The churches in the United Methodist Church operate in a connectional system: this means that pastors are assigned to churches, much like a Catholic priest is assigned by the regional bishop. This is the opposite of a call system where churches select their own pastor, such as Baptists and United Church of Christ. There’s also some mixed systems like The Episcopal Church where the Bishop and the congregation form a slate together.
I’m a big fan of connectionalism because I believe it overcomes Christianity’s ghettoizing tendencies, binds people of difference together to learn to live together, shares learnings, and transforms the landscape for women and persons of color to serve as clergy.
The Bigger You Are…
However, it seems that some churches that inhabit the upper echelons of United Methodism do not think they operate under the same system that the rest of us do.
The most recent example of this sentiment is Mount Bethel United Methodist Church in Marietta, Georgia. If that name sounds familiar, they’ve been featured before on HX due to their withholding of apportionments (church tithes to the denomination) in protest of LGBT Inclusion–which they had attempted decades before as well.
Well, they’re in the news again for a similar type of challenge to connectionalism. On March 22nd 2015, Mt. Bethel is holding a townhall meeting with their congregation to discuss recruiting a new senior pastor. Yes…recruiting!
Here’s the text (bolds are mine):
We are pleased to announce that we have retained an executive recruiting firm to help in our search for a senior pastor to follow Randy’s retirement. The Dingman Company (recruiting firm) will be holding two Town Hall meetings to introduce themselves to the congregation and to discuss:
• Who The Dingman Company is and why they are well prepared to assist Mt. Bethel in this recruitment;
• What The Dingman Company needs to know about Mt. Bethel’s theological position, history, passions, character, etc.;
• What the Mt. Bethel membership needs in their next senior pastor; and
• How the search and selection process will work.
To any business or non-profit board, hiring a recruitment firm sounds typical to help a board sort through the candidates.
However, in a connectional system, there’s only one person who makes this decision: The Bishop, in this case, Bishop Watson of the North Georgia Annual Conference.
So why are they hiring a recruiting firm?
…The Larger the Gall.
The biggest negative I can see from this situation is the expectation that the church can choose who their senior pastor is. They can’t. Every single pastoral transition I’ve been a part of, the sentiment has been “what can our church provide for the Bishop so that s/he understands our needs?” It is unheard of for smaller churches to be allowed to submit a list of names or hoped-for pastors. Now if a pastor is sent for a introductory interview and it is an epic fail, then there’s been changes. But for this large church–the 14th largest in United Methodism (by attendance)–to publicly refute connectionalism is to intentionally set up a collision with the denominational leadership.
Because seriously: What if the Bishop discerns a pastor who is not on their list or does not have all the litmus tests checked off? How much damage to the pastor’s credibility will there be at the outset? How much distrust of connectionalism is that?
The biggest positive I can see from this is the firm helping the church identify their needs and give that list of qualities as suggestions to the Bishop. Every United Methodist Church fills out a church profile which articulates gifts, challenges, the neighborhood, and expectations of staff/clergy. It may be that Mt. Bethel hasn’t filled this out for some time, since Dr. Mickler has been there for 26 years, so it may be out of date and they need professional help. So maybe they will help the congregation come up with these lists of qualities hoped for in their pastor. I would think that would be okay.
But even in the most positive situation, there’s a problem. Using language of “recruitment” and “selection” and “our search” is to publicly negate that the only person who can make this decision is the Bishop, who is not beholden to any of their efforts. To attempt to bind the Bishop to a certain pool of candidates or litmus test of qualities betrays a lack of trust in connectionalism in general, and the Bishop in particular. It’s not like this Bishop doesn’t know them: he’s presided over North Georgia since 2008 and would be the one to pick Mickler’s replacement.
In short, this is not a United Methodist way of doing things.
Clarity is needed
I admit that I might be naive…this might be typical for larger churches. Large churches in United Methodism have certain privileges that the rest of Methodism don’t have. Multiple-clergy appointments lend a certain amount of veto-power to the senior pastor when it comes to associates coming to their team. So maybe this is how things are done on the other side of the appointment table.
