I have been tracking the education requirements for ordination in the Global Methodist Church (GMC) since the denomination’s beginning. In conversations in the church and in the academy, I see some consequences of decisions the GMC has made that I’m not sure are recognized for a variety of stakeholders.
This post is specifically about the requirements for theological education in the GMC. This is not a major emphasis of mine here. I am writing this post because I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit of late and wonder if I may be seeing some things that would be helpful to name. The overall intent of this post is to flush out what I think are some unexamined assumptions in hopes that it might help both the GMC as an institution and individuals pursuing ordination in the GMC. To be clear: I am operating on the assumption that the GMC is operating in good faith and doing the very best they can!
Brief Background
Let me offer a summary of my understanding of ordination itself and the educational requirements for ordination in the GMC to provide context.
First, one can be ordained a deacon in the GMC after completing 10 required courses. All 10 courses are required (i.e., there are no electives).
Second, all elders have been ordained a deacon. If one is called to be ordained an elder, one must first complete all requirements to be ordained a deacon (and be ordained as a deacon). One then must complete 10 additional required courses. 8 of these 10 courses are required for all elders. 2 additional courses much be taken from a choice of, I think, 12 elective options.
All elders have been ordained deacons. Not all deacons will become elders. (This is following historical precedent, but that is another post.)
So, 10 required courses for ordination as a deacon.
10 additional courses for ordination as an elder.
20 courses total to be ordained an elder.
These courses do not have to be taken from one institution, and they do not have to be of the same level academically. Prospective ordinands can take courses in an “alternative educational pathway” (the GMC’s language) which is like what Course of Study was/is in the United Methodist Church, or they can take accredited Master’s level courses from a list of approved schools.
Ok, that is the basic context/background. Here are some implications I see that are significantly different than the way the process worked in the UMC.
First, in my opinion, the GMC has created a disincentive for people to complete accredited Master’s degrees.
There are pros and cons to this.
The most obvious pro is that this approach lowers the financial bar substantially for people who feel a calling to ministry to meet the requirements for ordination. The GMC approach also makes it significantly more convenient to check the boxes in terms of ordination requirements. In one video I heard from a GMC Board of Ordained Ministry, it was discussed that students can take courses at multiple different institutions according to preference/convenience. Finally, this approach comes out of a desire to have a process that serves the entire global church, where there is not consistent access to Master’s level theological education.
There are a few cons as well. The academic quality of the various options will vary quite a bit. If someone takes a non-accredited Course of Study type class for one class and an accredited Master’s level course for another class, they are getting a significantly different educational experience across the classes. Another con is that the GMC approach (particularly compared to that of the UMC) will hurt seminaries. Seminaries are expensive and the current models are not built on guessing which a la carte classes students not enrolled as degree seeking students might want to take any given semester. I can understand why the GMC would not find this a compelling concern for a variety of reasons. But in my view, the GMC approach is asking academic institutions to work in a way that is not viable. Again, I think the first is a more significant con than the second. I do think there is room to think about academic requirements for ordination as a partnership between the GMC and the parts of the theological academy they choose to work with.
Second, related to the above, the GMC has created an incentive to meet educational requirements through “alternative educational pathways.”
The category of “alternative educational pathways” is hard for me to completely pin down. I think it is supposed to be what Course of Study was in the UMC.
However, there is a major difference in how Course of Study functioned in the UMC than how the “alternative educational pathway” functions in the GMC. In the UMC, the Course of Study was a way to meet some standard of education for people who were serving as local pastors, which was a distinct (and confused) category of non-ordained pastoral leadership. I agree with the GMC’s move to simply delete this theologically problematic position in the church. Local pastors were second-class citizens in the UMC. And yet, within that context (the problems and limitations on being a local pastor) there are ways in which a more expedient and much cheaper approach to education makes some sense. (For what it is worth, I taught in multiple Course of Study Schools during my time as a United Methodist seminary professor, and I loved the students I had in these classes!)
I feel like it is often missed that in the GMC because there are no local pastors, the “alternative educational pathways” are an equally valid pathway to ordination as a more traditional seminary education.
There is also confusion within the GMC about what the standard for these pathways is exactly. I have been told the “alternative educational pathways” were 1/3 the work of a master’s level course. I have heard from others that it should be 2/3. And I have recently heard a Board of Ordained Ministry presentation on Zoom that seemed to suggest they were supposed to be Master’s level quality. In my mind there is a lack of clear thinking about how all of this fits together. An accredited seminary, for example, should not be expected to offer a non-accredited class at a steep discount that is essentially the same course. If they are expected to do that and try to do so, they will be competing against themselves. It would be like Rolex selling the “really good deal” on a “Rolex” you can find on the sidewalk in New York.
