Ever since it passed on a consent calendar vote, without being debated on the floor of General Conference, it seemed odd. If not that, at least unsatsifying. One of the hallmarks of who we are as United Methodists went away without even a dissenting vote. No one “on the floor” (read: a voting delegate) realized what had happened until their smartphone erupted with text messages reminding them that they just consented to do away with the concept of security of appointment.
Two different attempts were made to use parliamentary procedures to ask for a debate and reconsideration. But the body had moved on.
In the midst of all the maneuvering, a question was asked to the Judicial Council, does the end Security of Appointment violate the restrictive rules regarding the general superintending roles of our bishops as well as a clergy person’s right to an appeal? And now we know the answer: Yes it does.
There was much I found troubling about the doing away with security of appointment language. I was concerned for women and ethnic minorities in the appointment process. Though there was a path proposed to bring a complaint against a bishop, who would risk such actions and how many lives would have been tragically altered through unwise or not completely informed decisions. Additionally, itineracy is a covenant. The basics of the covenant have been long honored: United Methodist Churches receive a pastor. Congregations will love, support, and follow their pastor’s leadership. Likewise, clergy agree to go where sent. Unless we choose to seek appointment outside the local church, we do not get to submit resumes (at least theoretically); we do not get to choose. But we promise to go trusting God’s wisdom and once in place that we’ll do the best job we can as long as we are there.
All the conversation about “guaranteed appointment” (a misnomer) is what to do about people who do not go where they are sent (or leave when they are sent someplace new) and what to do about people who do not do the best job they can where they go. But there’s another side. The proposal was that effectiveness in current appointment would having bearing on future appointments. This is true now. Have a record of churches not paying apportionments? Then you are not as likely to get a pay raise when you move. Now a lot of this is motivated by the United Methodist Church having a glut of clergy. Furthermore, there’s a projected bubble when our recruitment efforts to replace the retiring baby-boomers are coming online while our baby-boomers are hanging around longer than excepted, thanks in part to the Great Recession.
Medium term, that bubble will go away and decisions based upon a consistent supply-side surplus will be seen as having been short-sighted. Because the covenant remains intact, there will not be a wave of younger clergy (younger in age or younger in years of service) unwilling to go where sent because of anxieties over potential for being effective in a context. Security of appointment goes away and I imagine many aspiring young clergy might choose another path until something more to their liking becomes available. Indeed, I’ve know several young clergy who possessed gifts and grace for the office of elder but sought deacons orders, not because of nature of calling but in order to maintain control over work and living circumstances.
I believe that security of appointment abiding will also continue to serve as a tool for recruiting younger clergy. Some of my younger clergy friends feel such a zest for ministry. They feel that since they are not given appointments they think they “deserve”, older clergy are some how blocking them from where they should be in their own 20 year plan. But this serves as a reminder about collective wisdom. Contrary to what we want to believe, we do not always know what is best (I can say that with some since of integrity now that I’m 40). But to continue to say, “give your life to God and the United Methodist Church” and to be able to respond “you’ll have a place to serve” is important. Very important.
In an age where more and more churches are station appointments and not circuits, where the main articulations of connectionalism to the local congregation are apportionments and itineracy, to do away with one moves us closer and closer to a congregational polity. And with that congregational polity, is a call system where churches vet clergy. It also says yes to individual wisdom over collective wisdom, to say, implicitly, that we do not trust that God moves in an appointive process.
In an age that values youth and outside the box thinking, we need to affirm that with experience comes wisdom. That what is sometimes perceived as inaction is actually impatience on the part of the observer.
But that’s not to say there doesn’t need to be change.
- We need to help well-intentioned people who do not possess the graces for ministry exit the process before they have $100k in debt.
- We need to help people who feel trapped in their jobs. 20 year old seminary debt, a degree that serves no purpose other than working in the church, and a system that necessitates not having the “nest egg” of equity built up in owning a home are all tough circumstances. We called these people into such circumstances. We have some responsibility for helping people transition into a sustainable post-ministry life.
- We need to answer ontological questions of ordination: is it just access to the pulpit or does some kind of change happen? I think we might have a clue on this one as it seems Judicial Council has not affirmed pragmatism at any cost.
- We need to give well-meaning servants who have never had the chance to shine access to a paid sabbatical that large-church pastors often receive so that they, too, can continue as faithful servants.
- We need to find ways to bring our younger clergy along… traditioning them, having their voice heard and validated as we move forward together. I’m not certain this means appointing young people to places of high stress. Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers and the concept of 10,000 hours comes to mind here.
- We need to continue to move towards a concept of adaptability being a primary skill in an appointive system where a clergy person has all the tools to develop new skills based upon the needs of the appointment.
- We need to think through remuneration. If we are moving back towards parsonages, do we need to reconsider superannuate homes? Should there be a cap on compensation? Should the floor be higher than it currently is, especially considering student loan debt levels for seminary.
- Do we need to re-embrace the notion of cooperative parishes and multiple clergy on circuits, tangibly affirming that we are stronger together than we are apart?
There is plenty of time to prayerfully consider these questions, assessing both our needs as a denomination short and long term as well as discerning how God would have us move and be.
You must be logged in to post a comment.