Part III: My Journey to Ordination

Part III: My Journey Toward Ordination in the UCC

(Part three of the ordination paper is intended to be an integrating statement that invites the

person to relate the faith & practice of the Church to his own pilgrimage of faith and understandings of and intentions for his ministry as a person ordained by the United Church of Christ.)

When asked “What do you want to be when you grow up?” I answered “Priest” up through the 4th grade in my Catholic elementary school. When I learned in 5th grade that priests could not marry I had to choose between women (marriage) or God (ordination) since I wanted to “collect” all seven sacraments. I picked marriage as women were more tangible, and I could not conceive of being alone. After 5th grade I answered “teacher” or “psychologist” when asked that question, but the same sense of these being the correct answer was missing.

My whole life I have felt different—not different as in better or worse than other people, but just different. I sometimes see and connect things more quickly and naturally than others. I seem to have some esoteric understanding of the universe, a poet’s mind and an artist’s eye. I also have a pragmatic ideal that was taught to me by my blue collar upbringing. I cannot create anything that is just art for art’s sake—it must help and do something. To paraphrase John Dewey, action without thinking is thoughtless and thought without action is meaningless.

I met my wife Kate when I was 17. I was struggling to hold onto my faith in the Catholic Church. It was not working. Kate was a United Methodist, and she invited me to her church. I had never been to a Protestant service before, and I had no idea what to expect. The pastor preached and referenced movies, books and philosophers (that particular day was Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and nonviolent resistance, which I was studying in school). I had no idea church could be this way! I was not used to this method in my Catholic church. I much preferred the Methodist church to the Catholic one, so I started going there.

At Ohio University I explored the world religions, especially Buddhism, which I still study to this day. I even surprised myself in accepting leadership roles in various clubs and working as a Resident Assistant. During this time, I had a falling out with what I understood as Protestant Christianity. I tried to join Campus Crusade for Christ to further learn about the Protestant tradition. Instead I found a rather limited view of Christianity: they were certain that they were correct and saved and all others were going to hell. It was their job to save all the unbelievers and misguided Christians, which included Catholics and liberal Christians. In discussions with people from Campus Crusade, I heard distorted views of Catholic dogma and church history that I tried to correct. During this time, I still had a strong presence of God and a relationship with Christ but I was not so sure about Christians.

Kate and I married in January 2004 after I graduated college. We moved to Virginia that month, where I began selling building supplies. I was happy and the money was good, but for the first time in my life something felt off. It was as if I was not doing what I was supposed to be doing. Something was amiss. I wanted to pursue the American dream and get the car and clothes and material things. Kate was not as into that and wanted to find a church.

We found Emmaus United Church of Christ and became involved very quickly. We felt at home at Emmaus because of its openness and willingness to learn about the world instead of shy away from it: the willingness to love humanity and not label and condemn it. Emmaus is one of the few churches I have encountered that truly preaches grace. Years later Reverend Federici stated that upon seeing me, he and Reverend Memrie Cook both thought that I would be a minister. I did not believe him at the time, but deep down I knew he was right. Into the second year of living in the D.C. area, I found that I was not happy in my job, and I met with Reverend Federici to explore my gifts. He brought up the “minister thing” again and asked me to really consider it. When he asked what my favorite job in the past was, he was not surprised when I answered “Resident Assistant in college,” as it was the closest I had been to being a minister. I was floored and had to work out what it means to be ordained.

I thought ordination meant that pastors serve more of a priestly role and have some special mark on them. This would mean that they are straddling the dimensions with one foot in this world and the other in the next. They are God’s mediators who are in line with the apostles and ordination passes on this apostolic descent and gives the pastor Christ-like powers to confer upon and administer the sacraments. I did not feel I fit that model. I believe in the “priesthood of all believers” and that we do not need mediators. God is Immanuel! With us! As a result of being in seminary though, I have realized that this is not the only model of ministry and I even believe some of it.

Historically in the UCC there have been two major models of ordained ministry. The first would be the Reformed idea stated above that pastors have one foot in this world and the other in the next. They make church a “home” that is filled with mystery and symbol, and the pastor embodies the divine. The second model is found in the Congregationalist idea of the pastor. Namely a pastor is someone who comes out of the community and acts as a motivator who fires people up and sends them out into the world to do God’s work of social justice. Church is not a home but a recharging station and the pastor’s primary role is empowerment. I feel that I am a hybrid of these two models of empowerment and embodiment.

