There have been many changes in the itinerant system of the UMC over the years. From what it sounds like, back in first and middle part of the 1900s ministers showed up at Annual Conference and learned if they were moving or not. No prior warning. Simply called out each appointment by name and then there was a frantic line at the payphone to call home and let their spouse know that it was time to pack. Now it is different and there is a joy in that. My wife and I would go insane if every year we had 1.5 weeks to pack before we moved. Too much planning on our part happens to use to be that ready.
What I like now about the system is they do seem to listen to the needs of the pastor’s family. They attempt to do their best to listen and work with what they have to take care of the needs of the minister and his/her family. I know this is not the case for everyone and I am sure you can find tons of people who would disagree with that sentence but it is true for me.
During the move process I received our first projected appointment. It was not what I was hoping for or expecting. I am sure that some good ministry could come out of that appointment but it didn’t tick off any of the boxes I was hoping for. There were a laundry list of reasons why this would be a bad fit and so we started to look at our options. My District Superintendent (DS) knew I would not be pleased with the appointment. I could read it on her face when she told me. But my wife and I prayed about it. We did as much research as we could on the area and the church. We did our secret ninja drive by to see the community, but in the end we knew it wouldn’t really work. And if we had to move there it would not be for the long appointment that we desired.
The option that presented itself was to ask for a reconsideration. I was told to write a letter to the cabinet naming the reasons why the projected appointment wouldn’t work and what we desired out of an appointment. We set to work writing, rewriting, praying, rewriting, praying, sending it off to have people read it, and praying some more. Finally we created a one page letter that we thought represented our situation the best and we sent it off.
After round two of appointment making meetings we heard about our appointment. There was a change and the second projected appointment ticked off most of the boxes we were looking for. I praised God because it seemed the Cabinet actually listened.
When we received our first projected appointment I felt let down, frustrated, angry, disappointed and for the first time truly doubted my abilities. I thought I had accomplished some good things here at Trinity and that the cabinet could see that but after the first round I thought my accomplishments had fallen on deaf ears. Then with round two I felt they had listened. I do not understand what it is like during the frustrating, prayerful, and stress-filled appointment making process. I truly feel the DSs and Bishop lose sleep over their decisions and wonder if they are the right ones. I don’t seem them as heartless or vengeful, although I am sure that there are others who do. I feel the system worked for me and I may never know why.
So today, as I write my sermon and pack boxes, I am thankful that the system has seemed to work. It may only have been for me and my experience and I have faith that the cabinet is doing their best for the sake of the Conference and the Kingdom of God. I confess I didn’t feel that way in March but not in May I do.
Bishop and the rest of the Cabinet, please forgive me for my ill thoughts and frustrations. Thank you for prayerful listening.
(Something I never found was a written guideline for what a Letter of Reconsideration should look like. If you are in a place where you need to write one I am happy to email you a redacted copy of mine. I am not saying it will work but I’m happy to share the format and structure of the letter. Just send me an email at revjimparsons at gmail dot com)
The Western North Carolina Conference (WNCC) decided to move from 15 districts to 8 districts by January 2013. This move will save the conference $1.5 million dollars a year that Bishop Goodpaster (BG) would like to see go towards making our churches more vital in our area and starting new congregations. This is hot news among the denomination considering while I was at the School of Congregational Development I spoke to people from California to New Jersey who had heard of this decision. Some were excited. Others warned of the impending doom that will follow (ok a little harsh but I was told by a DS from another conference that we would lose 5-7% of our giving towards apportionments because of this decision).
The Disciple states that the Annual Conference (AC) is the one who agrees on the number of districts and that it is the job of the Bishop to set the boundaries and structure. Without a defined plan the AC gave permission for BG to move forward. I think that speaks highly of our trust and confidence in BG and that he will not lead us down the wrong path.
Last quadrennium we voted to add a district because the 14 current districts were too big for District Superintendents (DS) to handle, especially down in the Charlotte area. Now the DSs who make the cut and stay on will have double the amount of churches, clergy and area. how this will all be worked out will be handled by a team assembled by the Conference of equal representation of clergy and lay. They announced this list not too long ago.
I have to admit that I was a little disappointed when I saw the line up of the usual suspects. The conference took this leap with the hope to save money but also to become more vital in our conference. There was talk of making sure we are not doing the same old thing over and over again because they same old thing really isn’t working. That sounded exciting, promising and I truly believe it is what BG wants for our conference and our denomination as a whole.
