• About Me

Kevin M. Watson

Kevin M. Watson

Tag Archives: ordination

The Asbury Connection: Why I Joined and You Should Consider Joining Too

27 Thursday Aug 2026

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Asbury Church, Asbury Connection, Ministry

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Aldersgate, American Christianity, Asbury, Asbury Church, Asbury Connection, Bible, Christianity, Church culture, denominations, faith, Global Methodist Church, God, hope, Jesus, Methodism, ordination, Pentecost, United Methodist Church, Wesley

On May 24, 2026, Asbury Church started a new ecclesial network we are calling The Asbury Connection. The name is in honor of Francis Asbury, the father of American Methodism. 

On that day, I participated with Rev. Andrew Forrest, the senior pastor of Asbury Church, in a service of ordination where we ordained four of our pastors deacons and three of them elders. We also recognized the ordination of one of our pastors, who was previously ordained in the Wesleyan Church.

Considering that I was ordained in the United Methodist Church and was teaching in a United Methodist seminary not that long ago, this was a big step for me that I did not take lightly. 

In this post, I want to share why:

  • I decided to do this.
  • I am excited about what is happening at Asbury Church.
  • I am hopeful about the future.
  • You should consider joining us.

Before I share these things, let me offer the clarity that this post is an articulation of my own views. I am not speaking on behalf of Asbury Church or the Asbury Connection.

Why I decided to transfer my ordination to the Asbury Connection

I moved to Tulsa soon after Asbury Church voted to withdraw from the United Methodist Church. I missed some of the first conversations we had with various denominations that we considered partnering with after disaffiliation. But I was present and participated in most of the conversations over the course of a 3.5-year discernment process.

During that season, we asked: Which denomination or group or structure is asking the right questions? What group would best set Asbury up to reach the nations for Christ? Where would we be most fruitful and faithful? Which structure is best suited to help churches fulfill the Great Commission in 21st-century America?

I agreed with the discernment of the leadership of Asbury Church that the right connection or denomination did not exist for Asbury. And so, we came to the conclusion that it was our God-given responsibility to start the new connection that we ourselves have been searching for.

I have always had a hard time ignoring the elephant in the room. The most obvious place for Asbury to have joined, by far, was the Global Methodist Church. For now, I will just say that we invested significant time and energy trying to find a path that would work for us to join the GMC. Ultimately, what would have worked for us did not work for the GMC. Deciding not to join the GMC was not a flippant decision that was made lightly. 

I am at peace about that. I have many friends in the Global Methodist Church. I am for them and for their ministries. And I will continue to do what I can to serve the GMC as I’m invited to do so.

I stood with Andrew in ordaining our pastors because I believe it was the next right step for us to take. If you are interested in why I am convinced bishops are not necessary for ordination in the Wesleyan tradition, check out this post.

Why I am excited about what is happening at Asbury Church

Asbury is growing and there is a lot of energy and excitement around the church on Sundays in particular. It is fun to be leading at a healthy and growing church.

This weekend, we had 2,993 people in person in worship. That is an 11.2% increase from 1 year ago.

At Asbury Church, we work hard and it is good for staff morale when there is tangible evidence that we are winning. 

A brief explanation about how we count attendance: We have overhead cameras that take photos of the room and we count noses. The noses we count are literally the noses in the room in worship, not adult education classes, student ministry, or children’s ministry. We do not count online views of livestreams or recordings of worship services in our attendance numbers. In fact, at Asbury we say, “Online church isn’t.” This is an important clarification because many churches do include online numbers in the way they report attendance, which can give a very different mental picture of what is happening on a Sunday morning than what you would experience if you showed up in person. When we say we had 2,993 people in worship last Sunday, we literally mean we counted 2,993 people in the room during our four worship services.

This is a big deal for me and a great example of why I am excited about the Asbury Connection. I do not want to be a part of an institution that encourages disembodied and gnostic spirituality by encouraging people to think of watching a screen as participation in the Body of Christ. And I do not want to be part of an institution that encourages dishonest or manipulative speech that distorts reality. The tendency in denominations I’ve been a part of to encourage counting online views of livestreams of worship, or to count every person who comes into the church at any point for any reason as part of the worship attendance numbers, feels too close to manipulating or distorting reality for my comfort. (We do track attendance in our Adult Discipleship Communities and our children’s and student ministry. We simply do not count it in our worship attendance, because that is not what it is.)

