Another question for search committees

A long time ago, I wrote a post on "10 questions I would ask a search committee..." That post has been one of the most popular on this blog through the years (coming up on 10!).

Here's a new one that I am definitely adding to the list: What is their view of church membership?

This deserves some elaboration. Most people have some idea of what their expectations are regarding church membership—the degree of commitment, participation, responsibility, and so on that is to be expected of someone who joins the church as a member. And many people assume that everyone has roughly the same view as they do!

This is a mistake. DO NOT assume this of the church you are interviewing with.

My own view of church membership is a fairly high view; I believe strongly that commitment to, participation in, and accountability from the local church is an essential element of our spiritual health, and indeed our salvation. Like Cyprian (3rd century church father), I believe that "he cannot have God as his father who does not have the church as his mother." I think that the Bible declares—and orthodox believers through history have affirmed—that God uses his church so primarily for outreach and evangelism that, as one confession says, "there is no salvation apart from the church." I believe that a healthy and growing Christian will invariably have an active and committed presence in a local church. And I believe that, once someone has committed to a local church in membership, they should have very good and specific reasons to leave that congregation for another.

Now, I'm not under any illusion that my view of church membership is the dominant view in our 21st century western church, or even within my denomination. But I learned in one congregation how I mustn't take for granted even the assumption that most (including fellow PCA members) are "pretty close" to the same view.

I'll give you an example of how I learned this. I knew the pastor that preceded me at from seminary, and after I moved to town we had lunch a few times. In one of those times, we were talking about his ongoing sense of connection and affinity with the congregation, and I said, "I know you still think of yourself as a '[nickname for the church member].'" He looked at me with surprise and said emphatically, "I AM a [same nickname]!"

Now, this conversation took place over a year and a half after that pastor had left the congregation; during that time, he had only returned once (during my installation, and at my request). Though he had been in contact with some members, and others had followed him to another congregation, his relationship with the church I now served had no ongoing formal or regular connection. And yet, he thought of himself as a part of that body in a form no different from how any other member thought of themselves.

The analogy for how this pastor seemed to view his connection came to me later. I graduated from the University of South Carolina in 1999, and in the 15 years since I have only been back on the campus twice. I haven't attended one of my alma mater's sporting events in over 20 years, though I occasionally watch them on television (maybe two or three a year); I do check the scores on a regular basis, but at best I could be described as a tepid fan. I am still in contact—through Facebook and Twitter—with a number of my classmates, but here again it has been years since I saw most of them face-to-face. Likewise, I occasionally read with interest some news about some aspect of the school's leadership, academic development, or other recognition. And yet, in my sense of self-identification with the university I attended, I still think of myself as a "Gamecock."

That's about how this former pastor was in relation to my congregation: he was a fan—and surely a devoted and deeply-invested fan. But he was merely a fan, nevertheless. And he had succeeded in teaching many of the congregation (including most of the leadership) that church membership essentially meant being a fan.

In the end, this led to severe and sometimes devastating consequences, relationally, as my expectations AND theirs were not met. They wanted to be fans; I wanted a deeper and more lasting commitment. The bottom line: our views on church membership were very different.

Notice: this extended to much of the leadership as well. It's one thing when many lay-level members have a different understanding of what you expect from them as members; there's always room to grow, and a committed leadership can shape a culture over time that will affect consistency across the whole congregation.

In my case, the leaders and I were at odds (not all of them—and not all members in general either; but enough). What this tells me is that there was a major area of ill-fitness that I missed (and they did too) when considering whether I should be their next pastor.

I won't overlook this again—and I urge anyone else who is in candidacy to explore this topic with the congregations they are interviewing with.

Where "vision" fits into transition

[Super-brief preamble: this blog has been "dark" for over two years—that is, no new posts since sometime in mid-2011. I aim to change that in the coming months, starting today, and return to regular blogging on transition.]

I recently blogged (on my other blog) about what happened in the church I most recently served in Arizona. One of the things that "happened"—or rather, didn't happen—was the articulation of vision.

As I laid out in that post, and won't re-cover in the same detail here, my first and biggest mistake in how I served that church was related to vision. In the case of Dove Mountain Church, they didn't have a clear vision which the congregation was united behind. This was evident in the early phone interviews (honest hems and haws in response to questions about vision), and it was clear when I visited for my interview weekend. Both in the phone interviews and during a congregation-wide Q&A time over my weekend visit, I was asked point-blank: "What would your vision for our congregation be, should we call you as our pastor?"

Candidate-Pastors, when you hear this question or something like it, you must discern which of the following you are dealing with:

• Do they have a vision of their own, and they are seeking congruence and compatibility? OR
• Do they have NO vision, and they are relying on you to bring it?

If the former, then your work is clear: you need to ascertain what their vision is, and decide whether YOU believe that your own vision is a good fit. A good search team is doing the same, and if you and they all agree that your vision is compatible with theirs, you'll be off on the right foot.

If the latter—and they lack a clear vision—your work is also clear: you must state YOUR vision clearly, succinctly, and in a way that can be easily conveyed to others in their congregation. In this case, you are effectively asking them to buy into your vision as part of the process of calling you to be their pastor. (This, in addition to the other things they are committing to in calling you—but that's material for a future post.)

