requests for rites of passage. However, chaplains are tied to their specific congregation and if they join a different congregation, they lose their status unless the new congregation calls them as a chaplain (though they wouldn't have to repeat the training if they already had it from a previous congregation).

If a congregation does not want, or can't afford, a minister, then they are lay-led, usually by teams of volunteers. They can certainly pay lay members to do ministry tasks but they won't be recognized as "ministers" outside that congregation and aren't governed under UUA guidelines for things like salary and benefits.

I'd point out that in the United Church of Canada, if individual members of a church wanted simply to volunteer to lead services when they got to the point of not being able to afford to pay a minister then that would be an option. There would simply be restrictions on what they could do. No sacraments; no weddings. But just to lead services? That wouldn't be an issue.

The issue we're discussing is the means by which one receives recognition in a particular and recognized "stream" of paid and accountable (to the higher courts) ministry: ordained, diaconal and designated. revjohn has done a good job of explaining the distinctions between those three.

 

[Carolla]

Yes - there is actually a group in Milton ON - Faith United - which does not have a minister, but is lay led, with use of pulpit supply for some occasions. They are quite an active group. Faith United Milton

I agree - revjohn has outlined things well above. I did read the study guide for the remit earlier in the week - interesting info there. There is also this from the Diaconal group - What’s New? – DUCC - there are 3 documents therein which I found interesting.

And I now see the 2013 document - http://ducc.ca/wp-content/uploads/130523.ucc_.one-order-ministry.concept-paper.pdf - will give that a read, but haven't yet - perhaps that will elucidate further the roots of this discussion.

 

[Carolla]

Re Discernment process - I know we have a lengthy and IMO good/effective process for those discerning a call to ministry. If I recall correctly, part of it considers the type of ministry - but as far as I recall it includes only the distinctions of Diaconal and Ordained - DLM is not part of it. Is that correct? So if one desires to be a DLM, is there presently any equivalent sort of process?

Another question/thought - and I suppose one might need to look further into the Office of Vocation material - if presently the DLM positions require annual appointment by Presbytery, then with the change to three court model a problem arises in terms of such appointments, as Presbytery will no longer be in existence. So do you think any of this in relation to addressing that future situation?

 

[crazyheart]

I have missed this - what are opportunities for Presbytery work to be done? Who picks it up?

 

[Carolla]

I have missed this - what are opportunities for Presbytery work to be done? Who picks it up?

I think many things will change - not just be re-organized. So there will be lots to learn and understand differently in future.

 

[revsdd]

Re Discernment process - I know we have a lengthy and IMO good/effective process for those discerning a call to ministry. If I recall correctly, part of it considers the type of ministry - but as far as I recall it includes only the distinctions of Diaconal and Ordained - DLM is not part of it. Is that correct? So if one desires to be a DLM, is there presently any equivalent sort of process?

Another question/thought - and I suppose one might need to look further into the Office of Vocation material - if presently the DLM positions require annual appointment by Presbytery, then with the change to three court model a problem arises in terms of such appointments, as Presbytery will no longer be in existence. So do you think any of this in relation to addressing that future situation?

I would think that if the One Order remit passes and there is then just one order of ministry then either all would require annual appointments or none would require annual appointments. I'd guess that none would be the most likely. If the remit fails then I'd assume that the power to appoint would fall to the Regional Council, but the new structure still has to be worked out.

 

[crazyheart]

Just thinking out loud, wouldn't it have made more sense to have a structure in place

before voting on things. It is like a book with no plot.

 

[revsdd]

Just thinking out loud, wouldn't it have made more sense to have a structure in place

before voting on things. It is like a book with no plot.

Oh there you go. Making sense again.

 

[Luce NDs]

You do know plot is a metaphor for conspiracy ... and thus something will always remain unknown and determinate ... like tose who wish to lead people in directions they don't wish to go ... as out of the calm of the forest as it appears ... super viciously!

Then the mine of deep thoughts is beyond those affixed to determinates ... in impossible situations ...