By Thomas Lambrecht –
As the details of the “Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation” become better understood, questions arise about how the Protocol of Separation would affect groups within the church. I have already looked at how it affects U.S. churches and the central conferences. Another significant group impacted by the Protocol will be clergy, including bishops.
For many clergy, the idea of separation causes great anxiety. Separation could affect a clergy person’s job, career, and livelihood. Clergy and bishops wonder if there will be a place for them in the denominations that exist after separation. Clergy wonder what will happen to their pensions and health benefits. This article attempts to think through these questions with the current state of knowledge. Without a crystal ball, however, it is impossible to project with certainty what will happen in the aftermath of any type of separation.
Process of Clergy Sorting
Where clergy will end up is relatively straightforward. Clergy are members of the annual conference. Therefore, by default, clergy would align wherever their annual conference aligns, whether the conference takes a vote or simply remains part of the post-separation UM Church by not taking a vote.
If a clergy person wants to align with a denomination other than the one their annual conference chooses, they may do so. They will simply need to notify the leadership of their current annual conference and the denomination with which they wish to align. Clergy wanting to align with a new Methodist denomination will need to satisfy whatever requirements the new denomination has for clergy transferring into that body. Undoubtedly, there will be some form of vetting process to ensure the integrity of the clergy who so align.
If a clergy person wants to remain in the post-separation UM Church when their annual conference or local church separates to align with a new denomination, they would need to notify their District Superintendent prior to the date of separation. The post-separation UM Church would be responsible for securing an appointment for that clergy person under the guaranteed appointment process of the Discipline.
If a clergy person wants to align with a new Methodist denomination, but their annual conference decides to remain United Methodist, they would need to notify their District Superintendent and the leadership of the new denomination. In the U.S., they would need to make that decision by July 1, 2021. In the central conferences, they would need to make that decision by July 1, 2022. Once the new denomination has approved the transfer, they could serve in the new denomination under its appointment process.
If both the clergy person and the local church decide to align with the same new denomination, it is hoped that the clergy person would continue to serve that congregation as part of the new denomination. If the local church chooses a different alignment from the clergy person, the new denomination would secure a new appointment for the clergy person under its appointment process.
If a local church votes to align with a new denomination after the clergy notification deadlines above, the clergy serving that local church would have 60 days to notify the relevant authorities of their desire to move into the new denomination along with their congregation. Otherwise, they would continue in the post-separation UM Church with their annual conference and receive a different appointment.
In the same way, retired clergy would remain by default in their annual conference, unless they choose to align differently. No matter with which denomination a retired clergy person aligns, their church pension payments would remain unchanged, administered by Wespath.
Persons in the candidacy process in the UM Church may choose to align with a new Methodist denomination under the requirements set by that denomination. The legislation encourages new denominations to accept candidates at the point where they are in the process and not make them start over or redo work they have already done.
Appointments in Transition
Of great concern to most active clergy is the question of where they will serve after the separation. The post-separation UM Church is likely to continue a guaranteed appointment, at least until any follow-up General Conference that might make changes to the church’s polity and structure. It is unlikely that a new traditional Methodist denomination would have a guaranteed appointment. However, it is likely that there would be a shortage of clergy in the new denomination because there are many more progressive and centrist clergy than there are traditionalist ones in most annual conferences. There may be more traditional congregations than clergy to serve them, which means that most traditional clergy would have a church to serve.
Where both the pastor and the congregation align with the same denomination, it is anticipated that the clergy would continue to serve that congregation during the transition. After the transition, the appointment system adopted by that denomination, whether a post-separation UM Church or a new denomination, would govern how pastors are assigned.
Where the pastor and the congregation align differently, one option is for the pastor to receive a different appointment within his or her chosen denomination. However, if the current appointment is going well, another option would be for the pastor to continue serving that congregation during the transition until an appointment opened up in the pastor’s chosen denomination. Serving in such a transitional appointment different from the pastor’s preferred alignment would require the approval of the denominational leadership of both the pastor and the congregation. The pastor would also need to agree to abide by the requirements of the congregation’s denomination. In any case, the legislation cautions against abrupt changes in pastoral leadership.
Active bishops would remain by default part of the post-separation UM Church. However, the bishop could choose to align with a new Methodist denomination and receive an opportunity to serve within that denomination, especially during the transition. Where both the bishop and the annual conference align with a new denomination, it is expected that the bishop would continue to serve that annual conference during the transition. Where the annual conference remains with the UM Church and the bishop chooses to align with a new denomination, the bishop could serve an annual conference in the new denomination whose bishop decided to remain in the UM Church, or the bishop could serve a newly constituted annual conference in the new denomination.
