Infographic on recruiting

Here's an infographic from the folks at Vibe—it details a few "secrets" from recruiters about how things go in the corporate world.


A few take-aways from this are helpful:

• My guess is that the average time looking at a CV (or resume) spent by a search committee is slightly more than the 5–7 seconds listed above; however, I would guess, too, that it is not more than 30 seconds for the first time they look (in other words, if you don't make the first cut, that's all the time you may get).
• A lot of this stuff has already been covered on this blog (see Removing pebbles from the path...); however, here's further verification that those warnings are true (at least in the world in general).
• I still maintain that finding opportunities via networking is the best way to go—precisely because of the notions mentioned above.

Removing pebbles from the path…

My friend and collaborator, Adam, and I were talking the other day about the "pebbles in the path" that can trip up a search committee and make it easy for them to pass on a candidate. We both thought it was worth a blog post.

When we think about these kinds of issues, we have to keep two things in mind: (1) while God looks at the heart, man often looks at appearances; this is not only a fact of life, it is a necessary reality in the search process (when search teams aren't yet able to know—much less consider—the heart of a candidate yet). And, (2), when you're a search team with 75, 100, 150, or more résumés in front of you, inevitably you will look for any and every reason to eliminate a candidate and move on to the next guy. This, too, is a cruel fact in the pastoral search process.

So what are the pebbles that you can easily remove from your path? Any of these…

• A goofy picture of you (or of something else) on your social media page
• Misspelled words in your information packet
• An e-mail address that suggests you don't take yourself seriously
• Not bothering to get the addressee information right (wrong or misspelled name, etc.)
• Evidence that you copied and pasted the e-mail/cover letter/other material
• Obvious grammatical mistakes
• Using Comic Sans, Papyrus, or other "casual" style font/typeface on your documents

…and a world of other possibilities.

These are so easy—yet, they are so easily and frequently overlooked. I see résumés and other materials regularly that make me wonder, "Did they even bother to proofread this?" And I get connections from would-be candidates ("would-be" because no search committee has advanced them beyond the initial stages) on Facebook with ridiculous pictures on their profile.

When I was teaching in seminary, I had a student who's e-mail address was something like "packer-fan@…" That was 11 years ago, and that former student is now a lawyer. I can still reach him via "packer-fan" but now he also has an address with his name and nothing cute as his main contact. He grew up, and it shows.

So what should you do? How do you "clean it up" and get things in proper order?

Some of these deserve their own post (I'll probably do something like "Facebook for Pastors" down the line). But some of them are simple.

Set up (or just start using) an e-mail address that shows you are serious—and that you take yourself seriously enough to be their pastor. You don't have to register a special domain; Gmail or Yahoo are fine. But avoid stuff like "WonderBob@gmail…" or "wildcats_rule@yahoo…" These were fine in college. Now it's time to move on.

Check over your social media profiles. Make sure that your profile pictures are you, or at least you with others—take down the pic of the sports team logo, the cartoon character, or that funny mash-up your friend did where he pasted your face onto Richard Simmons' head. (You can leave these in your photos, if you want, but just not as your profile picture.) And make sure that your other information is accurate and, again, taking seriously the fact that people are going to be measuring your potential as their future pastor, in part from what they see on Facebook (and Twitter, and LinkedIn, etc.).

Use a traditional serifed font. Sure, Times New Roman is a bit dull, and you're probably tired of looking at it after all of the papers you've typed. But there are many great traditional typefaces that are quite beautiful and functional at the same time: Garamond, Minion Pro, Georgia, Goudy Old Style, and Baskerville are all great alternatives to Microsoft's default. (One study determined that Goudy Old Style communicates trustworthiness the most of all typefaces; isn't that something worth communicating?) And yes, it's perfectly fine to use the same typeface for all of your documents—preferable, actually.

Proofreading your documents. And get your wife, girlfriend, roommate, or best friend to proofread them, too. That goes for cover letters and e-mails as well, if possible.

Listen to your voicemail greeting. This one is easy to overlook; most of us forgot what our voicemail greeting sounded like 5 minutes after we recorded it (and that may have been years ago)—but a search committee chair will probably hear it the first or second time they call you. Is it clear? Does it have loud music in the background? Have your friends hacked your phone and recorded something silly? Change it if you need to, but be sure you know what they are hearing (and that it is something you are okay with).

These are good starts. What are some "pebbles in the path" that YOU'VE seen?

"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!

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.

Résumé advice

The folks at the Unclutterer blog (which is generally very good anyway) posted today some great advice about résumés. They debunk some of the myths that are common, especially for folks who are going for round two or three of candidacy.

Don't miss the comments-- lots of great stuff to mine there.

