Oct. 29, 2012
By Neill Caldwell and Heather Hahn*
ELK GROVE VILLAGE, Ill. (UMNS) — The top court of The United Methodist Church has upheld church rules that ensure security of appointment for elders and associate clergy members, striking down legislation passed by the denomination’s lawmaking assembly last spring.
A UMNS photo by Mike DuBose.
The church’s General Conference, meeting in Tampa, Fla., had approved on May 1 a much-debated piece of legislation that would have deleted language in the church’s Book of Discipline ensuring security of appointment. The legislation also would have added steps for discontinuing elders and associate members from receiving an appointment. A churchwide Study of Ministry Commission had proposed the changes as a way to replace ineffective pastors.
However, the church’s Judicial Council, meeting Oct. 24-27 in Elk Grove Village, ruled that the General Conference action was in violation of the church’s constitution.
Security of appointment “has long been a part of the tradition of The United Methodist Church” and “abolishing security of appointment would destroy our historic plan for itinerant superintendency,” the nine-member court said in Decision 1226.
The General Conference action was in violation of the church’s third and fourth Restrictive Rules, which ban changes that would destroy that historic plan and do away with clergy rights to a trial and appeal, respectively, the court said. That right to trial and fair process is “absolute,” the ruling states, and it has been upheld repeatedly in previous decisions.
Left untouched were revisions to Paragraph 338 in the Book of Discipline that allow bishops — with two-thirds support of the conference’s clergy members — to appoint elders, provisional member elders and associate members to a less than full-time appointment. The Judicial Council was not asked to review the constitutionality of those changes and thus did not specifically rule on them.
‘Itinerancy is the cornerstone’
Frederick K. Brewington, the General Conference delegate who had asked that the matter be referred to the Judicial Council, argued in favor of overturning the legislation during an Oct. 24 oral hearing before the court.
“Itinerancy is the cornerstone of the whole structure,” said Brewington, a lawyer and lay member in the New York Annual (regional) Conference. “This action shifts power from the annual conference to the episcopacy. There would no longer be a need to bring charges against an elder, just fail to appoint them. …
“Elders make a contract, a covenant, to serve where the bishop sends them,” Brewington said. “This turns things into a mish-mosh — and that’s not a legal term. It will take away our ability to attract new and young clergy, who will go elsewhere.”
Reached by phone afterward, Brewington was pleased with the council’s decision.
“We need to be all thankful that we have a church that allows us the opportunity to be able to have these important issues decided clearly and in a fully articulated fashion as the Judicial Council has done,” he said. “I think this is an important determination for over 30,000 clergy who basically would be left without recourse if indeed there were determinations made that were not just. That’s really what we — my team and I — were looking at as we put this together, the justice issue.”
The Rev. John Feagins, director of San Antonio United Methodist Campus Ministry and member of the Southwest Texas Conference, helped Brewington argue for keeping job guarantees for elders and associate members in good standing. He said he expects the Judicial Council’s ruling will help clergy be more focused on ministry.
“The clergy can be motivated by their love for Christ and their love for the church and their love for the mission field rather than by fear of arbitrary denial of appointment,” he said. “I think it makes a tremendous difference for our clergy to have questions about their character and status determined in the open forum of the annual conference (clergy session) … rather than in the secrecy of a cabinet room some place.”
Conflict within lawbook
The ruling restores Book of Discipline Paragraphs 337, 321 and 354 to their 2008 language.
The decision tracks the security of appointment language since it was inserted into the Book of Discipline in 1956, and cites several previous Judicial Council decisions in which security of appointment was upheld. In Decision 380, the council said that “there is no directly stated Constitutional right to an appointment. However, it is implicit in Constitutional provisions. …”
The ruling also mentions a conflict in the 2012 Book of Discipline, noting that Paragraph 334 retains similar language that was deleted in Paragraph 337.
The Judicial Council acknowledged in its ruling that the phrase “guaranteed appointment,” while not used in the Book of Discipline, has become commonly used around the denomination for the idea of security of appointment.
Arguing for additional authority
At the oral hearing, recently retired Bishop Alfred W. Gwinn Jr. represented the Council of Bishops and argued to preserve the legislation.
Episcopal duties have not changed in any way, said Gwinn, who served on the Study of Ministry Commission. “A bishop recommends a person for transitional leave to the Board of Ordained Ministry; the Board of Ordained Ministry must recommend that leave to the clergy session, which has the final decision. Where does the bishop gain additional authority beyond what already exists?”
In an Oct. 29 phone interview, Gwinn said he was “disappointed, of course.”
“I feel like the Judicial Council looked at the issue very narrowly, and they speak of historical precedence of security of appointment and refer to 1956 as being historical,” he said. “The church is 230 years old, and they seem to try to establish the theory that it’s a historical precedent in the church by using 1956.”
Itinerancy should not be linked to security of appointment, the bishop said.
“Itinerancy is related to call and commitment — not to security of appointment — and I think (Bishop Francis) Asbury and (Thomas) Coke would be very disturbed by the idea of itinerancy being connected to security of appointment.”
