Save Your Local A.M.E.Church

Proposed Legislation for a Judicial Process - Part III

2007-05-28T18:22:00.000-07:00

III. PROPOSED LEGISLATION FOR A JUDICIAL PROCESS

While the above description of the judicial process appears to be simple and straight forward, pastors that are congregational killers manipulate the current preliminary process to their advantage. A pastor who is a congregational killer tends to have a controlling dictatorial personality, surrounds himself with “yes people” who ultimately becomes the pastor’s strong supporters. These supporters are on the Steward Board, designated as trustees, and make up the majority of the Official Board of the church. Membership, attendance, and members’ participation in activities continue to decrease during the tenure of a pastor who is a congregational killer. It may take the congregational killer type pastor five years to identify personalities for her or his strong supporters, she or he is successful in achieving that goal.

To illustrate the manipulation of a congregational killer, reference is to how the pastor caused mass confusion at the meeting to hear charges against him. First, the pastor informed everyone that he would direct the meeting irrespective to the Discipline. After a little thought, he turned the meeting over to one of his devoted supporters. Order was NOT in place. A steward with a megaphone voice set the tone for the meeting by verbally attacking the congregant who brought the charges against the pastor.

Another congregant asked to speak. The pastor informed him that only members of the Official Board might speak. The congregant pointed out that he had been a member of the church for more than 40 years and he would like to be heard. To no avail, the pastor insisted that no one but members of the Official Board speak.

Members of the Official Board, who are independent thinkers, pointed out that the procedure designed for hearing the charges were not fair and members of the church should be allowed to voice opinion about any matter concerning their church. One congregant made a motion to have a silent vote on whether the charges against the pastor should go to the presiding elder. The pastor opposed the motion and insisted on open votes. Rather than divide the congregation, the charger asked that everyone vote for the pastor’s position. The charger stated that he would appeal the decision. Needless to say, the results of the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of the pastor’s position not to take the charges to the presiding elder.

The charger appealed his case to the presiding elder. At that stage, the procedure continues to be undefined preliminary proceeding against the pastor. At the Quarterly Conference, the presiding elder read his decision in which he stated that the charges did not have merit and he would not allow any comments regarding his, presiding elder, decision. The presiding elder stated that he discussed his approach about the matter with the bishop. (Note that it was later discovered that such discussion had not been held with the Bishop.) The presiding elder based his decision on the voting results from the preliminary hearing. Note that the presiding elder did not look at any evidence.

As opposed to addressing the charges against him, the pastor had one of his chief “yes people” to distribute an article entitled “Clergy Killers” by Dr. G Lloyd Rediger, written in The Clergy Journal, (August 1993). This article describes evil doers in organizations and classifies them as “clergy killers” whose purpose is to destroy the pastor at any cost. The article points out “If a pastor is a dynamic leader, there will be no such problems”.

That statement is the crux of the article. Any organization will have problems because it consists of human beings. However, a “clergy killer” will not thrive in an organization where the leader strives to be “Christ like” and exhibits a “caring Shepherd’s attitude” towards the congregation. Think about it. A Steward Board, which consists of individuals who do not indicate they study such religious material, suddenly shares a 1993 article about “clergy killers” after someone points out how the pastor is not accountable to the congregation.

Because some pastors are not dynamic leader and are definitely congregational killers, the Discipline must amend the preliminary process for bringing charges against an itinerant elder. The above description of a controlling pastor and the insecurity of a presiding elder point out the necessity for the congregation to have some type of reassurance that the pastor is accountable to the congregation. In the situation described above, the well-behaved congregants and the undefined preliminary procedures of bringing charges against the pastor prohibited due process for the charger.

The proposed legislation is in accordance with instructions from Dr. Clement Fugh, General Secretary of the AME Church. The instructions consist of five parts to the bill. They are title, reference to the current bill’s impact, its purpose, rational, and written in double spaced. with the lines numbered

The charger’s accusations against the pastor are given to the stewards who in turn present it to the Official Board. At this point, the legality for bringing charges against an itinerant elder begins. This stage designates the type of justice the system offers. The proposed legislation focuses on the preliminary procedure for a charge against the pastor and the appeal to the Ministerial Efficiency Committee.

This is a proposed legislation for the Forty-eight Quadrennial Session of the General Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Saint Louis, Mo., Year 2008. The proposed legislation consists of two parts, preliminary stage and the composition of the Ministerial Efficiency Committee.

Preliminary Procedure

TITLE: Judicial Administration: Itinerant Preachers: Trial of Itinerant Preachers.

REFERENCE: Part XI, Judicial Administration, Section IX, Trial of Itinerant Preachers,

B. Traveling Elders and Deacons, B1-2 Authorization of the Official Board and the Steward Board, Page 289.

INTENT: Amend the preliminary procedure by which one processes a charge against

the itinerant elder (pastor).

