Thanks to David for the link to this article.
It talks about some of the issues in the UMC around the guaranteed appointment. Since we're under the appointment of our Bishop, once we get ordained, we have what amounts to lifetime tenure. There will always be a job for us, no matter how competent or incompetent we are.
Reading the article, it is clear that this system was originally set up back in the 1950s to help clergywomen get jobs. (There were plenty who would not accept a woman in their pulpit...imagine how they'd feel about a pregnant woman in their pulpit!) I love that the General Conference was able to find a way to make this a justice and equality issue, a way to back up their decision to ordain women.
It is pretty clear today, though, that the guaranteed appointment might be more of a stumbling block to us than a help. Sure, it is still important to help some in our connection-- specifically persons of color and some women-- but for others it almost endorses the notion it does not matter whether one works to grow in competency, faith and leadership--the Church has to provide me with a job.
Of course, I have to quip that considering how little the Church pays and how much they expect, guaranteeing us employment is sort of a perk. What do you think about guaranteed appointments? Do they help us or hurt us?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
On the other hand, I had an experience a few weeks ago, where I met with a church and they asked me questions like, "How well do you relate to men?" and "How good a housekeeper are you?" Their biggest issues were that I was 1.) Female 2.) Young 3.) Single. I am not going there (thankfully) and unfortunately they will get what they want now because I told my DS, "Not a chance would I be going there!" But there needs to be some kind of balance as GC makes these decisions about guaranteed appointments. There are still major disparities in the way of salaries and appointments are made between male and female clergy – especially in the more conservative areas of the country.
I actually gasped as I read pastor laura's response. i can't believe there are still churches who feel okay about being so sexist when it comes to female clergy. It's been 50+ years people! shouldn't it become "normal" after a while?
So, at our Orders Committee meeting today, we were discussing a policy that would begin some accountability about taking continuing education. Seems like a really good thing. Problem is, it's hard to imagine enforcing such a policy in any kind way that would build morale and not resentment.
So I add another question: who would we trust with the decision about who doesn't deserve another appointment?
One of my fears is that, because it's so much easier, we'll rely on things we can clearly measure. Like if people got the right number of properly approved CEUs. Easy to document, easy to make objective, but not really at the heart of what matters most.
I wonder to at the "clergy killer" churches, or just where the match is wrong...how does one measure effectiveness in these regards? I am afraid that it will lead to administrative geniuses running our churches, leaving the care to others. the real irony in my mind is that by Discipline the Board of Ordained Ministry is responsible to evaluate all pastors every year...what if three quarters of the committee did this and the other quarter did the new ordinand interviews...of course taking out many of the underlying hurdles we experience, in favor of developing experiential pastors, with review (okay so this sounds very much like what John Wesley did with his preachers - and I expect few would welcome the same kind of heavy hand he used)
Peace
And, if, someday, the church actually acknowledged that it already has GLBT clergy and really opened hearts, minds and doors to all as ordained clergy, guaranteed appointments might be needed anew in the same way it was needed as a justice issue in the 1950s for women.
As someone who spent 15 plus years reviewing employees every year and being reviewed every year, I can say that there are times when it was healthy and good and times when it was not.
I like the idea of reviewing clergy every year in a meaningful way, and maybe guaranteed appointment makes that less threatening with the potential to move some beyond complacency.
As a local pastor, I work at the whim of both the conference and the economy, and while that is a tad precarious it also comes with some freedom.
p.s. 7 weeks til I graduate!!!!!
I think Erika's point about the historical context of the guaranteed appointment issue is really important. It was certainly needed at that time, but there is no reason to assume that once a clause is put in the Discipline for a specific reason, it should therefore stay in it for all time. That is especially the case when unforeseen negative consequences result, as in the current problem of not being able to do anything about incompetent clergy other than just move them around.
My own perspective on this issue has been particularly shaped by seeing the harm that incompetent clergy do to local congregations. The only option that bishops and district superintendents have is just to keep moving them from appointment to appointment, in the hopes that they will 'click' somewhere. But if the problem is in the pastor himself and not in the match between pastor and church, then the only result is that the pastor inflicts harm on multiple congregations instead of just one. There has simply got to be a better way of dealing with incompetence than that.
