What have we done?!?

By: Amy Lippoldt On 5/1/2012

Topics: General Conference

Once the word got out at General Conference this morning that removal of “security of appointment” for elders passed the plenary floor vote on a consent calendar, the twitter feed #gc2012 blew up with questions, concerns and incredulous comments.

I want to take a moment to explain some of what we accomplished in the Ministry and Higher Ed legislative committee, and why I think this historic change is not as scary as it might first seem.

A disclaimer: I am a white, young, clergywoman. I do not fear my Bishop. I have not experienced abuse by a Bishop or Cabinet, and I count myself as very fortunate that the itinerant system has worked for me. I’m not saying that I have had dream appointments, but God has enabled great ministry for me in every place the Cabinet has asked me to go. I have served in a church that was full of people very different from me politically. I did speak out on issues of justice in that church and suffered backlash.

I am aware of and value the concerns of clergy who have felt abused or who feel vulnerable in our system, be it for reasons of race, age, gender or theology. I cannot promise that “all will be well,” and I want to talk again in four years when we begin to see the implications of what we have done in removing this security.

I do think that before today, it has been quite possible for bishops and cabinets to punish, sideline or make miserable anyone they wanted to, even with the “security” of a job for elders. I honestly do not know how our action today at General Conference will play out. It will be up to the cabinets around the connection to use it for good, for the overall health of the itinerant system and the clergy within it.

Bottom line: I don’t believe as an elder that I deserve a guaranteed job. Deacons don’t have it. Local Pastors don’t have it. Laity who serve the church for a lifetime don’t have it. I don’t see how my ordination as an elder entitles me to something no other disciple in the church has (except maybe the 60-some U.S. bishops, but that’s a different conversation).

I have studied my United Methodist history. I understand clearly the importance of the “security” in 1956 to force bishops to appoint qualified and credential women, and in 1972 when we finally got rid of the sin of the U.S. Central Jurisdiction, to appoint persons of color. In 2012, we have not eliminated injustices or prejudices in the church, but we have come a long way. And I believe we have other mechanisms in place to safeguard as much as is possible against prejudice.

In the committee on Ministry and Higher Ed we added amendments to the recommendations of the Ministry Study that do the following:

  1. Create a task force of laity and clergy inside each annual conference that meets with the Bishop prior to appointment making to discuss issues related to “missional appointments.” Any smart Bishop will want this to be as diverse a group as possible so that concerns are heard as a Cabinet begins their work. This is about listening to the voices of others.
  2. Require every Cabinet to annually report to their Board of Ordained Ministry the people who are going on the new “Transitional Leave” or being appointed less than full time because of a lack of full-time “missional” appointment.  They will need to provide statistics for the age, gender and ethnicity of those individuals, so patterns may be seen. Cabinets also will report on what they are learning about appointment making in this new process. This is about transparency and accountability.
  3. Provide for every person asked to go on “Transitional Leave” an interview with the Board of Ordained Ministry. They can take to that interview an advocate (another clergy member in full connection from their annual conference) who can speak on their behalf. If a BOM feels the lack of appointment is unjust, they can refuse to grant it. In that case, if a Cabinet then refuses to appoint someone, they can start procedures for administrative location because the person is ineffective. If they don’t want to do that, no one knows what will happen. It will take a test case of such a stalemate and perhaps a Judicial Council ruling about such a test case to find out. 
  4. Explicitly requires the clergy session of an annual conference to approve the same “Transitional Leave” on the recommendation of the Board of Ordained Ministry (this is the same as all other leaves and changes in conference relations). Again if the clergy session feels it is unjust, they can overrule the BOM and the Cabinet. No Bishop will be able to unilaterally dismiss a clergy person for any reason. We remain a covenant order of elders that decides who is credentialed and eligible for ministry, and who is not.

While it remains to be seen if, or how, abuses of this system will occur, I think it also remains to be seen if it will really help cabinets. Someone can only stay on Transitional Leave for two years, and then if they are still around asking for a job and a Cabinet does not want to appoint them because they are ineffective, administrative location is the only option. Also with the required steps above there is still a high burden of proof on cabinets.

My hope is that this removal of security will help elders realize they are not permanently entitled to a job and a good pension just because they were ordained. I also hope it will help cabinets have the hard conversations they need to with our brothers and sisters who are no longer leading effectively in the church.

It will be up to General Conference 2016 to decide if we have done something disastrous or taken a step forward in changing the culture of leadership in our church. Whatever may come, I trust God will help us live into this new reality.

Rev. Amy Lippoldt
Kansas West

If you want to read the exact text of the petitions and amendments, look at UMC.org for these items: 
Calendar item #355 p 2178 DCA, about petition 20303, p 1428 ADCA
Calendar item #358 p 2178 DCA about petition 20308 p 1400 ADCA