So what is a vision? What are they looking for in asking the question I was asked?

A vision is a simple declaration of where we are going, why we're going there, and what we're going to do when we get there. Or you could think of it as stating who we are and who we want to be.

This is where my trouble arose: in response to the question above, I said, "I won't know that until I get here and discern what this congregation's vision is."

That's an acceptable answer IF the congregation already has a vision. If they know who they are and where they want to go, then it is perfectly fine to say, "I'm comfortable leading you into the greater fulfillment of your existing vision." Be sure, however, that you understand very clearly what their vision is, and that it is truly the vision that the whole congregation shares. It's still probably better if you can show them your own vision (in your own words) and help them to see how they are two different statements saying basically the same thing; in that case, you can
determine how clearly the existing vision is understood by people on the search team, in the leadership, and in the congregation as a whole.

But if they don't have a vision—or, worse yet, they have a vision that only part of the congregation has committed to—then you absolutely must state your vision for church ministry. Do so uncompromisingly; be crystal clear that this is what you believe God has called you to do in His church. (Be flexible with the wording, of course, but steadfast in the principles.) If it's not something you're that committed to, then it's not really your vision—it's just A vision. State YOURS; if they aren't able to get behind it, then you will eventually find it to be a poor fit.

Where? Or Who?

In a recent interaction with a friend and fellow pastor, I asked "what did you and your family do to make transition easier?" His response was challenging to me, as it caused me to reconsider a factor in the decision-making process that I now believe to be vital.

Here is what my friend said:

(1) Before we even said 'yes' to employment, we asked 'who' rather than 'where.' That is, rather than focusing on where are we moving to, we focussed on who we have existing relationships with. In this last instance, we had several employment opportunities but settled upon [our current city] primarily because of the relationships we had here. (I said 'yes' to being an Assistant Pastor over a solo and a senior pastor role; and I did this because I valued what these relationships would mean for me more than what a different title or role might mean). (2) Once we arrived, we immediately plugged back into active relationships -- even although the majority of them were not at the church we came to. Obviously we built new relationships with our new church family, but having some other prior relationships took a lot of pressure off and enabled us to function well as a family.

I think this is a fundamentally different approach to decision-making in pastoral candidacy and transition than most take. It certainly is different from the one I took. And that betrays a couple of things about my thinking:
The importance of Kingdom-relationships. I overestimated my (and my family's) capacity to adapt relationally to wherever we moved. In His grace, God has sustained us in west Tennessee in spite of my overestimation, and in spite of the distance to any of our family and/or existing friendships-- but that doesn't change the fact that existing relationships matter greatly. My friend's approach to his decision is a real challenge to me, because I've seen the struggles that I and my family have sometimes had relationally, yet I wonder whether my pride could forsake role or title in favor of meaningful relationships.
The unimportance of cultural or geographical boundaries. Let's return to basic New Testament redefinition of what it means to be a part of the Church-- the new Israel-- and see how flawed my thinking has been and is: I still think in terms of the cultural differences that I embody as someone who grew up in the American South, or the geographical issues that arise when I think of what it means to live in one part of the country (or the world) or another. But my friend, whose move to his current congregation was even further from his home country than he already was before, exposes the spiritual lie in my thinking.

As I've been mulling over my friend's response for a week or so, I wonder if this paradigm-shift in the starting-point question (who instead of where) doesn't have even broader implications than what his response suggests. I think the "who?" question should ALWAYS be asked--and answered-- long before the "where?" question comes into play.

What does this look like? Perhaps it means setting aside questions such as, "is the geographical/cultural context one in which I believe I can effectively minister?" or "how far away from my parents/siblings is this ministry context?" While vital questions, and worthy of asking, these might begin to lead a candidate in a direction that commits him to a certain opportunity (or rules one out) prematurely.

Instead, the candidate might ask "who?" in this way: "are the people in this congregation those to whom I can have a fruitful and effective ministry?" Or, "do my core values and ministry gifts serve and shepherd these people in the manner that they need to be served and led?" Or, "what kind of pastor does this congregation need to lead them to the good pastures and still waters of the next season of their congregational life-- and am I the pastor to shepherd them there?"

I consider this a major breakthrough in my thinking about pastoral transition, and urge candidates everywhere to ask and answer "who?" before you begin to ask "where?".

"Wife to assist"

I mentioned a real tragedy of a comment in an information packet from a church before. I've come across another.

I recently saw a profile for a church, after a friend who is in transition forwarded it to me, where they are seeking a solo pastor. They describe themselves as a congregation this is mostly older, with a substantial need for pastoral visitation. No big surprises so far.

Then they say that they are looking for a younger pastor: a man with young children, whose "wife can assist" in the pastoral duties and visitation!

There are so many problems here that it's difficult to know where to start, but let's start with this: NO wife who is taking care of young children will have any time to "assist"!!!

Furthermore, my advice to candidate-pastors anywhere and everywhere is this: if any church states, or even implies, that they expect to get a "two-for-one" deal with you and your wife, run away as fast as you can. That is absolutely not the role of a pastor's wife, and should not be the expectation (or even request) of a congregation.