Yet I believe some people are missing from this team that could help bring a new set of eyes to our conference to move us forward. I cannot speak about the laity on this team, only to the clergy. But as I looked at the clergy that will represent the conference and help it decide what this huge restructuring will look like there were no young clergy named. No one under the age of 40 (from the looks of it), forget the legal age of ‘young clergy’ which tops out at 35. There is no one who received their Masters of Divinity in this millennium or who has a congregation who averages less than 100 people in worship each Sunday.
It seems the usual suspects will make the decisions. The rural small churches, which makes up the vast majority of our congregations in our conference, will have no clergy representation. The young clergy, who are a small minority, are the same way. I think an opportunity to be really innovative and bring new eyes to the table may have been missed. I pray I am wrong.
I pray for this team as they meet to discuss what our conference will look like and act like for the next however many years. I pray that God will work through them to empower the UMC in WNCC to become relevant, to grow, and to be full of vital congregations doing life changing ministry through Jesus Christ for the people in our communities.
Here is what was reported on our conference website.
Top court rules on financial, clergy issues
By Linda Bloom*
Nov. 2, 2009 | DURHAM, N.C. (UMNS)
Local United Methodist churches cannot arbitrarily choose which general church programs to support financially, according to the church’s top court.
The Judicial Council has upheld the decision by Bishop Larry Goodpaster that the Western North Carolina Annual (regional) Conference’s “Choice Empowerment” plan is a violation of Paragraph 247.14 of the United Methodist Book of Discipline.
That case was one of 21 docket items considered by the nine-member council when it met Oct. 27-31. Among other issues, the council addressed questions on the participation of retired clergy in local churches, pension and health insurance plans and representation to the church’s legislative body.
The Choice Empowerment plan essentially gives churches permission not to pay what is requested of them, the council’s decision said. The bishop had noted a “substantial decline in connectional support” during the five years the plan has been in effect.
“One of the basic principles of The United Methodist Church’s connectional system is to provide ministries and outreach in ways and places that individual churches are not able to do alone,” the council pointed out. “This philosophy is built upon a belief in shared responsibility for the extension of mission and ministry of the whole church to the world.”
Payment in full of these apportionments “is the first benevolent responsibility of the church,” the decision said. [Other Issues] [Decision]
Bishop Goodpaster of the Western North Carolina Conference has ventured off into an interesting use of technology. He is reaching out via YouTube. He sees this as the ability to network with the local churches, help pass on vision, and guidance. I think it is a very welcomed use of technology. It does leave some of the churches out that don’t have the ability to show this within the service but for those that do, it allows a one on one with the bishop. Very nice!
In 2004 the Western North Carolina Conference decided to move to a Choice Empowerment style for paying apportionments. What this allowed the local church to do is pick and choose the apportionments they wanted to pay. For example, if your congregation only could afford 80% of their apportionments they could specify which apportionments they could pay with their 80%. The old way was the monies went into the chauffeurs for the conference to then they decided who was left out. The hope was with more choice, people would understand where their money would go and would pay 100% of what they were asked.
I voted against the idea because if we have learned anything about free will, people will always choose badly. Sure enough as this new apportionment asking process started, our apportionments started to slip. Bishop Goodpaster says in his e-pistle, “For years, the Western North Carolina Annual Conference was a leader in our denomination; now we are hovering near the bottom.” Was this the financial crisis or a crisis of character within our congregations?
At Annual Conference the bishop was asked to give a decision of law on the validity of “Choice Empowerment.” The actual question that he had to consider was this, “Is ‘Choice Empowerment’ as approved by the 2004 session of the annual conference, in violation of Paragraph 247.14 of the 2008 Book of Discipline?” Now after his ruling it will be sent to the Judicial Council. Changes only happen after the JC makes their decisions.
Here is his ruling:
In the documentation that I have sent to the Judicial Council my decision is that Choice Empowerment is a violation of the Book of Discipline. After reviewing the documents from 2004, and subsequent Annual Conference sessions, and having several conversations over the last months with a number of groups and leaders, I reached the decision based on the clear instructions of our Book of Discipline. Paragraph 247.14 is one of a number of instructions on the “powers and duties” of a Charge Conference. The last line of that sub-section is the relevant passage: “Payment in full of these apportionments by local churches is the first benevolent responsibility of the church.”
