Accountability

One of the major issues in denominations is providing accountability for pastors. In my denomination that is done on two levels. I am accountable to my local church's governing board and I am accountable to my denomination through my cluster leader, the Pastoral Ministries Leadership Team, and our Bishop. But there are problems with all of these relationships.

The governing board has the closest relationship with me and that is both good and bad. I am not sure how effective it is in a small church setting. It is difficult to keep it effective and healthy at the same time. The denominational structures are based more on numbers rather than relationship and that is very misleading. So is it possible to have an accountability structure that is highly relational but also free from some of the conflict of interest that can occur in a small church?

I have a friend who works for a company that employs over 200,000 people worldwide and in some respects the employees operate similar to pastors in that they don't punch a clock and work in a wide variety of contexts. So I talked with him about their system and this is how I think it might work.

Each pastor needs to have a ministry counselor (MC). In our case it would probably be the cluster leader. The MC would keep track of everything the pastor is involved with; my church, denominational teams, mission trips, and other boards, committees, etc. Obviously a system would need to be developed to keep track of this. The MC would also communicate weekly with the pastor to develop their relationship, learn what the pastor is trying to accomplish in the immediate as well as long term future.

Once a year the MC would also contact several of the groups the pastor has been involved with. For example, the MC might contact the chairperson of a board the pastor was involved with and ask how effective the pastor was as a member of the team, what were the pastor's strengths and weaknesses, and what skills the pastor needed to develop. From year to year this feedback would be used to help the pastor improve his skills and lay out a direction for the coming years.

The MC would also insure that the pastor is practising a lifestyle that is healthy for ministry. This would include volunteering in the community, a healthy amount of leisure time, vacations, etc.

Obviously the MC would have a huge commitment to this and there would need to be a strict limit on how many pastors an MC would be responsible for. It might also need to be broken out of the cluster system so that every pastor has an MC and most pastors are an MC for another pastor.

Got to run so I will need to finish this later.



Addition:

Okay, so I don't like the idea of the cluster leader being the MC for all the pastors in their cluster. An MC should consult with the cluster leader but an MC should have no more than 2 or 3 pastors that they counsel so that would make it impossible for the cluster leader to also be the MC for every pastor in his cluster.

Okay, time to flesh it out a little more.



Assumptions: - Accountability is necessary. - Accountability must be highly relational. - Pastor's are in a unique situation that requires a unique approach to accountability. - Current systems usually focus on data that is often ineffective at measuring a pastor's performance.



How It Would Work

The MC and the Pastor would have an initial interview that would cover strengths and weaknesses, ministry philosophy, educational goals, family, community involvement, physical health, spiritual health, etc. This interview is designed to help the MC understand where the pastor is and where he feels led. These can, and most likely will, change but that can evolve as the relationship with the MC develops. The MC also helps the pastor develop goals for the next week as well as longer term goals.

Each week the MC communicates with the pastor to discuss progress being made, obstacles encountered, etc. The MC may also suggest resources that could help the pastor reach educational and career goals. Those resources could be books, seminars, conferences, experts, veteran leaders, etc.

Once or twice a year the MC will assess the progress of the pastor by compiling information from personal contact, interviews with the pastor's cluster leader, interviews with the local church board chairman, chairman of boards or committees that the pastor serves on, etc. The MC will ask about the pastors effectiveness, weaknesses, relational skills, etc. Once he has completed the assessment he will discuss the assessment with the pastor and his cluster leader.

The pastor has the option of selecting another MC if he does not feel he has a good fit. This should not be taken personally and it may be the case that the pastor may return to his original MC at a later date. It is very important that the MC/pastor relationship be one that is functional.

After a year or two the pastor should take on the role of MC for another pastor while maintaining his relationship with his own MC. Eventually, every pastor should have an MC, including denominational officials.



Implementation

The first step would be to bring together a small group of pastors who have experience and vision for such a program. Experience might include coaching, mentoring, counselling, etc. This group will develop the initial policies and procedures and begin a pilot program. They will closely monitor the program and make necessary adjustments

All for now.

Tri-UNE

Just a brief note to remember something. When we talk about the Trinity it seems that we go to great pains to talk about each person of the Trinity and how they are different from the other. We have a formula that says that God the Father is not God the Son or God the Holy Spirit, but he is God. Likewise, God the Son is not God the Father or God the Holy Spirit but is God. Then we do the same for God the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that we spend most of our time showing how each person is NOT the other and very little time focusing on the IS God part.

I think one reason for that is that we look through the lens of a Western (Greek) worldview rather than an Eastern (Hebrew) worldview. We seem to be focused on separating and not so good at thinking about things as a whole. There is probably some good reason for this and it probably is helpful for a lot of people. But I also think it is helpful for us to focus on the IS God aspect of our formula too.

Probably the hardest person of the Trinity for us to think of as God is the Holy Spirit. Maybe that is because of how Jesus describes the Holy Spirit as a comforter, guide, and helper. Yet we do make the connection when we use the terms "God's leading" and "lead by the Holy Spirit." We see that as one in the same but in other instances we somehow see the Holy Spirit as less than God.

