Death by a Thousand Cuts (1 of 5)

Associates in Advocacy

Justice Always,

Reconciliation and Restoration Where Possible

http://www.aiateam.org/

Dear Bishop,

In the early 1980s, I received a call from a pastor.  He needed help.  He had been put on Cabinet-initiated leave of absence (suspension without pay) and had to be out of the parsonage by Friday (the call came late Wednesday night).  

This pastor had an average of 300 every Sunday in his small church, more than filling the sanctuary week in and week out.  The leadership of the congregation, upset by what they saw happening, tried to get the ear of the Cabinet but were given no credence.  Much of that congregation attended the trial.  When they saw the prejudice against the pastor that led to his conviction and realized how he was being treated by conference leaders, they left the church.  Attendance dropped to fifty and the church never recovered.

Under the unwritten rule that the customer is always right, many Cabinets have responded to complaints about pastors even with many years of effective ministry by forcing them onto leave of absence or saying they were unappointable because they angered people in their churches.  Cabinet members in too many places disregarded all the books about antagonists in the church and clergy killers and removed the minister, not the unruly complainers.

In my role as contact person for Associates in Advocacy, I have received calls from an average of ten different pastors every year since 1984.  When the pastors were removed from ministry, they, their families, and close friends tended to leave the church.  Sometimes church members who had watched in horror as this "antagonist" clique or that "clergy killer" took all of the Cabinet member's attention leading to the pastor's removal also left the church.  These were not the elderly members.  They tended to be the younger, more enthusiastic members with kids. 

I estimate that such unfairness may have led to as many as two hundred thousand members lost to the church over that period of time.  In a denomination of 9,000,000, that was hardly noticeable, especially dribbled out over thirty years.  It obviously caught no one else's attention.

Most bishops did not let their Cabinets operate this way.  But too many did.  More tomorrow.

In the covenant of the clergy,

                 Jerry

Rev Jerry Eckert, AIA contact person

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Death by a Thousand Cuts (3 of 5)

Associates in Advocacy

Justice Always,

Reconciliation and Restoration Where Possible

http://www.aiateam.org/

Dear Bishop,

This series of letters is entitled “Death by a Thousand Cuts.”  I’ve asserted that many good people left the church because of poor handling of complaints.  It is a part of the outflow that ranges from demographics to theological differences to pastoral misconduct.  For the blame to be laid only on pastors’ alleged incompetence is foolish. 

Worse, it is part of a pattern born in the late 1970s which led to the decision by the 1980 General Conference to change the role of superintendents and bishops to being the complaint handlers.  That change killed rapport between pastors and the ones who were supposed to be their pastors, mentors, and outside help in times of trouble.  This happened at a time when bishops were choosing superintendents not from the pool of older experienced pastors but of younger more ambitious ones who knew how to be“team players.”  These younger pastors could use the Cabinet to be stepping stones to large churches and to the episcopacy.  Helping pastors was not their goal.    

That breakdown in collegiality led to the ministry in our denomination becoming one of the worst workplaces imaginable.  Pastors ended up with no support.  The morale among clergy dropped precipitously.  Without any assurance of back-up in an increasingly antagonistic environment, good pastors lost heart and average pastors found no help to improve.  Blaming pastors for incompetence only further worsens the atmosphere.  As I suggested earlier this year, check out the ones coming out of seminary.  They are no longer the very best students.  Those “brightest and best” are earning MDivs and applying them outside the church.  The most talented don’t want any part of the “organized church.”  The bishops have set in motion a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Please help end this foolish drive to presume pastors are incompetent.  Pastors are unable to get away from criticism.  Cabinets, particularly bishops, can slough off criticism and ignore it without any consequences.  Pastors cannot.

If I have brought insight to the true problems of the denomination, you have already begun to see ways to ameliorate the situation.  More tomorrow.

In the covenant of the clergy,

                 Jerry

Rev Jerry Eckert, AIA contact person

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Death by a Thousand Cuts (4 of 5)

Associates in Advocacy

Justice Always,

Reconciliation and Restoration Where Possible

http://www.aiateam.org/

Dear Bishop,

Here are the problems: Cabinets have become antagonists to pastors rather than being colleagues in ministry.  Being prosecutors rather than pastors, Cabinet members no longer think in terms of how to help pastors and churches succeed together.  Instead, they undermine their pastors’ ministries by joining forces with complainers rather than evaluate the whole situation to see who is really causing trouble.

Cabinets tend to be inexperienced and are certainly lacking in training in personnel management.  There are no requirements that episcopal and superintendent candidates be educationally qualified at anything like the military’s Officer Candidate Schools.

Cabinet members tend to only hold themselves accountable (which they rarely do) and resist anyone from outside to do it.  If there are consequences for Disciplinary violations by bishops and superintendents, the ones harmed never see it.

Cabinet members, especially bishops, are wrapped up safely in financial packages way beyond 99 percent of the pastors as well as have power which distorts every contact with those same pastors.  Thus it is easy to become insular and above criticism to the point where blaming others is the probable response when there are difficulties.

With few exceptions, my dealings with individual bishops are usually very good.  Nearly everyone I have talked with has been gracious, attentive, and professional.  What really scares me is the mindset with which the Council of Bishops influences individual bishops’ practices and worldview.  Good bishops go along with that small handful who are controllers who set the tone and agenda of the Council of Bishops. 

Possible solutions?

Tomorrow.

In the covenant of the clergy,

                 Jerry

Rev Jerry Eckert, AIA contact person

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Suggestion

Associates in Advocacy

Justice Always,

Reconciliation and Restoration Where Possible

http://www.aiateam.org/

Dear Bishop,

It is that season again, appointment season!  This is the Cabinet’s time to shine, a time to remobilize to make Disciples, the time to place the best pastors available in the churches where their gifts and graces can help the most.  Despite what Bishop Solomon implied with his Appointment Game, the larger number of assignments you all will make relate to experienced pastors who are not outside the main stream. 

In this letter, I want to discuss how an appointment change is announced.  In my years, I have seen it done several ways.  The best is always when the superintendent made the announcement, in person, at the church where the change is to occur.  There are three reasons for that.

One, who is making the change?  The Cabinet, the ones who embody the episcopal office.  If anyone else makes that announcement, it appears that they may be the authority to make a change instead of the Cabinet.  As a bishop you surely do not want to give the impression that anyone but you set that change.  The congregants can then be assured that you really are in charge and that the change is the result of a larger vision for the conference.

Two, all changes have a degree of emotion involved, everything from glee to rage to despair, on the part of the pastor, SPRC, and key church leaders (often the ones with the deepest pockets).  Letting anyone but the superintendent announce the change opens the door to releasing those emotions in public.  Avoid the potential of unnecessary conflict within the church and let the superintendent be the appropriate one bear the consequences.

Three, only the superintendent can speak with authority about the concern of the Cabinet to provide a new pastor.  No one else can reassure the congregation that they will be getting a new pastor at the proper time of change and that the current pastor will be taken care of for his/her next appointment.

I have horror stories about situations where the superintendent did not do it.  Besides, they are finally responsible and should have the courage of their convictions   Or you could do it.  Since we are not waiting anymore for conference, have the DS do it.

In the covenant of the clergy,

                 Jerry

Rev Jerry Eckert, AIA contact person

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.