Sorry for the no-post week. Just haven't been in a writing mood this week I guess. I'm getting over being sick, and my voice is still MIA. I guess my blog-voice was MIA this week too!
Last week, we had a district clergy day with our Director of Congregational Development. We talked about a variety of things, but one of the topics was the process of evaluation for clergy by/with the staff-parish relations committee. Laurent suggested a model of evaluation that wasn't about the SPRC telling the pastor the critiques rounded up from the congregation, but instead, working together with the pastor to understand the pastor's quarterly ministry goals, and then evaluating progress on the goals to see how the goals can be achieved if they haven't been. A more collaborative process that is about effective ministry, not about criticizing an individual.
Have you been part (as pastor or as lay member) of an evaluation process? What does the process look like in your congregation?
Ministry is a hard place to always measure "results" - Lauren encouraged us to be very specific in setting our goals. Don't just say, "I want to grow our Sunday School." Say, "I want to grow our Sunday School by ____ number of new attendees." I think this is a good strategy. Ministry is mostly a job where nothing is ever really "done" as in nothing is every complete - ministry is always ongoing, of course. But personally, I find the "never done" part of ministry sometimes overwhelming. Perhaps being more specific about goals will help give a better sense of forward motion!
Thoughts?
8 comments:
Thoughts are with you- ministry is a very hard place to evaluate- what do we evaluate how do we quantify sucess, a conversation can be a sucess, but totally unquantifiable and we may not see the results for years... so many pints of ministry are like this- blessings on you as you work through this process
Beth,
Since I am a layman who worked all my career in private industry and now public instrusty, the way y'all (pastors) discuss how you are evaluated always peeks my mind. I have been in management. I know who to evaluate employees. But as a person on the sidelines, how I would evaluate a pastor is tough.
I believe that the typical way the UMC appears to do it, is poor. I think that church membership increase and weekly attendance are poor barometers of the job a pastor is doing. For example, an idiot pastor with ignorant parishioners in a growing neighborhood may see exponential increase from "feel good, simple minded Christians". Whereas an excellent, top notch person of the Cloth may see a decline if he or she is in area that is on the decline.
As a layman, I'd like to measure my pastor on time spent on sincere Bible study. Quality of Sermons. I want a pastor who lifts up my Christian faith, understanding, knowledge, and move me past Christianity 101. I get tired of "weekly lecture series" pastors who stand up and preach minature sermons, to minature Christians and never move the congregation to the next step.
Now, how the DS or the Bishop will quantitively measure this is beyone me, but that is how I personally qualitatively measure them. I think that is in line with how St. Paul the Apostle, as well as the Lord himself, would measure all of us as well.
IMHO, if this work is done, the numbers will take care of themselves.
(humor)
First, you build a fire in a big oven. Then you march the clergy up for evaluation in front of it. Then you pronounce how God will be glorified in their past good performance by not allowing them to be consumed by the fire when they are thrown in.
(seriously)
It seems that some type of polling of the congregation, other faculty, etc. would be necessary to establish some sense of their impact. Without giving weight to any specific compliment or complaint those who do the evaluation can look for examples of key criteria like feeding the poor(charity), pastora counseling(compassion), budgetary performance(stewardship), etc. If they are having some success in the big general areas then they can be said to "pass" rather than "fail". Beyond that I would think it important that the clergy establish what few significant events they dealt with in the previous year and provide evidence of what steps they took to deal with it. Even if they are hard on themself, the evaluator may be able to point out concrete examples of what they did right and what actions could be improved.
I'm really glad that you are working with this. Not just feedback fro the congregation but an assessment of where you are and where you wnat to be in a few months. And then a re-evaluation of what you need to get there. and then after the time period - a how did I do?
really really good!
but I'm not church looking at church membership /attendence is the ONLY thing to look at measure. Trouble is it's teh easiest :(
Beth,
Here is the website for the forms we use in Cal-Pac. (I broke it up so if text wrap doesn't exist it will still show up)
http://www.cal-pac.org/forms/
chargeconference/covenant-english.pdf
It is missing the previous forms to help determine the life cycle stage of the local church, and is still hoping to add a similar form for the local congregation to the Covenant for Vital Ministry form.
Hope that helps.
Peace,
DC
Here in North Indiana, we just switched to a new form of "evaluation" that was about how the laity and pastor were cooperating together in ministry. It was really an evaluation of the whole church, and it did ask specific questions about apportionments paid, membership increases, giving, attendance, goals, etc. However, as a pastor, I felt that it fell short simply because there was no space given to a specific evaluation of my work and calling, no place for the PPR to give me constructive criticism whatsoever. I did not feel like I was evaluated, and I wanted that. I know there are things I need to work on, and people need to be given a safe space in which they can tell me where I need to imprpove.
Beth,
It is funny how this happens, but just last night, I was continuing in my reading of Rev. Wesley's journal.
Read this entry:
Tues. Aug 5. (1777) – Our yearly Conference began. I now particularly inquired (as that report had been spread far and wide) of every Assistant, “Have you reason to believe, from your own observation, that the Methodists are a fallen people? Is there a decay or an increase in the work of God where you have been? Are the societies in general more dead, or more alive to God, than they were some years ago?” The almost universal answer was, “If we must ‘know them by their fruits,’ there is no decay in the work of God, among the people in general. The societies are not dead to God: They are as much alive as they have been for many years. And we look on this report as a mere device of Satan, to make our hands hang down.”
“But how can this question be decided?” You, and you, can judge no farther than you see. You cannot judge of one part by another; of the people of London, suppose, by those of Bristol. And none but myself has an opportunity of seeing them throughout the three kingdoms.
But to come to a short issue. In most places, the Methodists are still a poor, despised people, labouring under reproach, and many inconveniences; therefore, wherever the power of God is not, they decrease. By this, then, you may form a sure judgment. Do the Methodists in general decrease in number? Then they decrease in grace; they are a fallen, or, at least, a falling people. But they do not decrease in number; they continually increase: Therefore they are not a fallen people.
The Conference concluded on Friday, as it began, in much love. But there was one jarring string: John Hilton told us, he must withdraw from our Connexion, because he saw the Methodists were a fallen people. Some would have reasoned with him, but it was lost labour; so we let him go in peace.
The Bible says in the book of Ecclesiastes that nothing is new under the sun. Funny how you and Rev. Wesley basically posed the same question on how to judge or evaluate the Methodist societies some 229 years apart and I basically read them 1 day apart.
I work for an Annual Conference as a lay employee. I don't know what form or format is currently being used or what is done with the evaluation when it is complete. What I do know is that I can name 20 pastors that have a history of over 12 years serving in the Conference, who have served churches that have declined rapidly after their arrival. We don't even have to go to church growth as a measurement. How about, why have all your churhes declined? What part have you played in this process? Is it them, is it you, or are you both culpable? What haven't you done to heal wounds? What haven't you done to exert leadership?
Post a Comment