Church/Pastoral re

[Greg]

I have had 2 reviews on this district and both were horribly conducted and have caused our church board members to think poorly of the presiding district superintendents, our denomination and to completely misunderstand the review process as described in the Manual (paragraph 123).

I wanted to create a document to share with our new DS about my experience and recommendations.  What do you recommend about the process?

In summary my recommendation is to follow the manual by the letter and not do anything else that is not detailed in it for the church/pastoral review.

My experiences

In 2013 I had my 2 year review.
I received none of the information that our board received from him in the weeks prior and was never contacted by him. The week before the review date I contacted the DS and asked about meeting him beforehand to go over it. He simply stated that a meeting beforehand would not be necessary. At the meeting he made some introductory remarks and excused me from the meeting. I was out of the room for an hour and a half waiting. When I was called back I was grilled about disappointments “the board” had had about my performance. The one I distinctly remember was that my preaching skills were poor. The overall feeling I left with was that I had been treated unfairly and disrespectfully. When I approached some board members about it later they explained that they felt it had been conducted very poorly and was of no help to our church, them or me. I later learned that in the preceding weeks of the review he had met 3 times with a board member that did not want me to continue at the church.

In 2017 I had my second review.
In an effort to not repeat the chaos of my first review I made sure that I was included in the information sent to board members beforehand.  The DS did meet with me a couple hours before the review for dinner where he explained that he felt a weakness of our ministry was that each board member had a different definition of discipleship. After some introductory remarks I was excused from the room and again was left sitting in my office for 90 minutes waiting to be called back in. When I was invited back the board was standing and applauding with the “good news” that they had decided to renew my call for another 4 years. The following Sunday a board member announced to the congregation the good news from the board’s election.

This is what I believe should never have happened:

• For a DS to meet with a board member without gaining permission from the pastor or following up with the pastor about the content of the meeting.
  
• For a DS to send a generic and biased survey to the board that has little to no relevance to multi-ethnic congregations.
  
• For a DS to conduct a review with little to no training or skill to conduct such reviews.
  
• For a DS to sabotage the work and momentum the pastor has created.
  
• For a DS to dismiss a pastor from the review meeting. The manual clearly states that the pastor is the chairman of the board (paragraph 515.15) and any meeting happening without the presence of the chairman is an illegal meeting.
  
• For a DS to take questions, in the pastor’s absence, from the board regarding the pastor and then to invite the pastor back to the meeting and present him or her with those same questions but not share anything about the discussion.
  
• For a DS to make the review about the church board voting to keep the pastor or not.
  
• For a DS to discourage and or malign the efforts of the church to find clarity about its mission, vision and core values.
  
• For a DS or a church board member to announce that the church board recently voted to renew (or any other such term) the pastor’s contract for another 4 years. This is factually incorrect and is traumatic for new people to think that they could have lost their pastor without any input from the congregation.
  

This is what I believe should happen at a scheduled review:

• The DS should do his or her best to learn about the pastor’s priorities, goals and vision for the church and to understand how the pastor feels about his or her relationship with the board members, before the review.
  
• At the review the DS should ask the board how they feel about their pastor and about their work together toward their mission, vision and core values. There is no need to send a survey beforehand.
  
• The DS should ask the board if they recommend that the current church/pastoral relationship should continue.
  
• If the DS senses some doubt in their answer, only then, should the DS ask the pastor to wait outside the room and then ask the church board if they want to vote on the asking the congregation to vote about continuing the church/pastoral relationship. The pastor should not be out of the meeting for more than 5 or 10 minutes so that he or she can participate in the discussion.
  
• As a follow up to the review the DS should ask the pastor and the church board to follow up (give a date) with recent examples of how the church is implementing its mission, vision and core values.
  

[Susan Unger]

Were both conducted by the same DS?

And that first one, especially, was horribly insane. It makes me wonder how some folks get to be a DS.

I like your conclusion; sounds good.

[Greg]

Sept 5, 2017 22:49:47 GMT -5 Susan Unger said:

Were both conducted by the same DS?

And that first one, especially, was horribly insane. It makes me wonder how some folks get to be a DS.

I like your conclusion; sounds good.

no. 2 different ones. the first on resigned to take a different job and the second was the interim DS.

I think it's important for pastors and DS' to know that he or she is not under any legal obligation to leave the room.  I have no problem with leaving the room if the DS has clarified under what conditions that would be appropriate and exactly what will happen with a time limit for calling the pastor back into the meeting.

[Karen Troxler]

Sept 6, 2017 1:07:56 GMT -5 Greg said:

Sept 5, 2017 22:49:47 GMT -5 Susan Unger said:

Were both conducted by the same DS?

And that first one, especially, was horribly insane. It makes me wonder how some folks get to be a DS.

I like your conclusion; sounds good.

no. 2 different ones. the first on resigned to take a different job and the second was the interim DS.

