The consultation and appointment process is central to the life of The United Methodist Church (UMC). It is the mechanism by which clergy are assigned to congregations, ensuring that the church’s mission is carried out in a connectional and orderly manner. Far more than a bureaucratic exercise, consultation embodies the church’s covenantal theology: clergy, congregations, district superintendents, and bishops all participate in discerning how gifts and graces align with the needs of the mission field. At the same time, the Constitution of the UMC and Judicial Council case law carefully guard the separation of powers, defining what consultation is—and what it is not.

Constitutional Foundation of Appointments

The Constitution (¶ 54) vests the power to make pastoral appointments solely in the office of the bishop. Judicial Council Decision (JCD) 1307 reaffirms this separation of powers, clarifying that while bishops must consult with district superintendents, the final authority to “make and fix” appointments cannot be delegated or usurped. This episcopal responsibility represents both an ecclesial trust and a constitutional safeguard.

What Is Consultation?

Paragraph 426 of the Book of Discipline 2020-2024 defines consultation as the process by which the bishop and/or district superintendent confer with pastors and the Staff/Pastor-Parish Relations Committee (SPRC). This process considers multiple factors: criteria in ¶ 427, clergy performance evaluations, congregational needs, and the broader mission of the church.

Importantly, the Discipline stresses that consultation is not mere notification. Nor is it a congregational call system or a veto power for committees. The SPRC role is advisory, not determinative. Consultation is best understood as a continuous process, with heightened intensity during seasons of pastoral transition.

The Double Meaning of Consultation

The term “consultation” carries two distinct but related meanings:

Supervisory Consultation (¶ 419):
District superintendents provide counsel, supervision, and care to clergy, maintain regular contact, and support effective ministry systems across the district.
Appointive Consultation (¶ 427):
Judicial Council rulings (JCDs 101, 501, 701, 1174) establish that consultation in the appointive sense requires a genuine exchange of ideas between the DS and the pastor. While agreement is not guaranteed, the process must occur prior to the bishop’s decision and before any public announcement.

Judicial Council Interpretations

The Judicial Council has repeatedly clarified the meaning of consultation:

JCD 101, 501, 701, 1174: Consultation must occur before the appointment decision; parties must be informed before public announcement. No specific sequence or time length is mandated.
JCD 509, 701: The SPRC has no veto power; their advisory role cannot block a bishop’s appointment.
JCD 1174: Bishops are required to inquire annually into how their colleagues implement consultation.

Together, these rulings reinforce that consultation ensures fairness and communication, but the bishop retains final authority.

Making a Determination vs. Making and Fixing an Appointment

The controlling provision is ¶ 428, which distinguishes between:

Making a determination regarding change of appointment.
Making and fixing an appointment.

According to JCD 492, three elements must be present for an appointment to be both “made” and “fixed”:

The pastor is informed of the upcoming move.
The pastor is offered a new appointment.
The decision is publicly announced to SPRCs and congregations.

Until all three occur, no appointment legally exists—and therefore, a clergy member cannot be charged with refusing an appointment.

Clergy Refusal and Church Law

A crucial threshold question arises: when does a clergy refusal violate church law? JCD 492 makes clear that refusal only occurs once an appointment is both offered and publicly announced. If a bishop has not made a clear and unambiguous appointment or if an appointment has been made but not fixed, a clergy member’s resistance does not constitute disobedience. In other words, a clergy person may decline an appointment that has been offered (“made”) but not announced (“fixed”), without violating church law.

Best Practices for Bishops and Cabinets

The author recommends several practices to strengthen clarity and reduce pastoral anxiety:

Do not inform clergy of an upcoming move without simultaneously telling them where they are going.
Coordinate the timing of telephone or Zoom calls from sending and receiving DSs to ensure clarity.
In sensitive cases, the bishop should personally deliver the call.
Educate clergy and SPRCs on the difference between supervisory and appointive consultation.
Emphasize the legal implications of the consultation process.

These practices honor the spirit of consultation while maintaining episcopal authority.

Consultation as Shared Stewardship

The consultation and appointment process embodies a delicate balance: episcopal authority, advisory input, judicial oversight, and covenantal accountability. At its best, consultation allows clergy and congregations to experience transitions as Spirit-led rather than arbitrary. Grounded in constitutional law and enriched by Judicial Council precedent, the process ensures that appointments serve both the mission of the church and the well-being of its clergy and laity.

In a time of denominational change, transparency and education about this process are vital. By clarifying roles, honoring consultation, and adhering to constitutional order, the UMC strengthens its witness of connectional covenant to the world.

Downloadable PowerPoint presentation:

Consultation & Appointment Process Download