REMOVAL OF GUARANTEED APPOINTMENT THE DILEMMA IN UMC

               

In the General Conference 2012 delegates made a major change to the long-standing United Methodist itinerancy system when they voted in favor of ending guaranteed appointments for ordained clergy. This change has given UMC bishops the right to end pastor’s career for “missional” purposes if they are found ineffective. The petition focused on paragraph 338 in the Book of Discipline, which states, in part, “Full-time service shall be the norm for ordained elders in the annual conference.”

The approved amendment to the paragraph includes, “The bishop may appoint an ordained elder, provisional member elder, or an associate member to less than full-time service. The clergyperson shall be notified at least 90 days prior to the annual conference at which the appointment shall be made. Special attention shall be given to ensure that the values of open itinerancy are preserved ...”

The legislation also permits bishops and their cabinets, with the approval of their boards of ordained ministry and annual conference’s executive session, to place elders on unpaid transitional leave for up to 24 months.

Each annual conference will name a task force to develop criteria impacting full time missional appointments.

The opponents of this legislation continued to express their disappointment, seeking to point out what they considered unintended consequences. On the final day of General Conference, a motion was made to request a declaratory decision from the Judicial Council to review the constitutionality of this new legislation.  The motion passed and the Judicial Council has placed this on their fall agenda. 

Reading blog commentaries of different people on this subject, Wes John has this to say “I am more than suspicious of the big push to give bishops the ability to end a pastor’s career for “missional” purposes. In the little experience the church has had with this new paradigm, “missional” seems to be a code word for favoritism. The committee’s “we have to do it this way because it’s right” attitude is equally unsettling. Why is this the best way of dealing with the situation? Why doesn’t each bishop publish a list of those clergy who are in their sights and then work with them to improve rather than be so anxious to kick them out? Why don’t they list the 85% of “underperforming churches” so that those churches can know they are considered as less than important? I get the feeling that the committee and those who are pushing for this huge change are doing so not out of collegiality or a love for the church but rather as a way of enhancing and cementing their own power and authority. The whole process feels a little like drilling holes in the bottom of the Titanic in order to let the water out” (comment on the United Methodist Reporter blog).

This matter is now before the judicial council, who will decide whether action taken by the 2012 General Conference, the denomination’s top legislative body, to end guaranteed full-time appointments for clergy is constitutional. In addition to the constitutional issue, the Judicial Council could weigh whether the 2012 General Conference actually made the intended change to guaranteed appointments at all, a question that arose after the controversial action was referred to the court.

In the General Conference 2012 delegates made a major change to the long-standing United Methodist itinerancy system when they voted in favor of ending guaranteed appointments for ordained clergy. This change has given UMC bishops the right to end pastor’s career for “missional” purposes if they are found ineffective. The petition focused on paragraph 338 in the Book of Discipline, which states, in part, “Full-time service shall be the norm for ordained elders in the annual conference.”

The approved amendment to the paragraph includes, “The bishop may appoint an ordained elder, provisional member elder, or an associate member to less than full-time service. The clergyperson shall be notified at least 90 days prior to the annual conference at which the appointment shall be made. Special attention shall be given to ensure that the values of open itinerancy are preserved ...”

The legislation also permits bishops and their cabinets, with the approval of their boards of ordained ministry and annual conference’s executive session, to place elders on unpaid transitional leave for up to 24 months.

Each annual conference will name a task force to develop criteria impacting full time missional appointments.

The opponents of this legislation continued to express their disappointment, seeking to point out what they considered unintended consequences. On the final day of General Conference, a motion was made to request a declaratory decision from the Judicial Council to review the constitutionality of this new legislation.  The motion passed and the Judicial Council has placed this on their fall agenda. 

Reading blog commentaries of different people on this subject, Wes John has this to say “I am more than suspicious of the big push to give bishops the ability to end a pastor’s career for “missional” purposes. In the little experience the church has had with this new paradigm, “missional” seems to be a code word for favoritism. The committee’s “we have to do it this way because it’s right” attitude is equally unsettling. Why is this the best way of dealing with the situation? Why doesn’t each bishop publish a list of those clergy who are in their sights and then work with them to improve rather than be so anxious to kick them out? Why don’t they list the 85% of “underperforming churches” so that those churches can know they are considered as less than important? I get the feeling that the committee and those who are pushing for this huge change are doing so not out of collegiality or a love for the church but rather as a way of enhancing and cementing their own power and authority. The whole process feels a little like drilling holes in the bottom of the Titanic in order to let the water out” (comment on the United Methodist Reporter blog).

This matter is now before the judicial council, who will decide whether action taken by the 2012 General Conference, the denomination’s top legislative body, to end guaranteed full-time appointments for clergy is constitutional. In addition to the constitutional issue, the Judicial Council could weigh whether the 2012 General Conference actually made the intended change to guaranteed appointments at all, a question that arose after the controversial action was referred to the court.