Search committees: please, think through these statements and priorities according to biblical perspectives!

Considering a "revitalization" church

I recently interacted with a pastor who was contemplating a transition to another congregation. The one he was considering had a number of markers of need for "revitalization" and my colleague wondered, "how can I know if they are ready for true revitalization?"

This is an excellent question, because a number of churches will recognize the need at some level, but will not be ready for it.

I asked him: do you think they really want to grow? Do they genuinely want to minister to others? Or is there a sense of urgency mostly out of fear of continuity— that is, they are afraid the money will run out, there won't be anyone around in 20 years, etc.?

If they really want to grow through the ministry of the Gospel, be interested. If it's motivation out of fear, not so much.

He responded that he agreed— he didn't need to move to minister to people motivated by fear; he had plenty of that where he was.

How do you discern whether a congregation is motivated by fear, or by Gospel urgency? Asking the following questions is a start:

• Health: What is a healthy church? Is your church a healthy church? What brings you to that conclusion?
• Good ministry: What does good ministry look like to them? What are the marks of success/effectiveness for good ministry?
• Workload: Who do they see as the "front lines" of ministry in a healthy congregation? Is it the pastor? Is it the church's officers? The members?
• Roles: What is the role of the pastor in a healthy church? What is the role of the officers/other leaders? How does Ephesians 4:11-16 apply to them?
• Goals: What are the two most important things that you hope the Lord will accomplish through your next pastor? Why are those more important than others? How will you know that your new pastor is effective in his work of ministry?
• Values: What are the things that must not change in any future ministry of this congregation? What is open to change, however great? What sets the boundary for what may or may not change?

Answering those questions will set you on the right track of evaluating motivation. A church that is ready for true revitalization will exhibit a biblical definition of church health, and they will recognize that their congregation is unhealthy in at least some ways (every church is!). They will define "good ministry" as "Gospel ministry"— that is, the faithful preaching and teaching of Christ with the result of transforming work through His grace. They will recognize that the workload is to be shared among all of the leaders (and all of the congregation in general), and that the primary work of the pastor is to teach and equip them for Gospel ministry (as Ephesians 4 states). Their goals will reflect that, and they will understand that the only things not open to change are the faithful preaching of the Gospel and the right worship of Christ.

Indoor pets

A friend recently asked me to help him evaluate a few churches that he was candidating with, and some of them had Church Information Forms (which is sort of a church-side equivalent to the Ministerial Data Form in the Presbyterian Church in America).

Part of this form has a place to rank "Pastoral Strengths Desired"-- things like Preaching, Evangelism, Youth Work, Community Service, etc. At the very bottom, there's a place for "Other" and a blank.

One of these congregations had ranked Other as one of the highest (ranked 7 on a scale of 1 to 7), among maybe three that were similarly ranked. What had they indicated as "Other" that was such a high priority?

No Indoor Pets.

Really? That's one of your top three strengths desired? Really?!?

On the one had, there's an honesty to that, and I acknowledge the truth of that self-report. But on the other hand, I have real concerns about the degree to which an incoming pastor has opportunity for real and meaningful gospel ministry in a congregation that is choosing their next pastor in large measure by whether they will bring indoor pets to the manse/parsonage.

There's revitalization where difficult circumstances can be overcome by gospel priorities-- and then there is a context where spiritual barrenness has already set in, and the congregation is past the point of no return. I counseled my friend to pass this one by.

Churches: if you're finding things like this turn up as priorities in the process of searching for a new pastor, you should serious rethink whether you are indeed ready for a pastor who is coming to invest energy, time, and intellectual and spiritual resources in your well-being.

Free book

Got your attention? Good.

One of my favorite writers on church and ministry is Thom Rainer. His son Sam is a pretty astute guy, too.

Between now and Monday, you can get a copy of their book Essential Church? for free, as a downloadable PDF e-book.

What do you do first?

When I taught my very small portion of the Candidating and Transition into Ministry class last week, one of the students asked, "What do I do to get started in the candidacy process?"

This is a great question; after he asked, I wondered how many candidates get stalled on this, and never gain (or regain) the momentum they need to candidate well. Here's how I would get started if I were starting today:

1. Make sure my resume, Data Form(s), Reference List, Bio, and Philosophy of Ministry are current. These are the documents that I typically offer to send any church I contact, and all of them deserve a look. Do I need to add or change any of the titles or descriptions on my resume? Does my Data Form accurately reflect what it should? Have any of my references moved or changed jobs? Should I add anything to my bio? Do I still hold to that Philosophy of Ministry? Since I already have these documents prepared, it might take me a couple of hours to ensure they are current; starting from scratch, however, it could take days or even weeks to get them to "final draft" status. This is first priority, since you want to be able to get these out the door (or sent in an e-mail) right away when the time comes.
2. Contact my "network." I would send an e-mail to 30-50 people who I trust are interested in seeing me well-placed, and ask them if they know of any positions that would be a good fit. I would also ask them to ask their network if they know about any opportunities. And I would start making intentional individual contact with my network, either by phone or in person, to check in with them in a more personal way. These people are my best bet for getting a good placement, so I need to take the relationships seriously. (2a. Also at this point I would contact my closest 5-10 friends and ask that they be praying regularly and specifically for me; I'll begin to send them periodic e-mails that give them updates on my search.)
3. Research any opportunities produced by #2. I expect that my first round of contact might give me a lead or two-- maybe even as many as five or six-- and now its time to look into these opportunities a bit more. Have I checked to see if these churches have websites? What does a little demographic research tell me about the area and its ministry potential? Do I know anyone who is or has been on staff at that church? Is this opportunity listed on any of the many websites-- and if so, what does that listing tell me about the job description? I'm looking for confirmation that this position would, in fact, be a good fit for me; there's no sense in pursuing something that I won't consider, and I'll protect their time and mine by doing a good job with this step.
4. Contact those opportunities that rise to the top with #3. Chances are, one or two of these might be very exciting, and I'll start by making a phone call. If I've found a contact person listed, I'll try to contact them; this may be through a provided phone number, or by calling the church's number and asking for some help with this. If it is an Assistant or Associate Pastor role, I might call the Senior Pastor. If all I have is an e-mail address, I'll send a brief (as in, 2-3 short paragraphs) message introducing myself and asking if I may telephone the contact person; I'll ask them to respond with a number where I can call them. If even this doesn't pan out-- if I get no response to this request, or the response simply asks that I "send my data form through e-mail"-- I'll downgrade this opportunity to a last-hope level (unless I later hear something more from them). Those that I do talk to will get asked the same questions: how is the search going (and are you still considering new candidates)? What can you tell me about the church? Can you tell me anything about what you are seeking for this position? These questions will tell me lots that the paperwork I might receive won't.
5. Send my information to those opportunities that request it. I won't take for granted that, just because I've done a little ground work and bothered to call, the guy on the other end will automatically want my resume. He (or she) will probably ask me a few questions to gauge whether they would be interested in me as a candidate. At a certain point in the conversation, I'll have a sense about whether he is interested or not and will ask if I may send my information-- then ask what they would like to receive. I usually offer my resume, Data Form, and bio the first time around; there will be plenty of time to send the rest.
6. Check the vacancy lists. This is the first stop for a lot of guys, but notice that it is far down the list for me. After I've worked over all of the opportunities generated by real relationships that I already have, I'll start to look for new opportunities. Those that look promising will be filtered through #2a (my close friends), #3, and #4: I'll ask my friends if they know anything about this opportunity, do some research about it, then start making phone calls. This part is exhausting to me, because as an introvert I'll spend an enormous amount of energy trying to build a new relationship on a cold-call. Still, This is THE WAY to get a foot in the door at a church on one of these lists; otherwise, I'm just one more resume in a stack of 70 others. When I've gotten to the phone calls, #5 kicks in again, and I'll start sending out information again.
7. Follow-up in a timely way. I don't want to become a pest, and care is required to avoid being one. Nevertheless, I am trying to build a relationship with this person and the search team they are a part of, so I will regularly make follow-up contact with the point person on the search. This may be a quick e-mail, a phone call, or both. When I contact them, I assure them that I am praying for them and their search, ask how I might be praying more specifically, and ask if there has been any progress that they can share with me. (By the way, this is not just a tactful way of probing them for updates; I genuinely mean all of this, and would discourage anyone from saying something like this if they don't mean it.) Typically, they are happy to give me an update if there is something to tell, and I slowly get the opportunity to know at least one member of the search team.
8. Respond promptly to their requests for information. If things go well, one or more churches may ask me to provide more information-- either something I already have prepared, or something that they have prepared in the form of a questionnaire. Do they want a CD of some sermons? Would they like my reference list? Could I fill out this profile form they have designed? Whatever their requests, get your response turned around as quickly as you can, while attending to accuracy and precision. For things that I have already prepared (or should be able to get together quickly)-- such as reference lists or sermon recordings-- 2-3 days is reasonable; for things like a questionnaire, 7-10 days is fine. If I'm unsure, I'll ask them how quickly they need it; they may be meeting in a week and want to consider my answers at that meeting, if possible.

In each of these steps, I would do my utmost to be gracious, tactful, and appreciative. I would remember that my ministry to my future church could be starting with this phone call, and would work to put their priorities in front of my own if at all possible.

Technorati Tags: Candidacy

Convictions vs. Preferences: where problems arise in candidacy

Yesterday I discussed how we should understand different levels of priority when it comes to issues that unite and divide us in the church. Today I'd like to think about how this matters in pastoral candidacy.

One of the first things that candidates must understand is that they do not get the same flexibility with these issues that others get. Only primary issues are matters that should be required for church membership. Agreement on secondary issues, however, must be present for church leadership; a Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America, for example, should not have a significant dispute with the Westminster Confession, because that is the doctrinal standard of the PCA.

This, for example, is why is is crucial for a candidate to understand the core doctrines of a denomination, and whether he agrees with them or not. A pastoral candidate has an obligation to state his exceptions to doctrinal standards, and if he is not approved for ordination in that denomination-- or is not offered a a call to a particular church-- because of those exceptions, he should accept that graciously. Responding otherwise will only extend the division.