I think it's important for pastors and DS' to know that he or she is not under any legal obligation to leave the room.  I have no problem with leaving the room if the DS has clarified under what conditions that would be appropriate and exactly what will happen with a time limit for calling the pastor back into the meeting.

When asked to leave the room, we know that someone wants to say something negative. If it is a legitimate criticism, then why not own the comment, say it nicely, and allow for there to be a healthy discussion. In this way, we as pastors can learn, and we and the board can grow in our relationship and understanding. When someone wants to voice a criticism behind our back, it comes across as "The way I see it is the way it is, and I'm unwilling to discuss it. You (the pastor) just needs to listen and change your ways." 

[Doug Kitchen]

Greg,

I agree. There are many weaknesses with our review system. I particularly agree with the DS not meeting with individual board members. I have had the listening ear of a couple of DSs and I always had to be careful how I presented concerns about the church.

As a layman, I have generally found pastor/church reviews are not well done and typically waste my time. I can't imagine how pastor's feel when they essentially have a performance review in front of 8-10 people. I'm sure that when things are going great the current system would be ok - but probably not helpful, not hurtful either. When churches are struggling (about half of Nazarene churches), every 2-4 years is insufficient. Most board members have always been employees or non-commissioned military, etc. They have no training to help them when it comes time for these reviews. I've had 20-30 performance discussions as a supervisor and 25 or so as an employee. They were always 1-to-1. Most were not very helpful except to make sure that we all had a few key points about what was accomplished. I have been trained at least 20 different times about how to handle people in a professional manner.

I don't like the forms that we laypeople are given - they take forever to fill out and they seem to question the spiritual state of board members and very little that would help to understand the pastor-church relationship. I generally find that the DS's are reluctant to challenge the pastor and often ends up protecting them.

I think it is fair to consider every 2 or 4 years whether the relationship should continue but that should be the only topic of discussion. I think your list of procedures would be fine. But if there is a problem, then 2 or 4 years is too long.

My suggestion is that the pastor will have two reviews each year:

1. A fair and balanced appraisal by another ordained elder each year. The local church board should have nothing to do with it. The topics of conversation should be the pastor's development (in all areas). I think a pastor-to-pastor discussion could be very constructive.

2. Our district used to require a ministry plan each year - as a board member I have never seen one in 20 years. I think this is the sort of document that should be discussed each year with the board. The first draft should certainly come from the pastor. The emphasis should be on a nuts-and-bolts discussion of goals, plans, resources, budgets etc.

I suggested this to one young pastor and he said he would go back to his board and ask for an annual discussion. The local board is really unable to make a suggestion like this because there is no leader of the board in the absence of the pastor. The CotN doesn't really have a good structure to avoid or resolve conflict.

With regards to the private meeting without the pastor: As individual board members we have no authority to act individually. When the DS is there he/she can be sure that the board acts by consensus. While the pastor may view it negatively, I have never seen a DS jump into action without getting consensus first - it is really slow and usually the DS talks the board out of their issues (no matter how important). I think the case you mentioned in the first review was DS-error/failure.

I think it would be healthy for a pastor to ask the board about the pastor’s performance and the relationship to the church at least once a year. If you do not give an opportunity, then the board will have to save it up for four years.

Doug

[Bud Pugh]

I've had some thoughts since this was first posted but just haven't taken the time to write any of them out.

1. I think it is unfortunate that so many DSs, pastors, and church boards still view the church/pastor review as a performance review of the pastor. We just have not been able to shed the historic connection to the pastoral recall vote.

2. I am of the mind that a good church/pastor review spends the bulk of its time helping the church board and the pastor to ask the questions, "How are we doing together fulfilling the mission of Jesus for our church?" and "How can we do it better in the future?"

3. While the pastor is indeed the chairperson of the board, the Manual specifically allows that at the discretion of the DS a portion of the review may be conducted in the absence of the pastor. I have been a part of reviews where the pastor was not in the actual review (he or she introduced the DS to the board members and then left), and others where the pastor was involved in nearly all of the review. I prefer the latter.

4. One of the best things that could be done, in regards to the review, is for the pastor and church board to follow Manual 122 (the section immediately preceding the review section in the Manual), which states, "Every year, the pastor and the church board shall conduct a planning session to renew the expectations and goals of the church and the pastor. The written understanding of goals, plans and objectives between the church and the pastor shall be updated. Such written understandings shall be filed with the district superintendent." In my experience, few pastors lead their church through what is supposed to be an annual occurrence, and fewer still send the written understandings to the DS. It may be that this information alone could help a DS/Pastor when it comes time for the church/pastor review.

5. A DS I know says that he sent his monthly church board report to his DS each month when he was still serving in a local church. He found that it kept the DS informed (no surprises) and helped the DS when it came time for the review (or when something was happening in the church that he/she might be able to help the pastor with). This might be a good practice for those whose reviews have not gone as they thought they should.

