Tuesday, December 06, 2005
UMC Ordained Ministry Candidacy System
If you could change anything in the candidacy system, what would it be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe in a reader
Got a tip?
Email John at zeraygazette at yahoo dot com
Geekery/Pop Culture
NeatoramaTopless Robot
Great White Snark
Popped Culture
Matthew Caverhill
Johnny Cat
Blogging Buddies
Jeff the BaptistIronic Catholic
Dan Trabue
John Meunier
Divers and Sundry
Bob's Brainstorms
Jockey Street
Operation Oxmyx
Humor Links
The OnionCracked
Questionable Content
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
xkcd
Abstruse Goose
Miscellaneous
PostSecretInstapundit
Ace of Spades HQ
Hell in a Handbasket
Brian J. Noggle
10 comments:
I believe we have many ineffective pastors in the UMC. There are many reasons for this: they grew up in a small church and see that as the model for their ministry; they believe they are primarily tenders of the existing flock; they have few effective people skills; they can't preach in such as way as to hold people's attention and they have never been taught or desired to learn anything about leadership, just to name a few.
Our systems lacks the ability to measure the effectiveness of candidates to grow a church and it's ministries to the hurting world. I don't believe God calls people who will not be effective in growing the church in numbers of disciples and number of ministries. Effectiveness can and must be measured. It must become part of our process.
I guess I would ask the Church itself to take the process a little more seriously. I am a part-time local pastor and a certified candidate. The DCOM "examines" me annually to do nothing more than shuffle some paper and ask, "Can we do anything for you?" Then when you ask, they will "get back to you" and never do.
I hear from my DS once a year, and I never hear from my "mentor" who made it clear that he didn't have time for such. The UMC is structured so as to make second-career persons second-guess their calling. As least in my experience, the UMC is non-responsive to the concerns and needs and cares of the local pastor.
Rev Willy suggests that pastors be put through a more rigorous process, and I couldn't agree more. I, for one, am up to the challenge. It just seems to me, though, that elders who are responsible for the development of "newbies" don't take their responsibilities very seriously and at appointment time, they are more concerned for themselves than for anyone else.
I will also add that workshops and seminars are designed and scheduled for pastors with full-time appointments who can attend during the day. I am certainly welcome to attend, but I have to take time off from my "paying" job to do so.
Sorry, John - this is a sensitive subject for me.
Willy - I know a bunch of those pastors and they aren't just in the UMC. Likely too many attempts at changing things have been met with too many struggles with the "Don't you ever change anything in MY church!" crowd, and complacency has set in. I think the pastors and churches share responsibility for this problem.
I haven't seen any system which measures the effectiveness of a candidate -- pastoral or otherwise. You state that effectiveness can be measured. I'd say that sometimes it can be, but sometimes it cannot as some growth comes in places which offer no unit of measurement. The tough part is that effectiveness cannot be predicted, and I think that's what you're looking for.
Go back to the deacon --> elder progression of ordained ministry. People who want to remain deacons can remain in that function, but those called to be elders can continue on. I have an Anglican bias in this matter and I think it makes more sense. Also, when people ask me if I am ordained and I tell them "I'm a probationary elder" they always look at me like I paid athletes or something.
Well, if a Master of Arts degree was good enough for John Wesley, it should be good enough for us!
rev-ed, you are correct that some forms of effectiveness cannot be measured, at least until you have seen the person in action. But even then, when a denomination has no definition of effectiveness, other than perhaps paying apportionments in full nearly everyone is "effective". Without a denominational standard every local church judges what is effective and many local churchs say the pastor is effective if he/she holds the hands of enough members at the right times in a given year.
A bottom line of effectiveness would be at least one person each year becoming a member on confession of faith. In our conference we have dozens of pastors who have never had anyone join the church on confession of faith in 20 years of ministry.
Effectiveness can be somewhat predictable. I have served on our District Board of Ministry for 8 years. During that time I have with a great degree of accuracy been able to identify those who would go on to grow churches and their ministries to the world.
