The General Conference of the United Methodist Church voted in May to stop guaranteeing continuous appointments to ordained clergy. Supporters say the move will allow churches to more easily remove ineffective clergy; opponents argue the practice protects clergy members.
“A lengthy renewable contract makes some sense, and I can envision a scenario where it might endow a pastor with necessary authority, time, and freedom. But accountability always needs to be in place. Few things are more dangerous in a pulpit than a lack of it.”
–Jason Hood, scholar in residence, Christ United Methodist Church
“A church covenant specifying responsibilities of a pastor to a congregation and vice versa””including a biblical process to address grievances””would be appropriate and helpful. I would not support some legal arrangement that spelled out guaranteed terms of office.”
–Russell Moore, dean, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
When I lived in England I had tenure of office by freehold. In other words, it was virtually impossible (barring the commission of a crime) to get me out. The idea of me and my family being subjected to the whims of whoever felt like getting rid of me is horrifying. Only a madman would put up with such a life.
The non-methodist clergy commenting in this article don’t seem to understand the UMC system, and bishop Willimon gives a typical weasel comment, worthy of what passes for a UMC bishop these days.
In the UMC, pastors serve at the pleasure of their bishop. It is called the itinerant system and hearkens back to the days of the circuit riders. In Methodism, it is like some kind of perverse badge of honor that you can be yanked out of one church and sent to any other church solely based on the whim of your bishop. The unspoken agreement under this arrangement was that in return for being moved anywhere at anytime, you were at least guaranteed a full time appointment somewhere. Now you can still be moved anywhere at anytime and additionally you can be placed on 24 month “terminal leave” if you are deemed ineffective. Even if your congregation wants you to stay and says you are effective, the bishop can still remove you and boot you out of the denomination.
Willimon’s comment is typical of a $110K+ per year bishop who has virtually no chance of being booted out and will collect a fat pension. There is one bishop in Texas this year who said he was going to retire, changed his mind, and then was forced to retire.
The dirty little secret here is that if you are not in line politically and theologically with your bishop, you will be living on borrowed time. As soon as she can determine that you are “ineffective,” you are gone in 24 months. Typical ineffective behaviors will likely be orthodox belief and practice, anything deemed non-inclusive, and any disagreement with the UMC Social Resolutions. No wonder the orthodox, male clergy are looking over their shoulders. BTW, I don’t think the UMC resolution defined what ineffective is or how it is determined. They simply have faith that the bishops and their cabinets will handle it all very professionally. Right!
My parents are Methodist (I never have been), and as such I have always been fascinated by the conversations that happen when the UMC and the Episcopal Church get into it about coming into full communion with each other, not unlike TEC has currently with the ELCA. I think we have “Eucharistic Sharing” currently unless that has changed.
One of the most contentious issues is the role of the Bishop. In the Methodist church, they do not ordain bishops in the sense of the 3-fold office that the Episcopal Church does. In TEC, once you are ordained a bishop, you are always a bishop even if retired unless you are defrocked. Methodist bishops serve appointed terms, as I understand it, and then are not considered bishops anymore. So, Methodists get out of joint over our understanding, but the kicker is that Methodist Bishops have way more actual power, particularly over clergy, than TEC purple shirt power mongers can even dream of. Methodist Bishops’ actual power makes our new Title IV clergy disciplinary revisions look like a simple game of checkers.
That having been said, Bishop Willimon is held up as the poster child Methodist bishop (I mean, he writes so many books, I don’t know have he had time to actually bishop), but I have a lot of Methodist family members in North Alabama, and he is reviled over this clergy tenure/ineffective removal policy that he’s championed. It’s led to charges of cronyism and him putting his “Yes Men (or women as the case may be) into all the plumb jobs and the people who disagree with him are either shuffled out to the hinterland or removed outright for “being ineffectual”-whatever that means exactly.
Clergy tenure has always been controversial. In British America before 1776 some clergy in Maryland were Instituted and had life tenure while others were employed year to year while in Virginia most clergy were on a year to year contract. In the Carolinas clergy tenure formed part of the continuing conflict between royal governors and local assemblies. In the middle and northern colonies clergy – except in a few larger places – generally received a stipend from England through the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. The SPG expected parishes to build churches, provide glebe farms and a local salary equal to the SPG grant – typically 30 pounds sterling which very roughly was worth about $30,000.
In the late 18th and early 19th centuries subscription and pew rents paid clergy but vestries hired and fired. The power of bishops over hiring and firing has increased in the past generation.