Contemporary Issues in Unitarian Universalist Ordination

Christian Schmidt

After years of preparation earning a theological degree, spending at least a year in a ministerial internship, and finishing an exhaustive fellowship process with the Unitarian Universalist Association and Ministerial Fellowship Committee and involvement, often at many levels, with a local Unitarian Universalist congregation, seeking and getting a congregation to vote to ordain, and then more than an hour of prayer, sermon, and charges, a woman puts on a stole for the first time and gives the benediction, now known as the Rev. Jane Doe. But what just happened? It is a fair question in Unitarian Universalist circles, where there seems to be relatively little knowledge or discussion about the meaning or importance of ordination. For most laypeople, an ordination seems more like a huge party than anything else. For many ministers, its little more than a formality they attend as a favor. For the ordinand, it likely ranks among the most important events in their life. For the UUA, it merits little more than paperwork and a brief notice in UU World, the associations official periodical. For congregations, the ordination may or may not be a significant event in the life of the church. And yet it is the congregation, a particular gathered religious community, that holds the power to decide to ordain someone not the UUA, not the Ministerial Fellowship Committee (more on this later), and not the ministers. How the churches of the Unitarian Universalist Association arrived at this understanding is a complicated question, and one worthy of many papers in its own right. The history of how UU churches have viewed ordination is a complicated one. A short summary would go something like this: Unitarian churches, which come from the Radical Reformation and have roots in the Puritans who came to New England, embraced a

congregational polity that entrusted local congregations to call and ordain their own ministers, usually from among their own ranks. Soon, ministers began moving among Unitarian congregations, which begged a question: are ministers ordained to one church alone, or to a larger ministry? Practice showed that most ministers and laypeople considered ordination to be for life and not limited to a particular church. The Universalists had a somewhat different system. Early Universalists placed less value on ordination and more on charismatic authority, as shown by ones preaching (the story of Hosea Ballou, who was spontaneously ordained when Elhanan Winchester pressed a Bible to his chest1, shows this well). Later Universalists depended on regional councils, something akin to what the United Church of Christ does today, to approve candidates for ordination. This understanding meant there was no concern about whether ordination was for life or limited to a congregation: a minister was a minister through his (and I use his advisedly here) own authority and to the larger Universalist church. When the two groups joined, the Unitarian practice of congregational ordination was retained, along with the ministerial fellowship committee, a body that was designed to vet candidates for ministry in order to ensure a high quality of ministry.

Why ordination? Ordained ministry has a long tradition in the Christian church, but it means different things and has different practices in the various denominations. Understanding the history and theology around ordination is crucial towards appreciating modern UU practices of ordination. First, its worth considering why UUs have ordained clergy at all. Unitarian Univeralism is a tradition that has embraced what James Luther Adams called radical laicism, in which all

See http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/universalists/Hosea-Ballou.php.

believers have direct access to the ultimate resources of the religious life and that every believer has the responsibility of achieving an explicit faith for free persons.2. And yet, we still ordain, call, and fellowship ministers to lead us in this endeavor. What, then, does ordination mean? The 1992 Commission on Appraisal report, Leadership: Our Professional Ministry: Structure, Support and Renewal, says that ordination is the act by which a person is vested by a religious body with special ministerial authority: a rite of passage, a setting apart, a placing under orders as a minister.3 At its most basic, it isthe act of appointing a person to a specific ministry of leadership.4 This is the definition given by a prominent reference resource, but its only so helpful. What does it mean for us to have ordained ministry, and how do we understand that ordination is it for life? Does it set some people apart from others in a sacramental sense, or some other sense? These are more than just academic questions. They go to the heart of our understanding of the ministry. Another perspective views the priest as representative of the church, embodying not only the faith of the people of God but also the unity of the local church with the church universal.5 This, of course, makes considerable sense within the context of our congregational polity the minister as, at least in part, a way of connecting the particular church with the church universal. Other liberal religious groups have taken different approaches to the ordination and therefore, the understanding of their ministry. Some Quakers (the popular name for the Society of Friends), another prominent liberal religious group in the United States, do not have ordained

