The Appointment Process: How Anxious Should We Be, Actually?

Now begins that season in the United Methodist year when churches around the US begin wishing…they were just like their Lutheran or Presbyterian—or better yet—independent church brother and sisters down the street. Why, you ask? Because darn it, this waiting to know who our pastor is going to be and not being able to control it is difficult. Even maddening. And certainly disconcerting. How can someone—even if they are a bishop—who isn’t in our church every week possibly know what sort of pastor we want or need? What if they mess this up royally? And on top of that, how can they tell us what we have to pay that pastor, how we have to treat them, and how much authority that pastor has (or doesn’t have) over us?

Meanwhile, UM clergy are not immune from this season of panic and anxiety. Even the staunchest of United Methodist pastors can be brought to their knees this time of year with doubts about whether they made the right choice entering a denomination where so much of their fate is seemingly out of their control. What if no one heeds their requests for consideration for a spouse’s work, or a parent’s need for care? They know they are guaranteed a job, but what if it is a horrible one? What if they are exiled to…(we don’t name those places anymore)?

This season, this early-in-the-appointment-season time, can seem like sitting in the waiting room before seeing the dentist, knowing that at least some of our anxiety is simply about having to WAIT. We don’t wait well. We don’t give over control terribly well, either.

The truth is, we know that everyone involved in this process are human, and imperfect at that. We know the horror stories. Perhaps we’ve even experienced them. Those stories are real, and their consequences are painful to recall. If you’ve ever had opportunity to minister to and with people whose churches have fallen apart in the wake of a poorly-conceived appointment or a pastor struggling under the weight of an appointment that is not a good fit, you know this. If you’ve ever counted yourself in one of those groups, you SURELY know this.

The United Methodist practice of an itinerant clergy goes back to the very beginning of the Methodist story. A combination of many factors, including a church leadership made up of laity who literally didn’t have enough material for more than a certain number of sermons (and thus had to be moved before they ran out of material—this never happens today J), a somewhat domineering church founder (John Wesley has his moments…often), and an emphasis on the leadership of laity within the structures of the church made this a very practical solution. In the early years of Methodism in this country, preachers were rotated, having a maximum of two years on a given circuit. As time passed, this maximum was increased then finally done away with. Today, a church may have a given pastor for a year or for 20 years. Average tenures are increasing, and despite what we might think, don’t seem to average much different than our congregationally-structured brothers and sisters.

The itinerancy and appointment process has many benefits for local churches. Clergy recruitment, training, evaluation and assignment is done and paid for through the annual conference (at least part of seminary expenses, at least, for those who get far enough in the process in time). Yes, clergy have guaranteed appointment, but churches also are guaranteed to, you guessed it, get assigned a pastor. If you question how big of a deal this is, ask a church which has been searching for a new pastor for over a year. The bishop and cabinet are able to look at an entire pool of pastors at one time. Often, churches receive pastors they would never have been attractive enough to draw. Minimum salaries give standardization which allows pastors to move between churches, hopefully without financial penalty (and bitterness). Established standards for benefits and upper-end salary practices do remove some say from the congregation, but they also significantly diminish the awkward position of having to quibble with your pastor about their salary—especially when they are often running a church akin to a small business. Conference leaders are available as resources to navigate the pastor-congregation relationship, sometimes being able to handle difficult situations that congregational churches would have to tough it through on their own.

At the same time, there is need for some clarity about how the process works, and how input is received and accounted for. One of my fundamental beliefs about people is that withholding information (either on purpose or because you lack a good method for disseminating that information) makes people paranoid. No one likes to be told, “Just do what we say.” There is danger that the appointment process can be like that. It has a lot to do with how we present and explain things. Churches who do not regularly receive new pastors are in particular need of help understanding the process—chances are a small church with turnover every 3-4 years has a much better understanding of the process than a larger church which likely experiences such transition every 10+ years—if for no other reason than leadership turnover and loss of institutional memory.

I believe, then, that giving answers, being open to suggestions, and understanding that most of the people in our pews not only fail to understand how the process works, but why we do it the way we do.

