Thanks to the team over at The United Methodist Reporter for the chance to offer some thoughts on vows, based in part on a recent piece that argued personal convictions trump ordination promises. If you haven’t seen it yet, the link is here.
Advertisements
Thank you for saying what needs to be said. I’m only just beginning my time as clergy, and I’ve got some years ahead of me before I make those vows, but if I didn’t believe what you said, I’d go find another line of work.
Thanks, Darcy. Taking vows never means we will like living up to them 24/7. They are a spiritual discipline. Peace to you on your journey.
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
Brother Drew, Your view is the traditional understanding of taking vows or making a commitment. Those who call themselves do not broach the subject. Just as they do not offer an alternative definition of marriage,
they do not explain their understanding of vows that they have taken.
It is this attitude that will split the denomination.
When new pastors promise to uphold the “order, liturgy, doctrine, and discipline,” are they also promising to accept and uphold any changes that might be made in the future?
That sounds like an awfully big blank check to ask someone to sign.
When we get married, we make vows to love someone “in sickness and in health” and “for better or for worse.” I don’t think anyone should make lifelong promises without considering how the other party might change over time. I know that was part of my discernment.
Somewhere along the way you had to answer these questions, among others.
Have you studied the doctrine and discipline of The UMC?
Do you believe they are in harmony with scripture?
No doubt you said yes to both. How then do your beliefs automatically change if our doctrine changes? You can see the conundrum here.
Not quite the same as a marriage vow but taking that analogy suppose you vow to take “this woman to be your wife” and five years later she gets a sex change. Are you still obligated to now take that man as your spouse?