Return to ministry?

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Yeah.....why not?

I guess it all depends on how one defines ministry.

And I don't know about you, but as I age, I really don't need someone looking over my shoulder. I mean, who looks over the Pope's shoulder?

I say be your own Pope.

He's a big ol' queen after all!

Sorry... I totally disagree. Human beings are depraved... even a decent "Joe" like you Antony. Jim Jones was a hell of a decent guy who was all about social justice and equality but he ended up sexually abusing his followers and thousands of people ended their lives drinking cyanide laced kool-aid. Who needs someone looking over their shoulder? YOU DO. So do I. So does Daniel even if he doesn't like it very much.

Find a Christian community that feeds you and open yourself to a call to whatever form of ministry God may have in mind. Go back to Seminary by all means. That is worth doing on its own merits regardless of what you end up doing to serve God and the world. Start your own ministry by all means but makes sure there is someone who is paying attention so that when you start to become Jim Jones somebody is empowered to smack you. ("Snap out of it Antony!")

[Daniel]

Here's a first-hand example where a person started a 'ministry'.

Imagine a huge NYC based organization which provides meals to those with AIDS. The founder got the idea for providing this service while manning a sidewalk hotdog stand in the Wall Street district. She also happened to a devoteee of an Indian Guru, but that's another story. I make this point though, because she believed in 'serving others'' as a spiritual practice.

Long story short, she founded the organization by going ahead and making meals at home and delivering them to people. Within a short time, she had people deliving them with her and people throwing money at her. It was the first decade of the AIDS epidemic after all. In time, she needed a bigger place. To keep things running and the organziation intact, she choose a board to watch over things.

The irony? While the lady was a maverick, she overstepped her authority and to be deposed by the very board she wisely chose. She no longer serves as executive director. Yet- the organiation continutes without her.

Are people depraved? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by answers.com

de·praved
adj.
Morally corrupt; perverted

This implies (sorry -udog) a 'defective-out-of-the-box' view of humanity. Can people make stupid, ignorant and ego-based decisions which lead them in the wrong direction? You bet! However, I don't think the exception proves the rule.

~

Another thought comes to mind here. We are such 'herd' creatures, aren't we? The person who gets out in front of the herd is either a genius or a madman according to those being him/her. Creating a structure - like a church or a ministry- which does not fall within the accepted norms - takes a heck of a lot of ego, drive and self-confidence. The truth is, it's easier to fit in with what is already there. But that's thinking inside the box.

Jesus was a maverick. And he wanted us to be like him, didn't he?

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by Daniel

In time, she needed a bigger place. To keep things running and the organziation intact, she choose a board to watch over things.

The irony? While the lady was a maverick, she overstepped her authority and to be deposed by the very board she wisely chose. She no longer serves as executive director. Yet- the organiation continutes without her.

Daniel, this is my point exactly. her inate depravity caused her to overstep. However, her AWARENESS of her own inate depravity had previously caused her to develop a board capable of holding her accountable. It did. I admire this woman even though I don't know who she is. No doubt Antony could begin a new ministry, but if he does it outside of a structure of accountability (like a denomination) then he will need to CREATE a structure of accountability.

Are people depraved? I don't think so. This implies (sorry -udog) a 'defective-out-of-the-box' view of humanity. Can people make stupid, ignorant and ego-based decisions which lead them in the wrong direction? You bet! However, I don't think the exception proves the rule.

I know we will never agree on this Daniel... but yes. We are all morally corrupt and perverted! We ARE "defective-out-of-the-box." I like people. I really do. I like myself and am proud of who I am and what I have accomplished. I have confidence in my capacity to DO and BE "good", but we all carry the seeds of corruption into everything we do and they can take root and grow without warning. This doesn't mean that we are not cute and lovable and at times noble and courageous. It just means that you can't trust us further than you can throw us. It also means that we are always in need of the Grace of God. Sigh. Once a Calvinist, always a Calvinist.

Another thought comes to mind here. We are such 'herd' creatures, aren't we? The person who gets out in front of the herd is either a genius or a madman according to those being him/her. Creating a structure - like a church or a ministry- which does not fall within the accepted norms - takes a heck of a lot of ego, drive and self-confidence. The truth is, it's easier to fit in with what is already there. But that's thinking inside the box.

