Unitarian Universalist Ordination – A Search for Meaning

By

Susan G. LaMar

Prepared for the Harper‟s Ferry Ministerial Study Group

November 12, 2007

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When

they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. Matthew 28:16-17

Susan LaMar is Minister of Channing Memorial Church, Unitarian Universalist, in Ellicott City, Maryland.

1

In the fall of 2006, in a panel discussion at Andover Newton Theological School between officials of the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ about our shared history, the Reverend John Buehrens made a passing comment that “[The dialog about sacraments and their relationship to certain social causes] might help Unitarian Universalists figure out the rather crazy thing we did in giving up baptism and keeping ordination.”

In 1991, the Commission on Appraisal, in its report on Our

Professional Ministry: Structure, Support, and Renewal, recommended as follows: “an educational process should be promoted whereby lay people, ministers, and seminarians can work toward a clearer understanding of the meaning of ordination. . . . Initially, at least, ministers and seminaries should take the lead in this effort.”

Part I: Definition and Introduction

Ordination. A setting apart, we are told by a dictionary definition and by

tradition. Donald McKim‟s Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms offers

the following: “The act of setting a person apart for ministerial office either for the

conferring of powers (sacramental view) or to recognize how God has acted in

the person‟s life (nonsacramental view).” But what does that definition mean?

What does it mean to be set apart? What is a ministerial office? What is a

sacrament, or a sacramental view? What, especially, does any of this mean in a

free church tradition that has drawn away from much of the theological language

and practice that shaped our ancestors? What does it mean in a tradition that

doubts as one of its central spiritual practices? What, indeed, is the “rather crazy

thing we did” in keeping this liturgical act, in a tradition that often resists liturgy?

Well, fool that I am, I volunteered to take this on, to help try to jump-start

the conversation called for sixteen years ago by the Commission on Appraisal

and that has surfaced here in our District recently. As is true with so much that is

2

spiritual and theological, the closer one looks the more difficult ordination is to

define. The closer one looks, the more it seems as though there is nothing there.

It defies definition, pushing us into the realm of theology and spirituality,

reflection and conversation. There is something there, I believe, fuzzy edges

though it may have. And it is ministers and seminaries that are at ease in the

fuzziness, so yes, this is where the conversation ought to begin.

In this paper, I put us (Unitarian Universalist ministers of the Harper‟s

Ferry Study Group) in conversation with two partners. One of those partners is

the World Council of Churches (WCC). In 1982, the WCC published Baptism,

Eucharist, and Ministry (hereinafter referred to as BEM), “the fruit of a 50-year

process of [ecumenical] study stretching back to . . . 1927.”1 This major

document, sometimes referred to as the “Lima text,” is a “convergence

document,” not binding on WCC members, but rather exploratory in nature. After

five decades of ecumenical discussion, it was published and sent to all churches

who are part of the WCC for common study and official response. The question

posed to them was not “do you agree or disagree?” but rather, “Do you recognize

your church in this text?” (The full questions posed can be found on p. x of the

preface). The responses then also became part of the document. They take up a

whole bookshelf in theological libraries. In a way it is an “open canon” of 20th

century Christian theology around the three subjects.

The Ministry section of BEM addresses the potential range of meanings

of “ordination” within Trinitarian Christianity. Although the language and

1 Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. Faith and Order Paper No. 111, World Council of Churches,

Geneva, 1982. Preface, p. viii.

3

Trinitarian assumptions are inconsistent with many present day Unitarian

Universalist churches, the content – the struggle with the meaning and purpose

of ordained and non-ordained ministry – ring familiar and true. Certainly the

willingness to spend time – decades and more – in discussion, ever seeking

convergence and mutual understandings rather than agreement, is a model with

which modern Unitarian Universalists should be familiar and comfortable. We are

not alone in our struggle to discern the meaning of ministry.

The second primary conversation partner in this paper is our own history –

our polity and practice. Although our membership tends to be first generation, the

Unitarian and Universalist traditions are not. We have a long, deep history; there

is plenty of tradition to be visited and resurrected to help us in our ongoing

reflections.

In addition to these primary partners, I pay some attention also to other

religious communities: Roman Catholicism and Judaism. These and other

traditions perhaps deserve more scrutiny as the conversation moves forward, but

a full review and analysis is beyond the scope of this paper.

I do not explore here the actual rite of ordination in the Unitarian

Universalist tradition. Scott Axford did an able job of this in his 1991 essay

“Christian Ordination in Our Tradition.”2 Instead, I delve into what is, or should be,

or might be, behind the rite – preparation, and what is in front of it, service. My

assumption is that if reduced to a two-dimensional picture (which it cannot be!),

2 Axford, W. Scott. “Christian Ordination in Our Tradition,” in The Unitarian Universalist Christian,

Volumes 51 and 52, 1996-1997.

4

ordination would look something like this:

What is important is that through ordination, something changes, both

within the ordinand and within the community. A new and different relationship is

acknowledged, recognized, and committed to. Anthropologically, it is a

celebration. It provides a sense of church – it is conducted within and among the

gathered community, often with a liturgy different from the congregation‟s normal

Sunday morning worship service. It is a privileged moment of life for both the

ordinand and the congregation – something special is occurring at the initiative of

the gathered community. It follows a tradition, is connected to the congregation‟s

understanding of “church,” both immediately and historically.3 Can it be seen,

tasted, smelled, touched, or heard? No, except to the extent that actions evoking

those senses are part of the liturgy. But the change itself is invisible, ineffable,

silent. The elements of the rite are outward signs of an inward or spiritual grace –

3 These elements of sacrament loosely follow an understanding offered by Edward J. Kilmartin,

S.J. relayed to me in a private conversation with the Reverend Joseph A. Bassett.

Ordination

Preparation Spiritual Growth Service

5

a sacrament. These are not words often uttered in Unitarian Universalist

churches, but they capture what happens in an ordination.

That description of ordination as sacramental reveals one of my biases. It

is closely related to another one: that Unitarian Universalism is deeply rooted in

Christianity, but that we have always been the doubters, following in the

footsteps of those early skeptics at the foot of the mountain. Our tradition is

outside the mainstream tradition. We go out teaching with all the rest (Matthew

never says they don‟t!), but our teachings are always outside the mainstream –

heretical, but not schismatic. Our traditions diverge, but have the same taproot.

Our tradition is a legitimate part of the Tradition.

As stated above, the liturgical act of ordination is a moment in time and

space that sets a person apart. But there is far more to it than that, as has come

down through many traditions within the Tradition.

