Blessed (Clergy Job) Assurance?

Blogger John Meunier and others are distressed over a debate on guaranteed appointment, and he asks this question:

“Am I picking up false signals in the news reports about the guaranteed appointment debate and in various conversations around the Internet?”

Quite frankly, I'd say yes. What’s going on is a premature reaction to what is only a draft of a recommendation.

Having been at the Council of Bishops meeting and hearing an update from the Commission to Study the Ministry, I can verify that what was presented was 1) a working draft, not a final recommendation; and 2) nothing new.

I wrote last fall that the Council had announced in its Call to Action statement for this denomination in trouble that working to eliminate guaranteed appointment was one of the items on the table. And we carried a March update by Kathy Gilbert on the study commission’s work. 

So what’s the fearful buzz about now?

It’s over a report originally titled “Commission rejects clergy job guarantees.” The original version can still be seen on Facebook, but the headline has changed since its inaccuracy was pointed out. It now reads: "Commission takes aim at clergy job guarantees.”

Folks, the denomination has been talking about ending guaranteed appointment for years now. The discussion is nothing new. The new stories that have been released in recent days really don't contain anything earth-shattering. "This just in: Groups still talking about ending guaranteed appointment!"

Why target guaranteed appointment? Because having strong, healthy United Methodist congregations led by effective and fruitful pastors seems a no-brainer -- and even more critical for a denomination in decline. (“Effectiveness” is a whole ‘nother discussion, but you know it when you don’t see it).

The rather antiquated notion of “guaranteed appointment” has been seen as a consistent stumbling block to that effort, allowing some ineffective clergy to be shuffled around from congregation to congregation until retirement.

A follow-up report on clergy reaction brought the expected brouhaha by linking guaranteed appointment as a "promise" for being subject to the denomination’s itineracy system, or going where they are sent.

A brief history lesson: the whole idea of guaranteed appointment was established by the 1956 General Conference to protect clergy of color and female clergy from being denied an appointment. It was a civil rights issue, folks, not a reward system. I don’t know of any bishop today who would deny an appointment to a female or ethnic minority clergy.

Over the years, however, guaranteed appointment began to be considered a right. A fair exchange, if you will, for being an itinerant pastor. “If I have to go wherever I’m sent, at least I should be guaranteed a job.” Granted, the itinerant system likely also needs to be tweaked, but it’s a separate thing from guaranteed appointment.

Now I'm not clergy, but it seems to me that there's some needless panic stirring the pot right now. Only General Conference action can put an end to guaranteed appointments. General Conference meets every four years, and will not get a chance to vote on such legislation before 2012. And before the vote comes to the floor, legislation submitted to GC will likely be committee-d to death.

So, there's conversation and lots of tension over something that hasn't even begun to happen yet -- a draft of a recommendation of changing the word "shall" to "may."

Has anyone considered that a change like that might be necessary not because of concerns over clergy effectiveness, but instead because of financial constraints that don't leave enough churches open to provide jobs for pastors? Seriously, all kinds of things could happen between now and then. We even have a story on the clergy glut coming up in our June 4 issue.

Here’s some background from a story I did about a petition on guaranteed appointment presented to the 2008 General Conference.

Like I said, this is nothing new.

Comments

[Jon Altman]

There are "tools" that exist right now whereby Bishops and Cabinets and not appoint clergy they do not wish to appoint. There are also due process and procedural safeguards in place whereby clergy who believe they are being treated unfairly can challenge the possible arbritrary or vindictive use of those "tools." (Of course, I've only "heard tell" of arbitrary and/or vindictive actions by Bishops and Cabinets in other Annual Conferences. No one in authority in MY Conference would ever behave in such a way.)
I think the "panic" has to do with the notion that such actions by Bishops and Cabinets could become "unreviewable-" essentially giving both "credentialing" and "appointive" authority to the same people.

[John Meunier]

Hey, thanks for the link.

It is nothing new, but clergy response seems to indicate that the anxiety level has cranked up. My post was about lack of trust. I think the reaction and other commentary I've read supports the idea that there is trust problem inside the clergy ranks of the UMC.

As a local pastor, of course, I live without guaranteed appointment. I don't think it is the holy grail of denominational effectiveness either way. Getting rid of it won't solve our problems if the system is rife with distrust and suffers from a lack of shared sense of mission and identity.

I fear the response says a lot about the state of our connection.

[Santiago; Jaime; Jim]

I tried to explore each website mentioned in Ms. Russell's posting, but, none were available. So, at the risk of ire and unkind comment--even from you Ms. Russell, here goes!!

1. Seminary grads frown on local pastors. Somehow, it seems, that those who have suffered through 3-4 years of questionable seminary classes feel that those who answer the call as a second career and attend "course of study seminary" for how ever many summers it takes, are beneath them.

2. Should one choose to remain a liscensed local pastor, that individual is "second class" during their whole career.

3. Often times, those who are second career and remain liscensed local or do course of study are more in touch with their "folks" than 3-4 year seminary guys/gals (gotta be politically correct!!)

4. Often times, those who are second career folks care more genuninely for their flocks and are not "stair steppers."

5. More often than not, it seems, 3-4 year seminary guys/gals (politics again!) are "pastors" because "the chair of my Ad Board or Aunt Sue or Mr. Peterson thought that I should go into the ministry."

6. The Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit ONLY, is the Caller of those who enter ministry. If one becomes a man/woman (politics again!!)of the cloth other than being called by the Father/Son/Holy Spirit their time in ministry will be extremely difficult, if not insignificant.

7. If probationers and/or full-time local and/or liscensed local pastors were allowed to vote as "clergy" at annual conferences, the UMC would "look" entirely different in the US of A than it is now.

7. What does this have to do with "pastoral assignment?" If one is genuinely called, that one will be blessed to "go into all the world and preach the Gospel............"