Jesus was a maverick. And he wanted us to be like him, didn't he?

Jesus WAS a maverick. AND Jesus wanted US to be Mavericks like him. However, he was ALSO GOD! and did NOT want us to try to be God like him. Hence the need for accountability

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by u-dog

I know we will never agree on this Daniel... but yes. We are all morally corrupt and perverted! We ARE "defective-out-of-the-box." I like people. I really do. I like myself and am proud of who I am and what I have accomplished. I have confidence in my capacity to DO and BE "good", but we all carry the seeds of corruption into everything we do and they can take root and grow without warning. This doesn't mean that we are not cute and lovable and at times noble and courageous. It just means that you can't trust us further than you can throw us. It also means that we are always in need of the Grace of God. Sigh. Once a Calvinist, always a Calvinist.

Seeds of corruption?

This kind of thinking is why I'm can't call myself a Christian anymore.

No. We won't agree on this one. And my saying more about this would be hijacking this thread.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Seeds of corruption?

This kind of thinking is why I'm can't call myself a Christian anymore.

No. We won't agree on this one. And my saying more about this would be hijacking this thread.

agreeing to disagree

[Zerbie]

Yeah, we'll all disagree on this one. I disagree with U-dog, and apparently also with Mr. Calvin Dude, with vehemence. I don't wish to go into it since we all have our foundations and beliefs set up, and it would probably just be disrespectful. But I do wish to go on record with a big NO to the (Calvin?) thing about human supervision. (shudder). Ugh. No. All kinds of no.

Okay, dropping the discussion now. . . U-dog knows I love him to pieces.

Onward. . . .

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by Daniel

This implies (sorry -udog) a 'defective-out-of-the-box' view of humanity. Can people make stupid, ignorant and ego-based decisions which lead them in the wrong direction? You bet! However, I don't think the exception proves the rule.

Originally Posted by u-dog

I know we will never agree on this Daniel... but yes. We are all morally corrupt and perverted! We ARE "defective-out-of-the-box." I like people. I really do. I like myself and am proud of who I am and what I have accomplished. I have confidence in my capacity to DO and BE "good", but we all carry the seeds of corruption into everything we do and they can take root and grow without warning. This doesn't mean that we are not cute and lovable and at times noble and courageous. It just means that you can't trust us further than you can throw us. It also means that we are always in need of the Grace of God. Sigh. Once a Calvinist, always a Calvinist.

Maybe I'm just feeling a bit conciliatory (Monty Python "Argument Clinic" reference), but I don't read these things all that differently. I think Daniel's statement about our ability to make stupid, ego-based decisions is not all that far off from a balanced doctrine of human depravity. Daniel would never use that word, and Dave (and I) would never acknowledge that it's merely an "exception," but we're not saying all that different things. Calvin (and his "minions" present here) didn't teach that humans are all bad, or incapable of good in a general sense, simply that we are also capable of (and often inclined to) great evil as well. That's obvious from a skim of any day's front page news.

Point being, I agree with both of you, to a degree (and risk being ousted from the Calvin fan club, again).

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Ha! I'll fight ya for 'em!

I've waited my whole life for them to tap me for Pope. When are they gonna figger it out? I'd set the church straight. . . err, well, maybe not ***strai---ght***. . . .

Pope Zerbie, Daniel and Antony

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by u-dog

Sorry... I totally disagree. Human beings are depraved... even a decent "Joe" like you Antony. Jim Jones was a hell of a decent guy who was all about social justice and equality but he ended up sexually abusing his followers and thousands of people ended their lives drinking cyanide laced kool-aid. Who needs someone looking over their shoulder? YOU DO. So do I. So does Daniel even if he doesn't like it very much.

Find a Christian community that feeds you and open yourself to a call to whatever form of ministry God may have in mind. Go back to Seminary by all means. That is worth doing on its own merits regardless of what you end up doing to serve God and the world. Start your own ministry by all means but makes sure there is someone who is paying attention so that when you start to become Jim Jones somebody is empowered to smack you. ("Snap out of it Antony!")

