The Chicago Conference of the 4th District just ended. Due to a death in the family, I was unable to attend. I received a telephone call today from one of the pastors who stated that it was announced that there is a group of pastor's suing the church over the "75 year" retirement requirement. Has a similar lawsuit been filed in other districts? Does anyone know why they are suing? Age discrimination? And what do they hope to gain? Money? To keep their appointment. I know this is an ugly subject, but inquiring minds would like to know. God bless.

-- Anonymous, October 19, 2004

Answers

I had "heard" that one or two of those affected by the retirement rule arrived at the General Conference a few days early - with attorneys - to meet with the Council of Bishops, but I did not think that anything constructive came from that meeting.

Here in the Southern California Conference, those affected have been toasted and feted. From what I see, all are going into that good night, though not necessarily "gently." Though the conference has passed, Bishop Bryant has allowed them all to stay until he completes his round of Annual Conferences on November 7. All will be replaced on November 8.

Tongues here are wagging, however, over those whom were assumed to have been seventy-five or older but have produced documentation showing otherwise. One Pastor has a birth certificate listing him as 66, but one of my parishioners claims to have graduated from High School with him and she is 79.

-- Anonymous, October 19, 2004

AJ -

Yes, this is indeed an ugly and sticky subject but I knew when the announcement was made about mandatory retirement it would soon lead to litigation. Age discrimination is illegal according to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. It will be interesting to see what type of case law will be used by lawyers to support or overturn the age 75 retirement rule. See the following link about the Federal law - http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/adea.html QED

-- Anonymous, October 20, 2004

For the good of the church, to provide upward mobility for the young pastors, the retirement rule should be 65. Such a rule would get me also (I'll be 71 on Christmas the Lord spares me.), and I still think mandatory retirement at some age is correct.

It will be very difficult to contest the rule as long as it is implemented across the board to all clergy in all positions.

Be Blessed al paris

-- Anonymous, October 20, 2004

It seems to me, if I am correct, this rule has been challenged before to no avail. Some of the Bishops challenged it in 1976, when it first became effective for them. In a Methodist Church the conference rules, which is why we have not one, but five of them. The supreme governing body of the A.M.E. Church is the General Conference and the Book of Doctrine and Discipline is positive law.

I am not a member of the ordained. I am just a member of the Lay and I have not yet reached the age of seventy-five. But for last five years my Conference has not given me the customary appointment signed by the Bishop of the District because my term of office with the Conference has legally expired according to rules and by the Lay organization and approved by the General Conference of the A.M.E. Church.

The rule says nothing about the pastors being retired. It simply states that any person having reached the age if seventy-five will not receive an appointment from the conference to which he or she belongs. Retirement is a word we have injected into it. But, with a careful reading it will not be found. So not being given and appointment and being placed on the Conference Supernumerary list, simply means this person is without an appointment as a pastor of a church, but legally it says nothing about his or her being retired.

The Church has a legal right to say how each of its members will be ordained, elected, consecrated to office and serve. The Separation of Church and State guarantee this right and the Civil Courts usually will have little or nothing to say of it.

-- Anonymous, October 20, 2004

Robert,

You are right about not receiving an appointment rather than retirement. We had that discusion (argument) in the 10th District a few years ago. But the conclusion was that without an appointment and retirement age was retirement as far as the conference was concerned. So the Clergy is left with the choice: Retire or surrender your Orders.

The mandatory withdrawal from Retirement Accounts become applicable at age 70. The AME Annuity for pastors kicks in at 75 which is considered retirement for IRS purposes.

Be Blessed

al paris

-- Anonymous, October 20, 2004

Robert -

A good friend of mine who was recently elected as an alternate to the Judicial Committee agrees with your perspective. She is a talented lawyer and excellent preacher-teacher. Personally, I have some doubts. I don't think churches have a waiver when it comes to Federal anti-discrimination law. The law (anti-age discrimination) I referred to earlier applies to any private employer with 20 or more employees. Age limits have to be proven that they are bona fide qualifying factors for employment to justify their existence. An age of 75 is totally arbitrary if the defendant (AMEC) can't show that age 70 is different. The US EEOC is the lead Federal agency in enforcing anti-discrimination laws and regulations. It would be interesting to see their interpretation of this issue.