So we need some clarity in this situation for the rest of us at smaller churches:
- If a church offers suggestions of names or litmus tests in this way, does the Bishop limit the pool to the consultant’s suggested pool or litmus test? If so, how does “discernment by the Holy Spirit” factor in when the list of acceptable (let’s be honest: male) names is submitted?
- Do Bishops work with a headhunting firm or an advisory committee beyond the Cabinet to find the large-church pastors? If they do, how large does the church have to be to merit outside involvement beyond the appointed cabinet of a clergy’s peers? Why doesn’t every church get the same treatment?
Regardless, I hope someone attends this Town Hall so we can better know how exactly they are depicting recruiting as working, and whether we need to continue to worry that connectionalism is eroding at the upper echelons of United Methodism even as they point their finger at others in blame of the same.
Prayers for this congregation that is mourning the loss of their longtime spiritual leader, and encouragement that they choose the most Methodist way of receiving their new one.
Thoughts?
This also seems more common when a large membership church wants to consider a senior pastor from outside their Annual Conference. I know something similar happened in Western NC a few years ago when a pastor left mid-year to take an appointment in another conference. I’m not sure whether that’s a highlight of our connectionalism or another way of circumventing it.
Hi Jeremy,
You must really trust that guy, “Bishop”. Is he/she better at “connectional” decision making for your congregation, than your congregation? Also, add “Presbyterian” to the list of denominations that allow local churches to conduct searches, use democratic decision making in the absence of true connectional decision making (it’s not that easy to do), and BTW a congregation that just “decided” to allow pastors to perform gay marriages. Is “discern-able” a characteristic of the decision…or the difference between a “Bishop” vs. a local congregation…something to think about.
rr
Is this not worthy of filing charges for violating the discipline?
Well the pastor is retiring so it’s of little use. Plus like withholding apportionments, it’s technically a congregational decision. So long as they aren’t marrying gays, it seems they can get away with anything.
What about the Laity being charged. They are also subject to The Discipline. I don’t care how many times it has happened in the past. It is a violation of our polity.
Jeremy, I think that you just haven’t been exposed enough to the system. There were a number of churches who were given “selective appointments” in the Oklahoma AC. There has been a few examples of dynasticism, where a protege is selected to step into a position. It isn’t common. And you are correct, it is not allowed at the small, rural church level.
In some cases, it is justified. In others it is quietly accepted by the majority. But I don’t think the practice is exceptional. I also don’t think that it is going to die.
Thanks Todd. I’m not shocked (look at Boston Ave and Tulsa First for associates becoming senior pastors–not a coincidence!) but wondering why this isn’t more of a thing overall if it’s good enough for the larger churches.
Similar things have happened around the country. However, each time I have witnessed it, the bishop was very involved. The church didn’t want to suffer through an appointment where the pastor was not up to the task of leading the church forward and the conference did not want to risk it either. So the bishop worked with the church and other bishops to make a jurisdictional appointment. Each case I have seen, the the new pastors came in from another conference, filled the position, and the church continued bearing good fruit. Maybe this is unique of the South Central Jurisdiction, but I imagine it can happen successfully in other parts of the connection too.
Daniel, I think that’s the best way to go about it and I’ve also seen exactly what you have seen. However, nothing in this event promotion or in the recent history of this church seems to acknowledge connectional authority–hence the questions at the end.
Anyone know what their Bishop’s office has to say about it? Perhaps there is approval to do so; it seems other large churches have “perks” of being large and influential — which I don’t defend.
I’ guessing that the probability of a woman or person of color being appointed is probably zero.
If it’s a connectionally-weighted decision, then there’s a chance. If it’s a congregationally-driven decision, then you might be statistically correct.
Why was the senior pastor allowed to stay 26 years?
Exactly.
“allowed to stay 26 years” . . . as if he didn’t work really hard, produce a lot of fruit, and grow that church in size and influence. Moving for moving’s sake is no longer a viable way to lead either a denomination or a congregation.
