Like Marty McFly being called “chicken” in Back to the Future, I also have a temper-tantrum point and it’s called ageism. Specifically when I’m treated like a kid or called “sport” or “tiger” or I am told “you will make a great pastor someday” and other comments that reflect on my youth (I’m under 35 years old). So I get feisty and do surveys about young clergy and write articles about young adults involvement in broad UMC stuff and “Hostile dragons for young clergy” and other things to channel that temper into something productive.
But the thing is…ageism is also about the other end of the age spectrum. And I’m shocked at an Annual Conference (a governing body) of the United Methodist Church that has outright said that older people shouldn’t be considered for ordained ministry.
Why would those over 45 be “not encouraged?”
The Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church has released a proposed “minimum standards for entering candidates for ministry” which outlines what are the bare minimum requirements for people to be considered for clergy work. Here’s the PDF and the scanned image is below (click to make it readable).
Notice anything peculiar? The bottom chart has comments about candidates over a certain age.
- If they are over age 60-70, they should consider less rigorous forms of ministry (ie. less education and less opportunity for advancement, serving at the pleasure of the Bishop).
- But for those over age 45 desiring to be a Deacon or an Elder, it says that they “should be encouraged to pursue other expressions of ministry” and in the case of over 45yos seeking Elder’s orders “to pursue licensed ministry, certified lay or other expressions of lay ministry.”
In other words, if you are over 45 when you receive your call to ministry (remember it is GOD that calls, NOT Boards of Ordained Ministries), then you will be encouraged to serve in capacities that:
- Don’t require a pension
- Don’t require health insurance if it isn’t full time
- Serve at the pleasure of the Bishop who can dismiss you when you reach 55 or so for whatever reason.
I don’t know how you can frame this other than outright ageism. Sure, older candidates tend to have higher health insurance costs and ultimately may cost the system more. But to say they are less valuable for a particular position that doesn’t have health requirements other than across-the-board ones is just…bad.
Is this really about senior adults?
No. Let’s be clear: this isn’t even an attack on just senior adults but middle-age adults as well. 45? By the time I’m 45, my daughter will be 13. A pastor with a teenage daughter? That’s not relevant? Given that people wait to have their children until their early/mid thirties now, they are parents older and older. Why would we not consider them for ministry? And singles who are second-career or parents whose children have left home…they are perfectly capable of being Elders and Deacons.
This is really personal to me.
- My senior pastor who helped me in my call to ministry and walked me through the process was commissioned at 41, barely within this rubric above. Without her, I would likely not be in ministry.
- There are tons of other second-career clergy out there who have received their calls to ministry later in life and are asking the church to approve them living them out.
- I’ve served now under two Senior Pastors who have been significantly older than I, to my betterment.
- I ran the numbers on 10 of my clergy friends in Oklahoma who I know were second career. Of the 10, six of them were Commissioned at age 45 or higher. Two of them are DSes, and four of them are/have been on the Board of Ordained Ministry.
To lose the perspective of new middle aged and senior clergy in an Annual Conference, especially those that bring interdisciplinary expertise from their first careers, would be tragic indeed. I can name quite a few effective clergy leading vital congregations that were commissioned after age 45. I bet you can name several as well. If this policy had been in place at the beginning of their candidacy process we’d have far fewer ordained clergy clearly called by God and equipped with the gifts and graces for ministry.
Missy Buchanan is a columnist with the United Methodist Reporter and she writes:
Dr. Sapp says the typical American attitude about aging frames the conversation as a competition between young and old, and he dismisses the idea that if the church is to maintain its appeal to younger people it must neglect old people. Instead he emphasizes that what’s needed is the recognition that we are all aging together. It is one thing every human being shares.
As the body of Christ, we should remember that we are all in this together, he adds. The church ought to be the one institution in our society that lets no one forget that.
Our senior adult clergy are not only important they are integral to the life of the church. To exclude them from ministry because of their age and not their ability violates all kind of Social Principles and affirmations by the General Board of Global Ministries. And a church unbalanced to value youth over aged in both appointments and in ordination standards is not a healthy conference in the long run.
This begs the question: what if every clergy person over 50 years of age was suddenly absent from our churches? How would that impact your conference? What message are we sending? What example are we setting?
Call for Response
So, Texas Annual Conference. What do you have to say for yourself? Why don’t you want senior adults to enter ministry? Why do you let a ticking clock block God’s call on lives that you are evaluating?
But maybe you are being honest, Texas. Maybe you are just putting into writing what other Conferences are already doing, which is sacrifice qualified candidates on the shallow altars of youth. To shuffle middle-aged and aged candidates into positions and roles where they serve at your pleasure instead of being your equal. Maybe other Conferences are already doing this, and you decided to be honest about it.
But really…I really hope this is just you.
Thoughts? Responses? Explanations?
I was just emailing with a friend in TX yesterday who told me he is staying at his current appointment because he just turned 60 and apparently 60 is a deal-killer for churches which want a 45 year old. I almost fell out of my chair when I read his words & here you are saying the same thing today. Wow.
Honestly, no he is not saying the same thing. This is not about genuine ageism — not hiring people who are over age 45. This is about when a person might START a career.
Ageism may exist– and it should be addressed. But this is not strictly about the gifts and call of pastors. This is about the church’s investment in a particular form of education and all that goes with it in people who are not going to have significantly long careers. I wish they’d raise it to 50, but I think they have a point.
Tracy,
I think you’re on to something. While I’m sensitive to the ageism factor, I think you might be on to something. No one said people over 45 could not be in ministry. Far from it! The conference said they should not consider ordained ministry. After all, consider how long it takes for someone to complete the requirements for ordination.
Tracy you mentioned the church’s investment in education of the clergy. I don’t know about Texas but my annual conference did not pay for my education. At the cost of $10,000 or more a year, I doubt if any Annual Conferences pay for clergy education. The only education they ever paid for was mandatory trainings for clergy ethics and cross cultural training. Thankful I serve in the California Nevada Conference that ordained me at 51.
Can you guarntee that a 25 year-old or a 35 year-old person will stay in the ministry for twenty years? I was ordained an Elder 20 years ago along with 12 others in the Texas Conference. Only 8 of us are still serving churches in the Texas Conference. Only 1 retired.
In my last change in appointment, at age 45, I was passed over for a younger clergy who had no experience as a Sr. Pastor. Our Bishops and their Cabinets use age as another excuse to do what they want to do. They have the power and they are going to use it.
Really? Twenty solid years isn’t enough to dedicate? Have you checked the statistics on numbers of careers projected for someone who is 25 years old today?
As Jeremy pointed out, God calls people when He is ready to call them. Not when the Texas Conference decides they’re too old, or are in a demographic they prefer.
I live in Houston and am appalled at this. You can bet I will find out to whom I need to address my concerns.
I am Matt Idom. I am 57 years old. I was ordained a deacon in 1980 and an elder in 1983 in the Texas Annual Conference.
I think that it will be profoundly confusing to sing AND ARE WE YET ALIVE this year.
Unbelievable.
This attitude saddens me, but it does not surprise me. My annual conference as denied my candidacy because of my weight so age isn’t that far of a stretch.
It’s not just this conference by any means. Others have been doing it for some time. And it’s also not just age. Try approaching them in a wheelchair.
This attitude is one of the many reasons I left Christianity and embraced Buddhism. Age discrimination–any discrimination–violates the “one body” concept of Christianity. What a joke, a tragic joke, but a joke.
What we’re seeing in Iowa is 30-year-olds being appointed as senior pastors of 1000-member churches while many of us who have 25 or 30 years or more of experience and who should have paid our dues by now are being passed over and left to serve near minimum salary appointments. The only older pastors who are getting big churches are the ones who have been in big churches all along or have been DS’s. This 55-year-old is not happy.
This has happened in the NC Conference with the previous bishop. Older pastors were either pushed to retire, (in their 50’s & early 60’s) or sent to much smaller churches.
I’m a 59-year-old Elder in the Texas Annual Conference with 37 years of service (i.e. I joined as a probationary member when I was 22, full connection at 25). I currently serve on my dCOM and have previously served on the conference BOM. I don’t agree with this policy, but some knowledge of our recent history and our present situation will help understand how it came about and why some of the conference leadership thinks it is necessary, or at least justifiable.
