Donald W. Haynes

By Donald W. Haynes
UMR Columnist

I am not under the illusion that what I am about to propose will have any real impact on General Conference. In fact, if this were a petition, it would die in subcommittee! I also respect the fact that Bishop Asbury would turn in his grave if this were passed. But we have to face reality with courage and faith.

The following proposal reflects our heritage as well as the concept of episcopacy as we see it in the Episcopal Church and appointment making as we see it in British Methodism and the Presbyterian Church.

Despite Bishop Asbury’s determination to “keep everything in motion,” the annual appointment is an albatross and a means of enabling short-term, knee-jerk pastorates. Our system has discouraged creativity in working through recurring issues. The good news is that most bishops are encouraging longer pastorates, with some even refusing to consider moves under two years unless there is evidence of moral turpitude, gross maladministration or unacceptable conflict. Technically, though, all appointments are still for one year.

Here is my modest proposal for change in our polity:

First, appointment changes would be made after the bishop had received a documented reason for it. This would include an in-depth profile developed by the bishop’s office that would involve both a congregational and community study. High priority would be placed on the spiritual discernment among the laity as to their vision, community and membership demographics, theological posture, current needs (buildings or special program ministries) and prioritization of preaching, pastoral care, staff leadership and conflict resolution.

Churches in other communions do this, often during an interim pastorate. We need to take a more mature congregational responsibility.

Pastor, church profiles

A pastoral profile would also be developed, made up of objective data, lay evaluations and one’s own evaluation of parish effectiveness. The profile would be sent to inquiring congregations.

After studying the congregational profile, the bishop would submit to the Staff Parish Relations Committee (SPRC) the profiles of some pastors who have indicated a willingness to move and whose gifts and graces seem compatible with the parish. The SPRC would have permission to contact through the bishop’s office up to three persons from the bishop’s list and interview them. Sermons and worship leadership could be seen via video.

Interviews could include written statements as to the pastors’ styles of leadership, achievements, personal encumbrances, strengths and weaknesses, vision for the church, theological posture and commitment to advocacy positions. Inquiring churches would have the right to background checks for any felony records and medical evaluations, and to explore whether there is mutual compatibility with a candidate.

We can no longer afford the assumption of “cookie-cutter” profiles for either pastor or parish.

Potential candidates for a parish could include clergy from other annual conferences and jurisdictions. While this would change the ethos of the annual conference it would enhance available talent, particularly in smaller annual conferences; and would provide for career mobility. The intent would be to match clergy and parish needs rather than protect a career-advancement ladder within the closed system of a given annual conference. Other communions and the corporate world seem to handle interstate and cross-regional transfers with relative ease.

At least one interview would be an on-site visit in the parish, an exchange of videos of preaching and worship leadership, and candid negotiation regarding compensation. The final interview would cover housing, spousal employment, children’s schools, responsibility for aging parents and other concerns.

If the SPRC were convinced that the pastor would be happy to be sent there, they would notify the bishop. If the bishop approved, he or she would confirm with the pastor her or his willingness to be sent. At that point the bishop would project the appointment. The appointment would still be an episcopal appointment by the bishop, not a congregational “call.” If the bishop did not approve, the pastor and parish would be told the process must be restarted, and both pastor and parish would be told why the appointment could not be projected.

Appointment-making

Next, appointments would be made for four years without formal episcopal review unless there were some conflict or emerging extenuating circumstances.

Appointments would be made throughout the calendar year rather than on just one “out and in” moving day. Where it’s either necessary or advisable, interim pastoral care would be provided from a pool of retirees or extension ministry clergy.

The number of bishops would be increased so that the bishop could make all appointments with the help of an administrative assistant and the advice of a non-remunerated “cabinet.” With a “four-year contract” in place, a bishop would not make nearly so many appointment changes each year.

Consideration should be given to the Evangelical United Brethren model of a term episcopacy of up to 12 years. Admittedly, the challenge of re-entering the parish after being in a different “culture” of ministry would be quite challenging. Retired bishops would be “emeriti” and not active participants in the Council or Colleges of Bishops. Their counsel could be sought through panels, lectures and mentoring relationships.

With more bishops available, the office of District Superintendent would be eliminated, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars. The bishop could appoint a “stationing committee” made up of clergy who are serving local churches for advice in making appointments. The current Charge Conference is a dinosaur, and appointment making takes up most of the District Superintendent’s time and focus. And few conferences have enough candidates for the superintendency with the gifts and training needed in the office as it presently exists.

The Charge or Church Conference would be replaced with a mandatory annual consultation regarding areas of ministry that are less effective, or pastor-parish conflicts. The local church would pay for these consultations. Leadership would come from individuals or organizations approved by the bishop or the General Board of Higher Education and Ordained Ministry.

Pastors, ordained persons in specialized ministries and laity with special expertise and training would replace the district superintendent as a consultant. Approved consultants’ websites would include previous parishes they had served so credentials could be checked.

The only paid conference staff would be in the bishop’s office and the financial/business management office. Connectional leadership—congregational development, age-level ministries, communications and Board of Ordained Ministry registrar—would be outsourced either from within the conference or beyond it. Payment would be for services rendered or by retainer, without pension or medical benefits.

Finally, annual conference “centers” would be sold, and as much as possible, the bishop and other conference staff would relocate to local churches with underutilized space, United Methodist colleges and universities, or other denominationally owned facilities. Rent would be an asset to the local church or college, and conference overhead would be virtually eliminated. Such stewardship of facilities would be a dramatic witness.

Annual meetings

There would be five annual meetings for the bishop to attend:

• The Annual Conference. Membership would be equal members of laity and active clergy and would emphasize fellowship, parish effectiveness, spiritual formation and visionary leadership. It would be enhanced by worship of Word and Table, conference membership, retirements and a memorial service. Following their retirement, clergy could come at their own expense and would have voice but not vote. This, combined with eliminating the superintendency and most conference staff, would dramatically reduce the required number of lay members to equal clergy.

• Annual meeting of the laity, to include lay members of annual conference, SPRC chairs and local church lay leaders. This would enhance the local church’s sense of connectedness.

• Annual meeting of Local Pastors and Provisional Members—appointed and not appointed.

• Annual meeting of Deacons—appointed and not appointed.

• Annual meeting of Elders—appointed and not appointed.

This proposal retains our episcopacy, in keeping with the Restrictive Rules. The office of bishop has more ecclesiastical heritage and more meaning for the laity than does the middle-management position of district superintendent. The Board of Ordained Ministry budget would include funds for administrative help.

This new polity paradigm would retain and enhance the meaning of connectionalism while downsizing the personnel and cost of a bureaucracy that developed in the late 19th century because of growth in church membership, affluence and corporate America’s influence on organizational development.

The hour has come to think outside the box. Our polity can no longer pretend to be our genius or the content of our brand. The essence of United Methodism must be affirmed as our grace theology—not itineracy, annual appointments and layered management.

Dr. Haynes is a retired member of the Western North Carolina Conference, an adjunct professor at Hood Theological Seminary and current interim pastor of Kallam Grove Christian Church. e-mail: dhaynes11@triad.rr.com.

Share