Looking ahead, Gwinn said he thinks boards of ordained ministry should concentrate on recruiting “superb candidates” for ministry.
“The bishops can deal with people who make the grades E or F,” he said. “There’s a system to exit totally ineffective people, and we are very grateful for B and A pastors. What is killing the church is C- and D pastors with no way to exit them. The removal of security of appointment could have moved out the C- and the D pastors.”
Newly elected Bishop Kenneth H. Carter, who also served on the Study of Ministry Commission and now leads the Florida Conference, said his appointive cabinet “will of course exercise its leadership within the Book of Discipline, even as we live with the practical challenge of connecting superintendency and itineracy to our mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.”
Across the theological spectrum
Groups across of the United Methodist theological spectrum that often disagree had joined in expressing concern about the removal of guaranteed appointments before General Conference and celebrated the Judicial Council’s ruling on Oct. 29.
“The Judicial Council ruling opens a door to broader discussion about faithful calling, training and support of clergy in a two-way covenant system,” said a statement by the progressive caucus Methodist Federation for Social Action.
Similarly, the Rev. Thomas Lambrecht, vice president and general manager of the evangelical caucus Good News, cheered the decision for preserving itinerancy and fair process.
“There is a fair process in place for addressing pastoral ineffectiveness,” his statement said. “Let’s use it.”
* Caldwell is editor of the Virginia United Methodist Advocate magazine. Hahn is a United Methodist News Service reporter.
News media contact: Linda Bloom or Heather Hahn, New York and Nashville, Tenn., (615) 742-5470 or newsdesk@umcom.org.
40 comments
3 pings
Skip to comment form ↓
Charles W. Brockwell, Jr.
October 29, 2012 at 11:51 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Many thanks to our Judicial Council for upholding the covenant, the dignity, and the integrity of United Methodist itinerancy. In my opinion, no self-respecting clergy member of an annual conference could accept Bishop Gwinn’s faux covenant rationale.
Chuck Gommer
October 29, 2012 at 1:14 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
In this matter of deploying “effective pastors”…..the problem is not the Bishops…though often they are…the problem is not the pastor….though sometimes they are….the problem is the Board of the Ordained Ministry…..its not enough to know “how to do things right”….but in those critical moments of making judgments, they need the courage to do the right thing!
David Miller
October 29, 2012 at 2:17 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I completely disagree with Bishop Gwinn. I do not think pastors are “killing the church.” Pastors are the scapegoats of a failing system.
I just yesterday preached a sermon about not being able to quantify human beings. Technocratic management of people is an affront to our theological conviction that we are dust of the earth inspired (inspirited) by the breath of God. If we were only the dust of the earth, technocratic techniques such as Bishop Gwinn’s might be appropriate, but I think they are at the very least theologically suspect and at the most blasphemous.
I recall my New Testament professor at Lexington Theological Seminary telling each of us when we received our papers back from her, “You are not your grade.” I do believe in evaluation and in accountability, as did that professor, but the idea that there are bishops who think of us as merely “A pastors,” “B pastors,” “C- pastors,” “D pastors,” “E pastors,” or “F pastors” is repulsive to me.
Here’s an article in Forbes explaining how ranking employees ruined Microsoft’s creativity: http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/03/the-terrible-management-technique-that-cost-microsoft-its-creativity/. How much more so in the church.
Dr. David F. Mahoney
October 30, 2012 at 3:59 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Absolutely correct! I couldn’t agree more!
Michael McCoy
October 29, 2012 at 4:18 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
This requires that the Boards of Ordained Ministries, respectively, must finally do their jobs and help those “C- & D” pastors rather than conspire to be rid of them. The covenant goes both ways. I said I’d go where sent and you said you’d have a place to send me as long as I was in good standing. The new legislation would be, “You have to go where I say, and if I like you, I might just send you somewhere.” Institutional racism, and sexism, as well as theological differences DOES affect appointments. This is especially true in the Southeast jurisdiction. I heard with my own ears Bp. Davis say that there were “congregations that are not yet ready to receive a woman in their pulpit,” as a reason why no women were ordained elder and only one woman was ordained provisional elder in 2001. While 11 men were ordained elders and 14 men provisional elders. I know of several non-white clergy who were told they may as well retire because they’ve served all of the “black” churches in the conference. The problem is not effectiveness of clergy. Most are effective. It has to do with recognizing where one is called to serve. The idea of “matching” clergy with churches is preposterous because we know that there are only so many places with annual conference boundaries. Most of the time appointments are made by what the congregation can afford, not what gifts and graces a person brings. More than once I have heard that people would, “Appoint someone to a badly fitting church in order to force them to want to quit.” This is not Christlike behavior. It is further evidence of the secular business world creeping in and treating human beings–Christ’s representatives–as commodities. This isn’t just repulsive, it’s sinful.
sheri graeber
October 29, 2012 at 7:41 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
if we are to grow and succeed as a church, we need to stop looking for who to blame and start collaborating as UMC. As a member of our Board of Ordained Ministry, I know we take very seriously our responsibility first to the local church and then to the Conference, laity and clergy. It is not helpful to make statements that focus blame on boards by saying may finally have to do their job or they need to do the right thing. I believe all BOOM’s try to fulfill their role to the best of their ability. Let us remember that tearing each other down is tearing down the entire body of Christ and that each body part needs the rest of the body to function. May we be about collegiality and collaboration and not succumb to the way of the world which is criticize, condemn, divide, and conquer.
