Over time, I've noticed a variety of Methobloggers asserting that our appointment system does not provide for a way to remove incompetent pastors from the ministry, but instead moves them from church to church, wounding congregations as they go.
Pastors are frequently defrocked for other reasons (e.g. sex and money), but incompetence is not a chargeable offense under our law. That's probably a good thing, since incompetence would be hard to define other than "I know it when I see it."
What provisions should be made to justly remove a completely ineffective pastor from appointments? What would the process look like if you designed it?
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
One of the issues is who gets to define competency?
Which, of course, begs the question, what does successful Christian ministry look like in the first place?
And if we ask that second question in our denomination, we will get such a dizzying array of answers- many in opposition to one-another- that I doubt we'll be able to agree upon a way to measure success.
In other words, John, I don't think we can get such a system to work in a denomination which is so broad in theology and so unfocused in terms of goal-setting.
What we might get is witch-hunts or reducing ourselves to counting nickels and noses.
In other words, let's figure out what the United Methodist Church really wishes to become for the sake of God's Kingdom, and only then will we be able to weed out clergy who cannot or will not deliver.
At what point is a pastor deemed "ineffective"? At what point does the process to label a pastor ineffective become itself ineffective and lend itself to abuse and power plays?
How do we rehabilitate before we label and punish?
I think at this point the Methodist church hasn't become Islam and no one is forced to come to church. At some point people who feel (rightly or wrongly) that a pastor is ineffective will leave the church.
The present system is that we get to vote with our feet (to walk out) and our bottoms (to warm a pew in another church). This system seems to work fine so far...
But, Maobi, how many congregations does an ineffective pastor get to destroy before we deny him another appointment?
Perhaps the word "ineffective" is not the right definition. My home church was appointed, in succession, a man who propositioned women on home visits, a man who left his family for another man, and finally an active alcoholic who was pulled over for several DUIs. These kinds of pastors were more "abusive" and "damaged" than "ineffective." All three came to us with the conference's knowledge of their problems. The first two left the UMC after our church, but the alcoholic was assigned to at least one more church before he resigned. And the congregations did not know of the problems. There needs to be help within the system for those who are damaged, but please don't reappoint them unless they actually are on the road to being healthier.
The measure of a pastor's competency/effectiveness is a completely subjective assessment. But it is done in connection: with bishop, cabinet, SPRC, Board of Ordained Ministry, and colleagues. When the connection is working well, we're cool. But when we start acting less like a connection and more like a coorporation, we get into trouble
Competently yours,
Andy B.
John,
Just to put the whole comment in context please review your 2004 Book of Discipline par. 2702. We do have provisions for competency. 2702.1.d says "failure to perform the work of the ministry" and 2702.1.e "disobedience to the Order and Discipline of The United Methodist Church". Now as I understand it this involves all of the provisions of Par 340 "Responsibilities and Duties of Elders and Licensed Pastors.". The sad news is that under the duties of the pastor the list is so long as to make it nearly impossible to do all of the jobs required, and sleep let alone have any sort of personal or spiritual development. This would then make it such that any pastor could be brought up on charges, and therefore subject to leave according to Par. 354.
I do realize that much of this is subjective and therefore more difficult to monitor and develop, but as I read the Discipline it is the job of the Board of Ordained Ministry and The Order of Elders, along with the District Superintendents and the Bishop to monitor the progress and abilities of the clergy in the conference.
All that to say, "the provisions are there for removing clergy, just not the desire"
Peace,
Our Equitable Comp Committe is meeting this year to determine this very thing. We have gone from a conference who had zero Equitable Comp to a conference who has BUDGETED $600,000 for Equitable Comp -- and is expected to go over budget. And this has happened rapidly. In less than a decade.
The theory is that the standards for ordination were not as stringent a few years ago -- and that now we are reaping the benefits of that. That churches that have the population and resources to both make apportionment AND a salary are doing neither.
I have heard (and it is not confirmed, btw) that there are some who truly are incompetent. They are in every conference. If they were Baptist, the congregation would get rid of them. If they were Presbyterian, ditto. But because they are Methodists, there is low probability they will be dismissed.
I think it was the Pew report (?) that found that only 2 to 3 percent of Baptists and Presbyterian ministers were seen by their congregation as ineffectual. In the same report 22 percent reported their Methodist minister as ineffectual. This is an independent finding, done by interviewing the laity.
Other denominations have performance reviews -- why not Methodists?
And my DS made it very clear what he considers "effectual" -- making apportionment, positive growth in membership and new baptisms (esp of Adults), a certain percentage of the membership to attendance in worship and in Christian Ed. For a rural church with little growth potential, apportionment, a certain number (percentage) of pastoral visits per population, a certain amount of SS per population. Thing that are measurable -- but can definitely be indictative of a health congregation.
While I think that the guaranteed appointment system in its present form has serious flaws and can lead to the shuffling about of ineffective clergy, we mustn't forget the other side of the equation. Some parishes have developed such dysfunctional personalities over the years that it would take a specialist (or a miracle) to restore the kind of unity of vision and mission that would enable them to minister effectively in the community. This is not a matter of pastors "blaming the parish" or vice versa. It is, in fact, an expression of what I view as a vital truth in pastoral evaluation: a pastor's evaluation should always be viewed alongside an evaluation of the parish he or she serves. Only then can the true measure of pastoral effectiveness be taken.
