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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
First off, I think your hunch is right-on! I'll probably be retiring before anybody gets around to acting on this!
But seriously, you raise some great points. I do understand that there are many chronically under-performing under-employed clergy. Bishop Pennel at Vanderbilt Divinity elucidated this often for me. But I don't think threatening job security is a useful way of encouraging accountability.
As someone still coming through the dreaded "process," guaranteed appointment is viewed as one of the lights at the end of the tunnel. We will have more and more difficulty attracting young clergy if the process remains arduous without the reward of lifetime employment.
Also, as a female clergyperson (or soon to be - June 11!!), I don't think we've come as far as we think, re: #3. How many women lead pastor large-membership churches? Not enough. And part of that is because the largest-membership churches operate in some ways outside of the standard itineracy system already. But I do understand that, in some places, the bishop has to force a church to accept me as a woman - at first. Then I hope that they would be able to judge me on the basis of my gifts for ministry.
I just think we can do better than cutting off guaranteed appointment. I have valued our ordination process for its relational nature - my Presbyterian and Episcopalian friends take a standardized test to judge readiness for ministry, while I meet biweekly with a treasured mentor. Can't we ensure job performance in the same relational way?
This will demand much Holy Conferencing. As a former "tenured teacher" I can tell you that the teaching profession is suffering from many who no longer have the passion to teach yet refuse to retire especially during tough economic times.
My concern with clergy is how we are evaulated and offered constructive criticism. David nails many of the very real concerns...sexism, racism, and let's add ageism on both ends of the spectrum. How do we help collegues improve skills necessary for ministry?
How can and will those who need to step aside be gracefully transitioned out. The church cannot afford anything but excellence in leadership.
The process for becoming a full elder is long...but really not that big of a deal compared to other professions. Few in the world have life-time job security.
Thank you for your thoughts. Emily, there definitely seems to be a glass ceiling. Unfortunately I'm not sure there is a structure way to break that. The current system guarantees that you will be appointed, but the Bishop can still choose where to appoint you. That's a good reason for you to come back to Kansas! 2 of the 3 largest churches in Kansas East by attendance have women pastors.
Post a Comment