James Luther Adams. The Essential James Luther Adams. Boston: Skinner House Books, 1998. 112. Commission on Appraisal. Leadership: Our Professional Ministry: Structure, Support and Renewal. Boston: Unitarian Universalist Association, 1992. 35. 4 Paul Bradshaw. The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship. Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. 342. 5 Bradshaw. 359.
33

clergy but rather empower lay leaders, usually in rotation, to take different roles in leading the church. Other Quakers, called the Pastoral Friends, normally make use of pastoral leadership, although the distinction between the clergy and laity is minimized, from the belief that every Christian is called to ministry.6 In some ways, Unitarian Universalist practice has been similar. Many congregations (usually small ones) have no professional or ordained clergy, but instead are entirely lay-led. Even in congregations with ordained ministry, lay leaders frequently participate in nearly all aspects of church leadership, including worship, preaching, pastoral care, administration, and other areas. Reform Judaism has ordained rabbis, though there understanding of ordination is not a sacramental one but rather one in which ones authority comes from ones learning and mastery of sacred texts. And so, Unitarian Universalists have kept ordination, despite this belief in radical laicism. This begs the question: what differentiates ordained, professional ministry from lay ministry. This is not an easy question to answer, other than to say that ordained ministers are those with a calling to the ministry, who have received special training and have been judged by elders of the church to be suitable for ordination.

Fellowship vs. ordination In What Really Makes One a UU Minister? Some thoughts on ordination and fellowship, Rev. Mark Gallagher argues that in modern times it is fellowship, not ordination, that marks ones official entry in Unitarian Universalist ministry (It is important to note that Gallagher is necessarily arguing not that fellowship should replace ordination as the marker of ministry, but that ordination should perhaps be revised to reflect a modern understanding of our ministry ordination moved away from local congregations and taken more seriously, to greatly

Bradshaw. 395.

summarize his thoughts). This is a popular sentiment, it seems. More than one candidate, having seen the MFC and received preliminary fellowship says that they are a UU minister, though their ordination has not yet occurred. Rev. Mark Mosher DeWolfe, in a 1987 lecture arguing that UUs should look to Reform Judaism for new models of ministry, argues that the MFC should function as a body like rabbinical schools. This seems like a mixed message, though, since Reform rabbinical schools in effect ordain rabbis. DeWolfe seems to mix the ideas of ordination and installation, clouding any assessment he might have of the MFCs role. The Ministerial Fellowship Committees own assessment of its task is not that seems to conceive of fellowship as the mark of what makes a minister. In its materials and in spoken communications, the committee states that it seeks to ensure that a candidate for fellowship demonstrates the qualities, skills and aptitude required for Unitarian Universalist ministry as determined by the MFC7, and further lists a series of requirements to be fulfilled, including earning a Master of Divinity degree, completing required reading, finishing a Clinical Pastoral Education program, and generally showing proficiency in an ever-growing number of areas of ministerial competence. The MFC is clear, though, that it does not assess whether a minister will do a good job or even whether a minister should serve any congregation, but merely whether a minister possesses basic competence in ministerial skills. The COA report addresses the fellowship vs. ordination question better than anyone else, perhaps: The two functions, while obviously interrelated, are nevertheless separate and distinct from each other. Fellowship has to do with professional competence a form of Associational

Requirements for Ministerial Fellowship Booklet. Boston: Unitarian Universalist Association. Available at http://www.uua.org/documents/mpl/requirements_booklet.pdf. 4.

quality control; ordination has to do with religious commitment and empowerment, with a sacred relationship entered into and responsibility conferred and accepted.8