I am part of the embodiment model because I feel as though God has guided me. God has given me the gifts of writing, love of learning and interest in others that a good minister needs. God’s spirit permeates my life. I easily fall into discussions about God with co-workers, family, friends and strangers on the street. People can embody other professions as well, like my brother-in-law and his job in sales or my sister-in-law and her job as a community art coordinator. Others are gifted doctors and lawyers. After much searching, I find that I am a minister at heart. I feel that I cannot be anything but a minister and that if I do something else, it just will not feel right.

I exemplify the Congregationalist empowerment model as well because I do not feel that I am above the congregation but come out of it. I have never seen myself as a leader, but rather more of a guide. I have never been comfortable with the word “leader” because it infers hierarchy. In my mind the only thing that separates people is willingness. I see myself as an enthusiastic guide who infects other people with a willingness to change or learn. I am steeped in the ways of the church and have studied scripture, and I can use both to teach others to use these two for practical, everyday use. Given my gift of being able to see the big picture, this makes me sort of a rallying point, a focus, and a witness to the life of the congregation.

Ordination then becomes a community event where people of a certain congregation see the gifts in a person for this position. The candidate has prayerfully examined his or her call and has had that call examined by others “concerning his or her fitness for ministry.” Constitutional Provision #24 states “An Ordained Minister of the UCC is one of its members who has been called by God and ordained to preach and teach the gospel, to administer the sacraments and rites of the church, and to exercise pastoral care and leadership.” This means that the call comes from outside the would-be pastor and not from his or her own ego. By “prayerful examination” the would-be pastor has trained and studied. He or she has formed a working theory of how to preach and teach the gospel, to administer the sacraments and rites of the church, and to exercise pastoral care and leadership.

This does not mean that God transmits some magical powers upon me during ordination. I do not and cannot believe that only ordained people can administer the sacraments. I can believe that only ordained people can teach and administer the sacraments most clearly as they have spent the most time thinking about their meaning and implication. They are able to make visible and tangible the intangible and invisible grace of God. They would be able to best connect the practicing church to the historic church that has gone before. Pastors are able to reinterpret tradition for today’s world.

There are many ways to ordain someone. One way to be ordained is to simply log onto the Internet and pay for ordination. That is not ordination as no one is affirming your call from God within a community—it is just a convenient way to serve the same role that a justice of the peace could serve, or, at worst, a joke. Another way is the apprenticeship model where a pastor takes a potential pastor under his or her wing and teaches through experience and example. While this may be a Biblically referenced model, it has some holes in it as well. This style gives a potential pastor only one example of ministry with all the biases and world view of one person.

The specific path through academia that is proscribed by the UCC is the ordination route that I find the best. In the academic model, a seminarian is flooded with information. While this is initially overwhelming, it opens the seminarian up to a broader view of God’s work in the world. This enables the pastor to be a non-anxious presence as they have a broad frame of reference from church history, ethics, polity, clinical pastoral education (mine was at Lancaster General Hospital), a cross cultural experience (mine was in Egypt), and many other lenses. They are more able to meet their congregation where they are both corporately and as individuals.

In short, a pastor hears God’s call, studies and focuses on this call for years in an academic setting, and then enters into conversation with his or her congregation to see how it all fits together. Ordination then becomes a communal and visible symbol of the invisible gifts that a person has to offer the community. It is a confirmation that the individual does embody Christ as best he or she is able and that others are inspired and empowered to follow their own calls.

Part II: The UCC Polity

Part II: UCC Polity

(Part two of the ordination paper is intended to provide an opportunity for the student to demonstrate her knowledge and understanding of the history, theological roots, polity, and practice of the United Church of Christ.)