One of the things that I really value about the appointment process is the way it empowers (or ought to) the lay people. Congregations DO have a voice, and the better we can explain how this is actually done, the more they will trust the process. In addition, while a pastoral transition can be disruptive, the degree of that disruption often has more to do with the involvement and leadership of the laity than the leadership of the clergy.

Now don’t get me wrong, a pastor can royally mess up a church. I’ve seen it, and it ain’t pretty. But a congregation can also do a lot to dictate how that process happens. And a willingness to be honest about how things are going can help address and change the situation early. One of the challenges is our infinite hope that things will just get better with time. Hint: they rarely do.

On the flip side, it is of course important for conferences—particularly bishops and cabinets—to be responsive to needs and challenges in congregations. Each year, we all have a formal opportunity to evaluate how the pastor-congregation relationship is going. It is very important that this is done truthfully. Nothing is sadder than a situation that is way far gone by the time a district superintendent hears about it. Well, perhaps the only thing sadder is a far-gone situation the DS knew about but avoided dealing with. We ALL have a responsibility to this process.

Here’s the thing: for all the anxieties and questions and even, yes, distrust this season brings, the United Methodist Church has grown with a itinerancy and appointment process. In fact, to be honest, it’s greatest growth happened precisely when pastors moved every 2 or 4 years and appointment was quite arbitrarily. I’m not arguing for a return to that—heck, have you seen what the life span was for a pastor back then? No, thank you!

It is to say, however, that over the course of time, this process has worked. And worked well. Our culture and society has changed, and the process has needed to change with it. Politics and at times odd dynamics shape the process, but at all times, the Holy Spirit is also at work.

This is a time of year for United Methodists when it is easy to dwell in the worst case scenarios. Believe, I know. But life does not consist of worst case scenarios, and God is able to bring good out of any situation. Yes, some situations are painful, but others are wonderfully, surprisingly incredible. Let us pray that this season is just that…for all of us!

The Appointment Process: How Does It Work?

I am back in the office today after two days at what is called the Board of Ordained Ministry Full Member exam. This is my first year as a member of this board (by virtue of it also being my first year as chair of the Frederick District Committee on Ministry). During the Full Member exam, we examine those who have been in their provisional period and who are seeking full member status as elders or deacons and ordination. I can’t really say any more, but I will say that it is hard work. On all levels. It is an immense task to be involved in such important decisions for so many—decisions which impact lives on very personal levels and which also shape our church in significant ways.

I am mindful of this challenge as well as we at Calvary await news of our bishop and cabinet’s discernment about our pastoral leadership beginning with the new appointment year (July 1, 2013). I have been asked many questions by folks at Calvary about how appointments are made, when we will hear, even specific questions about options for Calvary. I thought I’d take a few moments today to share some of my understanding of how this works.

First, I want to point out some key principles that are integral to this process in my own thinking, but which may not readily come to mind if you are not all that informed about it.

1.       I use the phrase “discernment” above very intentionally. Because it’s not merely just that a decision is being made. It is, at the very least, that. But we hope and believe that God is active in the decisions being made, and our bishop and cabinet integrate prayer not only into their actual deliberations but also, I am sure, their own personal preparation for and time during the appointment season. The appointments which are ultimately made are not merely business decisions, nor are they merely political moves or about who you know. I sometimes use the illustration of a chess game to describe how different moves impact other moves, but we ought never take that example to be something it is not. Our bishop and cabinet are not merely play a game. At times, they may use guiding principles that some may like and others may not, but it is, indeed, a process of discernment.

2.       My own direct knowledge and experience of the appointment process is taken from my own ministry and time in the conference—a time that exactly coincided with the leadership of one bishop. Different bishops approach things different ways, influenced still, I suspect, but prevailing patterns in the annual conference they are serving at a particular time.