The difference in Karen's response between guaranteed appointments for women starting in the late '50s and early '60s, and those for LGBT pastors today, is that women in clergy were/are permitted by the Discipline and self-avowed, practicing homosexual clergy were/are not. Based on current doctrine and the trends at the past few General Conferences, there is no reason to think the Disciplinary stance on practicing gay clergy is going to change. Thus, retaining a clause for a reason that does not exist does not seem particularly helpful (especially when the situation it affected currently is affected in such a negative way).
I'm going to agree with Andrew that a rule -- even if meaningful at the time of its creation -- shouldn't automatically be guaranteed life everlasting.
And, I'm going to agree that keeping a law that's potentially doing harm now on the books in the hope that it might do future good is not a good idea.
I think I have more hope than Andrew about the future of LGBT clergy in the UMC, though.
All that said, I think regular and meaningful reviews are a good thing even while appointments are guaranteed. Let's work to help all clergy know and live up to their worth and value and let's provide exit options and exit counseling that might help folks independently decide to end their appointment.
I suppose my question is who should be doing the reviewing? My experience (explained above) made me realize that my DS doesn't REALLY have the ability to review me. Obviously my DS didn't know me well enough, or the church I went to interview with for that matter. So if the appointments are based on the review of the cabinet is that fair, when my DS has never "seen me in action." Furthermore, when you are appointed to a congregation that may be anti whatever (female, single, young, racist, gay etc.), then a qualification for cannot be profession of faith or membership increases (a person on my cabinet has actually suggested this as a test of a pastor's effectiveness).
As Andrew suggested, it doesn’t take into account for the “clergy killer” churches either or those instances where the cabinet just made a bad decision and put a good pastor with a good church that simply were not a good fit together. But are CEU’s the only qualifier either? I know clergy who might be considered ineffective and all the CEU’s might not change that. I think this is a great discussion – and it brings up more questions that answers!
I don't work in a denomination that appoints the clergy, nor is there any guarentee of employment. We find our own jobs...so, not sure what I think of it.
Like that it can balance the field in a social justice way (assuming the denom doesn't pigeon hole women and minorities into the small places that can't pay well)...but totally get that it can also enable apathy....
I think there should not be guaranteed appointments--that day has past. And, I don't think it is rocket science to tell who isn't competent. But as the only woman pastor in a community, I can tell you it is a big deal—sadly. It is a new day and big changes need to be made.
I think there should not be guaranteed appointments--that day has past. And, I don't think it is rocket science to tell who isn't competent. But as the only woman pastor in a community, I can tell you it is a big deal—sadly. But it is totally a new day and big changes need to be made.
I've been out of town all week and just saw your post (and following comments)...what a great post for APRIL FOOLS DAY!
As if any of us had much control over what in the end is a mostly economic issue. Clergy are basically the only ones who, when the plates are passed, get to take something OUT. We keep leaving our congregations hungry enough and, guarantees or not, the whole economic model implodes.
My question in all of this is, "where is the God who called us to ministry?" Guaranteed, not guaranteed, welcomed, challenged, persecuted, or loved...the gifting God gives us strength to be faithful in all.
I don't get paid NEARLY as much as my colleagues these days, but i still have my spiritual lunch money. And I'll have enough, long after the collapse of the guaranteed appointment has rid us of all the "hirelings." :-)
The "who gets to decide" question is really just the flipside of the "it's easy to tell who is incompetent" argument. What I mean is, both display a remarkable lack of trust that God may very well be at work, even in the United Methodist itenerancy.
Hi Andy, I don't know you and so I am surprised that you would believe that my understanding "displays a remarkable lack of trust that God may very well be at work..." Frankly, this the first time I have joined in the conversation because I was fearful that generalizations and proclamations are easily made in this somewhat anonymous forum. Maybe I am taking this too personally? Just to clear up anything, I actually live from a large lava pile of trust in God and believe that God is active in every process--those inside the church and outside its walls. But God continues to work through us and we need to wake up and smell the coffee or is it just easier to hit the snooze? I actually need an hour to wake up and two cups myself so I have empathy with those who need to address these things. It is complex, but we have figured out much harder things (at least I think we have).