Universal or particular? A classic historical and modern-day question in UU circles concerns ordination and the relationship to a local congregation. Initially, Unitarian ministers were called from the congregation they were members of and served that congregation until their death. As such, there was little concern about whether ordination stayed with a minister beyond his service at that church. Soon, though, ministers began moving to other congregations, raising the question. To this issue, Scott Axford (whose paper is easily the best exploration of the historical theological roots of ordination in the UU Christian tradition) makes a helpful distinction between the vocation of ministry and the office of ministry. One preaches because of ones calling to do so (vocation) and ones gifts in so doingbut (here is the distinction) one performs baptisms or the Lords Supper (i.e., the sacraments), or audits accounts, not specifically because one is a minister, but because one is a pastor or teacher or treasurer.9 In short, one is a minister out of ones calling, and thus are ordained for life, but one serves in the office of a particular ministry only as one is called to that church, and the ability and responsibility to perform the duties of that office. As early as 1648, the Cambridge Platform allowed that ministers may serve a number of congregations, and that this is fitting with their understanding of the church universal: Nor can constant residence at one congregation be necessary for a, minister no, nor yet lawful if he be not a minister to one congregation only, but to the church universal; because he may not attend

8 9

Commission on Appraisal. 35. Scott Axford. Christian Ordination in Our Tradition, in The Unitarian Universalist Christian, Volumes 51 and 52. Boston: UUCF, 1996-1997. 4.

one part only of the church to which he is a minister, but he is called to attend unto all the flock.10 In short, the importance is the distinction between the ordination, which is for life and to a vocation of ministry, and the installation, which is to just one congregation and to an office of ministry. As Axford puts it: The ordinand is not going to serve the ordaining congregation as pastor or teacher. That part comeswith an installation, and, though it is similar, it is not the same thing. One is only ordained once;one may be installed many times before ones career ends.11 Community ministers also present an interesting challenge to our understanding of the ministerial relationship to a particular congregation. Community ministers primarily serve outside the congregation, but are affiliated with a local congregation. That is, they have been ordained to the larger ministry, but are not in any obvious sense serving a local congregation. This might seem to be a new concern, but it is not, though it is more prevalent than ever. The Handbook for Unitarian Congregational Churches, published in 1901, allowed for just this sort of service when it mentions those who have been authorized for things like missionary work. According to the long tradition of Congregational churches, a (sic) man is not properly a candidate for ordination until he has received and accepted a call to the pastorate of some church or has been commissioned by some competent body to undertake missionary or other ministerial work.12 This was common practice for Universalists, too, who authorized men like Quillen Hamilton Shinn as missionaries (Shinn was named general missionary by the Univeralist General Convention in 1895) without association with any particular church.13 Community ministers are, in a very real sense, the missionaries of modern times.

10 11

Cambridge Platform. Chapter 9:6. Axford. 9. 12 Handbook for Unitarian Congregational Churches. 29. 13 http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/universalists/Quillen-Hamilton-Shinn.php.

The answer to all these issues lies in our polity and ecclesiology.

Polity issues Why, if ordination is for life and to the church universal, not merely to a particular call at a particular church, is the decision to ordain made by a particular church? For what reason does this power lie with a local church rather than a larger body either regional, national, or association-wide: something like the MFC, perhaps? It is inevitable that polity, the method of church governance, is tied up in ecclesiology. The Cambridge Platform outlines the significance of the particular institution of the local church, which is empowered to conduct its own affairs. The Platform provides no mechanism by which a regional or national body could ordain any minister, instead reserving that right to the local congregation. Mark Gallagher believes that removing ordination power from local congregations would have little effect on congregational polity in our tradition. This comes from his understanding of the crucial elements of congregational polity: Some may perceive in this alternative approach a threat to congregational polity. But I think the living core of our polity would hardly be affected at all. The three polity matters congregations actually hold dear would be undiminished: control of their finances, calling their own minister, and establishing their own policies and programs.14 Gallaghers take is interesting. But he has given a set of practical reasons why it would be easier to have a regional or national body ordain ministers, not a theological one. The Cambridge Platforms articulation of the particular church as the only institution, made by the convenant held by the members of that union. Thus, it is only in the local congregation that the power to ordain resides.

