Pastor Church Resources has joined with eight other Christian Reformed ministries to better equip and encourage congregations. Our new name is Thrive (learn more).
What a great comment. Your thoughts were so helpful, I retitled the blog. There's so much to consider.
I address the question of when to tell others at your church about a call in another blog: When Should a Pastor Tell Their Church About a Call Elsewhere? | CRC Network. But the short version is this: I think we pastors should engage our current churches earlier in the call process. On that point, I suspect we'll disagree. But I think it's the kind of thing that's possible if you've done what you suggest later in your comment: establish an ongoing evaluative process about your call with your current church. I think it is a sign of health (in the pastor and the congregation) when such an ongoing discernment takes place. When a possible call elsewhere shows signs of getting serious (I give some markers in the blog about when that might be), I think it's worth engaging the people you most trust.
I'm more deeply concerned about the church whose council has recommended three candidates only to have the congregation reject all three. Without knowing the specifics, that detail alone suggests the council and calling committee are seriously out-of-step with their congregation and the search process itself has significant flaws.
So yes, I concede that the three weeks is necessary in many situations. But I think that if churches and pastors approached the calling process more transparently, and if search committees and councils have engaged their congregations clearly and well about what kind of pastor they're searching for, by the time the letter of call is issued to the kind of pastor that matches the search committee's mandate, the bulk of the most consequential discernment (with those whose discernment you most highly regard) should be in the past, not rushed into a frantic few weeks.
Thanks again for the terrific, thoughtful comment.
Great question (and an important one, too). In my experience, most church councils, elders, and deacons err on the side of keeping too much of their deliberation, decision-making, and actions secret. Secrecy tends to breed mistrust.
Council meetings are public meetings (and thus open to visitors) unless the council itself votes to enter executive session. Executive session should be called only sparingly: typically, when addressing certain matters of personnel, pastoral care, benevolence, and discipline.
But even in these cases, while some names and details should be excluded, any decisions made by the elders, deacons, and council should be minuted and those minutes should be publicly available for easy viewing.
I know that many churches, recognizing that minutes aren't the most scintillating reading, publish reports to accompany the minutes. These reports can be composed in a format that's more accessible.
As the author of some of the articles you reference, I appreciate your enthusiasm for the conversation. I have also appreciated you taking the time to comment on some of those articles. I think you and I share a desire for more robust listening and discernment.
That said, I don't think I share your desire to see the conversation happen in the comments section of a blog, (he wrote ironically).
As you note, our assemblies (council, classis and Synod) are the formal setting for this discernment. And, so far as I can tell, many of our assemblies (not just Synod, but also classes and council) are diving into the main issues and not avoiding the conversation. This is as it should be.
The other main place I think this conversation belongs is within congregations. Next Steps Discernment is a process by which a congregation can meaningfully engage the issues in ways that support the council's decision-making. That seems like the higher priority and the better home for these kinds of conversations. If no one ever commented on one of my blogs, but if even one church council engaged in this discernment more intentionally and thoughtfully because of the blog, that would be a tremendous success in my book.
To tell you the truth, I've witnessed so many destructive online debates that I have very little interest or appetite in discussing issues via comment boxes. The better place for the conversation, in my judgment, is within communities where we are known to one another, and are walking together in practical, daily discipleship. There are some online communities that can provide a home for such dialogue, but they are usually communities where people are already strongly oriented around listening (reading) to understand and support one another. Perhaps The Network could become a community like that some day. But I don't expect it to function that way now.
Thanks for suggesting an alternative approach to this challenge. As you may know, there were several overtures to Synod this year proposing the creation of what I call a “no problems here” Article 17 alternative. And I want to be believe that your proposed technical fix could resolve the problems with our Article 17 system, but I'm doubtful. If you'll indulge me, let me share my concerns with that approach and see whether you share them or how you might allay them.
To start, I would wager that once you created a "problems 17," including oversight committees, synodical deputies, classis deliberation, church visitors, etc., and a distinct "no problems 17," with less accountability, within a year, there would be not one "problems 17" submitted to a classis anywhere in our denomination. And, I dare say, the absence of the “problems 17” will not be because all of our churches and pastors magically began dealing with their differences so well. Rather, I think that classes, churches and pastors have many (short-term) incentives to avoid naming and addressing challenges in a church or with a pastor plainly and clearly. There is a strong motivation to look the other way and, (I apologize if this sounds cynical) my experience tells me that classes, pastors and churches often seek the path of least resistance and hope that a change of pastor or a change of church will itself solve whatever underlying challenges may have contributed to the separation.