BEM‟s Protestant orientation tells us that “the term ordained ministry

refers to persons who have received a charism and whom the church appoints

for service by ordination through the invocation of the Spirit and the laying on of

hands.”4 Charism is defined as “the gifts bestowed by the Holy Spirit on any

member of the body of Christ for the building up of the community and the

fulfilment of its calling.”5 BEM says “ordination denotes an action by God and the

community by which the ordained are strengthened by the Spirit for their task and

are upheld by the acknowledgement and prayers of the congregation.”6

4 BEM, p. 21.

5 BEM, p. 21

6 BEM, p. 30.

6

In Roman Catholicism, the sacrament itself is called Holy Orders, and

“Those among the faithful who have received Holy Orders are appointed to

nourish the Church with the word and grace of God in the name of Christ.”7

Notice something important. The language of BEM and of Vatican II never

severs the ordination from the church, from Christ as they understand him.

Ordination and community are deeply intertwined. In BEM there is both an

expansion and a limitation in the language – building up (expansion); of the

community (limitation.) Holy Orders are clear that that those ordained are

nourishing the church.

Compare this to the abstract definition offered by the Unitarian

Universalist Commission on Appraisal‟s 1992 Report, Our Professional

Ministry, which defined ordination as

“the act by which a person is vested by a religious body with special ministerial authority: a rite of passage, a setting apart, a placing under orders as a minister.”8

This abstract definition is missing the piece that is so clear in both the

Protestant and Catholic definitions: a “for us” clause. Furthermore, it reflects the

Unitarian Universalist ambivalence about God by not referencing any notion of

God or the Holy. The COM Report quotes Conrad Wright, who points out that the

ordained minister in a Unitarian Universalist Church isn‟t admitting people to the

sacraments, or offering instruction or particular truth claims of a higher authority.

“He or she is there to live, and learn, and grow with the congregation. By virtue of

7 Vatican Council II, Volume I. The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Austin Flannery,

O.P., General Editor, (Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Company, 1996.), p. 362. 8 Our Professional Ministry: Structure, Support and Renewal. A Report by the Commission on

Appraisal [Boston: UUA,1992], p. 35.

7

special training and experience, the minister‟s word and example carry weight

and earn the right to exercise leadership.”9 As with the Commission on

Appraisal‟s definition of ordination, this sidesteps the question of God or the Holy

at work within the minister and the congregation. The sentence quoted could

even be lifted verbatim and used to describe the role of a leader in any secular

organization.

There is some powerful religious language in our not-too-distant history,

however. In 1918, John Haynes Holmes described his understanding of his

ordination thus:

“As a minister of religion I have been „set apart,‟ as the traditional phrase has it, to the high purpose of propagating an idea, championing a cause, seeking the best and the highest that I know in terms of God and of his holy will.”10

In true Unitarian fashion, he appears to speak for himself alone. He is

vague about what idea, what cause, where his knowledge of God and of

God‟s holy will comes from, or how it has been formed, tested, and

affirmed. But he is clear that

“I entered the Unitarian ministry . . . from a desire to preach . . to eager throngs the great truths of the Unitarian Gospel. . . . I saw in the church not only a pulpit, but an altar. Indeed, the pulpit distinguished itself in my mind from a platform or a teacher‟s desk, by the fact that it was always associated with the presence, visible and invisible, of an altar for divine worship. . . I craved for my work on behalf of truth the atmosphere and environment of spiritual devotion.”11

9 Quoted in Our Professional Ministry, p. 36.

10 Holmes, John Haymes. A Statement: The Future of this Church. 1918

(www.gutenberg.org/files/17939/17939.txt) 11

Holmes‟ Statement, p. 4 of computer version.

8

In other words, there is something different about religious, spiritual leadership.

Although Reverend Holmes frames it as a personal desire or call, there is no

question that it has around, within, and through it the presence of God. Reverend

Holmes claims a role for the church . . . although he claims it as a space from

which to “champion a cause.”

In keeping with our tradition of freedom of the pulpit, certain authority is

shifted from “the church” – in our case the congregation -- to the minister. Yet

our tradition of freedom of the pew refuses to relinquish the role of the church –

setting up both an irony and an ambiguity that is at the heart of our theology and

our polity. This tension is Unitarian Universalism. This is, I will argue a bit later,

our Doctrine of Church, of which ordination is one significant part.

Since this is a paper on ordination, I will set up this tension in the following

manner: I will look first at who is ordained (pulpit side). I will then explore who

ordains (pew side). This will lead us directly into the tension, which I do not

dodge – I walk us right off the edge of a cliff into the tension: picture a ping-pong

ball being held up by a hair dryer. This “rather crazy thing we did” – keeping

ordination – is absolutely necessary to keep the tension in play and not turn off

the flow of air. I then suggest a strand of our Unitarian Christian tradition – a

possible Doctrine of Church – that might help us stay aloft in that tension. Finally,

I pose several questions that deserve further study, in conversation.

9

Part II: Who is Ordained?

Those are ordained who are called to this work, who undertake a period of

preparation and formation, and to whom the church offers the gift of ordination.

Call and Character

We begin with call. BEM says:

“People are called in differing ways to the ordained ministry. There is a personal awareness of a call from the Lord to dedicate oneself to the ordained ministry. This call may be discerned through personal prayer and reflection, as well as through suggestion, example, encouragement, guidance coming from family, friends, the congregation, teachers, and other church authorities . . .” (BEM, p. 31)

With the exception, perhaps, of the clause “from the Lord,” these three sentences

describe a Unitarian Universalist call as well as any other. Scott Axford‟s

language might be a bit more comfortable for some of us:

“ . . . both an outward and inward calling constitute a Minister. The latter, of course, is primary, as God calls those who are to serve His church, and is the source of the gifts and talents which enable one to do its work, and which the church needs if that work is to be accomplished. Such a call is a prompting of one‟s spirit by the Divine Spirit, quite real, but often quite difficult to measure or fully express. The outward calling belongs to the church, who, again, have authority [under Christ] to order themselves. Once God has called and equipped someone in the church, the church then recognizes that call and puts that person in that work.”12 [my brackets]

Something shifts inside oneself, a call is heard from . . . something . . .

and there is a recognition that one wants to work, as we heard John Haynes

Holmes say earlier, in “association with an altar for divine worship.” Many of the

12

Axford, p. 286.

10

dimensions of ordained ministry are available through other occupations or

professions: teaching, counseling, social work, social justice causes, lecturing,

writing, art . . . but a call to ordained ministry includes a desire to do each, some,

or all of these in the explicit context of spiritual devotion. Reverend Holmes also

said, “There is in me that which seeks the stimulus of praise and prayer, the uplift

of conscious communion with the Eternal, the consolation of appeal to, and trust

in, God. Not only from habit, but from temperament, I find myself at home among

religious rites.”13 It is this beckoning from the divine, a desire to do our work and

live our lives in constant relationship with the divine that constitutes a “call.”