Building on what Chris said, as well as my original comment... I agree that there are both dysfunctional pastors and dysfunctional congregations in the UMC. I do not feel the appointment system works well in addressing either problem. The dysfunctional church always gets a new pastor (who then suffers and is hurt), while the dysfunctional pastor moves from church to church doing damage. They are two sides of the same coin, and not much is done in the UMC to address either situation.
Just to add to Beth's comments about pastors being sent with prior problems...I've been told that in our conference, if a pastor has had a chargeable offence (of any sort) and stays in the conference, that has to be told by the DS in the covenant meeting for every appointment. I was told this by a DS. I hope it is true.
Just a penny's worth of 2 cent information.
What if there is an aquittal of the chargable offense?
sigh
since we have too few pastors - we shouldn't be trying to get rid of them, but helping them to pastor effectively, with love and in faithful ness to the Gospel. We ought to nourish and encourage lay leadership too - so that all the gifts in the house are used and not only the few the pastor or worship leader has.
and john do you have any evidence that a pastor has destroyed a church? that's for hte bishop and DS to assess, and then to help both the pastor and the congregation to find God's will.
I think this is a dangerous road to go down there's enough critical spirits out there without us adding to it.
that said we do mess up and we should be accountable.
and repentant.
I think accountability (real stuff not phoney) would do wonderfs and spiritual mentors for even ordained and local pastors. That's what the collegiate of pastors SHOULD do - support, enourage and rebuke where needed. Do we do that? I wonder!
All of this is true, Lorna. And the UMC generally makes an effort to rehabilitate wayward pastors. But isn't there a limit? Is there not a point in which we say to the person who cannot or will not change "You're fired"?
Do I have proof? Sure. My parents belong to a UMC megachurch in Hoover, Alabama. It grew rapidly in the beginning under a very good pastor, who was moved after several years. His replacement was an oddball who simply didn't work. He showed up on Sundays to preach, but otherwise stayed holed up in the parsonage. The rapidly growing church began to decline for the two years that he was there. Once he was moved and replaced with another pastor, the church resumed its rapid growth.
I'm sure that just about every other Methoblogger can come up with such an example.
Now let's say that that lazy pastor did the same thing at his next church, and the next. Shouldn't there come a time when the UMC would remove him from any appointments? Yeah, yeah, rehabilitate, for sure. When we can. But we cannot always rehabilitate everyone.
I fit the profile of an inneffective pastor. I have served small churches with declining membership rolls and few new members or baptisms.
One congregation proudly announced they had "thrown out" my two predecessors who tried to change things. They also kept young people from the "wrong side of the town" from coming into the building even calling local police to keep them out of the parking lot. My efforts in outreach were stymied at every turn.
Another congregation had been served by a pastor who had alienated local church leadership to the point they refused to meet with the pastor for some executive sessions (and I did not have the support of the DS in trying to change the practice). My predecessor had close ties with the local funeral director and his removal left bad feelings with the man who spoke ill of the church and anyone who would serve there. I never had a funeral or wedding from the community at large while serving there.
Each church had fabricated/inflated attendance records before my arrival. In no case had the membership rolls been audited in years. Updating the records showed both membership and attendance decline in my early reports, relative to what had been submitted before.
I am now serving a congregation where another predecessor also alienated the home folks. Attendance had declined by well over half before my arrival and several nearby congregations had taken in former active Methodists. Funerals and weddings were refused if the families were not regular in attendance. Though the remaining people are supportive of my ministry current reports continue to show a declining (and giving is due to go down with the next two deaths too).
In each church I have been able to build some good relationships, help increase true attendance relative to my arrival and stabilize each congregation's reputation in the community. I have tried mightily to help the congregations I have served and to keep my DS informed about the events and actions I have taken. Yet it has come at a cost of letters of complaint from some disgruntled church leaders now placed in my personnell file, a reputation of being a "high maintenance pastor" from one DS and four moves in twelve years.
I have two master's degrees, a professional counseling credential, willingness to itinerate, leadership on two Conference committees and compliance with all reports and expectations that have come my way.
I now serve the smallest full-time congregation in my Conference at mimimum compensation and as a sole income household (my wife is becoming increasingly disabled). With twelve years of full-time ministry and ordination I have clearly been labled inneffective. Had I just tried to keep church people happy I know I'd have been further along professionally, financially and physically.
This is not the ministry I felt God calling me toward when I left secular employment and entered seminary at 40.
I guess that I am an incompetent Pastor. I was placed in a small charge where the DS had no idea of the reality of the situation because neither church did. They were still living in 7 - 12 years ago when their best ever Pastor served. A lot changed in those years that they and the DS refused to admit. So I pay the price.
I am trying to get the people in the larger church (average attendance 57) to change but some don't want change because they are happy--they know everyone in the church and they think that things are going well. But they are not sharing Christ with the community. The few people who want change are completely frustrated and I am caught in the middle of a false reality and the two factions in the church. It isn't always the Pastor's fault. What we need sometimes is to close churches and start over. If the people who are limiting and dragging down the local church don't like it, let them go to another church and drag it down. We have some really good Pastors who are sinking in the apathy and refusal to change of the laity.
Post a Comment