A few years ago, to the amazement of most of us, our BOM approved (and the conference rubber-stamped at its executive session) a 69 year old for full connection and ordination as an Elder. He retired the next year (or possibly a year or two later, because of the raising of the retirement age). I voted “nay” at the BOM and at annual conference, but he was approved basically because nobody felt comfortable telling him No. For me, it wasn’t a question of his gifts for ministry; it was a question about the meaning and purpose of ordination in our denomination.
I think the new policy is, in part, a reaction to this specific event. If so, then it can hardly be viewed as anything other than an over-reaction. Additionally, many years of dealing with prickly personnel issues in both the local church and institutions of higher education have taught me that dealing with individual real people is hard, but making policies is easy. And if a few middle-aged “babies” get thrown out with the bath water, that’s the price we are apparently willing to pay not to have to make actual assessments about real flesh and blood individual candidates, and not to have to tell them No if we weight their potential for fruitful, effective ministry and find them wanting.
A second factor that I see behind this policy is the current embarassment of riches in the Texas Annual Conference in terms of young clergy. Recent efforts to identify and cultivate young clergy candidates have been quite successful, and recent appointment history confirms that gifted 30 somethings are highly valued and will be highly rewarded. The newly appointed Senior Pastor at St. Paul’s UMC, Houston, one of our most prestigious pulpits, is 37 years old, with 9 years of experience in ordained ministry. The not-inconsequential appointment he is vacating will be filled by a 31-year-old with 6 years of ministry experience–none of which involves being a pastor-in-charge. Please hear me say, these two individuals (and many more like them in my annual conference) are highly talented, with significant gifts for ministry. In the “old days” (neither “good” not “bad,” just gone), both would have been recognized for these gifts and talents and asked to assume great responsibilities for the annual conference, the denomination, and the Kingdom–just 10 to 20 years later in their careers.
When an annual conference is blessed with a bumper crop of bright, gifted young clergy in numbers unseen since the 70’s (which is certaintly the current situation of the Texas Annual Conference), one can understand how its leadership might want to limit its use of those who (1) have not gotten an early start, (2) don’t have as long to serve, (3) may be beginning to slow down a bit, and (4) may bring higher costs to a group insurance program. Understanding is not accepting, nor is it approving, but understanding is still a good thing.
I’m not an insider in my annual conference, so I don’t know what other factors may be driving this policy change, but I would urge those who see it only as a blatant display of ageism at least to consider that–as in most of life–the motivations are more complex than they are usually made to appear in the average rhetorical rebuttal.
To anyone who reads my post, sorry about the typos.
It’s always a terrible idea to take a person’s situation and making it a policy. If the DCoMs and BOM dealt with the person, then it wouldn’t have to be an across-the-board policy later. It’s not a healthy way to run an organization–let alone a church–when they hide personal problems behind bad policies.
Let me ask one point of genuine confusion- so what if we ordain someone at the age of 69? I guess I may not understand the full financial impact. Does the church fund their entire retirement or healthcare if they only serve a few years? Given that they are medicaid and social security eligible, I can’t see why that would be the case. If someone feels called to go to seminary, if they have the gifts and graces for ministry, I’m not sure why the age matters? Sure, their career will be short, but if they do good things for a few years, I do not understand the problem.
I don’t and can’t speak for others, Jared, but for me, the problem with ordaining a sixty-nine-year-old had less to do with the financial impact than with our understanding of ordination. The financial impact is not inconsequential, especially when you consider the hours of time invested by dozens of dCOM and BOM members in each candidate in the system. The “return” on that investment of time and energy is intended to be years of faithful service by those who are approved. But this consideration is not paramount.
The theological consideration is far more important–at least for me. God calls people to ministry, but ordination belongs to the Church. Ordination is the Church’s apart of those whose calling by God is recognized by the Church, for a particular kind of service to the Church and, through the Church, to the world. All baptized believers are called to ministry, but not all are set apart for ordination. If someone will have only a year or two of active service in ordained ministry, the Church is not well served by ordaining that person–regardless of the sincerity of his or her sense of having been called.
The question raised by the policy proposed by the Texas Annual Conference is this: How many years of potential service are enough to justify the investment in the candidacy process and to make the setting apart of ordination appropriate?
But “retired elder” is a ministry in and of itself, providing seminary trained leadership to part-time churches, or serving the sacraments to rural churches where worship is usually led by a lay speaker.
Dale-
I can understand your frustration, but also want to push back a bit upon your response. “Paid our dues” is no more of a qualification than for those who might be appointed largely because of their age. If (what you are assuming) a conference were appointing individuals purely because of their young age to those churches then that would be problematic, but if they are matching gifts and graces to the church then what age the individual shouldn’t matter whether young or old.
I think we as clergy also need to look at ourselves in these issues. How many of us feel slighted because of an appointment another person gets that we might have hoped for? How many of us think others get “preferential” treatment (for whatever reason, age, theology, etc.)? These are things we have to look at within ourselves also because often we end up with jealousy towards others rather than celebrating where we are and where they are and recognizing we are all called to the same mission field and work for the same Lord.
Dale,
I was recently a part of a conversation with the Bishop and appointive cabinet in Iowa about appointments such as the ones you mentioned. They are very clear that they are beginning to embrace and live out more into the concept of “missional appointments” wherein a clergy’s gifts and graces can truly be matched up with the needs of a ministry setting. But a part of this process means letting go of the “paid our dues, now it’s time for my rewarding appointment”/climbing the ladder mentality. I also want to point out that one reason people are frustrated by these appointments (and I have heard this from several clergy members of the Iowa AC) is the pay that normally comes with these types of appointments. In the cases where a younger clergy person has been appointed there, they are taking a large part of the salary difference and investing it in continuing education/professional development for that pastor-which is exactly what we should want and expect of our young clergy, and I for one am glad to know that we are putting them in places where they will be more likely to succeed, not get burned out, and have support along the way.
Yes, let’s let the older clergy burn out. Let’s not invest in their ministry like we do the young. Let’s make it harder for the middle-aged clergy to succeed. I have not paid my dues, so to speak, because I am second career. I do, however, have 20 years of ministry left. I also have a heart and passion for seeing the church become what it should be. However, it seems that the measure of what I, and persons like me, do is all about keeping the machine running. If I cause any disturbance to the system I am declared ineffective and a bad leader (well, not me, yet, but others I know who have passionately, faithfully, and righteously called the church to be missional and not inward-focused). My guess is the younger clergy will have a more supportive backing of church leaders and such disturbances will be tolerated more due to their age and not due to their better way of seeking to transform the church.
Why do we continue to live into an either/or mentality rather than both/and. The idea that appointments are now missional and that younger clergy better serve the mission is not in line with the reality of how God uses whom God uses. We are busy trying to manipulate and manage outcomes and we are devoid of true engagement with the Spirit. God help us all.
“Paid my/our dues” may sound un-spirit like or sound like we aren’t talking about bringing Christ to the world, but let me shed some light on it from my perspective.
I was ordained a transitional Deacon in 1994 at the age of 25 and was told “pay your dues, follow the rules and not to long from now you can pick the church you want to serve”, I’m assuming that it also meant love Jesus and lead the Church you are currently serving. Those things were said to my generation of pastors when we started because they sent us to dying churches or places at the edges or our Annual Conference. I was single at the time and there wasn’t much of a dating life for an itenerate pastor in small towns of Texas where the sidewalks rolled up after dark! In one place, they wouldn’t let me get a dog because a previous pastor had one they didn’t like! It was lonely but the Church people were nice, I preached Christ, did weddings and funerals, attended football games and I had my eyes to the future of promise. Fast forward some time and some bad choices on my part (like leaving a large Church were I was doing great ministry as an asscoiate pastor) and some not great ministry appointment fits and the rules have changed. I was recently told that I don’t have “proven success record” but I pushed back and asked “how do you define success when serving a dying church in a dying town?” The answer is that you do ministry where you can but that doesn’t usually result in numbers considered “successful” and might result in people contacting the DS to complain.
It’s a hard pill to swallow to watch the 55-60 year olds who told me “wait your turn, pay your dues” now be the cheerleaders for appointing 30-40 year olds to appointments that I will never be considered for because of the shift to “potential success” or “proven success”. I’m thankful that we have bright, young people who are being encouraged and mentored and supported – I do not hold these policies against them – they didn’t make the policies, they just benefit from them. I do have a problem with our recruiting gifted young clergy from other annual conferences and leaving those conferences without gifted young people. I do have a problem with recuitment that promises young clergy “minimum salaries” at $60,000 when that is an amount I have never made in my years of service before going on family leave! Most of all, I mourn the loss of my generation of pastors and how we are seen as less valuable because we played by the rules put before us and the rules changed on us while we slept and had 40th Birthdays a few years too early.
