The District Leadership Team of the Southeast District of the Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church had a conversation on Wednesday about the guaranteed appointment that led me to do a little more homework on the subject. ¶337 of the book of discipline is the primary paragraph in question regarding the “guaranteed” appointment of elders in the United Methodist Church. The current language is that, “All elders in full connection who are in good standing in an annual conference shall be continued under appointment by the bishop...” The source of the legislation on the guaranteed appointment seems to be from the Study of Ministry Committee’s Report and Recommendations. The Study of Ministry Commission’s Report & Recommendation can be found at http://www.gbhem.org/atf/cf/%7B0bcef929-bdba-4aa0-968f-d1986a8eef80%7D/DOM_STUDYOFMINISTRY2011PROPOSAL.PDF.
Before we consider the changes proposed in the Study of Ministry Report, let’s consider the current language, “All elders in full connection who are in good standing in an annual conference shall be continued under appointment by the bishop...” and whether this shall is actually a guarantee of appointment. A logical question to be considered might be how does ¶337 allow ineffective elders to continue to serve, if effectiveness is the problem being solved. But, a quick review of what it means to be in “good standing” reveals in ¶334, especially subsections 2, 3, & 4 that an ineffective elder could not be appointed and the elder could potentially have their credentials removed through ¶361 and subsequent paragraphs for ineffectiveness. So, if the problem to be solved is that ineffective clergy are continuously re-appointed, the legislation needed for their removal is already in The Book of Discipline. And, the Discipline already has a form of due process with peer review for those clergy who receive complaint. The proposed changes look like we're trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. I am concerned that the proposed changes create unintended consequences greater than the issues they claim to address. Although in practice complaints and a process for removal of clergy through ¶361 may be rare, according to The Book of Discipline the guaranteed appointment is a myth. And, ineffectiveness is already grounds for removal of credentials.
Reading the petitions under discussion yesterday (20462 & 20303) a different rationale than we discussed for the recommended changes is given and that justification is added to The Book of Discipline in their enacting legislation. There are simply not enough appointments at which to place all current elders. The proposed petition does not give the bishops powers that they do not already posses. They just admit an unfortunate reality that in many conferences there are not enough appointments for elders in good standing. Dr. White raised this issue yesterday and it seems to be the substantive issue trying to be solved and the real issue that needs to be addressed by the church. Reading these petitions, the actual existing paragraphs an the intention of the Study Committee has caused me to re-evaluate my thoughts on this issue. I still have concerns that if bishops are able to not appoint an elder in good standing that clergy families would conceivably be left without means of financial support. I can conceive of a middle aged pastor, burned out by years of fighting against caustic churches, that is then kicked to the curb and left unappointed without means to provide for their family. Any system without a lot of grace and forethought will fail. At the other end, my concern would be that bishops and cabinets would choose to non-appoint problematic elders instead of actually going through a process of removing their credentials. And, there is a potential that without peer review that non-appointments could become politically motivated. But, are there not already such possibilities? Surprisingly to me, the petitions are not as dramatic of a shift as I first thought.
I would be interested in a discussion of transitional leave and the removal of commissioning that the report recommends. In some ways, these other changes seem more substantive. These other recommendations will have a significant impact on the role of conference membership as well. I would be very interested to hear the different opinions that our DLT has about the Report & Recommendation, or to be corrected on any errors in my statements above. Thanks. ~ Brad Morgan.
Does it not strike you that the ones who are pushing this removal of the “guaranteed appointments” are DS’s, Cabinet and Bishops. I would ask them to remember what it was like in their early formative years. Some are where they are JUST because of the “guaranteed appointment”. Also notice that this is often coupled with Missional appointments. Many proponents say it takes too long to remove an ineffective clergy, but I can cite cases when the credentials were surrendered within 90 days. Most clergy agree that there are processes involved in the BOD that allow for the removal of ineffective clergy. I would support the end of the appointment system as long as it applied to the Superintendency as well. Wouldn’t it something if DS and the Bishops were held to the same standard
ReplyDeleteThe points you raise seem accurate to me. There is a petition which also addresses DS and bishop accountability. It will be interesting to see if it gets any traction.
DeletePart of this article was addressing my own naiveté, as a new elder. I thought as an elder my appointment was more guaranteed than the BOD seems to make it. From all of the discussion at our DLT, it sounded like there were no ways to remove ineffective clergy. This was not the case. Thanks for the thoughts.