Comments

1. Amanda Baker wrote on 5/1/2012 3:34:56 PM
Thank you, Amy! The uncertainty is unnerving (isn't uncertainty aways unnerving?), but your take on the process that has led us here is deeply appreciated.
2. Rod wrote on 5/1/2012 3:37:33 PM
I personally am a supporter of this change. I would point out to your point that Deacons do not have a promise of appointment, but they are also able to seek their own appointment. So if a elder was not appointed in one annual conference would they have the ability to seek appointment in another annual conference? Just something to think about.
3. Leslee wrote on 5/1/2012 3:46:12 PM
Are these amendments required or are they only recommendations?
4. Randy Willis wrote on 5/1/2012 3:46:14 PM
Thanks for your insight, Amy. I understand the concerns people have, but I think this is one of those things that needs to happen to get us beyond the status quo. It will be interesting to see how it plays out over the next few years!
5. Alan wrote on 5/1/2012 3:52:17 PM
Amy, thank you for a good summary article. Toward the end of your posting, you comment that it remains to be seen if there will be abuses of this new system. By 2016, serious damage could be done to the lives and ministries of persons for whom this new pattern is unhelpful or unfair. The concern is not that this change has taken place but that it could potentially create harm. For a pastor to be thrust into this process could be heartbreaking to their sense of call and damaging to any future effectiveness. To accomplish what is just and right may be more challenging than we can expect when responding to performance in ministry. Are individuals or task forces capable of being fully objective with so many variables in evaluating a pastor? Other than these lingering questions, which you acknowledge, your explanation was helpful and well stated.
6. Dan wrote on 5/1/2012 4:10:31 PM
Thank you this is very helpful. My other comment is that I believe a fair exchange would be to eliminate the power of a bishop to transfer someone into a conference without anyone's approval. It would take away the notion of, "I was declared ineffective to make room for my bishop's friend" off of the table. As an aside the decission really makes me wonder if I made the right decission in accepting a move from a place where I have seen as effective to a place that doesn't know me this July 1.
7. Tom Choi wrote on 5/1/2012 4:29:33 PM
Thanks so much Amy, it was great working with you on the committee. To answer Rod's question: elders are still in the itinerant system and would be able to be in a cross conference appointment with the approval of the two bishops. You could only be moved to another conference with your permission, but you must (theoretically) be willing to move without reserve, although to be honest, most really aren't that itinerant.
8. Leslee wrote on 5/1/2012 4:31:47 PM
I would also point out that though the GC has done away with Elders having a guaranteed job, Elders still MUST go where they are sent. If an elder's call does not mesh with the appointment, what is the incentive now to go where sent? While deacons have had to find their own jobs, they have never been told where to go.
9. Catherine wrote on 5/1/2012 4:32:32 PM
The thing that concerns me most about this is by what criteria are clergy judged? I have been asking for several years what constitutes effectiveness and I have never gotten a clear answer. It seems numbers are the only things that are looked at per the reports we have to fill out every year. That is worrysome to me. There are many other things which are not looked at it seems.
10. Charlotte wrote on 5/1/2012 4:32:37 PM
I really appreciate your thoughts on this. However, I'm afraid you are a bit naive. Many of us have personally seen the hurt caused to clergy by bishops who are neither loving nor humble and are willing to further their own agenda rather than care for the clergy in their "care." I say this as one who has served as elder for nearly 30 years. I do not recognize this UMC. To this lack of guaranteed appointments, let's add terms to Bishops and consequences -- not just threatened consequences -- for churches that eat up pastors and are anything but "Christian" in their beliefs and actions.
11. Matthew Williams wrote on 5/1/2012 4:39:53 PM
Excellent.
12. Ja wrote on 5/1/2012 4:49:44 PM
Great analysis from a young clergy person! As somebody considering ordination and having worked in the church for several years now, I'm enthused by this change. Having pastors that have leaned on guaranteed appointment to keep from having to be effective, hopefully this will light a fire. But my hope is with you as well that this new system will not be abused and that the steps are extensive enough to have the proper checks and balances. I'm not surprised about the change, but I am surprised that it went down without a fight on the plenary floor.
13. Rev. Gregory S. Neal wrote on 5/1/2012 5:10:20 PM
Amy, when you were ordained you vowed to obey the bishop and itinerate where the bishop sends. Deacons, Local Pastors, and Laity are not so yoked. It's THAT which makes the difference.
14. Paige Eaves wrote on 5/1/2012 5:20:11 PM
Thanks, Amy - for the inside scoop and helpful commentary. I accept that I will need to be effective to stay appointed. Interestingly, the criteria for that effectiveness is still up in the air - so I will join with you and others in creative consultation on what it means to do a good job of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. How do we measure a deepening of a faith journey? How do we measure the hearts that are strangely warmed in response to scripture, word, and sacrament? How do we measure the expansion of a compassionate heart that comes with involvement in mission? How do we measure a new openness to radical welcome and inclusivity? Thanks again for your thoughts.
15. John Michio Miyahara wrote on 5/1/2012 5:22:44 PM
Prophetic and about time! We have no more excuses for retaining ineffective or lazy clergy.
16. Joye Jones wrote on 5/1/2012 5:53:00 PM
Bishop & Cabinets have and have had the authority to remove ineffective &/or lazy clergy. They rarely use it. I know. I've been on BOOM for 12 years, and in that time I think we've had about 3 cases -- and I know there are more ineffective clergy than that. Effectiveness right now is measured only by numbers -- and often, the clergy cannot control that. If the Bishop chooses not to appoint me, how much time will I have to (1) find a job; (2) find a place to live; (3) find insurance. What has been lost is the covenant that we, the ordained elders, entered into. A covenant where the clergy says, "I will go where you send me," and the church says, "I will send you somewhere."
17. Nancy wrote on 5/1/2012 5:53:50 PM
Amy, I appreciate your bringing clarity to this issue. I disagree with you, however, that sufficient accountability is in place. You mentioned accountability in item 2 above; however, according to your summary, the cabinet is only required to report the information, not seek approval for their decision except when requesting transitional leave for a pastor. I am glad that cabinets need to gain BOM approval for transitional leave, but this is only one possibility according to your description and can be overridden. The vote of the clergy session is also little protection because the clergy session does not allow time for a fair and complete hearing. The vote is usually a formality. I believe that there is too little accountability asked of of those who make appointment decisions. I also believe our vow to itinerate does justify a guaranteed appointment. A better method should be found to address the problem of ineffective clergy; one that doesn't put everyone on shaky ground.
18. Dave wrote on 5/1/2012 6:04:49 PM
Ineffective pastors, take note! Yet the issue in our conference continues to be the way in which pastoral effectiveness is measured (average worship attendance counts but pastoral care for a grieving family does not) and how to factor in the supportive, disciple-making efforts by a congregation, or absence thereof.. We can still be thankful that we will not be a part of a call system where congregations (dysfunctional or otherwise) can fire their pastor by congregational vote.
19. Dave wrote on 5/1/2012 6:05:35 PM
Ineffective pastors, take note! Yet the issue in our conference continues to be the way in which pastoral effectiveness is measured (average worship attendance counts but pastoral care for a grieving family does not) and how to factor in the supportive, disciple-making efforts by a congregation, or absence thereof.. We can still be thankful that we will not be a part of a call system where congregations (dysfunctional or otherwise) can fire their pastor by congregational vote.
20. Jean wrote on 5/1/2012 6:18:24 PM
I appreciate the effort. I appreciate the sentiment. I appreciate the need to hold clergy accountable. But sometimes power corrupts. And sometimes absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why moral, ethical organizational leadership includes a way for those with less power to contest inequities. That's why the US government has passed the ADA and all kinds of other fair employment laws. The very best, very highest minded leadership gets it wrong. These laws are in place to protect employees when leadership gets it wrong. But this past January The Supreme Court of the US ruled that clergy are not covered under these national laws. They ruled that Churches have the right to set and enforce their own laws outside the venue of US law. This means that now we have NO law...NONE...to protect clergy as workers. And we did this on May 1. John Wesley, whose movement worked for equity for all workers, must be rolling in his grave.
21. Kathy wrote on 5/1/2012 6:20:34 PM
I don't think we have taken into account how this will change the relationships between bishops and the clergy. No longer will clergy be honest with the bishop or the Cabinet about the situation in their churches, for fear that they will be seen as "ineffective" if the numbers don't add up. We know how some clergy inflate the worship attendance numbers now; imagine what it will be like for the next 4 years! Also clergy will be much more reticent about taking appointments that pose any risk to "effectiveness." If bishops felt that clergy weren't being truly itinerant before, watch out! Another colleague also pointed out that this system puts a great stress on clergy couples as well, who may be asked to take part time positions more frequently if they want to stay in the same geographic location.
22. Geniese wrote on 5/1/2012 6:36:53 PM
Amy, I appreciate hearing your perspective. Since you know me, you know I am a firm believer in removing ineffective clergy and I generally enjoy the challenge of being part of change. I have been a part of removing ineffective clergy through my work on the Board of Ordained Ministry. The process that was in place before today's legislation works IF it is used. It is sad that the GC felt it had to go in this direction in order to move Bishops, Cabinets and Boards of Ordained Ministry to do what should have been taking place already. Also, I don't think the amendment that is intended to put checks and balances in place really accomplishes that. The reporting and approvals required in clergy session and the process to appeal are too late in the appointment process to provide any viable avenue for a clergyperson who believes he/she has been unfairly deemed ineffective. The appointment cycle will have already happened for that appointive year, which means the clergyperson will remiain stuck on transitional leave or in a part time appointment for an appointment year. This would be devastating for many clergy, especially those that provide the only source of income for their families. I hope and pray that Bishops and Cabinets in all the conferences will be fair and just in appointment making and then all of this concern and angst will be put to rest. Unfortunately, Bishops, Cabinets and Boards are only human and mistakes will be made. It saddens me that the clergyperson is the only one at risk in this new way of doing things.
23. Distressed wrote on 5/1/2012 6:41:45 PM
