CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ON THE 2015 FALL SESSION

I have four observations to make about the fall session of 2015.  One, the case load was exceptionally light.  Two, the bishops won big on many little things but were put off till May on their one big thing.  Three, what would happen if we changed to casting lots to elect delegates to General Conference?  Four, Local Pastors are extremely vulnerable, perhaps in violation of our constitution.

First, the case load for the fall sessions of the Council have tended in recent years to average two dozen docket items.  This year there were about a third of that number.  And of that nine, one was a reconsideration (JCM 1299), one was a carry-over from the past (JCD 1302), two were related to the concern about “appointive cabinets” (JCDs 1301 and 1307), two were related to electing delegates by casting lots (JCMs 1305 and 1306), two showed ways the Council could refuse jurisdiction (JCDs 1304 and 1308), and one of some consequence was put off until May 2016 (JCM 1303).  Almost half were deferred (JCMs 1301, 1303, 1305, and 1306), requiring no hammering out of a decision.  

This lighter load allowed for some rationale to be presented on all but the request for reconsideration (JCM 1299).  That gave the Council a chance to offer us more insight into their way of thinking.  Too often, the Council has had little time to explain themselves on cases where they could not take jurisdiction.

Second, while the bishops were put off on their request for possible support of the Council on “Plan UMC Revised,” they won on everything else directly or indirectly.  JCM 1299 changed nothing with respect to holding bishops accountable.  JCM 1300 has postponed testing a bishop for unmaking an appointment of an Elder without fixing another first.  Bishops may stack a non-Disciplinary body (“appointive Cabinet”) which undercuts the consultation process (JCD 1301 and 1307).  The separation of powers over the issues of accountability of certain conference officers (JCD 1304) and of removing Local Pastors from ministry (JCD 1308) were left unchanged by legal technicalities.  And the ladder to success in the denomination has not been disrupted (JCM 1305 and 1306).  The merger plan (JCD 1302) may even have allowed some subtle additions to the authority of the bishop (most such plans do, as the Council itself has pointed out in the past).  In short, nothing decided really make bishops change their behavior and some add to their power. 

Third, casting lots has become the mode of election for delegates to General and Central Conferences of some annual conferences in the Philippines.  When that process is used openly and respectfully, it appears to be very difficult to influence the selection of delegates.  The current system used in the United States and many other places of politicking and vote swapping really works well for the ambitious and assertive.  It puts their names into position for nomination to boards and agencies on all levels of the denomination and ultimately to episcopacy.  With charisma and political skill, pastors can rise above their competence to high office in order to reach the prize of prestige, privilege, and a golden parachute upon retirement (note that some bishops are retiring early).  

If by chance the charismatic, politically skilled, and ambitious did not happen to be selected by lot, they might not find being a United Methodist to their liking . . . .  Ever wonder why casting of lots was considered viable by our Hebrew ancestors?  They’d had over two million years of experience in human community by the time the Bible was written.  It will be interesting to see if the Council gives any credence to using casting of lots when they meet in October of 2016.

Fourth, church law does not protect Local Pastors the way it protects Elders and Deacons.  Local Pastors often are dropped without explanation and have no recourse.  The powerful intentional movement of the 1980s to use Local Pastors because of their enthusiasm as a counter to the “professionalism” of seminary trained Elders was not accompanied by changes in the loopholes which made Local Pastors vulnerable to arbitrary firing.  Local Pastors were required to become trained and sometimes came in as seminary-trained.  And they had to be approved by vote of the clergy session in order to get in the door.  But they are still “at-will hires” of the Church and all the more devastated when they are cast aside.  JCD 1308 barely scratches the surface of that pain and does nothing to alleviate it.

I understand that flexibility is needed in a closed appointive system like ours and I understand the need for expediency when circumstances may require simplicity of options and timing.  But those are best handled with forewarning and with respectful dialogue among the involved parties and the Local Pastor.  This is a church, for God’s sake (literally), and not somebody’s sandbox.

Finally, I think I have respected the limitations under which the Council operates by explanations in the commentaries above.  The Council has its legal boundaries and can only do so much in the name of justice.  I cannot speak to intentions of the Council and hope I do not imply any biases.  I can only point out results.  

That leaves us, dear reader, to learn how better to work in our judicial system to help the Council any way we can to counter challenges to balance of powers and separation of powers.  So far, it is clear that we have a lot to learn.

May 1 - Guaranteed Appointment Removed

The Council of Bishops has been deeply concerned about incompetent pastors and removing them because they were the obvious cause for the malais of the denomination. Every bishop, foreign or domestic, raised the question with me, “What do we do about incompetent pastors?” See the posting below entitled “Incompetent Pastors.”

Having worked with many pastors identified as incompetent by their Cabinets over the years, I saw that those who were really incompetent got removed sooner rather than later.

Those who were competent either walked away, wiping the dust of the UMC off their shoes as they walked out the door, or stayed and fought. The bishops had a hard time with the latter.

They had judged the pastor and now the pastor was disagreeing with them! That shouldn’t happen. No one should disagree with as Christian, hard-working, and conscientious a person as their bishop.

Why should the system slow down the process of removing them outright, especially in “right-to-work” (right to fire-at-will) states? Bishops have the authority to fire-at-will Local Pastors simply by not giving them an appointment.