All that to say, I am excited to be at a church that is honest and straightforward in how it counts worship attendance.

As soon as you talk about numbers in terms of growth, especially at larger churches, there will be someone who offers a critique like: “Oh, so, you only care about numbers?” 

No. We care about numbers because each number is a person.

Decline happens. It sometimes happens when everyone involved is doing the best they can, but the demographic trends are all working against them. My issue was being a part of an institution that had seen decline every single year of its existence and had come to frame its slow death as a virtue.

In some interactions outside of Asbury Church, there is an assumption that we think we are better than everyone that is smaller than us. We don’t. We say all the time that large churches are not better than medium and small churches. And we mean that. I pastored a small church right out of seminary. I learned a ton. The people were amazing. And because of their context, they are never going to be a large church. That church was faithful and it was not less faithful because of its average attendance numbers.

Large churches are not better than small churches. But they are different. We think about the difference in many ways in terms of stewardship. There are things that large churches can do that small church cannot do. For example, we can host large events well because of the size of our facility and because our staff has experience hosting large events literally every single week. We can also hire staff who specialize in a particular area of gifting in a way that is more difficult in smaller churches, especially churches that only have one fulltime staff member, the pastor.

Ok, so I am excited to be a part of a church that is experiencing healthy and significant growth. I am also excited about the opportunity I have been given to develop a discipleship pathway for our church. Since I have been here, we have started a New to Asbury Brunch. This gives us a chance to meet folks who are checking out Asbury and wanting to know more. It gives me the chance to set the culture of our church on the front end that helps people decide whether they want to stick around and get to know us better.

Related to that, I am really thankful to be at a place where there is spiritual covering to speak clearly about what we believe, because it is what the church believes. When I was teaching in United Methodist theological education, I was always surprised by how much of a physical toll it took on me to articulate orthodox sexual ethics in the classroom or in events outside of the seminary. I remember feeling tired and just overall worn out for weeks after a conference at the seminary I was at after the 2016 General Conference of the UMC before the Special General Conference in 2019. I felt the same after I participated in a debate with a colleague from the same seminary about the Bible and same sex marriage. 

At Asbury, we believe that clarity is kindness. We work to use plain speech and to say what we mean. We do not believe in manipulation and working to lead people without them knowing exactly where they are being led.

And so, I tell everyone who attends the New to Asbury Brunch that we are not woke and we are conservative regarding sexual ethics in every respect.

People are sometimes surprised that we are so clear about where we stand, and they appreciate it. I think this is because there are far too many church contexts that are like an experience of the children’s story The Emperor’s New Clothes. It is refreshing and a relief to be part of a culture where clarity and straightforward speech is valued.

For me, it is a breath of fresh air to serve at a church where I am encouraged to be direct and candid in what we believe, and that I am in sync with all of it. Not only do I not feel tired after speaking at a New to Asbury Brunch, it is energizing. 

I think this is the difference that spiritual covering and properly aligned authority structures makes. 

Why I am hopeful about the future

As I have written elsewhere, I believe the next season of ministry in the United States is going to be hard. It is going to take our best effort. And yet, I am genuinely and deeply hopeful about the future. In fact, I am most hopeful about the future that I have ever been in ministry. Here’s why:

I believe that the coming years are going to see significant changes in the American church. In particular, I think there are going to be surprising and exciting realignments as mainline denominationalism continues to decline both in terms of its size and its influence in the broader culture. 

I think the future will bring increasing cooperation and networking among non-denominational churches that are open to the person and work of the Holy Spirit.

I could be wrong, but I am hopeful.

And I hope the Asbury Connection will be a part of this realignment. 

I think we are seeing openness to New Testament Christianity, including the fullness of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, becoming mainstream in American evangelicalism. I also think churches that have kind of stumbled back into openness to Spirit have learned from the excesses and mistakes of some Pentecostal and charismatic churches.

I am hopeful about the future here because I have seen Asbury Church become more open and hungry for the fullness of the gospel. We have had prayer and healing services, with more response and hunger than I expected. And, thankfully, virtually no resistance or pushback. I see our pastors stepping into greater authority and wanting more for our people. It fires me up to hear people scheduling prayer sessions to spend time in prayer with someone who needs breakthrough from a particular bondage or addiction.