Rev. Randy Kanipe
October 30, 2012 at 2:14 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Wow – really? “C and D” pastors are actually killing the church? This means that pastors who are literally ‘ineffective’ are in reality- effective enough to kill off an entire denomination! If this is true, then either their ineffectiveness is under-rated, OR the church is weaker than we may realize.
Personally, I find the classification of people who have given their lives serving God, to the best of their ability – whatever that ability may be – to be offensive. Perhaps the “C & D” pastors started out as “A & B” level pastors, but working 70 hour weeks for years on end – without a sabbatical, and little vacation or support – can ruin the gifts, graces and talents of even the best of clergy.
I don’t believe God calls just anyone into ministry. And if our boards of ordained ministry have deemed these persons worthy of Ordination, and they all start out with great hope – we must ask ourselves what is happening to Pastors, that would render them ineffective after years of faithful service? I don’t believe our Boards of ordained ministry would intentionally Ordain someone who is blatantly ineffective, any more than God would call someone whose heart is not in it. I think clergy ineffectiveness comes from burn out, disillusion, lack of self care and some degree of emotional/spiritual abuse. An ancient African proverb states: “When you kill your Shaman, you kill yourself.” Perhaps if we all took better care of one another (Clergy for self and church – and church for clergy and their families) we might see positive results in the church. But we will never know until we try. Until then – scapegoating people is the easiest way to delegate the anxiety that comes from diminishing membership.
ppackch1
October 30, 2012 at 7:45 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
The problem is an complex…..a uniting of many issues….many good pastors are saddled with congregations full of grief and anger and the pastor becomes the focus of them to the point that effectiveness is impossible. Our District Superintendents are over-scheduled to the point that beyond putting out major fires, there is no normative/preventative care that might avert or alleviate concerns. The Board of Ordained Ministry has a role in assuring that pasotrs continue to meet ministry standards. There is a process ALREADY IN DISCIPLINE to deal with pasotrs deemed ineffective. By citing the Restrictive Rules and the Constitution, the Judicial Council is correct in identifying the core of what the itinerancy is. A, B, C, D, E, F pastors? There will always be concerns. But we need to do deeper than letter grades to look at the whole problem.
The Wall Street Journal’s story on the decision (and let me say that the fact the Wall Street Journal reported it is in itself is something we need to reflect upon) gave the impression of the pastor’s union bringing to bear on the whole church their agenda. What Fred Brewington presented was correct: this is a covenant between the conference and the pastor: for giving up the ability to decide where one will serve (one can be appointed anywhere), the pastor is promised a place to serve. The church is also promised a pastor without need of a selection process that goes on for months in “called” systems.
It has never been perfect, but the assurances for pastors allows them to serve with security, knowing that the authority of discipline is with them. I am grateful that Judicial Council was able to see this.
Now I wonder what DID General Conference do, when all is said and done.
Larry R. Neal
October 30, 2012 at 8:03 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
As one of those “F” pastors who was denied even part-time appointmen(National Guard Chaplain)and who was involved in a long term “dispute” over voluntary placement vs leave of absense, I think I speak from some knowledge over guaranteed apointment.
The UMC has a mechanism in place to remove pastors who they feel are underperforming, or whatever. I personally know that it is far from perfect, but it works much better than giving all that power to one person. In my conference (I am now under appointment, again)many clergymen and women are “promoted” based on their last name, the seminary they attended (or didn’t attend), or because they talk a good talk.
I also knew many clergy who went from one difficult appointment to another simply because they attended the “wrong” seminary, worshipped using the wrong liturgy, or whose families were not as socially adept as others.
Robert DeBaun
October 30, 2012 at 8:15 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
So, what the court is saying is that no matter what we have to keep the ineffective clergy in appointments. And we wonder why the Methodist Church is in decline. Job Security comes from doing the job.
bobby
October 30, 2012 at 11:42 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I agree. Too bad the council couldn’t make a reccomendation on how to handle this situation. This is why so many young people goes from high school to college to seminary and into the UMC, because they are picking a career that guareeteds a life time job no matter what, instead of answering the Call into the ministry.
