Gaurenteed what...

This morning we voted, on the consent calendar to do away with guaranteed appointment. Then, after reconsideration from the floor, we voted it down again. So as a body, we have gaurenteed two things. Healthy Superintendency has a chance to address ineffective ordained elders AND corrupt Superintendency has the power to restrict women, people of color, LBGT persons and their advocates, persons of age and persons who are young. The question is, of what type of superintendency do you belong? Along with all other issues of The United Methodist Church, we have a a split system. We need to be aware of both the Suoerindancy of conferences that are enacting fair and connectional appointments as well as those who are clearly discriminating against their clergy for the reasons listed above. I belong to a conference that commits itself to fair appointment making, even to the point where approximately 43% of our churches with membership over 355 members are being served by women. Being inclusive is part of our DNA. We're nit perfect, but there is intentionality. HOWEVER, there are many conferences and collegues who do not experience this in their relationship to their conference. What kind of Superintendency do you experience? This is not only a question for the clergy, but how do laity experience the fairness or corruption of their appointment making process. My hope is that we can be a people who promote and continue to raise the bar on effective pastorates while promoting our principles of an inclusive, diverse and open church. I invite you to consider your own experience of Superintendency -what have we guanrenteed for you in this decision?