I am hopeful because I do not feel like we are striving or trying to force something. In the times I’ve been asked to lead, I have just tried to give space for the Lord to do what he wants to do in our midst. And it has been a blessing to witness.

I am also hopeful because Asbury has the strongest tangible commitment to raising up the next generation of leaders for the church that I have ever seen.

This summer we hired 6 high school students to work as interns in our student ministry. It was SO FUN to see high school students praying for their own ministry and teaching the Bible to their peers. It was a blessing to see them planning, preparing, and executing their own vision over the summer. One weekly summer event, a boys Bible Study, doubled in size compared to last summer. And it was entirely through the work of our student interns.

Our student interns also helped start a student leadership team for this year, which will continue the work they started over the summer. I cannot wait to see what the Lord does through them this school year!

We also hired three college students to work as mission interns over the summer. They brought energy and joy to our work as a staff. Rodney Adams, our Executive Pastor, led a group of 6 of our staff to attend Acton University this summer. 2 of our college interns went on that week-long trip and it was great to get to know them better.

The biggest investment we are making in raising up the next generation of leaders for the church is our Fellowship Program. It is now in its second year, which is hard for me to believe. We saw a significant increase in interest this year compared to last year. I am proud of our Fellows and excited to see how the Lord will use them in the church after they complete their Fellowship. For me, simply having Fellows in the room reminds me of the stakes of what we are doing. Formation is always happening. And those coming up after us will not appear out of thin air. We must intentionally invest in the next generation. We are literally putting our money where our mouth is by hiring people for 2-year Fellowships that are full-time staff positions.

Finally, we made a commitment to start a School of Ministry when we launched the Asbury Connection. Last week, I started a pilot project to begin to build out the Asbury School of Ministry. It will serve as the last stage in our discipleship pathway, because, while there is always more Christians can learn, Christian discipleship should not be thought of as a never-ending university seminar. I have known that for a long time, but I’ve had a hard time figuring out what the end of a discipleship pathway should actually look like. When it is fully released, this will be a rigorous and intense period, most likely 2 years, where people will leave knowing they’ve been equipped to serve in the church. They will then focus on being on mission for Jesus in their lives, feeding themselves and others as spiritual parents. 

The Asbury School of Ministry will also be a key piece of the way we form our candidates for ordination as deacon. Many of these candidates have or will attend seminary, which we fully support. (After all, we have an Asbury Theological Seminary Extension Site on our campus.) Formal theological education will be required for ordination as an elder.

Why you should consider joining us

There are several groups of people I think should consider joining us.

If you are following leaders at Asbury Church because you like what we are doing and find it helpful to your work, you should join what we are doing. I have been surprised and encouraged by the folks who reached out immediately when they found out about the Asbury Connection who I had no idea were even watching us.

You should consider joining us if you have felt like you haven’t found your people yet and you think you might like to follow us, or you want to row with us. I’d love to connect you with folks on our team so you can learn more about the Asbury Connection and where we are headed.

You should consider joining us if the existing denominational options weren’t the right fit for you, but you also would like to have more connection and not less with a body of believers outside of your local church. 

Our model is a hub and spoke model. We will have large regional churches with small churches connected to and resourced by them. The Asbury Connection will not be a denomination with a large and unwieldy bureaucracy. The Asbury Connection will have a faith statement and common ordination standards.

To give one example of the distinction: The Asbury Connection will not take on itself the responsibility to provide health insurance for every employee of every church in the Connection. We believe this goes too far in terms of removing authority and responsibility from the local church. (As it happens, denominational insurance also has a major financial penalty on small churches and their employees at the order of tens of thousands of dollars per employee per year.) 

The Asbury Connection will also not have a trust clause. (I cannot imagine any church that left the UMC ever deciding to join anything with a trust clause.)

On the other side, the Asbury Connection will value and enforce doctrinal conformity and adherence to ordination standards across the connection.

There is so much going on in the aftermath of the collapse of the UMC. It will take a while before the dust settles and we can really see what has happened. 

Here is the short version for me for why I am excited for the future of the Asbury Connection: The available denominational options have felt too much like the United Methodist Church that I chose to leave. But the alternatives that have arisen don’t feel like they have strong enough ties that bind.