revsandy1
October 30, 2012 at 10:50 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I’m a deacon so job security has never been an issue for me. That said, I was concerned about the proposed change. It’s never as simple as it sounds. The Book of Discipline has a method for dealing with ineffective pastors, but for good reasons or bad, we’ve been hesitant to implement it. As in the medical field, our solution is to deal with the symptoms rather than the cause. Health care systems are now placing more emphasis on prevention. We need to do likewise. As one who serves with the Board of Ordained Ministry, I can assure you that great effort goes into approving candidates who embody the call, the gifts, the passion and the Wesleyan spirit for ministry. Can we do better? Perhaps. But placing all the blame on the Boards of Ordained Ministry is way too simplistic. There are many reasons why pastors burnout and become ineffective, not the least of which is the personality of many of our congregations. When are we going to talk about holding churches accountable? Far too many congregations simply suck the life out of their pastors, and we allow them to do it over and over again.
bobby herring
October 30, 2012 at 3:38 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Do you suggest we fire the churches and their members who give from their pockets to pay salaries of ineffective pastors? I know of several pastors who have had 3 churches in 5 years. Is each of those churches broken or could there be something wrong with the attitude of the pastors? Of course some churches are preacher eaters. Send the ineffective pastors there and refuse to move them. Problem solved on both accounts.
Dr. David F. Mahoney
October 30, 2012 at 4:16 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Many many local churches are peopled by ineffective laypeople! It’s easier to scapegoat a pastor than an entire congregation. The United Methodist Church is in decline because of its heartless clergy leadership! God calls pastors, even those whom some church leaders may brand as “ineffective.” God’s way are not ours! You probably equate an effective pastor with one who can raise £.
willrev
November 2, 2012 at 5:32 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I disagree with the heartless and un-compassionate comment by Mr. Herring. What you advocate is enough to destroy children, marriages, even push some towards suicide. Churches that “eat” pastors need to be disciplined and or closed. They need psychotherapy. But the UMC wants their money more than their healing or accountability. No pastor and his/her family should be put through ritual abuse. We are supposed to have safe sanctuaries. I personally find the ritually sanctioned abuse of clergy and their families at the hands of laity just as sick and sadistic as child abuse. It is of the devil. The bishops have sticks to beat off the wolves. They need to start using them again instead of just in dress up ceremonies. This is the biblical role of a bishop. The problem is that the so called “coaching” for C, D and F pastors is nothing more than non-seminary trained lay person telling the pastor what to do which is nothing more than to become part of the sick system so the laity don’t have to deal with their sick family system. If they can get the pastor to become part of the darkness, they won’t ever have to come into the light. That’s easier than catharsis of dealing with the sick system. The bishops and DS’s also just want the pastor to become part of the darkness. It is easier and takes less work and keeps the money coming which is the heart of the apportionment system and the sole measure of pastoral effectiveness – whether or not he/she can collect the pulpit tax. Someone please start telling the truth.
Mark Mildren
October 30, 2012 at 1:11 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
The Judicial Council has stumbled here.Hopefully, ineffective pastors should never have made it that far to be ordained, yet it happens. Systems are not perfect, and sometimes we pass people on hoping they will change and do better. Deeming someone ineffective should be carefully considered, looking at one’s record fully and from different angles, but the Church shouldn’t have to be stuck with ineffective or incompetent clergy. We just cannot afford this any longer. General Conference was correct to seek to change this rule. The Judicial Council is hurting the denomination with this ruling and its ruling on the Call to Action Report.
Mark Mildren, West Plains, Mo.
howerw3
October 30, 2012 at 1:22 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
John Wesley sacked preachers who did not measure up. So should his successors in supervising ministry. As one who practiced law before the ministry, I am afraid I must suggest that the Judicial Council is inventing tradition in ways that will strangle the denomination. Calling something a constitutional issue is a very serious matter, that judges should be reluctant to do, especially in derogation of the legitimate exercise of the legislative power for the good of the order. Every legislative enactment should be read as constitutional unless there is no reasonable means to do so. In this case, the “reason” seems attenuated.
bobby herring
October 30, 2012 at 3:32 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Of course we have realize that those judges are also elders who benefits from such rulings. Only job in the world where you have a job for life whether you go to work or not.
howerw3
October 30, 2012 at 7:16 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Jesus did not offer us job security—actually quite the contrary. We must accept that we serve Christ and that we may be made idle by his will as often as we are sent into high activity. Something about an old prayer attributed to JW comes to mind here. It is not that we should blame clergy for the problems of the church, but we should be looking for fruitfulness, without which, one might ask if God is being served well and then figure out how to get on board with what God has in mind for us, whether that is removing clergy or reassigning them, sending in outside help or closing a church–our aim must always be God’s will from which all fruitfulness arises.
David Spaulding
November 1, 2012 at 3:56 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Wesley sacked a bunch of members too that didn’t measure up!
willrev
November 2, 2012 at 5:42 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
This is what is primarily wrong with the denomination. There must be accountability for the members joining, not just clergy. Wesley did discipline members who did not perform their end of the covenant. The sick family system we have now, allows only for the discipline of pastors. The un-regenerated members stacking church boards and causing problems are never disciplined and put out of the church. Why? Money. Money. Money. Pastors are only part of the entire covenant system. If members take the covenant and don’t perform, the consequences should be the same for clergy, members/laity, bishops, and superintendents. The clergy have become scapegoats. When did they take on shouldering the entire responsibility of the membership covenant?
howerw3
November 2, 2012 at 8:32 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Accountability of members was lost about 100 years ago. Restore that along with pastoral accountability and we have a possibility of serving Christ in the Spirit again. We should all stop whining about our DS and Bishops and the nasty power cliques–that clearly exist–and demand more not less accountability all the way around. Then God will bless our work.
