Recent posts in the AME Polity Facebook group highlighted the pain and process of our pastoral appointments. The testimonies were fair and reflective of the sad situation. The problem is not just with bishops, although they bear much responsibility. Our clergy and laity are culpable also for our dysfunctional system.  We errantly thought we could improve/correct the process with tenants of the Ministers’ Bill of Rights. More effective would have been identification and modification of the ethical and cultural behaviors which perpetuate the inequity, pain, and failures.  There is much good to be found in our itinerant system if we purge some mess to release the potential.

Some considerations:

Bishops: the process should begin with prayer (not chess board move amusement); must consider pastors and congregations in the making of appointments; appointments should not be made to discipline clergy who are otherwise effective; family structure AND bi-vocational circumstances should be factors; the greater good of career advancement and the effect on the long-term growth of a congregation, as well as service to a particular demographic, must be held in balance; the bishop should question their motivation as well as that of those who offer advice (presiding elders and others); and the process should end with prayer for discernment of godly action which rises above bias and personal interests.

Clergy: must not shun the challenge of growing a promotion rather than yearning to be moved TO a promotion; accept constructive criticism and evaluation of their pastoral skills; note their weaknesses and seek remediation; honestly recognize their ministry gifts (and, perhaps, accept that they do not have the skills, disposition, or calling for parish ministry); expect consequences for poor performance, immoral/unethical behavior, and failure to improve which may lead to a lesser charge; act with integrity on how you “turn over” to your successor; acknowledge that just because you lead in the “raising” of resources does not justify you “raiding” the resources on departure; accept that organizing opposition to your new appointment is unethical and destructive to the fellowship; should not take assets from their old ministry to their newly formed ministry in response to an unappreciated appointment; must pray to see the opportunity and blessing of a new ministry which God ordained, even if humans acted in an ungodly manner in effecting the change.

Laity: must not assist clergy in draining resources during periods of transition; must not protest or take other action to block an appointment (although there is no problem with expressing disagreement and disappointment); celebrate the work of the departing good pastor; let the poor pastor depart with dignity and your forgiveness – with or without their apology; receive the new pastor with prayer and loyalty for the sake of the church’s ministry to members and community…no matter what you have heard about their tenure at the last appointment; learn to encourage with the goal of improvement rather than criticize with the intent to hurt and destroy; exercise good, Christian, communication in expressing the how and why of the failure/success of the new leadership in both direct interaction with the pastor as well as the presiding elder/bishop.

Legislative/Behavioral Improvements:

1. Revisit “comparable to or greater than.”  This is in the top five reasons for our dire situation.
2. Stop playing with immoral, unethical, and ineffective clergy.  Counsel, re-train, find the place which truly fits, OR work them out of the system according to the Discipline.
3. Help clergy exercise some control of their living/working location by allowing them to opt out of moving from their annual conference. Clergy should have the right to refuse to be appointed beyond the boundary of their annual conference provided they accept that such insistence may mean they must accept a lesser charge or be left with no charge.  The latter being the case on the recommendation of Ministerial Efficiency Committee and approved by the Annual Conference.  Even in “one state districts,” being moved from one conference to another could present traumatic circumstances for clergy, and their family.  If a new appointment is “necessary,” clergy should have the option to remain in their same geographical locale in a comparable, lesser or no appointment.
4. Promote an understanding role of laity in the support and success of their pastor and the ministry of their congregation.
5. A handover process should be established which includes both clergy and laity.
6. Laity must reject “lame duck” indignities when given notice of pastoral changes. Clergy must resist abusing powers as they exit appointments.  Infringements by either should be quickly punished and rejected by both lay and clergy leadership.
7. We must accept that not every charge is equal in present or potential conditions. The goal should be to match clergy personality, skills, and training with the appropriate congregation. The reality of both charge conditions and suitable leader capability must be faced honestly by both clergy and laity.  

Pastoral appointments, even with the intent of godly judgement, may never be perfect.  We can make it better with proper attitudes and an embrace of wisdom and fairness. Lord, have mercy on us. Christ, have mercy on us. Lord, have mercy on us!