The “alternative educational pathway” will be easier and cheaper. And as a result, the GMC has created an incentive structure for prospective ordinands to meet educational requirements through this easier path, particularly because there is not the downside that there was with the UMC in terms of ordination.
Pros: Each course is cheaper than master’s level course work. These courses range from $200-$500 per course. They are less work and so easier to complete practically.
Cons: The GMC is, unintentionally I assume, incentivizing expediency and pragmatism on the road to ordination. I would advocate for doing the exact opposite. If someone wants to serve as an ordained deacon or elder in the church, they should be called to more and greater challenge. In fairness, my sense is that most who advocate for the easier path do so because of the need they see for getting folks serving in empty pulpits now. The need is great! I totally get that. I just think there are other ways that can be addressed while still calling people who want to be ordained to more. The most obvious con is that students who take the alternative educational pathway will get an inferior education to those who pursue Master’s level education. (If that is not assumed, I need help understanding what the distinction is.)
Note: I realize that there are a variety of challenges and nuance needed here. There are socio-economic challenges that are valid and real. And there are realities in the global church that are different than those in the U.S. I would maintain, however, that we ought to work to address these challenges in ways that raise the bar everywhere rather than lowering the bar in places that may have greater access to resources.
Third, the GMC may not be setting people up to succeed after ordination when they enter the job market.
If I am understanding GMC polity correctly, there is no guaranteed appointment in the GMC (as there was in the UMC). This is a big difference! In the UMC, you could meet ordination requirements however you wanted and once you got ordained the playing field was level. Everyone was guaranteed an appointment. I.e., you would get a job.
This is not the case in the GMC. A new GMC ordinand will either already have a job or be looking for one. And they will be competing with other GMC ordinands for the same jobs. GMC polity does not guarantee an ordained pastor employment.
My assumption, then, is that credentialing will be more important in the GMC for employment than it was in the UMC. Imagine 3 people apply for a position as the sole pastor of a GMC church that averages 100 people in person in worship on Sunday morning. All other things being equal, here are the ways they met their educational requirements for ordination:
Candidate 1: Completed a GMC approved “alternate educational pathway” that was 1/3 to 2/3 as rigorous as Master’s level accredited coursework.
Candidate 2: Completed educational requirements through a grab bag of courses, some unaccredited and some a la carte classes at various seminaries in Master’s level courses.
Candidate 3: Completed an accredited Master’s degree that satisfies all GMC educational requirements.
Who do you think will get the job?
I would guess that all other things being equal Candidate 3 gets hired every time. Of course, there is a ton of simplification there. But I have not seen much reflection on the real-world realities of trying to get a job after you get ordained and how the decisions you make in the ordination process may help or hinder your job search.
And there are a variety of other ways the educational pathway one chooses can potentially help or hinder the likelihood of them being hired. For example, does taking the easier route now to get through the ordination process more quickly make it less likely you would be selected to be the lead pastor of a large church down the road?
Final Thoughts
A part of me feels like the GMC is of two minds about education in preparation for ministry. And I can understand much of this. UMC seminaries did not serve orthodox Wesleyans very well. There is a reason many laity referred to seminary as “cemetery” when I was going through the ordination process. There was a real concern that I would lose my faith or be deformed in such a way that I could no longer effectively serve in Christian ministry. And I actually believe that concern was understated rather than overstated.
I think it would be an improvement to restrict “alternative education pathways” to cases of necessity. Many I’ve talked to suggest this is informally the case. It has not seemed clear to me in the GMC’s official statements.
I believe the M.Div. will continue to be the gold standard for theological education in preparation for full time vocational ministry. Of course, I could be wrong about that.
I think the burden is going to be more on the ordinand him or herself to make choices that are in their own long-term interest. And considering that, I think people preparing for ordination, particularly in the United States, will be best prepared to lead in the church and actually get a job if they complete a Master’s level theological education.
In addition to the M.Div., I have worked to create a 60 credit degree at Asbury Theological Seminary that exactly meets all requirements for ordination in the GMC. This is a concrete expression of our commitment to a partnership with the GMC. If someone can get an M.Div., I would recommend that they do. If they cannot, I would encourage them to check out our Master of Arts in Christian Ministries (MACM) degree, which is exactly the GMC ordination requirements. The degree can be completed through online and hybrid classes, or residentially in Wilmore, KY. So, you can do it from anywhere. (Though, of course, I want you to come to Tulsa!) When you complete the degree, you will be fully eligible for ordination and you will have a Master’s degree that you will have for the rest of your life.
If you want to know more, please reach out to me here (scroll to the bottom of the page).
These are some of the things I’ve been thinking about over the past few years re. GMC educational requirements. I hope it can serve the GMC!
