Incentivizing the Minimum
Why do we always seem to settle for the lowest common denominator. Not only do we often settle for the lowest common denominator, we quite often incentivize the minimum by penalizing those who strive for better than the minimum.
For instance, today I found out that my friend was denied his district license? Why? They claim he didn't have enough of the courses done. And why did he not have enough of the courses done? Because he did not settle for doing the minimum necessary to get by. Instead of enrolling in the District course of study and doing the minimum, he enrolled in a Nazarene University to complete a BA in religion. Because he is persuing a BA instead of a certificate that is not worth the paper it is printed on, he had to take courses like Psychology, Sociology, Math, etc. And, because he took Psychology, Sociology, Math, etc, he did not take enough of the "right" courses and was denied his District License. Never mind that he is better prepared to be a pastor than someone 1/4 of the way finished with a District Course of Study... quality of preparation not really that important anyway. It is far more important that we have enough pastors than that we have educated pastors.
Now before this turns into a full blown rant, I would like to suggest a simple solution to this dilema. Here it is:
Ordination requires a Bachelors Degree or higher in Religion from a Nazarene University or Seminary - or another academic institution approved by the General Board.
This takes all the "District" influence out and levels the playing field. It also produces better pastors. However, many will complain that this will cost a pastor too much money. In education, after you serve x number of years in a "low income school district" you are eligible for debt forgiveness. I propose a similar system whereby ministerial students are given debt relief depending on the income of their congregation.
There it is: simple and effective - just the way I like it.
Peace.
For instance, today I found out that my friend was denied his district license? Why? They claim he didn't have enough of the courses done. And why did he not have enough of the courses done? Because he did not settle for doing the minimum necessary to get by. Instead of enrolling in the District course of study and doing the minimum, he enrolled in a Nazarene University to complete a BA in religion. Because he is persuing a BA instead of a certificate that is not worth the paper it is printed on, he had to take courses like Psychology, Sociology, Math, etc. And, because he took Psychology, Sociology, Math, etc, he did not take enough of the "right" courses and was denied his District License. Never mind that he is better prepared to be a pastor than someone 1/4 of the way finished with a District Course of Study... quality of preparation not really that important anyway. It is far more important that we have enough pastors than that we have educated pastors.
Now before this turns into a full blown rant, I would like to suggest a simple solution to this dilema. Here it is:
Ordination requires a Bachelors Degree or higher in Religion from a Nazarene University or Seminary - or another academic institution approved by the General Board.
This takes all the "District" influence out and levels the playing field. It also produces better pastors. However, many will complain that this will cost a pastor too much money. In education, after you serve x number of years in a "low income school district" you are eligible for debt forgiveness. I propose a similar system whereby ministerial students are given debt relief depending on the income of their congregation.
There it is: simple and effective - just the way I like it.
Peace.
posted by EF + at 1:48 PM
6 Comments:
whose gonna pay for the debt forgiveness when we can't even afford to give pastors a few basic books in some developing world countries? And if you make this a requirement in America it has to be one in Africa where the possibility of getting that education isn't all that likely.
In my mind it works for America, but not for some other parts of the world. And remember we are an international church.
I think this has always been an issue for missionary churches. However, not until recently have churches bowed to the lowest common denominator.
Other churches have no problem whatsoever educating their pastors. I think it is a cop out to say "it can't work in Africa."
You know I am as passionate about the disinfranchised as you. It is that passion that makes me believe they deserve a well educated pastor too. It is not just a "third world issue." It is a small-church issue. How many small churches have the oportunity to have a well educated pastor?
Do we send uneducated physicians to run clinics? NO. A physician must be trained well to do their work well. Pastors are likely the closest thing to theological formation people will ever have... why settle for giving our people less than the best?
You know in my gut I agree with you. While at Seminary, there were tons of United Methodists there struggling to get through because their denomination required a MDIV for ordination. I believe over half of them wouldn't have been there if it wasn't required, yet I can't remember any who were bitter about having to go to seminary. Though there were more than a few who were bitter because they had to take Hebrew and Greek.
I am still a little weary of passing rules in the church that come from a primarily American perspective. Maybe our brothers and sisters in Africa would want the same thing, I don't know. I just know for way to long we have been passing rules that Americans need or want that the rest of the world may not want or need and is still forced to follow.
Seminary requirement go way beyond the foundation of America. Perhaps you could say European, but even the Eastern Church requires seminary. Now I know I will get the "but that is the Constantinian church and we are in a post-constantinian world" but hey, it is what it is...
...and I did not say I would require seminary, a BA would suit me fine.
preach it brother!
Yeah, I don't know that the "does it play in Africa" thing is really a fundamental issue to requiring our pastors to be as theologically trained as any other professional (used loosely) worth their salt. The CoN has been committed to providing educational institutions around the world, you would think, precisely for this purpose. ANU, ENBC, CNC (whatever their names are now), Asia-Pacific, Australia, and so on. Another side question, are the costs for this type of education proportionally similar to the chunk of change we (i.e. USA) have to shell out in other areas of the world?
It seems to me that the failure of the CoN is to recognize the full costs (monetarily or otherwise) to a theological education and to wholly support those who are willing to make that commitment. I totally feel your pain, Eric, as you know, my husband has been on the credentialling rollercoaster for years now, gaining more required hours every year, because the general and districts can't get their act together.
Post a Comment
<< Home