Likewise, retired bishops would remain by default part of the post-separation UM Church, unless they chose to align with a new Methodist denomination. No matter which choice they made, their pension payments would continue unchanged.
Since separation could affect clergy persons’ financial security, it is important to understand the impact of separation in this area.
The Protocol legislation requires local churches to continue paying their pastor, as long as that pastor is appointed to that congregation. The church would not abruptly stop paying the pastor if the pastor chose to align with a different denomination. All salary and benefits owed the pastor would be expected to continue until there were a change in appointment. Active bishops’ salaries and benefits would also be continued by whichever denomination the bishop aligned with. That is one reason why the legislation expects local churches that align with a new denomination to continue paying apportionments to the UM Church until January 1, 2021, or their date of separation, whichever is later, in order to cover these important obligations.
Retired clergy would continue to receive their pensions as before, administered by Wespath. Active clergy who align with a new Methodist denomination would have their pension shifted over to the program adopted by the new denomination, also administered by Wespath. They would lose nothing of their UM pension program prior to separation, but after separation their future pension contributions and benefits would be governed by the program of the new denomination. (Note that Wespath is proposing changes in the UM pension program that would change contributions and benefits going forward for those remaining in the post-separation UM Church.)
Health insurance for clergy is designed by each annual conference. So the health insurance benefit varies from one annual conference to another, both for active and retired clergy. Any new denomination would have to determine how it would handle health insurance, whether self-insured as an annual conference or participating in the programs offered by Wespath. Annual conferences that align with a new denomination may be able to keep their current health insurance program. All of these decisions would need to be made during the transitional period between General Conference and the inauguration of a new denomination (January 1, 2021, or later, depending upon when the denomination starts operating).
Clergy currently receiving disability payments would continue to receive them, no matter which denomination they aligned with. These benefits are administered by Wespath and are not tied to membership in the UM Church. Disability insurance and other benefits currently covered by Wespath would need to become part of the insurance program developed by any new denomination.
More detailed answers and explanations about how Wespath would handle the impact of separation on clergy may be found at this site.
There is no doubt that separation would be disruptive for many congregations and clergy. Every effort has been made in the Protocol legislation to minimize the disruption by not requiring votes and by providing for financial continuity for clergy. It is important for everyone to gain a clear understanding of the process that would be used in transitioning from the current reality into new denominations. The new denomination(s) will be working to set transitional policies in place in time for them to be shared broadly as annual conferences, local churches, and clergy are deciding on alignment.
As we move through the disruption, we need to be patient and gracious toward one another, treating each other as we would want to be treated, with respect and consideration. More importantly, we can move forward in faith, trusting God to supply all our needs, as he has promised. As we respond to the Lord’s leading in faithfulness, we can count on him to sustain and provide for us on this journey. We believe we are traveling through this wilderness in order to reach a better country, a place where we are able to operate freely as a church according to our convictions and faith.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
I would hope there is a vetting process for Bishops who might join a new methodist denomination. While I feel pretty confident the pastor of the church we split from will stay UMC and that the DS and Bishop will stay UMC too, should they make an unexpected switch we would want to provide documentation to any new denomination on their suitability for continued service.
First of all, I am not a UMC clergy person nor do I work for the UMC. I am presently a tithing member. Clergy have much more at stake in all this than anyone. I feel for them, I hurt for them, I pray for them as we head into these uncharted waters. I just don’t want to see anyone among our clergy hurt due to the process that must take place for separation to be accomplished. I pray that each clergy person ends up in his/her preferred denomination with as little anxiety and disruption as possible. This is one area where we all need to be on our knees with extra prayers to God for guidance.
What protections are there for locals? Many of us fear retribution during the period between the vote happens and there is an actual new denomination to join. Ds’s could remove any they feel might lead a church out of an AC. There needs to be a moratorium on appointment changes during the interim period unless requested by the pastor or church. I fear many locals will receive letters like the local pastor in N. GA that says you serve at the pleasure of the bishop, your dismissed.
Scott, I am not clergy, but understand exactly what you are saying. It is this concern that should be well addressed at the upcoming GC if the Protocol is actually considered and passed. That concern may need to be in some form of amendment or whatever the process will be, but it needs to be addressed and clarified to the degree that no uncertainties remain. If not, can anyone imagine how a lack of certainty would affect a new denominations success if they can’t find pastors? You are raising a very important issue. I hope the so-called “leadership” that has been so poor up to now understands. It works both ways.