The timing of Pentecost this year, when we launched the Asbury Connection, was particularly sweet, because it was on May 24th, which is also the anniversary of John Wesley’s famous Aldersgate Street experience where he testified:

I felt I did trust in Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.

For me, this felt like a symbolic connection to our theological heritage. Our goal is not to depart from the tradition we’ve been a part of. Rather, it is to enter more fully into it. We want to see the Lord breathe new life into the best of the Wesleyan theological tradition through our new Connection.

As I close, I’m thinking about John Wesley’s last words. They give me hope and joy as I move into the future:

The best of all is, God is with us.

Indeed, he is.

My Sermon on New Beginnings at Asbury Church

22 Friday May 2026

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Methodist History, Ministry, Sermons, Wesley

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Asbury Church, Asbury Connection, Beginnings, Bible, Jesus, Joshua, ordination, sermon

I had the privilege of preaching at Asbury Church last weekend, the week before we launch the Asbury Connection on Pentecost.

I talked about new beginnings and the opportunity we have with this beginning to consecrate ourselves for a new season in the life of our church.

I preached Joshua 1:1-9, a beginning I’ve been reading and praying on for years. I also shared three stories from the history of the Wesleyan/Methodist tradition that point to key beginnings for the Wesleyan tradition.

I had a timer on stage that was counting down to the beginning of our Pentecost service. It felt like the perfect image for me, because I wanted my sermon to kick off the final week of preparation for the beginning of the Asbury Connection.

I hope you’ll check out my sermon here:

I can’t wait to see what the Lord does this weekend!


Kevin M. Watson is a Pastor and the Senior Director of Christian Formation at Asbury Church in Tulsa, OK. He is also on the faculty at Asbury Theological Seminary, anchoring the Seminary’s Tulsa, OK Extension Site. His most recent book, Doctrine, Spirit, and Discipline describes the purpose of the Wesleyan tradition and the struggle to maintain its identity in the United States. Affiliate links, which help support my work, used in this post.

Understanding John Wesley’s View of Ordination: A Surprise in the Founding of American Methodism

24 Friday Apr 2026

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Asbury Church, Methodist History, Ministry, Wesley

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bible, bishop, Christian formation, Christianity, church, elder, faith, Jesus, John Wesley, Methodism, ordination, Wesley

I am a small “c” conservative. I want to understand why something is the way that it is before I tear down, rearrange, or remove it entirely. In my work as an historian, I often find it helpful to simply reread key documents to understand why things were the way that they are and, therefore, are the way that they are.

One document I have read many times since I left the United Methodist Church and have been praying, talking with others, and seeking to discern the way forward post-disaffiliation from the UMC is the letter John Wesley wrote to “Our Brethren in America” after he took the bold step of ordaining two lay people deacons and then elders in order to launch the Methodist Episcopal Church.

As is typically the case with historical documents at key inflection points in history, there is much in this letter that is of interest. But there is one detail that I’m not sure I really understood or appreciated until it became clear to me that I would not be able to stay in the UMC. I am convinced Wesley is correct about this detail and it has been a key piece of my own discernment about what I think the Lord is doing in my life and at my church.

First, a bit of background to help you understand this letter. Wesley wrote the letter to “Our Brethren in America” after he and James Creighton ordained Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey as deacons on September 1, 1784, and then elders on September 2. Wesley and Creighton also laid hands on Thomas Coke, who was an ordained elder in the Church of England, and set him apart as a superintendent.

These actions were crucial steps toward establishing denominational Methodism, leading to the formation of the Methodist Episcopal Church, which was the first Methodist denomination in the United States.

The steps Wesley took were also controversial and radical. John Wesley was an elder in the Church of England. Elders do not ordain in the Church of England, bishops ordain. John Wesley was not a bishop. And so, Wesley’s decision to take authority to ordain upon himself required explanation. And that is what Wesley did in his September 10, 1784 letter to “Our Brethren in America.”

Here it is in its entirety:

By a very uncommon train of providences many of the Provinces of North America are totally disjoined from their Mother Country and erected into independent States. The English Government has no authority over them, either civil or ecclesiastical, any more than over the States of Holland. A civil authority is exercised over them, partly by the Congress, partly by the Provincial Assemblies. But no one either exercises or claims any ecclesiastical authority at all. In this peculiar situation some thousands of the inhabitants of these States desire my advice; and in compliance with their desire I have drawn up a little sketch.

