I worked in a UMChurch this summer where I was a primary pastoral counselor. I visited with many of the members of the church and visited regularly with a few. As part of this congregation’s pastoral care the congregation has a committee/group who are involved in being a network of pastoral care givers who met with one another and meet together to talk about their experiences in doing so.

I would go a bit further than Brett here and argue that even pastoral care should mainly be undertaken by the congregation rather than the pastor. The pastor should only be a well-respected guide, a traveling theologian, a traveling expert in the disciplines of the church to ensure that the congregation has not jumped off the deep end.

So, I’d agree for the most part. Itineracy is not only Wesleyan, as Will speaks of a good bit, and part of the tradition that we writers live in, but it fosters congregational growth into what it means to be people of God.

I have a number of issues, though. First, the existence of such a hierarchical church government needed for such a guaranteed appointment system. For more, again, see my comment on, “A Communal Spirit.”

More importantly, though, the issues of church’s operating without a pastor and the organization of the first church.

I believe that a church can and sometimes would have to operate without a pastor if we were to eliminate the guaranteed appointment system. The way that the system works now is that the most struggling churches are appointed the most inexperienced pastors. I am sure that Andrew would agree that this is wrong. And I would agree that a church should not be punished for struggling. But would that church be left for dead? Well, if the church did not have a guaranteed appointment system (in fact, if they did not have an appointment system at all) then the church would hopefully not view it that way. Even if they did, though, we need churches to reclaim their status as children of God regardless of whether or not they have a pastor. The Spirit works in that community with a pastor or not. We are so dependent nowadays on having pastors in our churches that we think everything will fall apart without one and I simply don’t think that’s true. And if it is true, then it is more an indication of a lack of faith in that church community that would not have been restored even with a pastor. Only the Spirit and the individual can do that, a pastor cannot. I question whether or not the church now survives more on the likes and dislikes of the congregation concerning the pastor than whether or not the pastor can channel God’s Spirit anyway.

I appreciate Andrew’s historical analysis. I agree that God’s intentions were one thing but then God worked with whatever humanity desired because they no longer wanted to live only within the intentions of God. In most cases, the shift came because we humans were worried about survival and God, caring about our wishes, decided that He would ensure that our plans, while maybe not what He wanted, would be as well-suited as possible to the times. Here’s my key point: we should not be worried about the Church’s survival. God and God’s Word will live even if the Church does not. God and God’s Word will live and continue to spread through the witness of believers even if the Church does not. The problem is that we are now, and have been for centuries, far too concerned with the upkeep of the Church’s numbers that we have lost touch with the individual’s relationship with God as a child of God. If we want the church to survive we have to operate it as a business, that is clear… but should it?

I don’t mean to argue that the original church of Paul is the only “right” form of church. But I do believe that Paul’s church had the right idea: live by the Spirit alone, and that is the Church. The Church should not be a denomination or a set of doctrines. The Church is simply a collection of individual believers who are seeking after God’s own heart.

My central point is not that guaranteed appointments are wrong but that church government is too structured. In my opinion, what church government has done to the UMC and other churches in which there is a structured enough government to have guaranteed appointments is that the church has become dependent on the government rather than the Holy Spirit. Of course, we can argue that the work of a committee of bishops or of each individual bishop is the work of the Spirit. But there is no denying that much of the appointment system is driven by politics nowadays.

Granted, Thomas brings up an excellent point about the history of guaranteed appointments. Appointments have always been political, and since the overriding politics had been racist and sexist some type of guaranteed appointment system was a relief. And I by no means want to suggest that we are such great people now that we could eliminate the guaranteed appointment system without racism and sexism or other isms to rear their ugly heads again.

What I do want to suggest, though, is that any appointment process guided by human judgment that can succumb to politics is not appropriate for a church. The Church should only be guided by the Holy Spirit, if by anything. That is such a strict formulation, one might say. It surely is–humanity must work in cooperation with God’s Spirit, I agree, so surely some amount of human reason is allowable. I whole-heartedly agree. In fact, I probably agree with that statement more than most people. But the Church is God’s most visible witness in this world, for it to be led by humans is a very serious thing. For me, I can only support such a system on a very local level.

Similarly, if the church is to have a structured system, the ordination process should not be so strictly enforced by humans. Does the person possess gifts of the Spirit should be the only question during the process. And some basic education in the church’s doctrine and practices should be provided, but it certainly should not be some arbitrary 3-year requirement. The Church has become more about what individual humans think and want than about the Spirit and how the Spirit works in our world.

Lastly, as to Thomas’ personal history, I am clearly not one to say that his ministry has somehow been ineffective in the D.C. area away from his original calling. I am going to assume that it has been very effective and that his churches have been greatly appreciative of his ministry. Yet, the churches that he has served, and that most pastors have served or will serve, EXPECT to be given a pastor. Churches nowadays don’t think too often that the Spirit is working apart from the pastor. Apparently, a pastor is necessary for the Spirit to be present. What a mistake that is. We need the people sitting in the pews to take back their own gifts, their own sense of relationship with God and the Spirit, and their own hope in God’s working. Again, churches have become dependent on the government, the guaranteed appointment system. My beef, then, is not so much with the system, though certainly my beef is more with the government of a church than with guaranteed appointments, but my issue is mostly with our dependence on things other than the Holy Spirit. The church community is the house of the Spirit, not the pastor.

However, persons going into ordination in the UMC know up front that the itinerant system is what it is, and that part of the calling to be a pastor in the UMC is to be willing to move out of the context from which you first experienced your call. Take me for example – my call was first realized in the metropolitan region surrounding Atlanta. While I now serve in the metropolitan region surrounding Washington, DC – the two places are QUITE different. The people I serve are quite different, the context of the call is different – but my ministry is the same. I am still called to help discern God’s call, God’s will, and God’s desire for God’s people in God’s world. And then to help the persons I am called to serve with be in ministry in accordance with the discerned will of God.

back to my first point – the origin of guaranteed appointment. I’ve been told that part of the reasoning behind starting a guaranteed appointment was to ensure pastors within minority groups were not simply left out come appointment season. That is, at a time when white males were all that was known in the UMC (as elders at least), women and non-white males were often ‘forgotten about’ when it came time to fix pastoral assignments. The guaranteed appointment system was less about ensuring all pastors were effective, and more about making sure we were not discriminating against a new group of pastors who did not ‘fit the mold’ of what had been a homogeneous group for soooooo long.

Does this make the guaranteed appointment system right? By no means … but as long as there are biased persons in the system, the system must contain its checks and balances.

So how do we ensure unbiased appointments with the well known fact there are ineffective pastors in the system today? This is a question to which the UMC is going to have to give time and thought. Do you simply place an ineffective pastor at a church which can withstand the brunt of their ineffectiveness? Do you ask the pastor to step into an ‘administrative role’ to keep them out of the local congregation? Or, like the secular world, do you give the pastor 90 days and say improve or find another line of work?

There are steps to ensuring it could work better in the future – tighten up the ordination process. If you make it harder to become ordained, making your level of standards higher than ever, maybe it’s possible to weed out ALL the ineffective pastors at the start (unlikely, but possible). But it’s already no walk in the park to receive the conference’s blessing – so how would this effect the number of individuals who even try to become ordained? And what do you do with the pastors who are currently ineffective?

I like it, write more….