But pastoral candidates should be aware that they are being evaluated at the tertiary level, as well. While there is greater room for disagreement here-- just as there is more room at the secondary level than at the primary one-- there still needs to be a broad amount of agreement for the ministry to work. A pastoral candidate should find out what the key tertiary issues are, and determine if he is in agreement with them.

For example, a pastor that chooses to home-school his children will find that some churches want the children of their congregation to be a witness in the public schools, and therefore the pastor will lose the trust of some of his congregation. Similarly, a pastor who introduces guitar, praise choruses, and new melodies for familiar hymns will not find a congregation that prefers a strictly traditional worship service to be very open to his changes.

This brings me to the second point about how the distinction of issues matters in candidacy. Both candidate-pastor and candidate-church must take care to ensure that the issues are properly categorized. It is too easy for those issues that are particularly dear to us to migrate up the scale of importance.


In many cases, those issues that are important personally will shift from tertiary to secondary-- or even, in some cases, from secondary to primary. In my experience, this happens in churches when there is little, if any, disagreement about the issue in question; because everyone shares the same perspective on an issue, the importance of that perspective elevates.

On the other hand, when this happens for a pastor or pastoral candidate, it is more likely the result of one or more of the following:

• He has spent a significant amount of study on a particular issue


• He has been heavily influenced by one or two mentors/pastors/professors who shaped his life in many ways, including his perspective on that issue


• He has met a substantial amount of resistance about his view on that issue, and this has made him defensive

The antidote to this "Creeping Priority Syndrome" is, on both sides, a good dose of humility. Proper perspective through humbling oneself is always appropriate, but never more so than when dealing with issues upon which others disagree.

At the risk of seeming cynical, however, I presume that the more ready (and more frequently applied) salve for this "Syndrome" is simply looking elsewhere. While the long-term problems of mis-categorized issues are not solved by this, in the short-term it is obviously easier to avoid facing them, instead seeking for a pastor or church that is more directly compatible with your view.

Primary convictions vs. incidental preferences

I recently blogged about why convictions are important in the search process. Here I'd like to expand on the decisions surrounding that concept, using a graphical representation that I have found helpful.


The diagram that has helped me-- and scores of other students at Covenant Seminary-- understand this concept was developed in 2002 by Bryan Clark, and the foundation of it looks like this:

Obviously, the premise is that the issues we face in ministry-- those things which we may disagree about to one degree or another-- should be broken down into three categories. And the key to the whole thing is how those categories are understood. What is a primary issue? How do you handle it? When must you agree-- or put another way, when may you disagree?


It's easiest to understand the primary issues as those that define orthodoxy in Christianity (think Apostles' Creed)-- these are doctrines that are essential to Christian life and faith. On the other hand, secondary issues are those which may typically divide one denomination from another (think Westminster Confession). These are doctrines for which there may be a large amount of biblical data, but that data can be construed in more than one way.

Tertiary issues are much more personal, and obviously have a great deal more variance than the other two. They may not be doctrines at all, but simply matters of preference or a conviction about the application or result of a doctrine. If they are doctrinal, they have limited biblical data supporting them-- in other words, they are more inferential than clear, evident doctrines. Tertiary issues are typically understood to be matters of conscience rather than dogma.


The biblical basis for dividing out issues into these categories can be seen in three verses:

• Galatians 1:9: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned.


• Titus 1:9: He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.


• Romans 14:5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

Clearly, the scriptures themselves delineate different levels of issues or matters of division, and some are more severe than others. It may be helpful to think of them in this way: primary issues are matters you should be willing to die for. Secondary issues are matters worth sacrificing unity about, and you may divide over them. Tertiary issues should be those which you dialog about, but should not break fellowship because of them.


Examples are numerous, but just a few that come to mind are here. What should you do when these-- and many others like them-- present themselves? How should you handle them?

Clearly, deviation of primary issues requires church discipline, and persistance in such deviation should result in excommunication. The only way for the church to keep herself pure is to insist upon this. (This idea is latent in Galatians 1:9, above.)

Deviation on secondary issues generally does not requre formal discipline. However, if the differences here threaten the peace and unity of the congregation, discipline may be necessary. Excommunication, however, is seldom appropriate at this level.

For tertiary issues, deviation requires humility, acceptance, and dialog. We should seek to understand each other at this level, and even be open-minded to the perspectives of others. However, it is perfectly normal-- even expected-- that there will be many points of disagreement at this level.

Tomorrow I will finish this idea with particular discussion about how these issues matter for pastoral candidacy.

Sometimes the best positions aren't listed

I just got off the phone with a church where I am being added to the pool of candidates considered.  This particular church is a large, denominational church with a multiple-pastor staff in a major city, and they have at least three-- possibly four-- open positions for ordained ministry (in addition to the five ordained pastors already on staff).

NONE of those three or four positions are to be found on any list of available opportunities.

So how did I get word of them?  How can you find out about similar positions?

The answer is a familiar one to long-time readers: networking. 

I found out through one particular telephone call with a former seminary president.  I had never met this man before, and he was the president of a seminary other than the one I attended.  But a close friend of mine-- the man who discipled me in college-- is a life-long friend of the former seminary president, and my friend asked him to speak with me.

To make a long story short, the former seminary president told me: you should call "so-and-so" church.  And I did.