3.       The goal is effective clergy serving in effective congregations, who are working together to make disciples for Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. The question of course, is how these matches are made. Here are some things which are considered:

a.       The expressed desires of the clergy and local churches. I and all UM pastors actually receive an appointment each year. Usually, it’s just the SAME as the year before. It is of course the changes which we note. Each year, clergy as asked to submit their preferences for staying, moving, etc. Local churches, through their SPRC (Staff-Parish Relations Committee) also indicate to the conference if they would like their current pastor to stay of go. None of these statements are binding on the bishop and cabinet. In addition, when it is clear a church will be receiving a new pastor (as in the case of Calvary when Ken announced he was retiring) the SPRC is asked to complete a form which describes the church and also to offer input about what type of pastor they might like to receive.

b.      Unique needs of pastors. This could include, but not be limited to: spouse work issues, life status needs, skills/abilities, strengths/weaknesses, and yes, salary. It does seem like consideration is taken, when possible, to not move a pastor into a large salary decrease, and, indeed, when possible and appropriate, to make a move which increases salary. Of course, that is not always possible, and sometimes, even the pastor indicates a willingness at the beginning to take a salary decrease—for example, in the case where they’d like to be moved closer to aging parents to help care for them.

c.       Unique needs of churches. A lot of attention is paid to the character of a congregation as well as their needs and vision moving forward (sometimes their vision, sometimes a vision the bishop and cabinet have for their ministry). The goal is for a good match—bad matches generally go poorly, and sometimes cannot be predicted. But let’s say a congregation has a particularly conservative leaning. I would say it would be unlikely for a very liberal pastor to be appointed, esp. if both the pastor and congregation were very active in their leanings. In addition, something like worship style is considered. The worship leadership required for a traditional church and a very contemporary church are going to need to look different, and require different experiences and skills.

d.      Anything is possible. The truth is, in the end, appointments are under the sole discretion of the bishop. We can learn patterns as bishops make appointments. Sometimes they even come out and tell us what criteria they use. That anything is possible does not mean appointments are made in a chaotic or capricious way. It does, however, mean that sometimes the reasonings elude us. And sometimes, the bishop and cabinet are constrained by, well, reality. Object permanence.  Addition/subtraction. Yes, the laws of math and physics. Sometimes there is not a perfect fit possible. Sometimes all the data gathered cannot lay a clear path. Sometimes they have what they have, and have to make the best of it. Our previous bishop (and I suspect most bishops) do attempt to minimize lines of moves. A line of move would be like our—Ken retires, a pastor is appointed to his slot, another to that, another to that. The idea being make the fewest moves possible. That, of course, necessarily imposes some limits, but also minimizes disruption for the maximum number of people. But anything is possible.

4.       We all knew what we were getting in for. Clergy know what they signed up for. The itinerancy process is something we are asked about directly throughout our process to become ordained. We know. I get grumpy when pastors get too grumpy about this. It was part of the deal. Personally, the itinerancy process is, for me, a very clear evidence of Jesus as my Lord. My life is, in very real and concrete ways, under God’s authority through the authority of the bishop. The itinerancy process is a reminder to me of my need to trust God. In the past couple months, as Chris and I have wondered what Ken’s retirement will mean for my own status and appointment, we return again and again to the refrain from one of my favorite songs by Mary Mary, that God has not brought us this far to leave us. Local churches are part of this bargain too. Local churches to not get to pick their pastors (except in really rare circumstances) in the UMC. But they also do not have to deal with the turmoil that accompanies such an undertaking on our congregationally-structured sister churches. We are all under covenant to play nice with each other, be honest about how things are going—in an appropriate way, and try to make it work. Yes, we are a church of arranged marriages. And you know what, for all the ones that are rocky, many—even most—are really good. Some are good for a season then change is needed, some may be hard to see some to an end. But you know what, God has not brought us this far to leave us.

Second, I want to tell you how we can anticipate finding out about the new senior pastor at Calvary. How any church finds out.

1.       First, it is usually announce that there is, indeed a vacancies. This generally happens one of two ways: (1) the pastor announces a retirement or new job outside the local church or (2) it is announced that the current pastor is moving to another church. If the current pastor is moving, they may or may not have requested a move. At my last appointment, after a really difficult time of discernment process, I asked for a move. It was so hard to do that. I was raised in a pastor’s home, and it just wasn’t done. I was, however, honest with the congregation about it. And I tried to explain why. Few things get me more ticked off than hearing a pastor lied and blamed the conference for being moved. Because really, at any rate, why is blame needed? We all knew what the deal was. Anything can happen. In rare third case, a position may open mid-year because a pastor left due to illness or other crisis. In most of those cases, an interim is assigned until the next regular appointment time, when that is considered a vacancy.