You are not alone, Stacy.
I have watched as churches and agencies figure out ways to eliminate staff over 50 because of the rising cost of health insurance. So now, our health insurance companies are deciding whether or not they will pay for our surgeries AND they are determining whether or not we even have jobs.
This seems reasonable to me. It’s looking at not just the financial realities of the Annual Conference but also the financial and other realities for the candidates. It is very risky to change a career over the age of 45. By the time they get all the way through they will be pushing 50. Then they will sit at the conference minimum (in many conferences for those 2 years of “provisional” status). Then there is no guarantee they will even get ordained. So you have a $60-80,000 degree that is worthless in the business world. They have given up their career and at that age it will be hard to get back into the business world for all the “work capital” they will have lost while pursuing this other career. And then there’s the debt. Unless, they have the ability to pay for seminary, they will accumulate a load of debt with a low-paying job without lots of years to pay off otf that debt IF they make it through. And then let’s be real about their iteneracy. Will their spouse, who may have been in one career for 20 plus years, be willing and able to move with them into the hinterlands of the Annual Conference during those “provisional” years? That will be a financial and marital reality to deal with.
I for one appreciate that the Texas AC is being realistic about the process. We should ALL– young and old– stop being so naive about the process and the sacrifices. Young clergy should also stop being so naive about the system and process. It’s time to stop being polyanne-ish and start looking at the cold-hard realities. Thank you, Texas! I hope my AC and others will follow suit.
Chris, while your points about the challenges of older adults entering ordained ministry are valid, it should be up to each individual person to explore the risks and the benefits and make their own choice in answering God’s call on their life and not something mandated by the annual conference.
Fine point, Brad. I will add that some clergy understand God’s call and their ability to follow it as sometimes distinct from what the conference calls them to do. (I suspect this is part of the supposed young clergy burnout, but that’s another page!)
Chris, it isn’t “just” candidates but ALSO those who have been ordained Elders for years. No one should be prohibited God’s calling to ordained ministry based on age (and I have plenty more barriers that I would also like to see dropped).
I’m with Ann – insurance is deciding what is covered & that is also affecting who gets/keeps a job. In the secular world and in our churches.
Dig deeper.
Texas Conference does other funny things:
1. They recruit seminaries and other conferences for young motivated clergy. They can offer higher starting salaries, bigger appointments, nicer locations, and better benefits than poorer rural conferences.
2. They actively early retire clergy already serving in the conference who are deemed ineffective freeing up appointments for people rising up.
Is it wrong? maybe. But TAC has definitely created a corporate culture where church growth is key.
“Corporate culture where church growth is key ” ……there is something really wrong about that picture.
Amen to that Kitty.
digging deeper one will find that only those in the “inner circle” will find good moves if you are over 50. It is blatant and all in the name of missional appointments which is code for whatever they want to do.
The crux of the problem, to me, is that the UMC is scrambling to find a foothold. Age, weight, gender, ANYTHING they can think of, to save the church, they toss out as a safety rope. Obviously they are NOT thinking. The UMC needs ALL – senior, younger, heavy, thin, female, male, transgender. It seems to me that unless and until the UMC wakes to the ways of cultural complexities and attempts to meet the needs of the people where they are, it will continue to shrivel and eventually pass into oblivion in its current existence. Since it has put all of its “eggs in one basket,” as it has done for years, one should not expect less. The UMC has bought into a corporate model – following how Big Business works to stay alive at the expense of the workers, and a model of “nothing outside the Discipline,” almost to the exclusion of the teachings of Jesus. I pray that it may wake from its hibernation in time for whatever it takes for the survival of those who want to see a new day and a new way to practice hope and promise to all of Creator’s children, with the love of Jesus at the helm, lead by the rainbow tapestry of folks who make up the cross-section of humanity.
As a female I was told “You should marry a minister” when I told someone about my call by God as a teenager. I waited until I retired as a public school teacher, and my children were in high school, and then went to seminary. My soul is finally at rest because I have answered God’s call on my life. How sad it would have been if I had been told, “We no longer think you are the wrong gender, but now we think you are too old to serve God in the way God called you to serve.”
Amazing how the same sentiment gets expressed in different ways…
(Hello Yvonne!)
I am age 67. I heard my call at age 64. I am appointed as a half time Local Pastor in the Desert Southwest Conference. As I pursued my call, I was frequently encouraged to consider ordination. The truth is that with the cost and the time involved, I would expect to be ordained about 2 years prior to the mandatory retirement age here of age 72. This did not seem sensible to me considering the cost and pull on my energy levels. I made the choice of being a Local Pastor because of energy levels needed for going to school AND for serving a congregation. And I was able to start almost immediately. However, I do hear concerns voiced about how we are now attracting so many “aging” people into both ordination and other forms of service. I realize that for the long term, we need young people going into ministry also. We need the longevity promised by younger persons being ordained. But when the fish to be caught are so numerous, and churches are so hard to start, and the workers are so few,(mixing a few parables there) how can we put any restriction on whom God calls. We who serve as shepherds need to be kind to each other and not draw lines of aging or any other kind between ourselves. We all need each other’s support and encouragement.
Hi Jeremy, thanks for calling attention to this. I think you are right. Ageism is a growing problem in the UMC. It’s certainly important to reach out to potential clergy who are young, but this should not mean we invalidate the call and experience of older candidates and clergy. The pastor that mentored me and who has discipled me was in his 60s when we met and he continues to share his wisdom as a guide to my life and ministry now 20 years later. He’s been in active pastoral ministry for nearly 60 years now (I think) and has a great deal of wisdom gained through experience. Rather than discouraging the call of God on a middle-aged person’s life, we should be celebrating it. Again, thanks for pointing to this.
You are not speaking to the issue at hand. Yes, a person in ministry at age 60 who has been practicing for decades is one thing — we aren’t talking about firing them. We are talking about an age restriction for BEGINNING a career in ministry. Quite a different thing.
Matt, thanks for your comment and reflections. I share the same appreciation of elder clergypersons. I too think that young adult outreach need not invalidate middle-aged and senior adults’ calls.
Sorry, I agree with the Texas conference.
This does not mean that people over age 45 can’t serve the church — we have lay preacher programs, lay pastor programs, and some of our churches are glad to pay for lay leadership. But the fact is, it is expensive to educate clergy, and expensive to pay benefits.
People, we have limited resources, growing more limited by the day. We have to make drastic cuts — so if this isn’t a good idea, where would you like those savings to come? Shall we cut the medical and pension benefits of retirees? Shall we charge more for a seminary education? Shall we close all churches of under 100 members tomorrow? Shall we quit using money for mission? You pick.
And quite frankly, I’m tired of hearing “call” as if it is something you have as an individual, and the church then has to pay for. The church has a role in discerning call, and in figuring out how to use its resources. It seems childish to me to just assume that resources will be there for everything every one of us wants to do.
I’ve also had enough valorizing of second career clergy. Sure, some bring great skills. But some are forever far behind those who have been practicing ministry, and building libraries, and accumulating wisdom for a couple of decades or more before second career people even begin to think of professional ministry. It may sometimes be the right thing, but it isn’t ALWAYS the right thing. And the other avenues into church leadership should suffice. I’d add — I might have tried to raise the age to 50, but somewhere in there, the church has a point.
Money is not the issue! Have you seen our Conference Offices? Do you know how much our District Superintendents, and Conference Staff make? Do you have any idea how much The Methodist Hospital System, which we own, is worth? Money is not the problem!
Those are part and parcel of a connectional system. If you don’t like it, there are other systems and denominations. But ours is connectional, which means we like what we like and take what we don’t (within reason).
Tracy,
You’re assuming that second-career people have never experienced or participated in ministry before, but that’s usually not the case. I’ve never met a second-career pastor who hadn’t already had several years of lay ministry under their belt before discerning their call to ordination. The gifts, abilities, and the wisdom one needs to care for the parish can also be acquired through life experiences outside the church. Unfortunately, this seems to be more about the money, and those already in place making sure they protect their share.