Some LinkedIn help

Some time back, I mentioned Jibber Jobber-- an online tool for managing job search and career details. I've also mentioned LinkedIn before as a good tool for advancing your networking.

So here's an interesting confluence of the two: the CEO of Jibber Jobber, Jason Alba, has recently created a resource about how to make the most of LinkedIn for job-seeking. Here's an article that summarizes five of the suggestions that he offers.

Thanks, Jason.

How much information is too much? (part two)

Coming back to the information shared by a classmate of mine: he's serving at a church that recently completed their search for a new Senior Pastor. He was able to offer me some reflections based on what he witnessed about their search team.

Probably the most valuable idea that he sent me is this: There is such a thing as too much information.

Here's a summary of what he found in a big-picture observation:

• The candidates who received the quickest responses submitted only basic information in the first round. My friend said, "it was like they baited the hook just enough to interest the team member responsible for correspondence"-- no more, no less.
  
• On the other hand, those who sent in a thick, fat packet of information didn't receive responses. There was, as my friend said, "no sense of 'teasing' or 'flirting.'" When you put it all out there, the search team isn't left with anything to wonder about.

So, what does that mean? I admit, the idea of "basic" information vs. a "fat packet" is a vague distinction. Fortunately, my friend was able to offer more insight:

• Basic: a short inquiry, perhaps without even a Ministerial Data Form. Maybe even without a resume. But certainly no more than these.
  
• "Cluttered" packets: included more than a resume and MDF, such as lengthy philosophy of ministry papers, family photos, and other "extras."

At first blush, this seems to fly directly in the face of everything that I've advocated for an information "packet." I don't think so, though: these are still important things to have available.

Here's why: as I've mentioned before, the candidacy process can be sort of like dating; this first exchange is kind of like asking for that first date. A cover letter, along with a resume, may be just the amount of information you want to offer in that first step. Let them know you're interested, and give them enough to get interested as well.

But as the relationship progresses, you'll want to give them more-- and that's when things like a brief biography or a very short statement of philosophy of ministry may be helpful. You can almost count on them asking for a recording of a sermon-- but it may not be something that they need until later in the process.

(Following the "candidacy as dating" metaphor, you might even think of sending the "fat packet" with everything you have on the first contact as being like a "one-night stand.")

Maybe this would be a good way to summarize: your cover letter, resume, data form, and other information will effectively amount to love letters to your future congregation. You don't want to overwhelm them, nor do you want to offer too little. Just enough is difficult to know for sure, but it is always what you strive for.

How much information is too much? (part one)

I got an e-mail the other day from a seminary classmate; he's now on staff of a church that recently completed a Senior Pastor search, and he offered me some fascinating insight into their search process.

First, some background on the church: they are a PCA church, but they aren't hardcore PCA in the way that many seminarians are. This is vitally important to realize: they are committed to the PCA because they believe in the importance of associating with a denomination. They are biblically conservative, Reformed in their theology, convinced of the practice of infant baptism, and are essentially presbyterian in their government. So the PCA is a good fit-- but to them this means that they affiliate with their regional presbytery and attend General Assembly; they occasionally receive other support from the PCA's offices in Atlanta.

But here's a key take-away: their search team (and, as my friend said, about 98% of their congregation) has very little sense of PCA identity. This means that tossing around acronyms like MNA, RUF, RUM, and MTW* meant little to nothing in that setting. Likewise, although the church sends support dollars to both Covenant College and Covenant Seminary, when my classmate interviewed then his search team (a different one from the Senior Pastor one) was under the impression that Covenant Seminary was an undergraduate institution.

This is a part of the information exchange that many fail to consider. The key question becomes: What am I assuming about this congregation (in the language of my resume, Ministerial Data Form, etc.) that I ought not? A candidate must realize that a lot of this sort of information is not helpful to their cause of presenting themselves as THE candidate for this position. In many ways, it might hurt them.

It also begs a question of motivation: why are all of these acronyms (or even the names they stand for) cluttering up a resume or data form? In many cases, they may be there for valuable information: if you served for two years as an intern with Reformed University Ministries, then that is directly relevant to your ministry experience.

On the other hand, be careful not to let all of this stuff become what one writer calls "cruft"-- which is essentially the literary version of the stuff you scrape off your plate when you're done with a meal.

One scottish pastor commented about his sermons: "the last thing I do is go back over my manuscript and cut out all of the cleverness." We might do the same if we want to clear our resumes, data forms, and other documents of cruft.

Stay tuned for part two, where I talk about the rest of the insights my classmate offered me. Really good stuff.




*All of these are "agencies" of the Presbyterian Church in America: MNA= Mission to North America, RUF= Reformed University Fellowship, which is the local establishment of RUM= Reformed University Ministries, and MTW= Mission to the World.