The word “temperament” is important here. My American Heritage

Dictionary defines it as the “manner of thinking, behaving, or reacting

characteristic of a specific person.” A temperament that is readily and

consistently open to the other, including the unknown, the Eternal Mystery, willing

and eager to engage that Mystery, is part of what differentiates Ministry from

many other occupations.

Alongside call, though, stands the religious community. BEM says:

“Th[e] call must be authenticated by the Church’s recognition of the gifts and graces of the particular person, both natural and spiritually given, needed for the ministry to be performed.” (BEM, p. 31) One does not ordain oneself, upon the sense of an interior calling.

Authentication by the church comes into play, an evaluation and recognition of

“gifts and graces” in BEM’s words. In our tradition the word character was used

to mean much the same thing, beginning with William Ellery Channing. He was

clear: character was central.

13

Statement, p. 4 of computer version

11

“The first [thing to which the church owes its efficacy] is the character of the minister. This has an obvious, immediate, and powerful bearing on the great spiritual purpose of the church. I say, his character, not his ordination. Ordination has no end but to introduce into the sacred office men qualified for its duties, and to give an impression of its importance. It is by his personal endowments, by his intellectual, moral, and religious worth, by his faithfulness and zeal, and not through any mysterious ceremony or power, that the minister enlightens and edifies the church.”14 [My emphasis]

It must be noted that Channing does not minimize the importance of

training; rather, he places character front and center.

But by the early 1900s, character‟s central place began to shift. In 1901,

The Handbook for Unitarian Congregational Churches stressed character, but in

a backhanded way:

“No church should admit to its pulpit, even for a single service, a candidate who cannot bring clear, ample, and recent credentials of good ministerial standing. It is the duty of church officers and committees to protect the pulpit against clerical adventurers and vagrants. Carelessness in the discharge of this grave responsibility has too often resulted in disaster.”15

By 1913, a Committee studying ordination of Unitarian ministers via a

questionnaire sent to 500 ministers and laymen discovered that “judgment was

all but unanimous in favor of a more or less [?!] thorough investigation, before

ordination, of the candidate‟s character, ability, training, or other qualities

regarded as essential.”16 Character came first among characteristics which can

14

Channing, William Ellery. Discourse on the Church [date?] 15

Handbook for Unitarian Congregational Churches, 1901, p. 29 16

Report of the Committee on Ordination of Ministers to the General Conference of Unitarian and other Christian Churches, October 1913. Boston: Press of Geo. H. Ellis Co. p. 5.

12

be “investigated” in order that a person “may be deemed worthy and fit for the

ministry.”17

Then something begins to happen. By 1992, a major shift in language has

occurred, perhaps tracking a cultural shift. In its report Our Professional Ministry:

Structure, Support, and Renewal, the Commission on Appraisal uses the

language of academia and business when discussing ministry.

“. . . the need for well-trained professional ministers with intelligence, commitment, and strong interpersonal skills. . . is self-evident.”18 “Congregations want to see improved training programs in preaching, interpersonal skills, and administration.”19 “Moving to a career counseling, instead of a psychological testing, model seems to be supported by everyone, though it is still unclear at times what is the best determiner of a student‟s fitness for ministry.”20 “Congregations have a heavy responsibility to ordain only those men and women whose special training and experience qualify them for such leadership and who, moreover, are recognized as having the capacity to live, learn, and grow spiritually with a congregation.”21

The intent seems clear. Emphasis shifted from “character” to

“qualifications.”

Indeed, at the present time the Ministerial Fellowship Committee of the

UUA sets out the General Qualifications for candidates as follows:

17

1913 Report, p. 7. 18

Commission on Appraisal. Our Professional Ministry: Structure, Support, and Renewal, 1992, p.5. 19

Our Professional Ministry, p. 13. 20

Our Professional Ministry, p. 13. 21

Our Professional Ministry, p. 36.

13

“All applicants must be college graduates or have had an equivalent education; have completed a clinical pastoral education program and an internship, or the equivalent; have completed the required reading; have undergone an approved career assessment program; be able to demonstrate an understanding of and experience with UU congregational life based on at least two years active involvement; must have a strong motivation and good potential for ministry; must be sponsored by a member society and must have a balanced and healthy personality, a capacity for self-understanding, a concern for others, intellectual ability, and ministerial leadership skills. The Committee will further require that the applicant be well informed on the history and development of Unitarianism and Universalism, familiar with the Bylaws of the Unitarian Universalist Association, and fully committed to the purpose and objectives of the Association. An applicant for the Ministry shall also have a Master of Divinity degree or its equivalent from a theological school approved by the Committee, or have had equivalent educational experience.

Even a cursory exegesis of this paragraph raises some interesting

questions about what comes first, what is “further” and what is “also.” Qualities

that have to do with character follow academic and business-like qualifications;

knowledge of our religion comes later still, and the requirement for a Master of

Divinity degree which arguably includes formation and the ontological change

that prepares one for religious and spiritual leadership comes last. (The idea of

formation is discussed below.)

One wonders about the loss of the language of character. Granted,

Channing‟s lists of traits are intimidating. We heard some earlier – here are some

more:

“. . . [the minister‟s] intellectual, moral, and religious worth . . . his faithfulness and zeal . . .honest, upright and pure . . . virtue, nobleness, spiritual energy . . . 22

22

The Church

14

“We trust that you will bring to this work a willing mind, a firm purpose, a martyr‟s spirit, a readiness to toil and suffer for the truth, a devotion of your best powers to the interests of piety and virtue.”23 “No man is to preach who is not ready to be a martyr to truth.”24

Furthermore, according to Channing,

“The object of ministry is peculiarly important. To the Christian minister are intrusted in a measure the dearest and most valuable interests of the human race. He is called to watch over the morals of society, and to awaken and cultivate the principles of piety and virtue in the hearts of individuals. He is set apart to dispense that religion which, as we believe, came from God, which was given to reform, exalt, and console us, and on the reception of which the happiness of the future life depends. . . . Our interest in a minister is very peculiar. . . We want him to be our friend, our guide, an inmate in our families; to enter our houses in affliction; and to be able to give us light, admonition, and consolation, in suffering, sickness, and the last hours of life. ”25

I have to admit that as I copied these passages, my heart began to pound

and my anxiety level elevated as I thought about what it means. I found myself

trying to wriggle out from under it, by saying that it was nothing more than the

rhetoric of Channing‟s time. And yet, nineteenth century rhetoric aside, it is what

we do. (OK, maybe not the happiness of the future life part.) I am reminded of a

back-seat conversation with my then six-year-old granddaughter, who has never,

to my knowledge, been in a church. She suddenly asked, out of the blue, “Do you

have a JOB?” “Yes,” I said. “What is it,” said she. “I‟m a minister,” said I. “What‟s

23

Channing, William Ellery. Unitarian Christianity 1819 (Charge) 24

Channing, William Ellery. Charge at the Ordination of Charles of Barnard and Frederick T. Gray, November 2, 1834. 25

Extracts from Observations on the Proposition for increasing the means of theological education

15

THAT?” said she. Three seconds to come up with a short answer,

understandable to an unchurched six-year-old. “I help people figure out how to

live good lives.” “Oh,” she said. End of conversation. Compare it to Channing.