Kevin M. Watson 
The thrust of this piece is on target. We need to raise up a generation that is better equipped and educated than we were. I fear we are on track to produce a generation that is less equipped. I forsee entire conferences without one clergy who is competent in a Biblical language.
We must overcome two obstacles, and I not sure academia is fully appreciative of them. First, coming out of UMC the people’s respect for seminaries is only slightly better than for bishops. We barely kept bishops. For many, the reality was the health of their church was inversely proportional to the education level of the pastor. Bridges must be built.
Second, the cost of education in all fields is unsustainable. We must reduce the cost to the student without starving the academy. Personally, I would like to see each Conference have at least one teaching church. I suspect about a third of education could be better achieved through visiting professors, mentors, and praxis; reserving the seminary for what only seminary can do.
You make a few good points. It will take a good amount of contemplation for students being called to ordained ministry to pursue the best theological education. It will also require local churches to consider how deeply they are committed to being led by future deacons and elders with their respective educational backgrounds.
Excellent thoughts. A further thing to consider is that those ordained candidates who have not completed an accredited Master’s degree and who, for whatever reason, do not land securely in an appointment will probably have a harder time finding a suitable job outside the local churches of the GMC, i.e., in parachurch settings or the non-profit industry more generally. This point offers additional support to your argument that “the GMC may not be setting people up to succeed after ordination when they enter the job market.”
Hi Keith, If I am following you, I am in pretty deep agreement. I am actually in favor of skepticism towards all academic institutions. I gave a talk at New Room this year at the Asbury Theological Seminary alumni dinner where I outlined the ways that academic institutions often say one thing when recruiting and a very different thing happens in the classroom. One reason for this is that recruiters are not in the classroom. And professors are not recruiters. At most institutions they are almost never in the same room. This could itself be a whole post. In my view, this makes the places that have paid a price for their adherence to the same values as the GMC holds all the more valuable. I would also advise extreme caution in approving academic institutions with no history of educating evangelical Wesleyans.
I’m with you on the second. The cost of education is unsustainable and I love the idea of teaching churches. On the flip side, seminaries are expensive. And I do think there are some things the level of specialization it requires to be a tenured professor are needed for the church. But if the church can be expected to support these institutions at any level, they also ought to hold them accountable for raising up students in accordance with the actual beliefs of their denomination.
Thanks, Ben. You are correct. There is a segment of the population moving away from formal education as a whole. I can see that for some career paths, this is a rational direction for consumers – particularly given the extent to which formerly academically elite universities have become ideological training grounds. Given that, I think it is important to not mix categories. And there is a reality that formal academic training and degrees do open doors to many jobs in a way that unaccredited certificates do not.
Pingback: Three Thoughts on Educational Requirements in the Global Methodist Church – Omnia Methodist
Know the Bible (Word of God)
Pray
Imitate Christ
Thoroughly enjoyed your Doctrine, Spirit & Discipline book. It was required reading at Wesley Biblical Seminary.
One assumption you are making is that students are entering the ministry, I am not. At 75 and an earned doctorate in business, my goal is to become a Deacon to fill-in for the pastor. I realize I could do this as a Lay Minister, but the ability to create and present a sermon has been greatly improved with the educational background acquired.
It took me eight years to complete my doctorate that included a nationwide survey; four years of classes and four years of research. The courses I am taking at WBS include students working on a MDIV as well as those becoming a Deacon or Elder. We are in the same class and doing the same work. The level of requirements have not been watered down for those not attaining a masters.
The difference in class relates to the final grade. Graduate students receive a grade while those with the Deacon/Elder track receive a pass/fail. So, is there any reason a person would try harder if all they need is a pass/fail? Yes. With the pass/fail comes a graduate level grade (though the grade is not used). We are given the option to change our program to a MDIV at any time. This means, I can finish all of the classes with pass/fail, know my grades, then switch to MDIV (assuming I keep from having Cs). I would need to pay for the per credit difference between a pass/fail class and an MDIV to receive the degree. For me, having an MDIV is not advantageous, I don’t need any more letters after my name.
One last item to consider. Who would you rather have presenting a sermon, a complete academic or a person who has both academics and experience in the field. I still instruct for a local university and can state without fear of contradiction that students prefer an instructor who can tell war stories over one who only discusses theories. Rather than considering academics as more qualified, I consider those who are both academics and experienced as preferred instructors and preachers.
I don’t think any existing educational model adequately prepares candidates for ministry today. They all seem outdated to address what is happening in society.
I believe that the UMC suffered from (among other things) severe academic elitism that greatly hampered the identification of those called and gifted to be placed in ministry. I see the revised requirements of the GMC as a HUGE step in correcting this. History, theology, leadership and homiletics are all extremely helpful preparations for ministry. However, none of the original 12 disciples had formal training in any of these, and they changed history!