Information packet: Aesthetics and you

I have a friend who dabbled in web development for a while; he was a good programmer, and skilled with understanding the workings of a website. He couldn'r really understand why he wasn't bringing in  new business hand-over-fist.

Part of the problem: my friend didn't have much of an aesthetic sense. He didn't really care how things looked-- he only cared if they worked. In his view, if a website communicated the information it needed to, then it was a good website.

The rest of the problem: the Internet is now oh, what, about 90% visual? Studies show that most people decide whether they will continue to read a website in 2-5 seconds! Obviously that's not long enough to read anything; this decision is made on aesthetics alone.

My suspicion is that many Pastoral candidates view their information packet in the same way my friend viewed his web development: as long as the information is there, it's good enough. Why bother with further editing or tweaking?

That's hyperbole, of course-- most will do some formatting or layout adjustment. But I haven't seen many resumes, for example, that visually stand out from others-- yet I think we are getting to the point where the information we provide must have such "stand-out" potential to get the attention needed.

This may be a simple adjustment-- I recently added photos of myself and my family to the brief biography I send out (more on this in a future post). Or it may be a substantial shift: I met a guy who had formatted his entire information packet-- from cover letter to resume to bio to references-- into a newsletter-style presentation, printed on 11x17 paper, folded, and stapled.

There are some documents where the aesthetic design is not our choice-- as in the Data Form-- but even here we can get creative. The fellow who designed a newsletter-style packet tucked his Data Form in the middle, and the folded sheets made a nice case for it.

We're overlooking a major part of the way that people communicate today if we ignore visual communication-- and that means a pleasant, well-designed presentation, if we hope to gain favor as candidates.

Technorati Tags: Candidacy

Further thoughts on resumes

Those of you who have followed my several posts on resumes (here, here, and here) will find this information helpful:

A Silicon Valley engineer and manager posted a very interesting piece on how he reads resumes. While written about the programming community, it's likely that many of these sage tidbits are relevant and applicable to churches and ministries, as well-- after all, the context he describes (receiving 50-60 or more resumes for a job) is quite similar in many cases.

One point of note out of this article is his summary of what he doesn't look at during the first pass over a resume: Objective, Skills, and Summary of Qualifications. He comments:

"Unlike Skills, which I find to be a total waste of time, I will go back to Summary of Qualifications if we end up talking. When you write "Established track record for delivering measurable results under tight schedules", I am going to ask you what the hell you mean on the phone and if your answer isn't instant and insightful, I'll know your qualifications are designed to be buzzword compliant and don't actually define your qualifications."

He also discusses the "second pass" and goes on to offer a handful of very helpful tips about how to improve your resume.

[His post has excited quite a few comments, some of them disagreeing with good points-- but I think he's more on than off on this one.]

If you're looking to improve your resume, you might take a look at LifeClever's "Seven Deadly Sins of Resume Design"-- which would be funny if it weren't so sad. Please, please do not do this, folks!

Once you've had a look at that train-wreck, jump over to "Give Your Resume a Face-Lift" (also from LifeClever). One thing I became wholly convinced of in my time teaching rhetoric is how important visual presentation is (more on this in another post), and this guide will walk you through cleaning up and improving presentation.

Okay, now mash all of the four different resume posts together, and you should have a resume that is hard to beat.

[By the way, I DO plan to provide the promised guide to preparing your Data Form-- very soon.]

Technorati Tags: Candidacy

The "Data Form": the second-most important piece of your information packet (part one)

I posted previously on the most important part of your information packet, your resume (here and here).  The second most important part for many pastors (and pastors in training) is the denominational "data form."

[Obviously if you are not a part of a denomination then this is largely irrelevant; I say "largely" because it may well be that you would benefit from putting this sort of information together, and you may wish to prepare it anyway.]

Many denominations have a pre-formatted Data Form that becomes a boilerplate evaluation tool for the search teams.  All but one of the denominations that I am searching within use one.

In this post I want to talk through the benefits of using a Data Form and give a brief synopsis of the common components.  In my next post on this subject, I'll give some advice on preparing these documents.

Many people are critical of data forms as redundant, unnecessary, or a distraction from more important issues. While it's true that many denominational data forms need updating-- for example, the PCA's data form asks about theological issues that most pastors won't face very much, while it misses the current "hot topics"-- I believe that they are still valuable tools for early evaluation.

Why?  Because, when properly used, data forms give a good snapshot of the essentials for narrowing a field of candidates from dozens-- even hundreds-- down to a manageable number.  In the best cases, churches will fill out a similar form (in the PCA this is called a "Church Profile") that asks identical questions on some sections.  The benefit here should be obvious: a side-by-side comparison by either party should immediately reveal whether the "fit" is close enough to continue exploring. 

