This translation is not completely accurate as it was automatically generated by a computer.
Powered by
A UMNS Report
By Heather Hahn*
7:00 P.M. ET June 12, 2012
Bishop Minerva Carcaño surveys results of a vote on retaining guaranteed
appointments for clergy during the 2012 United Methodist General
Conference. A UMNS file photo by Paul Jeffrey.
View in Photo Gallery
Supporters of guaranteed appointments for United Methodist clergy have a new reason for hope.
The Rev. L. Fitzgerald "Gere" Reist II, secretary of the General
Conference, informed the Council of Bishops late June 11 that the
language in the 2012 Book of Discipline “does not eliminate the
security of appointment for elders.”
But, other denominational leaders question Reist’s interpretation of what the 2012 General Conference, the denomination’s top lawmaking body, accomplished when it met April 24-May 4 in Tampa, Fla.
At issue are two potentially contradictory sections of the Book of Discipline, The United Methodist Church’s law book.
The 2012 General Conference deleted in the book’s Paragraph 337 the
required security of appointment for elders in good standing. The
changes allow a bishop to recommend an elder be put on transitional
leave.
However, the assembly left Paragraph 334.1 intact.
The latter paragraph says: “Every effective elder in full connection
who is in good standing shall be continued under appointment by the
bishop … .”
Some bishops contend that General Conference did not so much eliminate security of appointment as modify it.
The Rev. L. Fitzgerald "Gere" Reist II, secretary of the General
Conference, addresses the conference in Tampa, Fla. Reist informed the
Council of Bishops on June 11 that the language in the 2012 Book of
Discipline “does not eliminate the security of appointment for elders.” A
UMNS file photo by Mike DuBose.
View in Photo Gallery
“Someone having an appointment is not the same thing as them being
appointed to serve a church,” Indiana Area Bishop Michael Coyner said
in an email to bishops that he shared with United Methodist News
Service. “Transitional leave is an appointment and so is a part-time
appointment.”
Ultimately, Reist and Coyner agree the Judicial Council — the
denomination’s equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court — must decide the
matter. The Judicial Council is the top authority on interpreting
church law.
Questions regarding the elimination of security of appointment will
go before the Judicial Council at its next meeting in October, and this
debate could come under consideration.
“My statement to the Council of Bishops was not a statement of law
but a statement of the fact of the language remaining in the BOD,”
Reist told the United Methodist News Service.
What happened at General Conference
The Higher Education and Ministry legislative committee — the first
stop at General Conference for appointment-related petitions — voted
68-7 in favor of changes to Paragraph 337.
Those changes include:
- Removing the requirement that elders “be continued under appointment”
- Allowing a bishop to recommend to the annual conference’s board of
ordained ministry that an elder be placed on transitional leave if “a
missional appointment is not available”
- Requiring a bishop to initiate the complaint process if an elder is found ineffective
- Mandating each annual conference name a task force to develop a
list of criteria to guide bishops and cabinets as they make “missional
appointments”
- Requiring cabinets to report to the board of ordained ministry
executive committee the reasons clergy have not received full-time
appointments as well as the age, ethnicity and gender of elders who
have not received full-time appointments
“The intent of the (Higher Education and Ministry) legislative
committee was clear, even if our action was not as clear as our intent,
and the intent was the elimination of the language of security of
appointment,” said the Rev. David Alan Bard, the committee’s chair. He is pastor of First United Methodist Church in Duluth, Minn.
He also echoed Coyner’s statement that appointment to transitional leave “still constitutes an appointment.”
Because of the legislative committee’s overwhelming support for the
changes, the petition went on the General Conference consent
calendar.
The consent calendar is a tool used by General Conference to
expedite legislation wherein recommendations from legislative
committees with no more than 10 votes in opposition are grouped and
approved together. A motion to reconsider the item on May 1 failed by a vote of 564 to 373.
On May 4, General Conference delegates approved a motion to ask the
Judicial Council whether the removal of security of appointment passes
muster under the denomination’s constitution.
The Rev. We Hyun Chang argues for retaining guaranteed appointments for
clergy, during a debate in Tampa. A UMNS file photo by Paul Jeffrey.
View in Photo Gallery
What about 334.1?
The legislation to eliminate security of appointment originated with the Study of Ministry Commission. In its report,
the commission said the practice is not financially sustainable and
“limits the ability of the church to respond to the primacy of
missional needs.” An earlier report estimated there are 784 more U.S.
clergy than positions needed in the church.
The Higher Education and Ministry legislative committee voted
unanimously against the commission’s petition, which included changes to
334.1, and thus it never went before the full plenary.
The Rev. Amy Gearhart, a member of the Study of Ministry Commission,
chaired the subcommittee that dealt with that petition. She is the
senior pastor of Missouri United Methodist Church in Columbia. She said
that petition was voted down because it also related to early
ordination for elders, which the committee had decided to oppose.
Source of confusion
In the rush of General Conference, Reist said, it is difficult to
track how each petition relates to other petitions and other parts of
the Book of Discipline not under discussion.
“This is the difficulty of making the objective of General
Conference how much legislation we can pass rather than determining the
quality of the legislation we pass,” he said. His comment echoed what
he said after
the Judicial Council ruled an agency restructuring plan
unconstitutional, undoing a major action of the General Conference.
The Rev. Gloria Kymn, a delegate from the Pacific-Northwest
Conference and pastor of Maryville (Wash.) United Methodist Church,
said she was sad that full General Conference plenary did not get a
chance to discuss such a significant change to United Methodist
tradition.
“I am the local church pastor who feels like I’m on the frontlines
of working with United Methodists every day,” she said. “And I felt
like my daily ministry was not important for this body, the general
church, to talk about.”
She said Reist’s concerns give her hope that perhaps clergy will
have four more years to prepare for change and reflect better what it
“really means to be effective clergy for The United Methodist Church.”
The Rev. Thomas Lambrecht, vice president and general manager of the
evangelical caucus Good News, has argued cases before the Judicial
Council. He agreed with Reist’s assessment of the Book of Discipline’s
language.
“It is my understanding that, if a change is to be made in the
Book of Discipline, that change must be made in all relevant paragraphs
in order to become effective,” he said. “I believe that means that the
change to Par. 337 does not override the existing language of Par.
334.1. That would mean that the guaranteed appointment is still
in place.”
Though often on differing sides, he and leaders of the progressive caucus, the Methodist Federation for Social Action, both had expressed concerns about the elimination of guaranteed appointments.
With the elimination of guaranteed appointment in question, Lambrecht was philosophical.
“I think this shows the level of complexity that is present in the
Book of Discipline,” he said. “It is so difficult for a body of 1,000
delegates (most of whom are not experts at church law) to make
meaningful changes in the way our church functions.”
*Hahn is a multimedia news reporter for United Methodist News Service.
News media contact: Heather Hahn, Nashville, Tenn., (615) 742-5470 or newsdesk@umcom.org.
About UMC.org
RSS Feed
Press Center
Contact Us