The UCC Reviews the Candidacy Process - My Response

Originally Posted on Facebook - September 12, 2008

Review of the Candidacy Process - Narrative Response

I am a Candidate for Ordination and have been involved in the discernment, candidacy, and internship processes. I have not yet been through the settlement and ordination processes. I have also watched and supported my colleagues as they have undergone these various processes.

I wish that I could say that I, and my friends, have felt supported, encouraged, and protected by the church during preparation for ministry. However, the experiences that most easily come to mind are those of trauma, neglect, and abuse. It is difficult to discuss these things because while they are occurring, the people to whom we would report such abuse seem to be the ones who are perpetrating it, and furthermore, are also those who hold the future of our vocation in their hands.

It is true that there have been many wonderful moments in my process, and many people who have challenged and supported me in effective and caring ways. Especially my home presbytery has been a model of effective operation through all of these stages (Yellowhead Presbytery). However, my Conference Interview Board experience was traumatic and not helpful, and my internship placement was a questionable choice. I am afraid about the transfer and settlement process, because as a young, single person, I am expecting to be screwed over in the assignment of charges.

Along the way, I have seen students with very serious identity and authenticity issues settled and ordained, and others with superior gifts and identity for ministry leaving the process because of a lack of support or because of the outright failure of the church to provide an effective learning environment. I have counseled other students whose discernment process was at best ineffective, and at worst abusive. Discernment committees are not being properly oriented to the Discerning the Call design and are falling into a practice which is anxiety-driven, focuses all of its attention on the Inquirer, and does not limit itself to questions of call and gifts, but inappropriately takes up matters of readiness as well. More than one female colleague has had to face questions about the suitability of her romantic partner, and one was advised by her discernment committee to break up with her boyfriend.

My Discernment experience was, I now realize, exceptional in that my committee was properly oriented to the system and followed it well. I had a wonderful experience in discernment. My meeting with the Conference Interview Board, however, was confusing and painful. I had faithfully disclosed a mood disorder on my application, for which I was in treatment and which I would continue to address during my studies. There were a number of retired therapists and counselors on the Board, and all of them signed up for my interview. The interview became a discussion of my psychiatric health, for which I was not prepared and did not feel safe talking about. After three years of reflecting on this experience, I believe that in moments like this, the members of the CIB don't really know what their job is or what they are supposed to be doing, so they focus on whatever is available in order to feel like they are at least doing something. In fact, I don't know if anyone has ever satisfactorily explained to me the role of the CIB and why they are necessary - so noone should be surprised that its members are likewise confused and anxious.

There also seem to be some serious disconnects between the courts of the church and candidates when it comes to generational shifts in values and perspectives. Younger inquirers and candidates are consistently misunderstood and evaluated on the basis of culture and values that are not their own. A prime example of this is the value of openness - a major virtue in younger generations, and a sign of foolishness to elders. To me, and those younger than I am, openness about a great deal of our lives is second nature. We are very prepared to share our spiritual journeys and struggles, to discuss our health issues and treatments, to talk about our romantic and sexual lives, and to tell stories about our families and friends. To those who were formed before the internet, the sexual revolution, and the rise of post-modernism, these open and frank disclosures seem like a sign of indiscretion, pretentiousness, or immorality. Similarly, when deeply personal information is shared without an affect of struggle or shame, members of the older generation see inauthenticity. Whereas, to members of my generation, there is no struggle or shame in such disclosure because openness is highly valued and deep openness is offered as a gift to others. These generational shifts in values, which are more various than this single "openness" dynamic, throw a wrench into the works of every stage of the process when the candidate is under the age of 30.

I cannot advocate maintaining or eliminating any particular aspect of the process, because my sense is that the process is well-designed throughout, but the functioning of the process is universally poor. I do question the value of the Conference Interview Board, as it is unclear what they bring to the table apart from wanting to have their fingers in the pie. I love the design of the Discernment Process, but the way it is enacted and supported by many Presbyteries is atrocious and loathsome. I am wary of the transfer and settlement process because it seems to unjustly disadvantage the young and single. I am disappointed with the way the Internship process is taking place, with poorly-designed internships being approved as sites, terrible supervisors being allowed to abuse their interns, and poor matches being made between applicants and sites.

But there have been very few places where I have felt comfortable discussing these things in an official way, because, after all, my career depends on it.