Extension Ministries and the End of Guaranteed Appointment

It was over three decades ago that my bishop first appointed me as the pastor of a United Methodist congregation. A little more than two decades ago, a different bishop appointed me into what is now known as an Extension Ministry of the church. As a military chaplain, I serve in the category of extension ministries endorsed by the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry.

I have always considered myself as a United Methodist pastor on loan to the Army. I was a pastor for nearly ten years before I entered the chaplaincy and I always expected to return to the local church when I completed my military service.

When I have talked with my colleagues from other denominations or prospective chaplains from my own church, I explained our concept of the chaplaincy this way: we United Methodist chaplains are clergy and pastors first and chaplains second. The church expects those called to ordained ministry within the United Methodist Church to serve wherever they are needed, and not only within one particular setting. The church sends some of its clergy into extension ministries, but only after they have called and ordained them more generally into service as elders.

There was a kind of fluidity, at least in my mind, as to where I would serve as an elder. I could serve a congregation or in an approved extension ministry, and I could move back and forth between these settings depending on the needs of the church and my particular gifts and circumstances.

So when I and my chaplain colleagues talked about what we would do after we finished with the Army, the answer was clear in my mind. "When I retire from the Army, that doesn't mean that I have retired from the church. My church expects me to return to pastoral ministry. I will still be in an 'Effective' status with my church. My bishop has to give me an appointment."

At the most recent General Conference, however, that paradigm might have changed. The church voted to end what has been generally known as "guaranteed appointment."

I don't know all the details of the approved legislation, but the change will likely make official what I have heard from time-to-time over the years. It's difficult for bishops to manage clergy in extension ministries if they have to consider them as part of the itinerant system. On occasion, I have had bishops (not necessarily my own) or fellow clergy tell me:

• Just because your agency says they don't need you anymore, that doesn't give me any more churches to which to appoint you.
• It wouldn't be fair to put you in front of others who have been serving in congregational ministry all these years.
• You will have lost touch with the church and what it means to lead a congregation during these years away.
• We really need young pastors for our churches, not more old guys.
• Your health care will be too expensive because you are old.
• You'll have your military retirement. You don't need the money.
• You'd only be able to serve a few years in congregational ministry. We're not sure we want to put the effort into someone who won't be able to serve for very long.
• If you insist on coming back, don't expect much in the way of an appointment.

Message received and understood (if not always appreciated).

There was, then already a disconnect between the ideal I carried in my head and the reality on the ground.

Perhaps the new system will actually improve things in a few ways by being more honest. Those entering extension ministries should think, "This is my calling and my career. I shouldn't expect anything else."

Perhaps it will also encourage boards of ordained ministry to open up their ordination processes to those who are called to extension ministries and not to pastoral ministry within a local congregation. Currently, I think it's pretty hard for those who want to be military chaplains – and only military chaplains – to receive approval for ordination. If the chaplaincy doesn't work out, boards and bishops don't want to get stuck with excess clergy whom they can't appoint to a local church. With that roadblock eliminated, boards of ministry should be more friendly to the idea of ordaining elders for extension ministries when elder's orders are required. The work of a military chaplain, for example, requires sacramental authority. Elder's orders are absolutely essential for United Methodist military chaplains.

While that would be a positive outcome, in my estimation, it may come at a cost. Instead of United Methodist chaplains seeing themselves as representatives of the church which they help lead through the order of elders, they may begin to see the denomination as the "ticket puncher" that gives them the piece of paper they need to gain employment as a chaplain. This, it seems to me, is how some military chaplains with other church structures see their endorsers. It would be unfortunate if we travel down that same road.

"Guaranteed appointment" is one component of a much larger system. We've yet to learn the second and third order effects of the decision to eliminate it. You can't change one part of a system without changing the system itself. It will be interesting to see how it all works out.

[UPDATE: The Judicial Council ruled that the approved legislation was unconstitutional and therefore we are back at the status quo.]