Howard,
I don’t think Tracy was assuming that as a given for all second-career pastors. But it is certainly true of some. You say you have “never met a second-career pastor who hadn’t already had several years of lay ministry under their belt before discerning their call to ordination.” I have. Both cases exist. But that isn’t the point Tracy was making.
There was a period not too long ago in the Texas Annual Conference when second-career pastors seemed to be “valorized” (as Tracy says) as a group, to the detriment of career pastors of the same age. It was understandable. It was a new and exciting phenomenon, and many of them brought new gifts and experiences to ministry, enriching the “gene pool” of our collective giftedness. Some were finally at a place in their lives where they could answer a long-ignored call to ministry, but others had burned out in their first careers and were seeking a respite in what they assumed would be an easier way to make a living. But equally gifted middle-aged career conference members often saw themselves being passed over for well-deserved opportunities in order to fast-track newly minted pastors fresh from the business world.
Hopefully someday we will be able to see each other as individual with our own unique strengths and weaknesses, rather than as members of a group. Second-career pastors are no more all the same than first-career pastors are, just as pastors under 35 (upon whom we have hung the unfortunate label of “spotted owls,” though they are certainly off the endangered species list in Texas!) are no more all the same than pastors over 50 are. Clergywomen aren’t all the same. Black or Hispanic or Asian clergypersons aren’t all the same. White male pastors approaching 60 aren’t all the same. Until our leadership can embody this truth, rather than relying on exclusionary policies (written or unwritten), our local churches will certainly never begin to embrace it.
Keith,
Your point is well taken. I think a person’s fitness for ministry should be evaluated on their own merits, regardless of age, gender, race, or any other discriminating demographic. I was only speaking from my personal experience as a second-career pastor, and from the stories I have heard from my peers in licensing school and seminary. I personally have never felt “valorized” by anyone (especially my Conference) for my decision to enter ministry later in life, nor do I wish to be. I was/am just trying to respond as faithfully as possible to God’s persistent nudging toward ministry. In my own experience, this call was discerned only through a long process of increasing participation in the ministries of my church. It’s hard for me to imagine that one could discern a calling to ministry “out of the blue” so to speak, but perhaps it happens.
The fact that we declare a theology of scarcity (only so many resources to go around!) shows the basis of our problem. I remember a story much like this – only 5 loaves and 2 fish. Seems God can do more than we can imagine. Jesus lived into the abundant truth of God’s provision. We are not living out of the Spirit that lives in Jesus when we look at the scarcity of our resources and make plans accordingly. Yes, one option is to send the people home to feed themselves. Yes, one option is to move the older clergy out of the system.
And let me say, I don’t need a “big” appointment. I just don’t like being dismissed. I don’t like where our theology of ecclesia, ordination, and provision of God is heading.
The elephant in the room is the notion that “ordained” ministry is the only valid expression of a persons call to ministry. There is no question that our hierchy has reached out to the “consulting” world to address the real issues facing the infrastructure (I.e. pensions, health insurance, competetive salaries etc). This is all driven by institutional survivalists, who rather than think creatively about downsizing the top heavy institution are looking for secular/business solutions to an ecclesial model. The only way that this wide body that has become the UMC is going to survive for our children’s children is if we make bold and honest moves. We need to start over. The single biggest drain on the resources and effectiveness of the UMC resides at the administrative levels of GC agencies and Conference agencies whose first concern is how to keep their offices open. When statistics are collected and effectiveness is put on the table by consultants whose bottom line is to find solutions out of a buisness models productivity logic then ageism, health, race all become statistical measures against productivity. So it doesn’t surprise me this the direction that we are going but it holds no promise of swinging the current tide of decline in membership across the wideness of our connection. I do think that local pastor routes are and will continue to be more viable solutions for second or third career people and it will save them a lot of the headache of jumping through institutional hoops and a faster track to pursuing God’s call in their lives for ministry.
John wrote above, “The elephant in the room is the notion that “ordained” ministry is the only valid expression of a persons call to ministry.”
But what about when that IS the call? As a second career pastor, my call came to me later in life than some, but came no less strongly. And, even though I AM older than 45, my ministry is effective and my Church is growing. What corporate arrogance to decide that those over 45 should be categorically dismissed, whether for ordination, or from active service, simply because the corporate image is looking solely for young, bright-eyed, clergy. Does anyone in Texsas know what the average age of their CONGREGANTS happens to be? Under 45? I don’t think so.
Question from the bible: (wait, that’s older than 45, also. Maybe the Bible is also no longer relevant). How old was Moses when God called him to active service? How old were Abram and Sarai? Zechariah and Elizabeth? Is it God who calls, or the Annual Conference?
Thank God I’m from Kansas where they look at what you bring to the table, rather than how young you are.
Enjoy your corporate enslavement, UM Texans. Moses was called at 40. By this rule, he’d not be ordained in time to lead you to freedom.
For this to work, several things are going to have to happen.
1. The gap in voice, authority, and influence between the ordained, licensed, and lay at the conference level is going to have to narrow. As long as ordained is still a pedestaled place to be, there will be a sense of the necessity of being ordained in order to lead and be valued.
2. The process of ordination is going to have to be completely rethought. As it is, it actively works against recruiting and retaining younger clergy.
3. The UMC as a whole is still struggling under a paradigm of pastoral leadership that is at least a generation old; the old standard of power over, rather than power with at the local church level is off putting to a generation that is maturing in an age of social networking and crowdsourcing.
I believe the Texas Conference may be shooting itself in the pastoral leadership foot with these policies, however penny wise they may appear to be at this time. I think its taking a stab at the symptoms, not the dis-ease that infests clergy leadership in the UMC.
Heather’s point #3 is what I see as a big issue facing the church. Part of the reason this is an issue is because of our understanding of “call” and ordination/ministry. I think we might need to really investigate how we approach laity/clergy and ministry.
Great points, Heather. Really.
What about fathers or mothers who choose to stay at home while their kids are growing up (or up to a certain age), and then want to continue pursuing their call to ministry? To me, this is absolutely amazing, they are saying – if God chooses to call you to ministry and you are above a certain age – we will not let you follow that call in our church.
Everyone keeps talking about the cost to the system of people beginning the process at age 45 or older. What are the hard stats on this? Does anyone from the TXAC have financial numbers on what it costs *the conference* (not the individual candidate) to put a candidate 45 or older through the process?
You know, I’m trying to encourage my congregation to put in place some sustainable energy systems. All they want to know is when the “payback” is going to come. I wonder if we’re asking the right question…is the payback all we’re looking for, or do we want to discern along with God? I think that putting things through the clergy mill (akin to puppy mills, imo) of stats and numbers just leads us further and further away from really understanding what it means to live in discernment together. As one who serves on a District Board, we are constantly aware of how much we need to discern and how difficult that is. BUT–more than anything, it is the skill that is lacking in most people and boards and organizations. We want to be objectively right, and the only way we feel we can do that is through stats and numbers. I”m not sure that I’m called to be objectively right. I’m REALLY sure I’m called to be faithful. Sometimes those two things look the same (I really am contemplating the question of whether or not it’s faithful to encourage someone 60+ to go into full-time ministry), but often enough the faithful thing is some new surprise that God has for us that we couldn’t have anticipated by going “through the numbers”.
If the UMC does not want people of my age seeking ordination, I’m fine with that. Well, not fine, but I’ll survive. But please just come out and say it, so I can figure out a different plan for my family and myself.
John-
That is the same perspective I bring. When I was up for ordination the question for me wasn’t whether I would be approved or not, it was would my conference recognize my call and understand me as part of their call to ministry or would God be calling me somewhere else or in some other capacity.
Sometimes I wonder if we get so caught up lifting the UMC micro-narrative up into the larger meta-narrative that we fail to see we are a part of the larger Kingdom that will exist beyond us individually and corporately.
If the UMC has ever accepted any federal funding or some type of federal contract, they would be bound by Federal law as to any kind of age discrimination, tread carefully UMC. What if this had been applied to our Old Testament leaders, no Noah, no Abraham, no Moses?…at least Jesus would have made the cut…
Courts have consistently ruled in the church’s favor when folks have tried to sue to say the mandatory retirement age is discriminatory. The courts of have ruled that the ministerial exception is very broad, and when it comes to clergy, churches can discriminate on the basis of things that most employers can’t.