What if the AME Church adopted a policy that declared only blacks or men could be pastors of a local church? Would that policy not be challenged because of the inherent discrimination by race/gender? I'm sure under that hypothetical situation a plaintiff would file suit based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If civil courts yield to Church law in order to preserve seperation boundaries in matters pertaining to age limits why wouldn't the same courts yield to Church law if the issue was race or gender? The bottom line is all examples - race, gender and age - result in exclusion and this is what Federal law addresses and concludes that such practices are unlawful. I would like to read any language in Federal law about discrimination that states churches are exempt from the Federal requirements of opennes and inclusion. QED

-- Anonymous, October 20, 2004

Bill,

There is another way around this you know. It is called Involuntary Location. Now would you prefer to not be given an appointment and draw some small stipend from the church or be examined by the Ministerial Committee and found incompetent to serve the church--thus risking the liability of not being able to draw a stipend or even preach in any congregation of our church?

As the saying goes, "Be careful what you ask for, Cause you might get it."

-- Anonymous, October 20, 2004

Why is that these pastors would sue the church that has sustained them all these years. They are infidels and truly no longer deserve to be called clergy. If any clergy member files suit against the church over this he or she should be sent immediately to ministerial efficiency committe for sanctions. The nerve and the gall

-- Anonymous, October 21, 2004

I attended the Chicago Annual Conference, yet I did not hear of any lawsuit. I must admit that there were only three pastors of the age 75 requesting superanuation. The others stated that they did not "retire." In their honest opinion, they felt as if the church "fired" or "put them out." It was a testy moment during the reading of the appointments. However, the conference closed on a high note!

-- Anonymous, October 21, 2004

The work of ministry is just that "WORK". At 75 years of age most individuals are not able to work at the level required of a pastor. A pastor who challenges this rule demonstrates his/her inability to continue in the full-time active ministry.

The Church has NOT provided for its ministers. That is the root of the problem. Most pastors have not provided adequate retirement income and the Church has not either. Most pastors simply cannot afford to retire gracefully.

Certainly ministers age 75 and above can continue to contribute by working in less intensive assignments but typically we in the AME Church will take advantage of any exception to a rule and missuse it. That is why the rule was changed in 2004 to no exceptions.

Be blessed

al paris

-- Anonymous, October 21, 2004

Ray Allen,

As a side note, most of our conferences in African Methodism end on a "high note". The "meeting of the minds" most often occur over after the "meeting" is over---over the telephone or on the sidewalk, usually after the music stops playing.

God bless!

-- Anonymous, October 21, 2004

Robert -

Your comment regarding involuntary location presumes that the incumbent (over age 75) faces great risk if desiring an appointment via this route. This is true if the Ministerial Committee finds him to be incompetent to serve. However, what about a case where the incumbent is found to be physically, mentally and intellectually fit by the same examiners to assume the duties of a pastorate yet he/she is > 75? Should this person to be "kicked to the curb"? QED

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2004

The MEC has no jurisdiction in the matter of retirement at 75. The rule is clear, one must retire. It is also good for the church.

Be Blessed

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2004

I find it very interesting that this topic has come up and the attitudes of those concerned. Does not the Book of Dscipline states that the appointment of an Itinerate Elder to a church is for ONE year? Does that not mean that a Bishop can refuse to give a pastor an appointment at the end of that conference year? I wonder how many of these pastors who are disturbed by their non appointment has nto reappointed Officers of their churches at the end of any given year for what ever reason?

My next thought is about Pastors not affording to retire. If these persons had not the foresight to plan for their retirement (knowing the AME Retirment Plan) and have been living in a house for as many years as they have rent and utilities being paid by the church and in some instances, the churches have been paying for all of their personal bills as well, and have not saved some of their $1,500 plus a month salary, then they need not to be leading a church. I will not be able to trust their foresight or lack there of.

I also know there is such a thing as a Ministers Bill of Rights. Well the government tells you that you can retire at a certain age, how many of you look forward to it and then maybe find a part-time job to keep busy or have another supplemental retirement package from antoher company to help with retirement? I am not saying that just because one id 75 they are nolong able to lead a church becasue Rev. Murry in California is a prime example of being able to do just that. What I am saying is for those persons who are not given an appointment at 75, is that if you can lead, lead by allowing others to have as many years as you to lead a church.

Anyway, as far as I am concerned, A CHRISTIAN NEVERS RETIRES.

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2004