Excellent. Well thought out and concisely presented. I certainly hope and pray this will be considered at the General Conference and the Global Church will leave with a clear understanding of where we are and where we are going concerning appointment of pastors. May we all be led by the Holy Spirit during this time of transition.🙏🙏🙏.
Clearly, the Global Methodist Church appointment-making process MUST be different than what many experienced in the United Methodist system.
One of the biggest key differences is that within the GMC, there is no such thing as a "guaranteed appointment" - therefore, no one MUST take an appointment. The clergy, the church and the cabinet can all freely say, "no thank you." The bishops "fixes" the appointment only when everyone has said, "yes, thank you" and agrees that this is a God-led decision.
Another difference between the UM and GM itinerency is the commitment for longer appointments. The UM system was year-to-year appointing. The GM system is supposed to be indefinite appointing. If we are serious within the GMC to adhere to the commitment of longer appointments, then both pastors and congregations will have to improve their abilities to navigate disagreement, work through challenges together, and grow their faith in the mist of difficulties. We cannot throw in the proverbial towel at "the first sign of trouble" - something that happened too often in the UM system.
Effectiveness is a two-way street - both the congregation and the pastor must demonstrate effectiveness together. While we do not have specific defined measurables for effectiveness, we know that numbers alone (nickles and noses, as they say) are not effective measures of true spiritual effectiveness!
One thing that I sense is different within the Global Methodist world is the greater unity of Spirit and commitment to Biblical theology. As we voted for the delegates from the North Carolina Provisional Annual Conference, I was not leery or troubled by any of the people who submitted their names for consideration. I was able to relax and trust the Lord would work through ANY of the people. Once we completed our elections, there was a true sense of peace and joy and zero grumbling or griping (at least within my presence). I can tell you that I NEVER experienced that with UM general conference elections!!
Thank you for helping us to clarify, correct and continue forward in seeking to spread scriptural holiness throughout all our lands!
Thanks Cambron, you bring forward some very important issues around itineracy that need to be clearly understood and not sub-come to the pitfalls that were practiced in the UMC, which over used the word “consultation” and under delivered. I pray your ideas find traction in the “budding”GMC. Christianity is relational not institutional. The larger the church becomes the smaller it has to focus. You have stated well the tension of maintaining that balance of decision making.
Hey Wayne! Good to hear from you. I feel very confident that what I'm hoping for in this article is what in fact is happening on the ground in the GMC; I think the task right now is to just make sure that it is put into helpful language in the discipline and clearly communicated to clergy and churches. But I very much agree that we need a WAY more relational way of being than we had before...praying that we do!
I can tell you that both Bishops already have distinct understandings/answers to some of the questions that you have here posed. Having served on a TCAT Appointments Team, and now as Conference Secretary of the Northeast, I have seen the answers to your questions played out in practice. It might behoove you to have a conversation with your Bishop about these questions.
Thanks for helping to make the situation clear. I agree that what has been said about the appointment system looks different than what is on paper. I will be interested to see how the conversations unfold at GC.
Worthy thoughts here, Cambron. Thanks for writing this up. It is important for the people of the GMC to be thinking soberly through these things. If we aren’t proactive in forming a culture, then one will be formed by those who take the reins. I’m a big fan of democratizing conversations. However, I am also a big fan of ecclesial authoritarianism and itinerancy, so I find myself in a different place from you, but not perhaps as much as one would think. I appreciate that, in your article, you make it clear where you stand while also not harshly assessing those who see things differently. Not enough people strive to do this, or come close to accomplishing what you did here. Your concern is the same as mine: Let’s just have a good conversation in earnest and arrive to a clear place where everyone understands the covenant.
To represent what I think we have thus far inherited in the nascent GMC, I think the broad strokes have rendered a picture that 1) has a more robust consultation process prior to shifts in appointments than was seen in the UMC, and 2) a more itinerant episcopacy than what was seen in the UMC. Any specific benchmarks, other than requiring written assessments on the part of bishops with respect to the appointment-making process, are lacking in the GMC documents so far. The language is more vague and aspirational. I think it is probably the intent of current leadership to leave things vague until a consensus emerges or until a culture is formed by those people composing the committees responsible for this work.