2.       Second, the bishop and cabinet look at the vacancies, look at the pastors, and prayerfully discern who God is calling to a particular place. This usually begins with a retreat for the bishop and cabinet. For a number of years, this has been happening immediately following the ROCK youth retreat in Ocean City. That means it would be early next week. This is when the first, major push is made. In the past, we never really heard of any new appointments till after this. Already this year, Bishop Matthews has announced five new district superintendents. This not only tells us of more open churches, but also which current DSes will be needing local church placements. Appointments are generally, though not always, made with the largest churches receiving appointments first. This is because of the lines of move—since they are usually “moves up” it makes sense to start at the top and move down. Calvary is one of the largest churches which will receive a new pastor this year, so I would anticipate our appointment would be made at the retreat or soon thereafter. After the retreat, in the past, at least, appointments were then made at the Monday cabinet meetings.

3.       The District Superintendent of the district TO WHICH THE PASTOR WOULD BE MOVING (i.e. the DS of the receiving church) calls the pastor who has been appointed. Now each bishop has a different language conveyed. Some want you to pray about it and call back. Some just tell you. Ultimately, they can pretty much just TELL the pastor. There are stories of pastors who have refused appointments. For some, it seemed to go well. For others, not so much. I would say it is very rare for a pastor to refuse a call. If they were to, it might be based on personal needs (a child finishing high school etc.) but in the end, they can’t really REFUSE. Technically they can just asked for reconsideration. In a normal week, this usually happens on a Monday evening or Tuesday morning. Usually Monday evening. If the pastor is given time to think about it, they usually just have till Tuesday.

4.       The DS calls the chair of the receiving church’s SPRC. They have to set up a meeting for THAT WEEK. Depending on timing, it could be as early as Wednesday of that week, or as late as Thursday or Friday. The members of the receiving church’s SPRC are expecting this meeting.

5.       The DS calls the chair of the departing church’s SPRC. Now I’m a bit less clear on this, so I’m going, as above, to describe what I believe to be the case. The SPRC of the church the pastor is leaving also has to call a meeting. They will be told their pastor is leaving and they will be asked to complete the church profile. This will be used in consideration for the pastor they will subsequently receive.

6.       The meeting described in #5 occurs.

7.       The meeting described in #4 occurs. It’s usually a bit awkward. Like a blind date when you meet the person you’ve been arranged to marry. Everyone tries to get to know each other. The pastor asks about the church (they will have read the profile, and honestly, probably have done all sorts of CIA-like secret detective work). The SPRC, who had no idea who (or what J ) was going to show up, have a faster “getting up to speed.” The pastor may bring a resume, their spouse may attend. Everyone asks questions. The SPRC needs to learn enough not only for themselves, but to answer questions people have. If all goes well, everyone leaves a bit nervous and hopefully a lot excited. The SPRC members are require to keep this news completely confidential until it is formally announced that Sunday. So please be nice to your SPRC members and just don’t ask. J If things do not go well—perhaps it is very clear it’s not a great fit, it is, in rare cases, possible their either the pastor or church may request a reconsideration. That may or may not be granted. By the way, the DS is generally present at this meeting.

8.       That Sunday morning—and not before (I’ve always wondered how churches with Saturday evening services handle this) the appointment is announced in worship by the chair of the SPRC. Note that the outgoing pastor is not present at the SPRC meeting. They are not invited. This begins a process of letting go and moving on. That Sunday, the church the pastor is leaving is also notified. In many cases, they will receive their appointment in one to two weeks.

Appointments generally take about 2-3 months, and nearly all are effective July 1. In a subsequent post, I'll describe the process and policies involved in a pastoral transition.

So this is a really long description, and still doesn’t touch on some details, or answer some questions I’ve received, like “What about associate pastors when a senior pastor moves?” I’d like to know too! Best answer is, “Anything can happen. Especially with a new bishop. We’ll see.”

Over all, we do believe that God is at work. And you know what? God can do some crazy awesome things. Because God has not brought us this far to leave us. Any of us.