The real question for me is what people and gifts for ministry the church needs. Does each local church need an ordained pastor? Do some churches need local pastors to do effective ministry? In a youth driven culture we tend to think that young adults will reach more young adults and that that will ensure the future of the church. But the truth is that the largest single segment of our population, the Baby Boomers, are by and large unchurched people (and they have the most financial resources of any segment). I’ve begun to think about how God might call us to reach out more to that group and what people and gifts for ministry would most effectively do that. May the 45 – 60 and older crowd are some of our most needed people! I would also note that Juliette Gordon Low was 52 when she started the Girls Scouts, a global organization that serves almost 3 million girls and adult volunteers. It might be worth taking a look at how many new things are started by people in the mid-years of life when you have accumulated some wisdom and experience and are beginning to move into that generative stage where you want to ensure the future for your children and grandchildren. We might find that the most fruitful years of life and ministry are often in that time. There are lots of considerations around entering into ordained ministry, including the expense both to the individual and the church, but we shouldn’t assume that all people over 45 should not be ordained. And we should also remember that Abraham was about 90 when God called him to leave home and start a new family. You just never know how God will surprise you!
I am an active UMC pastor. I would be interested in knowing who put this policy together. I would be more interested in doing a psychological profile of the each individual on the committe that developed this nonsense.
All the efforts our denomination puts into gay rights, guns, gay marriage, equal rights, discrimination, antiwar stances, and immigration, etc. Maybe we should stop a take a look at how we treat out pastors who have labored for years to minister to our flocks. I wonder if Jesus would sign on to a document like this one.
This kind of policy is embarrasing.
I have to really push back on some of these comments. “Paid your dues” I’m sorry the church exists for God’s Glory and God’s purpose. If you’re looking for a place where advancement is based on “paying your dues” you’ve probably chosen the wrong field. Bishop Ward in MS received the same kind of push back when her cabinet began matching appointments with the gifts of clergy and the needs of that appointment. The age in this case I think is way too low, but we also must acknowledge that people are going into ministry for the wrong reason. Not all who “feel called” to ministry are actually called to ministry. For some the retirement benefits etc make it easy to “accept the calling”. The church does not exist to provide you a job. If you are living into your calling and your ministry you will be fine. I think it’s a little reactionary and snarky to say “the umc doesn’t want to ordain people of my age”. The church is 10-20 years away from a massive shortage in pastors due to retirement. Ageism is a real and serious issue, but we simply can not devalue the role of young people because they haven’t paid their dues.
Agreed Shawn. It’s not as cut-and-dry as we might wish. We should also learn to do a better job of hearing someone express a “call to ministry” and helping them understand whether it’s a call to ordained ministry or simply a call to more fully live out their baptismal identity. The UMC has an annoying habit of telling anyone and everyone who feels called to a deeper level of faith that they simply must get ordained. Maybe sometimes we’d be better served with faithful and passionate people called to be laity and lead in their local church?
I wonder also what we lose in our seminary classrooms if all students are under 45. Truthfully, I wanted to go to a school with younger students “like me” but I did not know then how my education, experience, and relationships would be broadened and enriched by the older students in my classes and discipleship groups. A policy like this, regardless of the intent, doesn’t just affect who is in our pulpits, it impacts how those pastors are shaped.
Here is a brief word I wrote for UM-insight that gives my thoughts on some of what is happening:
http://um-insight.net/articles/thoughts-on-a-middle-aged-clergy-crisis/
other than that, I see two things at work:
One, the theology of ordination is changing. I don’t hear anyone speaking to this. When i went through as a second-career person (and still under 40 at the time), ordination was deemed a gift of the church for those who were understood to be called into ministry. Ordination is now being cast as a tool to manipulate the leadership of the church. Oh, it is couched in terms of trying to help unburden people in regard to the cost of education, blah, blah, blah. But, the reality is the second point I want to make. I would like someone to explain the theology of this idea – or do we no longer do that?
Point #2: it seems the leaders of the church want to de-gray the clergy and are working to do that. By not ordaining older candidates we do not have to appoint them and we can more easily make room for the younger persons. It is a sad adaptation of the corporate business model. I watched my 52 year-old father dismissed due to his age and the “better” (and cheaper) younger engineers coming up. I also see that middle-aged clergy like myself that have, supposedly, 20 years of ministry left – 20 YEARS! – must prove themselves much more than younger clergy if we want to be considered in the process. Mostly it feels like we are being asked to keep the machine running while they get the young people in to save the church. It feels dismissive. In some ways I feel used. Some I have talked to, and to be honest it is not a large sample size, who are middle-aged clergy, figure they won’t be considered for places of significant ministry in the future. They are resigned to their fate. As a result, many of them may not much care any more about helping to revive this declining church, and who could blame them. When that happens this will become a self-fulfilling prophecy – the older clergy are ineffective.
My thought is that as long as older clergy get their churches to pay apportionments and show significant growth they have a hope for being appointed to dynamic places, but the odds are not in their favor even then. The good news for us all is that there is no place they can appoint us where people don’t need Jesus.
The bad news in all of this is that the young persons coming in are being told they are the salvation of the church. They have innovative ideas and thoughts about how to save the church. The process is leading to much hubris and spiritual arrogance. But the real tragedy will be what happens when this “unstoppable force” of young clergy encounter the immovable force of some of the people and contributors in their pews. It may be at that point that they come looking for the wisdom of older pastors. Question is, will their be any to offer any help?
Mike, I hear your concern. I really do. But keep in mind it’s NOT a cakewalk for young pastors and not all of us are being told we’re the “salvation of the church.” I did not pass my ordination interviews this year and will have to return next year. If things worked according to the way you describe, it would have been a cakewalk for me because I’m a 30-year old pastor, serving as an Associate at one of our historic “big steeples,” with a proven record of effectiveness in ministry, not to mention I’ve published a few articles across the denomination. That’s not an attempt to brag or exercise “spiritual arrogance” — it’s simply a reminder that things are NOT being made easy for young clergy. I have another year to be reminded that failure is always a possibility even when you give what feels like your best effort.
Prayers for your year, Ben.
Ben,
I am sorry for any struggle you may have had this year. Knowing your ministry in various ways i have no doubt you are called to serve the Lord. Your passion and understanding are evident to me. I am not saying the process of entering ministry is any less rigorous. I believe the BoOM in our conference seeks to examine the theology and practices of the candidates and make decisions. However, if this policy is put in place, those boards will view candidates through a different lense. Ordination will be determined with age as a first eliminator. Those who are over 45 will have to prove themselves worthy of ordination. The bar will be set even higher for them. And the bigger issue for me is that this is just the fruit of a greater mindset. This policy is just affirming what is felt – that those who are over 45 are not relevant to the discussion. They are asked to keep the machine running. Their ministry is not being encouraged or invested in based on their gifts. Investment in ministry is first determined by age and then by giftedness. At least in our conference. To me, that means it is easier for a young clergy person to be developed and prepared for meaningful, transformative ministry. If I want to develop my ministry in similar ways it is up to me. If I do that, then it is also up to me to prove my ability to be transformative in the future. As it sits now, the investment given to the young clergy is seeking to help them be transformative. However, they are gaining appointments where they can be transformative without having shown themselves to be transformative leaders. Hence, it is easier for young clergy to engage in the work of revitalization and they are given more benefit of the doubt. It is not an indictment of the young clergy. It is simply to say that older clergy are being dismissed too easily and not afforded the room to help bring transformation to their churches in the same way younger clergy are.
In what ways are you offering help to those young clergy, Mike? Are you actively helping to counter the spiritual hubris in ways that channels their innovation and idealism instead of stunting it and having them sit at the kids table until they’ve wised up?
Valid question, Jeremy. Honestly, I am neither helping nor hindering. I pray that the church will thrive and that the ministry of those who are called will be fruitful and appreciated by the Body. I pray that for all of us. I am thankful for the young clergy and all the hope they bring to the church now and in the future. This policy and the issues are not about them being encouraged or validated. It is about the call of others being invalidated and the fact that ordination is becoming a tool to manipulate the system and not a theological work.
Based on your question, I will seek to find ways to encourage young clergy. However, since they are getting the investment in their ministry far more than I am, it may be me who needs their encouragement. Will they speak for me as well as for the young?