The purpose of this paper is to explore my relationship and thoughts about the UCC’s paragraph two in the Preamble to the Constitution. IThe purpose of this section is to explore my relationship and thoughts about the UCC’s paragraph two in the Preamble to the Constitution. I feel this is the theological “meat” of the UCC. I am a cross-pollinated member of the UCC as I find myself affirming parts of all four of the streams of the UCC as well as the many hidden histories that make the UCC what it is today. The preamble is a document rich in history, full of theology, and pregnant with opportunities for a wide variety of interpretations. I love it for not only what it says but for what it does not say.

The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior. It acknowledges as kindred in Christ all who share in this confession.

These first two sentences specifically come from the Christian tradition and its goal of uniting all Christianity without need for denominational strife and division. I like this idea as it also comes out of my Catholic tradition. Obviously, I am no longer Catholic as I did not find them very affirming of the first sentence, although I still acknowledge them as kin. It is easy to place a person or tangible thing, like the pope, a charismatic pastor or even the Bible in place of an invisible presence. This can lead to rigid hierarchies, cults, and a generalized idolatry. I like the ecumenical vision this casts that harkens back to Paul’s thought that, “We are all one in Christ” (Galatians 3:28). It frees up the denomination to follow the Spirit and Christ as they interpret it. It acknowledges the priesthood of all believers, yet alludes to the central idea of autonomy and covenant that is central to the UCC.

I would like to speak briefly of autonomy and convent as I feel they are extremely important in my understanding of UCC polity. Here I write what is in my Autonomy and Covenant Post

It looks to the Word of God in the Scriptures, and to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, to prosper its creative and redemptive work in the world.

Karl Barth stated that when we read the Bible we aren’t reading the word of God, we’re reading for the word of God. This view of the Bible I can really affirm. It resists making an idol out of the Bible and takes into account the modern critical methods. It affirms that God, not the Bible, is the one in charge that sparks the transformation and redeems the world. This means that we read about God’s work in history through the view of a particular people with all the limitations of culture and contexts.

The ancient theologian Origen taught that every text in the Bible could be read at three levels: the literal, the moral and the spiritual level. The spiritual level was discovered by means of allegory and was the most important. He has been severely criticized for this view, but I affirm it. With the modern criticisms we are able to understand context, language, and form. With hermeneutics we are able to access some practical meaning for our lives. By means of allegory, we can draw out particular instances in our lives to further make the point. We are to risk an interpretation by walking as far as reason and experience will take us, and then to live it out having faith that the Holy Spirit will guide and redeem us. This statement in the preamble does not limit the work of the Spirit nor try to remove the church or God from the world as it states “…work in the world.” There is no direct notion of a sacred/secular divide, and that is very important to me.


It claims as its own the faith of the historic Church expressed in the ancient creeds and reclaimed in the basic insights of the Protestant Reformers. It affirms the responsibility of the Church in each generation to make this faith its own in reality of worship, in honesty of thought and expression, and in purity of heart before God.


I just cited Origen in the last section, and I do not think I could do that in too many other denominations. I like this as it affirms the historical track the ancestors of the UCC have taken. We are Protestant in historical tradition and action. This part of the preamble affirms how informed people in the 14th century took responsibility and forged a new vision of church and worship. They did so boldly and creatively. That is the key concept of the preamble for me as it shows what we deeply value in the UCC. We value the ability of each generation to make the faith “its own.” We cannot rest on the laurels of those who have gone before us. We may look back to the 14th or even 18th century in our tradition, but we are not supposed to stay there. We must speak to our context and circumstance that we find ourselves in. We must pay attention to history and be guided by it yet not bound to it. That view does not label Catholics as somehow deficient, just different. We have parted honestly in our expressions of piety and faith. However, I feel an openness in the UCC to Catholicism and those who moved beyond the Protestant reformers our tradition claims (like the Brethren, Hussite, and other “radical reformation” movements), as we see in the examples of Mercersburg theology and Reverend Phillip William Otterbein.


In accordance with the teaching of our Lord and the practice prevailing among evangelical Christians, it recognizes two sacraments: Baptism and the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion.


This can only come from a “sola scriptura” ethic for which Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli argued. The preamble affirms the Protestant view of the sacraments yet it does not outline them. It points to the two sacraments that Jesus specifically started yet does not feel the need to outline them here. I think this is a wise move, as it allows for a variety of interpretations of the sacraments. It starts where the reformers all agreed and builds from there. The spectrum from Zwingli’s “it’s just a symbol” to Calvin’s middle road of “it’s a symbol and more than” to Luther’s “consubstantiation.” I like this as it affirms the history and yet remains open to diverse views of the sacraments.

