305 - Pastoral Selection Process

Download paper_305.pdf

Rejected

Comments

[keith_starkey@hotmail.com]

Greetings,

Paper No. 305 (Pastoral Selection Process) begins with apparent list of problems with the current pastoral selection process:

● Our current pastoral selection system was developed in a culture where authority was respected,
● Is based on a top down leadership model,
● Is often viewed with skepticism by a generation of Americans well versed in democratic procedures,
● And, as a result, is too often resisted...

The rest of the Paper proposes a resolution to these "problems" by affording more involvement of a church's Local Board of Administration:

"The Local Board of Administration may submit [to the The Conference Ministerial Education and Guidance Board] the name(s) of prospective pastor(s) they wish to have considered for approval."

And

"When a local church is without a pastor, the local Board of Administration or a separate search committee shall. . . request
information regarding potential pastors who have been approved for ministry within the conference and as a prospective pastor for that local church."

Further, the local BOA and congregation shall be free to interview the candidates, and "If a congregational meeting is held to assist in the pastoral selection process, a congregational survey shall be taken after each such occasion."

I would like to address the four items beginning the Paper. The first problem is, "Our current pastoral selection system was developed in a culture where authority was respected." Another way to say this is, "Since authority is no longer respected, we need to do away with our current process of selecting pastors." This is horribly faulty logic. Authority is to be done away with because people no longer respect it?

The next item: "Is based on a top down leadership model." In other words, we need to do away with our current pastoral selection process BECAUSE it starts with the Board selecting the pastor, in the same respect that God selects his leaders, and the leadership stems from this authority.

As far as God is concerend, He expressed quite well to Samuel that He is King - a theocratic society. The King is King and everything else moves downward, not upward from that authority. Paper No. 305, however, is suggesting we not start with God as the authority - if He is the authority, then His leaders, presumably put in office by the Lord's hand. The shephereds govern, not the sheep.

I commend the FMC for its top-down structure. The FMC is respecting one of the most important elements of spiritual government: God, then the leaders, then the laymen. If God has established the FMC, the authority then rests with the governing body, PARTICULARLY as it pertains to the selection of pastors, just as it was when God chose Moses or when the Lord Jesus chose the apostleses.

It isn't as if the local congregation has no say or no input with regard to their like or dislike for the pastor, it is only that they are not involved in the selection of the pastor. What this means is the FMC recognizes that sheep are sheep and are not supposed to be required to be shephereds. Sheep, when governed like this, know where they stand. There are no questions or vacancies with regard to who is in charge and who is called to lead. the pastor they receive is THE shephered, not one of the flock. If, however, the sheep have a problem with the shephered, there are escalation procedures that enable the sheep to voice their concerns to the Board, and that is the way it should be. This way politics are kept to a mininum, both the sheep and the shephered know where they stand, and authority, if it means anything to the congregation, is respected. (Note: If the congregation no longer respects authority, then no pastoral selection process will work, period.)

The third item is, "[Our current pastoral selection system] Is often viewed with skepticism by a generation of Americans well versed in democratic procedures." The church is not a democracy. It is a theocracy: Christ the head, leaders, laymen (or Chief Shephered, shephereds, sheep).

The last item is, [Our current pastoral selection system] . . . as a result, is too often resisted." As I noted above, if God's way of doing things has lost respect in the local congregation, then no selection process is immune to that infestuous viral known as rebellion.

Paper No. 305, lacks an understanding of congregationalism (the flock has the vote). Opening the doors for the flock to participate (at this resolution's level) with the pastoral selection is what causes so many churche splits, is what keeps so many churches from moving ahead in the work of building up its members, and is what
cripples a church in a host of other areas.

Finally, the FMC, though not a congregational denomination, is not immune itself to authoritative abuse. We have seen this kind of abuse in other non-congregational demoninations. But in those situations, the flock has the right to protest, and that voice is strong. However, in a congregational structure, there is no restraint, no control, no shephered/sheep authority. The pastor's position as shephered is accompained, at all times, by a time bomb that can go off whenever the sheep play shephered. That is not God's way of doing business.

Council, please do not change the process that you have in place. As a layman of my local FMC, I am always know where I stand. I know that I can petition the Board if necessary, but I know my place, and that brings great comfort. To enact any other system will only crumble the good foundation our FMC ancestors have layed.

Sincerely,

Keith R. Starkey
Layman - FMC Alexandria, MN

[Vaughn E. Stehr]

Good Day,

I must agree with Mr. Starkey on several key points with regards to this resolution.

