So there seems to be quite a lot of talk going around about the possibility of the UMC doing away with guaranteed appointments, among other restructuring to our current views on ordination. Here’s a couple thoughts on that… At first, I think it’s a good thing, and could help lead to renewal in our denomination. Scripture tells us that we are known by our fruit, and if we’re not producing fruit in ministry, then why would we be allowed to continue in something which we’ve proven to be ineffective? It would certainly prevent me as a pastor to beware of the temptation to become a “lame duck” pastor, or worse. Doing away with guaranteed appointments could help bring about renewal by making it possible to hold those accountable who might be more of a detriment to spreading scriptural holiness throughout our land. However, a clergy friend of mine raised an issue that strikes deep with me… As pastors, we’re called to be, among other things, prophetic agents for change for the sake of the gospel of Christ. This means we’re called to rock the boat at least a little, and sometimes a lot. So if we’re not guaranteed an appointment, yet the church we’re in might, for example, block our attempts to welcome people of another race into the congregation, even if they live next door, then a pastor might not be as willing to encourage change, especially if they have a family with kids for whom they have to provide. This is quite similar to the boat in which I am currently. I know there are other questions surrounding this issue… and I admit I’m not as well informed on what’s being proposed as I’d like to be. I just pray that we tread lightly and very prayerfully as a denomination, for there are no easy answers to the various issues we face together.
Third and Goal 
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!
Dan:
I agree with Andrew. I am convinced that it’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’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 “hired” by local churches; neither can we be fired by them because of the sermons we preach or the stands we take.
I don’t hear a strong call to do away with the appointment system — only the guaranteed appointment system. Perhaps I’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.
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.
Pingback: Speedlinking - December 21, 2007 « Thoughts of Resurrection