Saying you don't believe you deserve a job as an elder is like saying you don't believe you deserve to be an elder unless your Bishop and Cabinet think you should be one. Being an elder is responding to the full time call of Christ to Christian service. Don't let them brainwash you! God called you; let the Bishop come against God! This is not about ineffective pastors. If ineffective pastors were a problem, why have they been placed in positions where they can do harm (larger, better appointments)? Who placed them there? Who is responsible for the nepotism, the cronyism, the sexism, the racism in the appointment process? This is about church decline and the scarcity of appointments. Its about union busting (on May Day). Its about needing to vote people off a sinking island. If restructuring is "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic", abolition of GA locks the bulkheads on the people below deck. My clergy spouse, a PK and honors seminary graduate (I am also appointed) was forced six months ago to sign away her guarantee of appointment and drop out of the ordination process or be moved to a church 3 hours away with our infant son after one of the two crumbling failed bankrupt churches to which they appointed her closed. They used her guarantee of an appointment to force her out. Her DS told me chaplaincy would be better for her since her gender and ethnicity would not be "issues." She was told there was nothing available, with a viable small open church in the next neighborhood being staffed by an interim retired minister. Did I mention she is Hispanic in a major city that is predominantly Hispanic in which there are NO Hispanics in full time appointment or serving as associates? She was told not to play the "race card" to pray the "Wesley Covenant prayer" and even to use a breast pump and leave her nursing baby in childcare by her white colleagues in ministry. Sorry - but I can't see this as a positive development.
24. Jon Altman wrote on 5/1/2012 6:42:55 PM
I've been laid off from two chaplain jobs over the last eight years. This process has MANY more protections for the Elder than I had.
25. Older Pastor wrote on 5/1/2012 7:36:10 PM
I appreciate the article above as well as the thoughtful comments. I DO think this new legislation takes away ONLY from the elders, without offering any concessions or compromises. I also think this legislation is naive in its premise that doing away with the so-called GA is the only tool bishops and cabinets have in disciplining or ousting ineffective pastors. I have watched the resident bishop in my conference utilize numerous means to accomplish what was needed. For the pastors, the committment remains exactly the same - to do and go where the bishop orders. A full and complete committment that I was most happy to make. The explicit understanding was that I was to become a "company man," that is, that I take care of the company and the company takes care of me. That does not, nor did it ever, imply that I should take said employment for granted, nor that I should become lazy or ineffective. Rather, the understanding has been that I make a complete committment to the Church (hence the Wesleyan prayer) and that in so doing, the Church had a committment to me. small price to a life dedicated to its service. In my opinion, the Church has now said that while it expects me to continue to honor my end of the covenant, it no longer feels it should have to honor its end. Equally disturbing is the assumption of this piece of legislation - that pastors with GA tend to be lazy and ineffective, and that this is the primary reason for the decline of the Church. What shoe will drop the next GC? I remain absolutely committed both to the covenant and to the UMC. I AM terribly disappointed with this action.
26. Tina Marie Rees wrote on 5/1/2012 7:45:00 PM
I read Amy's words as well as the comments below, and I must admit I was saddened by some of the comments. It distresses me to realize that discrimination still happens (see Distressed above) but the truth is that with or without guaranteed appointments, discrimination is possible. That is a sad truth we must all face, and it disgusts me that the Church takes part in this sin, but it does. As for the idea of elders inflating attendance numbers in order to not appear ineffective: Since when did attendance come to represent ministry in the Kingdom? If you minister in the streets to the homeless and serve them well...are you a failure because no one is attending the Sunday morning services? I pray that God does not allow us to forget that bodies in the pew does not equal success. I preached this Sunday about how the Church (not just the UMC) is becoming an exclusive club where "people like us" invite other "people like us" to join. I highlighted the idea that inclusivenss means that we have to be willing to make changes in our Church home to accomodate the people that Christ brings to our door when their needs don't quite meet the type of ministry we are used to doing. I can't tell you how many people got angry with me...the senior pastor is already logging the complaints (not that it bothers him, thank God.) In the end, there is no action that we can take on the floor of GC that will end discrimination or bad behavior by our superiors. We cannot stop human beings from being foolish. We can, however, decide that ministry is about changing lives and loving people in the name of Jesus Christ, and do whatever it takes to bring that kind of change and love to our communities...even if it doesn't increase attendance. May God add His blessing to this whole mess, because it's the only way anything good comes out of what we do. I'm not that down on humanity, really, I'm not. I just think that God does a way better job of getting things done right than we ever will.
27. Capri Grimes wrote on 5/1/2012 7:49:54 PM
I am one of the older, white female clergy and no, i do not trust the system. Once, yes but life and experience played out and I saw. I work hard at my job, I am Methodist and have a connection to my brother and sister clergy. This morning, it was cut off and I was left to bleed. I have no recourse, none, look carefully at the legislation. If the Bishop (who has job security) decides not to appoint me who will say no? Will their appointment be threatened if they don't go along? I am not able to find my own job as it is still an appointment system. If I am not appointed and must find work to feed my family, what do I do next year when the Bishop says, "Oh, now we have a place." Who will hire me at 52 with theological training? Where is my health insurance? And if I am allowed to pay for it if I don't have a job - how? Can I file for unemployment? Can I file a lawsuit if they fire me for health reasons? I love the work I do as pastor but may be told to stop. HOW! We will all face problem churches, health or family issues but now, we are on our own. I cry....
28. Amy Lippoldt wrote on 5/1/2012 7:56:42 PM
Thanks for the comments all. I appreciate hearing your perspectives. We have a far from perfect deployment system. People have been hurt before this change, I don't expect that will disappear. Whether it will play out the way some predict or whether it will be as helpful as others have claimed will only be born out in time. One thing I forgot to mention is that the statistics and reporting of who is being put on Transitional Leave will also be given to the conference and jurisdictional Episcopacy committees, so that is another level of accountability and conversation.
29. VERY CONCERNED wrote on 5/1/2012 7:58:37 PM
I understand what Rev. Lippoldt is saying here. I, however, must respectfully disagree. This year, in what I believe to be an effort to force an older clergy member to retire, the bishop gave this older clergy a very significant cut in salary. He had done nothing wrong and has been effective over the course of many years. I believe had this happened without the benefit of GA this pastor would be forced into retirement to make room for a young clergy. It isn't right and the new system will be abused regardless of what the committee attempted to do with amendments to try to guard against it. Talk to me in 10-15 years and perhaps you will be as cynical as I and others.
30. Cynthia Astle wrote on 5/1/2012 8:04:24 PM
UM Insight would like to reprint this post as an article explaining the background of the General Conference action. Please reply to the given email. Thank you.
31. Tom Choi wrote on 5/1/2012 8:08:37 PM
What we also must remember is that we live in a completely different world now than in 1956, when the legislation securing appointments was enacted. Virtually all churches worshiped in English and the pastors spoke English only because we had segregated conferences and a segregated jurisdiction. We now worship in many languages in the US, and there are and will be situations where the number of pastors and churches in a particular language do not correspond and we may have to put some pastors on transition leave not because of ineffectiveness, but to match the appropriate pastor with the appropriate church. For a more in-depth look on this, check out my blog: http://umcministrystudyhawaii.blogspot.com/
32. Kevin wrote on 5/1/2012 8:15:47 PM
Very good insight. I agree that it provides the means to deal with ineffective pastors, but I also agree with some of the other comments as well... how do we deal with the "preacher-eating churches", or bishops/cabinets who don't see what is really happening "behind the scenes" at the churches who may not be making the numbers or money, but could be doing great mission work.
33. Evelyn wrote on 5/1/2012 8:27:17 PM
I also know Amy and her deep concern for justice issues. I appreciate the perspectives of those who are concerned that they may be targeted. In theory, it is correct that guaranteed appointment is counterbalanced by the itineracy. However, we have fewer and fewer elders who are actually willing to itinerate. The missional deployment system that worked two hundred years ago is seriously challenged today by the need for consideration of spouse's employment, children's schools, and the mixed blessing of a housing allowance. (Actually, even Francis Asbury had difficulty with preachers who refused to go where appointed.) The ability of cabinets and bishops to appoint pastors where they can best use their gifts is seriously hampered by this limited itineracy. Certainly, there are elders who are fully itinerant, just as there are bishops who may abuse their powers. However, we must not make legislation based on individual cases but on the healthiest choice for the denomination as a whole.
34. Anna Belk wrote on 5/1/2012 8:28:32 PM
Its as simple as has been stated, the holy covenant that we signed on for has been broken. The same one that has been used endlessly to guilt us into appointments we knew were bad fits, that put us in personal financial disaster, that put our children's educational futures in jeopardy, that we put ourselves into with the belief that both sides were in it honestly and openly. Now we know the truth. In desperation, it's time to kick the dog because we can't figure out what else to do and we, my friends, are the dogs getting kicked. And it hard to feel values and respected, no matter how effective you believe you are, when you're getting kicked out of sheer bureaucratic frustration...
35. George E. Morris wrote on 5/1/2012 8:31:24 PM
I believe this action is a breach of covenant by the system with clergy. It seems clear to me that the guaranteed appointment applied to effective clergy and clear guidelines are in the Disc to weed out ineffective clergy...the problem has been a lack of attentiveness and exacting work by BOOM's, DS's and Bishops in identifying and exiting persons who are not doing effective ministry. The action taken today is one more 'dump' on pastors...the group the church seems to want to blame for the decline of the UM Church. Non-effective organizations usually begin the clean-out at the top not with those working on the line. This is a sad day for Methodism. I am disappointed in the Church I've served for 44 years.
36. Still Distressed wrote on 5/1/2012 9:13:43 PM
Our church is sick with the diseases of the elderly and dying: Osteoporosis - crumbling obsolete facilities, Congestive Heart Failure - a lack of charity, COPD - resistance to the Holy Spirit, Dementia - Forgetting our doctrinal heritage and identity - crazy distractions, Cancer - infiltration by parasitic interest groups, and Auto-immune disease, turning the immune system against healthy cells (abolition of guaranteed appointment for elders in good standing). Consider the ways that open itineracy and "missional appointment making" are already violated already on a regular basis: 1. Allowing large wealthy congregations to interview, recruit and call preachers from outside their conferences and tell the bishop whom to appoint. 2. The higher the pay, the longer the stay. Guess who was most vocal about ending GA - those with the high pay and long stays! 3. Discrimination on the basis of nepotism (legacy PK's), cronyism, ideological bias, gender, ethnicity - to pulpits serving a 93% white membership in the US. 4. Use of the "Declension Sheet" - a list of churches in order of declining salaries to determine individual status and eligibility for service. 5. Appointment of licensed local pastors before all elders in good standing have been appointed. 6. Using poor quality appointments for punitive or political purposes. That is exactly what the motion proposes - using part-time appointments to encourage people to leave. Imagine being such a church used this way! The church on my wife's charge that closed felt miserable they were being used to exclude an Hispanic female from membership in a conference with only 3 Hispanic female active elders. 7. Double Standards - letting camels get through with some pastors (immorality, heresy, vice, financial misconduct, laziness) and straining out gnats with others. Those called of Christ are motivated by faith, hope, and love - not by anxiety, ambition, and avarice. No amount of fear can coerce effectiveness.
