Security of Appointment - Again

GC 2012 Lost and Found.
Not sure all of us can read the DCA!

This morning, there has been a request for the body to ask the Judicial Council for a ruling on whether or not the loss of security of appointment is constitutional. The body voted in favor of this motion, so we're awaiting a ruling from the Judicial Council.

Since this amount was not debated on the floor, there is a lot of anxiety (and, I believe, a lot of misunderstanding) about what the change will/will not mean. I am sorry that this has not been discussed on the floor, so concerns can be expressed and addressed.

For one clergyperson's assessment, click here. I would agree that this is an accurate presentation of the levels of control that are in place to monitor the actions of the bishops who decide to put clergy on transitional leave or give them a less-than-full-time appointment.

I would also say that these controls do not create certainties in the process. Two concerns that come to my mind are:

1) To say that a bishop has to report their statistics only creates so much accountability: there are no set standards that will clearly show whether or not an individual appointment (or lack therof) has been handled properly. I don't personally believe that this level of accountability, taking into the account of the nuances present in each person's call and ministry, could possibly be legislated in the Book of Discipline. However, it should be noted that the requirement for bishops to report their numbers does not include any certainty that these numbers tell a complete story. The legislation also doesn't state any consequences. These numbers will obviously be used by the Jurisdictional Committees on the Episcopacy when evaluating the work of the bishops. For myself, I have to have faith that they will understand how to use these numbers, and that  this process will work in a faithful manner.

2) If a bishop and cabinet determine that a clergyperson is not going to receive a full-time appointment, this will require the approval of the BOM and the clergy session of Annual Conference. While this creates a very real "check and balance," it allows for the possibility of a disagreement among these entities. What happens then?

Alongside these concerns, I have to say that my belief that not every contingency can be legislated has been strongly reinforced these past two weeks.

And, if I've learned anything at GC, it's that nothing is set in stone, everything is open for debate, and changes can occur every four years...if the issue gets to the floor.