I see classes function this way now in a number of ways. I see it when a candidate badly fumbles an exam in a way that raises serious concerns to delegates but they sustain the exam anyway, assigning a powerless “mentor” to address the many shortcomings that 4 years of seminary and internships did not address. I see it when a council opts for a 17 even when a case warrants special discipline. I see it when a classis opts for a “terminal leave of absence” for a pastor involved in a troubling pastor/council dynamic rather than permit an Article 17 (and the attendant accountability that can come with it). In other words, there are many occasions already when a classis, given the choice to lean into accountability and the hard conversations or to permit a pastor or church to save face a classis opts for the latter.
I have no illusions about the Article 17 process being perfect. Far from it. But it is the basic elements to work pretty well. I think for the most part that when we make it easier for folks to have less accountability, especially in times of challenge, they will choose less accountability. And when we choose less accountability, we are neglecting one of the best gifts we have as a part of a denomination.
I'm glad you still care. And leaving is a valid, if painful, outcome. But I think you'll agree, and your comment suggests, that leaving should not be done hastily. In the language of the article, leaving hastily would be too focused on "outcome" and not enough on "process." If I understand you correctly, you've been leaning into process, and have determined finally that God is calling you to leave and "move out." -sean
Your suggestion that this article is demonic in character is a bold one. If I understand you correctly, you are concerned that too much "process orientation" would inevitably devolve into sophisticated equivocation, practically avoiding the naming and standing upon Biblically-informed conviction. If that's what you mean, then I certainly share your concern. I have seen equivocations dressed up in the language of "good process." That's partly why I wrote this article. I think that would represent a serious mismanagement of the polarity and a failure of godly leadership.
But I should say that I've also seen folks making all kinds of uncharitable and dismissive comments about their brothers and sisters in Christ who "disagree." Sometimes, those uncharitable and dismissive comments emerge because the discernment process was poor in a very specific way: there was no space for people to really name the issues that matter and why they matter. It may be that the "two sides" will have to part ways, but I think treating those you disagree with as a bogeyman, in addition to being uncharitable, also forfeits an opportunity to teach, convince and win over. I think you might be surprised how many people in the denomination are not on either "side" but actually occupy a persuadable middle. They are honestly wrestling with issues, but find it hard to connect with people who are willing to really listen to and respond to their sincere questions. They will not be persuaded by comments in online forums, but you might be surprised to discover how much they desire charitable partners in discernment. -sean
I do think it would be helpful for churches to take a look at the processes they use for making decisions. I think some churches are managing the polarity too far toward process or even equivocation (see my reply to Ralph's comment), and their churches will suffer because of it by, among other things, losing sight of the authority of scripture, as you suggest. But others are just assuming that the outcome is self-evident, that "the other side" is evil, and that there's nothing to talk about. One thing I've heard from more traditional churches that have used the Challenging Conversations Toolkit process is that it helped them notice blind spots in the ways they were or were not pastorally helping their members navigate an increasingly confusing sexual world. They realized they hadn't supported celibate gay family members; they confessed that they hadn't done anything to help each other deal with the scourge of pornography; they hadn't provided any counsel to their young people concerning cohabitation. Part of the problem, they discovered, is that they too readily assumed that "we all know; we all agree." In my experience, a good process for decision-making helps to reveal those kinds of blind spots in ways that will elevate Biblical truth and faith Christian living. -sean
Posted in: How Pastors Can Answer a Letter of Call in Fewer Than Three Weeks
Colin,
What a great comment. Your thoughts were so helpful, I retitled the blog. There's so much to consider.
I address the question of when to tell others at your church about a call in another blog: When Should a Pastor Tell Their Church About a Call Elsewhere? | CRC Network. But the short version is this: I think we pastors should engage our current churches earlier in the call process. On that point, I suspect we'll disagree. But I think it's the kind of thing that's possible if you've done what you suggest later in your comment: establish an ongoing evaluative process about your call with your current church. I think it is a sign of health (in the pastor and the congregation) when such an ongoing discernment takes place. When a possible call elsewhere shows signs of getting serious (I give some markers in the blog about when that might be), I think it's worth engaging the people you most trust.
