Appointments

General Conference is going to be interesting this year, not that it usually isn't, but there's a lot of restricting legislation on the table. One of the legislation pieces is about a cease in guaranteed appointments for ordained clergy. I've been reading and following this legislation since its infancy, and I still go back and forth about what I think. I do believe that clergy should be held accountable to effectiveness, however, I still have a list of questions that have not been answered: how will effectiveness be measured and is it a reflection of Kingdom ideals or humans?, how will young clergy be evaluate under this approach, because it takes time to live into effectiveness?, how will churches be held accountable for effectiveness, because clergy are not miracle workers?, what happens if an appointment is not a good match, this preventing effectiveness? Among others.

But today I read an interview with a bishop that made me change my feelings on the matter. As much as I questioned, I was still for the change. But in the interview he clearly said this legislation is not so much about the 3 percent of in effective clergy as it was about not having enough appointments, due to small churches. What a defeatist attitude. It's essentially saying, clergy need to be effective enough to create full time appointments in order to have one. And that is a shame. And it is putting our perspective in the wrong place, which grieves me. Should I be held accountable, yes. Should I be measure on growth, maybe. Should I have to build my own job, no. That is not the belief of the appointment system, and it is leading us down the path that is one step away from the call system. How am I supposed to do effective ministry, when I'm working for my own security, especially as a single young woman who went straight into ministry with no fall back plan? Where is our faith and priority as a denomination?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad