Guaranteed Appointments

The United Methodist Commission to Study the Ministry is proposing an end to guaranteed appointments to the 2012 General Conference. If you're not familiar with this, the practice of the United Methodist Church for the last several decades has been to guarantee every ordained elder that they will have a church to serve. In theory, this makes some sense. We have always understood that a person's call to ordained ministry is confirmed by the Church. If it appears that the church made a mistake or that a person's call has changed, then the Church could respond by not giving that pastor an appointment. Having said that, there are a number of issues that I hope are seriously considered before the proposal comes to a vote.

1. In conversations that I've been a part of, the guarantee of appointment for bishops has never come up. Bishops are elders. They do not have a separate ordination. But bishops are consecrated as bishops for life. They are guaranteed to be bishop for life. If guaranteed appointments are removed, then we need to seriously consider going to a term episcopacy so that Bishops also do not have a guaranteed appointment. Just as guaranteed appointments for pastors in local churches could cause complacency, so too could a guaranteed appointment for a bishop.

2. The UMC also guarantees that every United Methodist church will have a pastor. As a friend pointed out to me recently, if we aren't going to promise pastors a church why do we promise churches a pastor? There are churches who have effectively ceased being United Methodist in theology and practice. There are many churches that have abandoned the mission of making Disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. Why should we not hold the churches to a higher standard at the same time we hold clergy to a higher standard?

3. One reason that the guaranteed appointment began was as a protection for clergy that churches may not want because of sexism, racism, etc. I suppose the thought is we've moved far enough along now that this protection is no longer necessary. I could be swayed either way on this. I also wonder, though, if there needs to be protection for theology. Clearly the theological diversity within Methodism is a blessing and a curse. I treasure it, but I also understand that it makes conveying who we are and rallying around a common identity much more difficult. Could a particularly conservative bishop choose to appoint a marginally competent conservative pastor at the expense of a slightly more competent liberal pastor (or vice-versa)?

My hunch is that the denomination will move so slowly that the recommendation to eliminate guaranteed appointments won't pass in 2012. It is a topic that deserves deep discussion. I hope these three points will be part of the discussion