In essence, my decision is based on this statement that does not permit churches to pick and choose which apportionment items to pay. Churches are challenged to pay in full. Furthermore, to supplement that instruction, Paragraph 340 details the responsibilities and duties of our clergy. Included in that long list is this: “to lead the congregation in the fulfillment of its mission through full and faithful payment of all apportioned ministerial support, administrative, and benevolent funds.” From my perspective, it seems clear that the Disciplinary directive is 100% payment. For an Annual Conference to adopt a policy that gives permission to local churches to choose not to pay, or to choose to shift payments from one item to another, is a violation of the letter and spirit of our church law.
In this time, in our current social situation, we are filled with ideas of relaxing ideals, goals, and obligations. I mean we are in financial hard times, we have to cut somewhere. But then again in hard times our calling to live into the likeness of Christ doesn’t go away. The fact that we are in war doesn’t mean we loosen our morals. The fact that we are on vacation does not mean our actions have repercussions. Hard times are only hard times. They are times to put what is most important first.
Our apportionments are important. They are important because behind the dollar symbols are people. They are the people being helped by projects through our conference missions and outreach. They are the students of Africa University, learning how to be Christian leaders in the only United Methodist seminary on the continent. They are people who receive help during disasters and education through our own colleges and universities. They are the children who are having life transforming experiences at our camps this summer. They are people be effected by the ministries of the United Methodist Church and the gospel of Jesus Christ. And they are the first people cut off when we don’t pay 100% of our askings.
We are a connectional system and in being so, we need to look past ourselves. It is not only a United Methodist idea but a Christ idea. The bishop, in his email, goes on to tell of churches who have already paid 100% of their apportionments. I say, well done. My congregation will probably once again have to wait till December but we too will pay out at 100%. It is our duty, obligation, and privilege as a United Methodist congregation. We have to remember we are a part of something bigger than ourselves. We are the body of Christ and we need to support the whole body. Now we will see what the Judicial Council agrees with the bishop.
I may have been a little negative about AC in my last post. Stuart Auditorium was nice and cool last night at our clergy session, but we were missing the 1500 laity…so we shall see. This clergy session was actually enjoyable…the best one I have attended actually.
The Western North Carolina Conference received a letter from our Bishop today. It said that the cabinet was not yet finished with the appointment process. It seems with only a few retiring this year, people coming off of leave and back from extension ministries, plus the number of graduates from Divinity School there is an influx of clergy needing appointments. Then you add the fact that 18 churches in the WNCC have eliminated associate pastor positions. What you have left over is too many clergy with not enough pulpits. It seems after filling all the placements there are currently 24 clergy without an appointment. I’ll let Bishop Goodpaster explain in his own words.
We entered our work together aware of the anxiety and turmoil that fill our society and many of our churches during this time. We knew there would be challenges. Eighteen of our churches decided to eliminate an Associate Pastor position; others, because of the economy, had notified us that the compensation package of the pastor would be lower in July, many at substantial cuts. We have a dozen of elders who will be returning from either Extension Ministry appointments or various Leaves. With the downturn in the value of the pension funds, fewer of our clergy opted to retire this year. And, in response to the continuing call of God, we have a number of Western North Carolina students graduating from seminary and returning to serve Christ in their home conference.
We are not yet ready to notify any person or church about a projected appointment for the coming year. The reality: after working for more than four days, we arrived at an unprecedented moment. Having tentatively “filled” every open and available charge with a clergyperson, there were still more than two dozen clergy (most either full connected ordained elders or provisional elders) without a placement. That, of course, is unacceptable, and contrary to the principle of the itinerancy system that is part of our Wesleyan heritage.
There are been many stories of churches doing great work and money coming in despite the economic crisis. I have also heard of churches who finished thousands of dollars behind. Clergy receiving pay cuts or in the case of associates, losing their positions. The financial grip of the nation is affecting the UMC in the Western North Carolina Conference. My prayers go out to those who are on the move list and who are living with even more questions of where they will be placed.
Peace be with the cabinet, the churches, the clergy, and the clergy families.
While at a missions meeting I listened to my chair, a semi-retired man, complain that there was too much information on the internet these days and that the conference needs to get back to sending stuff through the mail, as in snail mail. His reasoning…the internet is too impersonal. Later on that day I was at our District Leadership Seminar and learning that now the conference has some cool links on their site about our apportionments. Now if you have questions about why the conference needs $129 dollars from your congregation to go to the Black College Fund, you can now link to that program and learn how that money is used. I thought that was a huge advancement in our technology, bringing us up to the mid-90s now.