I hope and pray any new denomination learns the lessons regarding clergy gleaned from the current and hopefully, soon to be, previous one. Modern models of clergy and Bishops within the UMC, coupled with complacency among the laity have in no small part led to the tragedy we now all face.
Clergy need to work more towards adapting the role of “Parson”. The myth of itinerant ministers is a vestige of the early frontier which has long since past. Clergy now are “stationed” and become increasingly tempted to use any current parish as a stepping stone to a larger and more prestigious one. And they cloak themselves in the robe of “Professionalism” so as to gain more prestige, forgetting the original calling to preach the Gospel, thereby forsaking their spiritual gifts for an increasingly secular modeled office.
Bishops need to adapt a thoroughgoing Biblical view of the Episcopacy rather than a Nicean/Gregorian one. The current office as it stands is nothing more than a Medieval anachronism having little or no resemblance to the one outlined in Scripture. The church no more needs a Bishop in his/her current role than our country needs a king. Thus. the current model along with all its trappings and powers should be greatly reduced. If we say we believe Scripture then let us labor to apply it to church governance.
And Laity should never let themselves off the hook. They should know all the ins and outs of any current and future Discipline, lest its subtle intricacies and ambiguities once again be cleverly used against them. And then they need to become both assertive and involved at all levels. Above all, they should always remember that they pay all the salaries and are responsible for the total costs of the buildings and maintenance. Thus in truth they always have if they would but use it, the final vote.
Pastoral appointments need to be significantly revised. Never again should laity allow themselves to be “told” who the next pastor should be. They need to demand at least an equal say in the matter.
Clergy need to be resident experts on Scripture, pastoral care and theology, and assume the proper duty and authority thereof, which in itself is a most awesome responsibility. And it being so crucial, that is where it should end. As such, they ought to focus exclusively upon pastoring the church and shepherding the flock rather than administration and running things. There are likely others in the congregation equally or more skilled at the latter.
Finally, for both laity and clergy alike, if they cannot do such a basic thing as to recite the Apostle’s Creed in good faith, they ought find another place to worship. The Virgin Birth and the Incarnation must always the frame through which the Gospel is both preached and presented.
I sincerely hope that any new denomination(s) do away with the guaranteed appointment. The recycling of clergy who need to be in another profession is a major cause of the problems in the United Methodist Church. If a plumber is not good at his job he finds another.
I think conservative pastors will be in great demand and won’t have to worry about job security. There seem to be more traditional congregations than clergy. What happens if the remainder church (or the new one if my impression is wrong) ends up with double the number of clergy it needs?
>> What happens if the remainder church (or the new one if my impression is wrong) ends up with double the number of clergy it needs?
They could learn to code.
“Would you like some fries with that?” 🙂
There is a big problem when clergy look at ministry as a profession. Ministry is and should be looked at as a calling. Is God in the picture? If so then God should be leading the way into and through ministry. Also just as God calls a person into ministry God can call a person out of ministry. Having or not having a pastor job is part of God’s calling into and out of ministry.
Why would a church allow a person to be appointed their pastor if they do not follow the same beliefs. Too often the people entering into ministry in the UMC don’t know or understand the bible and may not have even read the Bible. They seek a profession where they feel they can belong and share their personal agendas disguised as a liberation theology or idea. The laity in the church can spot these false prophets/pastors and they don’t like it. Most of the time it kills the church.
Growing up I saw churches knowing what they believe. They were proud of their belief and they were evangelistic in wanting to show others why their church is meaningful and that Christianity is different than other religions. Why be a Christian if you do not believe it to be the path to salvation as God’s chosen religion. Churches need leaders to help bring this back to the churches.
I pray for both the new denomination(s) and the old. It is painful but the clergy need to look at ministry as a calling and where human does not guarantee an appointment. The churches should be able to share in the calling with the help of denominational leadership by choosing to hire or fire a pastor as God leads. No church should be a stepping stone to another or to leadership. The churches should have a say so in the leadership of the denomination and no leadership should receive any benefit more than that of the average top pastors salaries.
Ordination process should include a knowledge examination of understanding of the Bible it’s history and the church’s history before even starting into the educational or ordination process. Ordination should be a lifetime ordination even if leaving ordained ministry.
What about the UMC seminaries? what denomination will get the seminaries and will the seminary conform to the new denomination? What about apportionment? Will there be apportionment that the churches will face and how will that be decided?