The consequences of the appointive system

In my last post I said this: “We are appointed to a church, sometimes against the wishes of the congregation, who have no say in whether or not they want us – and therefore no investment in our success.”  This is a problem unique to the kind of appointive system that we have in the United Methodist Church.  In a call system, the pastor and the congregation have to mutually agree on working with each other.   On the upside, this means that both sides have an investment in the success of the pastor.  On the downside, when conflicts arise, the pastor can be ousted as quickly as he/she can be hired.

What are the consequences of having such a system and is there a better way?  We already have consultation in the United Methodist system, but the way we go about it is not entirely open and honest.  We ask both churches (SPR Committee) and pastors to fill out yearly profiles and state whether or not they think the appointment is working.  Usually the pastor sees the church profile filled out by the SPRC, or at least has access to it, so the pastor generally knows when the SPRC is requesting a new pastor.  However, the SPRC rarely sees the Pastor’s profile.  This means that the pastor can request a move, or at least be open to a move without the SPRC knowing.   This also allows the pastor to blame the cabinet for a move without taking responsibility for having wanted it.  

Once an appointment has been decided on by the cabinet, the pastor is told where he/she is going and is introduced to the SPRC.  Depending on the Bishop/Cabinet, the pastor may or may not be able to ask for reconsideration.  The church may or may not be able to ask for a different pastor.  Thus both sides may be wary of the new partnership, but neither can do anything about it.

What if the cabinet played the role of match-maker instead of appointment-maker?  What if both congregation and pastor were able to have greater say in finalizing the appointment? What if there were a trial period of 3-6 months in which both sides had the opportunity to say “Yes, this is working,” or “No this isn’t”?  What if we were paid by the conference instead of the congregation?  I understand this would be the end of the so-called “guaranteed” appointment system.  But the Bishops are pushing to do away with this anyway.

At the very least, we need for our District Superintendents to know enough about the congregations to let the pastors know what they are really going to be facing -both positive and negative.  Many of us are willing to take on a challenge if we know what the challenge is.   But often we are simply told “Preach good sermons and love the people.”  “These are people who love their church.”   The churches are told that this pastor is happy to serve them and is just what they need, whether this is true or not.  The congregation doesn’t get to know if the pastor has had problems at former churches or not.  And, with regard to Town and Country churches, not all pastors want to serve in this setting. None of this is the fault of the District Superintendents, or even the Bishop.  They have too many churches and too many pastors to oversee to be able to know them well.  

Yes, I agreed to this system when I was ordained.  Yes, I will abide by this system as long as I am an Elder in the United Methodist Church.  But this system, which worked extraordinarily well in a former time and culture, may not be the best way to operate now.  

I grieve for churches and pastors who are in mismatched partnerships.  I grieve for pastors who are having an uphill battle to establish themselves in a congregation that doesn’t want them.  I grieve for churches who have had to take pastors that have damaged every church they have served. 

Once again, all of this is what I perceive to be true about small churches, particularly in small towns.  Large churches have different dynamics and sometimes (not always) more control over who they receive.

I would love to hear what other options people think might work.  I have suggested a few. What else?