{"id":1328,"date":"2012-06-12T19:00:15","date_gmt":"2012-06-13T02:00:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/gc2012\/?p=1328"},"modified":"2012-06-12T20:47:48","modified_gmt":"2012-06-13T03:47:48","slug":"new-wrinkle-in-appointment-security","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/new-wrinkle-in-appointment-security\/","title":{"rendered":"New wrinkle in appointment security"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Rev. L. Fitzgerald “Gere” Reist II, secretary of the General Conference, addresses the conference in Tampa, Fla. Reist informed the Council of Bishops on June 11 that the language in the 2012 Book of Discipline \u201cdoes not eliminate the security of appointment for elders.\u201d A UMNS file photo by Mike DuBose.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

A UMNS Report\u00a0By Heather Hahn*<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Supporters of guaranteed appointments for United Methodist clergy have a new reason for hope.<\/p>\n

The Rev. L. Fitzgerald “Gere” Reist II, secretary of the General Conference, informed the Council of Bishops late June 11 that the language in the 2012 Book of Discipline \u201cdoes not eliminate the security of appointment for elders.\u201d<\/p>\n

But, other denominational leaders question Reist\u2019s interpretation of what the\u00a02012 General Conference<\/a>, the denomination\u2019s top lawmaking body, accomplished when it met April 24-May 4 in Tampa, Fla.<\/p>\n

At issue are two potentially contradictory sections of the Book of Discipline, The United Methodist Church\u2019s law book.<\/p>\n

The 2012 General Conference deleted in the book\u2019s Paragraph 337 the required security of appointment for elders in good standing. The changes allow a bishop to recommend an elder be put on transitional leave.<\/p>\n

However, the assembly left Paragraph 334.1 intact.<\/p>\n

The latter paragraph says: \u201cEvery effective elder in full connection who is in good standing shall be continued under appointment by the bishop \u2026 .\u201d<\/p>\n

Some bishops contend that General Conference did not so much eliminate security of appointment as modify it.<\/p>\n

\u201cSomeone having an appointment is not the same thing as them being appointed to serve a church,\u201d Indiana Area Bishop Michael Coyner said in an email to bishops that he shared with United Methodist News Service. \u201cTransitional leave is an appointment and so is a part-time appointment.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ultimately, Reist and Coyner agree the Judicial Council \u2014 the denomination\u2019s equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court \u2014 must decide the matter. The Judicial Council is the top authority on interpreting church law.<\/p>\n

Questions regarding the elimination of security of appointment will go before the Judicial Council at its next meeting in October, and this debate could come under consideration.<\/p>\n

\u201cMy statement to the Council of Bishops was not a statement of law but a statement of the fact of the language remaining in the BOD,\u201d Reist told the United Methodist News Service.<\/p>\n

What happened at General Conference<\/h3>\n

The Higher Education and Ministry legislative committee \u2014 the first stop at General Conference for appointment-related petitions \u2014 voted 68-7 in favor of changes to Paragraph 337.<\/p>\n

Those changes include:<\/p>\n