It‟s pretty much the same thing; lacking depth, perhaps, but the same.

There has been much discussion about the early delivery to potential

candidates for UU ministry of a document entitled Economic Realities of the

Unitarian Universalist Ministry – it is among the first items sent. One wonders

what the reaction might be if the first correspondence stressed intellectual, moral,

and religious worth, martyrdom and suffering, and the expectation to watch over

the morals of society.

When I first wrote that last sentence, I was being facetious and fully

expected to cut it from the first draft in favor of some more measured language.

But the more I thought about it, the more I decided to leave it in. This is, after all,

a study paper, designed to provoke discussion. If we are concerned about the

quality of ministry, are not challenges of character at least as important as the

challenges of finances? Channing‟s reflections – which are in a speech in which

he was reflecting on the need for funding of theological education are dealing

with exactly that balance, 200 years ago! How are we to attract people of good

character into ministry, when the financial rewards are low and the demands are

high?

16

Call and Formation

Recognition of call is followed by preparation, a period of education and

formation. Expectations of ministers are high and have been since Channing

said:

“We want the minister of religion to address our understandings with clearness; to extend and brighten our moral and religious conceptions; to throw light over the obscurities of the sacred volume; to assist us in repelling those doubts which sometimes shake our convictions of Christian truth; and to establish us in a firm and rational belief. We want [our minister] to speak to the conscience and heart with power; to force, as it were, our thoughts from the world; to rouse us from the slumbers of an unreflecting life; to exhibit religion in an interesting form, and to engage our affections on the side of duty. . . Who does not see in a moment, that much preparation of the intellect and heart is required to render him successful in these high and generous labors?”26

Much preparation of the intellect and the heart. This is the process of

formation, of ontological change to prepare for ordained ministry. Discerning how

one is to make use of one‟s intellect when engaged with the lives of one‟s

congregation requires much preparation and formation. For some it means

tempering our intellect with more feeling and heart; for others it means bringing

the intellect into balance with the leading emotions. For all it is finding a balance.

As we shift our attention from character to formation, the preparation that

occurs subsequent to call and prior to orientation, it is interesting to note how

Roman Catholicism places the development of character within formation. The

Vatican II Decree on the Training of Priests says:

“A prudent system of training will . . . aim at developing in the students a proper degree of human maturity. This will be chiefly attested by a certain stability of character, the ability

26

Extracts, p. 364.

17

to make carefully weighed decisions, and a sound judgment of events and people. The students should learn self-control [alternate translations: be practised in an intelligent organization of their proper talents; or, should know how to make the most of their own abilities], develop strength of character, and in general value those good qualities which are esteemed by men [sic] . . . Such qualities are sincerity, a constant love of justice, fidelity to one‟s promises, courtesy in deed, modesty and charity in speech.”27

With regard to preparation, BEM offers:

“Candidates for the ordained ministry need appropriate preparation through study of scripture and theology, prayer and spirituality, and through acquaintance with the social and human realities of the contemporary world. In some situations, this preparation may take a form other than that of prolonged academic study. The period of training will be one in which the candidate’s call is tested, fostered and confirmed, or its understanding modified.” (BEM, p. 31)

I see no reason why this language isn‟t applicable within Unitarian

Universalism, with the caveat that the word “scripture” might be made plural to

include some familiarity with those of other world religions. But compare the BEM

language to the language from the MFC General Guidelines quoted above. In my

interpretation, the BEM language feels far stronger in its expectation of a testing

going on between the church and the minister. In practice, the MFC plays this

role, but one might wonder whether its role is rather late in the process. Testing,

fostering, confirming and modifying through academic study, exploration of the

arts, the challenges of formal and informal conversations in classes, study

groups, lunch-table and midnight conversations is certainly what seminary

offered many of us. Even Jesus underwent a serious testing to see if he could

27

The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, p. 716

18

think on his feet, interpreting Hebrew scripture when challenged by an adversary.

(Mt. 4: 1-11) It is not only an intellectual process, although it certainly is that. It is

a process of ontological change, drawing us both deeper into and far outside

ourselves to be able to engage deeply with the divine and with the actual lives of

others.

Through academic study and formation, ministers are prepared to guard

and pass on a tradition. BEM offers:

“The orderly transmission of the ordained ministry is . . . a powerful expression of the continuity of the Church throughout history; it also underlines the calling of the ordained minister as guardian of the faith.” (BEM, p. 29)

But what about Unitarian Universalism? Is this guardianship role

important? How might it work in a faith like ours, where there are so many new

members, so many theologies?

In 1987, the Reverend Mark Mosher DeWolfe authored an insightful paper

suggesting that Unitarian Universalism might look to Judaism for a model of

ministry consistent with Unitarian Universalist values and understandings. The

paper, entitled “Guardians and Transformers: Toward a Rabbinical

Understanding of Ministry”28 proposed that the Rabbi (specifically in the Reform

tradition) offers a potential model for Unitarian Universalist ministry.

Reverend DeWolfe lifts up the role of the rabbi to guard and transform a

religious tradition, a very particular heritage in a kind of diaspora -- Unitarian

Universalists are quite scattered. In North American Judaism, Rabbis are

ordained by the seminary at which they are trained, emphasizing the importance

28

DeWolfe, Mark Mosher. “Guardians and Transformers: Toward a Rabbinical Understanding of Ministry. The Fourth Josephine Gould Memorial Discourse St. Lawrence District Annual Meeting – May 2, 1987.

19

of study – a deep understanding of Torah and Talmud and other teachings – and

the authority of their teachers to pass on the tradition. In its reflections in 1991,

the Commission on Appraisal nodded in this direction when it noted that “In

Judaism – since the rabbinate is responsible both for maintaining seminaries and

for ordaining – graduation, credentialing and ordination amount to the same

thing.”29

There is, though a critical difference between Judaism and Unitarian

Universalism: “those who are ordained [in Judaism] are deemed qualified to

answer questions of Jewish law, and serve as religious leaders of the Jewish

community.”30 The “judging” function is quite different from anything that

Unitarian Universalists are used to, and there is no “Unitarian Universalist law”

against which to judge.

Nevertheless, the recognition that Unitarian Universalism has a long,

deep, and important heritage, worthy of being passed on even as it is

reinterpreted for a new era, is a key part of preparation for the ordained ministry,

I believe. In that respect Reverend DeWolfe was on to something important.