I'm more deeply concerned about the church whose council has recommended three candidates only to have the congregation reject all three. Without knowing the specifics, that detail alone suggests the council and calling committee are seriously out-of-step with their congregation and the search process itself has significant flaws.
So yes, I concede that the three weeks is necessary in many situations. But I think that if churches and pastors approached the calling process more transparently, and if search committees and councils have engaged their congregations clearly and well about what kind of pastor they're searching for, by the time the letter of call is issued to the kind of pastor that matches the search committee's mandate, the bulk of the most consequential discernment (with those whose discernment you most highly regard) should be in the past, not rushed into a frantic few weeks.
Thanks again for the terrific, thoughtful comment.
Posted in: Is It Common to Make Council Meeting Minutes Publicly Available?
Mike,
Great question (and an important one, too). In my experience, most church councils, elders, and deacons err on the side of keeping too much of their deliberation, decision-making, and actions secret. Secrecy tends to breed mistrust.
Council meetings are public meetings (and thus open to visitors) unless the council itself votes to enter executive session. Executive session should be called only sparingly: typically, when addressing certain matters of personnel, pastoral care, benevolence, and discipline.
But even in these cases, while some names and details should be excluded, any decisions made by the elders, deacons, and council should be minuted and those minutes should be publicly available for easy viewing.
I know that many churches, recognizing that minutes aren't the most scintillating reading, publish reports to accompany the minutes. These reports can be composed in a format that's more accessible.
-Sean
Posted in: CRCNA Letter of Call (2021)
You're welcome, Brenda, and thanks for your comment. Encouraging healthy conversation—about this and other topics—is our goal!
Posted in: Help in the Midst of Trauma
Thanks for this excellent blog post Bonnie. I hope it speaks to many.
Posted in: Places to Host a Church or Leadership Retreat?
Another option not mentioned is Gull Lake Ministries in Hickory Corners, MI
Posted in: Let's Talk About Numbers
Jeffrey,
As the author of some of the articles you reference, I appreciate your enthusiasm for the conversation. I have also appreciated you taking the time to comment on some of those articles. I think you and I share a desire for more robust listening and discernment.
That said, I don't think I share your desire to see the conversation happen in the comments section of a blog, (he wrote ironically).
As you note, our assemblies (council, classis and Synod) are the formal setting for this discernment. And, so far as I can tell, many of our assemblies (not just Synod, but also classes and council) are diving into the main issues and not avoiding the conversation. This is as it should be.
The other main place I think this conversation belongs is within congregations. Next Steps Discernment is a process by which a congregation can meaningfully engage the issues in ways that support the council's decision-making. That seems like the higher priority and the better home for these kinds of conversations. If no one ever commented on one of my blogs, but if even one church council engaged in this discernment more intentionally and thoughtfully because of the blog, that would be a tremendous success in my book.
To tell you the truth, I've witnessed so many destructive online debates that I have very little interest or appetite in discussing issues via comment boxes. The better place for the conversation, in my judgment, is within communities where we are known to one another, and are walking together in practical, daily discipleship. There are some online communities that can provide a home for such dialogue, but they are usually communities where people are already strongly oriented around listening (reading) to understand and support one another. Perhaps The Network could become a community like that some day. But I don't expect it to function that way now.
Respectfully,
Sean Baker
Posted in: Addressing Article 17 Stigma
Shawn,
Thanks for suggesting an alternative approach to this challenge. As you may know, there were several overtures to Synod this year proposing the creation of what I call a “no problems here” Article 17 alternative. And I want to be believe that your proposed technical fix could resolve the problems with our Article 17 system, but I'm doubtful. If you'll indulge me, let me share my concerns with that approach and see whether you share them or how you might allay them.