Mickey Olson
October 30, 2012 at 3:12 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Many of the congregations are difficult because we have sent them pastors who have wrecked havoc out of their own lack of self awareness. Instead of correcting or dealing with the ill equipped pastors we just reappoint them to somewhere else where they usually wreck more havoc. We need District Superintendents who are not afraid of conflict and who will hold accountable and help Clergy to process and find the help they need. There are always two sides to every problematic congregation and clergy and quite often past conflict that has never been resolved causes the present conflicts.
Milt Chaski
October 30, 2012 at 4:35 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
This is kind of sad…congregations blame pastors and clergy blames congregations…being a lay member who tithes, teaches Sunday School, used to lead the youth program till someone else expressed taking it on at our church, and always helps with projects (just got back from wetvaccing the basement from Sandy), I am saddened when my church’s clergy tells me they are asked to work too many hours, needs guaranteed appointment, need more money (so much more money that many of our congregations cannot afford to have clergy come preach the Gospel on a regular basis, WWJD?). I was in business for myself till I retired and averaged MORE than 70 hours a week because I LOVED what I did. Maybe what we need are clergy who love what they do…I can tell you that I have run into several people who felt a call to ministry but I am not so sure God is calling or they just are falling prey to human impulses…and I can say that some ministers who were ordained should NEVER have been. I do not think that does not make them bad people…. but it is truthful that our denomination is in a lot of trouble…just as tithing is not a financial decision but a spiritual decision(something taught to me by another lay member), I think that a lot of our congregations need to grow spiritually…so WHO is supposed to be helping them grow as Christians? Isnt it our clergy? If our clergy cant keep our congregations growing to the point that they want to tithe, serve, witness, pray regularly, study Scripture, is it right to keep the same people as long as they want a job to the detriment of the denomination? BTW, I love our preacher as a man AND a preacher, and support him financially but more importantly in the ways that he is trying to improve our church in mission and evangelism…twelve years ago I did very few of those things, until he led me to get more involved. The two pastors we had before that were at the last appointments of their careers, and though I liked them personally, they did NOT provide effective leadership to our church. Therein lies the problem. With our present pastor, we have more than doubled membership, tripled attendance AND become much more active as a church in mission, service, fellowship, and evangelism with many more members involved in those efforts. Where would our church be if we has instead another ineffective pastor because he had to be appointed somewhere? That is what is happening to too many of our congregations and it is a accelerating downward spiral of congregations getting less effective and pastors getting less effective. Other churches are growing while we as a denomination seem content with the status quo. Maintaining that status quo will result in the disappearance of the UMC in another couple generations So sad…
Rev. Michael L. Kundrat
October 30, 2012 at 10:25 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
It’s not so much a guaranty of an appointment, but it is the reason that itinerancy works as well as it does. There are certainly directions for removing ineffective pastors, but Superintendents and Bishops need to work more closely with Boards of Ministries and Annual Conference Executive Sessions need to be more than a perfunctory rubber stamp on decisions made behind closed doors. If an accusation of ineffective pastoring is made…it needs to be openly presented and defended, and the pastor needs to be able to defend himself/herself. There also needs to be clear standards for objectively judging what is an ineffective pastorate and it needs to be documented., and some recourse in either retraining or making the transition to life outside of pastoral ministry for the family/ and or pastor. Subjective, singular decisions are seldom the answer, and supervision and evaluations need to become more effective than they are. A call to ministry and service in ministry to Christ and the world is not the same as being qualified to become a United Methodist pastor under UM polity.
Dr. David F. Mahoney
October 31, 2012 at 7:28 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
As a layperson who left the UMC because of this very issue, I couldn’t agree more!
John Feagins
October 31, 2012 at 10:02 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
The propaganda campaign leading up to the adoption of this legislation deployed a classic straw man argument about the “ineffective clergy” that has wounded the relationship of our clergy to their bishops and the clergy to the laity. It has emboldened antagonists on all sides and damaged the bond of peace.
It is a fallacious non sequitur to suggest that we can solve a problem reportedly created by lifetime tenure by giving those with the most absolute version of that tenure more authority. The legislation claimed to deal with irresponsible clergy by allowing the bishop to be free of the responsibility to make appointments and engage and respect fair process. It dealt with ineffectiveness by giving ineffectiveness a pass.
The legislation was defeated by Judicial Council because it was unjust and inconsistent with our Constitution.
It is time that this straw man argument be withdrawn and the issue of ineffectiveness put into context. Bishop Willimon does precisely this in his Youtube interview on Guaranteed Appointments. Willimon states that ineffective pastors were a small percentage of his former conference, that he was able to deal with them decisively, and that the primary concern was with lack of available churches – namely, a surplus of pastors due to church decline.
