Deacon Laura
Jaquith Bartlett believes ordination is more than a reward for
completing one’s education.
 |
|
The Rev. Laura
Jaquith Bartlett
Photo by Greg Nelson
|
By Laura
Jaquith Bartlett*
The Ministry Study report to the 2012 General Conference contains nine proposals, including
a renewed emphasis on developing a culture of call; methods for making the
candidacy process easier to navigate, and clarification about the identity of
deacons and elders, including new insights about how the two orders, along with
local pastors, interact and work together.
These are
significant changes! They do not, however, get nearly as much buzz as the two
most controversial proposals from the study: “separating ordination from membership”
and “eliminating guaranteed appointment.” I’ve used quotation marks because
both of the phrases reflect the common shorthand method of referring to the
proposals, but neither label accurately depicts the legislation.
In United
Methodist polity, ordination and conference membership are already two separate
entities. The proposal seeks to restore ordination to its pre-1996 time frame:
at the point of provisional membership (although the proposed legislation would
have all educational/candidacy requirements completed by the time of
ordination). But what would happen to ordained provisional members who are not approved
for full membership? The same thing that happened before 1996: Ordination and
provisional membership certificates would be surrendered.
Those who
believe ordination should be the “big prize” at the conclusion of the ministry-preparation
process would do well to remember that in The United Methodist Church,
ordination is not a sacrament and should not be treated as one.
The proposal to
“eliminate guaranteed appointment” is actually a movement toward missional
appointment making. In fact, the legislation would delete a key sentence from
Paragraph 337.1 that reads, “Every effective elder in full connection who is in
good standing shall be continued under appointment by the bishop.” However, it
also instructs bishops to take one of two steps if the elder is not to be
continued under appointment: Either initiate a complaint of ineffectiveness or
recommend the elder to the board of ordained ministry for transitional leave.
Note that the
bishop, cabinet and the board of ordained ministry all must approve the leave;
it cannot be a unilateral move by the bishop. Moreover, a vote of the clergy
session must confirm all voluntary leaves of absence. We have many
opportunities to keep one another accountable in this process.
Part of our Wesleyan heritage
Accountability
is crucial. The most compelling
objection I’ve heard to the proposal is that it removes the appointment
protection that dates back to 1956, the same year women were given the full
rights of clergy membership. That security is also important for persons of
color and for anyone whose prophetic witness might seem threatening to the
power structure of an annual conference. Sadly, that one sentence in the Discipline
has not protected women or others from discrimination, harassment or pay
inequality.
Accountability,
not legislation alone, will motivate us to speak truth to power and collectively
to protect all our effective clergy from “appointment punishment.” Accountability
is part of our Wesleyan heritage and is built into the Ministry Study
proposals.
The missional
aspect of the appointment proposal really excites me. The theme is an
appointment system that is itinerant, open, flexible and responsive. The driving force would be the missional
needs of each congregation — not the specific employment needs of the
clergyperson. For too long, cabinets
have struggled with trying to match up X number of bodies with X number of open
slots. I realize that this is a bit hyperbolic and bishops and superintendents
faithfully and prayerfully have done the best they can within the limits of the
current system — often with fabulous results! And often with less-than-fabulous
results.
What if our
episcopal leaders and cabinets could send the best leaders to the congregations
that most need their gifts? What if we had a system in place to care for clergy
who were no longer appointed? And what if we all called forth our Wesleyan DNA
of mutual accountability to protect those among us who are vulnerable to
systemic discrimination? We just might end up with a denomination more able to
respond to the ministry needs of our 21st-century world. I pray it
will be so.
*A deacon in the Oregon-Idaho Annual (regional) Conference,
Bartlett is head of her conference’s delegation to the 2012 General Conference.