Methodists "Face to Face"

When I was stepping out of a nine year term on the staff of the Theological College I declined to be available for a regular parish appointment. One reason was that having spent fifteen years working in alternative congregational life and ministry I was not willing to participate in what I called the conspiracy between congregations and their clergy to maintain the status quo. At its most crude, I considered this was that the “members would raise the funds and the presbyter would deliver ministry”…

 

My other hesitation was because of conviction that the “face to face” gathering recently brought into the Methodists stationing procedure was un-Methodist, un-discerning, unnecessarily stressful and generally not in the least helpful. I believed I should put myself in the hands of Conference and trust it to make a good match. The face to face procedure cut across what it meant for me to be in “Full Connexion” with the Conference.

The irony was that when I offered to pick up a part-time “supply” position I was put through the face to face process anyway. And it was pretty much what I expected and brought out only the huge difference in expectations between myself and many of the members. It set some of us up for differences that endured for the next two decades.

Yesterday we attended another face to face gathering - this time as members of the congregation. There was plenty of affirmation. But the most discerning questions could not be answered at this stage of negotiations. And the absence of any negative comments led the Chairperson to declare a consensus in favour. In this case, that was probably right. Though perhaps a lot of us were just ready to go home after a long morning in church.

A consensus that is achieved when the uncertain and the objectors remain silent is hardly a consensus. Even worse is a recent Presbyterian Assembly decision where, apparently,  the objectors left the chamber in protest and vote was taken without them.