That kind of power is needed to unload pastors who are too old (50 or older males) so that women and ethnics can replace them. That kind of power is nice to have to deal with the ones who are not loyal to the bishop (those who raise question at conference, advocate for a pastor in trouble, or disagree openly or in writing with something the bishop says or does).

For this General Conference, the bishops again sought the right to remove incompetent pastors by seeking an end to guaranteed appointments for the ordained members of annual conference. The presumption is that then the bishops would not have any more problems and the church should wax strong again, unencumbered by lousy pastors.

That Tuesday morning, the legislative committee and then the General Conference gave the bishops the removal of the words “guaranteed appointment.” And in effect, the legislation allows bishops to choose to place an Elder into a part-time ministry or to not appoint a pastor at annual conference.

BUT NOT UNTIL AFTER JANUARY 2013 when the new Discipline goes into effect.

But there are two things that the bishops did not ask for. One is that the legislation has been referred to the Judicial Council for consideration of its constitutionality which will be ruled on in late fall. I expect a very carefully thought through decision from the Council since Dr. Lawrence is a real Discipline wonk and will not allow any carelessness to be featured in the decision. And I will not predict what that would be.

The other thing the bishops did not anticipate, as I understand the legislation, was that while a pastor can be put involuntarily on transitional leave for up to two years, the Cabinet then has to document why that pastor may not then return to be appointed. They could not get away from having to prove incompetence sooner or later.

Practically speaking, they can dump a pastor any time they want. They do already, contrary to the Discipline. But some pastors are pretty motivated by unjust treatment and will follow all the options they have to fight what they see as unjust. If they don’t walk away the first week, being out for two years will not stop their seeking to return to full appointment status. The confrontations and processes have only been put off.

If the Judicial Council feels the change is unconstitutional, the bishops are right back where they started from.

Will any of them learn creative imagination to re-examine their presumptions and find wiser and more Christian alternatives? Will they realize their own role in discouraging pastors into unenthusiastic ministry?

JCD 1119

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1236&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181

Since the 1840s, Annual Conferences have struggled with the balance of power between laity and clergy in one or another of the branches of the people called Methodist. While that struggle for us was largely settled in the merger of 1939, some clergy who serve churches but who are not ordained Elders have sought to have a vote on all that is before the conference. The push in recent years by Cabinets to have more Local Pastors in order to have a cheaper at-will work force (I do have a bit of opinion about that) has meant that on the matters where Local Pastors may not vote, such as for delegates to General and Jurisdictional conferences and constitutional amendments, the desired balance between clergy and laity is not met. The goal of equalizing lay and clergy membership in the annual conference required in our constitution is blocked if all the lay members can vote on amendments but the Local Pastors can't.

The issue was brought to the floor in Minnesota during a session where constitutional amendments were under consideration, one of which (Amendment 19) would give the vote to Local Pastors on more matters. It was not just a matter of idle curiosity.

Unfortunately, the request for a declaratory decision in this case was not as clear and precise as it needed to be. The Judicial Council, by taking advantage of the question’s ambiguity, interpreted constitutional amendment voting as “not the work of the annual conference” in order to avoid answering the question.

Votes on amendments are one of the few things that are tallied individually when they are taken. An amendment passes on the total of all those voting church-wide, not on the basis of the number of annual conferences in which it received a majority. That bit of polity was the opening the Judicial Council chose for their interpretation that these votes are not "the work" of an annual conference.

However, that view fails to take into account three important points.

First, the Discipline makes the annual conference session the setting for the vote. Ballots are not mailed individually to members to be returned by a certain date. The constitution requires the votes to be taken at the annual conference session. Therefore, it is part of the work of the conference.

Second, while not all amendments directly affect the work of an annual conference, in this case, at least one did. The passage of that amendment before all of the annual conferences, including Minnesota, on the voting rights of Local Pastors would change the balance of power of clergy and laity in their annual conference as well as in all of the conferences across the denomination. That would affect nominations and elections of conference members, have to be factored into budget work of the conference, and influence the work of the conference that occurs in the clergy session, to name a few implications.

Third, the work of the annual conference includes other matters that serve the needs of the larger church beyond the conference’s borders: election of delegates to General and Jurisdictional Conferences from which many go on to boards and agencies of the general church, financial support for the general church, requesting actions by the Judicial Council, and petitions for the General Conference to consider every four years. The work of the annual conference includes more than what goes on in the boundaries of the conference and the plenary agenda.

The Judicial Council narrowed their definition of what constitutes the “work of the annual conference” by this ruling.

This erosion of the centrality of annual conferences in the polity of our denomination is a trend that is not being discussed anywhere I know of. Here are some other things which erode the powers of the annual conference: Restricting nominations for certain offices to just the bishop and not allowing them from the floor of conference, allowing general categories to be called “line items” in mission budgeting rather than requiring that the individual ministries and projects are to be the line items for plenary votes of the budget, taking away the right to use requests for declaratory decisions by saying that they may never be used prospectively, and finding administrative ways to remove Local Pastors without any review by the conference.

The “law of unintended consequences” may be in operation here as these kinds of rulings come down from the Judicial Council.