One of my clergy friends in Oklahoma posted on his blog in response to a blog posting of one of my seminary friends now living in Texas. I began to comment on his blog, but realized I had a post. Trying to follow blog manners I am posting my response here instead.
To start, read Matt's post here.
Here is my response.
Matt, have enjoyed your blog. I have wanted to comment many times, but have been afraid to come off as cynical or jaded. I hope I am neither of these, while still owning the fact that I am frustrated with much of the antiquated policy of the UM church.
Anyway, I know that my decision to go the deacon route had everything to do with my lack of faith in the appointment process. Now, some of this can be chalked up to call (I don't have a need to be the lead guy) but the appointment process was certainly a pivotal factor. I feel called to serve the younger generations that have been consistently overlooked by the church (and that trend seems to be growing rather than getting better if we believe the stats). I suspect that if I were part of the appointment process my call would be less important than serving the "greater good of the conference" (every time I hear this it makes me want to puke. I believe this "greater good" is one of the reasons local churches are dying).
Anyway, as I read your blog and others (including the writings of Bishop Willimon and Schnase) I can't help but think there is a growing movement to address these issues and questions. General Conference 2008, I think, will set the table (unless it is consumed by less important things) and 2012 General Conference will have to address the questions. At least the dialog is happening!