37. Greg Buchner wrote on 5/1/2012 9:20:17 PM
Bottom line for me...promise not kept. Trust is broken.
38. Maryann McFadden Meador wrote on 5/1/2012 9:49:05 PM
Shame on you! You have fallen into the hands of evil - clergy killers and power hungry DS's and bishops. That you are so ignorant of the impact of your actions is pitiful and sad. Shame on you.
39. James wrote on 5/1/2012 10:55:05 PM
After nearly 20 years in Camping Ministries and having looked into ordination, I have been a part of 8 different conferences and worked with several other's. I can tell you that some have a VERY poor culture where new clergy have to prove them self play gulf with the right people, and put in their time to get a good appointment. In these unhealthy conferences I think this is going to be a very bad thing as it will allow yet another way to abuse clergy. However, most of those conferences are dealing with a shortage and will keep people just to fill a spot, even when they are not just ineffective but abusive to their church. Other, healthy conferences, this will be very good in that they will be able to ordain many people who feel the call without the sector of how to give them a job and possibly open ordination up to more than just the pastor role in the local church. (many other denominations ordain many roles such as youth, music etc, but that's a different conversation too) I know DS's that openly admit that they can't accept candidates because they don't have places to put the elders they have now. I think the next step is to some how make it nearly as easy to move conferences as it is to move from one appointment to the next. No we shouldn't pass bad clergy to a different conference. However, in today's world other things may lead someone to need to move across the country and/or someone who is not good in the south may be very good up north or vis versa.
40. Bruce wrote on 5/1/2012 11:02:44 PM
Our beloved connection in the US suffers from incredible anxiety due to falling revenues, falling membership, falling worship attendance, falling numbers of professions of faith and an inability to respond to a rapidly changing society (just to name a very few of the causes of our connectional anxiety). A system under stress will often manifest that stress in a particular person (as in a family) or in a group of persons (as in corporate bodies). Then, that person or group is labeled as "the problem" which must be solved in order to put the system to rights. Today, in our connectional system, we corporately decided that the problem is clergy--specifically Elders. We describe our problem in terms of Elders being too expensive--that salaries, pensions, health insurance etc is unsustainable. We describe Elders as often unwilling to be retrained for ministry in this new day. We describe Elders as often being unwilling to be fully itinerant. We often describe Elders as being lazy or ineffective. In some cases this is true. But in the larger picture it should come as no surprise that some one will be labeled as the problem by the system. Systems label someone as the problem so that the system as a whole does not have to reflect on the daunting systemic issues facing it. As long as our connectional system can label Elders as the problem then we do not have to ask whether our UM seminaries are effective in training UM pastors for UM ministry, or whether the local churches, District & Conference BOOM's are effective in discerning whether someone is truly called to the ministry of Elder, or whether Bishops and cabinets are effective in making appointments, or whether local churches or laity have any track record of effectiveness in making disciples. It seems that we have already decided at this GC that we can not ask our agencies to be missionally effective or even question whether they are missionally effective. Systems that are seriously compromised in their ability to carry out their essential mission tend to label someone as the problem, and we as a connectional system have decided today that the Elders will do nicely. We are already using the image and ideal of the covenant to bully Elders into accepting this label. But labeling someone as the problem and treating some one as the problem solves nothing. Labeling Elders as the problem to be solved will neither motivate Elders nor the entire connection as a whole to do the hard work of addressing our connection-wide issues. Labeling elders as the problem only excuses the rest of the connectional system from doing the unpleasant work of being honest about itself. Adam Hamilton described himself as the doctor who has the unpleasant task of telling the patient that he or she has cancer and will die unless we do radical treatment. Of course that was in the context of restructuring the UMC. We were unwilling to do that and we have also shown ourselves unwilling to look seriously at the missional effectiveness of any other part of connectional system and so we did the next best thing: today a committee of less than 100 labeled Elders as the cancer and the GC gave their consent to that label without one word of legitimate debate or even a CG-wide vote. But this should not surprise anyone--that's what unhealthy systems do.
41. John Haynes wrote on 5/1/2012 11:12:11 PM
I think the General Conference needs to take up the issue of the cost of seminary. Who would invest $40,000 in an education, when you can get the same guarantee of a job as a local pastor?
42. Birgitte ThaarupFrench wrote on 5/1/2012 11:32:19 PM
Being a pastor is a way of life, it is not a job like the lay people are talking about. We belong to an order where we in our ordination said we would be there for each other, ophold each other etc. we have failed our own order. We all know pastors who are moved and moved, what is the system doing to help that pastor either be a good pastor or help the person move along? If you don't get an appointment then what will you do with an M.Div? What job is available? I think this is an easy way of dealing with a serious problem in the church. It starts back when people come before the SPRC and say I have a call. Too many SPRC have voted yes because it was so and so's son or daughter. The real question is, if this person was appointed to your church would you accept this person as your pastor?
43. John Michio Miyahara wrote on 5/1/2012 11:33:35 PM
I have been ordained for 17 years and have seved local churches and appointed to extension ministry as a College and now Navy Chaplain. In all my settings I have followed ineffective and lazy clergy who do the minimum to get by, and stay in to get a pay check and benefits, holding out for retirement. These clergy disservice themselves by not living up to the call God has called them to or to the covenant to be an Elder. Additionally, their presence in our churches is one of the significant reasons our church has declined. The reality of the world is that the majority of people who work are evaluated for performance and promotion. Why should we be any different, just because we are "called?" I find that being evaluated by a standard matrix makes me accountable for ministry, me personally and professionally. It gives me a standard on where I am going and how I can improve in ministry. Some clergy lose or give up their calling and need to move onto another profession or form of work. Others never had a clear calling and made it through a board of ordained ministry because they fit a desired profile and not a calling. The truth is in the current GA system, the Bishop and appointive cabinet can send you any where they want, they can change your salary, they can appoint people outside their annual conference, and they are not beholden to make appointments convenient for clergy couples. In the current GA system you can get the shaft by having an appointment forced on you that you don't want to take or is simply a bad fit. The reality in the current GA system is their is favoritism, insider networking, and discrimination. And, some Bishops really suck and are not trustworthy. Thus, you have to wait those Bishops out or look for a new Annual Comference. If all pastors are evaluated on a common matrix and it is clearly explained, I believe this is much more fair and there is a common tool for clergy to hold Bishops and Boards of Ordained ministries accountable in the appointment process. No system is perfect, but the GA system which tolerates ineffective clergy is not fair to our church, our parishioners and our clergy. I ceebrate that the the time for GA's has come to an end so the UMC will discover we are Easter, resurrection people who will have faithful, accountable clergy pastoring our churches.
44. David wrote on 5/1/2012 11:39:36 PM
I wonder if this will have the opposite effect and cause effective clergy to look into other avenues of ministry (outside of the UMC). After all, if they are effective, why would they allow themselves to be part of a system with a vague criteria for effectiveness. Also, John Haynes, excellent point. All those in seminary, I would think, would be watching this very closely. It would be much better if we could do a more effective job at the front end on telling individuals that the UMC is not the place for them, rather than approving them and then, in the end, letting them go. I'm still not sure why the bishops and DSs have trouble using the process that we currently have. What is keeping them from using that process effectively?
45. Call to Action Figure wrote on 5/2/2012 12:10:32 AM
I am grateful that you have not expienced abuse by your cabinet or Bishop. I have seen and experienced seemingly nothing but that in the last 6 years in my conference. The effects of appointments on families, or churches are not taken into any account as the Discipine mandates. Consultation with churches and pastors are only through turning in the profile papers with no face to face discussion even though the Judicial Council ruled that consultation must include such. Pastors are often not told of major problems with churches until they are appointed and are not told what gifts or grace they have that factored into the appointment. The feeling and action is often that Bishops are all powerful and answer to nobody. The actions of this GC will only harden that attitude. BTW, if the sr. pastor is considered to be where the buck stops when a church is dysfunctional because he or she is the chief administrative official of the church, then Bishops should be held responsible for the dysfunction and decline of every conference that declines in membership and attendance, and as a whole, for the decline of the denomination over the last 44 years. Yet they get a pass on accountability.
46. Paige wrote on 5/2/2012 1:35:06 AM
Thank you for sharing this. I, too, am a young (though not for long -- 30 is around the corner!), Euro-American female pastor. I'm also a member of a clergy couple. And, oh, yes, a transfer to my husband's conference. I'm not against the removal of guaranteed appointments. I have had the privilege of serving under an excellent, caring D.S. and Bishop, both of whom I love and admire. Nonetheless, legislation that depends primarily upon the "niceness" or virtue or wisdom or whatever of those executing it is NOT good legislation. In fact, it defeats a primary purpose of legislation in general, which exists in part to protect bodies from having to depend purely on the character of whoever is in charge at any given moment. That sets the UM up for abuses, mistakes, failures and a great deal of distrust. I think thorough legislation around this would include standards for effectiveness, a review process, a time in which pastors could be coached around their effectiveness issues before reevaluation, changes to itineracy to reflect the need for more dialogue around appointments, continual reflection on pastors' changing gifts and callings, assessment tools to distinguish burn-out or toxic-church PTSD from "ineffectiveness," assessment tools for identifying toxic church systems as well as community needs that churches must respond to, just and caring answers to questions of health care and pension, and *preventative* measures to protect those made vulnerable by race, sex or ethnicity.
47. betrayed wrote on 5/2/2012 3:08:09 AM
I feel betrayed and lied to. I am and will be obedient to the itinerant process as long as I stay in the UMC which is now unbelievably in question. I am happy for any of you who believe your cabinet will not use this as a tool to hurt clergy they don't prefer (and by the way just because abuses happened with GA in place doesn't mean we should give them one more weapon against us). I had a mistrust of the cabinet, now I have been betrayed by my own. the covenant is broken.
48. betrayed wrote on 5/2/2012 3:43:55 AM
Also btw. Because GA is gone but bishops have life-time appointments, GC has now in essence made bishop a separate order from elder.