RATIONALE: i) The current system does not provide, particularly the area of our

concern, a concrete general procedure regarding the first step for bringing a charge against the pastor. Pastors with a controlling dictatorial leadership styles will not allow fairness as depicted in the situation referenced above.

ii) The first step for the judicial process sets the tone for the accuser

receiving justice regarding a charge. Accordingly, the initial stage should

be a definitive step that sets a tone for fairness throughout the entire judicial process.

iii) The aim of the stewards is to resolve conflicting matters at the lowest

possible level. With this view, the Steward Board should contract a

professional mediator for the pastor and the charger.

iv) Should a professional mediator not resolve the issue, the Steward

Board should proceed to design an open town house meeting regarding the charges against the pastor. This step allows the congregant a voice in the

matter, whether it is positive or negative.

Trail of An Itinerant Elder

Traveling Elders and Deacons, B1-2 Authorization of the Official Board and the Steward Board, Page 289. The proposed legislation regarding the judicial process for itinerant elders consists of two parts, phases for the preliminary procedure and a detail description of the composition of the Ministerial Efficiency Committee, which is discussed later.

Preliminary Procedure

The preliminary procedure of the judicial process for the Trial of An Itinerant Elder has four phases consisting of conflict resolution by a professional mediator, action by the Steward Board Officers before bringing the issue in front of the entire Official Board, and a town hall meeting that offers the congregants an opportunity to provide input. The final process is a vote by the Official Board of the church.

1. A charge shall be submitted to the Pro Tem of the Steward Board who will discuss the charges with the officers of the Steward Board. The officers will review the charge to determine if they can resolve the issue. Assuming that the issue is not resolved, the Pro Tem shall contract with a certified Conflict Resolution Mediator to meet with the pastor and the charger.

2. If the charges are not resolved at the conflict resolution stage, the officers of the Board of Stewards will bring the charges to the full Board of Steward. The stewards shall review the charges and frame the issues in a format to share with the congregation. The congregants shall submit questions at the town hall meeting regarding the charges.

3. The town hall meeting shall be opened to all members of the church. The Pro Tem along with another steward and two congregants, identified by the charger, shall form a committee. That committee shall organize a format to address the concerns of the congregants to question the pastor and the accuser about the charges.

4. After a reasonable amount of time of questioning and answering period in the town hall meeting, the person officiating the meeting shall call for a vote of the Official Board. If deemed necessary, the Board of Steward shall direct the Pro Tem to take the charges to the presiding elder to bring the accused to trial.

Appeal to the Quarterly Conference

If structure preliminary procedures are in place as described above, the tone has been set for one to receive a fair hearing. The presiding elder is likely to continue to exercises fair judgment regarding the issue. The next appeal step to the Annual Conference needs to be amended.

Composition of the Ministerial Efficiency Committee

This is proposed legislation for the Forty-Eight Quadrennial Session of the General Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Saint Louis, MO., Year 2008.

TITLE: The Annual Conference: Ministerial Efficiency Committee: Composition of Committee

REFERENCE: Amend Part VIII, Conferences and Conventions, Section II, The Annual Conference, F. Committee, 1. Committee on Ministerial Efficiency, a. Appointment, The Doctrine and Discipline of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, 2004. Page 225.

INTENT: Amend the composition of the Ministerial Efficiency Committee of the Annual Conference to include the input of the laity. There shall be an equal number of ministers and laity on the committee.

RATIONALE: i) Members of the Lay Organization are able to contribute to the judgment passed on itinerant elders. Under the current system, only the clergy consists of the membership for the Ministerial Efficiency Committee.

ii) Inclusion of the laity offers a balance of AMEs in the decision making process. A lay member is knowledgeable of the type of charges made against a pastor and has the skills to make a judgment regarding the performance of the varied tasks of ministry, particularly in the areas of administration and management.

iii) The composition of equal number of laity and ministers on the Ministerial Efficiency Committee prevents the projection of bias in the decision.

Composition of the Ministerial Efficiency Committee Amend Part VIII, Conferences and Conventions, Section II, The Annual Conference, F. Committee, 1. Committee on Ministerial Efficiency, a. Appointment, The Doctrine and Discipline of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, 2004. Page 225.

Amend Section IIF1a&b on page 225 to read:

a. The bishop shall appoint a Committee on Ministerial Efficiency consisting of three elders and three lay members.

b. It shall be the duty of this Committee to pass upon the efficiency and moral conduct of such ministers.

c. Should there be a tie in the decision, the bishop shall make the final decision or delegate the decision to an individual whom the bishop trusts to exercise fairness.

d. The accuser has the right to submit the charges to a court for civil legation.

Judicial Process for Itinerant Elders - Part II

2006-09-25T08:10:00.001-07:00

II. BRIEF SUMMARY OF CURRENT TRIAL OF ITINERANT ELDERS

Section IX, Trial of Itinerant Preachers, pages 289-91 of the Discipline, contains the current method for bringing charges against a pastor. The three sections are A - Presiding Elders, B - Traveling Elders and Deacons, and C - The Trial Committee. The section ends with a discussion of the process of the trial.

A. Presiding Elders

When one brings a charge against a presiding elder, a presiding elder of another district is to form a committee to chair the investigation. The committee consists of elders and deacons. The presiding elder receives the charges thirty (30) days before the trial commence. The presiding elder must adhere to the same steps of an itinerant preacher, cited on pages 289-90 of the Discipline. The steps are modified to accommodate the ranking of the presiding elder.