14

Gallagher. 5.

If this is the case, then there is, perhaps, a different problem congregations appear to not be taking the responsibility of their authority to ordain seriously, as Gallagher and Rev. Michael Tino have all pointed out. Given that congregations should be the central figure in ordination decisions, this should be troubling. As was discussed already, Gallagher proposes removing the decision to ordain from local congregations. Tino, in contrast, argues not for a change in the system, but rather, as two different Commission on Appraisal reports advised, that congregations take more seriously their role in ordaining candidates. I believe that we must regain a sense of the importance of the congregations vote in callingor hiringa minister for reasons that go beyond the office of the ministry. In seeking to reclaim the importance of the congregations election of its minister, I seek to reclaim the voice of the congregation, and to connect each and every member to the power that congregational polity affords them in our movement.15 Tinos call to challenge and empower the church has been echoed by others, notably Susan G. LaMar, who wonders at some length about churches which, by and large, have little knowledge or interest in ordinations significance: And here is where, to my surprise, I found my research and reflections leading. What about the Church? I realized that the weak link in an understanding about the meaning of ordination isnt on the side of the ministers. We reflect on it all the time. We have been to seminary, have recognized a call within ourselves; we have had training, education, and formation. But I found myself less and less interested in that side of the question, in favor of WHAT ABOUT THE CHURCH? We find ourselves in covenant with communities who dont have a clue.16 Teaching congregations to value their ministry by seriously considering candidates for ordination will be a difficult task. As the COA report says, many congregations have bestowed

15 16

Michael Tino. Ordination and Installation. Unpublished paper, 2004. Susan G. LaMar. Unitarian Universalist Ordination A Search for Meaning. Prepared for the Harpers Ferry Ministerial Study Group Nov. 12, 2007. 23.

ordination on people who have no intention of following a ministerial career, simply as a way of bestowing them with honor and prestige. The report recommends that congregations be encouraged to reclaim their central role and responsibility with respect to ordination, making judgements as to who is qualified, and playing a major part in the planning and execution of the ordination service 17 (for brevitys sake, this paper has not tackled the particulars of the ordination service). This is a tall task, but if this effort is not taken, the consequences could be troublesome at best. Without this equal preparation, the free church is in danger of ordination
becoming whatever a given congregation says it is, with no underlying assumptions, no history, no tradition.18

17 18

Commission on Appraisal. 35. LaMar. 24-25.

Works cited American Unitarian Association. Handbook for Unitarian Congregational Churches. Boston: AUA, 1901. Axford, Scott. Christian Ordination in Our Tradition, in The Unitarian Universalist Christian, Volumes 51 and 52. Boston: UUCF, 1996-1997. Bradshaw, Paul. The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship. Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. 395. The Cambridge Platform: Contemporary Readers Edition. Boston: Skinner House Books, 2008. Commission on Appraisal of the Unitarian Universalist Association. Our Professional Ministry: Structure, Support and Renewal. Boston: UUA, 1992. DeWolfe, Mark Mosher. Guardians and Transformers: Toward a Rabbinical Understanding of Ministry. The Fourth Josephine Gould Memorial Discourse St. Lawrence District Annual Meeting May 2, 1987. Gallagher, Mark. What Really Makes One a UU Minister? Some Thoughts on Ordination and Fellowship. Delivered at the Southern Cluster of PNWD UUMA June 2007. LaMar, Susan G. Unitarian Universalist Ordination A Search for Meaning. Prepared for the Harpers Ferry Ministerial Study Group Nov. 12, 2007. Raible, Peter Spilman. Manual for Ordination and Installation Services in Unitarian Universalist Churches. Boston: Unitarian Universalist Association, 1985. Tino, Michael James. (2004). Ordination and Installation: Reflections on Historical and Modern Practices in the Unitarian Universalist Ministry. Unpublished manuscript. Wright, Conrad. Congregational Polity A Historical Survey of Unitarian and Universalist Practice. Boston: Skinner House, 1997.