Accountability question / Pastoral Circulation

[fccool]

A couple questions:

 

 

1)  I've always wondered about the corporate accountability to the member conference churches... how does that work?   There doesn't seem to be a lot of feedback circulating back as to what goes where, what changed, and what's expected or required  (apart from conference fundraising goals and things like mission spotlight).   Neither there seems to be precise knowledge of the local needs at the top.

 

2)  Likewise, it's strange to me that SDA pastoral assignment is limited in time.  Where there any considerations removing such procedures of re-assigning?  One huge issue is different emphasis and mentality from pastor to pastor, and when the new leadership comes in, they tend to inadvertently dismantle previous focus to emphasize their own passion rather than congregational needs (since they don't really know the congregation enough to understand the needs yet).

 

In case of our local church, we've had a circulation of one pastor that built up the church internally via getting people and members engaged in various activities that they are gifted in.   His successor then came in with passion for evangelism, and strict idea that if it's not leading to some sort of evangelism goal... it's not important.    So, the church fell apart from the inside, since it became more about door-to-door leaflet dropping and training for Prophesy seminars all year, instead of the activities that previously involved members and brought interest from the community. 

 

Now, yet another successor now comes in to fix the mess caused by the "everything evangelism" mentality, and he has to share the churches and here only every other week.   I think that given our membership size, we can support our own pastor and some internally... yet it seems like the conference decides on the needs, and conference is never here or doesn't seem to know or care about individuals here.    Neither do members know who the people at the top are, because they don't seem to travel, ask questions, talk about combined goals...etc.  So, that process seems to be rather detached.

 

I guess I understand the overarching justification for things being the way that they are.... but what happens when it doesn't work out so well?   I'm not here to debate the validity of hierarchy.   I just wonder if there are exceptions you aware of where more or less autonomous decisions for these issues are made at the level of churches themselves, and not the perceived view of conference level management, which seems to be rather detached.

[Woody]

Sounds like you have a good handle on the problems. That has to be a huge first step.

Praying you get answers to help restore your church.

So many just don't care and give up.

Structure can be a difficult thing to maneuver .

[phkrause]

Excellent questions and thoughts

[Gregory Matthews]

Fccool has asked some good questions.  In my response, I will quote his post and I will insert my response in brackets  [insert].

 

 

A couple questions:

 

 

1)  I've always wondered about the corporate accountability to the member conference churches... how does that work?   There doesn't seem to be a lot of feedback circulating back as to what goes where, what changed, and what's expected or required  (apart from conference fundraising goals and things like mission spotlight).   Neither there seems to be precise knowledge of the local needs at the top.

 

[i do not have a good answer to this question.  Probably most members think that accountability is a one-way street, with the congregation being accountable to the Conference.  However, in an ideal situation the Conference can be accountable to the congregation in providing resources, advice and support as the congregation attempts to do ministry.  That does happen at times.  Perhaps (?) more could be done if the congregation asked for support, advice and help more often.  On the other hand, it just may be that congregations and pastors are not really thinking of the Conference as something that could be of value in doing ministry.  I do not know--GM]

 

2)  Likewise, it's strange to me that SDA pastoral assignment is limited in time.  Where there any considerations removing such procedures of re-assigning?  One huge issue is different emphasis and mentality from pastor to pastor, and when the new leadership comes in, they tend to inadvertently dismantle previous focus to emphasize their own passion rather than congregational needs (since they don't really know the congregation enough to understand the needs yet).

 

[This is changing.  When I was in pastoral ministry, pastoral assignments general were from 3 - 5 years.  That was very expensive.  Financial considerations now often limit pastoral moves.  This has both positive and negative consequences.  On the positive side, pastoral planning can be much more long term.  On the negative side, pastoral change may be needed for ballance in ministry which does not happen is the pastor continues to stay.  However, good pastoral leadership does not simply come in with an agenda.  That does not work.  Programs that are working shoudl not be automaticly dismantled.  A pastor should guide, but not dictate.  Pastoral chanages should only take place where there is agreement between the congregation and the Conference as to the direction that should be taken..  This is happening more in the present than it has been in the past--GM.]

 

In case of our local church, we've had a circulation of one pastor that built up the church internally via getting people and members engaged in various activities that they are gifted in.   His successor then came in with passion for evangelism, and strict idea that if it's not leading to some sort of evangelism goal... it's not important.    So, the church fell apart from the inside, since it became more about door-to-door leaflet dropping and training for Prophesy seminars all year, instead of the activities that previously involved members and brought interest from the community. 

 

[Again, pastoral selection should be a process in which candidates are evaulated and a cooperative decision is made between the congreagation, the Conference and the candidate as to the direction that the congregation will go, and who can best lead in that direction.  This is happening more now than it has been in the past.  However, it more often happens with the large congregations than it does with the smaller ones--GM.]

 

Now, yet another successor now comes in to fix the mess caused by the "everything evangelism" mentality, and he has to share the churches and here only every other week.   I think that given our membership size, we can support our own pastor and some internally... yet it seems like the conference decides on the needs, and conference is never here or doesn't seem to know or care about individuals here.    Neither do members know who the people at the top are, because they don't seem to travel, ask questions, talk about combined goals...etc.  So, that process seems to be rather detached.

 

[it is a reality that pastoral staff is goverended by money available.  Due to denominational policy as to how tithe income to the Conference is distributed beyond the conference, more funding is needed than is paid to the pastor than may people reqlize.    I am personally aware of one Conference in which the policy was that each additional pastor beyond the 1st, required an additional $150,000 in tithe income to the conference beyond that required for the 1st pastor.  NOTE:  That figure was several years ago.  However, there are solutions to this issue that may be allowed, even if they are not generally known. Today, congregations do hire people who are not placed on the Conference.  I am personally aware of a small congregation, part of a district, hired their own pastor who did not have rersponsibilities for any other congregation.  This was done with Conference approval.   I am aware of a large congregation that operates  large school.   A teacher hired by the school is given a choice as to either go on the Conference payroll or to be an employee of the congregation.  Some accept one and others go the other route.  The actual pay and benefits is comparable.  However, there may be personal benefits affect the choice of the teacher.  Due, to Conference financial policies, the congregation actually saves money to those who are congregational employees even though the salary and benefit package is comparable--GM.]

 

I guess I understand the overarching justification for things being the way that they are.... but what happens when it doesn't work out so well?   I'm not here to debate the validity of hierarchy.   I just wonder if there are exceptions you aware of where more or less autonomous decisions for these issues are made at the level of churches themselves, and not the perceived view of conference level management, which seems to be rather detached.

 

[i believe that I have listed more exceptions than you expected--GM]

 

[LynnDel]

I've never been pleased with the pastoral selection process. From my level it looks more like the conference's point of view is need for placing pastors, rather than looking at the churches and trying to find a match.

[Woody]

That has pretty much changed LynnDel. In most conferences anyway.

[Gregory Matthews]

From my perspective:  Probably the smaller congregations do not have a lot to directly say about the process.  After all, the Conference does need to place  new graduates in congregations where they can be developed.  However, even in the case of smaller congregations, as I have posted, an exception may be made.  I am thinking of a small congregation, of which I am personally knowledgeable, that wanted additional pastoral support.  So, they recruited and hired their own pastor.  I worked with the Conference administration, in that case.  After about a year in that congregation, the pastor was placed on the Conference payroll and  given a district.  As I talk to the Conference leadership, that person is clearly on line for ordination. 

 

This case has another interesting aspect:  The person whom the congregation hired comes from an ethnic background that typically would have resulted in not being hired by the Conference.  As I observed that person working in the congregation, I noted that the pastor was able to increase attendance among members of   that ethnic group.  NOTE:  I am NOT saying that the pastor was only effective within that ethnic group.  What I am saying is:  By hiring that person, the congregation was better able to reach out to a cross-section of the community.  And, the Conference supplied senior pastor represented the typical ethnic background of the Conference pastors.

 

The larger congregations probably do have more to say about their relationship with the Conference.  I am reminded of a Conference in which due to a decrease in tithe income needed to realign pastoral districts, it passed a policy that pastoral vacancies would have to be filled from within the available Conference pastors and that no pastors would be called from outside the Conference.  A large congregation with a pastoral staff of two came vacant when both pastors took other positions.    That congregation decided that it wanted to hire a pastor from outside the Conference.  As a condition of coming to the congregation that person required that he be allowed to bring other staff with him.  The Conference agreed.  So, at the present time that pastor has brought with him an administrative assistant, an associate pastor, and he has hired a local associate pastor.  In the spirit of openness, it should be stated that the some of these positions have been funded from funds that have come from outside the Conference.  IOW, the Conference is not funding some of these positions.

 

In brief, what I am saying is this:  The standard, historical manner in which local issues are addressed is not always considered to be working.   Local congregations are often asserting their needs.  Those that come up with reasonable  solutions to the issues are often allowed to experiment with resolutions.

 

These local resolutions may bring about their own problems.  When congregations hire their own employees, those may not be paid the same as those on the Conference payroll.

 

Well, enough said, for now.

[LynnDel]

Speaking of small churches, when one conference of which I was a member changed its policy to allotting pastors based on amount of tithe paid, many small churches were placed in districts, enjoying the attention and presence of a pastor only part time, while nearby large churches had as many as five or more pastors for their congregations. The small churches became even smaller.

[Gregory Matthews]

The  question here is:  Who is most responsible for the membership of a congregation?  Is it the pastor?  Is it the congregation?

 

In the case of evangelism, a question is:  How is the area best prepared for evangelism?  If the members do not have contacts in the community at large, what is the probability of a successful outside evangelistic program?

 

NOTE:  I do not suggest easy answers.

[whbae]

Politics, politics and more politics played by all level of conference staffs including rampant nepotism.

All corruptions!

[LynnDel]

Why does a congregation composed of a high percentage of professionals and large tithes require multiple pastors at the expense of small congregations?

[Gregory Matthews]

Because they will have a larger circle of ministry.

 

Look outside the SDA church at very large Protestant congregations.  They may have a large pastoral staff.  But, they will likely have a very large circle of ministry

 

Many years ago a study was done that concluded that at that time, a 200 member congregation was the minimum needed to support a viable ministry and to be a growing church.

 

.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

 

 

Many years ago a study was done that concluded that at that time, a 200 member congregation was the minimum needed to support a viable ministry and to be a growing church.

 

.

 

good thing the apostles didn't see that study...

[LynnDel]

Small congregations are basically being written off, when they should be considered a mission and an entering wedge into an unreached community. The current mentality (build up the big churches) should make us much better at serving ourselves than it does, and ensures the eventual dying off of the small churches that are not connected to a local church school. I have seen these churches, mostly populated by members well into retirement, do their utmost to be active and reach the community, but without active pastoral support, many begin to founder. Being without a pastor is not always bad, I will admit. I've seen some churches do much better without one. It all depends on the abilities and energy of the congregation.

[Gregory Matthews]

I understand the issues that you bring up.

 

The other side of the coin is that in the past, the large metropolitan areas were generally neglected.  Now the focus has shifted.

 

There is also another issue:  Conferences are beginning to put resources where growth is taking place.  Smaller congregations are often located in small population areas.  In those areas, congregational growth is often NOT taking place.  It is often in the larger population areas where growth  it taking place.  So, Conferences are beginning to place resources and spend money for missions in the larger  population areas where growth is taking place.

 

As to why growth is not taking place in the smaller population areas, that is a subject for discussion.  One might argue that part of the reason is that the Church is not placing resources in those areas.   But, another aspect is probably demographics.  Population demographics are changing int eh United States.  As those demographics change, the Church must change with them.

 

In any case, the questions valid and the answers are not easy.

[pindoc]

Re: 1: peeps are not happy with the vague, ephemeral accountability that exists now. I've gone to at least one church, I won't say where, they put "church operations" as a separate line item for online giving. They did this for members who didn't want any of their funds to go to the conference but only wanted to support the logistics of the local congregation. The desire for such a line item indicates a serious displeasure with conference activity & accountability, don't you think?

Re: moving pastors so often, that really doesn't happen anymore. In fact as others have mentioned, it's likely got in some cases they don't get moved often enough. I've seen cases where pastors were doing a great job and one place and it would've been sad and pathetic to move them just for the sake of moving them. As it's also been pointed out, it's very expensive to move people for the sake of moving them.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Re: 1: peeps are not happy with the vague, ephemeral accountability that exists now. I've gone to at least one church, I won't say where, they put "church operations" as a separate line item for online giving. They did this for members who didn't want any of their funds to go to the conference but only wanted to support the logistics of the local congregation. The desire for such a line item indicates a serious displeasure with conference activity & accountability, don't you think?

 

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that there has always been a section for "church budget" on the tithes and offerings envelope.  It has nothing to do with support or nonsupport of conference activities.  I've never seen "online" giving software, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to have the church budget as a separate line...

[Gregory Matthews]

FYI:  The latest thing in denominational giving is for local congregations to set up a procedure whereby people can give Conference and local offerings online, by using  their credit card.