Traveling Elders and Deacons

The eight (8) steps (cited on pages 289-90 in the Discipline) involving the trial of an itinerant elder and deacon are

1. Charges should be made to the Steward Board who is to

speedily bring the charges before the Official Board.

2. The Steward Board authorizes the steward to take the issue

to the presiding elder if the stewards determine that the

charges have merit.

3. The presiding elder calls the Judicial Committee of the

Annual Conference to determine if the charges justify a trial.

4. If the accused is absence from the trial, guilt is presumed if

the charges are corroborated by two or more witnesses.

5. If convicted, the accused shall be suspended from official

duties of the church until the next Annual Conference.

6. If the accused flees from trial, the Annual Conference will

make a decision regarding the charges.

7. If the decision is to expel the accused, the Annual Conference

will demand the credentials of the accused.

8. If a minister is convicted of sexual offenses, the minister shall

not be readmitted to a conference in less than four years and

return to the ministry on probation.

Trial Committee

This section concerns the Trial Committee consisting of the presiding elder, the accused and his or her counsel, and the counsel of the church. They meet to select members for the Trial Committee, which are itinerant elders in the Annual Conference. Names of eligible itinerant elders are placed in a box from which twelve (12) names shall be drawn to makeup the Trial Committee. The accused and the church may challenge unlimited numbers of committee members. For each name unacceptable to either party, another name is drawn until twelve names are acceptable.

The chairperson of the Trial Committee shall be the chairperson of the Judicial Committee of the Annual Conference. The accused may challenge the chairperson thereby causing another to be named to the chair. The presiding elder of the trial shall be over the district in which the accused is assigned. The Judicial Committee of the Annual Conference consists of the presiding elder, five (5) ministers elected for two years since the year 1960.

Process of Trial

The final stage of the Trial of the Itinerant Elders is Process of Trial. The decision of the Trial Committee is a two-thirds (2/3) votes of the five ministers. The decision is final with the signature of the presiding elder of the Trial Committee. For a minor offense, the Trial Committee may suggest a lesser penalty such as reprimand. The presiding elder makes the decision regarding the assignment of the accused.

Bringing Charges Against a Local Pastor - Part I

2006-09-25T08:10:00.000-07:00

JUDICIAL PROCESS FOR ITINERANT ELDERS

SAVE YOUR LOCAL AME CHURCH MOVEMENT

Rev. Jean, Metropolitan AME Church

Washington, DC

AMEs, this is the 2nd part of the proposed legislation for the 2008 General Conference of the AME Church to consider. You are aware that the SAVE YOUR LOCAL AME CHURCH MOVEMENT focuses on two issues, the Board of Stewards, and the judicial process for itinerant elders. This article offers a concrete procedure for one to receive justice when one brings charges against the pastor. Below are discussions of charges that may be brought against a pastor and a brief summary of the judicial process. This article concludes with a proposed legislation for a judicial process, and suggestions as to how one may assist in making AMEs aware of the SAVE YOUR LOCAL AME CHURCH MOVEMENT.

I. CHARGES AGAINST AN ITINERANT ELDER

A member of the Connectional AME Church may bring charges against a pastor. The charges cited in The Doctrine and Discipline of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, pages 283-4, Section II Charges are:

A. A bishop, minister, or a member of the AME Church may be

charged with or tried for any one or more of the following offenses:

1. Disobedience to the Doctrine and Discipline of the African

Methodist Episcopal Church

2. Immorality

3. Illegal handling of local, conference, connectional and all

other church funds

4. Habitual neglect of duty as an officer or a member of the

AME Church

5. Maladministration in office in the church

6. Exacting or receiving money for appointments

7. Levying unauthorized assessments and the levying and

collecting of assessments for personal gain

8. Conviction of a crime

9. Simony—the buying or selling of church office.

10. Sexual Misconduct—The policy and procedure for

receiving, processing, and resolving such charges are set out in the

AME Manual on Sexual Misconduct, which is available at the AME

Publishing House and is required reading by all clergy of the AME

Church.

Pages 307-8 cite additional charges that may cause impeachment of an itinerant elder. Some charges are dealing in liquors, disseminating heresy and schism doctrine contrary to AME Articles of Religion, and exhibiting conduct of unacceptability in the ministry to the people.

Webster’s defines impeach “to accuse (a public official) of misconduct in office by bringing charges before an appropriate tribunal.” Impeachment is “the act of impeaching; condition of being impeached.” Webster’s points out that, in the legal sense of the word, impeachment refers to bringing formal charges against an official with the intent to remove from office.

Emphasis is on the charges and impeachments to illustrate the dispersion of similar issues in the Discipline. This proposed legislation suggests that all issues involving charges against an iterant elder be in one section with the judicial procedure. The current judicial procedure is also dispersed throughout the Discipline as similar to the dispersion of charges. A brief summary of the current judicial procedure follows.

Let the Revolution Begin

2006-09-15T03:44:00.000-07:00

This is in response to your question, "Can You Interpret for Me Ladies???"