My thoughts exactly. It would be one thing if the church was declining. But why move a pastor just for the sake of the itineracy?
One reason to move a pastor out of a thriving church is to have them help spread their gifts to others. Since they are a member of the Annual Conference, not an employee of the local church, what can they do to help churches grow and thrive in other places?
This is exactly right – each pastor has God-given gifts, and there are times when those gifts are needed in other churches. This is particularly true in churches with smaller staff, because a pastor uses his/her gifts and then moves in order for someone with other gifts to help the church grow. Larger churches tend, however, to collect staff members to fill in on the gifts that the senior pastor does not have – BUT too often the senior pastor collects staff members who only “bow down” to the senior pastor and then it becomes a senior pastor driven church instead of a team effort with the laity involved.
“Why was the senior pastor allowed to stay 26 years?” seems an odd question. I’m not sure what the question “exactly” proves.
How long should a senior pastor be allowed to stay? I understand that we’re proponents of connectionalism and an appointive process for our pastors. I’m not sure I understand that this process requires that pastors move after X years to be faithful to the system.
Sorry to come to this late, but most Catholic dioceses in the US have instituted a maximum term as pastor of a parish, except in extraordinary circumstances, to prevent the establishment of a fiefdom or cult of personality. This sort of rotation is also undertaken in some Presbytaries and Annual Conferences, so the question would arise, why wasn’t Dr. Mickler reassigned? He was, after all, reassigned or hired away from Calhoun First UMC at some point (I was his congregant there until I moved away).
This has been going on for decades. It’s the apportionment version of the golden rule…the church that pays the gold…Well, you know the rest
I’ve seen a few small churches find their own pastors. When the bishop does not appoint (or cannot locate) a half or quarter time pastor to a struggling small church, the congregation has submitted names of area clergy (not necessarily UMC clergy) for episcopal consideration as a DS Hire (a term not found in the BOD so far as I know). It’s not quite the same as the situation you’ve described, but it’s still perplexing.
I think your on to something here. Its easier to see when the appointment process has broken down in our larger churches. But it has also broken down in our smaller churches as well. Licensed Local Pastors aren’t under the same agreement to move as elders. This puts them there for long periods of time. Increasingly the appositive process is something that we all theoretically agree to but it only effects the churches that aren’t to small or to big but are just right.
” Licensed Local Pastors aren’t under the same agreement to move as elders. ”
That’s absolutely correct; LLPs can always choose to leave parish ministry rather than move at the bishop’s direction. They can also be removed from parish ministry without due process at any point up to and including in the middle of a sermon. Grass, fence.
I have a an “aside” type question. Does Mount Bethel support full inclusion or are they against it?
Absolutely 100% against it. They are currently withholding apportionments in protest.
LINK
They also do not encourage their staff to participate in conference leadership, in ffact discourage it.
The depiction of Mt. Bethel here is completely false. Lest we not forget Jeremy that it is a sin to lie. Mt. Bethel is in favor of upholding the agreed upon UMC Book of Discipline. Mt. Bethel is for the authority of the Bible in all cases. The church supports the long held belief by Christians that Jesus is The Way not “a way” as is being taught in many UMC affiliated seminaries at this time. This is not an LGBT argument. Making it one is just reducing it to fit with your political agenda.
Mt. Bethel has massive outreach to Kenya, provides food for needy children through a backpack ministry and also has one of the largest church based homeless ministries in the Atlanta area. If you’re going to report on things, it is your duty to provide all sides to an issue even if it’s just a blog format or in a comments section. It’s very frustrating to read these types of comments like the church is withholding apportionments because they are against LGBT “inclusion.” That church is far more inclusive than you might imagine. Further, the term inclusion is a ridiculous one. All are welcome at God’s table and to worship in His house.
Thankfully, we are not judging all of Mt Bethel’s good works, but only this particular area. Mt Bethel’s withholding of apportionments, claiming they would have to release their Boy Scout Troop if they allowed gay scoutmasters, both contribute to my claim that LGBT inclusion is a key point in their thinking.
