Struck a C(h)ord, I Guess -- A response to some good questions provoked by this week's posts

11/6/2015

Excellent questions from Dean Blevins, US/CAN Regional Education Coordinator and professor of Christian education at NTS-Kansas City, who left on a comment to a previous post:

Did you ever speak with anyone on the anonymous district to find out why they made the decisions they made? . . .

It seems that you are talking about students who do not complete an approved educational program for ordination but in some sense only complete part of the program... correct? So they have not finished a validated program... is this the context you are addressing? . . .

Are you advocating that the University take on the role of ordination?"

I wish it was a single district, but it's been several over the last seven years located across the country from coast to coast and across the midwest. I have also spoken to at least 20 district superintendents, and raised these issues with them in private conversations and various meetings, and they are sometimes as perplexed as I have been. So, the issue is not geographic or acute, but a systemic issue. The variety of responses I have received, either publicly or privately, tell me that I'm not the only one that has recognized the severity of this issue.

I have dealt with students that have completed a validated course of study and still have not received recognition for their educational efforts in fulfilling the educational requirements toward ordination without being required to do more educationally on the district. I have also dealt with those that have chosen other programs that are not validated, missing maybe five or six courses, yet have been required by their districts to do nine or more courses.

Never has the question been raised if the students have exemplified competencies necessary for completion of the requirements but simply not seeing the same course title on the transcript. It's been difficult because the district boards seem to see the process as "counting courses" not completing the competencies necessary to be recognized for ordained ministry: avoiding this is the whole point of the 4Cs and the reason ICOSAC and its regional counterparts exist. Either these processes are necessary or they are not. If districts take up this responsibility, there should be some awareness of what is expected of validated programs of study.

If I remember right this ICOSAC and 4Cs were supposed to avoid the difficulties of the "good ol' boy" system or the development of much different requirements within or between regions. The process is supposed to make sure that universities are preparing students for ministry and not just further academic work. The process expects something from every stakeholder involved.

I hope universities do not take up the sole responsibility for educational preparation toward ordination. It was seem to me to be several steps backward. The flexibility of the Nazarene system is one of its strengths. It allows all who are called to be prepared adequately for what it takes to engage in an active and thoughtful ministry.

I think there might be something to be said about [warning: Nazarene lingo follows] the "field" leaders, district superintendents, the board members in the credentialing process, and ordained faculty members, work together within an educational zone, maybe even in unison with the university in consultation with NBC and NTS (at least within the US/Canada Region). I had an encouraging conversation with a district superintendent at the university trustee dinner last night about this very topic, and what the district superintendents in our neck of the woods are doing already in this direction. This person also mentioned similar collaboration work in another educational zone. Encouraging signs.

Hope this clarifies some of your questions, and the other posts might also help in answering some of your concerns.

3 Comments

Dean Blevins

11/7/2015 09:21:35 am

Matt, I can only say that what you suggest "has" occurred on different educational zones in the past, often around specific incidents, when addressed by reasonable people in leadership (district and school) who have both a collaborative arrangement on their region, and a reputation of that collaboration beyond that region. In those circumstances, we discover the faculty, their deans, and even the institution itself, has fostered close relationships with district leadership based less on accusation and more on an appreciation of the mutual task... and challenge... of using a process that remains reliant on a number of people working within the constraints of their circumstances.

I do acknowledge there are failures of judgment on all sides of the decision-making process.There is a turnover in leadership on District Boards of Ministry, so the orientation of new members remain a constant challenge. And, there remain faculty members who incorporate, but do not adequately enforce, the ability statements in their classrooms. Finally, there remain students who manage to pass classes but fail to demonstrate knowledge, much less ability, during boards of ministry reviews. Sometimes the discernment revolves less around "checked boxes," as it does around student responses to those boards under pressured circumstances. Anytime you have a complicated process designed to ensure that the church at every level knows a person well before assigning responsibility, much less authorizing leadership through ordination, you risk errors in discernment. Historically the RCOSAC has adopted an advisory role, rather than "enforcer," when a crisis emerges around a student/ordinand (either in the district or college experience), encouraging both schools and districts to work closely together, talking to each other, to ensure a collaborative approach.

At one point, very early in the process (prior to your joining this conversation), there was a frank discussion of using a national ordination exam, much like other professionally-minded organizations use (teachers, lawyers, physician assistants, etc.). The idea was rejected in preference to a human process of direct interaction. We also discussed in those days the real need for the church and the university to work together in this approach (rejecting a religious studies model of some academic models, or a monastic mindset of the university displacing the church as the formative center of ministry training). We acknowledged the necessity of maintaining a credentialing process, and providing an educational pathway...but keeping those separate as indicated in our church polity. We knew there were be exceptions, particularly for some people called to ministry might not always be able to take part in our formal educational pathways. In the history of education in the church of the Nazarene, our not all of our educational providers seemed equipped or disposed to reach out to non-degree seeking students who were unable to attend a particular campus-based program.

