Once a quadrenniam, the United Methodist Church from throughout the world sends delegates to General Conference. There, 3,500 Methodists gather to pray about, discuss, and vote on potential changes to the United Methodist Discipline (our “constitution, if you will, that determines polity and doctrine), our Resolutions (the face of our denomination as it relates theologically and practically in the world), and our denominational policies and practices. Sometimes, very little is changed. Sometimes the changes are quite far reaching. At this General Conference, a change has been made that significantly alters the structure of the UMC, its relationship with its pastors, and, I fear, our prophetic voice.
The General Conference decided to approve a petition that provides a process by which clergy appointments are evaluated. This includes the potential for not guaranteeing appointments for those ordained elders that are deemed ineffective in their position, appointing an elder for less than full time, and placing an elder on transitional leave for 24 months without pay. Calendar item 315, Petition 20303 was approved through the Consent Agenda. After discussion, a motion to reconsider the petition was not approved.
http://www.gc2012conversations.com/...
A little backstory might be helpful for those who are not familiar with the UMC.
There are two orders of ordained clergy in the UMC: elders and deacons. Elders are ordained for Word, Sacrament, and Order. N’other words, we preach, teach, administer the Sacraments, and administrate the life of the local church. Deacons are ordained for Word and Service. Their role tends to be more aligned to a specific ministry, such as spiritual care, Christian education, or specific missions. Deacons are appointed to specific ministries and must find or create their own positions. Elders are assigned to specific local churches (usually, there are exceptions, such as serving in extension ministries like chaplaincy or administrative positions in the conference), serve at the pleasure of the Bishop and the Cabinet, and agree to itinerate and go where they are sent. In response to that faithful promise to serve when and where they are needed, ordained elders were guaranteed an appointment.
Of course, most elders first react to this with thoughts of “Shit, there goes my job security.” We’re human, of course. But subsequent thoughts are leading us to the potential issues that this change will generate at several levels for pastors. Not the least of which, is our prophetic voice.
Already, Bishops and Cabinets hold a great deal of power over a pastor and his or her career arc. However, a pastor that had completed the tedious and frustrating process of being ordained was guaranteed a place to serve. This is no longer the case. And the potential for Cabinets and Bishops to be punative and silencing has just gone up tremendously. This has distressing implications for serving pastors who are allies of our LBGTQ brothers and sisters. This has disturbing implications for serving pastors who are women, ethnic, or unconventional. Basically, this has disturbing implications for any pastor who has had strong words or disagreement with anyone serving on the Cabinet.
A pastor who preaches prophetically in a way that causes discomfort, as we are all indeed called to do from time to time, could face a less than full time appointment or 24 months of transitional leave, unpaid. A pastor struggling with a dysfunctional and/or toxic congregation may not be demonstrating effectiveness in their position (and what criteria will determine effectiveness remains somewhat subjective at this point, other than obvious issues of integrity). I might add that there is already a system in place to remove incompetent or ineffective pastors from their churches, but the bar is set rather high and it takes a bit of time to do it properly.
This may very well simply be a mostly good faith effort to address the changing needs of our churches and the financial reality all main line denominations are facing today. It may very well be implemented pastorally, with integrity and honesty. I wish I was truly confident of that. But I have been on the receiving end of comments that “people like me” are destroying the church and we should just leave if we can’t accept the rules as they are. Some of those voices making those comments are pastors with seniority, with the potential to serve in Cabinet level positions. On the other hand, many allies are also senior pastors with that potential as well. I’d like to be a roach in the rushes at some of those Cabinet meetings.
There have recently been a rash of retirements in my conference that are not the result of age or infirmity. These are pastors who are simply fed up, several of whom saw this coming. A comment was made by a colleague of mine that this was a measure favored mostly by straight, white males (who still make up a bare majority in our denomination, although that has been changing rapidly). The guaranteed appointment system has been instrumental in the diversification of our church leadership, often against the inclination of the local churches. This, too, could be at risk. To be honest, this already happens-large, wealthy churches are rarely led by anyone other than a older, white male.
My initial reaction was indeed a moment of panic about my job security. I’ll just put that out there. A less than full time appointment means no provided benefits, a two year transitional leave means no provided benefits OR paycheck, and my husband is disabled, receiving only SSI Disability and that only recently. If either of these two options are applied to me, I may have to leave ministry in the UMC in order to support my still young family. Sometimes, I doubt that I will be much missed by my denomination. But I know I will be missed by the people and communities I serve. And to be deprived of the joy of doing ministry in this context that I love…. It would hurt more than I have the words to say.
There are a lot of pastors out there scrambling for Plan B. A comment from another colleague was that we better start watching our backs and watching what we say. Being perfectly content to minister in a rural, two-point charge, and having no ambitions to administrative or higher offices in the Conference, I never thought that would be an issue for me. I am disappointed and sadden that it may become so, but I take seriously my prophetic and priestly role. It is entirely possible that I may yet preach myself out of a job. Time will tell and we shall see. In the meantime, I remain Christ’s faithful servant and love His people with all my heart. And I won’t let “Church” get in the way of doing that.