I am 55 years old. Graduating in May with MDiv. I have been a licensed pastor for the past 5 years.Had a very successful 30 year corporate career and thought I could contribute to the church I have been a part of my entire life. I am being commissioned in the Texas Annual Conference this year. Now I have many questions…Should I be worried? What was I thinking? Where do I go from here? Thank you Jeremy for saying something about the elephant in the room.
Greg, I don’t think you should be worried at all. I think you are a perfect example that for our BOM, we are about discernment and that these reactions are not in keeping with the spirit of the BOM.
Thanks Justin!
I am another who believes that we put too much stock sometimes into a claim of being “called.” Our Northeastern Jurisdictional Conference is an example. There were only three slots to fill for bishops. Yet, over twenty people came forward claiming that they had been “called.” I do not believe that God is that inefficient. The results proved that belief correct. The Asian caucus actually nominated FOUR candidates for three openings. Other conferences, including mine (Greater NJ) nominated two or more candidates. This is despite a history that no more than one candidate has been elected from a conference at any JC or more than one from any racial/ethnic group besides Anglo at any JC. We would have had more time to discern the gifts and graces if each nominating body was limited to one nominee. Choose your best.
For Texas, they proclaim that they are blessed with an abundance of clergy. As long as guaranteed appointment is part of the landscape, then conferences like that are going to be wise to limit how many people they ordain rather than the opposite extreme of ordaining anybody who survives the obstacle course.
I believe it’s time we genuinely take a look of the business model of the Annual Conference and the denomination as a whole. Indulge me for a second. Appointed Senior Pastor = attendees/membership = growth/decline = apportionments/benefits = support for AC/denomination. It’s that simple. Yes, people over 45 have gifts and graces for ministry. Yes, God calls people at any age. But the reality is that the business model doesn’t support new clergy in their mid-40’s. Why? It’s probably perceived that they’re too old to enter the itinerate ministry to be apart of the process. Finances are certainly a part of that reasoning. If you don’t like it, then let’s change the model. The UMC is declining, meaning there is not enough funds to support the organization. SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE. I work for a UMC church as the director of accounting, and I’m also clergy. The church is a business. There is not enough money coming in, and too much going out.
I agree with you, Evan, that the model for ministry needs adapting to the current realities. How that is done with faith in God placed first rather than assurance of money is beyond my abilities at the moment.
If all we are is a business model, then we deserve to fade away.
You know, there’s a “retired” pastor at the church I’m currently serving who had to have been ordained just a few years ago and he’s probably in his late 60’s. He serves my church AND his own smaller church. This man is a blessing to my own ministry with students and he works with senior adults. He has also been a blessing to me personally along my ministry journey. Men and women who are “second career” people coming into ministry should not be told they are incapable of following the call God has given them. We young clergy NEED them!
While I can gain some understanding about how some think this is a wise or necessary policy, there is absolutely no way to justify it. This is age discrimination. Period. Those called by God and equipped with the gifts and graces for ministry should be allowed to pursue ordination no matter their age. And the Texas Annual Conference continues to recruit young clergy from seminaries and other AC’s even though we don’t have appointments for the qualified clergy we already have. Another story of concern: there is a rumor of a private gathering of the clergy women in the conference, hosted by the bishop at the bishop’s residence. I’m told that the topic is how to balance career and family, and advance in the conference. But many clergy women won’t be in attendance. You have to be 40 or younger to be invited. What about those who are just past the dreaded 4-0, are also working to balance career and family, and have a possible 30 years left in ministry? They’re just left out. How do we justify this way of thinking? I’m honestly struggling with embarrassment and genuine concern. We are better than this.
Sadly, our ageism isn’t confined to the ordination process. This reaches beyond the scope of this particular blog topic, but ageism continues through retirement. We see gifted clergy in their 40’s getting priority over those in their 30’s, and gifted clergy in their 50’s getting priority over those in their 40’s, etc. You get the picture. And our structure doesn’t allow for cabinet members to see the gifts of the clergy. District Superintendents are stretched pretty thin making it difficult to really know the particular gifts of the clergy in their care. How can you make “mission field” appointments when you don’t really know your clergy? In the Texas Annual Conference we’re still measuring “effective” clergy by numbers – numbers of people in the pews, which has almost nothing to do with making disciples of Jesus Christ or transforming the world. It seems that young clergy are preferred over all older age groups and in spite of the experience and particular gifts that a middle age or older clergy person might have to offer a particular congregation.
IMO, all of this is rooted in the misguided notion that young clergy are the secret ingredient to attracting young families and putting a stop to our denominational decline. Church growth for the sake of church growth is shameful. Again, we are better than this.
I’m mainly commenting on this thread to REALLY disappointed to show that I didn’t write it… several friends said to me last night “I saw your comment”… I was actively struggling with balancing home and work life yesterday with a sick preschooler and had no time to comment on the blog. I share some of the same concerns as REALLY disappointed but also have a few different views.
The meeting wasn’t “secret” – it was private, by invitation only and to recieve an invitation, you had to have a Birthday after 1973 (40 and under). I understand the value of gathering people of certain demographics together to discuss common concerns, but I don’t understand why our Annual Conference can’t also provide similar gatherings for other demographics. The only regular offering for persons of my age demographic are retirement seminars, which I find ironic.
Here is what saddens me:
When I was ordained at 25 years of age in 1994, I was told “pay your dues, your turn will come and great appointments will be yours”! At that time, second career pastors were valued more than young clergy in a first career, second career pastors were seen as “wise” and brought more to the table from their previous work and life experience as well as Lay Church Leadership experiences. (I actually worked with a Senior Pastor who was ordained a year before me but is 20 years older than me… Church members would regularly quote things this pastor said and say “and (insert name) has been doing this for so long that they KNOW”). No one talked about fruitfulness, no one offered classes or groups to hold me accoutable OR to encourage my ministry. Individuals and some DS’s gave case by case advice but there was not a culture in our AC of “mentoring” young pastors at the time. I wasn’t clueless – I knew how to preach and I could follow the Discipline for guidelines on Church structure, but I didn’t have a true mentor or faith friend to hold me accountable or challenge me to grow professionally. I followed the stated rules of the system and waited and waited, then the rules changed and my rule following became obsolete. If you are shocked that I am a rule follower then you don’t know who I really am… I am outspoken and find creative ways for ministry but I follow rules! There are new rules now and they confuse me – I don’t seem to have the “proven success record” that my older colleagues have and I am too old to be considered “vital” yet God still calls me to this ministry in this denomiation in this Annual Conference.
I see the problem as more than a church problem. It’s a generational issue – the boomers invaded society and changed the rules. Things had to change to “manage” so many of them – schools opened and new opportunities were present. Boomers all but pushed out those before them and made new rules and living standards. The same thing happened in our Churches… and then, they stayed and stayed and stayed. The problem is that the Boomer generation did not mentor my generation – they did share power and did not set us up for success (I know that this is a large generatlization but it’s by and large, true). This is evidenced by several things – 1. many of the people who served on District and Conference committees when I went through the ordination process – ARE STILL THERE in all kinds of leadership roles. People of my generation haven’t “gotten a turn” to lead in significant ways because we were following the rules and waiting. 2. the understanding and view points of age – most recently “60 is the new 40” (boomers turned 60 this year… 20 years ago when all the boomers hit 40, the saying was “40 is the new 20”). 40 used to considered OLD, Archie Bunker was in his 40s when the show All In The Family began in the 1970’s.
I believe that the Boomers are beginning to do a career review and want to leave the church in a better situation, so, they are trying to find young people to mentor and raise up into leadership roles so that they can retire knowing that they left it in good hands. Hurray! Alleluia – I’m thankful for that insight but it disregards talented people who have years left to serve AND some experience in church settings. I agree that some seem to believe that a young pastor is the magic ingredient to bringing in young people, but the fact that the most absent age group in the church are BOOMERS that logic doesn’t flow. When Boomer aged pastors were young pastors, they didn’t attrack or keep their own demographic! Boomer aged pastors didn’t engage and keep MY generation in the Church, so why are we following the leadership and advice of persons who are responsible for church decline? I’ve said enough and it is off topic for the blog post but ageism has been around in our AC for some time – first it was because people weren’t old enough and now it is because they aren’t young enough and I am a little bitter because my generation falls inbetween the cracks.
