R.I.P. Guaranteed Appointment

Today, at the General Conference of the United Methodist Church, one of the most heated issues was decided by consent calendar. No discussion from the floor, no holy conversation. Just like that, guaranteed appointment for United Methodist clergy met its end.

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.