Guaranteed Appointment Redivivus: A Few Reflections on a Major Decision

The big news in United Methodism over the weekend is Judicial Council (JC) Decision 1226, which declared legislation passed by the 2012 General Conference (GC2012) that would have ended the so-called guaranteed appointment (GA) to be “null, void, and of no effect.” The basic argument in the decision is that the changes are unconstitutional because they violate the third and fourth restrictive rules which, respectively, perpetuate the intinerancy and safeguard clergy rights to trial and appeal. The argument is that doing away with security of appointment would “destroy the plan of our itinerant general superintendency” and remove the rights of clergy to trial and appeal. Some are pleased with the decision; others are not. I won’t take time now to repeat what I’ve said before about this issue. Instead, I’ll offer a few reflections (in no particular order) on the decision and the early reactions to it.
  • We already have a way of exiting ineffective clergy. I say that because the relevant paragraphs in the Discipline which provide clergy with accountable security of appointment specify that only an “effective elder” who is “in good standing” shall be appointed (par. 334; cf. par. 337). So, if an elder is not effective, then he or she is not guaranteed an appointment. Paragraph 334.4 also specifies that elders who fail “to meet professional responsibilities” or do not “demonstrate vocational competency or effectiveness” forfeit their right to an appointment and an official complaint against them can be made. One of these “professional responsibilities” is “continuing effectiveness” (par. 334.3.c), and the Board of Ministry and the cabinet have the authority to define effectiveness (par. 334.4). So, conceivably, an elder who is ineffective could be removed from an appointment and formally charged with failing to perform the work of ministry. The point is that, despite the language of GA, we do not have the absolute guarantee of an appointment. We have an accountable security of appointment. And there is already a process in the Discipline for removing ineffective elders. The question is not whether we have a way of removing ineffective elders. The question is whether we will make use of the process we already have.
  • General Conference (GC) would do well in the future to ask for counsel from experts in our denomination’s constitution and from the JC during (and even early in) the legislative process. With this decision, the two most significant acts of GC2012, namely the restructuring plan and the removal of GA, were overturned for unconstitutionality. If someone had asked the JC whether removing GA was constitutional early in the process, we might have saved a lot of time, energy, and resources. If legislative body and the judicial body worked together rather than being pitted against one another, the process would be more efficient.
  • The JC is being (and will likely continue to be) criticized for not considering and taking into account the will of GC2012. We should note carefully and respectively that the role of the JC is not to consider the will of the GC as weight in favor or against a decision. In this case, it was the will of GC2012 itself that was under review and whether or not that will was within its constitutional boundaries. Rejecting or accepting the will of GC2012 is precisely what the JC was asked to do, and rejecting the will of GC2012 is, evidently, what the JC took to be the right decision.
  • This decision is a good reminder that, while GC is the only body that can speak on behalf of the UMC, the GC has neither absolute nor unilateral authority to so speak. Even GC has accountability. The authority of GC is checked by the JC. Sometime the GC speaks mistakenly (or unconstitutionally) on behalf of the UMC, and the JC is responsible to correct such mistakes.
  • It is not quite clear to me how the removal of GA might destroy the itinerancy. So, if someone could clarify that in a comment, I would appreciate it.
  • I tend to agree with JC that removal of GA undermines the right of clergy to trial. If an elder can be exited from the itinerancy without a trial (which is, I think, what the legislation was trying to do), then it would seem that the fourth restrictive rule has been violated.
What do you think? Do agree or disagree with JC Decision 1226? Leave a comment and tell me why.

6 thoughts on “Guaranteed Appointment Redivivus: A Few Reflections on a Major Decision

  1. Bishop Coyner names scarcity of available appointments on his list of things that complicate the process (Indiana Conference website )

    Bishop Willimon makes the same scarcity argument at end of YouTube video interview on guaranteed appointments shot during GC and openly debunks the straw man warrant, explaining in graphic detail how he “exited” ministers.

    Bishop Schol published something right after GC also downplaying the straw man and referencing scarcity of appointments/ surplus of pastors.

    Schol wrote:”The 2012 General Conference primarily took this step because we now have fewer full-time appointments throughout the United States, including in the Baltimore-Washington Conference, and maintaining job security is no longer possible in every instance.”

    This scarcity rationale is not only inconsistent with the propaganda used to scare up votes for this legislation, it is contrary to the plan for itinerant general superintendency as an agency of Christian missionary extension and supervision. A surplus of itinerants is a good thing if your purpose is to create “new places for new people.” Financially, it's an issue of equity and priorities.

    I added the transcript of my oral argument to my own blog


  2. Hi John, thanks very much for your comment in answer to my question. You have cleared that up for me.

    Do you have any links to episcopal reactions to the JC decision. I've not come across any “scarcity of resources” langauge and would be curious to read up on various responses to the decision.


  3. Hi Daniel, thanks for your comment. I share your concern that the streamlining would have put too much power into too few hands. It may have been effective in removing some people who shouldn't be in the pastorate; however, it could be easily abused.


  4. Greetings. Fred Brewington and I wrote briefs and argued this case before the JC.

    As for your question on destroying the itinerancy – the specific language in restrictive rule 3 is the “plan for general itinerant superintedency” – namely the plan for how the episcopacy should work in relation to the other branches of church government.

    This “plan” is one of limited episcopacy where bishops “shall, in consultation with the superintendents, appoint the ministers to the charges.” (UMC Constitution) The key word is “shall” not may. The Conference determines who will serve, the Bishops determine where.

    Pay close attention to the reactions coming forth now from our bishops. They are admitting this was never just about the straw man ineffective clergy, but about scarcity of resources (due in part to top-heavy bureaucracy) and inconvenient clergy couples (where “fidelity in marriage” is in conflict with “without reserve”), among other things.

    Does that help?


  5. It seems to me, and I am no disciplinary/canon law expert mind you, that there were those (such as the authors of the ministry study) who felt our current process was too cumbersome and wanted to give the bishops and BOMs more power to quickly remove clergy and without the necessarily conflict-laden process of charges and a trial. Perhaps if charges were more common clergy would strive more diligently to maintain professional competence?

    My concern is that this streamlining of the removal process (OR, it could be said, this concentrating of power into a few hands) could become politicized if the bishop and BOM were theologically/politically/personally at odds with a given pastor. This is why we need the 4th restrictive rule to begin with.

    I am in agreement with you, however, while this clearly would have changed our model of superintendency (a little) I do not think it would have undermined it.

    I am a bit ambivalent about this decision (as I was about the original legislation that “snuck through”). And I completely agree that if people would plan ahead a bit, get everyone (especially the JC) on board with legislation before it comes to the floor of GC we could save lots of time, stress, and money.


Leave a Reply to John P. Feagins Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s