I think there are practical concerns that very much determine the success of our pseudo-itinerant system that are actually more determinative. For instance, if we continue to allow toxic behavior among local churches and their people, well, we will continue to have clergy who don’t want to serve in some settings, and for good reason. If we continue to allow ineffective or dysfunctional clergy to serve, like in the UMC, then this also has a big impact. If we allow clergy and bishops who love creature comforts, money, and prestige, this has HUGE implications. The culture we establish now will determine the success and flourishing of the GMC. Itinerancy can be done very well if the right culture undergirds it. Similarly with more congregational systems. Both models will flounder and rightly fall if they are undergirded by a culture and people marked by consumerism and comfort.
I haven't heard anything yet that inclines me to believe that "fix appointments" means anything close to "do things the way we did in the UMC." When I've heard it explained it sounded like more of a technicality than a role in which bishops (or cabinet equivalents) would decide appointments. The major thing we will be working on is exactly what the job of the bishop entails, especially when it comes to the work of superintending or overseeing (that EPI SKOPOS bit), how they are doing that with regard to congregations and with regard to pastors. Given that many congregations have yearned for congregationalism - or something very near thereunto - that will be a challenge. A history of distrust - in the midst of rising institutional distrust across the broader culture won't help.
Yeah, and this is kind of why I wrote this piece--what I've heard and experienced (which has been good!) didn't seem to match the actual language I was reading in the proposed statements. And I also know several clergy/congregations that are hanging back because they don't understand how this process of hiring pastors is going to work. The lack of making this clear to me is a big problem and hurts the fostering of trust.
Yes, I think that makes sense; but it's such a central piece of the puzzle, it's like every other part of the structure orbits around this framework, which is why I think it's proven so difficult to get people to think about it...and depending on what is decided will be a huge factor in what kind of a movement the GMC turns out to be. I think it's worth hashing it out in a good faith way
It also connects to one of my "hobby horses." We've made a big deal about wanting more accountability, but we've usually thought of that as something people at the top need to have (because we've seen the ways they've failed) rather than something needed at all levels of the church. The role of superintendency is one part of that accountability, even if pastors and churches think they're best off doing their own thing. Another part is recovering our original Methodist accountability structures (Classes & Bands) as normative, not just special things for the very few.
Excellent. Well thought out and concisely presented. I certainly hope and pray this will be considered at the General Conference and the Global Church will leave with a clear understanding of where we are and where we are going concerning appointment of pastors. May we all be led by the Holy Spirit during this time of transition.🙏🙏🙏.
Clearly, the Global Methodist Church appointment-making process MUST be different than what many experienced in the United Methodist system.
One of the biggest key differences is that within the GMC, there is no such thing as a "guaranteed appointment" - therefore, no one MUST take an appointment. The clergy, the church and the cabinet can all freely say, "no thank you." The bishops "fixes" the appointment only when everyone has said, "yes, thank you" and agrees that this is a God-led decision.
Another difference between the UM and GM itinerency is the commitment for longer appointments. The UM system was year-to-year appointing. The GM system is supposed to be indefinite appointing. If we are serious within the GMC to adhere to the commitment of longer appointments, then both pastors and congregations will have to improve their abilities to navigate disagreement, work through challenges together, and grow their faith in the mist of difficulties. We cannot throw in the proverbial towel at "the first sign of trouble" - something that happened too often in the UM system.
Effectiveness is a two-way street - both the congregation and the pastor must demonstrate effectiveness together. While we do not have specific defined measurables for effectiveness, we know that numbers alone (nickles and noses, as they say) are not effective measures of true spiritual effectiveness!
One thing that I sense is different within the Global Methodist world is the greater unity of Spirit and commitment to Biblical theology. As we voted for the delegates from the North Carolina Provisional Annual Conference, I was not leery or troubled by any of the people who submitted their names for consideration. I was able to relax and trust the Lord would work through ANY of the people. Once we completed our elections, there was a true sense of peace and joy and zero grumbling or griping (at least within my presence). I can tell you that I NEVER experienced that with UM general conference elections!!
Thank you for helping us to clarify, correct and continue forward in seeking to spread scriptural holiness throughout all our lands!
Thanks Cambron, you bring forward some very important issues around itineracy that need to be clearly understood and not sub-come to the pitfalls that were practiced in the UMC, which over used the word “consultation” and under delivered. I pray your ideas find traction in the “budding”GMC. Christianity is relational not institutional. The larger the church becomes the smaller it has to focus. You have stated well the tension of maintaining that balance of decision making.