49. Dana wrote on 5/2/2012 10:01:23 AM
First, Bishops and cabinets are people and people are flawed and sinful. This translates that anytime an individual or group holds a disportionate amount of power, it is very nearly a sure thing that that power will be abused by the majority of those holding that power. I, too, have not suffered abuse by a Bishop or cabinet, but this change in power may very well offer you and I both the chance to that that experience. Secondly, I am not a 'young' woman. I have seen the sacrifices made by older women that I may have the 'rights' that I now have including in the work place. I have also observed an alarming number of young women who never watched their mothers fight for their rights be disturbingly willing to hand over what they have as if no one would dream of taking it from them. It breaks my heart to see the steps backward that women a generation younger than myself are giving away and the loss that they will leave for the generation of women who come after them. All this being said, you seem to fail to realize that it is a very real reality that there are a good number of churches today who still DO NOT WANT a woman for a pastor. Without the system of guaranteed appointment when Bishops hold lifetime positions, there are NO safeguards in place to prevent a disportionate number of women from suffering for this 'enlightened' move. I have never had any reason to fear for my position. I am effective in ministry and it has always been recognized. However, I also recognize this sift of power to a more absolute power to Bishops holds the potential to not only be abused but to be downright evil in the hands of mere human beings.
50. Jeremy wrote on 5/2/2012 10:19:58 AM
Way too many questions and way too few answers provided by this decision. This is why I'm shocked by this move. At this point the ONLY people being held accountable are pastors.
51. Rev. Randy Kanipe wrote on 5/2/2012 12:07:33 PM
While a very competent explanation of what was done, what is even more disturbing is HOW it was done. A controversial piece of legislation that effectively eliminates a covenant for every single pastor in the denomination - was "Bundled" with dozens of others that were 'non-issue' items which supporters were confident would be affirmed. Legal? Sure. Ethical? Harly. Honorable? In reality - the smoke screen is the 'ineffective clergy,' which is there to disguise the real focus. The church is not going to be able to financially sustain the elders who have served their entire lives, paid into pensions etc. and still pay their retirement and health care. The numbers do not allow for it. I sense the real reason this was slipped through was to help eliminate the number of clergy simply to avoid the obligation to pay for us in our retirement years. Is that legal? Sure. Ethical? Honorable? I guess each person will have to decide for themselves and answer accordingly.
52. Rev. Randy Kanipe wrote on 5/2/2012 12:07:52 PM
While a very competent explanation of what was done, what is even more disturbing is HOW it was done. A controversial piece of legislation that effectively eliminates a covenant for every single pastor in the denomination - was "Bundled" with dozens of others that were 'non-issue' items which supporters were confident would be affirmed. Legal? Sure. Ethical? Harly. Honorable? In reality - the smoke screen is the 'ineffective clergy,' which is there to disguise the real focus. The church is not going to be able to financially sustain the elders who have served their entire lives, paid into pensions etc. and still pay their retirement and health care. The numbers do not allow for it. I sense the real reason this was slipped through was to help eliminate the number of clergy simply to avoid the obligation to pay for us in our retirement years. Is that legal? Sure. Ethical? Honorable? I guess each person will have to decide for themselves and answer accordingly.
53. Jim Holister wrote on 5/2/2012 12:37:35 PM
Here's a question that I've not seen asked yet: While we all know colleagues who are ineffective, are there really so many that it's become the most important fix for the church? So many that it's worth destroying the covenant of "I'll always go where you sent me/I'll always have somewhere to go"? It seems to me that we have more important, fundamental issues to address. I'm not sure we're going to get much "bang for our buck" out of this change.
54. Tammy wrote on 5/2/2012 1:04:53 PM
Hey, I'm with you Jim. Why don't we stop rearranging those deck chairs and focus on how to win souls to Christ instead. In my opinion, that's the biggest reason for the decline in the UMC.
55. Mike Eurit wrote on 5/2/2012 3:43:37 PM
Thanks, Amy! I really appreciate your perspective on this. I hope our church will continue to honor, and recognize clergy, who have given a lifetime of service to the UMC, and who may be a little slower, than when they first entered the ministry. I understand that effectiveness can be talked about as a separate issue. I have always believed that God is working through the system.
56. Mike Eurit wrote on 5/2/2012 3:43:57 PM
Thanks, Amy! I really appreciate your perspective on this. I hope our church will continue to honor, and recognize clergy, who have given a lifetime of service to the UMC, and who may be a little slower, than when they first entered the ministry. I understand that effectiveness can be talked about as a separate issue. I have always believed that God is working through the system.
57. St. Elvis wrote on 5/2/2012 4:49:57 PM
We seem to forget that itineracy outdates guaranteed appointment by almost 200 years. At the risk of sounding dismissive of the real pain and fear that some of my colleagues are sharing in this forum, I am also hearing a fair amount of what can only be called whining. Guaranteed appointment has been spoken of as a "holy covenant." With all due respect, give me a break. You and I were never given guarantees of security, not by God at least, and if you need a safe environment in order to be "prophetic," then maybe you really aren't as much of a prophet as you like to think you are. Where did you get the idea that a religious institution was ever going to welcome true prophetic ministry? Having said that, I find that most clergy who have struggled across several appointments have some way of justifying why they are struggling in their churches--"I keep getting sent to clergy-killer churches," "I'm a woman," "the communities I have served are in decline," or "I'm prophetic and that makes people uncomfortable," when in fact, they are simply not cut out to thrive as a pastor. For those of us who have left churches in pretty good shape only to watch them fall apart at the hands of pastors with a record as "church-killers" primarily because those ineffective pastors were vested in a system of deeply ingrained clergy privilege rivaled only by the Roman Catholic Church had worn out their welcome at yet another church and thus the cabinet needed to find another place for them, our pain is real as well, and I for one am glad that GA is gone, even though I object to the way it was voted upon. I pray that the abuses that some of my brothers and sisters are afraid of will be minimized, and that before long we will also strip Bishops of their security and lack of accountability. I think we will get there--but this is a necessary first step. There are many, many reasons that the UMC is in decline and this is not a silver bullet by any means, but even so, I believe that this is a good move on the part of the UMC.
58. Randy Kanipe wrote on 5/2/2012 5:02:26 PM
Some good points. Are we to assume that since we have no guaranteed appointment, that we DO have some say in where we go? Otherwise, you get sent to one dysfunctional congregation that has a record of not paying apportionments - then suddenly YOU are held responsible for their spiritual irresponsibility - and could be deemed 'ineffective' for failing to raise the funds necessary to keep the larger ministry afloat. If you refuse to go to a congregation that has a history of toxicity - can you be removed because of refusal of appointment? Lastly - I would venture a well educated guess that the number of dysfunctional to toxic congregations far outnumbers the number of ineffective clergy. Where is the effort to deal with that reality? Oh - silly me, I forgot. Pastors are expendable. Congregations are not.
59. Rev. Melissa Steinecker wrote on 5/2/2012 6:28:52 PM
I appreciate all the comments both pro and con. I am concerned that the elimination of guaranteed appointments is a reacts to the perceived notion that some elders are only in ministry for the job. I have been serving churches in all levels of ministry since the early 90's. I can tell you that while there have been great joys in ministry there is equal heart ache and pain. I don't think anyone can deal with the often painful experiences of a bad match between congregation and clergy "just for the job." My other concern is around the itinerate system. My husband has built a career in carpentry in this area. I have always been willing to move wherever the Bishop would appoint me. It would mean up rooting my children, moving from my now widowed mother, selling my home and ruining my husbands career. What happens now if I am sent somewhere and after a year or two am asked to move without another appointment? Now I am without a home, my family has been fractured and my husband and I are both out of a job?
60. Older Pastor wrote on 5/2/2012 6:29:30 PM
No offence, but I find St. Elvis's comments a bit naive. There WAS a covenant in effect when I was ordained, one that has been shattered and cast into the gutter by GC action, one that was spit upon and blamed for the demise of the Church. The only question left is "what will they blame on us next GC? What rights will they take away next because the Church still has not made an amazing rebound (due, of course, to the breaking of the covenant)? I wonder if the blessed bean counters will bother with enumerating the hordes of ineffective pastors and drawing the proper correlations between firing them and the sudden upsurge in church attendance? I wonder also how many ineffective or lazy or indolent elders have been categorized, and what exact percentage of the same there are? Usually when a drastic solution to a problem is presented and enacted, there are supporting numbers and statistics. Therefore, I am waiting for someone to tell me what the percentage of bad pastors actually is. It must be awfully high for such a horrific piece of legislation to have passed.
61. St. Elvis wrote on 5/2/2012 6:37:16 PM
Oh, yes, the "pastors are victims of our churches" line. It's a wonder how we have ever survived. I appreciate the writer in response #40 bringing up family systems theory, although I disagree with his analysis somewhat. It may be that there is some scapegoating of pastors happening, but I see a lot of scapegoating being done by pastors, with the churches we are "forced" to serve being the primary target. But systems theory, at least as taught by Friedman, says that the folks who are at the head of the system have the primary responsibility of managing anxiety and dysfunction. In other words, these dysfunctional churches that we pastors are always moaning about didn't get there by accident. It's somewhat of a "chicken vs. egg" situation, but if pastors are effective (or, in family systems speak, if they are non-anxious and well self-differentiated) they have the capacity to help promote healthy change in even highly dysfunctional systems. However, if they themselves are ineffective (read highly anxious, undifferentiated) they make a dysfunctional system worse, or sometimes even introduce dysfunction into a relatively healthy system. As a 12 year member of my conference's BOM, I have come to believe that our system has rewarded mediocrity, given the mediocre the responsibility of vetting potential candidates for ministry, and therefore found ourselves ordaining a large number of folks who, while wonderful people in many respects, do not have the skills or the emotional health to bring health to dysfunctional systems, so that most of our churches maintain at best, decline, or die. If something different is going to happen, we have to start doing things differently, and one step in the right direction is compassionately helping pastors who lack effectiveness move into other avenues of ministry.
62. April Wegehaupt wrote on 5/2/2012 6:50:27 PM
Thank you Amy for posting this and helping to make clear the decisions that have been made to this regard. I feel that us elders need to look at this as a chance for further accountability to each other. There has been so much clergy 'burn out' over the years that in turn not only hurt the clergy and family, but the churches in which he/she serve. I pray that this will be a chance to keep clergy strong in their leadership/ along side strengthening our congregations through 'strong' leadership.
63. Jake wrote on 5/2/2012 7:04:40 PM
