Why sweat through ‘calling’ a pastor when it’s simpler to just go supply?
Written by DAVID WILLIAMS   
Monday, 20 February 2012 04:03

I motored my way from my home in Annandale, Va. out to the congregation I’d soon be serving part-time in Poolesville, Md. I had an 11 a.m. meeting scheduled with the clerk of session of the wee kirk there, to sign my first contract and talk about how things at Poolesville Presbyterian work.

I left early, concerned that the ever unpredictable steel and asphalt maelstrom on the Capital Beltway might slow things down on a rainy morning. There were storms all about, deep rumbling clouds fat with rain, which made my ride out there on the bike just a bit on the damp side. Only a tiny bit, though. The ‘Zook acquitted itself admirably, protecting me from the elements, although I noticed an odd side effect of the aerodynamic bubble behind my extended GIVI screen. In really heavy rain, the vacuum behind the windscreen creates swirling back-pressure. The water beading on my helmet visor leaps forward into that vacuum in bright shining droplets, like I’m casting diamonds and pearls at the road from my face as I ride. Rather pretty, although a bit distracting. Not nearly as distracting as it might be if it happened in meetings, but so it goes.

Whichever way, I made it to my meeting on time, and the contract was signed, and badda boom, badda bing, I was the pastor at Poolesville. And, well, that’s an unusual thing for a Presbyterian. In fact, it’s a huge thing, or would be if folks in my denomination thought about it.

Understand this, O my Presbyterian Brothers and Sisters: In June of the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Eleven, a PC(USA) congregation said a fond farewell to a long-term and well-liked pastor.

Within three months, they had lined up a new pastor.

July. August. September. And lo and behold, that’s their transition. That’s the total amount of limbo and liminal time they had to endure. Three. Months. How does this compare to your last transition?

This is not an unusual occurrence in smaller congregations, congregations that are used to having temporary supply pastors, which was what I was going to become starting Oct. 1, 2011. That means, in PresbyParlance, that I was not “called and installed.” I was just under contract on an annual basis. That means every year, I need to sign a new contract to reaffirm my relationship with the congregation. If things are working, then we’re copacetic. If either party is ready to move on, well, then it’s time to go. Have robe, will travel, as they say.

Called pastors, well, they’re there as long as they want to be. Of course, they renegotiate their “terms of call” on an annual basis. And if either party wants to move on, well, then it’s time to go.

It’s the same thing, kids.

Functionally, there is no difference between being a called and installed pastor and a temporary supply pastor. You preach. You teach. You meet. You greet. You pray. You care. And honey child? Both positions are temporary. There ain’t no such thing as a permanent pastor, unless you attend the First Presbyterian Church of Transylvania, and Pastor Edward has only been there 350 years. Not like Pastor Vlad, who was there 735 years, and left only after that well-intentioned but poorly thought out sunrise service.

And yet most congregations that aren’t teeny tiny don’t call supply pastors. Supply pastors are for little bitty bucolic family churches out in rolling fields, or for struggling churches that can’t afford competitive salaries. To which I ask: Why? Is it just congregational ego?

Why couldn’t a thriving, successful Presbyterian congregation with 200-plus members choose to sidestep our agonizingly slow and convoluted call process? Don’t complain about it. Don’t fret about it. Just go supply, and simply write a position description, advertise for and locate a qualified pastor who would then pick up and carry on. You’d have a trained, ordained, tested and proven Presbyterian pastor. As a “temporary supply.” With contracts to be signed on an annual basis.

Not just why “couldn’t.” Why “wouldn’t?”

Given the choice, why would you inflict the call process on yourself if you didn’t have to? The way we connect pastors with churches now is institutional quicksand, a source of frustration and anxiety for both pastors and pastor nominating committees alike. If the results were demonstrably better than any other system, it might be justifiable. But the results are not. Instead, it means that those charged with calling pastors approach the task with fear and trembling, but for all the wrong reasons.

Our process as it stands now is orderly, but indecent. A congregation’s energies would be better spent on outreach, or service ministry, or ministries of justice, or on just about anything so long as it got us out in our communities living and spreading the Good News. Instead, we pour our energies inward, into processes that make us feel like we’re doing something but that come perilously close to institutional onanism.