Part of the problem with the candidacy process is that we have people on District and Conference Board of Ordained ministry who are themselves ineffective - i.e. have never pastored a church which has increased in membership or worship attendance. They wouldn't know a potentially effective pastor if he/she bit them in the nose.
I've rambled too much. Can you tell this is a hot button for me?
I agree about the lack of effectiveness in the DCOM. I was asked to share my call story three years in a row before not having to report to them anymore.
How about this? We have D.S.'s. And they're supposed to check on us at least three times a year (us being probationers). But the problem I see is that they get too tied up with problems and filling in at churches. How about appointed an assisstant to the D.S. to either check on probationers or handle some of the other D.S. crap while they themselves visit with the probationers.
Maybe that's too much. I don't know. But many people complain about the process as being a lot of hoops to jump through. I like the fact that we have to do as much as we do...though I'm hating these theological questions I'm doing right now. :)
Willy - It's kind of a hot button issue for me as well. I've had day-long discussions with people in my own denomination about such things. And a definition of effectiveness is where it all begins.
For instance, you wrote, "A bottom line of effectiveness would be at least one person each year becoming a member on confession of faith."
Now, First UM is a church of 75 people who have seen 10 new converts in the past 3 years. One teenager found Christ and led his parents to the Lord. The family moved away shortly afterward. Another couple were led to Christ by the pastor, but they decided to go back to the denomination the wife grew up in. One woman accepted Christ but wouldn't join the church because her husband didn't want her to. Another couple were saved and continued attending First UM, but didn't join because of the denom's stance on infant baptism. Two pre-teens were saved, but their parents wouldn't allow them to join the church.
Is this church ineffective? According to your definition, yes.
Why would membership be the basis of determining effectiveness? Shouldn't it be more about making converts and making disciples? And how do you count progress in discipleship?
You've done especially well if you can predict the effectiveness of pastors and churches. Of course if your standard is conversions, attendance or memberships you have something to use to predict. However if you are trying to measure growing maturity in Christ, well, good luck! I think an effective church or pastor isn't just someone who increases the numbers. I think an effective ministry promotes maturity in Christ. Numbers mean nothing if there is no depth to the faith.
Ed, numbers mean a lot when they represent the eternal souls of human beings. It seemed to matter in the early church when thousands were saved on Penetcost day.
You are right when you say that conversions and worship attendance are not the only measurements for effectiveness. Even spiritual growth can be measured. It can be measured by how sacrificially people are giving of the time, money and energy. It can be measured by how many ministries a church has to the poor and needy in it's community. It can be measured by a church being willing to allow a new style of worship to attract a new group of people. Those are just a few of the ways it can be measured.
We are not talking about an either or thing. Conversion and growth toward Christ-likeness are essential measurements of effectiveness. As I said, at the very least conversion one confession of faith per year is not too much to expect is it?
I'm sure I be chided for this, but I consider myself to be an effective pastor by the very measurements I spoke of above. Effective pastor can recognize traits and gifts in others which they themselves have. Ineffective pastor can't see those same things. We tend to see others not as they are, but as we are.
As I said, at the very least conversion one confession of faith per year is not too much to expect is it?
Actually you said, "A bottom line of effectiveness would be at least one person each year becoming a member on confession of faith." That's different. Church membership is a lousy measurement of effectiveness. Conversions are a least a little better, but what is a conversion? It is restricted to people coming forward at an altar call (as one pastor told me)? What about people who accept Christ somewhere else, then become a part of the church? A church kid who accepts Christ at church camp?
My point is that the tools are very, very subjective despite the reliance upon numbers. Are three ministries to the poor better than one? It depends upon the ministry, doesn't it?
A church in a remote area has no converts for four years but brings it's people into stronger relationship with Christ. Effective? Effective as possible given the surroundings?
There are just too many holes in the evaluation process. Even interviews with parishoners will only give you selected (and often biased opinions).
A DS or bishop who tries to evaluate a church's effectiveness by reading annual reports may as well be throwing darts at a wall. I think that your experience with determining effective ministry goes far beyond the numbers on the page. If it doesn't, you wouldn't be making an accurate judgment. That's why I'm sure you must be using more than just numbers.
Post a Comment