The 2012 General Conference has just voted to “do away with” guaranteed appointments. Essentially that means, Elders in The United Methodist Church in good standing are no longer guaranteed a church to serve. That decision now rests in the hands of their Bishop.
I clearly remember Bishop Yeakel explaining this part of our covenant in very simple terms: "I promise you that you will always have a place to go. You promise that you will go where you are sent." I have never forgotten that. I have never refused an appointment when offered, in part because I felt it was a fundamental part of that very clear covenant.
Covenant is important. Its more than a contract; it’s a holy coming together of two parties who agree to live in unity and faithfulness together. If you are going to change the covenant, you have to get the agreement of all the parties involved.
General Conference has taken up the issue, as is their prerogative. They put a measure to end guaranteed appointment on the CONSENT CALENDAR. First, let me say that something of this magnitude should have never been on the consent calendar to begin with. That is poor leadership and bad discernment on the part of those planning the legislative sessions.
Second, twenty years ago now, I entered into this covenant. General Conference didn’t enter into it for me. I DID. Given that, it isn’t up to General Conference to amend that covenant on my behalf. Especially without a vote. Something like a “grandfather clause” would seem appropriate for those of us who entered into this covenant in good faith and now see that covenant radically changing before our eyes with little or no say in the outcome.
Fundamental questions need to be raised: "If there is no guaranteed appointment, shouldn't I have a great deal more to say about where I am appointed?" This new change to the Discipline creates a very healthy imbalance of power. Pastors are, more than ever, “one down” in the relationship with the Bishop and Cabinet regarding appointment setting.
"Are Bishops going to be held similarly accountable by the Jurisdictional Conference and the Committee on Episcopacy?" Clearly, we are demanding of clergy a level of accountability to “effectiveness” that isn’t being demanded of those in higher levels of authority in the church. This only contributes to the imbalance I mentioned before.
This was posted on a General Conference bulletin board of which I am a part: "I've served under a Bishop (now retired) who would not have used this as intended. It would have been used as a weapon against pastors who disagreed with him, who didn't "fall in line," or who were not willing to pay proper obeisance. I have no doubt about that at all based on his actions in other situations.
I have to say that the fears we've been hearing from the floor of GC are justified in some cases."
I love The United Methodist Church. I am a United Methodist by choice, not by birth or upbringing or accident. I believe this church can and will survive. I believe her best days can be ahead of her. I believe we can have more dreams than we have memories.
Am I fearful? No. Fear has no place in the work of God. Am I concerned? Yes. How will we recruit young clergy into ministry on the promise of a maybe? How will we guard the treasured place that minority pastors, female pastors, clergy couples and others have in our Connection? Are we more concerned about “effectiveness” or “management?”
The General Conference action is only a couple of hours old. I haven’t processed all of the implications of this yet. I haven’t figured out if the attempts at “checks and balances” will accomplish what they intend. That will come in the next few days and weeks.
I find myself repeating … “we are more than conquerors through [Christ]who loved us.”