Lord King’s Account of the Primitive Church convinced me many years ago that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain. For many years I have been importuned from time to time to exercise this right by ordaining part of our traveling preachers. But I have still refused, not only for peace’ sake, but because I was determined as little as possible to violate the established order of the National Church to which I belonged.

But the case is widely different between England and North America. Here there are bishops who have a legal jurisdiction: in America there are none, neither any parish ministers. So that for some hundred miles together there is none either to baptize or to administer the Lord’s supper. Here, therefore, my scruples are at an end; and I conceive myself at full liberty, as I violate no order and invade no man’s right by appointing and sending laborers into the harvest.

I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbury to be Joint Superintendents over our brethren in North America; as also Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey to act as elders among them, by baptizing and administering the Lord’s Supper. And I have prepared a Liturgy little differing from that of the Church of England (I think, the best constituted National Church in the world), which I advise all the traveling preachers to use on the Lord’s Day in all the congregations, reading the Litany only on Wednesdays and Fridays and praying extempore on all other days. I also advise the elders to administer the Supper of the Lord on every Lord’s Day.

If any one will point out a more rational and scriptural way of feeding and guiding these poor sheep in the wilderness, I will gladly embrace it. At present I cannot see any better method than that I have taken.

It has, indeed, been proposed to desire the English bishops to ordain part of our preachers for America. But to this I object; (1) I desired the Bishop of London to ordain only one, but could not prevail. (2) If they consented, we know the slowness of their proceedings; but the matter admits of no delay. (3) If they would ordain them now, they would likewise expect to govern them. And how grievously would this entangle us! (4) As our American brethren are now totally disentangled both from the State and from the English hierarchy, we dare not entangle them again either with the one or the other. They are now at full liberty simply to follow the Scriptures and the Primitive Church. And we judge it best that they should stand fast in that liberty wherewith God has so strangely made them free.

There is so much in this letter that is interesting and even instructive for the church today. I think the second to last paragraph might be my personal favorite. I love Wesley’s humility, honesty, and willingness to lead in the midst of wrestling. He basically says, “If you can show me a better way, I would love to be convinced. I’ve thought about this for years and this is the best I can come up with. It was time to act, so I did the best I could with everything in front of me.”

I appreciate this because our assumption ought to be that this is what everyone has been doing on the other side of disaffiliation. We may not get everything right, but we must do the best we can.

As much as I like the details in that paragraph, however, it is not the detail I was referring to at the beginning of this post.

Did you notice John Wesley’s own understanding of ordination and how different it is from that of contemporary mainline Methodism?

The key detail is in one short phrase: “Bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain.”

John Wesley was not a bishop. American Methodism did not start with bishops as a separate office or order from elders. The elders were the overseers. This is why bishops are not ordained in the UMC, for example. They are set apart among the elders to superintend the work beyond the local church. (This is one reason that there has been debate about whether bishops in the UMC ought to be a lifelong office, or only an office one has while one is actively exercising the functions of the office.)

Here is the key detail that I believe gives warrant to elder-led ordination in Wesleyan polity and ought to at least give humility to those who follow in John Wesley’s footsteps who embrace an episcopal polity:

American Methodism did not begin with bishops as a required office for ordination. It began with an elder (John Wesley) deciding to take authority himself to ordain based on his reading of a history of the early church and the New Testament witness.

For me personally, this has made me relax about concerns about apostolic succession as a continuous line of succession of ordination that is rightly ordered that goes all the way back to the apostles. American Methodists of any stripe don’t have a claim to that because our first ordinations did not come from a bishop, but from an elder taking the authority to ordain without the blessing of his own church.

I am not saying Methodism is missing one of the marks of the church. We are apostolic in that we are carrying, stewarding, and defending the teaching of the apostles to hand it down to the next generation.

Let me also say I was ordained by a bishop. I am thankful to have been ordained by Bishop Robert E. Hayes, Jr. I do not think it is wrong for Methodists to have bishops. I also do not think it is wrong for Methodists to not have bishops. Why? 

Because the beginning of Methodism as a denomination is literally built on the conviction that bishops and elders are the same order.

I believe Wesley was correct. In the New Testament, elders and overseers are the same category. In Acts 20:17-35, Paul is speaking to one audience. In Acts 20:17 Paul “called the elders (presbyteros) of the church to him.” It is to these same people (the elders), Paul says in verse 28, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (episkopos), to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.”