1) To suggest by inference that our culture/congregations no longer respect authority is a fallacy at best. This is a subjective arguement, and while I can understand why someone might suggest this based on some elements of our culture at large, I would never use it as an arguement for doing away with our current pastoral selection process.

2) Ultimately our authority is the God of creation and to base our decision making process on the feelings of a popular American culture would be like a politician making his voting decision based on polls (that could never happen). Where is the corner stone upon which we base our decisions?

3) Like Mr. Starkey I agree that just because an idea is resisted does not mean it should be changed. Jesus called us to take up His cross and follow him. He said we would suffer and face many trials. Do we give up because others say it is too hard or we do not like it? I feel we should never base a decision on these reasons.

However, even though I disagree with many of the arguements supporting this resolution I do ultimately support it. If I have learned nothing else from a study the historic roots of our Free Methodist church it is that too much ecclesiastical authority is the bane of the church. It inevitably leads to stagnation and a hardening of the hearts of the congregations as a whole. If this were not the case we would have had no need for men like Wesley and Roberts. I appreciate our local conference leadership as they strive to empower and assist the local churches in the mission to reach the lost and to disciple believers. I agree that the pastor is the shepherd of the local church, but I strongly believe that the local churches have more knowledge about what they need in a shepherd than the conference office.

Respectfully,

Vaughn E. Stehr
FMC - Marysville, WA

[PastorPam]

I agree with the resolution. We need a new system! Yes, we are a system that respects authority. As a MEG Board member, I'm actually part of that system of authority. The problem comes when a MEG / MAC is placing a pastor in a church that they functionally know little about. Is the candidate doctrinally sound and a good pastor? We can discern that. Will he or she be a good fit for the church? We need the church's local BOA to help us in that. Giving the local BOA some options and choice allows them to ask questions of themselves... what is the church's strengths, weaknesses, and unique call? Who will best lead them to the next level? These are things that can be discerned when the local congregation and BOA take part in the selection process.

[Rev. Vaughn W. Thurston-Cox]

While I agree it is healthy to bring conference boards and local boards together, the decision should remain with the conference. I have seen too many times when the local boards thinks it knows what it needs and resists those appointed to the society to its own loss.

I think we might end up with many congregations that would black ball women. Others would disqualify the young, the old, the traditional, the contemporary. Rather than have a group of people that can sit with a people and discern, the conference becomes a market.

Questions also arise about firing. Can a pastor be fired mid year? For what reasons? With what notice? Can a pastor be hired mid-year from another church?

As I see this is another example of American individualism eating away at our connectional past. We don't like to be told we are, intelligent Americans ought to do. We should have a choice. The problem is that the church is bigger than a single society, which is a picture many of our congregants simply don't see.

[Ron]

● Our current pastoral selection system was developed in a culture where authority was respected

That authority remains respected, however we now live in an era where tax rates and day to day living expenses obligate that a pastors spouse often seek secular employment. Often times, the secularly employed spouses salary is far more than that of the spouse employed by the Church...which is particularly problematic when the issue of healthcare, retirement, and benefits are included in the discussion. This realization now begins to conflict with the level of absolute compliance sought by the Church

● Is based on a top down leadership model,

Which is fine...However, while Christ empowered the Twelve, He also made it quite clear that a change must occur in the lowest of hearts - the top down and the lowest of repentant hearts meets in union at Church.

This is really problematic for mid leadership as were often told that our denomination is driven 51% by pastoral leadership and 49% by the laity whom we have empowered greatly....that was the point of Roberts early activism !....and very often this melding of the laity and leadership, steers the local Church by the consensus of the Holy Spirit.

Where the Confusion lies is that a top down model does exist - it is however unclear where laity input stops and decisions are made on the behalf of congregations without regard to thier input, social nuances, or level of ownership of what is being thrust upon them. Can we live in two paradigms?

● Is often viewed with skepticism by a generation of Americans well versed in
democratic procedures

see above comments which identify the confusion

● And, as a result, is too often resisted

This is an ambiguous statement with no demonstrable factual basis provided.

The whereas aspect of this resolution is worded in such a way as to seem adversarial when that is clearly not the case. Many of our pastors are grossly underpaid....many skimping on health care in an effort to wholly serve the church. Many are entering into retirement with many financial concerns. Our service as shepards though bumps up against these secular realities and causes pastors to begin entering into scenarios where the denomnation can not supoport them entirely, yet obligates a complete yielding and sacrifice on its behalf. Our responses are personal to ourselves...the Conference must respect that families and spouses might not feel the same call and a dictatorial authority m ight just in fact cause a relationship made Heaven, to stumble.