PHOTO BY FRED KOENIG/MISSOURI CONFERENCE The Rev. Dennis Harper receives hands laid upon him during his ordination in 2007. Petitions to the 2008 General Conference are challenging the “guarantee” of an appointment for United Methodist elders.

By Robin Russell
Managing Editor

There’s an old quip that while United Methodist clergy have to maintain certain standards, “incompetence” is not a chargeable offense under church law. 

Indeed, one of the things every newly ordained United Methodist clergy member knows is that he or she will have a place to serve. It’s seen as a fair tradeoff for enduring a rigorous process of ordination and an itinerate system that requires clergy to serve wherever a bishop places them. 

In some ways, it’s a sweet deal: Churches don’t ever have to go without a pastor, and a pastor never goes without a setting for ministry. 

But some bishops and other church leaders argue that such “job security” also enables ineffective pastors to stay in ministry even though they fail to help congregations grow spiritually. 

Pastors can be removed, of course, for immorality, disobeying church law or engaging in crime. But it’s less clear what can be done for pastoral ineffectiveness. 

And that has church leaders more than a little concerned in a denomination where membership has been declining for 40 years. Membership in the U.S. has dropped from more than 10 million in the late ’60s to just under 8 million in 2006. 

When bishops were asked by an episcopal task force last year what they need to lead the denomination toward renewal, redefining “guaranteed appointment” topped the list. 

“The single most significant concern that bishops, superintendents, pastors and laypersons have with the ‘guaranteed appointment’ is the protection it gives ineffective pastors,” said Missouri Bishop Robert Schnase, a member of the Council of Bishops’ task force. 

That’s why the United Methodist Council of Bishops has jointly crafted a petition with the denomination’s General Board of Discipleship and the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry to ask the 2008 General Conference, the church’s top lawmaking body, to modify the appointment system. The General Conference meets April 23-May 2 in Fort Worth, Texas.

Proposed changes

Though the term “guaranteed appointment” is not found in the Discipline, the concept is outlined in paragraphs such as 337.1: “All elders in full connection who are in good standing in an annual conference shall be continued under appointment by the bishop...” 

Unlike denominations where local churches hire their own pastors, United Methodist bishops appoint pastors to serve in local churches and other ministry settings. Bishops consult with district superintendents and boards of ordained ministry, who help determine whether a clergy member is a good fit for a congregation. 

But although the Discipline says elders should “meet the requirements for continued eligibility,” it’s been left to bishops and cabinets to determine whether a pastor is ineffective in congregational ministry. 

Petitions to General Conference 2008 would shift the burden, making pastors responsible to show their continued effectiveness in ministry. Proposed changes (Par. 334.3) read: “Any elder who does not demonstrate growth in vocational competence and effectiveness as defined by the annual conference and any elder who will not accept the appointment determined by the bishop forfeits the right to an appointment.” 

Petitioners say that all professionals today have to maintain credentials—from physicians to attorneys to CPAs—so why should clergy get a free pass? 

“Over time, all of us need to sharpen our skills; this is just asking people to do that,” says Karen Greenwaldt, chief executive of the General Board of Discipleship. “The way we did church in the 1950s when I was a child was very different from the way ministry is performed today, and so you have to keep up. The world that we are serving in insists that we better be up-to-date with practices of ministry.” 

That doesn’t sit well with the Rev. Charles W. Brockwell Jr., an elder in the Kentucky Conference who now teaches history at the University of Louisville. He says the ministry cannot be compared to secular professions, and has sent a position paper to 2008 delegates that upholds “the dignity and integrity of pastoral ministry.” 

“What I object to is clergy in our denomination being reduced to virtually employees of the bishop and cabinet,” he said. “It’s not covenant community of the Christian connection. We just don’t need to be looking to the world for our models of what ministry is all about.”

How it began

Ensuring the appointment of every elder in good standing came out of the 1956 General Conference, in response to a bishop who had refused to appoint a clergywoman approved by the board of ordained ministry. 

Delegates that year wanted to protect pastors from any racist or sexist abuses of episcopal authority: “Every traveling preacher, unless retired, supernumerary, on sabbatical leave, or under arrest of character, must receive an appointment” (1956 Discipline, p. 149). 

It gave clergywomen full inclusion in the life of the connection and guaranteed that clergy—particularly in that early civil rights era—could preach boldly about societal ills knowing their congregation could not “fire” them. 

Dr. Brockwell was one of those preachers. An early civil-rights advocate in South Carolina, he says not every bishop back then would have appointed him to a church. But the Discipline guaranteed Dr. Brockwell a setting in which to preach. 

“[Pastors] had a connection that could stand between them and the congregation on sensitive issues,” he said. “I think that’s a treasure of our tradition. We’re not a congregational church. And we are not employees of the bishop and the cabinet. Everybody is accountable to the Discipline.” 

But what started as a limitation on the powers of the episcopacy eventually became seen as a right of those in itineracy. By 1968, when the Methodist and the Evangelical United Brethren churches merged to form the United Methodist Church, the denomination’s rule book stated: “Every effective member in full connection who is in good standing in an annual conference shall receive an annual appointment by the bishop.” 

Current language in the 2004 Discipline (Par. 334.1) is similar: “Every effective elder in full connection who is in good standing shall be continued under appointment by the bishop...” 

And that has enabled some clergy who are not particularly effective—or who might even weaken a congregation—to linger in a pastoral career as they are shuffled from one dysfunctional congregation to another.

Clarifying responsibility

Church-growth consultant Lyle Schaller says it should be a priority for General Conference 2008 delegates to “initiate the process required to eliminate the guaranteed appointment for elders in full connection.” 

