Okay. Maybe I’m frustrated and my opinions maybe completely factless and biased.
But why do I get the feeling that the UMC does not cherish young clergy as much as they say they do?
And it feels like during appointment seasons, the ‘seasoned veterans’ get the first considerations where people like me, noobs, get the last choices. But I’m not complaining about that.
There just seems to be no balance.
Look at the NFL. 32 teams.
4 rookie coaches. Jim Zorn – Washington Redskins. Mike Smith – Atlanta Falcons. Jim Harbaugh – Baltimore Ravens. Tony Saparno – Miami Dolphins.
Their records? They’re all 6-4.
But there is balance in the NFL. They value the proven veterans and they want to roll the dice with up and coming coaches. When Bill Cowhers wants to back to coaching, there will be teams lined up to try to hire him. I’m sure that if Bill Parcells wanted to coach, some team will hire him.
Next season, Steve Spagnuolo is probably going to be courted again by several teams to be their head coach. Guess how many years he’s had as a head coach in the NFL? 0. (He could’ve had the Redskins job this season if he wanted. But the story is he declined.)
I feel that many are in agreement that things need to change in the UMC.
Why not shake things up?
Why not do the appointments backwards one year, starting with the younger clergy being appointed first?
In the secular world, new ideas are valued, welcomed even. And most of the times, the people that bring forth a new idea, a new way of doing things are from a different and younger generation. Why is that in the church, particularly UM churches, we’re sticking to the “this worked before and it’ll work today” mentality? (mind you, I know that’s a broad and general statement).
In the Cal-Pac, I’ve heard talks about raising younger clergy, changes and so forth. But for the most part, it seems like it’s just talk.
When are we going to start putting money where our mouth is?