It seems that the Episcopal Salutation is just that, a salutation that is meaningless unless one is aware that another is in pain or one is addressing a particular situation. One then expresses true interest when inquiring as to how one is dealing with the pain or situation. In view of the reactions of our Episcopal Leadership, the Episcopal Salutation is not a concern about the pain many AMEs are experiencing because of the lack of leadership on the part of some Bishops. The Episcopal Salutation is simply prefatory as so many other passages in the Discipline.

The problem is the Discipline lends itself to too much interpretation. Given the "belief" that the pastor is the final say irrespective to any given situation, a transformation of thought patterns is needed on the part of the Bishops and pastors. The top down theory of leadership is over. The exposure to technology, education and life experiences, shape the thoughts of AMEs. The AME Leaders needs to recognize these factors and adjust their leadership styles accordingly.

There is a necessity for the laity to remind the AME Leadership that there would not be a church without them and there is a need to respect the views of the laity. The SAVE YOUR LOCAL AME CHURCH MOVEMENT offers proposed legislation to bring about needed changes. Hopefully, the laity will not allow the efforts of the SAVE YOUR LOCAL AME CHURCH MOVEMENT to be in vain.

Once the laity demonstrates to the AME Leadership that they have the leverage regarding power and act accordingly, the Bishops and pastors will listen. There is truly something to the revolutionary wording, POWER TO THE PEOPLE! Can you imagine the reactions of the Bishops and pastors once the laity demonstrate their power?

Now, back to reality, it is suggested that the Chairperson of the Annual Conference Legislative Task Force be bombarded with statements to the effect that interpretations of the Discipline should be as broad as possible to project inclusiveness as long as the interpretations do not violate the "spirit" of the laws in the discipline. Keep in mind that one can argue that written laws do not include every aspects of all issues involved when dealing with a particular topic.

However, written laws do lend themselves to provide some guidance on the interpretations of related subjects. Given that we are dealing in a spiritual environment, it is reasonable for one to imagine what would Jesus think about the matter. I believe and think that Jesus wants inclusiveness without violating sacred or worldly laws. (Note that these are the words I used when addressing my Bishop when I challenged our pastor's interpretation of the Discipline.)

AME Justice's, stay encouraged. It takes time for a revolution to evolve. The revolution is coming. Rev. Frank Madison Reid's essay, Up From Slavery: A Wake Up Call for the African Methodist Episcopal Church provides the initiate. The last sentence in his essay is LET'S START A REVOLUTION! The last sentence in the Introduction Section of his essay is WAKE UP AND DO THE RIGHT THING! The Bishops and pastors have read his essay. Now it is time to hold them accountable.

LET THE REVOLUTION START WITH YOU AND ME!!!!

In a message dated 9/14/2006 7:23:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, AMEJustice writes:

Errol,

Just between us, can you look at pages 2 & 3 of the 2004 Discipline (in your leisure? Pay particular attention to the last section on page 3. Seems that some B's who are retired or dead developed this with good intent. Some present B's are straying from item #1 and especially #7. The pyramid really needs inverting. People first, B's last.
I am sickened with some of the events that are happening. I'm glad there is a "vehicle" to hopefully get us back of a firm foundation. Be encouraged.

****AME Justice Group is not responsible for the contents of the message above. We are simply a vehicle to relay information about the happenings in the 5th District of the AME Church****

Proposed Legislation - Part II

2006-08-26T03:36:00.000-07:00

In the Christian Recorder Online English Edition, May 12, 2006, the editor states, “The stewards should work harmoniously with the pastor, but must always remember that they are the congregation’s representative[s].” Under the current system, the stewards represent the pastor more so than they represent the congregants. This is expected because the pastor nominates the stewards. When the pastor has a private agenda (becoming a bishop) and neglects the congregation’s views, the Steward Board, to which the pastor appointed the members, will follow suit and grants the pastor what she or he wants at the detriment of the congregation. This proposed legislation suggests the pastor appoints nine (9) members to the Steward Board and the congregations elects ten (10) members to the board, which comprise of the required 19 members. Such an environment creates true representation of the congregation. This section serves as a guide for one who wishes to submit proposed legislation to the 2008 General Conference.

According to the General Secretary of the AME Church, Dr. Clement Fugh, the following is the criteria for proposed legislation.

There are five (5) parts to Bills that are submitted for consideration

as legislation.

1. The Bill should have a title that identifies the subject matter.

2. The Bill should include references in the CURRENT DISCIPLINE

that the Bill impacts.

3. The intent of the Bill should be clearly stated – What purpose is

the Bill intended to accomplish.

4. The Bill should include the rationale behind the submission.

5. The text of the Bill should be written double spaced, with each

line numbered.

This is the proposed legislation for the Forty-Eight Quadrennial Session of the General Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Saint Louis, MO., Year 2008.

TITLE: Local Church Organization: STEWARDS: Composition of Board

REFERENCE: Part IV, Church Membership, Section II, Local Church

Organization, A. Boards, a. Stewards, 1 Composition, c. Nomination, The Doctrine and Discipline of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, 2004, Page 67.

INTENT: Amend the method by which members of the local churches are appointed to the Board of Stewards so that the congregants can have an active role in choosing who represents the congregation on the Board of Stewards. The Board would then be comprised of nine (9) pastoral appointees and ten (10) congregational elected appointees.

