Being Conflicted

This is the time of year when pastors gear up for the marathon that is the Christmas season (last year it was even long since Christmas ran right into Lent and Easter with almost no break) and also have to evaluate themselves and think about what they will be doing in the future--well, United Methodist pastors at least.

It's pretty standard for people to get evaluated in their jobs, and even to do self-evals. It's still kind of new here, and everyone does these differently. The thing is, the evaluation is always dependent upon a person or church's ability to be self-reflective, and also how high their goals are. So while it's a time to look at how you're doing, it's also a time to look at how well you think you can do. Evaluations are as much a reflection, I think, of reality as they are of possibility.

For the past few years, the first ones we had evals, our conference's forms have had numbers attached...like 5 we you're exceeding expectations or something. This year the numbers are off. That's a good thing. It feels a bit better to check that you "Need Improvement" than that you're a 1. It's a mental thing I know, but it matters. And hopefully that little change will allow us all to be a bit more self-critical.

In the United Methodist system, we have this fundamental assumption, it seems to me, that all pastors and congregations are more or less interchangeable. I think that's changing, but it's still there. Any pastor should be able to serve and be successful at any church. Not allowing for the fact that there are just some patently unhealthy churches and pastors out there, I think a lot of time we really struggle to appreciate that many times, matches aren't all that good. Often that's not clear right at first. Other times, as pastors and congregations change, they can, in the words use for marriages, "grow apart." Often what are called "irreconcilable differences" in marriages are simply stories of "it seemed like a good idea at the time," and two people not really knowing each other all that well. And perhaps one or both of the persons not knowing themselves all that well at first.

It was a pretty incredible idea for me to hear at the new church start conference about "Affinities". Basically the idea is maximine the effectiveness of new church starts by planting pastors amongst people they are similar to. Getting over the idea that it's easy enough to take a passionate person and see them succeed in any soil, and plant them in the right soil.

I cannot imagine the frustration of cabinets trying to play this difficult, and I imagine, heart-rending match game. And I am sure that for all the good matches, there are just pastors and appointments that are paired as best as they can with what's out there. And things change. But I wonder what it would look like if we were all just really upfront about who we are, and thus who we connect best with. What if, when what seems like an ideal match isn't possible, that's acknowledged from the start and it's clear to everyone where the differences are?

I haven't had a chance to talk with many of my colleagues about their experiences with the evaluation and advisory forms this year...or even with experienced pastors about how they approach these. But I am interested to do that. To hear how these forms have been shaping on their ministries, and what if any effect this opportunity to pause and reflect has had in their lives and ministry.