This decline has many causes, not the least of which being the mortality of our members, our ethnic disconnect with the diverse population of North America, the lack of evangelistic, cross cultural, cross generational work over the past two generations, and the neglect and obsolescence of our church facilities.
Bishop Coyner has also laid out the other concerns with appointment making besides ineffectiveness – families, availability of appointments, and such.
None of us, including myself and others who argued this case for and against the legislation, want to protect the immoral, the incompetent, or the ineffective – lay or clergy. None of us value job security over passion, competence, and integrity. None of us want to hinder the mission of the church – but I ask, what hinders the church’s mission more, sending every available servant into the mission field (including into the world outside the church walls), or telling those whose God given calling has been tested and proven to sit on the sidelines because our priorities are in other places, because they don’t look like us, sound like us, vote like us, worship like us, aren’t related to the right people, or – as the legislation permitted – for one person to neutralize elders in full connection for no stated reason at all.
Honestly, if we cannot welcome an imperfect stranger into our pulpits, how will an imperfect stranger feel in our pews?
We need to cease and desist from this uncharitable defamation against our clergy – as a class of servants of Christ, and the defamation against the laity by clergy. The decision is final and it serves no purpose to continue this propaganda.
http://john-feagins.blogspot.com/2012/10/feagins-oral-argument-at-judicial.html
Will
October 31, 2012 at 3:21 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
As someone feeling a call to ministry and starting the candidacy process, I was relieved in knowing that after all of this process is complete, the possibility of having an appointment is promising. All I want to do is devote my life and gifts to God’s service. I think one problem that exists in our conference is that so many retired clergy have been pulled out of retirement. The world has changed and people have so many distractions that we have to overcome, we need some younger clergy excited and on fire about what they are doing. With that said, we also still need our experienced clergy to guide us and help set the examples of service and leadership for us to follow. Ineffective pastors are still people, and are children of the same Creator in heaven as the rest of us. Instead of pushing them out the door, why not work with them and help them to grow in their journey so they may bear fruit in the congregations that they are serving. Just a thought.
PEDRO SALAZAR
October 31, 2012 at 4:43 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I AM GLAD THAT THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL CLEARLY STATED THE QUESTION OF PASTOR SECURITY IN THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS. THERE IS IN PLACE A WAY TO DEAL EFFECTIVELY WITH SOME PASTORS THAT MIGHT BE I ENEFECTIVE IN THEIR MINISTRIES. TO BEGIN WITH YOU HAVE TO HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF COMMITMENT AND LOVE TO BE A PASTOR SINCE MOST PASTORS AND THEIR FAMILIES ALMOST LIVE IN POVERTY LEVELS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DISTRICT SUPERINTEDENTS, BISHOPS AND A FEW PASTORS OF LARGE CHURCHES. I AM GLAD WE HAVE A GREAT SYSTEM IN OUR DENOMINATION. PEDRO SALAZAR, RETIRED CLERGY..
Rhonda Cooper
October 31, 2012 at 5:43 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Sometimes pastors and congregations become ineffective because we don’t believe we are “making a difference” or doing meaningful work any longer. Most of us want to believe that faith matters in this world. Placing blame on any one entity, policy, ruling, committee – this doesn’t address the deeper issue of how we nurture purpose and meaning that in turn energizes us to “give of our best to the Master” and press on with hopefulness.
howerw3
November 1, 2012 at 7:10 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
If we had a consistent practice of connectional peer spiritual direction and ministry support, we would help all in need be more attentive to God and hence more effective pastors, AND we would need far less power-based means of policing the clergy. Those who refuse to participate in this connectional way would be self selecting out of the connection, or be subject to disciplinary steps. Wouldn’t it be a novel idea (not) for us to return to the Wesleyan methods of accountability as clergy!
Frankie P.
November 1, 2012 at 1:52 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I appreciate this decision (and it’s spirit) and believe it to be the right one and for the right reasons. It is in my mind an affirmation of our well established heritage and out clergy families who give so much for the sake of serving the church and our Lord Jesus Christ. Thank you and it is indeed an answer to prayer. Rest easy colleagues and continue serving out of love rather than fear. Rev. Dr. Frankie L. Perdue – Disabled
Steven Marsh
November 1, 2012 at 2:21 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Amen!