RATIONALE : i) Under the current method, lay members’ participation is meaningless

and insignificant in the composition of the Board of Stewards. Approval of stewards is limited only to members of the Quarterly Conference as opposed to representation from the entire congregation.

ii) The inclusion of congregational appointees will provide true

representation of the congregants. Such appointments immune board members from being subjected to dismissal and/or reprisal from pastors when congregational appointees express independent views in response to actions and proposals by the pastors.

iii) The lay membership, not the itinerant pastorate, is the body that bonds to the local churches through a lifetime of committed service. Out of deference to the local church membership, the Discipline should change to allow the congregants an active role in nominating and electing some stewards to the board. The congregation is aware of members whom they are certain to be worthy of membership and would truly represent the interest of the congregation.

iv) The current method directs the pastor to identify all representation on the Steward Board whereas the proposed method allows the congregants to identify those they wish to present the congregation.

Composition of the Board of Stewards

Amend Part IV, Church Membership, Section II, Local Church Organization, .A. Boards, a. Stewards, 1 Composition, c. Nomination, The Doctrine and Discipline of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, 2004, Page 67.

Amend Section II A.1., page 67, so that the title reads:

1.) Composition, Appointment, and Election of the Board of Stewards

Amend Section II A1.a) 1, Composition, item c) on page 67 to read:

c) i) At a local church meeting, the pastor shall first appoint nine (9), one-half (1/2) minus one of the members of the Board of Stewards.

ii) At the same local church meeting, when the civil law does not intervene, the congregation shall elect ten (10), one-half (1/2) plus one of the members of the Board of Stewards. The congregants will first nominate no more than twice, twenty (20), the number of congregational slots allotted on the Board. The mode of election shall be in accordance with that of the law of the land whenever the law of the land requires a specific mode of election.

Amend Section II. A. 3, The Accountability of Stewards, item b) on page 69, to include the following statement at the end of the paragraph.

b) “...dispose of the case.” The minister in charge may suspense congregational appointees for cause.

ALL LAWS AND PARTS OF LAWS IN CONFLICT WITH THIS LAW ARE HEREBY

REPEALED

Proposed Legislation (Steward Board)

2006-08-26T02:22:00.000-07:00

Remember to double space and number the lines. (Refer to note in the above posting.)

Composition of the Board of Stewards

Amend Part IV, Church Membership, Section II, Local Church Organization, A. Boards, a. Stewards, 1 Composition, c. Nomination, The Doctrine and Discipline of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, 2004, Page 67.

Amend Section II A.1., page 67, so that the title reads:

1.) Composition, Appointment, and Election of the Board of Stewards
Amend Section II A1a) 1, Composition, item c) on page 67 to read:
c i) At a local church meeting, the pastor shall first appoint nine (9), one-half (1/2) minus one of the members of the Board of Stewards.
ii) At the same local church meeting, when the civil law does not intervene, the congregation shall elect ten (10), one-half (1/2) plus one of the members of the Board of Stewards. The congregants will first nominate no more than twice, twenty (20), the number of congregational slots allotted on the Board. The mode of election shall be in accordance with that of the law of the land whenever the law of the land requires a specific mode of election.

Amend Section II. A3, The Accountability of Stewards, item b) on page 69, to include the following statement at the end of the paragraph.
b) “...dispose of the case.” The minister in charge may suspense congregational appointees for cause.

ALL LAWS AND PARTS OF LAWS IN CONFLICT WITH THIS LAW ARE HEREBY
REPEALED.

Proposed Composition of the Board of Stewards

2006-08-26T01:46:00.000-07:00

Please note that in transferring this article to the blog, the format was altered, particularly the sample for submitting proposed legislation. Proposed legislation should be double spaced and the lines should be numbered. Also, note that the criteria according to Dr. Clement W. Fugh is verbatim. He is the General Secretary/CIO of the AME Connectional Church. Should you want to see the sample format of the proposed legislation, please e-mail Rev. Jean at emma100087@aol.com. She will send the format to you. Another option is to contact Dr. Fugh directly at cio@AME-Church.com. His telephone number is (615) 254-0911.

II. PROPOSED LEGISLATION

In the Christian Recorder Online English Edition, May 12, 2006, the editor states, “The stewards should work harmoniously with the pastor, but must always remember that they are the congregation’s representative[s].” Under the current system, the stewards represent the pastor more so than they represent the congregants. This expectancy is due to the pastor nominating the stewards. When the pastor has a private agenda (becoming a bishop) and neglects the congregation’s views, the Steward Board, to which the pastor appointed the members, will follow suit and grants the pastor what she or he wants to the detriment of the congregation. This proposed legislation suggests the pastor appoints nine (9) members to the Steward Board and the congregations elects ten (10) members to the Board, which comprise of the required 19 members. Such an environment creates true representation of the congregation. This section serves as a guide for one who wishes to submit proposed legislation to the 2008 General Conference. There is a need to protect members of the Steward Board who has the integrity to promote morality in the conduct of the affairs of the church. Such stewards need to know that taking a stand can not result in their automatic dismissal from the Board of Stewards by the pastor. This might invoke courage among the pastoral appointees.

According to the General Secretary of the AME Church, Dr. Clement Fugh, the following is the criteria for proposed legislation.