The incarnation probably gives us the best example of looking at it both ways. John 3:16 tells us that God (father) sent his Son (Jesus). That would be the focus on the separation of the Trinity. Yet we also read in Matthew 1:23 that they will call him Immanuel- which means 'God with us." That would be a focus on the whole of the Trinity.

This probably makes little sense to most people but it popped into my head this morning that we don't focus on the wholeness of the Trinity very much and that sometimes it is helpful to do so.

Contending

"In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love: they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." --Harry Lime, “The Third Man”

Was this Orson Welles character on to something? James 1:12 says, "Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him." It seems that the refining that comes with trial brings out our best.

It seems to me that we spend an awful lot of time trying to figure out ways to avoid trials of any kind. Some have put forward the idea that we need to be challenged in order to grow. I believe that but I really don't think challenge is the same as trials. Maybe we need trials to bring out our absolute best.

Do we do ourselves and others a disservice by trying to avoid trials? How does management deal with this? Don't we try and manage our way to perfection?

What would happen if we turned the line into, "In 30 years the persecuted church produced ______________. While the church in North America produced _______________." If we filled in those blanks honestly would we be embarrassed?

Doctrine of the Hymn

Warning: I'm going way out on a limb here.

One caution that is thrown out about church music is its doctrinal components. We hear that we should check our music for accurate theology. We also hear that we need to be careful that we don't lose the doctrine that has been taught through the hymns down through the years. But how much doctrine is really taught by the hymns?

I wonder what the studies say. I don't mean the obvious doctrine that is obvious to any believer. I would assume that any believer believes that God is great. Songs reinforce that but I think you would be stretching it to say that such doctrine is really taught by music. What doctrine is there that is primarily taught through music?

I believe there is a lot of doctrine in the hymns we sing but I am not so sure that it is really the primary teaching medium that some claim it to be. In fact, I think there is great danger in relying on hymns to teach despite the efforts of Luther, Calvin, and the Wesley brothers. If you are counting on them you may be disappointed.

I have been trying to think of doctrine that I primarily learned through hymns. I have discovered several brilliant nuggets of doctrine in hymns that became apparent after the fact. "Oh, so that's what that line means."

When I arrived at my current church I had a bunch of 18-20 year olds. I asked them about the hymns we sang in church. They could hardly remember the words to them, where not aware of the hymn's doctrine, and were very bored with them. Something isn't adding up.

You are going to have to show me. I don't feel guilty for not singing more hymns. I am not worried that the people in my congregation are missing some key doctrine. And I am not convinced that music is the primary medium for teaching doctrine. Reinforcing, yes, teaching, not as much as we think.

Buzzzzzzzzz

A friend of mine was explaining to me the objectives of a new role he was taking on. That makes me nervous because I just used the words "objectives" and "role" in that first sentence and I figured I was about to get a whole lot of buzz words. He didn't disappoint. How's this for one of his objectives? "To provide assistance in increasing ministry objectives each year."

That makes me chuckle every time I read it. i don't know what it means other than it sounds like someone is keeping busy, or at least trying to look like he is keeping busy. I also like how it is always good to "increase" something rather than decrease it. Wouldn't it be nice to be recognized for decreasing something for once? "Hey, I decreased our objectives this year. "Good job man. Keep up the good work."

It is amazing to me how accurate the Dilbert comic series was. I guess I thought it would fade over time but it hasn't. We have one idea of success and it is all tied up with more, bigger and better. Since most people can't compete with that we make up buzz words to cover the deficiencies. We may not really produce but if we have the right words we can fake it.

I have a friend who is sure I am failure simply because I have been the pastor of a small church for almost 15 years. I don't think the thought has ever entered into his head that I like ministering in the context that I am in. He always asks me if I am going to move on soon. But I think his hope for me is about gone. I'll have to hit him with some great buzz words next time I see him so he'll know I am doing okay.

I am planning on going to a conference this week. I can't forget to check out my friend Jim's Buzz Word Bingo tool and print out some cards to take with me. I'm sure I'll hear tons buzz words.

The Conversation

My kids tell me they are unique. We were talking with 3 of them last night and two of them say that they have asked their friends and not one of them have ever had "the talk" from a parent. The other one said a few had had "the talk."

The interesting thing is that this is true for both Christian and non-Christian homes as far as they can tell. I suppose that should be expected from non-Christian homes. They probably figure that they would rather have the school have the talk or let them find out in some other way. But Christians often complain and worry about sex ed in schools so it seems that they would be very quick to make sure they had the talk.

The main reason I think parents neglect to have the talk is because it is awkward and embarrassing. But if we really believe that sex is a beautiful gift from God, and that sexual intimacy is a core element of a strong marriage, it seems we would be much more inclined to have the talk. Apparently our churches are lacking a good theology of sex and it probably is because we don't address it enough in our churches.

I also think that it is unhelpful to refer to it as "the talk." The questions should not be when you had "the talk" it should be, "when did you begin 'the conversation.'" You can't explain it all in one talk and your kids can't process it all in one talk. It needs to be an ongoing conversation.