Hello - did you miss me? I think about you folks often (sweetness & love!)
I'm DLM, recognized through a process that was in place between the grandfathering and the present situation... so I'm of no help in explaining the requirements. And I work in an urban team setting, so that is very different from the vast majority (95%) of DLMS. Also, the reasons for why I chose this stream vs another, and whether I feel called, and whether I feel I should be ordained... aren't so straightforward as laziness, or inflated ego. Anyway, here I am.
Regarding the appointments, and Pinga's point about 15 years later, everyone is equally capable... that's where it raises my eyebrows. I am coming to agree with Revjohn that this is a badly formed Remit, and coming to agree with Carolla that we don't really have a sense of what problems it intends to fix and how it plans to do that. So the whole thing is unnecessarily creating a lot of angst and pain.
I don't know if DLMS are driving the process. I don't actually know many DLMS (We don't have a club or graduating class or anything to help us organize.) I find it difficult and hurtful to imagine that DLM input comes from an inherently selfish or mis-guided place, since we're mostly all good folks here and the checks and balances are present. I have witnessed the cry of "JUSTICE!!!" to steer important conversation, but on the ordained side as much as anywhere else. And yes, hierarchy does exist sometimes, because of individuals, not policy. Heck, even I'm guilty of that for recognizing the value of mDivs where they shine through.
Regarding the appointments, and Pinga's comment about equal capacity after some time - that is a particular part for me. If I was to leave my position without being appointed directly into a new position, at present my DLM status should, by the policies, cease to exist. The mechanism to re-admit me as a recognized DLM in good standing doesn't exist. That means essentially, the time, learning, & competence etc I have amassed in 15 years has no way to be recognized going forward into a new appointment. Maybe that is as simple as a supportive Pastoral Relations committee working to smooth the rough spots, but it is impossible to count on that since it isn't policy. Maybe this policy issue can be solved more easily than with this remit.
A question I've been asked since this Remit: "do you want to be ordained?" That isn't what this remit is about, it isn't what drives the remit, and it isn't something I can or should answer in the context of putting my coat on to head home after a long contentious meeting. I wish the remit was clear about its main purpose and goals. I remember from GC42 that the biggest drive I heard was to respond to the ecumenical world about whether our UCC ministers who are diaconal or DLM could take offices in or with other denominations that might have a requirement of "ordination." If someone capable and empowered in our system was turned away from another system, could the UCC address that with a revised "ordination" understanding? The other main point was around 'quality education and competence' which again to Pinga's point, is that it comes in many ways, especially for different people in the many ways they can learn. Competence should be a top factor in any ministry.
Stephen - you mentioned about the original idea of DLM being local and short-lived. That perspective was set aside some time ago, as it was realized that DLMS generally see their roles beyond local, time-specific. I'm positive it was set aside long before this remit was circulated. It is a reason that DLMs might ever be considered for ordination as per this remit.
I think, unhelpfully, that I'd like to see the good parts of this remit discussion separated out from the crap, and someone to say "HOLD ON- we'll scrap this and try again for GC43. Somehow there has to be a voting response other than "NO" in order to get to the point of the issue.
Ttfn! Nice to 'see' your smiling faces. I miss the community here.
