Guaranteed Appointments

Lately there has been a lot of talk about ending guaranteed appointments for ordained elders in the United Methodist Church.

I haven't yet decided where I stand or how I would (theoretically) vote on the issue. I can see both sides of the argument. There's no question that there are lots of ineffective elders who get shuffled around from church to church, creating chaos wherever they go. These are people who, if they were part of a congregational polity, wouldn't be able to find a job. In theory, the system would naturally weed them out.

On the other hand, I share the concern of many female and ethnic minority clergy who already have a hard enough time being accepted by many churches. A lot of good has come from bishops appointing a female or a person of an ethnic group that the congregation might not necessarily feel "ready" for.

I am currently a Provisional Elder, so while I have not yet been fully ordained in full connection with my conference, in practice I fulfill the same function as a Full Elder. I agree to serve where I am sent. Three years ago the Clarksville District Superintendent called me up and said that the Bishop was appointing me to Bethlehem UMC, and I said OK.

In an article I read recently, the Commission on the Study of Ministry has recommended that the Book of Discipline be changed to to remove the guarantee of employment for Ordained Elders, but that bishops would still have the power of appointment.

I'm not sure how you can have one without the other. Elders make the sacrifice of going where sent because they have the assurance of a steady job with a minimum salary. The article claims that "iteneracy was never meant as a bartering system", but the guarantee is crucial in light of the sacrifices pastors make.

What happens when an Elder gets on the Bishop's bad side and the bishop decides to punish them? (and don't think it doesn't already happen)

If this person has been faithfully serving where they have been sent for a long time, and if each of these appointments has included a parsonage, what happens when the bishop decides not to appoint them anywhere? They haven't built up any equity to buy a home. They might have a spouse who has made a lot of sacrifices or even given up on their career to support them in ministry, to say nothing of their children!

I'll be very interested to see the final report of the Commission, because it seems like there are a lot of crucial questions that need to be addressed before such a drastic change is made. I agree that some fundamental changes need to be made in our system, but I'm not sure this recommendation as it currently exists is the way to go.

Not of One Mind

Some interesting news from the recent Jurisdictional Conferences of the United Methodist Church, which meet every four years to elect and assign bishops for the coming quadrennium: 

The Northeastern Jurisdiction voted to affirm the actions of California pastors who choose to bless same sex marriages, even though they are prohibited to do so by the Book of Discipline (you can read the UMNS story here). The delegates also encouraged leniency on those who choose to practice this kind of civil disobedience as a prophetic witness against what they believe to be an injustice.

In the Western Jurisdiction, Rev. Frank Wulf took the very courageous step of being the church's first openly gay candidate for bishop (UMNS story here). Although he was not elected, Rev. Wulf showed both tremendous personal integrity by being honest about his sexuality and tremendous pastoral sensitivity by his concerns over the backlash from people filled with hate should he be elected.

Also in the Western Jurisdiction, Bishop Beverly Shamana of the California-Nevada Conference issued a "ruling of law" declaring same sex marriages performed by UMC clergy to be "null and void" according to the Discipline, even though they are legal under California state law (UMNS story here). Any ruling of law issued by a Bishop is automatically reviewed by the Judicial Council (our denomination's Supreme Court), guaranteeing a very interesting a controversial meeting of the JC this fall.

I bring this up because earlier this summer at General Conference a legislative committee recommended adding some additional language to the Book of Discipline regarding our official stance on homosexuality. While this language did not change our official position, it did acknowledge that the church is "not of one mind" on the issue and that "good and faithful Christians" are on both sides. This majority report went to the floor of GC and was narrowly voted down. The debate over this language was described by many in attendance as one of the most divisive and hate filled exchanges they had ever seen.

But whether the Book of Discipline says so or not, we are clearly not of one mind on the issue of sexual orientation. Perhaps it's time we laid aside our rhetoric and sound-bytes, came out of our armed camps, and actually had some dialogue with one another. We're not of one mind, and the sooner we admit that, the sooner we can deal with it.