Pezet makes good points.

I have some points to offer:

1. Expiration dates can help avoid some confrontations when someone wants to continue to serve in a position, but they really need to be replaced for their good, or the good of the parish.

2. Some of us treat our volunteer positions as fifedoms, afraid to allow others to take the position for fear that things will change. And some things we do need to die, and are only kept alive b/c folks enjoy their fifedom. The parish can have only so many goals and sometimes need to move in a new direction. Expiration dates make it difficult to create fifedoms in the first place.

3. How about expiration dates on that sacred cow, the House of Deputies? Is that an exception to the rule?

Case in point: the volunteer Church Treasurer, aging in place, year after year...after decade.

I've seen the damage that can occur: whoops, the Church Treasurer has lost their (fiduciary) marbles, but everyone was "too nice" to say so.

It's not pretty (least of all, for the big-hearted/inadequately-cognitive volunteer).

JC Fisher

This will always be a issue just so long as we ask for volunteers, rather than recruting and training ministers.

We are contemplating term limits in our parish. This is due in part to some of the problems and opportunities outlined in the article and in subsequent comments. It is also a recognition that in a small parish like ours with acorrespondingly limited pool of potential leaders, folks tend to get stuck in roles that they eventually tire of or outgrow. The gift of a systematic and consistently applied policy is the freedom to escape, explore, and engage in different ministries in fresh ways. Ideally, no one becomes dictator or victim. Without such a plan, it becomes difficult to build bench strength.

Please sign your name next time you comment. Thanks~ed.

Mr. Chilton's suggestion that there be term limits on the sacred cow -- the House of Deputies -- makes so much sense. Three of the four lay deputies in our Diocese have been lay deputies for at least four (4) terms. One of them serves on a national church body that would bring them to GC in any event. Yet they still ran, were elected and prevented other qualified and interested Diocesan candidates from the opportunity to serve their Diocese and the Episcopal Church.

Term limits would bring renewal and new ideas to the House of Deputies and allow broader Diocesan participation in the wider church.

Most Diocesan boards *e.e.g, standing committees and commissions) allow two terms and then a step-down for at least one year/term before being eligible for re-election.

This makes great sense for the House of Deputies!

I would not like it much if I couldn't vote for the people I think would represent me most effectively.

When you get rid of veteran legislators, you end up with lobbyists writing law because the new legislators haven't yet learned the ropes.

Sorry I didn't sign in last time - I'm Mary Thorpe, a DioVA priest in Richmond.

I do ponder (often) the idea of term limiting priests in parishes. As a Priest-in-Charge, I am on a limited term contract, but it can be converted to a rectorship by mutual agreement any time after the 18 month mark. I wonder if the received wisdom that moving after ten years or after a major building project has proven true for my colleagues who read this. Looking at the great difficulties parishes face after the death or departure of a rector of a duration greater than 25 years, I wonder who that long tenure served: the parish or the priest? If we are meant to be itinerants, what is the appropriate length of a healthy call to one parish? The church is changing, and much of the old models of ministry are changing with it. What might the tenure and shape of ministry look like twenty years from now?

-
Mary Thorpe

I think maybe it's time for all of us to realize that our duties with the church are subject to change and re-evaluation. My concern with Dan Pezet's article is with his metaphor of expiration dates and the implication that we go on the compost heap once we "expire." Language matters, and I don't like this choice of language. I suggest we think about ways to put certain difficult truths into words. Within the church all of us - laity, clergy, paid and volunteer staff - need to consider that ministries come to us for a season or so. At a certain point we need to evaluate our own effectiveness and help others evaluate theirs. The challenge is to find language that it specific, yet tactful. It shouldn't be the language of for-profit "human resources" departments, but it should give us a way to discuss situations that are not working out or have run their course. But let's not fall into the trap of referring to anyone as disposable.