The point is this: in a lot of churches, the pastor(s) already have enough contacts in ministry to be choosy about how they recruit candidates.  Often, these are the churches that people want to work for.  And the way to get on their radar, if you don't happen to be from that church to begin with, is to use your network.

One of the larger PCA churches in St. Louis has hired three pastors in this manner-- since we've been in St. Louis!  They never solicit resumes or candidates through lists or publications, but prefer to use their existing network.

Networking is so essential in candidacy.  This is just one more way that it can return dividends for your time invested.

Technorati Tags: Candidacy

Digging up bones

I was recently asked to comment about a church that allegedly had some major difficulties more than 10 years ago. In this particular case, I didn't know anything about what I was asked to speak to-- nor did I want to.

There are legitimate reasons why someone would want to know about past troubles in a church; someone considering membership, for example, may wish to know about the church they will join. And I not only admit legitimacy but encourage asking about such things in the context of candidacy and placement. A candidate-pastor must know about the church he will serve.

But how much is too much to ask? How far back must a candidate go to get the information he needs? Five years? 10? 20?

If the situation was turned around, my guess is that the answer would be quite conservative. What if someone considering membership (or, better said, being considered for membership) had to recount their own past history in order to pass muster? “Let's hear it-- all the juicy details,” I can hear them saying. Frankly, this is the more appropriate consideration-- not, “Is this church good enough for me to join?” but, “Am I good enough for membership in this church?”

[I realize that the last idea goes against the grain of our individualist culture: in the “me-first” world we Americans live in, how dare I suggest that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?]

“But wait,” you say. “Isn't there room for growth in this sort of circumstance? What about grace?” Indeed, grace is hard at work in my life-- and (hopefully!) in the lives of believers coming before a church for membership. In fact, it is that very grace-- NOT the circumstances of their history-- that should be the basis for membership.

This came to mind recently as I learned that a church that I once worked with was soon to be without a pastor. I pondered whether I would want to serve that church as their pastor, and upon deciding that I would want to, it occurred to me that they might not give me fair consideration. Why? Because they knew me 10 years ago. They saw me fail repeatedly. They are aware of the sin and simple immaturity of my past. Would they allow for the maturity and growth God has brought about in my life?

How much allowance should we who are candidates give churches? If we-- as the individual members of a congregation-- would hope and even expect the rest of the congregation to give us grace for our past mistakes and foibles, shouldn't we (as candidate-pastors, potential members, or outsiders looking in) also give congregations grace for their past as a collective group, in hope and expectation that God has been at work to sanctify His church?

I don't know how far back to go, but I do know this: it's what lies ahead that is more important. If past problems are still causing a stir, then my concern shouldn't be with the history but with the present. On the other hand, if there is evidence that healing and reconciliation has occurred, that is cause for praise and thanksgiving.

Every church has a past that is filled with sin. Why dwell on past sins unnecessarily, if God has reconciled those sins?

“The system” and its problems

A recent conversation forced me to reflect on why the current “system” of placement in my denomination works the way it does; specifically, why it often seems like pastors are just shuffling around from one position to another. Is most pastoral transition in the PCA the result of a “grass is always greener” mentality, as my friend suggested?

I don't know if I can answer that; maybe a few more years of researching transition will lend me more confidence to take on questions like this.

I can, however, speak to the reason (or reasons) why it seems like this: the PCA is organized specifically to be a grassroots denomination. This leads to ancillary factors which contribute to the problem.

When the PCA was formed in 1973, much of the impetus for its formation was the direction and leadership of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PC-US). The direction of the PC-US was objectionable because, over a number of years, they had moved further and further away from holding the Bible as authoritative, inerrant, infallible, and inspired by God, leading to increasing theological liberalism. The leadership-- a top-down, authoritative oligarchy-- was objectionable because the structure of that denomination did not (at least in the eyes of the dissenters) allow for fair dissent or dissolution. Thus, when the PCA formed out of the PC-US, they decided that the structure would be somewhat reactionary, and went with a grassroots organization.

The result of this is that the larger governing bodies of the PCA have little or nothing to do with the arrangement of a pastor's call. The General Assembly normally has no part in the process (though there have been a few occasions when a congregation wishing to dissolve a relationship with a pastor had to go all the way to the G.A. level!). The Presbyteries have some part, but that part is nearly too late to have any effective leadership role.

Presbytery involvement comes into play only after a call has been issued to a candidate-pastor-- so the whole system of the candidacy process can be completed (or nearly completed) without the knowledge or participation of Presbytery. The role of the Presbytery's involvement comes in just a few forms: approval by the receiving Presbytery of the candidate-pastor himself with regard to ordination (he must either be ordained by that Presbytery or his ordination must be approved to transfer from another Presbytery); approval by that Presbytery of the terms of call as given by the church issuing his call; and dismissal from the previous Presbytery (though this step is unnecessary for a new ordinand). Everything else is left to the local church.