Unitarian Universalism is not “new,” just because a majority of our members have

newly discovered it. That we have been doubters throughout history is a

simplistic and incomplete understanding of our heritage. The specific source of

our doubts, our differing interpretations of scripture (which implies a knowledge of

scripture), theological study and reflection, our experiences of the Holy and of the

self-governing, gathered community, are all part of a mature understanding of our

29

Our Professional Ministry, p. 18. 30

Telushkin, Rabbi Joseph. Jewish Literacy.(New York: William Morrow, 1991), p. 711.

20

heritage and tradition. Our rich traditions are worthy of knowing, respecting,

developing, transforming, and passing on.

Part III: Who Ordains?

It is long established polity and practice in Unitarian Universalism (and

other churches with congregational polity) that congregations ordain. In

Reverend Axford‟s words, “the outward calling belongs to the church”31 and

there are steps it and the potential ordinand must take together before the gift of

ordination is bestowed. Immediately, then, there is the beginning of a relationship

. . . calling happens within the context of religious community. Tests by the

religious community of both character and formation follow on call.

The differing histories within Unitarian and Universalism and

congregational ordination have been ably reviewed elsewhere and I will not

repeat them here.32 Yet it never hurts to review the theological authority for the

practice.

Our congregational ancestors drew their authority from scripture, from

practices in the early church. In 1834 The Reverend Alvan Lamson defended the

validity of congregational ordination as follows:

“The early ministers were no priests, as the term is used to designate a separate caste, nor were they viewed as such . . . They were not a distinct order (as the posterity of Aaron had been). They were elected by universal suffrage, for the infant communities of Christians were so many little democracies . . .The appointment, or election, confers all the power and rights, whatever they are, pertaining to the

31

Axford, p. 286. 32

See Wright, Conrad. Congregational Polity A Historical Survey of Unitarian and Universalist Practice, Boston, Skinner House Books, 1997; “The Credentialing and Ordaining of Ministers in the Unitarian and Universalist Traditions: The Historical Background, Appendix B in “Our Professional Ministry: Structure, Support and Renewal, Commission on Appraisal, 1992.

21

ministry. Ordination confers none. . . But whence does the power or right to ordain emanate? Who are the possessors of it? The people. . . The truth is, a religious society, congregation or Parish is an ecclesiastical body, and the only one known to scripture or antiquity.”33

The seventeenth century English separatists arriving in New England were

bent on doing things their way:

“They rejected a system which offered no guarantee of the spiritual fitness of the ministry other than the approval of a bishop. They determined to have a voice themselves in deciding whether a man should minister to them in the Word of God . . . In the summer of 1629, several ministers were sent out from England [to Salem] and two of these were solemnly chosen as pastor and teacher. Subsequently they were duly ordained by the „imposission of hands‟ by „ye gravest members,‟ „using prayer therewith.‟ To realize how revolutionary this was we must remember that both these men had been ordained in England by bishops who professed to be in the unbroken line of descent from the Apostles. And here they were kneeling to be ordained again and that, too, by the laymen of the church!”34

And, of course, the Cambridge Platform of 1648 established that:

“A church being free, cannot become subject to any but by a free election; yet when such a people do choose any to be over them in the Lord, then do they become subject, and most willingly submit to their ministry in the Lord, whom they have chosen. (Chapter VIII, s. 6.) “And if the church have power to choose their officers and ministers, then, in case of manifest unworthiness and delinquency, they have power also to depose them; for to open and shut, to choose and refuse, to constitute in office, and to remove from office, are acts belonging to the same power. (Chapter VIII, s. 7)

33

Lamson, Alvan. The Validity of Congregational Ordination. A Discourse delivered before the University in Cambridge, as the Dudleian Lecture, May 14, 1834. 34

Pilgrim Deeds and Duties A Handbook of Congregational History and Outlook. Prepared for the Tercentenary of Congregationalism in America 1620-1920. The Pilgrim Press: Boston. 1916. (pp. 5-21)

22

These early congregationalists rejected a traditional notion of apostolic

succession in favor of a scriptural one which recognized gifts and callings from

within the church (1Cor, 12:28; Acts 6:2-6) They followed this recognition with an

election to service. Their focus, as in the early church, was on service and the

making of disciples through service.*

The democratic notion of election to the ministry is the center of New

England Congregationalist practice of ordination. Ordination, though, is not

simply something that the congregation “gets to do.” It is part of a Doctrine of

Church that assumes a depth of understanding of Christianity through continual

Bible and historical text study and interpretation on the part of each congregation

as it continually works out its relationships. In early New England the

congregations never considered themselves anything other than Christian – the

church was rooted in Christ, in Old and New Testament as Scripture. They

claimed their way firmly. As Reverend Lamson said, “I am no more disposed to

contend for the divine institution of Presbyterianism, or of Congregationalism,

* It is interesting to notice the reasoning of Karl Barth in the early 20

th century, as he, too, rejects a

traditional notion of apostolic succession in favor of one of “service.” He says: “Apostolic means in the discipleship, in the school, under the normative authority, instruction and direction of the apostles . . . It is the work of the Holy Spirit. . . Thus the apostolicity of the Church cannot be sought on historical and juridical grounds. . . on the one hand, apostolicity and the true church are a matter which we can know by reference to a transmitted list of bishops which we can prove by the historico-critical investigation of this list. . . It is obvious that neither the Holy Spirit nor faith is necessary for this purpose, but only an uncritical or critical archaeological knowledge of the lists. . . To accept this system does not need the Holy Spirit of faith but only a definite idea of law. . . What we have learned to know as apostolicity and therefore the mark of the true Church is . . . the „Scripture principle‟ . . Thus the apostolic community means concretely the community which hears the apostolic witness of the New Testament, which implies that of the Old, and recognizes and puts this witness into effect as the source and norm of its existence . .” (Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, IV.1, pp. 714-715) I think the early congregationalists would have agreed.

23

than of Episcopacy. I do not image that any of them is of positive divine

institution.”35

Part IV: Authority and the Church in Unitarian Universalism

And here is where, to my surprise, I found my research and reflections

leading. What about the Church? I realized that the weak link in an

understanding about the meaning of ordination isn‟t on the side of the ministers.

We reflect on it all the time. We have been to seminary, have recognized a call

within ourselves; we have had training, education, and formation. But I found

myself less and less interested in that side of the question, in favor of WHAT

ABOUT THE CHURCH? We find ourselves in covenant with communities who

don‟t have a clue.

What, exactly, do congregations think [believe?] they are doing when they

ordain? Do they understand the theology behind election? Is it consistent

practice that the entire congregation elects the ordinand? Or do Boards of

Trustees make the decision? How has the congregation gone about testing,

fostering, confirming and modifying the call of a candidate? Or have they

relinquished that role to the centralized body?