I did graduate from Seminary (got that M.Div. paper...from a Presbyterian Seminary that teaches total depravity). I was accountable to my denomination. When I came out as a gay man and decided that I'd rather find love than celibacy, the accountability kicked in and I got the boot. I got what I wanted...love.

I bring this up to simply say that "accountability" is often an excuse for systemic religious bigotry.

So how do you address a queer boy who has gone through this experience and still has a heart for ministry...but wonders about the oppression of religious accountability and what it would mean for future ministry.

In principle I agree with you. Having mentors in any endeavor would be excellent, but mentor relationships are very different from denominational accountability as it is often expressed.

I often wonder how much of this doctrinal submission and ordination stuff is a social construction to maintain power and control. Jesus chose to work outside of these structures and was crucified for that. Is there an example in that for us? I like to think so.

This is queer outsider perspective. It is one of our gifts...we're thrown out of institutional structures and we think outside of the box. One of the gifts that compensates for oppression.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by antonyh

Pope Zerbie, Daniel and Antony

All we need is one more, and we can have a Pope for all 4 cardinal directions. Daniel, the chic Pope of the East, Zerbie the flirtatious Pope of the West, Antony - pick your own epithet and let's call Chicago North -- now, any southerners want to claim the remaining title?

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

All we need is one more, and we can have a Pope for all 4 cardinal directions. Daniel, the chic Pope of the East, Zerbie the flirtatious Pope of the South, Antony - pick your own epithet and let's call Chicago North -- now, any southerners want to claim the remaining title?

Can you imagine how fun church would be if we presided over the festivities

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by antonyh

I did graduate from Seminary (got that M.Div. paper...from a Presbyterian Seminary that teaches total depravity). I was accountable to my denomination. When I came out as a gay man and decided that I'd rather find love than celibacy, the accountability kicked in and I got the boot. I got what I wanted...love.

I bring this up to simply say that "accountability" is often an excuse for systemic religious bigotry.

So how do you address a queer boy who has gone through this experience and still has a heart for ministry...but wonders about the oppression of religious accountability and what it would mean for future ministry.

In principle I agree with you. Having mentors in any endeavor would be excellent, but mentor relationships are very different from denominational accountability as it is often expressed.

I often wonder how much of this doctrinal submission and ordination stuff is a social construction to maintain power and control. Jesus chose to work outside of these structures and was crucified for that. Is there an example in that for us? I like to think so.

This is queer outsider perspective. It is one of our gifts...we're thrown out of institutional structures and we think outside of the box. One of the gifts that compensates for oppression.

I get what you're delving into here. It struck me as central when you first opened this thread.

I don't know what you're doing now, profession-wise. Maybe you can apply your calling to your current career. It is possible that your years of seminary have prepared you, not for ministry in the sense you then expected, but for a spiritual calling outside of denominational structures, in another field of endeavor. What I'm saying is, almost any profession can be a calling or a ministry of sorts - teaching, healing, anything to do with the arts, advocacy or social work. . . . Your training equipped you with certain knowledge and skills, which you might put to use elsewhere than where you thought you would use them.

I have over 700 hours of yoga teacher training and certification but haven't happened to start teaching classes (outside of 2 short summer sessions). But the training I received was very extensive and it absolutely influences everything else I do from teaching the singing lessons to the activism stuff. Likewise, your training can influence your pursuits outside of traditional church ministry.

The question you need to explore for yourself is whether you want to be within that structure or without it. Within is easier on the surface because it has an established path, but there may be reasons why that path may be the wrong one for you. Without is more difficult in that you may find yourself pioneering your own territory, but you will not be as subject to social constraints, which a lot of the time DO have to do with bigotry, prejudice, arbitrary standards, and other peoples' mistakes and problems.

I know you will figure it out if you keep delving. Is there any way you can see yourself ministering outside of the church?

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

I get what you're delving into here. It struck me as central when you first opened this thread.

I don't know what you're doing now, profession-wise. Maybe you can apply your calling to your current career. It is possible that your years of seminary have prepared you, not for ministry in the sense you then expected, but for a spiritual calling outside of denominational structures, in another field of endeavor. What I'm saying is, almost any profession can be a calling or a ministry of sorts - teaching, healing, anything to do with the arts, advocacy or social work. . . . Your training equipped you with certain knowledge and skills, which you might put to use elsewhere than where you thought you would use them.