"here are five (5) parts to Bills that are submitted for
consideration as legislation.

1. The Bill should have a title that identifies the subject matter.

2. The Bill should include references in the CURRENT DISCIPLINE
that the Bill impacts.

3. The intent of the Bill should be clearly stated – What purpose is
the Bill intended to accomplish.

4. The Bill should include the rationale behind the submission.

5. The text of the Bill should be written double spaced, with each
line numbered."

This is the proposed legislation for the Forty-Eighth Quadrennial Session of the General Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Saint Louis, MO., Year 2008.

TITLE: Local Church Organization: STEWARDS: Composition of Board

REFERENCE: Part IV, Church Membership, Section II, Local Church

Organization, A. Boards, a. Stewards, 1 Composition, c. Nomination, The Doctrine and Discipline of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, 2004, Page 67.

INTENT: Amend the method by which members of the local churches are appointed to the Board of Stewards so the congregants can have an active role in choosing who represents the congregation on the Board of Stewards. The Board would then be comprised of nine (9) pastoral appointees and ten (10) congregational elected appointees.

RATIONALE: i) Under the current method, lay members’ participation is meaningless
and insignificant in the composition of the Board of Stewards. Approval of stewards is limited only to members of the Quarterly Conference as opposed to representation from the entire congregation. The current approval of the pastoral appointees by members of the Quarterly Conference is meaningless in terms of congregational oversight. Such approval is a mere formality and allows only a few members of the congregation to have the illusion that they play a role in governance of the church. It is most unlikely, during the Quarterly Conference, that members are going to challenge the appointment of a particular individual to the Board. If such a scenario should occur, the pastor simply appoints another person whom she or he wants. Quarterly Conference approval, under the current system, is simply a “rubber stamp” procedure. It is not taken seriously.

ii) The inclusion of congregational appointees will provide true
representation of the congregants. Such appointments immune board members from dismissal and/or reprisal from pastors when they express independent views in response to actions and proposals by the pastors.

iii) The lay membership, not the itinerant pastorate, is the body that bonds to the local churches through a lifetime of committed service. Out of deference to the local church membership, the Discipline should change to allow the congregants an active role in nominating and electing some stewards to the board. The congregation is aware of members whom they are certain to be worthy of membership and would truly represent the interest of the congregation.

iv) The current method directs the pastor to identify all representation on the Steward Board whereas the proposed method allows the congregants to identify those they wish to present the congregation.

STEWARD BOARD – PROPOSED LEGISLATION

2006-08-15T04:53:00.000-07:00

SAVE YOUR LOCAL AME CHURCH MOVEMENT

Those of you familiar with the SAVE YOUR LOCAL AME CHURCH MOVEMENT know that the movement’s focus is on two issues, composition of the Steward Board and the judicial process for itinerants elders. This article is about the proposed legislation regarding the Board of Stewards. The judicial process will be discussed in another article under separate cover. This article consists of three parts. Part I provides a brief description of the current method of appointing stewards. Part II describes a method for congregants to elect members to the Steward Board. One may use Part II as a guide for submitting proposed legislation to the 2008 General Conference. This article concludes with Part III, that offers suggestions as to how one may assist in making AMEs aware of the SAVE YOUR LOCAL AME CHURCH MOVEMENT to bring about a change.

There are several blogs on the internet citing complaints and concerns of members of the Connectional AME Church. Among the discussions is the Steward Board of the local AME Church. Many comments relate to the lack of action(s) on the part of the stewards pertaining to some type of dissatisfaction the congregants are experiencing. In many situations, the stewards appear not to represent the congregation but behave in a manner that does not oppose the views of the pastor, irrespective to what the congregation may wish. The pastor appoints the stewards and has total control over whom she or he nominates, although the stewards are supposed to be independent thinkers. To ensure that the Steward Board Members truly represent the congregation, there is a need to make a change in the composition of the Steward Board

I. Current Method of Appointing Stewards

The current method for the composition the Steward Board, as cited in the Discipline, (page 67), states that “The pastor in charge shall nominate the number of stewards needed for the mission, circuit, or station and shall submit them to the Quarterly Conference, which shall confirm them or, if it sees fit, reject them.” Normally, when a pastor arrives at a new charge, she or he will keep the current Steward Board until she or he knows the members well enough to nominate them. The pastor has total control over the process and nominates whomever she or he wishes. After the pastor becomes acquainted with the congregation, she or he will identify “their people” to be on the board. The problem develops when the pastor demonstrates a dictatorial leadership style, appoints only his supporters to the Steward Board, and removes those who are independent thinkers. At this time, one is able to see the deterioration of the church in terms of rodents throughout the church, and problems with the building structure. The peeling of paint and marks on the walls are quite visible because the pastor does not encourage disbursements of funds to maintain the physical structure of the church.