I repeat: What about the church -- the congregation in our tradition? The

centralized process, the Ministerial Fellowship Committee (MFC) process, is, I

believe, is a good one. But it avoids the underlying question: In a system of

congregational polity, should congregations relinquish to a centralized body

the authority to foster, test, confirm and modify a potential minister’s call?

35

Lamson. The Validity . . .

24

Maybe the answer is an unqualified yes. But – and here is what for me is

the central question – what is lost in our congregations when that happens?

I would argue that what is lost is the responsibility for every congregation to

prepare as intensely for what it means to be a congregation – and joined

into an association of congregations -- as ministers prepare to enter

ministry.

If we are to preserve healthy tension between pulpit and pew, between

minister and congregation, a Doctrine of the Church that honors congregations

as ours does must also somehow call forth from those congregations an equally

high a level of preparation – call and formation, sense of responsibility and

accountability to themselves and to one another as it does for ministers. [Do I

sound like Alice Blair Wesley here?] How is the congregation’s call to be a

Unitarian Universalist congregation tested, fostered, confirmed and modified?

[We are starting a major advertising campaign to grow our faith. How are

we going to bring all these folks up to speed?]

What preparation, in short, gives them the authority to ordain? The early

New England Congregationalists never assumed that only reason and

experience granted them this authority. They grounded themselves in Scripture.

It was scripture that gave them the authority to ordain and send individuals forth

into service. If minister‟s are prepared to guard, transform and pass on the

tradition, what prepares congregations to receive it?

Without this equal preparation, the free church is in danger of ordination

becoming whatever a given congregation says it is, with no underlying

25

assumptions, no history, no tradition. All any group would have to do is be in

general agreement with our principles.

We are not alone in this tension between clergy and congregation.

Reverend DeWolfe notes that the authority of the rabbi is continuously worked

out in the “ongoing (and often tumultuous) relationship between rabbi and

congregation.”36 This certainly rings true for Unitarian Universalism!

Congregational polity means a constant “working out” of not only governance but

of liturgy, religious education, spiritual growth, and relationships with

communities beyond the congregation. The “tumult” (wonderful word!) is, indeed,

as much the work as the theology is. In Judaism, though, the authority for

ordination lies elsewhere – at the seminary. Teachers pass it on. In Unitarian

Universalism, it lies right there in the congregation.

In Trinitarian Christian tradition, authority is traced back to scripture in a

particular way. BEM says: “The authority of the ordained minister is rooted in

Jesus Christ, who has received it from the Father (Matt. 28:18), and who confers

it by the Holy Spirit through the act of ordination. This act takes place within a

community . . . ”37

No matter the polity of the specific Trinitarian tradition, ordination is

understood as originating in the second person of the Trinity. In Unitarian

Universalism, however, that understanding drops away. What replaces it? Is

there a strand of our tradition which grounds authority in a different place, which

36

DeWolfe, Mark Mosher. “Guardians and Transformers: Toward a Rabbinical Understanding of Ministry.” The Fourth Josephine Gould Memorial Discourse St. Lawrence District Annual Meeting, May 2, 1987. 37

BEM, p. 22.

26

can open a pathway to an understanding of shared authority between pulpit and

pew that is not grounded in Trinity? If Christ is not the second Person, is there a

Unitarian Christian theology that can help us? Is there another theological

context in which the meaning of ordination can get worked out in the tumult

between minister and congregation?

The Offices of Christ

When the Triune God falls away, there is another trinity that comes into

bold relief. It has to do with the three offices of Christ – priest, prophet, and king.

Trinitarian theology includes this as the offices of the Son, the second person of

the Trinity. BEM barely acknowledges these offices. In a single paragraph under

the heading “Ordained Ministry and Priesthood,” it says:

“Jesus Christ is the unique priest of the new covenant. Christ’s life was given as a sacrifice for all. Derivatively, the Church as a whole can be described as a priesthood. All members are called to offer their being “as a living sacrifice” and to intercede for the Church and the salvation of the world. Ordained ministers are related, as are all Christians, both to the priesthood of Christ and to the priesthood of the Church. But they may appropriately be called priests because they fulfill a particular priestly service by strengthening and building up the royal [kingly] and prophetic priesthood of the faithful through word and sacraments, through their prayers of intercession, and through their pastoral guidance of the community.” (BEM, p. 23)

I would suggest that these offices have a rich place in our Unitarian

Universalist history, beginning with Socinianism. They belong precisely in the

tension between pulpit and pew. Socinianism, while rejecting the three-person

formulation, addresses the offices as central to Christ‟s work on earth, rather

than Christ‟s personhood. I offer here one possible way to claim this history and

27

use it in the preparation of congregations for their role to ordain and to then join

the ordained minister in service.

The Racovian Catechism is the source document for this unitarian

theology from which my own unitarian Christianity draws, although my

Christology is very different from that of Socinus. Socinus had a high

Christology: Christ was the Son of God, although not God. I have a lower

Christology: for me, Christ is “divinity within humanity,” – both the divine which

lives within each individual and the divine which emerges within beloved

community – even democracy. The Christian story is one through which the

human and divine come together in a unique way, with the church community

carrying that merger forward. My own theology is somewhat akin to Dietrich

Bonhoeffer‟s understanding of the church as Christ existing in community, as a

communion of saints38 (although he might not agree with me).

The three offices of Christ -- divinity within humanity -- priest, prophet and

king, are exercised differently in each church (denomination or congregation).

The relative importance of each in Unitarianism has probably remained fairly

constant in the last four hundred years. The Racovian Catechism devotes 11

pages to the priestly office, 8 pages to the kingly office, and fully 180 pages to

the prophetic office. Through preparation, an ordained minister even in Unitarian

Universalism is clothed with the spiritual vestiges and vestments of these offices.

I would argue that they are of such profound importance to both minister and

38

Cf. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. “The Communion of Saints” Sanctorum Communio, excerpted in A Testament to Freedom, ed. By Geffrey B. Kelly and E. Burton Nelson, p. 54-63

28

congregation, that the congregation must also undergo thorough preparation. To

this purpose, I now explore them a bit.

The priestly office. The Racovian Catechism tells us that the priestly

office consists in Christ‟s intercession, his offering prayers and sacrificing himself

for humanity. The priestly office includes those roles that place the ordained

minister between God and others – in traditional Christianity, the ordained

minister is authorized to perform the sacraments (seven in Roman Catholicism

and Eastern Orthodoxy; two in those Protestant churches that are sacramental.)

It is through the sacraments that one is brought closer to God, and the ordained

person is a conduit between the people and God.