6. A good practice for pastors may be to call their DS on occasion just to ask for his/her advice.

7. While the process is a church/pastor review, as you are all aware, there is an aspect of it that has as its objective to discover consensus regarding the question of continuing the church/pastoral relationship. Many have difficulty communicating with the congregation exactly what this outcome means. It would be nice if we would just say what the Manual says here, that the church/pastoral relationship will continue.

[Greg]

Sept 18, 2017 18:04:47 GMT -5 Bud Pugh said:

I've had some thoughts since this was first posted but just haven't taken the time to write any of them out.

1. I think it is unfortunate that so many DSs, pastors, and church boards still view the church/pastor review as a performance review of the pastor. We just have not been able to shed the historic connection to the pastoral recall vote.

2. I am of the mind that a good church/pastor review spends the bulk of its time helping the church board and the pastor to ask the questions, "How are we doing together fulfilling the mission of Jesus for our church?" and "How can we do it better in the future?"

3. While the pastor is indeed the chairperson of the board, the Manual specifically allows that at the discretion of the DS a portion of the review may be conducted in the absence of the pastor. I have been a part of reviews where the pastor was not in the actual review (he or she introduced the DS to the board members and then left), and others where the pastor was involved in nearly all of the review. I prefer the latter.

4. One of the best things that could be done, in regards to the review, is for the pastor and church board to follow Manual 122 (the section immediately preceding the review section in the Manual), which states, "Every year, the pastor and the church board shall conduct a planning session to renew the expectations and goals of the church and the pastor. The written understanding of goals, plans and objectives between the church and the pastor shall be updated. Such written understandings shall be filed with the district superintendent." In my experience, few pastors lead their church through what is supposed to be an annual occurrence, and fewer still send the written understandings to the DS. It may be that this information alone could help a DS/Pastor when it comes time for the church/pastor review.

5. A DS I know says that he sent his monthly church board report to his DS each month when he was still serving in a local church. He found that it kept the DS informed (no surprises) and helped the DS when it came time for the review (or when something was happening in the church that he/she might be able to help the pastor with). This might be a good practice for those whose reviews have not gone as they thought they should.

6. A good practice for pastors may be to call their DS on occasion just to ask for his/her advice.

7. While the process is a church/pastor review, as you are all aware, there is an aspect of it that has as its objective to discover consensus regarding the question of continuing the church/pastoral relationship. Many have difficulty communicating with the congregation exactly what this outcome means. It would be nice if we would just say what the Manual says here, that the church/pastoral relationship will continue.

Bud, regarding #3 "While the pastor is indeed the chairperson of the board, the Manual specifically allows that at the discretion of the DS a portion of the review may be conducted in the absence of the pastor."  

About 20 years ago I went through the manual and started to list everything a pastor was directed to do.  Of course, I soon had a crazy long list and and was barely started.  I remember that I found that the manual was full of contradictory expectations of the pastor which leads me to my question.  #3 seems to be a contradiction to the fact that the pastor is the chairman of the board and only in his or her absence would the DS be able to take that role.  Is this right?  

102.3. The pastor and the secretary of the church board shall be the president and secretary of the church,
113.5. Presiding Officer. The pastor, who shall be ex-officio president of the local church, or the district superintendent, or the general superintendent having jurisdiction, or someone appointed by the district superintendent or the general superintendent, shall preside at annual or special church meetings.

[Bud Pugh]

Well, your Manual appears to be in conflict with itself (a conflict approved by the General Assembly in 2005), for it says in Manual 123 (mid-2nd paragraph), "At the discretion of the district superintendent, a portion of the review may be conducted in the absence of the pastor." My guess is that since both are in the bylaws of the corporation, voted on by the General Assembly, one would have a hard time power-playing a DS to not leave the review when asked to by the DS (for more reasons than these conflicting items in the Manual).

[Kyle Borger]

You just need to serve a small church as an appointed pastor. No reviews necessary. If the DS is ok with you, you stay. If not you don't.

[Greg]

Sept 19, 2017 15:40:09 GMT -5 Bud Pugh said:

Well, your Manual appears to be in conflict with itself (a conflict approved by the General Assembly in 2005), for it says in Manual 123 (mid-2nd paragraph), "At the discretion of the district superintendent, a portion of the review may be conducted in the absence of the pastor." My guess is that since both are in the bylaws of the corporation, voted on by the General Assembly, one would have a hard time power-playing a DS to not leave the review when asked to by the DS (for more reasons than these conflicting items in the Manual).

If it resorts to power-playing, I think it's the Church that will lose.  Hopefully the DS and the pastors can find a healthy path forward.

[Susan Unger]

Sept 19, 2017 15:40:09 GMT -5 Bud Pugh said:

Well, your Manual appears to be in conflict with itself (a conflict approved by the General Assembly in 2005),...

Argh!!