(A rule of thumb that I use: if there are more than three times when my data form and a church's profile are off by two or more points on a ranking scale, the fit is not close enough and I'll pass on the opportunity.)

Of course, data forms and church profiles should be appropriately understood as only a part of the picture.  It's a problem when either candidate-pastor or candidate-church put too much weight on the content of the data form.

What is a data form, anyway?

Nearly all data forms include the following information:

• Personal data (birthdate, marital status, family facts)
• Education and other training
• Ministry experience and other work history
• Personal views on theological issues
• References

Other points of data that are often requested:

• Questions about "hot topic" theological issues
• Preferences about how a pastor would spend his time and energy
• Information about accomplishments, additional training, personal/professional goals, or key experiences
• Statements about theological views and exceptions to confessional standards

Data forms deserve a lot of thought and time.  If you want to make progress in your search, you need to do a good job putting this document together.  In a future post, I'll walk through some considerations when filling out your data form.

Technorati Tags: Candidacy, Effective

Additional resume advice

The Wall Street Journal ran a very good article on putting together an effective resume.  While much of the advice there is business-oriented--- and therefore may be more difficult to achieve in ministry (after all, do churches and ministries really do good, effective performance reviews?)--- there is still helpful advice to be found, particularly if you can translate into a ministry context.

Perhaps the best advice comes in point two, Review a performance checklist:

Ask yourself the following questions about each of your previous jobs:

• What was your impact on your division, company and group?
• What would not have happened if you hadn't been there?
• What are you proudest of during your time with the company?

Exchange words like this: division= ministry, company= church/organization, group= ministry team.  Once that translation is done, you have some sound advice about what to highlight in a resume.

I recommend this article highly.

Technorati Tags: Candidacy

Getting your resume ready, part two

In my last post on this topic, I talked about the "everything under the sun" vs. the "barest basics" approaches to developing a resume.  In brief, my take on a pastoral resume was that less is more, and the "barest basics" is the way to go.

So what should go onto a pastoral resume?  It's pretty simple.  (It has to be, if it is going to fit on a single page!)

• Name, address, phone number, e-mail address at the top of the page.  Don't try to get clever with something like putting your name in gigantic letters or whatever-- you're wasting your time and suggesting that you need to distract the search committee from something else on the page.  Put your name on a single line, your address on the next line, and phone number and e-mail on the third line.  If you must, make them a few point-sizes larger than the rest of the text.
• Educational background.  Keep it basic-- Put the name of the college you attended, its location (city, state), the year you graduated, and the degree you earned.  Same with junior colleges, community colleges, or technical colleges (if you earned a degree, such as an Associate of Arts-- leave it off if you didn't earn a degree).  And the same with seminary and other graduate degrees you've earned.  Do not fill up the page with bullets detailing what fraternity you joined, which campus ministry you were vice-president for, or what your GPA was.  (The guy who gave us our campus tour when we first visited Covenant Seminary put it best: "If you made straight A's in seminary, they'll call you 'Reverend,' and if you barely passed half of your classes in seminary, they'll still call you 'Reverend.'")
• Professional experience.  By that I mean, what work experience do you have that is considered career-oriented.  If you have enough experience in ministry alone, you might decide to limit this section to only that.  If ministry is a second career for you, you'll have significant experience outside of professional ministry to list.  The work-study job you had in college and that semester you worked making pizza at Little Caesar's doesn't make this list.  (NOTE: don't be afraid to include the internship you did while in seminary and the pulpit supply work you've been doing.)
• Qualifications for ministry (OPTIONAL).  Include these ONLY if you don't have very much under the professional experience section.  If you went to seminary straight from college and/or the only ministry experience you have is an internship at your church while in seminary, you should list the three or four top skills or abilities you have that make you a qualified candidate for the ministry position you're seeking.  There should not be more than three or four, and they must be skills or abilities; this is not a place for listing your spiritual gifts or your aspirations in ministry.  Hard skills (like "small group leadership" or "strong administrator") and specific abilities (such as "a strong teacher" or "a knack for evangelizing strangers") are what counts here.

It's probably best to put them in the order shown above, with the exception of the "Qualifications for ministry" section-- if you must include that, put it first.  That will give them a reason to read further.

You don't need an objective, even though most resume books will tell you to lead with this.  Objectives exist so that Human Resources departments can pull a file of resumes and match them to the 43 different positions they need to fill.  Most likely, you're applying at a church where there is a single position open, so they'll know what you are applying for.  (On the off-chance that there are multiple positions available-- or if you're simply uncomfortable leaving it unsaid-- then mention in your cover letter what you are applying for.)