I affirm the UCC’s preamble in full. It is rare for me to state that, especially in writing, as I often have problems with creeds and religious statements. I usually edit the Nicene Creed to leave out the parts with which I do not agree (the virgin birth, for example). I find I can fully embrace this statement and will attempt to live it out. I view it more as a basis from which the UCC can launch. It is a foundation that each of the streams, hidden histories, and combinations thereof can come back to during times of controversy and conflict. It is good to recognize this affirmation within the preamble to the constitution as it sets up the rest of the document. It is also good to view it as an internal document, meaning it only deals with those within the UCC. It does not mention or refer to atheists, agnostics, or non-Christians, nor should it. It is a great touchstone for our denomination and a reminder of the history and principles upon which we are founded.

Autonomy and Covenant

Theologically, I don’t think I can separate the two. Autonomy is defined by identity in relationship with others. A covenant is defined through a relationship between two autonomous partners. In a sense, autonomy and covenant defines where one stops and another begins yet focuses on where they connect. I will first focus on autonomy.


Autonomy comes from the Greek “from auto "self" + nomos, "law": one who gives oneself his/her own law” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autonomy). Autonomy means having good boundaries. Boundaries allow us to know who we are in relation to others around us. The Hazelden Foundation identifies “the need for boundaries physically, intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually.” The Foundation states that “Boundaries ensure that our behavior is appropriate and keep us from offending others. When we have healthy boundaries, we also know when we are being abused. A person without boundaries will not know when someone is physically, emotionally, or intellectually violating them” (1).

In Eric Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development eight stages are laid out that shows how a healthily developing human should pass from infancy to late adulthood. The second stage is “Autonomy vs. Shame & Doubt (2 to 3 years)” In this stage the child begins to answer what is and is not under their control and where they stop and others begin (Erikson 24). If parents encourage self-sufficient behavior, toddlers develop a sense of autonomy; a sense of being able to handle many problems on their own. But if parents demand too much too soon and refuse to let children perform tasks of which they are capable, or shame the child at early attempts at self-sufficiency, children may instead develop doubt about their ability to handle problems (Erickson 32).

Taking these two concepts and smushing them together, I can see how many pastors can shame their congregations; or how those higher up the chain can shame a local pastor. So the UCC is right to seek autonomy. But it is good to note that no one is completely free. We are all bound by our family systems, context, socio-economic status, culture, assumptions, and so on. We are not islands unto themselves, but interconnected beings. I prefer the term “inter-vidual” versus individual. A balance must be struck between the inter-vidual and the larger group that he or she is a part of. I think The UCC Constitution and Bylaws hold this autonomy in balance with the need for covenant.

Covenant is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a usually formal, solemn, and binding agreement” and it comes from the Middle English, from Anglo-French, from present participle of covenir to be fitting. Covenant therefore means “a fitting agreement between two or more autonomous entities.”

When the four streams came together, they each had a particular identity and tradition. They were able to agree upon similarities and yet keep various ID markers in place for local congregations if they wanted it. For example, not every church is high church, or congregational, but each is free to choose what works, or what is fitting, given their context and history. This balances out the autonomy as it helps prevent spiritual abuse that can stem from a rigid system that has itself convinced of perfection, apostolic descent, and over controlling tendencies that result. Covenant also helps to remind the local church that they are not alone.

I think this is an excellent model. It allows for self-expression yet keeps this expression from harming others. It allows for creativity within reason. Speaking as an artist, I like this model because if one has complete freedom the canvas remains blank. Given some boundaries, some theme, some restriction, the artist then can paint within or rejecting what has been defined.

References

Erikson, Erik H. Identity and the Life Cycle. New York: International Universities Press, 1959.

Hazeldon Foundation. “What are Boundaries” CPE Handout. Copyright 1988.

Merriam-Webster.com: “Autonomy” and “Covenant” searches

United Church of Christ. The Constitution and Bylaws, 2005 Edition. Pilgrim Press, 2005.