We do know some students arrive on campuses without a sense of needing... or at least maintaining... a strong relationship with a local congregation that works in tandem with their college experience. Often those students begin to see the school, not the church, as their formative center. Schools, often isolated by geography, also recognize their role of "in loco parentis" (a parental role) that strengthens affectional bonds with students (a good thing) and a protectiveness for their journey. However, the church still has to have a role in judgment, so often "receives" students who have limited congregational connection (internships or part-time positions) yet addresses them as co-leaders, adults, whose actions bear witness to their maturity. Historically, when talking with DSs, I discover that ministry boards remain more concerned with young adults' understanding of their "gifts and graces" in their call to ministry, and use the educational process as a means of delaying, but also discerning, their growth as leaders among the churches they serve. When you combined this process alongside the rise of what Jeffrey Arnett calls emerging adulthood, a phenomenon where some young adults seem to defer basic responsibility of adult roles, you have a perfect mix of factors that muddy what seemed to be a fairly straightforward process of district leadership and educational provider working together in close relationship in preparing called ministers toward ordination, respecting the challenges that both face in the partnership.

In short, we trusted that the reasoned, measured, judgment of adult leaders; leaders who recognize the interdependence of church and college in this process. We knew these leaders would have to lean on relationships with clear communication around specific, concrete, circumstances... circumstances that require both discretion (for the sake of the student) and courtesy (for the sake of partnership). There have been t

11/7/2015 11:17:48 pm

Sorry Matt, my reply was cut short because I closed my laptop before the upload was complete. I am at a conference and was running late for a meeting. To finish the last thought, there have been changes to the Sourcebook on Ordination to reduce the number of ability statements, and to shift the language from behavior outcomes to abilities (more in line with McIntyre's use of practices and virtues) to correspond to the "be, know, and do" portions of the sourcebook. I think you know this because MVNU was privileged to use the new statements as part of your recent review by the RCOSAC. Those changes have taken much time to implement since we have to negotiate them at a national level, and now in direct collaboration with Canada districts (actually a helpful addition to our deliberations) with changes at our last General Assembly. The committee, for all of its limitations, has listened to educators, district leadership, pastors both young and old, and continues its work to this day to establish resources in line with the newer ability statements that districts can use in their deliberations.

However, no amount of work will replace carefully nurtured relationships between leadership on both sides of the mutual task of education and credentialling. I am not sure social media always serves to assist that task. I hope this is taken in charity but also recognize that the work we continue to do really requires we talk to each other instead of about each other. Social media, as a phenomenon, often starts conversations that do not carry "tone," and result in painful outcomes for everyone when generalizations are employed. Normally opinion/editorial statements in journalism rest upon journalistic reporting that precedes the editorial pronouncements. The very nature of blogging, for all of its strengths, creates problems when there is no journalistic community of accountability. I have written and published in this area and recognize that many associations (even church traditions) have issued guidelines to help people avoid these problems. My concern with the tenor of the early postings rests with the fact they tended to brand entire cohorts of people with the same brush. While perhaps not your intent, it can create a larger impression that later proves hard to overcome in resolving an issue.

Since you started this conversation on social media, I felt it necessary to answer this way. However, I still think you could work with your school's leadership to foster a conversation with the district and student that prompted your first post earlier this week. It might provide a collaborative moment where you model the very thing you hope to see.

Matt

11/8/2015 03:13:56 pm

Thanks again for your continued contribution to the conversation. I think there is a place for discernment in the ordination process, even for cause to delay the process in some cases. I do not think the course of study should be used as the delaying mechanism, especially since so many stakeholders are involved in this process. If a district board sees the need for delay, simply delay the process or incorporate a leadership development approach similar to the GE school of executive leadership. But, don't pin the delay on the course of study. I have been in contact with leaders from five districts in the last four months talking about this very thing.

As far as the new ability statements are concerned, I'm glad they are in place. We operated on 40 statements for NTI-ITN and AWF. It was a good thing to narrow the focus of what we are to accomplish through the course of study. I was not aware of their use in terms of our program reviews for this summer. I was not asked to contribute to the submission of these programs, or that the revies were even being work on. I was not aware that COSAC was meeting until I received a note about commenting on a worship competency in the urban ministry major. I wish there was more of an open atmosphere of shared knowledge and responsibility on these projects, especially since I have extensive experience in this area.

I would have to disagree with the lack of accountability in social media. It is in this forum that accountability takes place. Something like this is happening right now, is it not? I went back to reflect on the comments on the posts I've written this week. Comments, "likes", retweets, shares, etc from the blog posts came from two regions, 26 districts (stretching between both coasts) in 5 educational zones, and a total of 57 people including 3 district superintendents, 26 pastors and leaders in four denominations, and 28 COS students. The posts themselves captured the attention of 837 unique visitors in five days. These are not insignificant data.

I'm not sure scratching the scab created the wound. There is a systemic dis-ease around what should be one of the most important and sacred rituals observed within our church. This should be cause for concern.

Struck a C(h)ord, I Guess -- A response to some good questions provoked by this week's posts

Leave a Reply.

Bio

Archives

Categories