Similarly, don't believe for a minute that the resume is the place for listing your spiritual gifts, the details of your family, your hobbies and interests, your references, or the articles you've published in your favorite ministry journal.  There is a place for those, and I'll cover them in another post.

Your resume is a document that gives the frank details of your professional development-- and that means education and experience.  The other essential information (and there is plenty more essential information that you should prepare) will find a proper place in other documents.  Keep posted for details on those.

Technorati Tags: Candidacy, Effective

Getting your resume ready, part one

One of the parts of the "information exchange" that nearly everyone is familiar with is the resume.  But what makes a good resume?

There are two common, but different, approaches to developing a resume (also called a "Curriculum Vitae" or C.V.-- which, in Latin, literally means "course of life").  One approach is to spill nearly everything you've ever done onto the page, sometimes resulting in a four or five page document.  This approach, which is more common in academic and scientific environments, is necessary for those whose employment will be measured (at least to some degree) by the quantity of their work-- for example, a college professor is often expected to publish scholarly articles and/or books regularly.  In this case, the resume, while organized, can be lengthy and will have some esoteric content.

The other approach is more of a minimalist approach: provide a basic and brief summary of the most important highlights.  More common in the corporate world, these will usually be only a single page and will not try to even approach being exhaustive.  The thinking behind this approach is that corporate "HR" types don't have (or won't take) the time to read lengthy resumes, so if you even want to be considered you should keep it short.

So which approach suits ministry candidacy?  I'd bet that nine out of 10 readers would guess the long, exhaustive type would be best.

But most of the time, they would be wrong.

These days, nearly every open ministry position gets dozens of applicants.  One small church I know of-- about 80 members-- recently completed its search for a solo Pastor.  They had over 60 candidates to eliminate at the beginning.  Another church I know of, looking for an Associate Pastor, had over 300 candidates apply.  In other words, the quantity of qualified applicants to be considered for an open ministry position is probably more like the corporate world than the academic or scientific world.

As you are preparing your resume, be committed to keeping it brief.  You don't need a long, multi-page resume.  In fact, if you're just finishing seminary, it is as likely as not that you won't really have enough accomplishments to your credit to make a multi-page resume worthwhile.  Most seasoned pastors could summarize the cogent aspects of their careers in one page.

In part two, I'll talk about what content should go onto a resume, and how you can keep it brief.

Technorati Tags: Candidacy, Placement, Transition

Selling dreams

Christians are called to evangelize the lost-- that is, to present the Gospel to unbelievers in a way that is honest, loving, and compelling. Is there a methodology for the presentation of ideas in evangelism that we're missing if we apply it only to the Gospel? Said another way, what if a candidate approached the placement process as the evangelization of himself as a cause, not unlike he might present the Gospel?

I recently re-read a great book, Selling the Dream by Guy Kawasaki. Kawasaki presents evangelism in exactly this way. He suggests that the best marketing of ideas, whether it be for products or causes, is done through evangelism. This is because anyone can advertise an idea, but no one evangelizes something they don't truly believe in. Thus, Guy defines evangelism as it applies to “marketing” (to use the term in its broadest sense) as “selling the dream”-- thus, the title of his book.

Now if you think that Kawasaki is equating products or business ideas with the Gospel, you've misunderstood. Guy, a Christian who is a member of Menlo Park Presbyterian Church in California, uses the idea of evangelism very loosely compared with its biblical sense. But I think he is onto something about marketing and persuasion that is very applicable to placement.

If you're with me on the importance of a candidate's sense of calling, you'll follow me on evangelism as well. Do you believe you are called to ministry? Is it a part of your identity-- even similar to your calling as a Christian? Then you should feel compelled to convince others of this calling to ministry, as well. And convincing them out of your own genuine belief, rather than out of a sense of obligation (as advertising might be understood), is all that is meant by evangelism.

Put another way, when you dream of what God will have you doing, what does that look like? Now what if you could do exactly that if you could only sell others on the same dream? See the connection? Selling the dream is exactly what we do when we candidate well. It isn't false advertising or misrepresentation; it is putting ourselves forth as everything we believe ourselves to be. That's good candidacy.

“Selling yourself”

Early in my ministry experience, I also worked in retail; at first it was when I was volunteering for a church youth group and Young Life, then when I needed full-time employment but the church I served could only pay part-time. I worked briefly for a clothing store, then a toy store, then two different camera stores. I learned a lot of lessons in those jobs that have served me well in ministry.

One of the best things I learned from retail sales was how to simultaneously make a sale and satisfy a customer. It works like this: figure out what the customer really wants and needs, then sell them that. Pretty simple, right? Not so fast...