To start, I would wager that once you created a "problems 17," including oversight committees, synodical deputies, classis deliberation, church visitors, etc., and a distinct "no problems 17," with less accountability, within a year, there would be not one "problems 17" submitted to a classis anywhere in our denomination. And, I dare say, the absence of the “problems 17” will not be because all of our churches and pastors magically began dealing with their differences so well. Rather, I think that classes, churches and pastors have many (short-term) incentives to avoid naming and addressing challenges in a church or with a pastor plainly and clearly. There is a strong motivation to look the other way and, (I apologize if this sounds cynical) my experience tells me that classes, pastors and churches often seek the path of least resistance and hope that a change of pastor or a change of church will itself solve whatever underlying challenges may have contributed to the separation.
I see classes function this way now in a number of ways. I see it when a candidate badly fumbles an exam in a way that raises serious concerns to delegates but they sustain the exam anyway, assigning a powerless “mentor” to address the many shortcomings that 4 years of seminary and internships did not address. I see it when a council opts for a 17 even when a case warrants special discipline. I see it when a classis opts for a “terminal leave of absence” for a pastor involved in a troubling pastor/council dynamic rather than permit an Article 17 (and the attendant accountability that can come with it). In other words, there are many occasions already when a classis, given the choice to lean into accountability and the hard conversations or to permit a pastor or church to save face a classis opts for the latter.
I have no illusions about the Article 17 process being perfect. Far from it. But it is the basic elements to work pretty well. I think for the most part that when we make it easier for folks to have less accountability, especially in times of challenge, they will choose less accountability. And when we choose less accountability, we are neglecting one of the best gifts we have as a part of a denomination.
Posted in: Just Decide Already! Can’t We Just Vote and Move On?
Harry,
I'm glad you still care. And leaving is a valid, if painful, outcome. But I think you'll agree, and your comment suggests, that leaving should not be done hastily. In the language of the article, leaving hastily would be too focused on "outcome" and not enough on "process." If I understand you correctly, you've been leaning into process, and have determined finally that God is calling you to leave and "move out." -sean
Posted in: Just Decide Already! Can’t We Just Vote and Move On?
Ralph,
Your suggestion that this article is demonic in character is a bold one. If I understand you correctly, you are concerned that too much "process orientation" would inevitably devolve into sophisticated equivocation, practically avoiding the naming and standing upon Biblically-informed conviction. If that's what you mean, then I certainly share your concern. I have seen equivocations dressed up in the language of "good process." That's partly why I wrote this article. I think that would represent a serious mismanagement of the polarity and a failure of godly leadership.
But I should say that I've also seen folks making all kinds of uncharitable and dismissive comments about their brothers and sisters in Christ who "disagree." Sometimes, those uncharitable and dismissive comments emerge because the discernment process was poor in a very specific way: there was no space for people to really name the issues that matter and why they matter. It may be that the "two sides" will have to part ways, but I think treating those you disagree with as a bogeyman, in addition to being uncharitable, also forfeits an opportunity to teach, convince and win over. I think you might be surprised how many people in the denomination are not on either "side" but actually occupy a persuadable middle. They are honestly wrestling with issues, but find it hard to connect with people who are willing to really listen to and respond to their sincere questions. They will not be persuaded by comments in online forums, but you might be surprised to discover how much they desire charitable partners in discernment. -sean
Posted in: Just Decide Already! Can’t We Just Vote and Move On?
Alex,
I do think it would be helpful for churches to take a look at the processes they use for making decisions. I think some churches are managing the polarity too far toward process or even equivocation (see my reply to Ralph's comment), and their churches will suffer because of it by, among other things, losing sight of the authority of scripture, as you suggest. But others are just assuming that the outcome is self-evident, that "the other side" is evil, and that there's nothing to talk about. One thing I've heard from more traditional churches that have used the Challenging Conversations Toolkit process is that it helped them notice blind spots in the ways they were or were not pastorally helping their members navigate an increasingly confusing sexual world. They realized they hadn't supported celibate gay family members; they confessed that they hadn't done anything to help each other deal with the scourge of pornography; they hadn't provided any counsel to their young people concerning cohabitation. Part of the problem, they discovered, is that they too readily assumed that "we all know; we all agree." In my experience, a good process for decision-making helps to reveal those kinds of blind spots in ways that will elevate Biblical truth and faith Christian living. -sean
Posted in: Rush, Hush and Mush: 3 Keys to Bad Decisions
Stanley,
I apologize for the error. The link is now live.
Sean
Posted in: Doing A New Thing
Thanks for sharing this encouraging report, Reggie! Great things are happening!