For what it is worth, when you look at the history of the Wesleyan tradition in the United States across the range of Wesleyan denominations, the office of bishop is one of the significant places of disagreement among these denominations. Again, this doesn’t mean it is wrong to have bishops. It does mean that there have been spectacular abuses of power from some American Methodist bishops. There have also been many examples of some bishop’s asserting their personal convictions over and against the clear polity of their own church.

All of this matters to me, because Asbury Church, where I serve, will hold a service of consecration and ordination this Pentecost. We will not have bishops at this service. The ordinations will be elder led. And I am going to participate. Over the past several years, I have spent a significant amount of time and energy reading, thinking, and praying about the best path forward. I have listened and tried to understand the various approaches other churches that left the UMC have taken. Like Wesley, the best I can say is, “I cannot see any better method than that I have taken.”

I am not taking this step begrudgingly or hesitatingly, though I have spent a season of watching and waiting. I am taking this step with joyful expectation for what the Lord has in store for us. If we are wrong, the Lord will make it clear to us. But with the best light I have right now, I am as confident as I can be that this is what the Lord is leading us to do.

As Asbury Church, we believe that if you are still breathing, God has more for you. This phrase comes from our Senior Pastor, Rev. Andrew Forrest. It is a beautiful contemporary expression of the Wesleyan belief in the possibility of radical holiness in this life. From womb to tomb, God always has more!

I can’t wait to see the details of that “more” coming into focus over the coming weeks and years.


Kevin M. Watson is a Pastor and the Senior Director of Christian Formation at Asbury Church in Tulsa, OK. He is also on the faculty at Asbury Theological Seminary, anchoring the Seminary’s Tulsa, OK Extension Site. His most recent book, Doctrine, Spirit, and Discipline describes the purpose of the Wesleyan tradition and the struggle to maintain its identity in the United States. Affiliate links, which help support my work, used in this post.

What Is the Purpose of Seminary?

30 Thursday Jan 2014

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Ministry

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

M.Div., Ministry, ordination, Seminary, Theological Education

Seminary did nothing to prepare me for ministry in a post-Christian context.

This comment, which was an aside in a conversation I had with a pastor today, has gnawed at me all day. Several hours after the conversation, I tweeted:

Pastor who graduated from a UM seminary: "Seminary did nothing to prepare me for ministry in a post-Christian context." Thoughts?

— Kevin M. Watson (@kevinwatson) January 29, 2014

The response was slow at first, but gathered momentum throughout the day and into the evening. (In hindsight, I really wish a hashtag had been created to help track the conversation. It has gone in several different directions and is difficult to trace now.)

Here are the main things I heard in the conversation: Some people are happy with their seminary experience and feel that it prepared them well for ministry in a post-Christian context. Others were frustrated with their seminary education and felt that it did not prepare them adequately for basic pastoral ministry. But what stuck with me the most was a general confusion about the purpose of seminary. One person tweeted: “I have heard more than once that it is not a theological school’s job to prepare people for ministry.”

This raises several questions for me: What is ministry? How ought one be prepared for it? If a theological school is not focused on preparing people for ministry, what is the purpose of a seminary education? And why would it be required for ordination? To what extent should the church and academy be connected to one another?

My hope in this post, then, is to continue the conversation with a broader audience and without the 140 character limit.

What do you think the purpose of a seminary education ought to be?

For those of you who have attended or are attending seminary, what are your thoughts about how well it prepared you for ministry?

To what extent should the church and academy be related or interdependent?

Ordination: Communal Rite or Individual Right?

06 Monday May 2013

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Accountability, Ministry

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

community, D. Stephen Long, individualism, ordination

“Ordination is a communal rite, not an individual right.”

After reading this quote from D. Stephen Long’s Keeping Faith, I began mentally reviewing many of the conversations I have had with candidates for ordination. In my admittedly far from perfect mental scan of tweets, blog posts, and personal conversations, most (but not all) of the comments I could remember fit in the ordination as “individual right” camp. Viewing ordination as an individual right, and not a communal rite, can lead to a sense of entitlement and defensiveness, particularly if the person pursuing ordination feels like the church owes it to them.

But ordination is a communal rite and is not understood as an individual right.