In our own tradition John Wesley said “Give me one hundred preachers who fear nothing but sin and desire nothing but God, and I care not whether they be clergymen or laymen, they alone will shake the gates of Hell and set up the kingdom of Heaven upon Earth.”
Until Jesus comes – there will always be specific church settings where more highly educated ministry candidates will be preferred. So be it. But let’s not place obstacles in the path of those who have a passion for Jesus, an ability to connect people to Jesus (saving souls) and understand the need to make disciples who make disciples.
Richard M. Thomas
Dear Mr. Thomas, Thank you for your response. I agree that the disciples did not have a seminary education. But, of course, the disciples are more unlike us than anyone else because they were directly mentored or discipled by Jesus himself.
I think the quotation you offer is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ. (And I would say the same of theological education as a whole. It is certainly no guarantee of faithful gospel ministry.)
Perhaps it is my own poor communication, but you missed the point of my post if you took it to be an appeal to academic elitism. I resigned a tenured faculty position from a United Methodist Seminary, which I would not have done if that was where my heart is. I do not believe all seminaries should be entrusted with partnering with the church to raise up the next generation of leaders. In fact, I would be more selective than the GMC has itself been so far. Academic institutions are guilty until proven innocent. But I think there are a handful that have shown their commitment to conservative Wesleyan theological education that have a proven track record of raising up faithful and effective clergy for Jesus’s church.
If I were a young person preparing for ministry, a seminary degree would be fabulous. I, however am 64 years old and have been a pastor for 10 years. Most of that time I had a full-time job teaching high school. There would be no way for me to be credentialed if a MDiv was the requirement for ordination. Course of Study options made the path to credentials attainable. I have taken 3 courses in the new GMC model. They were 100% the same course as the degree students. They were in class with COS students! We were only required to pass, but what Christian does just enough to get by? There is no way I could have been a bi-vocational pastor and have been able to be ordained with this current program. We need alternatives! Every pastor does not need a seminary degree. When I look at those who remained UMC in my area, it seems like most are those with the seminary degrees! It seems like there is not much consideration in this article for those who are called to remain tent-makers as they serve churches. I used to tell my little country churches that I work full time so that I could preach! There is no way those little churches could support a full time pastor and it’s not fair for a pastor to be required to serve multiple churches to make ends meet.
Thank you for your comment, Doreen. I tried to discuss much of the concerns you are pointing two in my second point in the post itself. The shift from local pastors to full ordination only and to course of study as a viable option for anyone creates new challenges that need to be thought through. I can’t quite tell if you are saying that the COS model you are in (where you are essentially in a Master’s course) is a strength or weakness from your perspective. I understand and agree that very small rural churches that share a pastor may not be able to afford a seminary-trained pastor. Again, I think the GMC addressed one piece of the challenge from life in the UMC but the solution created new problems that need to be addressed. I want people to be able to fill pulpits in churches that need supply pastors and cannot afford full time clergy. One of the big concerns I was trying to address in the original post is that I do not think that need should become the standard that determines the GMC’s ordination process. God bless you!
I enjoyed your article. My position is similar to that of Dr. Holt. I feel called to become a Deacon. I’ve been a Certified Lay Minister and a Stephen Minister, but I seek more education. I am a full time Professor of Law. I counsel many students and I preach about 6-10 times annually at my church. The Certificate of Ministry programs appear sufficiently rigorous for my needs. My initial observations (examining syllabi) suggest that the WBS program is rigorous. I hope that is correct. I do not seek to Pastor a Church; instead, I want to be able to fill-in more for our Pastor. I also would like to be able to offer real confidentiality to those who seek spiritual advice or counseling from me. As an attorney, I can guarantee that anything they say is confidential — I cannot be forced to divulge any privileged communication. I want to be able to provide a similar guarantee for discussions that do not involve legal matters. Ordination as a Deacon would provide that authority. If I were younger, an M.Div. would be ideal. Or, the MACM degree would be great, as it would fulfill the requirements for Deacon and also for Elder. But I am employed full time. I advise the Christian Legal Society, to which I devote considerable time. It is a great joy. I feel called to continue that, and also to advise the St. Thomas Moore Society. To do those things, I need to continue to be a Law Professor (which I’ve been for 45 years). Being a full-time student is inconsistent will my calling, or at least as I perceive it. Your article gives me pause, which is part of the call . . . deliberation. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
After further thought and prayer, I have decided to follow your advice to seek the Master of Arts in Christian Ministries. I consulted with the seminary and I believe I can complete it part-time while remaining employed. Thank you for creating this opportunity. It fits my needs and appears to be quite rigorous.
Oh my, that comment did not have my name: Steve Willis. Sorry about that. I am unsure where tigerpratically came from.
Steve, I’m glad this was helpful to you and that the MACM degree at Asbury is a good fit. Awesome!