I have over 700 hours of yoga teacher training and certification but haven't happened to start teaching classes (outside of 2 short summer sessions). But the training I received was very extensive and it absolutely influences everything else I do from teaching the singing lessons to the activism stuff. Likewise, your training can influence your pursuits outside of traditional church ministry.

The question you need to explore for yourself is whether you want to be within that structure or without it. Within is easier on the surface because it has an established path, but there may be reasons why that path may be the wrong one for you. Without is more difficult in that you may find yourself pioneering your own territory, but you will not be as subject to social constraints, which a lot of the time DO have to do with bigotry, prejudice, arbitrary standards, and other peoples' mistakes and problems.

I know you will figure it out if you keep delving. Is there any way you can see yourself ministering outside of the church?

My in my current position I am an auditor for a public accounting firm. We check the controls surrounding the technology that runs financial systems in public companies. All part of keeping those financial statements that investors rely on accurate. So in a way I am in the honesty business.

I agree with you that all of our professions are a ministry. It is just that a church position gives you the time and money to really focus on serving people.

I have many ideas for nonprofits and most of them fall outside of the scope of the church. My problem is time and funding. I don't have the time and I have to pay those bills. Hatecrimesbill.org is a current project and has taken many hours of work. I have an idea about starting an HIV prevention project in online chat rooms as well. Most of these ideas are a synthesis of technology and social work.

I always think about Mel White when discussions like this arise. He was not able to be in ordained ministry and look what happened...Soulforce. So there you go

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by antonyh

I have many ideas for nonprofits and most of them fall outside of the scope of the church. My problem is time and funding. I don't have the time and I have to pay those bills.

I know what you are going through.

I'm been working at the same place for many years, while preparing a new career as a self-employed person. Suffice it to say, I'm finding the transition challenging. This kind of thing, going from one structure to another, isn't easy. It's bring up all sorts of 'stuff'. But I like to think this is a good thing. My sense is that- it's how one deals with this 'stuff' that matters.

My suggestion is to think about the problem differently. Of course, your concern is time and money. But there is something- I believe- that needs consideration before this.

Goals and a Plan.

You need a concrete goal- something to aim for- and a plan to get there. And by plan- I mean an actual plan. Perhaps a 5 year one, with clear objectives, objectives that start with 'doable' things to begin with ( a career counselor can be a huge help).

It sounds rather simplistic, but I read (I forget where) that those who achieve big things in life not only get organized about such things, they actualize things in bits and pieces. One of those bits is writing things down. That way, one isn't left stuck in one's head- wishing and not doing anything about it.

I think this feeling you have about working with people is the universe telling you that something needs changing.

Creative discontent.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by BrentRichards

Maybe I'm just feeling a bit conciliatory (Monty Python "Argument Clinic" reference), but I don't read these things all that differently. I think Daniel's statement about our ability to make stupid, ego-based decisions is not all that far off from a balanced doctrine of human depravity. Daniel would never use that word, and Dave (and I) would never acknowledge that it's merely an "exception," but we're not saying all that different things. Calvin (and his "minions" present here) didn't teach that humans are all bad, or incapable of good in a general sense, simply that we are also capable of (and often inclined to) great evil as well. That's obvious from a skim of any day's front page news.

Point being, I agree with both of you, to a degree (and risk being ousted from the Calvin fan club, again).

Yeah! What he said.

[Str8Ally]

Originally Posted by antonyh

If I am totally honest, I still want to be in the ministry. There is not a day that goes by where I don't feel that desire. I honestly don't know where to begin to make this happen and I still wonder if it is a wise decision given the animosity in the Church toward LGBT people. I would also say that to some degree I have acquired a major beef with Christianity which makes it difficult to be a pastor.

You've just answered your own question, friend!

Read the statement in bold again. That is exactly why you should be a pastor! If you feel rejected by the church and unwelcome in the ministry, that means the church needs a fundamental change - which means it needs you to be a part of that change!

We need more pastors who have a beef with Christianity, let me tell ya.