Today, at the General Conference of the United
Methodist Church
Once people realized what happened, Twitter and Facebook
“blew up,” in social media parlance, in opposition to the decision. Much of the
frustration was not the decision itself, but that reality that such a
monumental decision deserved conversation from the floor rather than
anti-climactic adoption on the consent calendar. A motion to reconsider was
proposed, spoken in favor of because “the world is watching” (on Twitter and
Facebook) and asking for more conversation. Unfortunately, the motion to
reconsider did not pass, and with that, guaranteed appointment went away for
good.
This is a significant
decision in the life of our church, and we all have our opinions. I share with
you in this space my own reactions, not as an expert on United Methodist polity,
but as a member of the order of elders in the UMC , and thus as someone directly affected by
this decision.
First, I am proud of our church, because social media influenced
the proceedings. Ultimately, the social media conversations were ignored by the
body of General Conference, but the fact that Twitter feeds entered into the
conversation is historical. As a church, we are beginning to understand the benefits
of new methods of communication, and to me this is one small sign that we are
willing to think and act in new ways.
Second, I am flummoxed at the double standard that has been
set in the UMC in the last 24 hours.
Yesterday, legislation to set term limits for bishops in the United
States was defeated, and bishops retained
lifetime episcopacy. The main argument in favor of this was that it gives
bishops the security to speak with prophetic voices without fear of “losing
their job.” The same argument has been made in favor of retaining guaranteed
appointment. Clergy with guaranteed appointment can speak more prophetically
in their ministry without fear of “losing their job.” And yet, General
Conference acted inconsistently on these similar issues.
I know there are strong feelings about both lifetime
episcopal appointment and guaranteed clergy appointment, but the arguments for
both are so similar that there must be consistency between the two. As a
church, we have now used the argument of protecting prophetic voice to retain
episcopal job security, and ignored it to eliminate guaranteed appointment.
Regardless of one’s personal opinion on either, I find it difficult to support
one without the other.
Finally, I am in favor of ending guaranteed appointment, and
support the action that has been taken. I do wish we had been consistent by also
setting term limits for bishops, and I do wish there had been more conversation
on the floor before it was passed. However, I believe this action will
positively address the problem of clergy ineffectiveness and mediocrity in the UMC .
Removing clergy who are underperforming or no longer fit for appointed ministry
will now become easier, and in true Wesleyan fashion, we will become more
accountable to each other.
I am aware of the arguments for retaining guaranteed
appointment. One is that guaranteed appointment is the benefit that balances
the sacrifice of submitting to itinerancy. The other is that ending guaranteed
appointment makes discrimination easier against female and minority clergy. Both are legitimate concerns that we must
address as we put this decision into action. However, both arguments also
display a complete lack of trust in church authority, namely district
superintendents and bishops.
I realize that there are times when the distrust of conference
and denominational authorities is well-founded. However, I am deeply grieved by
the extremely high level of distrust, fear, and paranoia I am already hearing
in the reaction to this decision. Friends, how can we expect to operate as the
church if we cannot trust each other? Please know that I am not proposing blind
trust and assent to the authority of bishops and cabinet. They too must be held
accountable to effectiveness and faithfulness. Rather, I am proposing that we
live out the grace which we profess, and expect the best of our leaders rather
than the worst.
Those who are angry at the end of guaranteed appointments
must not be silenced. Let us share our own concerns and frustrations, and
listen to those of others. But the anger must not lead to long-term bitterness
and distrust. Such a reaction will only hurt our mission and ministry as
brothers and sisters in Christ. I hope and pray that we who are clergy will
move forward with courage and trust, and will seek excellence and faithfulness
in our ministry. I also pray that we will hold our bishops and cabinets accountable
to act with grace and understanding rather than discrimination or personal
biases.
Most importantly, I pray that we will all move forward
without the fear and distrust that is so common in the world. Brothers and
sisters, this is a chance for us to show the world a new way of living and
being. This is a chance to model genuine trust and selflessness in our lives
and work. Can we take this opportunity to model Christian relationships based
on love and grace, or will we again let cynicism, fear, and mistrust determine
our thoughts and actions? May we trust each other, hold each other accountable,
and trust in the one God who is above all, through all, and in all.