This is very evident when the pastor has a large metropolitan church and her or his private agenda is to become a bishop. Becoming a bishop is a priority and the pastor pays minimal attention to the concerns of the congregation and the upkeep of the church. Keep in mind that

she or he has their identified supporters in place and has conditioned the congregation to think the pastor has the last say about the management of the church. Those stewards who voice their opinions about the management of the church, which do not please the pastor, are removed from the Steward Board. To illustrate the point, reference is to the denial of a pastor's increase in salary for three years. The pastor did not receive the salary increase because he does not exhibit a people person personality and there is a continued decease in church attendance and membership. The pastor removed the stewards that opposed the increase in salary and replaced them with his “yes people”. After he had his supporters in place on the Board of Stewards, he receives back pay for three years and an increase in salary. Once the supporters are in place, the pastor brings his concerns in front of the Official Board, which consists of mostly his identified supporters, and makes it known that the body shares his decisions, whatever the decisions might be. The current method of nominating stewards allows the pastor to exercise such control and limits the knowledge of the congregants in terms of the Discipline. In fact, the pastor does not follow the Discipline and makes changes to the Discipline, at will, after his supporters agree with his changes. To minimize the dictatorial leadership style of a pastor and to have true representation of the congregation on the Steward Board, there is a need to amend the Discipline regarding the composition of the Board of Stewards.

SAVE YOUR LOCAL AME CHURCH MOVEMENT

2006-06-19T06:33:00.000-07:00

By Reverend Jean Leche

What can we do to protect members of the Steward Board of our local churches, who, in the interest of the congregation, speak truth to the pastor and are then not reappointed or removed by the pastor? The recent editorial, “A QUESTION: HOW ARE STEWARDS CONFIRMED?”

in the On-line Christian Recorder, May 8, 2006, addresses the question. The article states “Stewards are accountable to the Quarterly Conference of their circuit or station, which shall have the power to remove them when they fail or refuse to do their duties.” The editorial concludes by pointing out that the confirmation process for stewards is not a “rubber-stamp” procedure but a process that involves the hierarchical structure of the local church.

Unfortunately, many of our local churches experience the “wrath” of pastors who have a dictatorial leadership style that includes total disregard for the Discipline. SAVE YOUR LOCAL AME CHURCH MOVEMENT formed to promote an environment whereby local congregants are ensured that their views are considered in the management and care of their local churches. There is much dissatisfaction in local AME Churches when pastors surround themselves with "yes people” and totally disregard the views and wishes of the congregation. When a conscious steward raises issues in the best interest of the church and the pastor removes that steward, the local church is not served well. Currently, the only avenue is for one to withhold funds and/or leave the Connectional AME Church. Members who possess the talents and skills needed by the local churches are often forced into inactivity or forced to leave the church. The aim of the SAVE YOUR LOCAL AME CHURCH MOVEMENT is to pass legislation at the 2008 General Conference that reads to the effect:

1. The Steward Board would comprise of nine (9) pastoral

appointees and ten (10) congregational appointees, and

2. The procedure for The Trial of Itinerant Preachers is clear and

definitive. There shall be an equal number of lay members and

ministers on the Ministerial Efficiency Committee.

The pastor who loves fairness and strives to be “Christ like” would not be offended by the proposed legislation. Instead, the legislation would be opposed by dictatorial pastors who want the congregation to serve them and do not appreciate independent thinkers.

This movement solicits the support of the Lay Organization as well as others who might be helpful in making the connectional membership aware of the movement. The website is localame.blogspot.com. This website is developing.

You can help the movement by discussing its objectives with local church members and at all AME gatherings. Challenge candidates who are running for connectional offices. Challenge the AME Connectional Leadership to endorse the SAVE YOUR LOCAL AME CHURCH MOVEMENT. The movement needs your help. Do whatever is consistent with the aims and goals of the movement. Save your local AME Church! SUPPORT THE SAVE YOUR LOCAL AME CHURCH MOVEMENT!!!

ARTICLE - A PASTOR AND THE CLERICAL KILLERS

2006-06-19T06:13:00.000-07:00

SAVE YOUR LOCAL A.M.E CHURCH MOVEMENT

The Pastor and Clergy Killers)

Unlike the previous article about the SAVE YOUR LOCAL AME CHURCH MOVEMENT, this article depicts the behavior of a pastor from whom we need to save our local churches. The setting for this article focuses on stewards, performing their duties, which include making suggestions in the best interest of their local church. Such actions displeased the pastor and he subsequently removed them from the Steward Board.

One steward brought to the congregation’s attention irregularities performed by the pastor. As oppose to addressing the alleged irregularities, the pastor had one of his “yes people” on the Steward Board to distribute the article, “Clergy Killers” by Dr. G Lloyd Rediger, written in The Clergy Journal, (August 1993). This article describes evil doers in organizations and classifies them as “clergy killers” whose purpose is to destroy the pastor at any cost. The article points out “If a pastor is a dynamic leader, there will be no such problems.”

That statement is the crux of the article. Any organization will have problems because it consists of human beings. However, a “clergy killer” will not thrive in an organization where the leader strives to be “Christ like” and exhibits a “caring Shepard’s attitude” towards the congregation. Think about it. A Steward Board, which consists of individuals who do not indicate they study such religious material, suddenly shares a 1993 article about “clergy killers” after someone points out how the pastor is not accountable to the congregation. What does this tell us? There is a need to eliminate such evilness in the church.