And just in case the understanding of ordination as an individual right is more appealing to you than the approach of ordination as a communal rite, it may be helpful to point out that no denomination understands ordination as an individual right. Even in churches that have a congregational polity, it is the local church community that votes on whether to ordain the person. The individual is not the sole judge who claims their right, which the community is required to give.

So, what is going on? Why do so many people seem to feel entitled to be ordained, rather than viewing it as a process of communal discernment?

While I have two initial thoughts, my broader purpose with this post is to stimulate a larger conversation. I hope you will comment here. You can also connect with me and respond to this post on twitter @kevinwatson. Either way, I hope you will share your thoughts.

At this stage I will offer two thoughts. The first one is much more extended than the second. 1) People view ordination as an individual right more than a communal rite because the church has formed them to think about ordination in this way. 2) Ordination as an individual right may be a litmus test for a broader unwillingness of individuals to submit to the authority and wisdom of a broader community.

First, as I have been thinking about this quote and processing it with others, I have found myself seeing this as a basic issue of formation. Thinking back to my initial engagement with the ordination process, I don’t remember having hardly any expectations of the process beyond an initial desire to serve God and feeling that the local church was the best place to begin to work this out. I was almost completely ignorant of what the process entailed. In fact, in my first conversation with my pastor, I don’t think I knew there was a process. I was formed into a particular understanding of what ordination is and how it works.

One of the main things I initially learned was that I should expect that not only would I discern whether I felt that God was calling me to ordained ministry, but that my denomination would likewise discern whether God was calling me to ordained ministry in their midst. Where ordination is a communal rite, discernment is a two-way street.

I am concerned that many are being taught to expect that the ordination process will be, and for various reasons must be, one where the gifts one already feels one has are simply affirmed and celebrated by others. I wonder if an unintended consequence of the emphasis on being inclusive and accepting has led some people to view ordination as an entitlement. The thought process could go like this: If I feel like I want to be ordained, you must accept my sense of calling and include me in the order of ordained clergy, otherwise you are being exclusive. When this is seen in its most extreme form, even to examine someone’s calling is seen as invasive, unnecessary, and a problematic use of power by the church.

There are at least two problems with an understanding of ordination that demands that it be given as an individual right. First, people who should be ordained have room to grow and improve in the gifts and grace that have been given to them, no matter how gifted they are. Candidates for ordained ministry should be prepared to accept constructive criticism. They should expect to learn more about themselves and to grow in their sense of calling as a result of the process. Everyone, even experienced pastors, has room to grow. And discerning that one is not called to ordained ministry should actually be viewed as a successful outcome, not as a failure. Second, some people should not be ordained. And they may not always agree with the decision of the church. If ordination is the culmination of a discernment process by both the individual considering ordained ministry and the church that will ordain them, both parties must continue to affirm that they are headed in the right direction.

Before moving on to the second thought, I feel compelled to acknowledge that Boards of Ordained Ministry are not infallible. They make mistakes. And sometimes the criticism they give is not constructive, or honest. Making distinctions about when Boards of Ordained Ministry get it right and when they get it wrong gets messy quickly. And yet, as long as our polity understands ordination as a communal rite and not an individual right, we ought to try to correct mistakes and improve the process, rather than resist the authority that is rightly invested in the community.

My second main thought is that ordination as an individual right may be a litmus test for a broader unwillingness of individuals to submit to the authority and wisdom of a broader community. A few pages after the quote from D. Stephen Long that prompted this post, he wrote something that is an even more aggressive challenge to the contemporary idolatry of the individual:

We Methodists find the rites and ceremonies of our church to be so important that openly breaking them should issue in a rebuke, even if that rebuke must be given to a pastor, superintendent, or bishop. The rites and ceremonies belong to the whole church. When a pastor, superintendent, or bishop changes those rites and ceremonies because of her or his individual conscience, she or he violates the trust that the church places in her or him to guard and preserve the faith. (59)

My guess is that Long’s call for individuals to submit to the whole church, (including even their conscience!) would be contested by many. A key question, though, would be whether the disagreement is precisely an assertion of individual rights over that of the community.

What do you think? How do you think ordination is perceived by most people discerning a calling to ordained ministry? Is Long right that ordination should be understood as a communal rite and not as an individual right?

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Kevin M. Watson
    • Join 366 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Kevin M. Watson
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
Loading Comments...