Clergy Covenant as the Way Forward

At the beginning of the month I wrote a post about Clergy Covenant. I’m not surprised that only 19 times readers have followed the link to it. There may be a couple dozen more reads from people going to the front page of this blog. That’s normal for this blog, which may get a few hundred eyeballs a month.

When I post a discussion or newsy item (rather than an invitation to an event) to this blog I usually put a notice on my main blog and provide a link to the article on this blog. I’m puzzled and amused that the notice has been seen 274 times and yet the link is rarely followed.

The earlier post on this blog summarized thoughts from Rev. Jeremy Smith, a United Methodist Clergyperson, who writes the blog Hacking Christianity. Since then Smith has been monitoring the online discussion #NextMethodism. Most of the discussion appears to be from conservatives trying to influence what the Commission on the Way Forward will come up with. Short answer: These conservatives want a system they control. They’re urging the abolishment of the current system so their ideal can be built in its place. When Smith participates in the discussion responders don’t say anything about his ideas, they only disparage him. That’s a sign to me they only want control.

Even so, Smith offers his own ideas for a way forward. And all of them have to do with the Clergy Covenant. They are:

1. The covenant needs to be more local. It is hard to be in covenant with someone across the country or across the world. If you aren’t in covenant – if you don’t actively care for a fellow pastor and allow him to care for you – then you have no basis for filing a complaint. Says Smith:

Complaints are accepted by peers or laity in their annual conference, trials are by one’s conference, appointments are by one’s conference, and status changes are voted on by one’s conference.

2. The covenant needs to be more direct. From Matthew 18:

If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone.

Have a complaint against a fellow pastor? Talk to them. Directly. None of this stuff about letters sent to the bishop (though there must be exceptions for such things as assault). This indirect stuff is a sign of no covenant.

3. The covenant is a practice. It is active. We say we are a connectional church, with connections across the region, state, country, and world. But when pastors don’t practice a covenant with their colleagues they don’t value the connection.

Taking Clergy Covenant seriously

I’ve been reading occasional posts by Jeremy, who writes the blog Hacking Christianity. He frequently writes about the United Methodist Church and the issues around the gay travails the denomination is going through, particularly the last couple years. His recent post takes a look at the Clergy Covenant.

When a pastor allegedly violates one of the homosexual restrictions of the denomination’s Book of Discipline and is brought up on charges, one of the charges us usually that the pastor violated the Clergy Covenant.

Jeremy asks is the only time you’re worried about the Clergy Covenant is when you can wield it against someone else? Or do you actually try to get to know your fellow pastors, especially those from tiny churches or those of other races or those who are more progressive or conservative? Do you actually care for and care about these other pastors? Do you pay attention to what they say? Do you support each other?

If you don’t you’re not really practicing Clergy Covenant. You’re only wielding the term as a weapon.

In another post Jeremy compares the public park with the country club. The park has features that draw people in – the playground, the sports grass, the picnic tables, the fountain. Keep these features strong and people will come.

In contrast the country club has limited membership (usually expensive) and fences.

What kind of church are you? Are you defined by what draws others in or are you defined by what divides and separates?