willrev
November 2, 2012 at 4:49 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I am a 42 year old pastor with a wife and two kids. I was one of Bishop Al Gwinn’s victims in his push to rid the church of ineffective clergy. I am white. I watched as he also helped one of my black friends who had come over from the A.M.E. out of the ministry who went back to a secular job. I had been appointed to a string of churches in discord, some were even fighting internally. There were systemic psychological issues in all of them. The one we were serving when I went to sit down with the bishop looking for a mature, knowledgeable man to guide me in my career choice of ministry was abusive to our family. My two year old daughter’s bed was full of rat feces every night in the parsonage. The church said, “Welcome to the country, BOY!” They did nothing. We were beaten down. The anxiety caused my wife to throw up every Sunday before church. Finally she quit going when a counselor told us that was ok. Instead of the bishop taking his staff and beating off the wolves, he beat us. There was no compassion. We only got shamed and blamed. It was one of the most difficult experiences of my life. It hurt deeply. I was told that my physical appearance was repulsive and I could not be appointed certain places. I went wearing my best suit and cufflinks. I was told I was ineffective and would be helped out of the ministry. You see, the issue is not the clergy in many cases. The bishops want the money of the laity, not their holiness. There is not discipline for the un-regenerated and unsaved laity often in leadership positions. They should be removed and people with clear spiritual fruit should be the leaders. This does not happen because the UMC needs their money worse than holiness. Holiness does not come without discipline. The truly spiritual laity often want no part in leadership because they are afraid and ill equipped to do spiritual warfare with the dark side. Then entrenched dark side leaders shut out new people and keep them outsiders until they are apathetic or leave local churches. The UMC is the most difficult place to become an insider in a local church. Yet that is the model in Acts. Everyone becomes and insider in the family of God. People hunger for genuine relationship but leave when they aren’t allowed in. As for my family, we left the local church. Extension ministry is a blessing. We aren’t left struggling with student debt the church refuses to help pay with its low salary. I make a working wage. We own a home and have a place where we can have some peace away from the work of ministry. We have spiritual health. As for ineffective, I have only gotten the highest job evals and make $83k a year. So apparently the bishop failed to see the gem of a worker he had sitting in his office that day. That’s his loss. Not bad for a 42 year old who does not mind hard work. Rid the structure of its nepotism and insider politics and you might attract some of the best and brightest. Reward them with a living wage and help pay off student debt. Then give them the real authority to discipline and restructure the leadership locally and rid it of un-regenerates and to actually fight the darkness rather than make friends with it. Then the church might actually grow. Someone needs to start truth telling in the UMC. But the fear is the loss of money. Money to run the structure has become the god of Methodism, not the holiness of heart and life that Wesley preached.
Richard T. Reinhard
November 5, 2012 at 11:09 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Rules posted by UMC Clubhouse door: 1. Club members cannot be removed from the club except through the worst possible behavior. 2. All new club members must be relatives of existing club members; no non-family members allowed. 3. Anyone under suspicion by club leaders to be a non-family member must use the secret family code word at all times to gain entrance and remain a member. 4. Club leaders who used to be deemed non-family members will lead in enforcement of these codes. 5. Club members and especially leaders must repeat club founder’s motto that club welcomes everyone.
Richard Wade
November 8, 2012 at 7:14 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I find it hard to believe that this has become such a decisive issue. We were discussing in Disciple Bible Study last night how ungodly it is to think of only oneself. Most previous comments have done just that. Being e a lay member of a UMC which spent two years being ripped apart by a monster, who after being picked up for DWI, and admitting to being an alcoholic was appointed to another congregation, as Sr. Pastor, I certainly see the need for stronger District Superintendents, and Conference Bishops who will listen to lay people.
Rev. Dr. Richard W Jenkins Jr
November 9, 2012 at 8:08 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Mr Wade:
I know only too well the pain and suffering the “monster” inflicted upon the referenced congregation. However, were the issues that the “monster” was dealing with ever addressed by either party? How many Bishops, D.S,’s, or PPR. committees know the 12 step program ? Did the Pastor in question go to at least a 30 day rehab program? Further did the D.S. seek out a trained professional to help the congregation heal and was the new church informed of the circumstances regarding their “new” pastor’s need for support and understanding?
It is my belief that our church(UMC) is facing the internal crisis of decay and decline because we simply have left to many dead and wounded congregations and pastors
to rot on the “Jericho Road” because we just don’t have TIME to tend them and we must
get those appointments paid! Hang in there Mr. Wade and be ready offer to be one that will
assist in taming the “monster,” and check out the story of “Beauty And The Beast.”
Rev. Dr. Richard W Jenkins Jr
November 8, 2012 at 11:15 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I find it somewhat difficult to imagine Jesus as a Bishop and the Disciples as a Cabinet seeking
to “grade” a pastor with an A B C D or F classification. Do you really think any one of them could make it through Seminary or a Board of Ministry interview? Furthermore, none of them
nor Paul had a decent savings account
and seemed to always be “in the red” at the local bank ! Seems to me the United Methodist Church has lost it focus about what Jesus and the early followers of the WAY were really trying to do–Lift up the fallen, feed the hearts and souls of the down trodden, clothe the naked, feed the hungry, give those who had lost hope a light in the darkness. Personally I find AA to be more spiritual than the UMC! At
least they are honest and more spiritual than most of those I know in the UMC today! We truly need to “Let Go and Let God…” If we can get over our EGO problems we might become a true fellowship again!