What if we just dissolved the church as it stands and started from scratch? This is a mess. Pastors worried about paychecks? Really...? What happened to the lilies of the field? Its like a bad joke.
64. Randy Kanipe wrote on 5/2/2012 7:23:02 PM
Hold fast fellow clergy. There is a feature length documentary about to hit movie theatres across the country in June. It is all about 'Clergy Killers" and the abuses heaped upon clergy AND congregations by antagonists - and the often placid response from judicatory officials. Called "Betrayed." On another note - I wonder if our judicatory officials can qualify or quantify the following: Since 'effectiveness of clergy' seems to be the mantra of the season - then please tell me: What is an effective Baptism? What is an effective service of Holy Communion? What is an effective hospital visit? What is an effective prayer? What is an effective funeral? What is an effective wedding? What is an effective visit to shut ins? What is an effective worship service? What is an effective sermon? What is an effective selection of hymns? What is an effective liturgist? What is an effective contemporary service? What is ........ All of these things are the most important things a pastor does. Yet none of these seem to 'count' when it comes to vital congregations. Seems that our calling has just been usurped, and we are now all official fund raisers and membership drive coordinators. God - help us. And forgive us.
65. Randy wrote on 5/2/2012 7:37:46 PM
Most people are not aware of this, but the United Church of Canada recently went through a tumutuos time with clergy dropping like so many dead flies from conflict and burnout. Conference officials did nothing but side with the antagonists. Sooooo....the clergy got together, strategized, and formed a union. Partnered with the Canadian Auto Workers - for social justice for clergy. NOW they have protection for their appointments - from the UNION. Clergy in England are doing the same thing under the banner "UNITE!" I just wonder......anyone thinking what I'm thinking?
66. John Michio Miyahara wrote on 5/2/2012 7:42:07 PM
There are a lot of good questions and comments so far I think many things need to happen and this is just a first step. I agree totally that a comprehensive evaluation needs to be done that safeguards good clergy and honors clergy getting close to retirement with loyal years of service. I also think GBHEM needs to do a comprehensive review on what AC BOOM's should be looking for in clergy profiles. I also think GBHEM needs to work with UM seminaries and ATS accredited seminaries do develop curriculum standards for MDiv requirements. I think AC's also have to honestly evaluate churches that are "clergy killers" and to deal with them or close them. I also think we need to be honest about the hard work of closing small and dying churches, especially ones tied to multiple-point charges that cannot sustain their operating costs or have become private family chapels. Sometimes a church's mission comes to an end and it needs to be honored as such. I think our clergy should designated if they are truly intinerate or prefer rural, suburban, urban, interim or beyond the local church ministries. We are only at the beginning...
67. Pastor Stacy wrote on 5/2/2012 9:23:58 PM
Amy, Thank you so much for unpacking this a little bit for us, I have gained much from the comments thus far. I as a new pastor am concerned at the fact we talk about "clergy effectiveness"; I wonder how can a clergy be judged as effective or ineffective if the DS has never visited the congregation one has been appointed to nor heard the person preach. I am grately concerned at the fact the retired clergy and persons from other conferences are filling our pulpits in West ohio Conference, but we say we are short churches for those in our own conference. So I wonder how young clergy (45ish) are placed in ineffective congregations such as rural settings where the people run the church not the leading of God oir the Holy Spirit; I am saddened that one could be deemed ineffective clergy or deemed a pit bull for attempting to get numbers up or there appt is pulled out from under them and maybe the DS would find another appt if he or she chose to. Once again it appears this process has not been thought thru to see the ramifications it will cause to the body of Christ and those set apart to bring the Good news of a Savior.
68. Pastor Stacy wrote on 5/2/2012 9:24:29 PM
Amy, Thank you so much for unpacking this a little bit for us, I have gained much from the comments thus far. I as a new pastor am concerned at the fact we talk about "clergy effectiveness"; I wonder how can a clergy be judged as effective or ineffective if the DS has never visited the congregation one has been appointed to nor heard the person preach. I am grately concerned at the fact the retired clergy and persons from other conferences are filling our pulpits in West ohio Conference, but we say we are short churches for those in our own conference. So I wonder how young clergy (45ish) are placed in ineffective congregations such as rural settings where the people run the church not the leading of God oir the Holy Spirit; I am saddened that one could be deemed ineffective clergy or deemed a pit bull for attempting to get numbers up or there appt is pulled out from under them and maybe the DS would find another appt if he or she chose to. Once again it appears this process has not been thought thru to see the ramifications it will cause to the body of Christ and those set apart to bring the Good news of a Savior.
69. Pastor Stacy wrote on 5/2/2012 9:25:39 PM
Amy, Thank you so much for unpacking this a little bit for us, I have gained much from the comments thus far. I as a new pastor am concerned at the fact we talk about "clergy effectiveness"; I wonder how can a clergy be judged as effective or ineffective if the DS has never visited the congregation one has been appointed to nor heard the person preach. I am grately concerned at the fact the retired clergy and persons from other conferences are filling our pulpits in West ohio Conference, but we say we are short churches for those in our own conference. So I wonder how young clergy (45ish) are placed in ineffective congregations such as rural settings where the people run the church not the leading of God oir the Holy Spirit; I am saddened that one could be deemed ineffective clergy or deemed a pit bull for attempting to get numbers up or there appt is pulled out from under them and maybe the DS would find another appt if he or she chose to. Once again it appears this process has not been thought thru to see the ramifications it will cause to the body of Christ and those set apart to bring the Good news of a Savior.
70. L.C. wrote on 5/3/2012 1:11:29 AM
As a clergy spouse, I am terrified. Moving every 3-4 years makes my job history appear unstable, negatively impacts my long term earnings and virtually eliminates a support network. My family is essentially homeless. We have no assets, own little furniture and have no control over our living conditions. Like people in subsidized housing, my family must submit to a yearly home inspection. My spouse is trained to preach, teach, minister and is very good at it. The thoughts that a PPR and cabinet could find my spouse to be 'ineffective' terrifies me. We already have so little. Now, even this is taken away. Who wants to hire an ineffective, pastor that couldn't keep a position for more than 3-4 years in the best of times? Burger King? Professors have tenure, teachers and nurses have unions. What do we have?
71. Dave wrote on 5/3/2012 9:44:02 AM
Wow, this entire sequence of comments should be required reading by bishop and DS types. It is an unscientific sampling of the present state of clergy morale.
72. Rev. Michael R. Bartley wrote on 5/3/2012 9:53:22 AM
My question is simple. Nothing in the discipline actually gave us guaranteed appointments. Nothing kept the Bishops and the Cabinets from working with the Board of Ordained Ministry to address these very real and difficult issues. However, the Bishops and the Cabinets didn't seem to use the available and accountable system established by the Discipline for them. What makes us think that a new committee, a new process of power relations is healthier? Likewise, once the GC2012 failed to pass the elimination of term limits on the Bishops I deeply believe this legislation should have been pulled and tabled until equal accountability was available for all. Holding us as clergy accountable while making sure the Bishops are protected from accountability is simply an insult to the integrity of all our callings.
73. Rev. Michael R. Bartley wrote on 5/3/2012 9:53:39 AM
My question is simple. Nothing in the discipline actually gave us guaranteed appointments. Nothing kept the Bishops and the Cabinets from working with the Board of Ordained Ministry to address these very real and difficult issues. However, the Bishops and the Cabinets didn't seem to use the available and accountable system established by the Discipline for them. What makes us think that a new committee, a new process of power relations is healthier? Likewise, once the GC2012 failed to pass the elimination of term limits on the Bishops I deeply believe this legislation should have been pulled and tabled until equal accountability was available for all. Holding us as clergy accountable while making sure the Bishops are protected from accountability is simply an insult to the integrity of all our callings.
74. Randy wrote on 5/3/2012 10:07:59 AM
AMen friend! The number of sick, dysfunctional or toxic congregations far exceed the number of ineffective clergy. Yet in my 25 years of ministry I've not seen ANY church held accountable for their collective behavior! That is because of the $$ connection. Nearly 80% of my colleagues ordained in early 90s have left the ministry after repeated abuses at the hands of such churches. And there is literally NO concern demonstrated by conference officials about this shameful attrition rate. Obviously-our greatest problem is the large number of toxic congregations we have-NOT the minority of pastors who might be less than stellar when it comes to surviving such horrendous appointments. Yet nothing is even on the 'official' radar to address this larger reality. Truly disturbing.
75. betrayed wrote on 5/3/2012 11:04:57 AM
Elvis et al. who support this I have a modest proposal. I have great joy that we have clergy who have shown amazing effective and fruitful ministries, like Slaughter and Hamilton. All to often in conferences young pastors with little experience are sent to such and dying churches, when what those churches n noted is a skilled physician. If you sport this removal of the guarantee then purpose you ask your bishop to send you to the most dysfunctional and such churches in your conference. If you turn it around then praise God, for you have demonstrated resurrection before the eyes of those who thought it impossible. But if you are not able to then perhaps you can show a little more understanding to pastors who are deemed ineffective.
76. Rev. Ron Foster wrote on 5/3/2012 12:03:39 PM
On the whole, I am supportive of the end of the guaranteed appointment, though I concur with many of you have expressed that we have had other unused processes in place to deal with ineffectiveness. My critique all along has been that this significant motion before the UMC did not lead to a broader conversation about how we make appointments. If pastors are being asked to "give up" the guaranteed appointment in order to make the system work better for Bishops and Cabinets, where is the corresponding discussion about empowering clergy (and congregations) to have a greater voice and role in the appointment process? We give lip service to the fact that we believie in holy conferencing and the power of mutual discernment, but in fact don't really practice that when it comes to appointments. The ability of Bishops and Cabinets to discern is recognized and magnified well out of proportion to that of pastors (who are told in most instances to pray about this appointment we have for you, don't talk to anybody about it, and call us back in 24 hours). Churches are given even less of a role in the discernment process (write a good profile and receive who we send you) but nonetheless asked to treat the appointment as a covenantal relationship when in fact it is a prayerfully arranged marriage. Does anyone else feel like we missed an opportunity to ask bigger questions?
77. Randy wrote on 5/3/2012 12:14:22 PM
Bigger questions, debate and discussion were never wanted in this measure pushed by Bishops. The strategy by which it was brought to the floor was obviously crafted and designed to eliminmate and squash discussion and dissenting opinions. It was a beautifully crafted and shrewd strategy intended to become a mandate from the beginning. I can not and I will not be convinced that God was a part of this strategy or process. HOW this was done is shameful beyond description. The movie BETRAYED howver, showing in June-will reveal much that needs to be exposed.