Will, thanks for your suggestions as to what I need to provide in order to write in ways that are agreeable to you about this topic.
Nothing new. 50 years ago Do you think Charles Allen went from
The biggest church in Atlanta to the biggest in Houston because God picked him up and moved him? The only thing different about this is having an executive search firm involved.
Jeremy, thanks for the post! And to answer your question (Do our Mega-churches operate under different rules than the rest of us?): yes, yes they do! I heartily agree with your negatives of the situation. Also: yes, yes I think you have been naïve . . . and you can include me in that same group with you. The only thing I would add is your use of the phrase “mega-church” and the example of Mt. Bethel UMC may tempt some to view this as a problem from solely theologically evangelical leaning congregations. However, in my experience, the opposite is true and has been more frequent. I grew up in the South Indiana Conference and our largest congregation (and one of the 10 largest in Methodism with over 6,000 members) is St. Luke’s UMC. St. Luke’s UMC is a wonderfully fruitful congregation producing needed excellent ministries throughout Indianapolis and bringing more persons into relationship with Christ, ministry, and ordained ministry than any other in the Annual Conference. It is also a theologically progressive leaning congregation and a wonderful example of Christ in Indianapolis and the Annual Conference. Yet, when they had a vacancy at senior pastor in 1993 (who recently retired in the last few years after 19 years at the appointment) the congregation had a national search. They looked at candidates all over the nation, and eventually found their candidate in the South Dakota Conference. It was very unusual that the congregation would be allowed to look for candidates from outside the Annual Conference and I remember it making many a clergy and lay person mumble “Why do they get special treatment?” Also, now being part of a theologically progressive leaning Annual Conference in which most of the large congregations are more theologically progressive it seems these large congregations have a larger say in the appointment process. However, I think in all these instances the committees worked in conjunction with the Bishop. When I was a kid I though this all patently unequal and unfair, especially growing up as a poor rural kid among poor rural congregations. However, as I have gotten older I think I can be swayed by the idea that larger congregation leadership takes certain skills that many don’t possess. Thus, it may mean looking outside the structure and pool of pastoral candidates in the Annual Conference connection. I think the key point is that this is all done with the approval and supervision of the Bishop, no matter if the theological leanings of the congregation are progressive, evangelical, or middle of the road. I agree, episcopal authority and input must be upheld and have the final say.
And when they had another opening in 2011, they went to the Western North Carolina Conference to get their current pastor, Rob Fuquay.
I think Brian and Talbot provide a valuable point here. It’s good for us to identify what’s going on here and at least question whether it’s faithful to our connectional structure. But it’s nothing new and nothing unique to churches of any particular theological leaning, which seems to be implied here.
This has been going on for a long, long time. It’s a matter of power, money and influence. And it does happen or can happen with congregations across the theological spectrum. And, frankly, the bishop is often placed in a consultative role (as contrasted with the idea that the congregation may consult with the bishop). In some instances, SPR committees are sensitive to the Disciplinary requirements and at least the Bishop and Cabinet are in on the ground floor. The language in this particular instance is at the very least, unfortunate. But at a church that size (probably with at least a few key laity involved at the conference and/or wider church levels) I’d be pretty surprised if the language was simply sloppy.
I wonder if part of the reason they are doing this is to insure the person assigned is someone who will follow all of the Discipline, not just those parts she/he agrees with.
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity
A couple thoughts: our appointive process is collaborative.
The church, sprc, clergy, DS, bishop, Holy Spirit all seek to work together in the process.
When I served as a DS, I posted open churches, asked colleagues who they thought fit best, ask pastors in that area what gifts were needed, and networked across denominational and conference lines for the best people.(served as head hunter)
Both of my appointments have been to annual confenrence that I was not a member of at the time. Where conference leaders approached me.
I think the true issue here at Bethel is the choice of language and the feel that they are working beyond the Bishop. I have yet to meet a bishop that would allow that. Smart bishops want the help in this appointive conversation.