First of all, the customer often does not know what they want or need. They usually think they do; it requires a greater-than-average level of humility to admit that they don't understand their own needs or desires. Nevertheless, most of the time they don't have any clear idea of what they are shopping for. They have some ideas-- for example, a customer at a camera store knows what kind of pictures they usually take now, or would if they had a camera. But when it comes to camera models, features and functions, or technical specifications and capabilities, they rarely even have a clue, let alone the language to articulate it.

This presents a second obstacle: since they don't really know which products meet their needs and which do not, it is often possible to sell them whatever you want them to buy. In fact, I had co-workers who employed this tactic: they pushed whatever products offered them the best commissions, whether or not that was what their customers were looking for.

It is because customers don't know what they need or want, however, that they have come to a retail store in first place. They need someone who can ask the right questions, who knows the available product lines, and who can take answers and products together for the right recommendation. That's why they would come to me. When I worked at a camera store, for instance, I knew the specs and abilities of every camera, lens, and flash unit we sold. I also knew the right questions to ask to determine which products would best fit a customer, and could make recommendations based on what they want and need, even if they couldn't specify this themselves.

It works the same way in pastoral placement. Churches often don't know how to articulate what they are looking for in a pastor, but they will know if they get it or not.

In response to a previous post about a candidate's sense of calling, a comment was made about the integrity of “selling yourself.” I may misunderstand what that commenter intended, but “selling myself” in pastoral candidacy reminds me of my co-workers who would push products for the sake of the commission: both are only after the short-term, dollar-bringing solution.

My co-workers may have earned a fast buck through a commission on, say, a camera body and lens. But if that camera did not meet the needs or desires of the customer, you can bet that customer would not return to buy another camera from them; in fact, they may not return to our store at all (after all, they believed they were getting what they needed, but were deceived). In the long run, determining what met their needs and selling them that product would produce a trusting relationship that would result, in time, in far greater amounts of sales and commissions. Pushing the wrong product may satisfy for now, but it will leave a salesman wanting in the future.

Likewise, a candidate who “sells himself” to a Search Committee-- he tells them what he thinks they want to hear so that they will offer him the position-- will mirror my commission-minded co-workers. It may produce a short-term satisfaction on both sides: the candidate-church thinks it is getting what it desires, and the candidate-pastor gets a placement (and therefore a paycheck). Long-term, however, both will be found wanting. The pastor will likely be unfulfilled in his work, since he had to misrepresent his own sense of calling to get the position. The church will realize quickly that they were taken by a fast-talker, and become even more difficult to shepherd. Everyone loses.

On the other hand, if a candidate-pastor follows my lesson from retail-- figure out what the church really wants and needs, then offer them that (if he can)-- then everyone wins. To do this, a candidate-pastor has to figure out what questions will reveal whether a church is looking for someone like him. Ask the right questions, and he will know if he is the man for the job. If not, then his integrity should lead him to say so. If he is the one, it is far from a “sales job” or “selling himself” to help them understand that it is a good fit.

This comes back to the basic assumption that you know what you're called to do. You must be the expert on you-- in retail terms, you have to know what kind of “product” you are, and what needs and desires you can and cannot satisfy. If you know this and learn to articulate it, what you present is no sales pitch-- it's the truth.

How Search Committees can gather information

I blogged already about information a Search Committee should gather to present to candidate-pastors. Is there other information a committee should gather for themselves? YES-- and here are a few ideas for getting it:

• Survey the congregation. It doesn't matter how well the Search Committee represents the needs of the congregation• ; there are issues, problems, personal grudges, and special needs that no committee can fully comprehend unless there has been an opportunity for congregation-wide input. There is a good congregational survey in an appendix to Joseph Umidi's Confirming the Pastoral Call (see the link below); one thing it lacks, however, is enough whitespace for members to comment on things that quantitative questions can't include. Give your members plenty of room to speak their piece.
• Think hard about congregational readiness for change. Change is inevitable with a new pastor-- even with a new staff member. How prepared for change is the congregation? Umidi provides a good survey to assess this, as well, but there are other ways of doing it. Does the church want an innovator or a maintainer? A fast mover or a slow one? Someone to bring new ideas and ministries into fruition, or someone to revitalize the existing community? Assessment of change-readiness will answer these questions and more. Umidi has some helpful information about this as well (this book is worth the purchase-price for the appendices alone). Another excellent resource for assessing this is Thom Rainer's Surprising Insights from the Unchurched (see the link below), which also includes good survey materials.
• Be aware of contemporary pastoral matters. One Search Committee I know of started the process by, among other things, having the whole committee read Dr. Bryan Chapell's Christ-Centered Preaching (see the link below) because they wanted the committee to be familiar with what goes into a good, biblical sermon. When they know that, they know what they are looking for, to some degree. There are great books on leadership, shepherding, teaching, revitalization, vision-casting-- you name it. Now, you can't expect any candidate to be on the cutting edge of all areas, but a Search Committee that knows the needs of their church (see the first point on surveying the congregation) will know which areas to focus on; they should expect candidate-pastors to be familiar with those ideas, if he is to lead them adequately.
• Have a list of questions ready. Some committees overdo this, others neglect it completely. The key issue is this: what will a committee ask a candidate-pastor during the formal interview process? And, what things will they be looking for in the more informal moments? An interview weekend must be a very deliberate process, and every conversation matters. Committee members, and committees as a whole, should know exactly what information they are gathering-- what questions they are trying to answer. Then they might employ different strategies to get to those answers. But it starts with the questions.
• Be prepared for hard questions. A well-prepared candidate-pastor will have his own list of questions-- and will be leveraging for their answers every chance he gets. The committee should anticipate what (at least some of) these questions will be, and know what the answer is. That is not to say that they should devise answers that are inaccurate, but they should know how to be honest and and forthcoming in a tactful and appropriate way. Off-the-cuff answers to hard questions often downplay, embellish, or caricature the truth, rather than giving truly accurate depictions of reality.
• Talk to the pros. Not every church needs to work with a professional church consultant to handle their search well-- and not every church can afford to (though if they can, they should consider it). But most denominations have staff that can offer invaluable insight into the search process. There are certain things in which inexperience and unfamiliarity are actually good things; weddings come to mind as a good example, and pastoral searches are also in this category. A church that hasn't done a pastoral search for 20 years shouldn't expect that they know how to do it; calling in someone to guide them shows maturity and humility, not weakness. Professional consultants like Dr. Phil Douglass (who I work with) and others can be invaluable resources; however, they are not the only option. Contact your denomination's administrative office to inquire about what sort of assistance they can provide with the search process itself. Or call a consultant and see if they will work with you; often they will discount their fees for certain circumstances (denominational affiliation, an exceptionally small or difficult church situation, etc.).

Search Committees have a large and formidable task; they also have one of the greatest honors and privileges in church life. They owe it to their congregation to handle their search well. That means being well-informed, as a starting point.

“Confirming the Pastoral Call: A Guide to Matching Candidates and Congregations” (Joseph L. Umidi)

“SURPRISING INSIGHTS FROM UNCHURCHED” (Thom S. Rainer)

“Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon” (Bryan Chapell)

Churches have some obligations in the process, too

Early in my blogging endeavors, I discussed the need for a better balance in the candidacy process (see “Finding a Balance, part 1 and part 2). As I mentioned then, candidate-pastors must be extensively prepared for the process before they even begin communicating with candidate-churches: they will have assembled a resume (at a minimum), and should also have completed some other major documentation, such as:

• A Ministerial Data Form (MDF)-- most denominations have some form that organizes specific information in an arrangement they prefer.
• A statement of ministry philosophy-- pastors need to know what your values, commitments, and essential focus(es) will be, and so do candidate-churches.
• A list of references-- every candidate needs to have a group of people ready to speak on behalf of that candidate.
• A personal biography-- what's the candidate-pastor's life-story in a page or less? (This information is more important than you think.)
• Sample sermons or lessons-- preferably in audio format (or even video), candidate-churches will want-- and need-- to hear candidate-pastors teach.

What are the specifics that candidate-churches ought to bring to the table? How should a church be prepared for the candidacy process? I suspect (and my research confirms my suspicions) that pastors leave ”early“-- before they have served the full-term of their ministry at a particular church-- frequently because they did not know key details about the church before they began their ministry there.

Here are some ideas (far from exhaustive) for how a church may begin gathering the information they should present to a candidate-pastor as he goes through the interview process with them.