What's missing (that my friend pointed out) is accountability for the pastor and guidance for the church:

• No one questions the pastor about why he is leaving his current call. Has he finished the work God brought him there for? Is a bad situation truly unreconcilable? Is he missing something that he should know?
• No one offers an objective assessment about what he is suited for. Has he considered (or reconsidered) his sense of calling thoroughly? Does he have a clear vision of what God is leading him to do?
• No one offers an objective assessment about where he might go. Is the church that extended him a call the best fit for him? Is he the best fit for that church?
• No one has given any leadership or guidance to the churches in their search. Have they consulted with anyone about who and what they are looking for? Do they know how to conduct a proper search? Have they considered the best candidate-pastors for the position?

These are significant problems. Without a “hub” of sorts to spin this system around, things can become quite arbitrary.

Soon I'll post my thoughts on some solutions.

Networking in the PCA

“It's like 'old home week' for you,” my friend Craig commented to me. We had only been at the Presbyterian Church in America's (PCA's) General Assembly for a few minutes, but I had already greeted a dozen people. What gives?

What gives is the very reason I went to General Assembly: what happens in the church is all about relationships, and Craig saw this starkly in only a few moments. If anything, my hypotheses about networking and the placement process were confirmed and strengthened by my brief time at G.A.

Since I've been in the PCA for a while, since I had a mentor early on who took the time to help me build relationships with PCA folk, and since I have attended the PCA seminary for four years, I am already fairly well-connected in the denomination. What Craig saw was the fruit of that. In spite of this, however, I would be presumptuous if I assumed that my relationship-building work was done.

Based on what I know about my own sense of calling, I set up meetings at General Assembly with key people from PCA presbyteries where we would like to move. For example, I met with the chairman of the Mission to North America Committee from one presbytery in Marcie's home state. We had a great conversation about my passions, burdens, and sense of calling for revitalization, and he indicated that he was encouraged that I would be interested in coming to his presbytery to minister in that capacity. He was not in a position to recommend a particular opportunity to me at that time, but simply having met him and gotten to know him-- even briefly-- seems like it will make a difference in the placement process.

More than ever, I'm convinced that networking and relationships are the key to placement.

Follow-up on demographics

Anyone especially interested in my list of good demographics websites will find this recent Associated Press article interesting. Specifically, it details how the Google Maps website-- and especially the technology that it offers for free-- has been used to do demographical work in amazing ways. Very helpful.

Links to good research resources

Do you think you might be interested in a certain church, but you don't know if the city/town/farm village suits you? Demographics research is the key to finding your way. Here are some helpful online resources for researching demographics just about anywhere in the United States:

• Yahoo Real Estate Neighborhood Profiles. Enter a zip code, or even an address, and get general demographics, cost of living, and quality of life information. You can also browse by state. This one is a good starting place.
• Sperling's Best Places. Extensive Demographics information, including statistics on population, economy, housing, health and healthcare, education, crime, climate, and transportation. This one requires a membership for all but the most basic data, but the membership is free.
• Claritas Best Segments. This company provides detailed and thorough demographical analyses-- the kind of thing that a church planter would drool over-- for a fee. They also offer free information under the “Zip-code Lookup” portion of their website. They have categorized every demographic group into humorous and playful descriptions, and at times they are a bit caricatured, but it is good information nevertheless.
• U.S. Governmental Census Bureau-- American Factfinder. This site is a part of the Census Bureau's website, and it will provide all of the details that the latest census data reveals about any given community. Very helpful.
• Yahoo Yellow Pages-- Church search. Find out what other churches are in the area where you are looking. One of my professors downloads this data into a spreadsheet, then imports that into Microsoft MapPoint to get a map of all of the churches in an area. Good for church planters, or those churches looking to re-locate.
• American Religion Data Archive. This site is such a wealth of information that you really must look at it to get a sense of how much data is really there. If you want to know how many adherents of a particular denomination-- say, the Old Order Amish-- there are per 1000 in the general population in any given state, this is where you go to find out. They have a record of every published survey or poll related to religious matters, dating back into the 80's. They do maps, they do reports, and they do general documents. This site is a researcher's dream (I've wasted hours here-- don't tell my wife!).
• Google Maps. This one is a new-comer to the list, but has made a big splash because of the integrated satellite maps available for any particular address. Fun to play with, and good for directions as well as determining how far from another location (like your spouse's parents' house) the place where you are looking actually is.

The benefits of denominationalism...

...Or, at least, one benefit: the process is a lot cleaner. I was corresponding with the Real Live Preacher briefly about this, and he confessed that, being in a more independent church context, he had always found that, "there are as many ways to do this as there are churches, it seems. No rules, and a lot of mistakes."

I appreciate his honesty about it, and it causes me to recognize the great benefits of being a part of a denomination. A few that come to mind:

• Networking: to whatever extent you utilize the natural network that occurs in a denomination, it is a huge benefit for the candidacy process.
  
• Administrative functions: services such as the placement office at my denominational seminary and the Administrative Office of the denomination itself may the system run a bit smoother.
  
• Mentoring: operating in a Presbytery has the natural element of peer acountability, mentoring, and oversight as a requirement.
  
• Guidance for churches: while many don't pursue it as much as is actually available, there is good help for churches who need guidance through the search process.
  
• Known standards: in spite of what I said in an earlier post, there is a level of theological standardization that is all but taken for granted, but has a huge benefit to the process.
  