Is this fair? Nope. But being fair is not always the best practice. We give our visitors the best parking at church, not fair. We give the visitors a free coffee mug and bagel, member pay-not fair.
I invest more time in people that are working toward our common goal. Not fair.
The key for me is the conversation with the bishop and cabinet and church.
I don’t disagree with some of your conclusions Jeremy but it is worth noting that there are a lot of creative process for leadership selection happening in churches of all sizes. This is especially true of very large churches, but it is perhaps even more true of very small churches. All sorts of churches in between are “receiving” their pastors in increasingly diverse ways. It isn’t only in large churches where a staff member is elevated to the position of senior pastor. I just think it is worth noting that while money and size certainly garner churches special treatment, part of what you are noting here is not about size but about an increased connectional flexibility in how leaders are identified. There is a subtle and significant shift happening in the way congregations of all sizes find leadership and often times, bishops are participating in those shifts.
At least it is an open acknowledgement that the itinerancy is two-tiered. The big church pastors function under a totally different set of rules than the small/medium church clergy do. Same with the churches. It’s been a long held dirty secret–and it is time that this gets out in the open.
In our district meeting this week, our DS was very clear in saying the Bishop would make the appt. Mt. Bethel is in our district
The Bishop will make the appointment? Is that merely rubber-stamping the congregation’s decision?Because the congregation is also with-holding apportionments it appears as though they have abandoned the Book of Discipline altogether! Which is ironic because their protest is against those who ignore a portion of the BOD!
Hmmm… This brings back memories. Growing up Methodist, over the years, I witnessed many PK’s come and go. Once I asked one of my young PK friends, why he had to move? He said: “Because we are supposed to worship Jesus. If the pastor stays too long, the people start worshiping him!”
VERY GOOD POINT
Most clergy began their itineracy with the understanding that if they agreed to go where they were sent the bishop/confernce would guarantee them an appointment somewhere. But since last general conference the arrangement seems to be that you agree to go were you’re sent and the bishop/conference is not required to send you anywhere. No more guaranteed appointments. The itinracy is breaking down from the bottom and the top.
Dear All,
Please understand . . .
1. Mt. Bethel is in the consulting process.
2. Bishop Watson is making the appointment.
3. We have the Bishop’s approval.
4. We encourage our staff to take leadership positions within the Conference . . . and they do!
5. Every year Mt. Bethel participates in the appointing process.
6. Our apportionments are in escrow until the denomination decides to follow the mandates of the General Conference and Book of Discipline.
7. Our Administrative Council voted unanimously to withhold their money.
Randy Mickler
When I read a “long time” I wonder how long back you are speaking about. Can you go back as far as in the 1950’s FUMC Wichita, KS brought in Ron Meredith.
I was a young one, pastoring as a college Sophomore. Ron always sought out the younger ministers lending them support. To this day, at 84 years of age and serving as a “First Responder” or a “New Methodist Sheriff in Town” where a DS deems so, Ron’s influence is with me (which is quite often and always until conference).
As a member of Mt. Bethel I am perplexed over some of the comments above. Dr. Mickler’s 7 points couldn’t be clearer. It is a very difficult and complex decision process to find a Senior Pastor who believes the Bible is God’s Word and can manage a multi-million dollar business to God’s glory. Give the negativism a rest and if you must, identify potential candidates that would “fit the bill” instead.
Finding a new Senior Pastor at Mount Bethel is the least of their problems. There are other issues at that church. Watch the local and national media!
Providing pastoral leadership is frankly too important to trust to people who live a hundred miles away and have no intimate knowledge or investment in a particular congregation. That makes me a heretic but it’s common sense. Itineracy worked in the days of the circuit riders but has succeeded time and again in screwing up what’s working in a growing congregation in order to serve the Cabinet’s problem of an open pulpit somewhere else. We have even seen pastors moved with no new pastor to replace, condemning the lucky congregation to a year of ineffective interim ministry led by gracious retired clergy tpwho keep the seat warm. There are a ton of factors contributing to the slide. This is one of them.