Hey Wayne! Good to hear from you. I feel very confident that what I'm hoping for in this article is what in fact is happening on the ground in the GMC; I think the task right now is to just make sure that it is put into helpful language in the discipline and clearly communicated to clergy and churches. But I very much agree that we need a WAY more relational way of being than we had before...praying that we do!
I can tell you that both Bishops already have distinct understandings/answers to some of the questions that you have here posed. Having served on a TCAT Appointments Team, and now as Conference Secretary of the Northeast, I have seen the answers to your questions played out in practice. It might behoove you to have a conversation with your Bishop about these questions.
Thanks for helping to make the situation clear. I agree that what has been said about the appointment system looks different than what is on paper. I will be interested to see how the conversations unfold at GC.
Worthy thoughts here, Cambron. Thanks for writing this up. It is important for the people of the GMC to be thinking soberly through these things. If we aren’t proactive in forming a culture, then one will be formed by those who take the reins. I’m a big fan of democratizing conversations. However, I am also a big fan of ecclesial authoritarianism and itinerancy, so I find myself in a different place from you, but not perhaps as much as one would think. I appreciate that, in your article, you make it clear where you stand while also not harshly assessing those who see things differently. Not enough people strive to do this, or come close to accomplishing what you did here. Your concern is the same as mine: Let’s just have a good conversation in earnest and arrive to a clear place where everyone understands the covenant.
To represent what I think we have thus far inherited in the nascent GMC, I think the broad strokes have rendered a picture that 1) has a more robust consultation process prior to shifts in appointments than was seen in the UMC, and 2) a more itinerant episcopacy than what was seen in the UMC. Any specific benchmarks, other than requiring written assessments on the part of bishops with respect to the appointment-making process, are lacking in the GMC documents so far. The language is more vague and aspirational. I think it is probably the intent of current leadership to leave things vague until a consensus emerges or until a culture is formed by those people composing the committees responsible for this work.
I think there are practical concerns that very much determine the success of our pseudo-itinerant system that are actually more determinative. For instance, if we continue to allow toxic behavior among local churches and their people, well, we will continue to have clergy who don’t want to serve in some settings, and for good reason. If we continue to allow ineffective or dysfunctional clergy to serve, like in the UMC, then this also has a big impact. If we allow clergy and bishops who love creature comforts, money, and prestige, this has HUGE implications. The culture we establish now will determine the success and flourishing of the GMC. Itinerancy can be done very well if the right culture undergirds it. Similarly with more congregational systems. Both models will flounder and rightly fall if they are undergirded by a culture and people marked by consumerism and comfort.
This is a wonderful proposal and I hope and pray that it is adopted.
I haven't heard anything yet that inclines me to believe that "fix appointments" means anything close to "do things the way we did in the UMC." When I've heard it explained it sounded like more of a technicality than a role in which bishops (or cabinet equivalents) would decide appointments. The major thing we will be working on is exactly what the job of the bishop entails, especially when it comes to the work of superintending or overseeing (that EPI SKOPOS bit), how they are doing that with regard to congregations and with regard to pastors. Given that many congregations have yearned for congregationalism - or something very near thereunto - that will be a challenge. A history of distrust - in the midst of rising institutional distrust across the broader culture won't help.
Yeah, and this is kind of why I wrote this piece--what I've heard and experienced (which has been good!) didn't seem to match the actual language I was reading in the proposed statements. And I also know several clergy/congregations that are hanging back because they don't understand how this process of hiring pastors is going to work. The lack of making this clear to me is a big problem and hurts the fostering of trust.
Inheriting "trust issues," it's hard to hear as truth the claim (which I believe to BE true), "We're still working things out."
Yes, I think that makes sense; but it's such a central piece of the puzzle, it's like every other part of the structure orbits around this framework, which is why I think it's proven so difficult to get people to think about it...and depending on what is decided will be a huge factor in what kind of a movement the GMC turns out to be. I think it's worth hashing it out in a good faith way
Absolutely!
It also connects to one of my "hobby horses." We've made a big deal about wanting more accountability, but we've usually thought of that as something people at the top need to have (because we've seen the ways they've failed) rather than something needed at all levels of the church. The role of superintendency is one part of that accountability, even if pastors and churches think they're best off doing their own thing. Another part is recovering our original Methodist accountability structures (Classes & Bands) as normative, not just special things for the very few.