No More Tenure for Methodist Pastors

This week The United Methodist General Conference eliminated guaranteed appointment for ordained clergy.  We've talked about it a lot in the last several years as the UMC declines along with other mainline denominations.  Churches are getting smaller.  Clergy compensation keeps getting higher to keep up with inflation.  Health insurance costs have skyrocketed.  You don't have to be an economist to read the graph and see it's unsustainable. In some places we have congregations averaging 70 in worship to which three full time clergy are assigned. That's not the case in Missouri where I am. Here we have the opposite: half our churches are pastored by lay preachers. It's a two-tier compensation system: part time lay pastors don't get pension and health insurance, so more and more churches are prone to desire lay preachers. And truth is, many of those part-time lay pastors do a great job, maybe even better than some of our ordained clergy.  They live in the community longer, get to know the people better. But our churches get to pay less with no benefits. If the Federal Equal Opportunity Employment Commission ever catches up with us we might be in trouble: same job description, two-tiered compensation. Maybe religious institutions are exempt on that.  If so, should we be?  

And, there is the issue of educated versus non-educated clergy.  That was a big battle fought over a hundred years ago.  Methodism wanted uniformity in what was taught and preached in our pulpits.  We established wonderful seminaries, great halls of learning. But they became an end unto themselves in some people's opinion.  Now they also are struggling. I wonder: without guaranteed appointment of clergy, will we have fewer clergy going to seminary? If a 'called' person can pastor a church without a seminary degree, why get one?  Truth is, seminaries have not given us the theological uniformity we desired.  But I think they have produced open-minded clergy who are life-long learners and willing to dialogue. We may not all agree on everything, but we have a systematic framework for understanding the differences and even appreciating them. I think that is important for The Church in this time of such rapid and profound transition. Not to speak of having clergy who are grounded in the ups and downs of church history and scriptural intrepretation methodology.

It took nine years for me to get ordained as a United Methodist elder in full connection. I got kicked out of the process, and waited to return until after some of my "enemies" were off the Board of Ministry. The word "enemies" is in quotes, because I learned over time that was not the way it was or is.  Some of them have become friends since. They were seeking to shape a headstrong up-against-it change-agent into a pastor who could love and support and embrace as well.  I needed that.  The Church needed that from me.  I've remained a change-agent, but with a deeper appreciation of why institutions must be sustained, why the church needs chaplains as well as prophets, and why every pastor has to be a little of both for the good of The Church.  My fear, with others, is that those of us whose spiritual gifts lean more prophetic than pastoral will not be initially accepted or later tolerated.  The very 'risk-takers' we need to transform The Church might be shut out because they are not 'producing fruit.' The 'fruit,' for institutional purposes, is what I call "butts in pews and bucks in the plate."  We put a more positive spin on that by saying "making disciples of Christ for the transformation of the world."  I'm not really THAT cynical.  I understand those are not completely the same thing. Making disciples is NOT primarily for institutional maintenance. We are not going to make more disciples together unless we DO maintain some semblance of an institution. But they are not really "disciples" unless deeply committed to Jesus' reign of social justice.             


What irks me about this elimination of guaranteed appointment is that it seems to be capitulation to capitalist incentive thinking. I know it's more complicated than that. But I learned as a community organizer, "Always follow the money."  Yes, our current situation is unsustainable. But the average age of our clergy is 59. Won't this issue take care of itself in the next few years as more and more of us retire? Boards of Ministry are already getting more and more selective about who and how many they let in. We're already sending younger clergy into higher salary situations from the get-go, and I understand why that is necessary. They have student loans to pay, children to raise, and experience to gain.      



The bishops say they needed more power to get rid of 'ineffective' clergy. Now they have the challenge of defining that. How will they? Does it mainly come down to having a stronger stick to push clergy to produce more butts in pews and bucks in the plate? We all know that DOES need to happen. My judgment is most of us are trying our darndest. We've always blamed the clergy. It's all bishops can control. This is just another face of that, I think. My hope and prayer is that we will use this as an opportunity to deepen clergy collegiality and soft accountability.  I honestly can't name many clergy colleagues who are just simply 'ineffective.' Maybe the bishops have bigger lists than I.  I suspect they do. The last big question is, "Am I on the list?"  Are YOU?