It is helpful to me to keep a healthy perspective on this question; I love my denomination, and I'm ready to take vows of commitment to the PCA. Thanks to Real Live Preacher for reminding me of that.

A little more on issues...

Working through this recent question about "hot topic" theological issues has made me aware of the level of discernment required for candidacy, and I must say I am surprised at this.

Since my denomination-- the Presbyterian Church in America-- holds to a fairly high confessional standard, I never would have guessed that theological discernment would be a major concern in the candidacy process. I always knew there would be issues of practical/logistical matters which would require careful discernment, such as ministry emphasis, worship style, approaches to evangelism, etc. (Please don't misread this sentence as a suggestion that I don't view the more abstract theological issues as practical-- I do.) But I didn't think I would be faced with a need for caution in the theological realm.

I guess I was wrong on that one...

On discernment, caution, and "issues"

We received some information from a church the other day that was striking. To begin with, Marcie and I were both quite surprised at the fundamentally high quality of the material; this was, by far, the most articulate and helpful information I have ever seen from a candidate-church. They provided a good introduction to the church, some basic demographics, and details about what the committee views as the distinctives of the church. The only thing missing was an explicit description of what they were seeking in a candidate-pastor (although some implications of this were peppered throughout the document). They also included a list of twenty questions (not a pun) that they wanted me to answer concerning various parts of my views on theology and ministry. Generally speaking, it was a great information packet.

However, a lot of what they said-- especially in the "distinctives" section-- was interesting in its ambiguity. Some of their descriptions were such that, taken at face value, they were simply informative about the true distinctions of the church; at the same time, much of what they put forth could easily be construed (or misconstrued) as "code" for, shall we say, some of the "minority" positions in our denomination. That is, if they hold to a peculiar theological position that is currently in debate as to its orthodoxy, they may have, in these distinctives, put forth a veiled plea for sympathizers to their views.

This puts me in a difficult position. At face value, I agree with all of their distinctives, and could easily minister in that context. In that case I would be quite interested in pursuing the position. On the other hand, if they venture further afield than their language suggests-- if it is an understatement, intentional or not, of a more controversial viewpoint-- then I am fairly confident that I disagree with quite a bit of what makes them distinctive. If this is the case then it would be a waste of my time, and theirs, to pursue it further.

This one instance causes me to consider the place of theological controversy and hot issues in the candidacy and placement process. There are a lot of issues that arise in the PCA... the direction of the denomination, confessional subscription, creation chronology, sonship, theonomy, the "new perspective on Paul," "Auburn Avenue" theology, paedocommunion, to name a few. How do these come into play in the candidacy process?

Normally, I am not much of an "issues" guy. I'm convinced that any of these (or any other) issues can become an obstacle to the Gospel: as a (future) pastor, once I become an activist for any cause-- no matter how noble-- I demonstrate that something other than the Gospel takes a higher priority in my life. What is more, at this point I would rather work on getting right the basic tools of biblical exegesis and fundamental theology. My friend Jon (http://www.barlowfarms.com) recently blogged some wise and helpful advice to this end that I wish all of my seminary classmates would read (see the last large paragraph from his 9/27/2004 post).

That said, I think that a careful candidate-pastor must take these issues into consideration when he is considering a church. Of course a church will present herself in the most favorable light possible-- it would be naive to expect anything else. But if that presentation makes a suspect or questionable position appear incontrovertible, caution and discernment are in order.

A large part of the solution seems to be in the diagnosis. Often, we can only see the symptoms; we see events or practices which may, or may not, indicate the presence of a questionable theology. The true problem-doctrine will rarely be presented, especially by a search committee. It is important to recognize that those apparent symptoms may simply be face-value distinctives-- harmless and unthreatening values that set one church apart from another. Said another way, it is not quite so important what a church is doing that looks suspicious as it is why they are doing it. There is sometimes a very fine line between an acceptable practice motivated by orthodoxy and a questionable practice driven by heresy. If I can get to the "why" answers, I'm doing good work in my discernment.

Follow-up on 11/26/2004:
I withdrew my name from consideration from the church mentioned above. In their distinctives, they listed as "further reading" several authors who are more upfront with their views on the controversial topics, and it is reasonable to infer that this church does hold to one of the "hot-topic" viewpoints, even though they themselves said nothing in their descriptions that was conclusive.

One of my professors surmised that this may be because they are not confident enough in their understanding to attempt a re-phrasing of the issue into their own words. If they mention the people they did, he said, they are telling me what they believe indirectly.

This brings to mind another concern altogether: a lot of people I know (especially seminary students) are quick to dismiss the perspectives of these authors simply because they know they disagree with them on a point or two. I've read a fair amount of some of the authors mentioned, and I know that some of what they say about different topics-- a lot, in some cases-- is helpful, orthodox in its content, an advancement of the progress of the issue, and genuinely beneficial to the Kingdom. I don't think they are right about everything, and I don't think they are right about the topic they are being cited on by this church. But then, nobody is right about everything; I'm certain that there are parts of my theological framework that I am wrong about (although I can't identify them at this point!), and I hope I'll be corrected in due time. More so, however, I hope I will not be quickly dismissed altogether because I am wrong here or there.