Endorse the SAVE YOUR LOCAL AME CHURCH MOVEMENT. (You may read the full article’ “Clergy Killers” at localame.blogspot.com, click on maladministration, and then link to memos released.)

emma100087@aol.com

Article in the Christian Recorder about the Steward Board

2006-05-13T05:53:00.000-07:00

This is Rev. Jean at Metropolitan AME Church in Washington, DC.

Gentlemen, I found your article cited below very interesting. The article forces me to submit my article about the SAVE YOUR LOCAL AME CHURCH MOVEMENT shortly. Recall that I've sent you a few e-mails regarding the composition of the Steward Board. Question - Did those e-mails prompt the discussion with Dr. Barbour?

The Christian Recorder On-Line

Bishop Gregory G. M. Ingram - Chair, Commission on Publications
The Reverend Dr. Johnny Barbour, Jr., Publisher
The Reverend Dr. Calvin H. Sydnor III, Editor

1. EDITORIAL – A QUESTION: “HOW ARE STEWARDS CONFIRMED?”:

This editorial was precipitated by a conversation I had with Dr. Johnny Barbour the publisher for the AME Sunday School Union.

He asked me a question, “How are Stewards confirmed?” I thought to myself, “That’s an easy question.”

Before I could answer, he asked me another question, “Who do the Stewards belong to; do they belong to the pastor?” My mind started working and I thought, “Both questions are easy, I don’t need The Discipline, I can just respond with what I have observed these last couple of years.”

I responded confidently, “The pastor nominates persons to serve on the Steward Board and the Quarterly Conference confirms the Stewards nominated by the pastor.” I thought to myself, “That was a great answer.”

Dr. Barbour pressed the point further. He asked. “But how were they confirmed?”

I responded, “The presiding elder confirms them.” Again, I thought, “Easy answer.”

Dr. Barbour obviously, not satisfied with my answer, asked, “How does the presiding elder do that?”

I responded recalling my recollection and said, “The presiding elder confirms those persons by having them to stand and saying something, like, “I hereby confirm you to be stewards …” with an admonition for them to serve well and to work harmoniously with their pastor.

I could see on Dr. Barbour’s face a smile and the look of, “I gotcha.”

Dr. Barbour asked, “But how are they confirmed and what does confirmation mean? He went on to give an analogy and asked, “Now that President Bush has nominated Air Force General Michael Hayden to be the head of the CIA, does that mean that Vice President Cheney can with some nice ceremonial words, say, ‘I confirm you,’ or does something else have to happen?”

Before I could answer, DR. Barbour answered his own question and went on to say, “Congress has to vote on the President’s nomination. And, that is my point, confirmation means, and vote! To confirm the Stewards, the people at the quarterly conference have to vote. The presiding elder cannot confirm the Stewards with some ceremonial words and some kind of blessing. A vote has to be taken to confirm the stewards. The members of the church have to be involved.”
Now, intellectually I knew that confirmation meant, vote, but I missed the parameters of the definition when Dr. Barbour asked me the question.

Trying to dig myself out of the hole I had put myself in, I went on to share with him that I have seen presiding elders somewhere confirm Stewards with a nice ceremony and I had even heard a presiding elder somewhere say, “The Steward Board belong to and works for the pastor. They have to support the pastor’s program.”

Dr. Barbour agreed that he knew that attitude prevails among some presiding elders today because that was the way they were taught.

We both agreed that if a steward or a steward board supported a pastor’s unethical program, the steward or board of stewards would be derelict.

We continued the discussion, as more itinerant elders should do, and opened The Discipline for an engaging exchange of observations.

Stewards are nominated by the pastor, and are confirmed, and that means, to be voted upon, by the members of the Quarterly Conference.

The Discipline says that the Quarterly Conference “shall confirm them or, reject them. If some or all of the stewards that the pastor nominates are rejected, the pastor has to come back with a revised list of names.

The Stewards are not the pastor’s “yes persons.” The pastor cannot summarily dismiss stewards because the pastor feels that a steward is not in agreement with the pastor’s program. “Stewards are accountable to the Quarterly Conference of their circuit or station, which shall have the power to remove them when they fail or refuse to do their duties.” The Discipline goes on to state, “Pastors can suspend a steward in the interim of the Quarterly Conference if the steward fails to discharge his or her duties.” But the vacancy has to be filled at the next Quarterly Conference. The stewards belong to the church.

The stewards should work harmoniously with the pastor, but must always remember that they are the congregation’s representative.

The qualifications of the Stewards require them to be of solid piety, know and love the Word of God, the African Methodist Episcopal Church doctrine, and The Doctrine and Discipline of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. He or she must be fruitful and of good nature or acquired ability to transact the spiritual and temporal business of the church.

We ended our conversation agreeing that the Church needs to be more intentional in its training of middle management and the laity needs to understand that they have significant input into the steward confirmation process.

The intent of The Discipline for the Steward Board confirmation process is not a “rubber-stamp” procedure, but a collegial process that involves the presiding elder, the pastor, the laity and ultimately, the presiding bishop.

Grass Roots Effort to Save the Local A.M.E. Church

2006-05-11T14:22:00.000-07:00

This site will be formally launched on Saturday May 13th.

Rev. Jean Leche