78. Marian K. Anderson wrote on 5/3/2012 12:25:29 PM
Thank you Amy for providing us with very thoughtful and respectful insights into the "new thing" that is happen in our denomination. Your honesty in presenting your ministry experience was greatly appreciated. Thank you for serving God and the General Conference.
79. Every day's an adventure! wrote on 5/3/2012 2:11:03 PM
Silver Bullets & Bean Counters Without a doubt it's a new day in the UMC: Much in its USA Church is not going well. Adam Hamilton's thoughtful and telescopic attempt at resturcture and reform failed. Not surprising at its first airing. Perhaps at GC 2020 it (or its derrivitive) will have a chance at passing. Obviously those with the power want to keep the power. (Even the church can't escape some cultural norms.) And, those with the power think they know best. But remember, it's only very rarely that silver bullets are discovered. And, even when they are, there are still instance when they fail to work. Such is the case with GC's action to overturn the GA. It is entirely possible some, perhaps even a great deal of good will come out of it. However, the further concentration of power in the hands of the few rarely results in better things for the many. Ergo, the need for a "bean counter" and his / her report available prior to GC 2016. Without monitoring and accountability morale will suffer even further. I hope for the best, but having a "Plan B" seems more prudent ever these days.
80. Randy wrote on 5/3/2012 2:20:50 PM
Seems to me that somewhere far up the ladder of power, in consultation with the chief counter of beans, it has been discovered that the number of clergy we have at present, is unsustainable when it comes to the conference's ability to take care of us in our retirement years. Especially if you keep the bureaucratic machine as large as it is now - and refuse to reduce it by any measure. You can either use funds to keep the bureaucracy in operation - or use same to honor the covenant you made with those who gave their life and their trust over to the care of the institution that promised to care for us in retirement years. Which one is easier to eliminate - bureaucracy or clergy? If you eliminate guaranteed appointments, then clergy are by far the easiest to eliminate. First - through ineffectiveness charges. Second - by refusal of appointments, clergy remove themselves from the system. Third - and probably the MOST likely to happen, is those of us smart enough to see what is happening - will develop training in a plan B as stated above, and leave of our own free will before being falsely executed. The combination of those three factors SHOULD reduce the ranks of the clergy to the point that they can then keep their 'promise,' maintain the bureaucracy and hold on to unlimited and unchecked power. Been nice knowin' you folks. Such comments are surely bound to get noticed by powers that don't like dissenting opinion.
81. Julia Piper wrote on 5/3/2012 2:46:13 PM
I have trusted God through this entire process, which included trusting God for provision by leaving my secular career to answer a call to ministry. Trust has given me the opportunity to attend a seminary and receive an M. Div. degree. Trust has given me the gift of being a candidate for Ordination as an elder next year. I have also trusted those who are leaders within our annual conference and GC. Let us continue to trust that God will work through this entire process. Let us trust.
82. Randy wrote on 5/3/2012 3:14:59 PM
Julia, I too, once trusted as you do now. I did until Tuesday. What took place Tuesday and moreso, HOW it took place, just erased 25 years of that trust. At least for me. I still trust God. I still trust many of my fellow clergy in the field. But my trust in this system has been severely damaged. Is the damage beyond repair? Only time will tell - but when we are asked to weave the very rope by which we will be hung, it is foolish to trust at this point. The rope being 'vital congregations reporting.' Yes - I was told to 'trust them' that such numbers would not be used against clergy in our evaluations. But this......from the same people who just violated a covenant, makes it awfully difficult to 'trust' that they are telling the truth on that matter as well. That these two things have come along at the same time is no mistake or simple chance. The advent of reporting weekly membership numbers, apportionment payments and the rest, coupled with the sudden and forced elimination of guaranteed appointments - are too similar in nature to be a mere cooincidence. Sinister? Maybe not. But worthy of my trust? Not any more. May God bless you in your newfound ability to trust.
83. Jim wrote on 5/3/2012 6:16:37 PM
I have been an elder for 30 years. Every year I have itinerated many times to churches that were dying. I did this out of a faith and a trust that at least the denomination would stand with me. That covenant has been broken, but then watching the direction the United Methodist church has gone. I am not surprised. Unlike persons in my church, if I lose my job as an elder, I don't have unemployment compensation. My age is such that I can not find employment, because jobs that pay what I need to survive, insurance, and housing are hard to find. The United Methodist Church has taken one more step not in faith, but in the ways of the world.
84. Dorina wrote on 5/3/2012 6:16:37 PM
Thank you for so clearly summarizing this change. Perhaps this will also encourage SPPRCs to be constantly, prayerfully and honestly in communication with clergy about our shared ministry as clergy and laity, so that the Spirit can move as the Spirit will move. It could help all of us to be more effective!
85. Anonymoose wrote on 5/3/2012 7:02:05 PM
I know 2 people in the Methodist system. One a seminarian, one a Pastor who also is a Military Chaplain. The seminarian is seriously considering whether the call to preach will be fulfilled as a Methodist, or possibly as a Presbyterian, as that person would then have at least a say over where they go. The Chaplain is trying to go back to Active Duty in the Military. Not something to be relished, with the conflict in Afghanistan going on. That's two wonderful, bright, dedicated people who might not be available to nurture souls for the UMC. That's two people who are being driven away because of the FUD encased in this bad decision.
86. Deborah wrote on 5/3/2012 7:15:26 PM
Now that GA has passed how will this affect the local pastor; who is on the Elder track and DPA. That means I have passed all the sections of BOM and waiting on an appointment to be commissioned.
87. Ken wrote on 5/3/2012 7:19:07 PM
I am laity and a member of a UMC for over 30 years. As a career businessman, the best received promotions and were rewarded financially. Yes there was cronyism, racism, sexism. I missed two promotions due to Affirmative Action. A female needed to be promoted. Even so, there is no perfect system, but the ineffective, poor performers were weeded out. I am concerned about the decline of congregations and the vast number of very small congregations in very large, expensive to maintain older churches. We must have a vision, clean house and houses or we will not survive.
88. Randy wrote on 5/3/2012 8:21:25 PM
Ken-with all due respect, there is NO comparison with the business world. For example: You chose whom you would work for. You decided where you and your family would live. You chose the home you would live in. Where your children would go to school. You very likely did not spend 95% of your weekends working. Nor were you on call 24-7. When you wanted to paint, renovate or upgrade your home, you did not have to beg for anyones permission. And when you met or exceeded your goals or quotas you very likely received bonuses and commissions. If anyone in your workplace was abusive toward you, you could fire them, reprimand them or sue them if the abuse was criminal. We gave up all those freedoms as did our families in exchange for one thing: Guaranteed appointment. So go ahead an 'clean house' all you want to. The truly competent clergy will be gone long before the inept ones will be forced out. Moved on to other denominations or start their own churches-fed up with abuse, taken for granted and all deemed incompetent in one large vote. Tell me how the umc will survive that house cleanong?
89. St. Elvis wrote on 5/3/2012 9:29:53 PM
Thought I was done commenting, but I can't help myself--so much self-pity and anxiety happening in these comments that I feel compelled to call some of y'all out. First, a lot of comments seem to indicate an assumption that ineffective pastors are being judged as being lazy. That's not my experience at all--in fact, a lot of the most ineffective pastors I know would probably be more effective if they were lazier. For them, it is not about what they aren't doing--quite the opposite. Ineffectiveness is, imho, far more about overfunctioning, micromanaging, needing to be needed, lack of boundaries, and other symptoms of anxiety that are played out in the pastoral practice of many. Then there are the angry "prophets" who, in fact, would alienate folks no matter what they were advocating, and who often, in fact, do wind up alienating event the folks who agree with them. Second, I can't let all the complaining about "killer churches" go without again pointing out the victim mentality that is inherent in such attitudes. I am not arguing that there are no such thing as dysfunctional churches, but how did they get to be dysfunctional in the first place? Dysfunctionality is generated and maintained by ineffective leadership. That is, in my mind what this is all about. So you can do a good hospital visit--great for you and for the person you are visiting. I can point to dozens of people in my church who could do a great hospital visit. But I can only point to one person who can set the tone, and that is the pastor. They set they tone whether they intend to or not. If they set an anxious tone, there will be anxiety throughout the system. If they set a non-anxious but connected tone, the anxiety that is in the system will dissipate because it is not being fed from the head. It is not easy to confront the systemic crazyness, and that is why non-anxious (or manageably anxious, more accurately) is so important in leadership. Finally, I must also call some of us out on our hand-wringing and and drama--a lot of the worry being expressed relates to problems associated with itineracy, not GA. At this point, itineracy, which again, predates GA, is still the "law of the land." You can still be moved every 3-4 years, you can still be told where to go. Nothing about that has changed, and the complaints are nothing new. What is new is the sense of being somehow betrayed, and the accompanying whining (sorry, but I can't think of any other word) about how horrible being a UM pastor is, and that GA was the only thing that made it tolerable. #88 is particularly vintage whine. You'd think we were slaves or 18 century mill workers, instead of folks who have a pension (how many of your church members have one of those anymore?) and, in my conference, at least, gold standard health insurance for which I pay an incredibly small portion ($50-100) a month. A lot of my members would gladly trade places with me for those benefits alone. I don't want to come across as holier than thou, but I'd like to think that I "gave up" all those freedoms (some of which neither you nor I haven't actually given up, BTW) for something a lot bigger, holier, and worthy of my best than a guarantee of a job. Doesn't answering a call from God inherently involve some sacrifice and loss of security?
90. Deborah wrote on 5/3/2012 9:44:49 PM
Old Pastor will you answer this question please. Now that NGA has passed. How will this affect the local pastor? Who is on the Elder track, Deferred Pending Appointment. This means I have passed all three sections of BOM and waiting on an appointment to be commissioned.
91. John Michio Miyahara wrote on 5/3/2012 10:43:06 PM
