Google

 

Clergy Connect
Chaplain Corps
Sola Publishing
Faithful Transition
Make a donation
Audio/Video

National Office:

  • WordAlone Network
  • 2299 Palmer Drive
    Suite #220
  • New Brighton, MN 55112
  • 651.633.6004
  • fax 651.633.4260
  • toll-free 888.551.7254
  • info@wordalone.org

WordAlone® Network is a religious, non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation, and your contributions are fully tax-deductible.

WordAlone Book
photo WordAlone book

A compilation of essays and comments by concerned pastors, theologians and laypersons, challenging denominations who are denying Christ’s resurrection, ‘demythologizing’ Scripture, blessing same-sex relationships, ordaining non-celibate homosexuals.

Initiated by the WordAlone Network, written in plain English. Cost is $14.95. Non Minnesota orders, add $3.50 postage or $5.90 Priority Mail. Outstate Minnesota orders, add $4.70 for postage and sales tax or $7.25 for Priority Mail and sales tax Minnesota Twin Cities metro area orders, add $4.75 for postage and sales tax or $7.30 for Priority Mail and sales tax. To order call WordAlone at 1-888-551-7254 or
email: The WordAlone Office

Or: Order Online!

WordAlone responds

—to ELCA candidacy process

by John Beem Chair (WordAlone Call and Candidacy Task Force)

April 5, 2005

Is it broke? Yes! Needs fixing? Yes! It’s not all bad? Yes!

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America candidacy process is the procedure that takes a potential seminary student from before seminary acceptance through his or her certification for a pastoral call in a church of the ELCA. With modest revisions, it has been a long-standing process of the denomination. photo of John BeemIn spite of some successes, it has been subject to criticism and concern from many people over the years. It came to a critical head in the wake of the 2004 catastrophe when a pastor in Plano, Texas, was convicted of numerous cases of child molestation. He had successfully passed through the candidacy process with endorsement of the synod candidacy committee, the seminary review process and the synod office.

As a result, the ELCA Division of Ministry conducted a significant review of the process. Its conclusion was that there was a breakdown of communication in the process. More detailed communication processes were added to the candidacy system. Many think that the process was labor intensive, and now it is even more so. For the sake of the ELCA and our pastors-to-be, the ELCA division’s conclusion is worth revisiting.

At least the WordAlone Network thinks so. Some time ago the WordAlone board set up a task force to study call and candidacy issues.

Over the past 18 months a survey team of WordAlone sought input from the following (most of whom had no affiliation with WordAlone): seminary professors; seminary students currently in the candidacy process; seminary graduates with not more than 5 years experience in the parish; home pastors of seminary students and recent graduates; intern supervisors, intern committees; and members of synod candidacy committees, both past and present. Unfortunately, supervisors of clinical pastoral education were omitted from this review.

While admittedly more responders would have made the survey more reliable, the results were of such unanimity that they communicate much truth and some helpful recommendations to a process that many feel to be flawed. The results of the survey with recommendations stemming from it follow.

Reactions of concern about candidacy process

  1. It is labor intensive. Eight major players—individuals and groups—make the process excessively cumbersome.
  2. It is too costly to the student, the seminary, the synod and the churchwide offices.
  3. There are too many “hoops” for the student to pass through toward certification for ordination.
  4. The key players who grant approval are generally not the ones who know the student best and her/his skills for ministry as a pastor.
  5. The process is not consistent across the 65 synods.
  6. Theological and social biases enter into the approval process on the part of both seminary professors and candidacy committee members. This is a cause of significant stress as well as manipulation of the process by seminary students seeking endorsement. Students and recent graduates talked of theological biases, ranging from conservative to primarily liberal, on the part of professor evaluators.
  7. In some instances the timing of the steps in the process were questioned.
  8. Seminary professors should be primary evaluators of the theological skills while others more acquainted with parish life need to evaluate parish and pastoral skills.
  9. The call process and waiting period for first call were unnecessarily long. This generated a spirit of distrust among various synod offices as graduates compared the various processes.

Positive reactions

  1. A person in the process who did stay in touch with the student and who knew and communicated the steps of the process was a valued lifeline.
  2. Without exception all respondents felt that stringent entrance qualifications were essential.
  3. Without exception all respondents felt the psychological pre-entrance examination was necessary. They did feel that there needed to be uniformity of this examination among all 65 synods.

Recommendations based upon the survey

  1. Reduce the number of players (decision makers) to include only: a) seminary professors, b) intern supervisor and internship committee, c) home pastor and church council (home pastor, if new, should be replaced by the former pastor who knows best the candidate)
  2. Remove as key players: a) candidacy committee, including the seminary faculty representative, synod bishop or the appointed bishop’s representative, b) contextual education director, but only if the registrar or similar person at the seminary could maintain the files and facilitate conversation between the key players noted in number 1 above, c) regional directors.
  3. Though not a player in the current ELCA plan and though a few people suggested including the clinical pastoral education supervisor, we recommend that the CPE supervisor not become a key player but be asked to submit an evaluation to those mentioned in number 1 above.
  4. A contact person who knows the process should be accessible to the candidates. Limit these to eight, one in the vicinity of each seminary. The contact person also would represent to the key players any geographical limitations of the candidate in the assignment process. Knowledge of the process requirements, policies, politics and personalities are key in the outcome for the candidate.
  5. The Division of Ministry, selected seminary professors, intern supervisors, home pastors and recent seminary graduates (at least one a second career graduate) should determine the candidacy process.
  6. The pre-entrance psychological examination should remain. It must be consistent throughout the 65 synods. Cost of the exam should be shared 50/50 by the synod of the candidate and the Division of Ministry since they assume legal responsibility for inappropriate behavior by an intern or graduate.
  7. The Department of Synodical Relations should continue to handle the assignment process.
  8. Each candidate should be encouraged/permitted to have an advocate present at all evaluative sessions in the process.
  9. A standardized and detailed entrance profile, the results of the psychological examination and college transcript should determine seminary entrance acceptance. The process would be the same for all eight seminaries and handled by the registrar.
  10. Eliminate synod candidacy retreats.
  11. This suggested process would save significant money. Such savings should be passed on as seminary student scholarships or in reduced seminary costs.
  12. Combine the two approval interviews into one.
  13. Establish an immediate appeal process, removing the penalty of starting seminary training all over again with the exception of academic failure. The seminary academic dean, intern supervisor, intern committee and home pastor should make the decision to remove or to place the candidate on probation.
  14. Encourage all candidates to become a part of a support group while at seminary.
  15. A synod contact person should be appointed for each candidate. This person would stay in contact with and be accessible to all candidates from a given synod.
  16. Bishops, CPE supervisors, home pastors, intern supervisors, internship committees and seminary professors should be responsible to share any moral-ethical concerns with the decision-making panel.
  17. Limit the evaluative essays to two, one prior to entrance and one for the endorsement panel. The content should be Biblical and Confessional and address pastoral skills. It should be standard in all eight seminaries.
  18. Conferences should be invited to submit names of potential internship supervisors from among their peers. They could facilitate securing smaller congregations as intern sites as well as encouraging support of such a ministry by the congregations in the conference.
  19. All candidates upon entrance to the seminary shall be made aware, in a balanced presentation, of the issues surrounding our ecumenical agreements and the exception by-law as relating to CCM.