In Unitarian Universalism, most churches – though not all – have rejected

both baptism and communion as sacraments, and so the minister‟s unique

priestly role. Most Unitarian Universalists – ministers and lay people alike – reject

the necessity of an intercessor between God and humans. God, for those of us

who find that to be a useful concept and/or a direct experience, is available

equally to all, directly and without intercessor. Socinianism defines Christ‟s

priestly office as serving to avert God‟s wrath; most Unitarian Universalists would

be more comfortable with the Hosea Ballou formulation that we are the ones

changed, not God. The type of intercession formulated as “dying for our sins” is

rejected in favor of one formulated as “living for our righteousness” – showing

through his life and teachings how to bring divinity into the world. It is a living

intercession, calling to mind how we might live righteous lives ourselves and for

the righteousness of others.

29

And yet, as Reverend Buehrens pointed out, we ordain. Congregations

ordain. I would suggest that in the liturgical act of ordination, the congregation is

performing a priestly office. Their act of election and liturgy is a democratic

execution of the priestly office. In our polity, divinity is born and maintained

through the congregation, the beloved community. By maintaining the sacrament,

I would argue, the congregation and the minister agree to enter a tumultuous (to

use Reverend DeWolfe‟ word) but loving sharing of the priestly office.

I would also argue that that much of what occurs during pastoral care is an

exercise of this office. Many of our congregations are good at dividing pastoral

care duties between congregation and minister. Where the lines are drawn are

“worked out” between minister and congregation. It is also true that the caring

that occurs among the laity is also an exercise of this intercessory office – people

are in service to one another, making intercession for one another, and, indeed,

sacrificing for one another.

And yet, there is something different about a conversation with a minister

during times of great need and stress; there is a desire for assistance in “coming

to terms” with life and death that ministers are trained and formed to assist with. I

would also suggest that the assistance ministers offer parishioners to find, or

recognize, an understanding of divinity that works for them, drawing perhaps on

other scriptures and wisdom, is an exercise of the priestly office. It is an

intervention, an intercession, that places us, for a limited time, between them and

God, for the purpose of facilitating a transformational experience. We then step

out of it, allowing it to grow and flourish in its own way, in community with myriad

30

other ways. But it is an intercession, a means to assist individuals and the

gathered community find redemption and grace. It occurs in individual

encounters and conversations, in small groups and in preaching.

I would argue that during most life passages, ministers are functioning in

the priestly office. Witness the unchurched and mixed faith couples who come to

us for weddings, desiring a “spiritual but not religious” ritual. There is a

somethingness that they want from clergy that they cannot get from a judge or

justice of the peace. They seek the office, even without the language for it. And

we, when we work with them on the meaning of marriage, are performing that

office.

The state, individual states in the case of the United States, are

recognizing the priestly office when they allow every religious community to

determine who is qualified to officiate at weddings. Ironically, they withhold that

recognition when they prevent each religious community from defining marriage.

It is an interesting mix of church/state relations, beyond the scope of this paper.

The state also recognizes the priestly office in its recognition of privileged

communication between ordained minister and congregant.

Child dedications, memorial services, even coming of age ceremonies . . .

a minister is often desired. The priestly office is longed for.

And, of course, the priestly office is exercised in preaching. Preaching can

help open the peoples‟ eyes to dimensions of life beyond the day to day. Yet the

question arises for Unitarian Universalists . . . what or whose “word” is being

preached? That of the preacher alone? Or are we preaching some form of the

31

Word of God? Are we simply giving little informative, perhaps inspirational

“talks.” We have all been subject to Unitarian Universalist sermons that are

nothing more than book reports. Many of us have heard people shrug after

visiting UU worship, saying that they can get an interesting lecture like that in

other venues. There is a hunger for something different from preaching, from that

altar for divine worship, different from a platform or a teacher‟s desk.

And, of course, the priestly office is exercised in teaching. Religious

teaching is a function that leads people out, drawing them forth into greater

relationship with one another, with the world, and with the Holy. Teaching by this

definition is an intercession, in our tradition opening the way for and with the

student to find his or her own way into right relations.

The kingly office. It has been said, “In a democracy, the people are king.”

And yes, this captures precisely how kingly office – that of the executive function,

the decision-making, happens in Unitarian Universalist churches. The minister is

most decidedly not king! The office has to do with governance, and in Unitarian

Universalist churches governance happens from among the people. . . divinity

happening among the congregants, in all the conversations, discussions,

arguments, agreements, disagreements and, ultimately, the decisions that are

made. The people rule. They hold the divine right. This is why learning to be in

covenant, in a community characterized by consent and persuasion is so

important. It is an exercise by the entire community of the kingly office of “divinity

within humanity.”

32

And yet the ordained minister is uniquely prepared by training and

preparation to facilitate the covenantal relationships, teaching and preparing the

congregation to perform its kingly office in light of God‟s grace, or that

congregation‟s understanding of the divine. We have chosen to live our lives and

perform our duties “in the context of an altar for divine worship,” to quote John

Haymes Holmes again. The individuals who make up our congregations, for the

most part have not made the same commitment. The minister can help the

congregation open to the spiritual character of beloved community/kingdom or

commonwealth of God. The ordained minister is an advisor to the “king” – as

Nathan was to David, which lead us to the prophetic office.

The prophetic office. The prophetic office, in the Racovian formulation, is

charged with bringing to humanity the will of God. In biblical times, the prophet

was a “go-between” between YHWH and humanity, often using the formulation

“thus saith YHWH” as a signal of such communication. The prophet also didn‟t

hesitate to argue with God. There was a constant and dynamic tension as

humanity attempted to wrestle out the meaning of events, and to establish ethical

patterns of living.

Arguably rejecting the idea that it is a revelation of the will of God,

Unitarian Universalist congregations often expect what they call “prophetic

preaching” from their ministers. And we ministers often strive to be prophetic

preachers. But what does that mean? Certainly it means preaching the Truth as

we see it, as Channing so stridently and repeatedly says.

33

But that raises a critical question: Is it just the truth as we see it? Or is it to

be anchored to something beyond? The assumption in traditional Christianity is

that preaching is an interpretation of Christian scripture, bringing its wisdom into

the present time, place and circumstance. Our earlier quotes from Reverend

Holmes certainly raise this question – he is “championing a cause,” “preaching

the great truths of the Unitarian Gospel . . . “

But what cause or causes? What, exactly, is the Unitarian Gospel? Who,

exactly, are we as Unitarian Universalist ministers in conversation with when we

step into the pulpit to lead divine worship? What is the tradition? Have we been

empowered by our ordination to give our opinion, or is there a greater source or

sources? Is there an expectation within our congregations that we are operating

from our own personal authority? To what extent are we accepting that authority?

Or, is there an expectation that we are deeply in conversation, through exegesis

and hermeneutics, with sources before and beyond ourselves? (Granted,

congregations are unlikely to have that vocabulary, but their expectations may

indeed include such ideas.)