Guaranteed appointment, he says, is a remnant of the 1950s and ‘60s context for parish ministry that doesn’t meet ministry needs today. In fact, it’s produced negative outcomes. 

“One example is at least 80 percent of United Methodist congregations are not competitive in reaching, attracting, serving, nurturing, challenging, equipping for ministry and transforming the lives of American-born Protestant churchgoers born after 1980,” Dr. Schaller said. “I doubt if that system can be changed—including building more accountability for performance—without eliminating the guaranteed appointment.” 

But without guaranteed appointment, who would have denominational authority to determine if a person is qualified for ministry—the bishops or the annual conference, as represented by the board of ordained ministry? 

Bishop Schnase says that giving bishops the final say would again invite episcopal abuse. 

“I’d hate to imagine it,” he said, “but bishops could become arbitrary, and based on theological differences or whatever, we’d be back in that old kind of paradigm that gives too much power to the bishop.” 

Instead, the petition backed by the Council of Bishops urges modifying—not doing away with—the system to keep in place due process with the board of ordained ministry yet redefine what it means for elders in full connection to be in “good standing.” 

“It shifts the burden of responsibility from the bishop and the cabinet from having to prove ineffectiveness, to the expectation that all pastors have to give evidence of effectiveness,” said Bishop Schnase. 

Ms. Greenwaldt said the proposed changes would “right-size the responsibilities”: Clergy take ownership for their own continued growth in ministry effectiveness, the board of ordained ministry establishes standards for that continuing education, and bishops and cabinets are accountable to appoint elders who meet those standards. 

“This petition is not going after clergy—I want to be clear about that,” Ms. Greenwaldt said. “This is not a blame game. It’s really asking, ‘Who has responsibility for the effectiveness of congregational life?’ And that responsibility rests in many, many places.” 

Part of it should fall on a congregation’s lay leadership, says the Rev. Mary Ann Moman, associate general secretary of the Division of Ordained Ministry of the GBHEM and an elder in the South Indiana Conference. 

Effective congregations, she says, take initiative to reach populations in their community “that are not like themselves. Every congregation could address a marginalized population. To the level that we’re not doing that, we’re not being as effective in congregations as we could.” 

The Rev. Joe D. Connelly, a Louisiana Conference elder who serves as pastor to two congregations, says that’s especially true for African-American churches, which traditionally have been the center of their communities. Yet African-American pastors and their congregations can easily miss being counted as effective, he adds, if evaluations focus on numerical growth. 

African-American congregations in transitional communities might grow very slowly over five years, he pointed out, yet still be effectively reaching their communities. Meanwhile, an Anglo congregation that is growing “leaps and bounds” in numbers might still have most of its members driving in from the suburbs. 

“Is the church open for community ministries or is it only open for membership?” Mr. Connelly asked. “Are there people outside the congregation who would say, ‘I’m not a member there, but I participate in the ministries.’ Is that church the lifeblood or can it be the lifeblood of that community? 

“We have to be consistent across the board. It’s not based on size of the church. Let’s begin to look at those numbers where we have the greatest impact: in worship attendance, discipleship, small groups, community involvement.”

Women, persons of color

Some church leaders believe ordained women and persons of color will suffer without guaranteed appointment, because there are still some United Methodist churches who want neither as a pastor. 

“There is some nervousness out there,” said Ms. Moman of the GBHEM. “I think those questions [of effectiveness] get exacerbated for persons of color and women, if there are issues. We have to be extra careful about how we understand effectiveness and how we monitor effectiveness.” 

The GBOD’s Ms. Greenwaldt added that she would tell any clergywomen who feel anxious what she tells herself: “Keep my fields and abilities up and practices of ministry well-honed, and then I don’t need to worry about it.” 

Mr. Connelly, who is African American, believes there would be fewer cross-racial appointments if changes were made to the appointment-making process. He’s seen some “highly capable” African-American pastors who could pastor an Anglo congregation (and vice versa, he adds), but says those appointments are not being made. 

“‘Effectiveness’ is thrown out the window when it comes to cross-racial appointments,” he said. “We look more at what is going to keep the churches happy instead of being effective.” 

Then there’s still the link to the itineracy system. 

History professor and former pastor Dr. Brockwell says United Methodist elders who agree to “give yourself without reserve to serve where you are appointed” should at least have the guarantee of having a ministry setting. 

“If I find greener pastures in Kansas City, I’m not going to pick up stakes and go there. I commit to serve where I am appointed. Now if the connection is going to demand that of us, then the connection must also say, “And you will have a place to serve.” 

But growing pressure for appointments in certain areas—where clergy might have access to medical facilities or better accommodate a spouse’ employment—makes it difficult to guarantee all clergy full-time employment, says Bishop Schnase, especially when pastoral gifts don’t match the limited openings within a given area. 

Also, there are fewer full-time appointments in church settings today, he adds, because declining memberships are prompting some churches to opt for part-time pastoral leadership. “What a lot of bishops end up doing,” Bishop Schnase said, “is going to great lengths to put all types of churches together just to sustain a full-time salary.” 

An even bigger issue—and an especially touchy one for clergy—is that the current system gives priority in the appointment process to elders over local pastors and those in other statuses of ministry. So theoretically, an ineffective elder could receive higher consideration than even the most competent local pastor. 

“This does not serve our churches well,” Bishop Schnase said. 

Church leaders agree that the end goal is having more effective clergy. Those who want to tweak guaranteed appointment say it would better emphasize the “dual covenant” between the annual conference and the clergy in working toward effectiveness. 

“Of course, we [clergy] have to continue to increase our effectiveness,” said Ms. Moman. “But the annual conference also has a responsibility to mentor and work with clergy their entire careers, to help them be in that place of effectiveness.”

rrussell@umr.org 

Discussion questions

Share