We have spent years, probably decades, in the UMC talking about our method of clergy deployment. We've also gone back and forth on the power of bishops. Nearly everyone across the theological spectrum agrees that some changes are needed, although we disagree about what some of those changes are.
In this post, I will address some of the changes that are made in the GMC's Book of Doctrines and Discipline (BDD). Like the rest of this series, this is not intended to be comprehensive. I'm focusing on changes (or in a few places an anticipated change) that are likely unexpected. For example, the GMC puts a term limit on bishops. If you have been following UMC politics you probably already know that, so I'm not going to spend time on it. The six items below, though, surprised me and might also surprise you. As before, I'm listing these in order of the current paragraph number in the BDD. The first two relate directly to appointments. The others are more about the powers that bishops have.
Bishops and Appointments
1. Appointment Process: I remember seeing a pastor write that he would like to leave for the GMC solely because he would prefer a call system over the appointment system. Don't do that. You will be disappointed. My memory is that the initial draft of a new appointment process from the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) included a hybrid call/appointment system. I don't remember the details and I can't locate the source. It seems like the church was able to "interview" a few candidates that were selected by the bishop with a requirement that at least one candidate be a woman or BIPOC. There was significant backlash from some with the traditionalist leadership and, for the sake of maintaining unity, that form of clergy deployment was abandoned. The new form of deployment, found in paragraph 509, is essentially identical to the old system. The bishop appoints; Staff Parish Relations Committee (SPRC) is consulted. This is stated explicitly in 345.8.i (the responsibilities of SPRC), 509.2 ("...clergy shall be appointed by the bishop, who is empowered to make and fix all apointments..."), and 510. 510 contains the only true change. If a church doesn't like the change being made, they can voice their concern and the bishop must respond. If you believe critics of our current system, bishops are already good at coming up with excuses for appointments (see the Mt. Bethel situation). If you are leaving the UMC because you don't like how appointments are made, you need to reconsider.
2. Unilateral Pastoral Change: In a pinch, bishops can act even without consultation. The BDD puts a great deal of effort into making sure everyone is theologically on the same page. That makes sense - it's part of their reason for existence. In that spirit, paragraph 354 provides a mechanism for removing a congregation from the denomination (we'll come back to this in the sixth and final post). It also provides a mechanism for removing a pastor. 3554.1 begins, "If the current pastor of the congregation is promoting doctrines or practices contrary to those of the Global Methodist Church, the bishop shall remove the pastor and appoint a pastor who will..." Similarly, to how a local church can remove a member with no recourse for the member, this appears to be an unlimited power. Bishop Scott Jones has contended that any teaching of a church is doctrine. Certainly anything in the BDD could be considered a "practice." Theoretically, a pastor who doesn't put the right number of people on a committee could be removed. Combined with the removal of guaranteed appointments, there is, as best as I can tell, literally nothing a pastor OR local church can do in this situation.
3. Ordination Authority: In the UMC, we have a system of checks and balances. Ordination, for example, is conferred by the bishop upon vote of the Board of Ordained Ministry and the clergy session. This raises a question: Could the Board and clergy approve someone who the bishop has to ordain whom the bishop believes is not qualified for ministry (say, in a conference with a traditionalist bishop and more progressive clergy)? Currently, the answer seems to be yes. That person would then, of course, be chargeable and we have a process for that which may or may not be followed. None of that happens in the BDD. Paragraphs 409.2 (for deacons) and 410.1.d (for elders) dictate that ordinands must be approved by the Board, the clergy, AND the bishop. Effectively, the bishop has a veto on the Board and clergy decisions regarding ordination regardless of their reason. Again, I don't see a recourse for the candidate.
4. Removing a Pastor (the hard way): On one hand, removing a pastor is extraordinarily easy now (there's still one more point on this to come). On the other hand, if a bishop (or others) want a pastor removed in the traditional United Methodist way (involuntary leave of absence), it's exceedingly difficult. Paragraph 415.4 requires that it be requested by the bishop and a supermajority of the cabinet, Board of Ordained Ministry, and clergy session must all agree. If I were a bishop and wanted a pastor gone I would never utilize this paragraph which, incidentally, is the only process for removal other than filing charges that contains an appeal process for the pastor.
5. Another Easy Way: By far the easiest way to remove a pastor with no repercussions for the bishop is to simply not appoint them. Paragraph 512 gives them this power. The bishop has to share a rationale (again, this is allegedly a very simple thing for a bishop to do today) and the pastor is no longer under appointment. By the way, this action also takes away their voting right as Annual Conference, which just feels punitive to me. Again, it's important to note that while the bishop must provide a rationale for not appointing a pastor, there is no apparent recourse for the pastor if this decision is made.
I want to take another moment with this before moving on to the last power play a bishop can make. In this system, a bishop can veto the BOM and clergy's decision to ordain a person. Failing that, the bishop can simply choose not to appoint a person. Failing that, a bishop can change their appointment at will (like the current system). Failing that, the bishop can unilaterally remove a pastor from their appointment. There are four separate ways that a bishop can prevent a person from serving a church without the pastor having any recourse.
6. Stacking the Deck: Finally, we come to the bishop's power in the organization of the Annual Conference. Paragraph 613 lists six mandatory organizational components. I will add a seventh significant one that isn't mentioned there for this final concern. 1) The Board of Ordained Ministry - which the bishop nominated; 2) the Episcopacy Committee; 3) The Finance Committee; 4) the Leadership Committee (a new name for Nominating Committee), which the bishop both nominates and chairs and which all presiding elders (District Superintendents) are members; 5) the Committee on Investigation, which is nominated by the bishop, 6) the Administrative Review Committee, which is nominated by the bishop, and 7) the Cabinet, which of course is made up of people appointed by the bishop. Five of these seven structures are nominated or appointed directly by the bishop. The other two are nominated by a group that was itself nominated by and chaired by the bishop. Yes, the Annual Conference must approve these nominations. The next time an Annual Conference session rejects a bishop's nominations will be the first, and even if that did happen the bishop could simply nominate another person.
In summary, for an organization that doesn't trust the bishops, bishops have an extraordinary amount of power in the proposed GMC.
Next up: six concerns about the GMC's judicial process.
No comments:
Post a Comment