I feel a bit less secure today than I did yesterday. The General Conference has enabled the Bishop to not appoint a clergy person in full connection to a local church. This action comes as one part of the “Call to Action” report. This report changes many aspects of how we move the church forward. I might have voted for this proposal and yet, I still feel uncertain about that future.

As one half of a clergy couple I feel even less secure. There is now no obligation for the Bishop to appoint both my wife and I. Perhaps a bishop would like to appoint my wife to a new ministry but in a location where there are no options for me, what is a Bishop to do? What would I do?

I have said yes to a rural appointment in a conservative county. I have said yes to a reconciling congregation. I have said yes to a church in the suburbs. Each appointment has had unique challenges and opportunities. Some fit my skills better than others. In some settings I have thrived and the church grew. In some settings I and the church have failed to meet the metrics on the Bishop’s dashboard.

In each of my appointments I have said “yes” and then been confronted with the fear of change and the task that stood before me. In each of my appointments I have grown as a person, as a pastor and as a disciple of Jesus Christ. I grew because I accepted a challenging task, to be a pastor. Saying yes to challenging opportunities demands a level of trust and security. If the District Superintendent calls with the option to take a new appointment will I as easily say yes as I have before? I don’t know. All I know is that right now I feel a bit less secure.

Photo Credit: Flickr user ell brown, Creative Commons.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

9 COMMENTS

  1. It has always seemed to me that there was a connection, in practice if not in theory, between the risk of appointment and the guarantee. I know this isn’t the historic understanding of appointments but a lot has changed since the early days.

    There could be significantly negative impacts but it could also lead to some new freedom as well. Time will tell.

  2. Thanks for being honest about the fear involved here. It means even more to read this because you’re highly respected in our conference, and I think most folks would rank you in the top tier of clergy (if we had rankings, of course…). I was in favor of this move, mostly because I think it helps protect the churches that were repeatedly being assigned underperforming clergy. I know there are risks for “prophetic” pastors (though I think there’s a difference between being prophetic and just being insensitive in pushing your own agenda… but that’s another debate for another day) and for women and minorities, but my hope is that the benefits outweigh the risks. Hopefully one benefit we will see for folks like you, who are already working very hard and showing effectiveness in multiple ways, is that the orders of clergy will be more motivated to push one another toward excellence, and all of us will be better as a result.

  3. What I am already feeling is a sense that I will no longer want to take risks that could potentially lead to congregational growth, because each one also has the potential for failure.
    No guaranteed appointment puts a lot of power in the hands of a Bishop who is under great pressure to turn churches around, and has eyes fixed on the “dashboard,” and who doesn’t know the clergy. It is way too easy to make assumptions about clergy based on the metrics, and not see the entrenched laity, failing economies, and changing environments.
    And this new power of the Bishop is without the safeguard of Boards of Ordained Ministry and clergy sessions judging effectiveness before a clergy is without appointment. To me, that’s too much power in the hands of one person.

  4. I have been wondering all day just who is on the Bishop’s list to get rid of. There was already a way to move ineffective clergy out of ministry: documentation by the superintendent and then action by the Board of Ordained Ministry. IApparently that was not being used to it;s potential. In 28 years in this conference I’ve seen that used once (maybe I;ve forgotten a few?) so now the power is put in the Bishop’s hands. This makes me glad I am in my early 50’s and not my mid 20’s.

  5. Such a limited and short sided move to the deeper
    Issues needing to be addressed by our church. I resonate w/ all the comments and your reflection Bruce! Thanks for being so open & honest!

  6. My problem with this legislation is not the doing away with the guaranteed appointment, but it is my contention that if we shed the guarantee, we should shed the appointment system altogether. There is nothing wrong with a modified call system like the Lutherans have in which the bishop provides a congregation several names of people whose profiles meet their missional need. I am well aware that we are currently appointed for one year at a time, but in risking our lives with the conference leadership we also pledge to go where they send us. It’s a collaborative experience. I am hoping we don’t lose this relational component, but I’m not hopeful. I also think it’s a little cowardly to deal with two separate but related problems in this way. Shrinking churches and ineffective leadership (pastors). We no longer live in Christendom. That is for the better in many ways, but it means that our hegemony is gone. We will never return to the days of civil religion in the guise of Methodism. The real result of this is that we need to close churches and be strategic about where we plant new ones. We need to envision “church” in a much more creative and organic way than we have over the past 500 years. Ineffective leadership (pastors) certainly contribute to shrinking congregations, but I can say with certainty that of the four churches I have served, 3 were in a 40 year decline. All three of them were not served by long lines of ineffective leadership; the decline is a result of the end of Christendom. On the other hand, we do ordain incompetent – lovely but incompetent – pastors. I admit that I may be one of them. Two of the churches I have served grew. One didn’t. I just started my fourth. I did serve a church while in divinity school which grew. Is that the only measure for effectiveness? The reality is we should stop people who aren’t called to ministry from entering it. We should use the processes that we already have on the books to help re-educate or exit pastors who do not perform the duties of our job well. But, for God’s sake, this is supposed to be a vocational life that we enter through covenant. We are treating it like customer service. That is sickening.

  8. Well stated everybody. But, as a non-clergy person, I have to say that a ‘guaranteed job’ (appointment) is something that is special to the church. I’ve never had a guaranteed job. Al certainly hasn’t & his job is up to review each and every year. Now while they won’t ‘send him’ some place (he can put in for a transfer, as he did once), his company has never once worried whether I could move to a place and find a job.
    I would agree with Sue in that this surely can become a way to “get rid of” under-performing pastors (but who’s doing the rating?) or move people indiscriminately to fit somebody else’s agenda.
    My two-bits — there has to be lots more intelligent discussion before we throw the baby out with the bath water.

  9. Thanks, Bruce, for sharing your thoughts openly and clearly. Like you, I have some uneasiness about this move, although mostly because it seems to conform to the way businesses and governmental agencies work – if there are problems with a few folks, claim the power to control everyone through the implied threat of being ineffective, without any substantial definition of what that means. At the same time, I feel our current appointment practices call for some refinement, perhaps not so much by rule changes as better, more equitable practices. There are clearly folks who enjoy a much greater privilege for refusing, or not even being asked to take, certain appointments. You point out one issue – should clergy couples receive preferential treatment, with one being able, even expecting, to retain an appointment because there is not a good appointment in a nearby place for the spouse? Should those whose spouses want to keep their jobs, not have to move children to new school districts, etc., receive preferential consideration over those without spouses, those whose spouses are willing to follow God’s call even when it means financial hardship, and those who are single and childless? It is a complicated issue, and one I don’t believe is best solved by legislation. These are relationship issues, and no matter what rules we adopt, it will still come down to how everyone involves lives out our connectional convenants.

Leave a Reply