From Bishop Grant Hagiya of the Pacific Northwest Annual Conference: Bishop Grant Hagiya addressing the General Conference during the Plenary Celebration and Challenge of the Mission and Ministry of The United Methodist Church on Sunday, April 29, 2012 in Tampa, Florida. Photo by Patrick Scriven. Dear Friends, Certainly one of the most controversial actions coming out of our 2012 General Conference was the altering of security of appointment. It has created significant buzz around the connection, and there is a great deal of anxiety about it. I have stated this before General Conference and I want to reiterate to all of our clergy to reassure them. I believe that this action will have little affect on the vast majority of our clergy. Keep in mind, that nationally, there is an estimated excess of only 784 Elders across the whole connection! When you couple this with the huge retirement wave that will hit us with our Baby Boomer generation, we will actually be desperately needing clergy within a 15 year radius. Some of us have argued all along that altering security of appointment has to do with missional appointment-making. What this means is that if we have a specific language pastor who is desperately needed in a changing community context, and we have a monolingual pastor who must be given an appointment, we must forgo the pastor with the gifts because we have to appoint the one who has a guarantee. This is an example of a very small percentage of our appointments, so it will not affect the majority of clergy. However, when it does happen, it will allow us to make the best possible appointment to strengthen the local church. Although we have had some very tight appointment years in which our audit did not allow for too many local church openings, we have always been able to place all of our clergy. As I see the statistical trends, our retirements will soar in the near future, and I truly believe that we will have the opposite problem of not having enough clergy. Please do not worry unnecessarily about this issue. If you have any specific questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact your District Superintendent, or myself. Finally, trust in God that the church will continue to grow and thrive, and that we will have the security through Jesus Christ alone. Be the Hope, Bishop Grant
92. enough wrote on 5/4/2012 12:27:01 AM
Well St Elvis, if you have read this string of comments and thus only see Clergy as whinning and complaining-you have missed much more than the point. Clergy know what systemic anxiety is. They know what homeostasis is. They know what it means to be a non-anxious presence means. (Ever had to console a grieving family?). They also know what abuse is-and many have tolerated it for years because they ARE called. What I see is lamenting over the church becoming focused on numbers and dollars-instead of minisrty and spiritual formation. I appreciate the Bishop's clarity and only wish all our Bishops were as clear. Eliminating GA is an attempt at a quick fix-which is a typical response in higly anxious systems. You hear whinning and complaining-I hear people who are deeply committed to Christ lamenting a decision that will only serve to make them even more vulnerable to the whims of the least healthy in our churches.
93. Old Pastor wrote on 5/4/2012 10:06:04 AM
Deborah asked: "Old Pastor will you answer this question please. Now that NGA has passed. How will this affect the local pastor? Who is on the Elder track, Deferred Pending Appointment. This means I have passed all three sections of BOM and waiting on an appointment to be commissioned." > >You address still another problem, and a real inequity. Perhaps this will, in fact, allow you to be commissioned, thus completing this particular phase of your candidacy, even without having been appointed. It seems unjust to me that a person may have completed all the requirements for either commissioning or ordination, yet be turned down due to the unavailability of an appointment, which is not the fault of the candidate. Requiring the candidate to repeat all the paperwork and interviews once a recommendation from DCOM & BoOm is received, is ridiculous. One thing ought not to be dependent on the other. > As well, IMO, if a recommendation to commissioning and provisional membership is received, the person ought to be commissioned and given provisional membership, and if not appointed, the non-appointed years ought not be counted as part of the maximum 8 years. > As I read the requirements of para 324, "A person shall be eligible for election to provisional membership in the annual conference by vote of the clergy session on recommendation of its Board of Ordained Ministry after meeting [all of the rest of the requirements in para 324]" > In question now, is the wording of para 326 which states, "All persons who are provisional members SHALL be appointed by a bishop..." Does para 326 change automatically in light of the NGA, or if GC has not specifically change this, does this mean that now the person recommended for provisional membership and commissioning take precedence over appointed elders? > Whatever the case, there seems to be an unhealthy and discouraging relationship between the BoOM and the appointive cabinet in terms of whether to commission/ordain persons who might be otherwise recommended (and potentially approved in clergy session) but who, for reasons beyond their ability, might not have an appointment available to them. > Too many times, knee-jerk legislation like this complicates and makes more difficult so many other areas of the discipline. sigh....
94. Randy wrote on 5/4/2012 10:11:32 AM
My dear St. Elvis, I take exception to your insulting assessment of a very real comparison between real world and world of the church example I gave in #88. Sir, or Madam, whichever applies, I happen to be one of the more 'effective' pastors in our conference. Serving a 1000 member congregation with a quarter century experience. I have served three 'clergy killers' in my day, and survived - even thrived, while I watched many of my colleagues disappear. They left because of the relentless abusive conflict aimed at them. No - they were not 'incompetent' and neither were they socially clueless troublemakers. Many have gone on to successful appointments in other ministry areas where abuse is not tolerated as it is in the UMC. As for my comparison being 'vintage whine,' such a comment could only come from someone who has never been in the trenches. There are in fact clergy, who by virtue of their political connections, have never once faced an antagonist, a clergy killer - of faced down the presence of evil in their congrgations. I have - and am much stronger for having done so. I also retain a third degree black belt, so 'whining' is not a part of my inner being. I challenge you - with your arrogant certainty, to intentionally take on the most unhealthy, toxic and dysfunctional congregation in your conference. GO THERE. Serve there. See how long you can survive there. My hunch is that the high opinion you seem to have of yourself and the low opinion you seem to have of others who HAVE served these places, will be - slightly adjusted. Having served, survived and thrived in spite of such appointments - and lamenting the removal of the one thing we could count on to keep us in ministry - is not whining. It is not complaining as you say. It is the reflection of a group of people who have had their 'trust' betrayed more often than they ever anticipated - in doing the work of the church. BY the church. A two year stint in a toxic congregation - or a dose of humility would serve you well, when listening to the 'lamentations' of others.
95. Rev. Tiffany wrote on 5/4/2012 11:37:07 AM
Randy, I agree with you totally on all your posts. I am greatly disappointed, especially with this item being put on the consent calendar. I'm in for the union. I also think every annual conference should pass a resolution expressing disagreement with this legislation...not that they will do any good.
96. Randy wrote on 5/4/2012 2:07:45 PM
Here are some facts relevant to this issue. Healthy congregations can outlive and function in SPITE of having an 'ineffective' pastoral leader. They have the ability to work with, around and in spite of the spiritual leader's gaffs, inexperience, or ineptitude. Unhealthy congregations are rarely able to accept the leadership of even the healthiest and most effective pastors. Effective pastors who create new growth in unhealthy congregations - inadvertently create anxiety within that system, and the system (and it's leaders) revolt for fear of loss of significance or control over what they perceive to be 'theirs.' The REAL reason why the church is dying is not because of the very few ineffective clergy we have, but rather, our Judicatories collective dismissal of the reality of unhealthy congregations - as long as they pay their apportionments. No one likes conflict. Including Pastors, Superintendents or Bishops. So the operating principle has been (for generations) to simply move the pastor, replace him or her with another and 'hope' things go better with the next one. Just as long as the $$ keep flowing. By dismissing, excusing, overlooking or ignoring the obvious flaws and toxicity in these congregations, our leaders have allowed a cancer to grow and develop. This cancer is now pushing out healthy members (and leaders) as it has grown. It is also secreting toxins, which no reasonable or healthy person wants to be exposed to. (Gossip, slander, petitions, abuse, etc.) So they leave. Healthy pastors who try to make a difference, pay a heavy price. But at least we USED to have a guarantee that there were other places we could serve. Yet the unhealthy churches and individuals are NEVER held accountable by any means from the conference to which they are accountable. What kind of organization sends its representatives into hostile situations, expecting them to work miracles - while never confronting the cause of the hostility?? Were conferences to have held clergy killers and antagonists accountable for their abuses of clergy, removed from office or even removed from membership - we would not be a dying church but a thriving church. So if there is blame to be cast here, it is not upon those who have tried to bring the Gospel into an unhealthy situation, but rather the leaders (and other healthy people IN those sick churches) who stick their heads in the sand hoping against hope that another pastor will make a difference. It is crazy. Hold clergy killers accountable from the conference level and see what a difference it makes in clergy morale, church growth and collective witness. But don't hold your breath anyone. When conference leaders are too reluctant to confront the demons in congregations and are only willing to confront those whom they have direct power over - nothing is going to change anytime soon.
97. William H. Jacobs wrote on 5/4/2012 2:31:35 PM
I am saddened by one more divisive event within our covenant community. There have been means to remove those who are ineffective, but we have chosen not to use them. There are ways of preventing them from being ordained, but we have been too timid to use them. There are means to deal with ineffective leadership, but we've been afraid to deal with them. I went where sent - many years in two annual conferences with 26 years as a military chaplain in between (going where sent) and always looked on every assignment as a place where God could use whatever talents I'd been given. I pray for our church. Renaming things, re-organizing bureaus, changing procedures - none will replace a renewed sense of commitment and mission to the work to which we are called.
98. Been there, seen that, burned the t-shirt wrote on 5/4/2012 3:33:06 PM
Removal of GA has been a long time in coming. I grew up in a functional rural UMC church that regularly had theologically unsound and Biblically inept clergy. In my adult life, I've seen some of the best and some of the worst of clergy. The effective ones were truly a blessing and were both prophetic and pastoral. I've seen numerous substantiated reports of clergy having affairs with either staff or those they counsel. Clergy who abuse children and spouses continue to be appointed despite the conference being well aware of their actions. This has been enough for me to find another denomination as a lay person where safety and respect of one another is paramount and mission to one another, or commuity and the world is emphasized no matter what our race, gender or sexual orientation. Its been an important part of my spiritual growth. I continue to wish God's blessings on the UMC, and hope the end of GA will help bring the kingdom of God a little closer on earth.
99. Tom Wick wrote on 5/4/2012 3:54:47 PM
As a second career person who spent many years sitting in the pew before standing in the pulpit. I have always felt guaranteed appointments have served there purpose and are now a detriment to ministry. This legislation was very needed but should have been balanced by the CO Bishops giving up lifetime election.
100. Tom Wick wrote on 5/4/2012 3:55:43 PM
As a second career person who spent many years sitting in the pew before standing in the pulpit. I have always felt guaranteed appointments have served there purpose and are now a detriment to ministry. This legislation was very needed but should have been balanced by the CO Bishops giving up lifetime election.
101. Tom Wick wrote on 5/4/2012 3:57:12 PM
As a second career person who spent many years sitting in the pew before standing in the pulpit. I have always felt guaranteed appointments have served there purpose and are now a detriment to ministry. This legislation was very needed but should have been balanced by the CO Bishops giving up lifetime election.
102. Tom Wick wrote on 5/4/2012 3:59:02 PM
As a second career person who spent many years sitting in the pew before standing in the pulpit. I have always felt guaranteed appointments have served there purpose and are now a detriment to ministry. This legislation was very needed but should have been balanced by the CO Bishops giving up lifetime election.