So to you pastors contemplating a move? Perhaps you should suggest going supply to your big-steeple church. You elders who have suddenly found yourselves chairing the PNC? Maybe it’s time to think outside the box a bit, and to make that known to your general presbyter.

Why should little churches be the only ones getting it right?

 

DAVID WILLIAMS is pastor of Poolesville Presbyterian Church in Poolesville, Md., and blogs at www.belovedspear.org.

 

Your Responses (6)add comment

p.w. gregory said:

lambertville, nj
I always tell my church people, those who are most resistant to change/transformation are those who have a vested self-interest to keep the current system going, simply because they have a self-interest in its continuation. So who has a self-interest to keep the current clergy call/placement process intact?

-BOP: Due to their needs to keep the curernt defined benefit portion/major medical platforms afloat. Though I think that when the bow-wave of boomer retirements hit the system in 5-7 years, some are in for some unpleasant surprises. BOP happy-talk not withstanding on that matter on their investment returns.

-COM/PNC/Presbyteries: Sure, aspects of control, management of the professional work/labor force is always better than a free-for-all or a more loose system of more autonomous church-clergy parings. On this matter you will see the most rub or friction between the PCUSA and Fellowship/ECO crowd. And NGPs will not solve that matter.

-Clergy: I do not think it all works in their best interest long-term. The current system continues to forster an 18th century covenantal understanding of the placement process, where in reality it should be a more professional/business relationship between clergy and churches.

Barna, Alban, BOP all will agree that by any broad measure of public health, PCUSA clergy are by far sicker, less well medically, suffer from far more psychological/emotional/stress related issues that require disability ratings. And will die at earlier ages demographically than their simular age co-horts across the spectrum due to stress and life-style related diseases. In essence the profession as currently operational, kills and disables its members at higher rates than those in the allied professions of social work or nursing. Some of that is due to the personality types of those attracted to the profession, but churches, presbyteries, COMs all enable the pathologies and behaviors to continue.

One can tinker about the edges of full-time/supply/part-time, whatever. But until the basic structure and understanding is liberated from 1755, good people and their families in the profession will suffer.
March 02, 2012

Douglas Browne said:

Worthington, Ohio
Please understand that I mean you no disrespect, Rev. Williams. I read your blog regularly and frequently learn from it.
Your question, however, seems to me analogous to the one I hear from my Indian colleagues: "Why go through dating and trying to find a spouse? Just let your parents [the Presbytery] find you someone appropriate. Maybe they'll choose someone; maybe they’ll give you a short list to choose from."
Granted, I'm a Ruling Elder, not yet a Teaching Elder, so I have a different perspective on this than you do, but I see a regular called pastorate and a supply pastorate as being different in terms of commitment, on both sides. The pastor can always go find another church of some stripe or denomination; the church can always find somebody else to fill the pulpit.
It’s the difference between a marriage and living together. The former is more work to find the right person and to establish the relationship, but it's worth it.
February 29, 2012

Shawn Coons said:

Clermont, FL
"Functionally, there is no difference between being a called and installed pastor and a temporary supply pastor. You preach. You teach. You meet. You greet. You pray. You care. And honey child? Both positions are temporary."

To misquote Animal Farm "Some animals are more temporary than others."

I can't imagine how I would feel serving a church knowing that each year it would be a relatively simple thing for me to be out of a job, and most likely uproot my family on short notice to find other employment. The Session having the ability to terminate a pastor (through not renewing) each and every year with no vote of the congregation or Presbytery is very temporary and unstable. This would be a huge downside to pastors and would severely limit the candidate pool for the church.

February 21, 2012

p.w. gregory said:

lambertville, nj
Ask the right question.

The question to ask in the call and placement issues with PCUSA clergy is not "how quick" or "why so hard", but does the system serve the churches and institution that it seeks to serve? The response is yes and no. The call and placement system in the PCUSA is a deliberative and contemplative process, not one built for either expediency or even effeciency. I have posted a few times that it is time we liberate the concept of "full time installed" from the 18th century. But that is another disucssion.

In the backround of all this is that fact this will not be your fathers' or mothers' PCUSA going forward. The entity will change, and how it manages its professional work force will change as well. We do not know, nor will we in the near term, how the call/COM/PNC/placement system works with NGPs, with Fellowship types seeking placements in majority progressive Presbyteries, and the other way around. We do not know if churches will completely bypass the standard PCUSA system and seek clergy from outside the established process. And at that time and place where a church is either denied said called clergy or clergy does not get COM approval, then the fun starts.