So glad to see the call to disciple making lifted up. Calling members to disciples.hip is difficult at any age, and very difficult to quanitfy and evaluate
Frankly, the notion that a youngster who discerned a call, went straight from college to seminary, straight to ordination, and straight to serving a church, is always the best-suited for tackling the issues facing the church, is misguided at best, and otherwise wrong at least 50% of the time. I know effective and ineffective pastors from both that mold and the “2nd career” mold. God knows that experiences beyond pastoral ministry mold many more effectively for challenging issues. God also uses those called/responding earlier. If the younger are ineffective, you will have them longer; older ones will cycle out sooner. Maybe you do get more bang for your buck with younger clergy most of the time, but not always. Corporate Conferences notwithstanding, God does not make age a qualifier – as the Biblical witness makes clear.
I don’t see why this surprises people, we’re in a church that is racist and sexist and homophobic, adding age to its list of discrimination is just a given.
The Texas AC lost its way when the current Bishop took charge, and became a company. Much like the Publishing House’s decision to abandon the church and close all their stores, we’ve become so worried about the bottom line that we miss the point. It’s MINISTRY, not money. Start at the top and fire all of them, from the general boards and agencies to Conference staff. Eliminate the Bishops and assign Superintendents to larger areas (most of our Wesleyan brethren already do this). Stop ripping off local churches with apportionments that pay for useless, anti-Christian agencies. We’ll stop running short of money, and suddenly age won’t matter.
That’s the point Chuck, ministry costs money! Staff to oversee ministry, salaries, facility costs, benefits, etc. The notion that money is somehow opposite of ministry is baffling to me. You’re right though, the model of how the UMC is run has to change!
The Texas Conference was corporate in nature before Bishop Huie came. That’s ridiculous to suggest it wasn’t there before. And given its size, a corporate analogy is appropriate. It’s not a family or a congregation. It’s a large body (corporate means body!) of Christians that requires a large institutional presence to function. The good old boy system is largely dispensed with, which I am a fan of. It has its problems—but let the conference without sin cast the first stone there, eh?
?
Good old boy system gone? That’s a bit naive. The good old boy system in TAC has not gone away in the slightest. The identity of who the good old boys are has simply changed. Same stuff, different day.
So, I’ve read the article and all the comments, and many good points were made by both sides of the issue. There are a couple of things missing from the conversation, however, I believe. First, the wording those over 45 ” should be encouraged” to pursue alternate forms of church leadership. It’s not a ban, or a restriction, but a conversation. I read this as this being a requirement for the *DCoM* to have a discussion with those who will have only 12-15 years in ministry after ordination is complete. That conversation will make sure that they are not entering into the process unadvisedly. Quite honestly, if the Church doesn’t have an honest conversation with this age group about “what is best for you, your family, and the Church” in regard to how you answer your call, then we are doing them all a disservice.
The Book of Discipline says that all candidates for ordained ministry shall be “encouraged” to attend a United Methodist related seminary. Very similar language. It doesn’t ban the 100 or so other seminaries as valid options, and I honestly don’t believe there is a widespread conspiracy to discriminate against non-UM seminaries (although we all can probably identify individual exceptions that broad statement!).
Second, please realize that this document is a document “in process” that will be reviewed and commented on by everyone who reads it. In fact, this wasn’t written in the dark and suddenly rammed through Annual Conference. It invites opinion, which tells me that there is a genuine effort to address concerns that this document surfaces. First-draft documents frequently don’t address everything needed, don’t phrase intent clearly, and don’t explain history or context as well as a final document might. If you look at the document itself, it’s a CHART for goodness sake. It’s very form should tell you that it made to summarize rather than explain intent, context, etc. Would you want people drawing conclusions about your theology based upon a one-page summary of one of your sermons? Please offer a little grace here.
So, I guess I’m cautioning against jumping to conclusions, pointing fingers, etc. I really don’t believe that the intent of this document is to invalidate anyone’s call from God, but to help discern what that call might be (which is the Biblical responsibility of the Church).
Personally, I’m not comfortable with what and how this document communicates, and I’m confident that’s the case for many other laity and clergy. In the coming months, I’m sure we will hear explanations regarding the intent of this document, and then we can work on the clarity of its communication. May God bless the rest of this discussion to keep it a holy conference.
According to voices in the Texas Annual Conference, this is not a first-draft anything but seventh-draft. This isn’t preliminary thinking, but well thought-out thinking. And while it is still provisional and “proposed,” this is a very real document. And given that it was placed on the public arena, it merits discussion of its merits.
Thanks everyone for your responses, and thanks Jeremy for writing about this. The whole point of the Texas Conference’s BOM in releasing this for comment and discussion before Annual Cnference meets was to engage a wider conversation…it appears that worked! I’ve written more about the specific concerns leveled in Jeremy’s post over at my blog http://expatminister.org/2013/04/24/a-modest-proposal-the-minimum-standards-in-the-texas-conference/ Feel free to leave a comment there too; your voice will be heard.
Josh, thanks for this outline and background, as well as pointing out the points where we should be in agreement given my public statements. I appreciate it.
The best way I can frame this document is “due diligence forced unequally. ” By that I mean that it reminds candidates of the myriad of issues surrounding second-career clergy and forces them to show they have done their due diligence.
But I believe it is unequal because a young adult would be asked about the financial costs of seminary, but they aren’t forced to show the due diligence because it is assumed they have 20 years to pay off the loans. Nevermind that a 47yo who completes seminary at 50 would still be employed by the UMC at age 70 and could do the same thing. The other issues as well become “due diligence” for a middle-aged adult whereas they become “something to think about” for young adults. Which is defined as….well, ageism. Not in intent but in effect.
I would also like to push back about the word “should be encouraged” because it holds the claim that the preferred role of middle-aged adults is not to enter the ordination process. While we can point to other places in the Discipline where “encouraged” is used, in this document it says “preferred” to me…how supportive is it to have a system already set out against you?
I wrote about my many colleagues who entered ministry later in life, with full awareness of the length of the process. How can you be sure this type of document wouldn’t be used to dissuade them, even though they’ve done the due diligence? The role of the BOM is to provide guidance to the guiders, not give them ammunition to shoot down an otherwise well-prepared candidate.
That’s my fear.
Everyone should read Josh Hale’s excellent response to this issue that Jeremy has brought up. It’s clear, concise, and offers some tangible reasoning and explanation behind what’s going on. http://expatminister.org/2013/04/24/a-modest-proposal-the-minimum-standards-in-the-texas-conference/
Jeremy, thank you for posting this. The wide attention your blog post has received indicates that this is a subject that must be openly addressed. I am one of those second-career pastors, and ordained at the age of 58. I am also aware that second career pastors, and especially second career female pastors, are primarily appointed to dying churches, the ones needing hospice care. The church I serve was one of those. We are now a thriving, alive congregation with a lot of children, a group of growing leaders in their 30’s and 40’s and a very solid core of baby boomers whose faithfulness keep us going financially. We have a strong sense of mission, particularly with the children and youth in our community. My age and experience have been a major factor here. I have been thoroughly beat up by life, have learned to respond in Christian grace to adverse circumstances, and bring both deep spiritual health and years of scholarship to this church. I also strongly suspect I shall be “put out to pasture” soon so this now vital church can be handed over to a young (male) clergy person as a reward and a launching point of a powerful and remunerative career. I don’t mind that so much as I mind the importance of spiritual depth and maturity remaining unacknowledged. Frankly, it is unimportant in light of the bigger picture: “let’s save The UMC at all costs.” As in, at the cost of our corporate souls.
I pray that we in the United Methodist Church will espouse more meaningful and Biblical approaches to the aging of our membership than to second-guess God’s calling based on age. Younger pastors will not address the aging of our body. Relevant ministry will. It is time for Christians of the United Methodist flavor to undertake the Great Commission with fervor and relevance. When we stop concerning ourselves with the salvation of United Methodism and return to concerning ourselves with the salvation of the world through Jesus Christ we will have no further need for the sort tail-wagging-the-dog logic that goes into discounting a 46-year-old’s call to ordained ministry. That said, we must regain the biblical call of the priesthood of all believers and thus empower all believers rather than highlight the clergy as the “doers” of ministry. If we were properly empowering the laity, then perhaps older adults would be more able to develop and live out the call on their lives without necessarily seeking ordination. I personally find ordained ministry to be in some ways a hindrance to the sort of daily person-to-person ministry we are each called to as followers of Christ. The church unfortunately wrongly tends to paint ministry as a profession rather than a responsibility of all. This has lead to an unengaged laity who looks to the clergy to perform ministry – a very unbiblical and ultimately destructive trend. I also am of the opinion that much of the education we require of our “professional clergy” is not in keeping with a system that would recognize and empower God’s called to fulfill their calling.