These polar perspectives were in my head as I read Bishop Goodpaster’s book, There’s Power in the Connection. Goodpaster wants the UMC to move past their 1950’s mentality and into the modern world. I think this is also the push of the Igniting Ministries new campaign RETHINK Church. I had a chance to hear the Bishop at a Congregational Development meeting where he professed he wanted to start 30 new churches in the next 5 or 6 years. (Another topic for another time) In his talk at that meeting he said that we need to concentrate on the younger generation. We need to be paying attention to attracting and ministering too the 20 & 30 somethings of our society. He confessed that he remembers the first TV his family bought and how different that is from what this generation is and has grown up in.
With all this on my mind it got me thinking (I hope you can follow my train of thought here). Could the UMC’s decline in membership, the failure to attract young clergy (under 35), and the inability to now attract that younger generation be caused by the age of our leaders? What is the average age of the bishops in the US? I am guessing it is in the high 50s if not 60s. These are the Silent and Boomer Generations, the ones that remember what church in the 50s was like because they were there. They grew up and learned how to do church in the 60s and 70s. I confess I have no knowledge of who runs stuff in Nashville, but I am guessing they would be around the same age as my conference office, which are the same age as my bishop. What would happen if a 40 year old was elected bishop? Would a Generation Xer have a different take on how to run a conference and make it an effective force on that conference’s people? Are we stuck in the 50s-70s as a denomination because that is the church our leaders know?
Of course I can see annual conference now, looking up at a 41 year old bishop dictating where people go and what ministries do. “He’s too young to be Bishop.” “She doesn’t have enough experience?” Yet those are the same people who on their church profiles ask for a young clergy with kids to be their next minister. If we are too break free of the funk that the UMC is in (in America at least) we need to break up the old way of doing things. At my age, 31, I am in my seventh year of ministry. How old will I be when I receive the right amount of ‘experience’? How old does one have to be to be considered for top level appointments (whatever those are)? 30 years from now when Gen Xers are taking over the leadership roles, are we going to be open to doing church the way Gen Ys or Millennials want to do it or need it to be done? Are we going to be able to hold back from the temptation to say…‘now I can do it the way I have always wanted to.’? Are we going to be able to hear the needs of the Millenials and the Net Generation? Or are we going to be stuck in the 90s and 00s in the place that is familiar and best known?
Bishop Larry Goodpaster assigned to the Western NC Conferenceof The UMC
Bishop Larry M. Goodpaster is the new bishop for the Western N.C. of The United Methodist Church. The assignment was announced Friday evening at the Southeastern Jurisdictional Conference meeting this week at Lake Junaluska, N.C. He will succeed Bishop J. Lawrence McCleskey who retires Aug. 31.
Elected to the Episcopacy in 2000, Goodpaster has served for the past eight years as the Episcopal leader of the Alabama-West Florida Conference. Prior to his election, he served as a pastor and district superintendent in the Mississippi Conference. His pastoral experience includes a five-church rural charge, a new congregation and several larger membership churches. He has taught in a variety of settings and published in various denominational publications. His latest book, “There’s Power in the Connection: Building a Network of Dynamic Congregations” was published earlier this year by Abingdon Press.
In April, Goodpaster was elected to a two-year term as president of The United Methodist Church’s Council of Bishops, which includes United Methodist bishops from around the world. He will take office in 2010. These duties are in addition to those as Episcopal leader in the Western N.C. Conference.
Goodpaster, 60, earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Millsaps College, Jackson, Miss. and Master of Divinity and Doctor of Ministry degrees from Candler School of Theology, Atlanta, Ga. He received honorary degrees (Doctor of Divinty) from Birmingham-Southern College, Birmingham, Ala. and Huntingdon College, Montgomery, Ala. He is married to the former Deborah Cox. They have two daughters and two grandchildren.
More information on Bishop Goodpaster may be found at the Bishop’s Page on the Alabama-West Florida Conference Web site: http://www.awfumc.org/page.asp?PKValue=15 <http://www.awfumc.org/page.asp?PKValue=15>
Southeastern Jurisdiction Episcopal Assignments 2008-2012
Alabama – West Florida: Paul Leeland
Florida – Timothy W. Whitaker
Holston – James Swanson
Louisville Area (Kentucky and Red Bird) – G. Lindsey Davis, Jr.
Nashville Area (Memphis and Tennessee) – Richard “Dick” Wills, Jr.
Mississippi – Hope Morgan Ward
North Alabama – William “Will” Willimon
North Carolina – Alfred “Al” Gwinn
North Georgia – B. Michael Watson
South Carolina – Mary Virginia “Dindy” Taylor
South Georgia – James R. King, Jr.
Virginia – Charlene Payne Kammerer
Western NC – Larry M. Goodpaster