Further the church going forward will be much smaller both in numbers and size, poorer on relative terms, and the full-time positions at least presbytery minimums will be the execption, not the norn. More and more will be going the tent-maker/CLP rout. Reality, deal with it. We have treated them as second-class citizens in my 30+ in over 8 presbyteries. Our chickens are coming home to roost.

We do indeed live in interesting times.
February 21, 2012

Linda Steele said:

Sheridan, WY
I have served on PNC's for calling a Pastor to include one that was seeking an interim. The latter proved a disaster. Had this pastor been put under a full PNC search he would not have been hired and it would have saved the congregation a lot of heart ache. Our PNC process makes a congregation look at itself, it is a time of looking back at who they have been, and looking forward at who they want to be. The nominating committee is elected by the congregation. They are instructed and they pray. It really can work. Yes it is slow but in most cases it brings the right person at the right time. When a long term and well liked pastor moves on or retires the congregation needs time to reflect. When a pastor has left under times of conflict the congregation needs time to heal. Our system isn't perfect but when used prayerfully and respectfully - IT WORKS.
February 20, 2012

Mark Sprowl said:

Mechanicsville, VA
As a teaching elder who has served several congregations as both a supply and interim pastor, I sympathize with David Williams lament about the slow pace of the Presbyterian call process. An important part of my ministry has been to encourage PNC's to persevere over the months and occasionally years it sometimes requires to call a new pastor. The process does necessarily divert a congregation's energy and resources away from other forms of congregational mission and nurture, a cause for concern of especially small congregations who can't easily afford such a drain.

Sometimes the route of choosing a temporary or stated supply is indeed best, a decision that is arrived at in the PCUSA with the prayerful consideration of both the local congregation and the presbytery. Yet, to my mind, at least two factors mitigate against this practice of "calling" a supply pastor becoming the norm for most Presbyterian churches to satisfy a concern for expedience.

The first is the nature congregational call itself. A supply pastor is not "called" by the congregation but by the church's session. There is no pastor nominating committee representing the diversity of the congregation. Typically, supply pastors are recommended by an ad hoc committee of the session. The congregation has not direct "ownership" in the process of the selection of a supply pastor from writing his/her description to considering what qualities may be the best fit with the congregation's mission to the actual voting on the individual.

Secondly, the supply pastor is typically chosen from those available in the local area at a given time. Because congregational leadership naturally desires pastoral leadership as soon as possible, the time window of selection is necessarily brief. It ultimately comes down to... Here's who we have at this time to choose from: Pray and pick one.

From time to time, members of a congregation where I serve as interim pastor wonder why I can't serve as their installed pastor. They believe they like me well enough, and it sure would save them a lot of time and effort. Of course, I'm always flattered by their interest, but I patiently explain that this isn't the Presbyterian way, that I'm the product of a brief selection process by the session of candidates who were available when the pastorate became vacant.

I continue that our Constitutional call process seeks to help a congregation (not just the session) (1) determine its mission and resources so that it may better understand who might be a good match for it in
ministry and (2) be open the leading of the Holy Spirit in considering candidates of diverse age, gender, physical ability, marital status and now sexual orientation who may live in the area or across the country. It's a process that necessarily considers the dreams, desires, resources, challenges, gifts of the congregation in designing a church information form that faithfully describes the congregation to possible candidates.

This process, though sometimes relatively lengthy, makes possible an enduring relationship between a teaching elder and congregation which have both looked deeply within themselves to fathom how the Spirit is speaking at this moment in time. In this way, they forge a relation, blessed by the presbytery, with no end in sight to do the Lord's work in partnership (vs. the constraint of a supply contract which may be ended by either party at the end of one or two years or whenever).

If our goal as a denomination in facilitating transitions in congregational pastoral leadership is not to be the first at the finish line but is rather to be faithful in encouraging our congregations to seek the Spirit's leading in discerning their best pastoral partner and to consider the great diversity of candidates the Lord may be sending their way, than I humbly submit we continue to carry out Paul's mandate to minister in ways that are both both decent and orderly!
February 20, 2012

Write a Response
smaller | bigger

security image
Write the displayed characters


busy