Furthermore -- to whom is the prophet‟s voice raised? I know in my

congregation, the expectation is that prophetic preaching is raised to society in

general – particularly lifting a voice against a political party and public policy with

whom a parishioner disagrees. But the Biblical prophets were addressing their

own people, ticking them off, a lot. And Jesus was addressing both Rome and

the Jewish religious authorities, ticking them off, a lot. As ordained ministers, we

are given the honor of a free pulpit for our use one hour each week – we are

34

clothed with the office and honor of speaking truth to power – the king, which is

our own congregation. I am not arguing that we are not also addressing the wider

society – I think they are also our audience. But the larger society has not called

and ordained us. We are called to a particular congregation.

Part V: Forms of Ministry

Before concluding, I make a quick nod to what BEM refers to as the forms

of ministry. This is an area for much further study and reflection in our own

tradition and practice, beyond the scope of this paper, but extremely important.

BEM states:

“The New Testament does not describe a single pattern of ministry which might serve as a blueprint or continuing norm for all future ministry in the Church. In the New Testament there appears rather a variety of forms which existed at different places and times.” (BEM, p. 24)

Axford identifies the customary text as Ephesians 4:11-12: “It was he

[Christ] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be

evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God‟s people for

works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up . . .” (NIV) Axford

quotes the 17th century church historian John Robinson as counting the first three

“(apostle, prophet, evangelist) . . . as extraordinary offices which terminated with

those called by God to them. The others are „necessary and these alone

sufficient for the church.‟”39 Robinson, drawing on other texts, adds to the

remaining offices listed in Ephesians (pastor and teacher) “those of elder,

deacon, and widow (or deaconess).”

39

Axford, p. 286.

35

These offices, roles, positions, within a church structure, are given by the

church. In Unitarian Universalism that would mean a congregation, upon

recognition of an inward calling to a particular person.

BEM goes on to discuss the threefold ministry of Bishops, Presbyters, and

Deacons, and how their meaning and function varied widely in the early church

and has continued to evolve up to the present. Congregational polity has always

used this language and these forms of ministry differently from more hierarchical

traditions, and in recent years the vocabulary has dropped away. But we must

continue to find ways to recognize the special gifts and graces of people within

our congregations, perhaps even set them apart, in special ways. What might

that look like?

Again, that must be worked out within the context of a particular

congregation. What is the individual called to do, what is the congregation

ordaining them to do, and what recognition does the wider association of

congregations accord that ordination? Is it meant that the ordination has the

same crossover meaning with the state (to officiate at marriages, for example) as

a seminary-trained individual?

It must be worked out between two parties equally grounded in theology

and practice, equally prepared to do so. Whether the individual is a seminary

trained minister ordained at a different congregation, or is specially gifted and the

congregation wishes to recognize that, the parties must work it out. I am thinking

of one case where a congregation ordained a minister of music in recognition of

many years of extraordinary service without working out the boundaries and

36

limits. She began to use the honorific “Reverend” and to officiate at weddings.

Under congregational polity, there was nothing to stop her from doing that

because in the state in question, ordination is ordination. But is this what the

congregation meant?

Conclusion

Unitarian Universalism will continue to be tumultuous, new questions and

new forms of old questions ever being proposed. That is who we are. That is

what I have done here.

My hope is that the questions I have lifted up will be carried further and

deeper, in the form of small groups digging in and reflecting together. The study

questions that I would suggest are listed below. I would like to see this group

break into small groups, meeting several times over the next year to keep the

conversation going.

Discussion questions

Study Question 1: What if powerful language about character were once again brought front and center? What is character? How can it be judged? Study Question 2: Explore the centralization/decentralization question, the role of the MFC vis-à-vis congregations. How should congregations be “fellowshipped?” How might our whole movement look different?

The Reverend Scott Axford, in his article “Christian Ordination in Our Tradition,” describes a historic Unitarian Universalist Doctrine of the Ministry consisting of three points: “that it is given to the church and is part of it; that we need to distinguish between vocation and office; and that the associated-churches part of congregationalism becomes quite important.”40

40

Axford, p. 285.

37

Study Question 2: Explore further the priestly office in our context. Study Questing 3: Explore further the kingly office in our context. Study Question 4: Explore further the prophetic office in our context. Especially, what is the purpose and practice of preaching? Study Question 5: What about those congregations that are grounded in other spiritualities? How might these concepts be reinterpreted to include them? Study Question 6: Should there be other levels of “ordination” in our tradition?

38

Bibliography American Unitarian Association. Handbook for Unitarian Congregational Churches. Boston: AUA, 1901 Axford, Scott. “Christian Ordination in Our Tradition,” in The Unitarian Universalist Christian, Volumes 51 and 52. Boston: UUCF, 1996-1997. Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. Faith and Order Paper No. 111, Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. “The Communion of Saints” Sanctorum Communio, excerpted in A Testament to Freedom. ed. Geffrey B. Kelly and E. Burton Nelson, San Francisco: Harper, 1995. Cambridge Platform. www.pragmatism.org/amerian/cambridge_platform.htm. 1648 Channing, William Ellery. “Discourse on the Church” [undated] The Works of William Ellery Channing, Volume VI. Boston: George G. Channing, 1849 _____ “Unitarian Christianity” 1819. The Works of William Ellery Channing, Volume ____. Boston: George G. Channing, 1849. _____ “Extracts from Observations on the Proposition for Increasing the Means of Theological Education at the University in Cambridge – 1816.” The Works of William Ellery Channing, Vol. V. Boston: George G. Channing, 1849. Commission on Appraisal of the Unitarian Universalist Association. Our Professional Ministry: Structure, Support and Renewal. Boston: UUA, 1992. Committee on Ordination of Ministers. Report of . . . Boston: Geo. Ellis, 1913 DeWolfe, Mark Mosher. “Guardians and Transformers: Toward a Rabbinical Understanding of Ministry.” The Fourth Josephine Gould Memorial Discourse St. Lawrence District Annual Meeting, May 2, 1987. Holmes, John Haymes. A Statement: The Future of This Church. 1918. (www.gutenberg.org/files/17939/17939.txt) Lamson, Alvan. “The Validity of Congregational Ordination.” In The Christian Examiner, Nov. 1834. Telushkin, Joseph. Jewish Literacy: The Most Important Things to Know About the Jewish Religion. New York: Wm. Morrow and Co., 1991.

39

Tercentenary of Congregationalism in America. Pilgrim Deeds and Duties. Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1916. Tuckerman, Joseph. “A Sermon Preached on Sunday Evening, Nov. 2, 1834, At the Ordination of Charles F. Barnard and Frederick T. Gray as Ministers at Large in Boston with The Charge by William Ellery Channing. Vatican Council II, Volume I. The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Austin Flannery, O.P., General Editor. Northport NY: Costello Publishing Company, 1996. Wright, Conrad. Congregational Polity A Historical Survey of Unitarian and Universalist Practice. Boston: Skinner House, 1997.