There's a general understanding among some United Methodists that if one is a candidate for ordination, it is not one's place to criticize (even constructively) the denomination, its board, agencies, doctrine, or discipline. In accordance with my conscience, I respectfully disagree.
That being said, I'd like to respond to the article: Commission rejects clergy job guarantees
I'm not happy with the shift of more power to the top of the hierarchy.
I'm not happy with the shift of more power to the top of the hierarchy.
Off the top of my head, this is what I'd like to see change if we're committed to this course of action:
- The ability to opt out of the pension program.
- A clear metric which can be adapted situationally to each unique pastor/parish pairing to measure clergy effectiveness. Effectiveness looks different in a deeply wounded small declining rural church as it does with a reasonably healthy mid-sized suburban church. For my internship at Perkins, I will write a learning covenant in which I will state my learning goals that has to be approved by a earning committee at the internship placement and the internship director. I'm then expected to meet those goals in a time specified. Perhaps a pastoral covenant should be developed at each charge with the Staff-Parish Relations Committee, the District Superintendent, and the pastor. What this means, is actually having a purpose behind charge conference paperwork and year end reports at the local church level.
- Greater consideration of family situations in appointment making. My wife is most likely going to be the primary bread-winner in my household. I know of a clergy person who cannot commit to the interent because her husband is a M.D. committed to his call. Other considerations would be educational support for special needs chidden and medical consideration for immediate and extended family members under the car of pastors. Perhaps all or some of this is done in some Annual Conferences already.
- Longer appointments. In other words, a guarantee of three years or more at a charge instead of the one-year-at-a-time model used now. From my understanding, bishops and District Superintendents are appointed that way (I'd look it up, but I foolishly packed my Book of Discipline, already).
- Conference pay structure. This may be a peripheral issue, but I think that if the Cabinet is going to determine whether or not clergy persons have a job, then the Conference needs to pay our salaries. (This may also fix some of the issues behind the jacked-up clergy tax status.) Salaries would be supported by an apportionment line-item broken down for each congregation by a decimal or some other equitable means. This will allow greater flexibility in the appointment process, taking the size or financial strength of a congregation out of the equation. Thus, a pastor with significant gifts in rural church ministry can be appointed to a church that could currently only support a part time local pastor. This would better insure that a clergy person is truly being employed according to his or her graces.
Ultimately, what this committee's findings say to me is that the ordination process is completely broken. As long and involved as the process is, people are being ordained who are not effective clergy persons. Isn't the process of the DCOM, BOM, RIM program, and to some extent even our seminaries, supposed to determine clergy effectiveness? If the ordination process is not roken, then, what flaws within the way our denomination does church is breaking clergy.
As I see it, either ineffective clergy are being ordained, or something is happening in the course of ordained ministry that is negatively affecting clergy effectiveness. It seems odd to put all the blame and focus on the individual clergy person.
To those who are invested in this system, what say you?
Posts
.jpeg)
7 comments:
I've said for years, and I'll continue saying it, that pastor salaries need to be paid by the conference from apportionments, so I whole-heartedly agree with you there. It's not a perfect solution because it will be run by people, but the number of problems it would automatically fix is absolutely astounding. If anyone wants more details, I will be happy to oblige.
That's been tried before (the conference paying the salaries). It was ruled unconstitutional. Also, many local churches cried foul - they saw it as too much involvement from the conference who might or might not know their individual needs and expectations.
The other problem is apportionment payout. What happens when a conference doesn't pay out 100% of the apportionment line item? And if it is ruled a prior claim item, what else WON'T get paid? Most congregations already think paying pension and insurance to apportioments is problematic and takes away from local ministry. What would this do?
It's not a bad idea in theory - in fact, I'd prefer it. But there are significant problems with it in practice.
@Sky: Can you point me to a source on the conference pay thing? This is the first I've heard about it. Although, just off the top of my head (I've packed my Discipline), I don't see why it would be unconstitutional--the Discipline says that the most basic level of the church is the AC, not the local congregation.
I don't agree with your concerns about the AC paying out on salaries. I assure you that the Bishops and Superintendents never come up short on their paychecks, why would pastors? This would give, what I've read that Bishop Schnase wants to do, the ability to shut down ineffective churches; you don't pay apportionments (or at least the salary part) then you don't get a pastor.
The current system has significant problems with it in practice, we're just used to it. The burden then lies on doing a cost/benefits analysis on the current and proposed pay models. I'm not sure if a cost to be weighed would be those protesting the prospect of change itself.
Since we're tinkering with appointments and itineracy, why not open it all up for scrutiny and revision?
The local church has the right and prerogative to set pastoral compensation by action of the charge conference. That right has been protected historically in the Discipline.
Some judicial council cases include: #213 (the authority to fix the salary and other compensation of the pastor rests solely with the Quarterly Conference), #252 (an Annual Conference is without disciplinary authority to place a limit upon the amount which may be allowed by a Quarterly Conference as reimbursement for travel expense for its pastor or pastors), and #461 (except as qualified by ¶ 934 of the Discipline, the Annual Conference is without authority either to fix or to pay the salaries of the ministers of local charges).
The main one is #792 (which you can read here).
From the digest: The 1996 General Conference addition to ¶ 441 of the 1992 Discipline, providing for an alternative salary compensation program as an option to the process described in ¶. 248.13 and ¶ 720 is a violation of the Discipline in that it takes away powers granted to the Charge Conference in ¶ 248.13 and ¶ 720.
There's also the disciplinary standard that says, "No conference, council, board, agency, local church, or other unit can financially obligate the denomination or, without prior specific consent, any other organizational unit thereof."
BTW, I'm not a canon lawyer, but I am the chair of our conference's Equitable Compensation Commission. I've been through these conversations before, I fear.
It's a great idea. No one can figure out how to make it legal.
Sky+
Hey Kurt!
I would have blogged about this report, but I didn't think an exercise in cynicism would do me any good.
It is clear that there are:
- Ineffective pastors
- Congregations that kill, demoralize or incapacitate churches
- Pastors who are effective in one setting but not in another
- There are diverse definitions of "effectiveness" AND diverse applications of those definitions to individual pastors AND diverse implications and judgments following from those assessments
It also seems clear that:
- Some pastors seem to receive more benefits than others
- The current system partly, and the proposed system almost entirely, lends itself to pastors without families
I've seen pastors who look really effective, moved from small church to small church. It's made me wonder if people who want to break out of that cycle ought to prove themselves INeffective at small churches.
Finally, this move would work better if they would address the lack of trust in the church first. But the people who tend to work on such documents tend to be part of the hierarchy, so they are often the beneficiaries of the current System.
@Sky: Thanks for pointing me towd the pertainant resources. I'll read them when I'm not in the middle of a cross-state move and get back with ya.
@Richard: I agree with what you've said. about trust. Distrust within the system is rotting us at our roots. If our current problem could be compared to a spigot and a spill, dealing with itineracy and guaranteed appointments is equivalent to picking up a mop, whereas healing the wounds of distrust is turning off the spigot. Both are needed to clean up the mess.
Post a Comment