#1 No system designed by human beings will work flawlessly and up to expectations;
#2 Connecting ministry personnel and congregations effectively for the work of ministry and mission is one of (if not the) most important tasks of the wider organization of a denomination;
#3 Almost everyone assumes that, when it comes to connecting personnel and congregations, the ecclesiastical grass is greener in someone else's denominational pasture.
These thoughts are prompted by the issuing of: "MEPS-01: EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND HEALTHY PASTORAL RELATIONSHIPS: A proposal for the initiation, support, accountability, and conclusion of paid accountable ministries in The United Church of Canada." This document is going to the upcoming meeting of the United Church's General Council Executive. I strongly urge every United Church reader of this blog to access the report, ponder it and share your thoughts with your conference representatives to GCE. Whether you agree with me or not, this needs your attention. (http://gc40.united-church.ca/files/gce_1203_workbook.pdf pages 78-88)
I last wrote about this on February 17th in response to the draft document. Since then, staff from the General Council Offices have fanned out across the country and electronically, gathering input. As I indicated a month ago there is much to support in a revisioning of how we create effective pastoral relationships. It is crucial to the health of the church. A major problem with the proposed report is that, while various studies have looked at bits and pieces of the current pastoral relations process, I don't believe that a full and specific review has ever been conducted. Every change we make has both intended and unintended consequences. I have no sense that we're clear on those.
I really like the idea that every pastoral charge should have an up-to-date (and broadly accepted) mission plan (page 82). I hunch that doing something like that would be harder than the report assumes, but it is still tremendously worthwhile. If this is done, it will also shorten the current pastoral relations process, whether the entire new report is adopted or not. Given the way the development of these mission plans is described, however, I don't see a need for new regional ministers.
I also applaud the implementation and requiring of something like a Healthy Start program (page 82) In my work with theological students we spend time on planning those crucial entrances and exits, but it is not enough time and deserves to be reviewed every time there is a shift. Further, I support the concept of moving highly complex (and often legally sensitive) formal procedures to the conference and a more professional approach. Having chaired both 333 and 363 commissions in my time I never want to have that experience again!
There are several items which appear but, in the absence of any clarification, are more tantalizing than helpful. For example, on page 81 (item 10) we are told that "ethno- and linguistic-specific congregation agree that pastoral relations processes do not meet their needs." What on earth does that mean? I can think of a number of possible interpretations, none of them positive as they indicate an attempt to avoid shared employment or theological commitments. I really hope that I'm wrong, but it does seem worth pursuing how, in the existing policies and with the flexibility those permit to pastoral charges and presbyteries, any specialized needs cannot be fairly addressed?
On the same page (conclusion 12) we read: "Needs assessment, search and selection processes take too long; many pastoral charges report spending a year or more without permanent ministry leadership;". Again we have some major and unclarified assumptions.
* What is the "right length" for such a process, by which we could then conclude that the processes "take too long."? By way of comparison, do we know what other not-for-profit community organizations accept as "acceptable" when they are seeking to replace their senior employee?
* Where is the unacceptable length of time? There are two parts to the pastoral relations process. Part one is the needs assessment to the posting of a vacancy; part two is the search and selection process. If the delay is in the second part, no process will speed that up, short of compelling clergy to move. Once a vacancy is posted, it is then up to those who feel called to respond. A further question would be: are these unacceptably long wait times somehow weighted as to time of year? Due to ministry personnel movement patterns, a vacancy posted in September (for example) is almost certainly likely to go unfilled longer than one posted in February.
* Why is a year without "permanent ministry leadership" now and then, such a bad thing?
In the new process, as already noted, the concept of a constantly up-to-date mission profile and more effort/resources for healthy beginnings and endings are laudable and can be accomplished under the current structure. Similarly, if the processes are simplified and the profile is up to date forming the position description (as per the new suggestions) should not require paid professional assistance all the time. It's the easiest part of the current JNAC process anyway. Kicking the rest of the process "upstairs" to a conference committee gives no apparent benefit accept requiring the input of a larger and more geographically dispersed group.
Perhaps I am excessively cautious, but these words at the beginning of the section on "search and selection" alarm me: "A Search and Selection process is established by the Pastoral Charge, which proceeds with the support of the Regional Minister." Having dealt with a fair number of search committees over the years (including some with an intense desire to do "end runs") I have to wonder if the the effect of this to set up a situation where pastoral charges are free to do whatever seems best to them in terms of search and selection? It is very different than saying the Pastoral Charge will implement the search and selection processes as mandated by the United Church.
The problem with much of what is offered is that there is little which is not already being done by presbytery and the most difficult and time consuming parts of the current process are slated for change. Why not simply change them?
The Implications of the New Model (page 85) significantly understate the impact this change will have on the polity of the United Church. We are not simply referring to a shifting of an area of work (albeit a large one). We are significantly changing the nature of governance in the United Church and stripping one of the courts of a primary reason for existence. According to Lorne Meade, the United Church is the one denomination in North America that he is aware of where there are four strong courts. He attributes that to the fact that each court of the UCCanada has significant roles and authorities. In every other setting, one of the four courts (the one without power) has become something like a vestigal limb. That’s what will happen here. What we have is the shift from a four to a three court model by another name. As is increasingly apparent at the General Council office level, power is shifted from volunteers (lay/clergy) to staff – Regional Minister and Executive Secretary. The Placement Committee will easily be reduced to a rubber stamp. When the authors of the report move to the new role for presbytery it seems they shift from research to blue sky dreaming. There is simply no evidence to suggest that Presbyteries will take up this new opportunity. There is ample opportunity for that now and few Presbyteries take it up. Why they would do it with the proposed change is not explored, simply asserted.
Finally, the section on Staff Resources leaves me with a couple of questions:
#1 Examples are given of other denominations with regional ministers etc. I am not clear from the report whether those individuals are solely related to personnel issues. My vaguely remembered experience with the Synod of New South Wales in the Uniting Church in Australia suggests that they have a far wider range of responsibilities. The question: is the comparison accurate?
#2 The payroll tax method of payment will meet with great resistance, especially when the benefits are so unclear
Increasingly in the United Church simplification of processes often seems to mean elimination of the role of volunteers. Also assumes an inflexibility which is not present in the processes although they may have been adopted by those implementing them. Further, a prevalent assumption, clearly evident in this paper is that, somehow, miraculously, these Regional Ministers (staff) are going to be free from the flaws, biases and other challenges manifested by volunteers (clergy/lay). One part of the United Church’s genius is the conviction that the Spirit resides also in a group as much as in an individual and that episcopal functions (which is what we’re talking about here) are best exercised by a body rather than an individual.
All of the above leads to another assumption:#4 In the United Church we'd rather change our structures than deal with problem people.