I am a baptist woman who happens to be called to preach. I have been told many times to go outside of my baptist denomination to the methodists so that I could find a place of service.
Yet, I am not willing to give up my baptist beliefs that I fully embraced some 10 years ago. I have struggled with this decision, but I will not lie to get an assured pastorate.
And here I wait still--after 6 years beyond seminary.... *sigh*
It is interesting to read this,and the comments that follow as a British Methodist Ordinand. We do have guaranteed appointments ( in fact we have too many appointments and not enough Ministers), but there are also a lot of checks and balances in place to help people continue to grow... and it would not be unknown for someone being asked politely to resign!
Having said that the salary disparity is a non issue, everyone recieves exactly the same stipend, with no negotiation possible!
Very interesting. The AG has ordained women since 1914, but you wouldn't know it by looking at the percentage of women clergy, which is very small. And sexism is the norm in most areas. So the garanteed appt. system is looking fabulous to me, but I do understand the concerns, and certainly agree that there should be some sort of accountability.
"Guaranteed appointments....good or bad?" Good! Spineless Bishops and Board of Ordained Ministries...good or bad? Bad. The language is in the Discipline to move on folks who are truly no longer effective.
We in the UMC love to lie to ourselves. We think we are not racist nor sexist. We think we are Open Heats, Minds, and Doors. We love the lie and can't bear the truth. We cry "Peace, Peace," when there is no Peace.
So-called "guaranteed appointments" allow us to challenge unjust systems at least at the ecclesial level...which is a nice place to start.
Well, you stirred up a hornet's nest, and that is what is going to happen in some ways at the conference level.
I did not know that the guaranteed appointment began at the time of women's ordination, is this a fact? I thought it had been around forever and a day.
But to take up Pastor Laura's comment, even if you say you can have a guaranteed appointment, for women, it still wasn't the best. And yes, Virginia there still is sexism, racism, and finally agism in the Methodist church up and down. The biggest thing I see now is agism.
So we are going to become Congregational, I guess that will call for a name change.
How will all of it fall out if that's the case.
The issue of incompetent clergy is a big one. If bishops, Boards of Ordained Ministry, and district superintendents are held accountable to their Disciplinary responsibilities, then incompentent clergy will be dealt with through mandatory continuing education, close supervision, and ultimately separation. Some of the BOM's have flawed selection processes. And the issue of how to define "effective" or "competent" in a pastor is much harder to define than one might think. The best we've heard so far in my annual conference is "we'll know ineffectiveness when we see it." That does not reassure me that clergy will receive the support they need from the cabinet.
All that is to say this: we better not drop guaranteed appointments until we have some reasonable clear and understandable replacement in mind. Our work is such that objective evaluation is impossible, and DS's generally find it hard to know both pastors and churches well enough to evaluate their working relationship. Some evaluation processes are better than others, too (I'm not impressed with ours). Until we are able to come up with some way to determine relative effectiveness of both clergy and congregation, both individually and together, we are going to have to continue to trust God to work through the system we have, and guide up to improve it.
BTW, every year there are a few people in my AC who surrender their credentials, some of which appear to be due to pressure from on high as a result of their alleged "ineffectiveness." As a means of respecting their privacy, we never know what the story is there, at least not offically. THe occasional "hypothetical" cautionary tale might help; otherwise we are sometimes left thinking that an outwardly effective pastor has somehow run afoul of the beaurocracy. This leaves us with a sense of how arbitrary some of this seems...
There is already language in place that addresses the concerns that some have expressed. Clergy are to be appointed unless, among other things, we "have failed to meet the requirements for continued eligibility" (337.1). And those requirements include "growth in vocational competence and effectiveness through continuing formation" (334.2.b). Seems to me that addresses the major concern, namely that incompetent and ineffective pastors continue to be appointed, with no check or accountability from the conference. Continued growth vocationally is already a part of the covenant relationship of the clergy, and if that part of the covenant is not being met, the language is in place already for addressing that. Dare I say: Bishops, take thou authority! Claim that language and act on it before more Disciplinary tinkering.
Post a Comment