• Gather existing documents and information. Chances are, a candidate-church already has a good bit of information that is useful in the search process. Does the church have a constitution or by-laws? What about Board-approved position papers on various issues over the years? Where are the notes from the Session's ”Vision-Casting Retreat“ last fall? Anything that is already on paper is helpful; some (even most) of it may need updating, but these things are a great starting point right out of the gates. [NOTE: this is only true if the documents actually represent meaningful information. So, if a ”Vision Statement“ was developed and adopted two years ago, but nothing has been done with it since then, it is misleading and even ethically questionable to present it as an accurate statement of the vision of the church.]
• Create a profile of the church. How would the Search Committee describe it, given unlimited time? How about in five minutes or less? How about in a paragraph-- or even a sentence? If the Search Committee can't help outsiders understand the existing ministries, dynamics, and demographics of the cnadidate-church, there is no guarantee that the pastor will be anything like what the church needs. My denomination, the PCA, has a church profile form that largely mirrors a candidate-pastor's MDF, so it is easy to compare the two and spot similarities-- great idea.
• Develop a statement of ministry philosophy (or update it if it already exists). This sounds like a complex, abstract, and boring document, but all it really does is answer this question: ”Why are we doing what we are doing?“ It addresses the core values, theological emphases, and natural inclinations that exist in the church. Does the church have a special interest in mercy ministries? Are most of her members strong evangelists? Does the prominence of worship resonate as a central aspect of the congregation? These (and others) are the ideas that go into a Philosophy of Ministry statement.
• Provide a history of the church. This doesn't have to be a move-by-move account of every Sunday School class that ever existed, but it does need to be honest, and complete enough to present an accurate picture. The obvious milestones should be included: when the church was planted, the first building purchase, any long-term relationships with other churches and organizations, etc. But there are other things a candidate-church might prefer to hide, but shouldn't: have there been any splits? What have the patterns of growth been? How many pastors has the church had-- and why did the last few leave? It should give candidate-pastors a fair and true presentation of the church's background.
• Have a clear sense of what the church is called to do. Churches have callings just like pastors; some are stronger in evangelism, others in mercy, others in teaching and fellowship. The same five key factors I've identified for candidate-pastors also apply to candidate-churches. How is the church-- and especially the Search Committee-- attuned to the church's sense of calling, their willingness to follow God (even in new directions), and their submission and humility through the process? If the committee can articulate these, then they're really starting to get somewhere with the search process.

Having this information gathered and documented protects everyone, both short-term and long-term. Candidate-pastor(s) get the information they want and need during the interview process, and Search Committees are not forced to answer questions on the spot or, worse, to try to dodge them. And, both the church and pastor are assured that future problems are less likely, since all of the cards are on the table from the start.

10 questions I would ask a search committee...

...or maybe sets of questions:

1. (Regarding church description) Describe the church to us; if you were describing the church to an out of town visitor, what would be the key elements that you would include in your description? What are the various ministries of the church, and how would you characterize them? Is the church currently in a growth trend, and if so how is that growth affecting what goes on in the day-to-day ministries of the church? Has the church seen growth primarily by transfer of membership, or by conversion (and how many conversions has she seen in the last year)? Give a brief description of each of the following ministries in the church, and how they are overseen: small group ministry, women’s ministry, evangelism ministry, discipleship ministry (if separate from small group).
2. (Regarding community) How is this church engaged in encouraging fellowship through inter-generational relationships? How is she engaged in encouraging fellowship through cooperation and co-ministry with sister churches in the area?
3. (Regarding current/former Pastor(s)) What strengths and values were sought in the calling of the current/former pastor? How does/did he relate to other staff members—as members of his flock, co-laborers/partners in ministry, etc.? How involved in leadership and activities is/was his wife? Does/did he and his family socialize generally within or outside the church?
4. (Regarding the Session and Diaconate) What does the Session see as its primary duties? What does the Diaconate see as its primary duties? How often are Ruling Elders and Deacons rotated, and how many terms are they expected to serve? What is the general attitude of Ruling Elders or Deacons who are not active on the Session/Diaconate? What is the process for training and preparing new Ruling Elders and Deacons?
5. (Regarding other leadership/administration) Is there a committee system in place– if so, how does it work, what relationship does it have with the Session/Diaconate, what does it do that could not be done otherwise? What sort of support staff does the church have? How does the church budget work, and who develops it? How often are staff performance and salary evaluations done, and by whom?
6. (Regarding general philosophy of ministry) What are the areas of ministry that have really shined in this church? What areas of ministry have had particular struggles? What are the areas of ministry that you believe should get the primary focus from the Pastor? What areas of ministry should be handled by volunteer leadership?
7. (Regarding particular ministries) What are the particulars of the focused ministries of this church (children’s, youth, college, singles, women’s, elderly, small groups, evangelism, other)? What are the histories of each of these ministries? What are the hopes and expectations that the congregation has for them? What consideration has been given for staffing of these ministries—are they typically staff-led or volunteer-led, and how might that change?
8. (Regarding church finances) What is the annual budget of the church? Who makes the decisions for the budgeting process? How have budgeting trends changed over the past 5-20 years? How have the stayed the same? What are the church’s policies/methods for major expenses, such as building projects? What significant expenses do you anticipate this church facing over the next five years?
9. (Regarding pay package) What is the current or expected salary package for the Pastor? How does it include or exclude the following: housing, health insurance, retirement savings, vacation, continuing education/study leave, sabbatical, ministry-related expense reimbursement? How often will consideration be given to raises and cost-of-living increases? Will some type of performance review be given on a regular basis?
10. (Regarding Pastor’s family matters) What sort of housing would be appropriate for the Pastor– what neighborhoods, proximity to the church, etc.? What sort of expectations are there for the Pastor’s wife? What roles have the wives of other Pastors and staff members taken?