Well said and very much on point. Our considerable devotion to institutional preservation has blinded us to far more than we can yet imagine. Thank you for you insight and devotion.
As someone who is getting ordained this year, and is 28, I see this as a major issue. Almost the entirety of my ordination class is over this age. Throughout our time together in a residency program we have all learned from each other greatly and look forward to being in ministry together. To say that somehow these fellow ordinands shouldn’t live out a calling in this type of ministry seems crazy to me. There are so many diverse gifts to be brought to the church through diverse leaders, both clergy and laity. I think to say that someone how can only offer “X” amount of years to full time ordained ministry is limiting how God may be speaking to the church today. Is not ordination a lifetime thing, and ministry is more than administration over a local church? It would seem to me that we’ve accepted the view that ordination needs to be about a career, and not about gifts or calling. I seem to remember God calling many people throughout the Bible that seemed to be “too old” for that role.
Mr. Smith…Thank you for bringing this to my attention. As a member of this conference, I am aware of the great task put before the BOM to develop minimum requirements. From reading the pdf and looking at other journal documents, it is my understanding that the Texas Annual Conference has not adopted this policy. This is an option that has been developed and will be discussed during the BOM fall meeting. They are asking the laity and clergy to read and pray over it and provide feedback to a BOM representative. I will be meeting with one of our reps to ask questions and offer feedback.
I, also, have a difficult time believing that this policy as it stands, and as I understand it, should pass. Consider our liturgy for baptism, we ask those that receive baptism to affirm the belief that “Christ has opened [the church] to people of all ages, nations, and races.” Ageism is appalling and should be confronted.
As tense as conferences can be, I and others clergy and laity, of all ages, hopefully and Lord willing, will have some good ‘holy conversations’ and work with our BOM to develop minimum standards that the Annual Conference can accept.
Forgive me, I haven’t read all the comments, but I just want to throw this out there…
if you are under 35 you are a “young pastor” not to be taken too seriously it seems. And now if you are 45 you should be “too old” to be considered a ministry candidate? So, I can look forward to 10 years of actually being an adult? I’ve finally broken out of the “young adult” context at age 37 — though, because I look young and have no spouse or children, I’m still often seen as “young” … I’m praying to finally someday be considered “middle aged” and therefore acceptable…Age and how it is viewed within the church is a very real issue. Peace to you. Prayers for all who discern a call to ministry. As God called me into ministry… I’m rather hopeful I’ll be called out of it someday too.
A point of clarification about my wording of “first draft.” I meant “first public draft.” Obviously this wasn’t copied off of someone’s napkin and published. It was polished by a relatively small group of people (when compared to the entire conference), which means it has a limited perspective. Jeremy, I personally would not vote for this document as it is written, either. My point with the “encourage” thread of thought is that the interpretation of the document is not necessarily the intent of the document. I’m just giving the benefit of the doubt here, and figure that we’ll find out soon. I just find it inconceivable that certification for ordination would be denied based solely on age. After 20 years of ministry, am I really still so naive? I hope not. Thanks, Jeremy for your post. I do enjoy the conversation, and I guarantee people are reading and paying attention to the comments.
Here is a blog post that discusses some of the themes lifted up in this conversation. If so moved, please leave a comment there:
http://rethinkbishop.com/ordination-age-and-texas-methodism/
What…the…eff? Apologies if this point has been made already (I don’t have time for 60+ comments; I’m too old) – I love all of the points that UMJeremy makes, but one thing he leaves out of the critique is the educational requirement. It is not a great idea to have someone 45+ pursue an MDiv that will likely cost them a kazillion dollars (who here can relate?) that late in life. So the implication is, “Forget the educational requirement, just go be in ministry!” but without any support to make such ministers a vital component of the church. They should adjust the education requirement to say, “but if you’re over such-and-such an age, you will serve under the structured supervision of x/y/z ordained people for a period of x years; then take comprehensive exams (or whatever type of final requirements) and you’ll have an equivalency ministry certification.” Which would come with it’s own set of problems, but would also provide a viable option to develop leadership and save our elders from 30 years worth of crushing educational debt they’ll likely never repay.
As one of those 20 or 30-somethings “taking” the appointments many of you have mentioned, it isn’t any easier for us than it is for you. I have been “fast-tracked” in my conference. I’m 26. I served a student appointment for 2 and a half years (mid-year appointment) in a rural setting where we grew from 12 to 75 people per week (and 0 to 15 kids/youth). Then I was moved to a suburban setting last year, upon my commissioning. I was told by our previous bishop that I would be here 5-7 years. The smaller congregation in a cooperative parish doubled in worship attendance in 2 months. The larger church is baptizing 15 people on Sunday. Between the 2, by the time I leave at the end of June, we will have received AT LEAST 18 people in profession of faith (plus transfers, baptisms, etc.). All of a sudden, with a new bishop, new rules came into play. 8 months into this appointment, which I had requested to stay in, and the church requested to keep me, I am being reappointed to a small urban congregation with a 39% salary increase. I didn’t ask for this. I was told that I had “unique skills and abilities” that could fill the needs at this church. Apparently, I was the only pastor in the conference with the desired skill set…and yes, age was a factor. The church is in a community that is rapidly transitioning from an older group of folks to 20/30 young professionals. I didn’t want this position. I was satisfied where I was. And yet, I’m being fast-tracked through. I am frequently called the “golden child” or the “favorite” by peers. All I do is mind my own business and work to engage my congregation and community. God provides the fruit. And that is noticed. Bear fruit where you are. None of us came into this profession to get rich. And I would be the first advocate for a system like the British Methodists who all have equal pay. Truth be told, I prefer small churches…I like the family nature (I grew up in a church with 1500 per week in worship). A mentor of mine told me 5+ years ago, “NAME, there is going to be a dearth of qualified clergy in a few years. You have gifts and skills that will be needed. You will be thrust into situations long before you are ready for them…at the 5 or 10 year mark when in days gone by you would have seen these situations at the 20+ year mark. But there will be no one else to fill these positions. Know what you are getting into.” And he was right. It’s not about paying dues. It’s about being faithful to our calling…whether that is rural, suburban, or urban. Whether it is in a congregation of 4, 40, 400, or 4,000. Stop worrying about the numbers. Focus on the relationships, and the numbers will come. And stop ranting about me and people like me. We don’t all ask for these positions and are just as surprised and shocked as you are when they are announced.
This has been an interesting read. As an outsider, I’m an ELCA pastor, some of what’s been touched on here is viable in other denominations too. While your ministry track is different than ours and other denoms, some of what you’re facing, whether in Texas or elsewhere, is also being faced here. I have classmates (I graduated in 2000) from seminary who discerned a call to ministry when young, but didn’t “listen” to God’s call or put it on the backshelf, or however you want to put it, until they were in their 40s, 50s, or 60s.
Yes, there’s a place for 20s-30s, yes, there’s a place for 40s, 50s, 60s+. But also realize that as with most places, often it’s who you know rather than what you know. I know of many people who have the gifts and passion for ministry and for “moving up” or staying put or whatever, but the larger church is part of our call too. I discerned a call for a specific place and position, and yet it came down to politics. And sadly, politics play a big part in where we are called to serve (by the larger church), this is true not just in the UMC or ELCA, but also in the RC, UCC, RCA and PCUSA etc.
Perhaps the conversation needs to be how do we work together to ensure that the needs of the church are being met? And that God’s mission and ministry is being carried out, no matter where we find ourselves.
Just a few random thoughts from a sister in Christ.
Wow. The timing of all this has floored me. I will be 45 next Tuesday, and am currently an exploring candidate for ordained ministry as a Deacon. I am working on my MSW and hope to graduate next May. I had my children “later” in life – my kids are currently ages 8 and 5. Lastly, I grew up in Texas, though live elsewhere now. The synthesis of all of these realities as they relate to how I have personally heard God’s call, have had a very profound effect on me. Every experience I have had in my life has lead me up to this very moment. And yet my only question to such a proposal is: Who is the UMC to tell me whether I can serve, when it is God’s call (via the unique experiences He has brought me through) I am seeking to obey?
Are they really advocating that the church should now look like “Logan’s Run?”