Rev. Kathleen McCafferty
November 14, 2012 at 4:56 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Rev Kathleen McCafferty
Re: Judicial Council overturns General Conference action regarding Security of Appointments
This has been an intriguing conversation! I am a clergywoman, called by God to ministry during a Lay Witness Mission in 1973. I pursued my education with that one goal in mind: to serve God and others by responding to God’s call. I began as a youth pastor in 1977 and ordained elder in 1983. I was disabled following an accident a few years ago. Now, the world is my parish! I entered ministry solely for the love of Jesus Christ. I didn’t even know anything about salary, appointments, itineracy. I didn’t even ask, it didn’t matter.
Over the years, from the age of 15, I had the privilege of serving all sizes of churches, and to be a member of many Conference ministries. Annual Conference, the Dist. & Conference Board of Ordained Ministry, mentoring over 20 new clergy, Area Co. on Episcopacy, some bishop’s taskforces, the Conference Co. on Ministries, Conf. Administrative Co. Campaign for Church Growth and Development, and a member of The Bishop’s Cabinet as DS. I was a member of the NCJ School for Local Pastors, instructor for 9 years. All along, I met many amazing persons giving it all up to serve Christ–so very inspiring! I have a wealth of experiences with our clergy in a wide variety of aspects. All of these pastors I regard with respect. I truly believe they came here for the same reason as I–in answer to serve God faithfully with their lives! I rarely met a pastor I thought was primarily influenced by the security of appointment. It is a tool that serves the connection well in most situations. When I first learned about this, I thought it was like the “New Deal’s” “a chicken in every pot”: a pastor in every church, every church with a pastor. Other denominational churches who are left “searching” for a new pastor for months and sometimes years, regard our system with envy.
Yes, there are sometimes a few who do not measure up to the task, or have lost their wind or their energy for ministry or who have become truly ill. . The one troubled time of my life was largely of my own making! But to call anyone an Ineffective Pastor is like branding them — their whole being– as ineffective. And the thought of labeling pastors as A,B,C,D,E,F I find appalling. I was a member of a BOM who struggled very earnestly with difficult issues, and Cabinet who sincerely prayed for God’s guidance in joining gifted pastors with churches where their gifts could best be used. From the Cabinet aspect, I have wrestled with churches who had a history of being at odds with their clergy. And a few clergy who keep creating chaos wherever they may be. But let us all remember the ideals, the beauty, and the grace of our calling and our gifts. Of course things don’t always work well!! We are only humans. But when a pastor is hurting, it is often a much larger issue than just that one clergy because we are a whole BODY, a system that is hurting.
I attended a seminar on this topic of appt security. One of the newly-trained clergy brought things to clear perspective. She left her successful career as an attorney, went to seminary, incurred major financial debt, sold her home and left it all behind. Seminary training is very specialized– you are not prepared for any other career. She said how can the ministry demand this sacrifice of herself, and then be told, “We may have an appointment, or we may not have an appointment for you. Just hold on and see—but don’t go anywhere else!” Security of appointment helps to ease that terrible anxiety. It’s about the basic trust in itineracy: God through The Cabinet will send you, and you will go where and when you are sent. I experienced this in every appointment, and I still believe in it.
Security of appointment is also tied to the itinerant system, which I believe is beautiful in its purity, but is confronted now by the reality of spouses who also work and have careers, with children of sometimes divorced parents, a family member with special medical needs, or addictions, or needs of elderly parents. And so, we do the best we can–for the love of Jesus and the Glory of God!
Being a pastor is one of the most fulfilling vocations in life. It is also very demanding of one’s Time, energy, spirituality, money, relationships, personal vulnerability, and privacy. Everyday there is another opportunity! Every night there is just one more thing that should be done. At the end of it all, I ask myself this—Am I still in Love with God? Have I helped another person today—made a difference in their life? How can I make tomorrow better, by the Spirit and the Grace of God?
Rev. Kathleen McCafferty
November 14, 2012 at 5:01 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I also thought that perhaps this proposition came from those Conferences
who were shrinking in size, and now found themselve with too many clergy, and not enough churches! I remember in late 1980s, we were worried about the upcoming retirement UMChurch-wide of an est, 20% of our then active clergy, and the projected shortage of pastors for ministry. Hmmmm.
Judicial Council Upholds Guaranteed Appointments | The Confessing Movement
October 30, 2012 at 1:23 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
[...] VILLAGE, Ill. (UMNS) — The top court of The United Methodist Church has upheld church rules that ensure security of appointment for elders and associate clergy members, striking down legislation passed by the [...]
Judicial Council Upholds Security of Appointment | GCORR
October 30, 2012 at 9:03 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
[...] Heather Hahn is a United Methodist News Service reporter. View the full blog post online at umc.org This entry was posted in Conversations: Racial Ethnic News Across the UMC and Around the World, [...]
Bishops to gather for closed retreat » UMC Connections
November 2, 2012 at 8:22 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
[...] The Judicial Council in the past week also overturned legislation some bishops helped draft to eliminate guaranteed appointments for ordained elders and associate mem…. [...]