<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: To guarantee, or not to guarantee?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://hokierev.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/to-guarantee-or-not-to-guarantee/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://hokierev.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/to-guarantee-or-not-to-guarantee/</link>
	<description>Time for a key play</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:53:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Speedlinking - December 21, 2007 &#171; Thoughts of Resurrection</title>
		<link>http://hokierev.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/to-guarantee-or-not-to-guarantee/#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>Speedlinking - December 21, 2007 &#171; Thoughts of Resurrection</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:05:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hokierev.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/to-guarantee-or-not-to-guarantee/#comment-11</guid>
		<description>[...] Dan Elmore writes about appointments in the United Methodist Church at To guarantee, or not to guarantee&#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Dan Elmore writes about appointments in the United Methodist Church at To guarantee, or not to guarantee&#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan</title>
		<link>http://hokierev.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/to-guarantee-or-not-to-guarantee/#comment-10</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:20:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hokierev.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/to-guarantee-or-not-to-guarantee/#comment-10</guid>
		<description>Andrew and Allen, thanks for your comments. I actually agree that doing away with guaranteed appointments has the great potential to encourage more effectiveness in ministry. I also think, however, that we need to be looking at other ways to measure effectiveness, not just posting numbers on Charge Conference reports, though that is an important piece.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andrew and Allen, thanks for your comments. I actually agree that doing away with guaranteed appointments has the great potential to encourage more effectiveness in ministry. I also think, however, that we need to be looking at other ways to measure effectiveness, not just posting numbers on Charge Conference reports, though that is an important piece.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Allen Ewing-Merrill</title>
		<link>http://hokierev.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/to-guarantee-or-not-to-guarantee/#comment-9</link>
		<dc:creator>Allen Ewing-Merrill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:21:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hokierev.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/to-guarantee-or-not-to-guarantee/#comment-9</guid>
		<description>Dan:

I agree with Andrew.  I am convinced that it&#039;s time to do away with guaranteed appointments, a system that has perpetuated ineffective leadership, that allows protected pastors to tread water, and that keeps our denomination at status quo.

I hear the concern you raise, that ending guaranteed appointments might discourage prophetic witness if we pastors are worried about job security.  (That&#039;s the rationale for the tenure system in higher education as well.)  I think that is a very real risk in denominations that employ the call system -- they are hired by local churches, and when they ruffle the wrong feathers, they can get the boot pretty easily.  However, our appointment system itself protects our freedom of the pulpit:  we are not &quot;hired&quot; by local churches; neither can we be fired by them because of the sermons we preach or the stands we take.

I don&#039;t hear a strong call to do away with the appointment system -- only the guaranteed appointment system.  Perhaps I&#039;m naive, but I feel confident that those whose ministries are bearing fruit -- even those with the strongest prophetic witness -- will be secure in their appointments.  Ending guaranteed appointments, however, will raise the expectations and require ongoing evidence of effectiveness in ministry.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dan:</p>
<p>I agree with Andrew.  I am convinced that it&#8217;s time to do away with guaranteed appointments, a system that has perpetuated ineffective leadership, that allows protected pastors to tread water, and that keeps our denomination at status quo.</p>
<p>I hear the concern you raise, that ending guaranteed appointments might discourage prophetic witness if we pastors are worried about job security.  (That&#8217;s the rationale for the tenure system in higher education as well.)  I think that is a very real risk in denominations that employ the call system &#8212; they are hired by local churches, and when they ruffle the wrong feathers, they can get the boot pretty easily.  However, our appointment system itself protects our freedom of the pulpit:  we are not &#8220;hired&#8221; by local churches; neither can we be fired by them because of the sermons we preach or the stands we take.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t hear a strong call to do away with the appointment system &#8212; only the guaranteed appointment system.  Perhaps I&#8217;m naive, but I feel confident that those whose ministries are bearing fruit &#8212; even those with the strongest prophetic witness &#8212; will be secure in their appointments.  Ending guaranteed appointments, however, will raise the expectations and require ongoing evidence of effectiveness in ministry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Conard</title>
		<link>http://hokierev.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/to-guarantee-or-not-to-guarantee/#comment-7</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Conard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:07:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hokierev.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/to-guarantee-or-not-to-guarantee/#comment-7</guid>
		<description>Dan - Thanks for your thoughts here. I think that moving away from guaranteed appointments would be good for the denomination and for local congregations. I hear the perspective of being able to push a local community of faith in particular areas - however, I think that this would still be possible as the cabinet may consider within the assessment of effectiveness. I do think that it is quite different than from those pastors who may be hired and fired by the local congregation - this is not the case in the UMC. Great thoughts!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dan &#8211; Thanks for your thoughts here. I think that moving away from guaranteed appointments would be good for the denomination and for local congregations. I hear the perspective of being able to push a local community of faith in particular areas &#8211; however, I think that this would still be possible as the cabinet may consider within the assessment of effectiveness. I do think that it is quite different than from those pastors who may be hired and fired by the local congregation &#8211; this is not the case in the UMC. Great thoughts!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
