Defining the Pastor's Job

In the post for May 4 – Incompetent Pastors, one of the ways to help minimize that as a problem is an effort between GBHEM and our seminaries to work out a definition that is simple and adequate so pastors can know their primary tasks and can be held accountable in their fulfillment.

I contend that Central Conference seminaries should also be at that table as should some of their superintendents. Where the church is growing, lessons are being learned about priorities.

Pastors like most people are multi-talented. That breadth of gifts and graces should not be discouraged.

However, defining the critical tasks will help them focus better on what is expected of them. The extra options for ministry arising from their creativity can fill in around those key tasks.

Defining Superintending

Through this blog on the 2012 General Conference, I have referred to the refocusing of bishops from “the world” as their parish to that of their own annual conferences.

I contend that superintending needs to be defined so that the primary responsibilities that only they can fulfill will be identified. Perhaps some in general and some in district superintending should be using their gifts and graces in other jobs within the church. Such talent should never be wasted.

But unless there is a focusing of undisciplined enthusiasm, the crucial role of superintending will continue to erode.

A study like that proposed for defining ministry could be expanded or replicated to include the superintending roles. Again, representation at the table should be global.

I contend that this concern rates an extremely high priority if for no other reason than that the Council of Bishops has become a “shadow government,” a parallel organization to the United Methodist Church. On their current trajectory, they will require considerably more staffing in the future and vastly more funding to fulfill their growing number of projects.

While restructuring is worth considering, and many ideas of the bishops have real value, we may find that those with the great program ideas should not be bishops but be executive directors of restructured agencies that keep the best of the current structure and integrate the best ideas from the Council of Bishops.

But to get to that point, the Church must simplify and prioritize the tasks of superintendency and then elect those who are better suited to those tasks, letting current bishops choose which kind of ministry they are best suited to pursue.

Further, removing program responsibilities (Paragraph 424 should be deleted) and finding other accountability options than loading up the leadership of boards and agencies with bishops may be needed to narrow the range of responsibilities taking Cabinets away from their key tasks. As superintendents from all over the world complained to me, they spend too much time on the road going to meetings that have nothing to do with their role of supervising their pastors.

Defining the superintending role and then restructuring need to be considered very soon.

Accountability

I’ve never heard the word “accountable” used so many times with regards to the elite officers of the church. Attention to accountability is desperately needed across the board. Holding bishops, agency and board personnel, and pastors accountable was a big element underlying the 2012 General Conference.

The approach by the Council of bishops dealt with only two of those groups, which is not surprising. And that was what frustrated many at General Conference. Those who are “king of the hill” do not want to have the rules apply to them. Elites are above all that.

Checks and balances have slipped. Separation of powers hardly exists as far as bishops are concerned.

Accountability comes from four key elements: one, clarity of responsibilities; two, boundaries of authority; three, enforcing those; and four, respectful but firm interactions between the bodies..

On the first one, work needs to be done as suggested above in other posts to focus on responsibilities.

On the second, the boundaries of power need to be clear. For example, delegates to jurisdictional and central conferences need to understand the limits on authority to which to hold their bishops and to elect those who will honor them. When expectations are understood, problems tend to diminish.

On the third, in human institutions there are always those who for any of many reasons, may act outside the priorities and/or boundaries. Usually the principle of accountability is to the ones who elected them.

In our system, we have exceptions. Bishops are held accountable mostly by their buddies in the college of bishops (Paragraph 413) and superintendents are held accountable only by the other superintendents (Paragraph 429.3). Superintendents are supposed to hold pastors accountable (Paragraph 421) but they are too busy and rarely even see their pastors and churches (Paragraphs 419.1j, 421, and 422). Without the back-up of superintendents helping hold the laity accountable, clergy killers and antagonists have begun ruling local churches. And pastors’ morale has dropped, especially when the superintendents finally step in and blame the pastors.

On the fourth matter, respect, that kind of belated intervention by superintendents blaming the pastor demonstrates where failure of respect leads to a serious breakdown and much harm.

While we have a Judicial Council which maintains a very high level of respect toward those approaching it, there is sometimes a sad lack of respect for what the Judicial Council rules and problems persist in those conferences who requested the Council's intervention because the decisions of the Council are frequently ignored or circumvented.

For a Church which has a deep tradition of order, we are allowing disorder in our accountability systems and that needs to be corrected.

The starting point may just be with the episcopacy committees and the respective conferences’ interviews with episcopal candidates.