Do you think there are certain characteristics / qualities that a clergy member must / should have to be effective? Any non negotiables? If they don't have these, is it possible to learn them?
I'm not convinced there are many worth writing down. I suppose I might want to know how they would handle particular scenarios but I'm inclined to think that the complete "package", rather than individual attributes, is what makes parish clergy effective. Skilled diplomacy can be valuable, but so can a degree of bluntness that lets people know they're out of line. Either can be part of effective ministry.
I'm presbyterian, so we "call" our ministers, i.e. the congregation forms a Vacancy Committee tasked with advertising and screening applicants, then a short list is drawn up, those on it are invited to preach, and the congregation votes.
In our last vacancy we drew up a whole list of qualities we wanted for our next minister. We thought this would be helpful in enabling us to whittle down the huge numbers of applicants who would be desperate to be minister to our wonderful selves.
....
After a few months we were starting to reduce our requirements to "must have a pulse" when - thanks be to God - our present, excellent minister applied. I can't actually remember what our initial list looked like, or how closely he matches it, but we couldn't have a better minister.
I do recall one elder wanting "no females of childbearing age, in case they want maternity leave" added to this list. Rather than argue I asked if we also wanted men who wanted to serve on national church committees excluded too, as they would also require periods of leave. The consensus was that "may require leave at some point" wasn't a reason to exclude anyone.
Trust, a tough skin yet a degree of vulnerability.
As I heard it said in a sermon about Jacob, 'Never trust a preacher who doesn't have a limp.'
Trust has to be earned. It also has to be retained.
These things develop over the course of a life time. You can't pick them up from a CV (resume) and are often forged in the school of hard knocks.
There's no fool proof magic formulae for spotting whether any ministerial candidate has or can develop these qualities. Ultimately we can only take a punt based on whatever assessment can be made.
I'm presbyterian, so we "call" our ministers, i.e. the congregation forms a Vacancy Committee tasked with advertising and screening applicants, then a short list is drawn up, those on it are invited to preach, and the congregation votes.
In our last vacancy we drew up a whole list of qualities we wanted for our next minister. We thought this would be helpful in enabling us to whittle down the huge numbers of applicants who would be desperate to be minister to our wonderful selves.
That list of “what we want” is a standard part of the process in the PC(USA). But things like “no females of childbearing age” would not be part of that list. (At least, it wouldn’t be on the official form filed with what I called PresbyMatch.com.)
The official form (in case anyone is bored and interested in looking at) lists 33 (I think) leadership competencies, and the pastor nominating committee noted which 10 “are required for the position.” When I was on a pastor nominating committee, for our own purposes we surveyed the congregation as to what it most wanted in a new pastor. We weren’t the least surprised that by far the two top things were “strong preacher” and “good at pastoral care.”
What are the top three responsibilities of a pastor?
Their duties include preaching sermons to their congregation, organizing charitable activities and church events and meeting with members of their congregation to help them strengthen their faith or overcome significant life changes.
Pastor Job Description [Updated for 2023] - Indeed
A friend of mine went to be interview etc for C of E ministry. She went through the system and was told that they were sure she had a call to some kind of ministry but she basically wasn’t Anglican enough. She and her husband are now Methodist ministers.
What can we draw from that. Be throughly the denomination you apply for?
A friend of mine went to be interview etc for C of E ministry. She went through the system and was told that they were sure she had a call to some kind of ministry but she basically wasn’t Anglican enough. She and her husband are now Methodist ministers.
What can we draw from that. Be throughly the denomination you apply for?
I had a Methodist colleague who somehow appeared "more Anglican than the Anglicans" ... he now is one!
A friend of mine went to be interview etc for C of E ministry. She went through the system and was told that they were sure she had a call to some kind of ministry but she basically wasn’t Anglican enough. She and her husband are now Methodist ministers.
What can we draw from that. Be throughly the denomination you apply for?
Given what passes for Anglicanism is some quarters one wonders what the limits were.
I can think of Anglican clergy - including one who has left the ministry - who would certainly have been more comfortable in some kind of independent or Free Church setting.
I dare say the same is the case the other way round.
I can think of Anglican clergy - including one who has left the ministry - who would certainly have been more comfortable in some kind of independent or Free Church setting.
I dare say the same is the case the other way round.
Yes. Our former priest-in-charge started off in a Congregational church (one that didn't join the URC), eventually became an Anglican, and (despite still being in the C of E) now virtually regards Mary as Co-Redemptrix...
A friend of mine went to be interview etc for C of E ministry. She went through the system and was told that they were sure she had a call to some kind of ministry but she basically wasn’t Anglican enough. She and her husband are now Methodist ministers.
What can we draw from that. Be throughly the denomination you apply for?
Given what passes for Anglicanism is some quarters one wonders what the limits were.
Well IME there aren't that many Anglicans who want to ditch the hierarchy and move to congregational government like the baptists
A friend of mine went to be interview etc for C of E ministry. She went through the system and was told that they were sure she had a call to some kind of ministry but she basically wasn’t Anglican enough. She and her husband are now Methodist ministers.
What can we draw from that. Be throughly the denomination you apply for?
Given what passes for Anglicanism is some quarters one wonders what the limits were.
Well IME there aren't that many Anglicans who want to ditch the hierarchy and move to congregational government like the baptists
No, because then they'd actually be accountable to someone who knows what they're doing. There are plenty of notional Anglicans who largely ignore their Bishop (Jesmond Parish Church for example) and go their own way.
Equally there are Baptists who, while accountable (one hopes) to their own congregation, pay little attention to their own Association and even less to the national Union. (Admittedly some would say, "But why should they?").
You’re lucky, we have ours sent to us by the bishop. Sometimes there’s a good fit, sometimes it’s a disaster.
Mind you, the way things are going there won’t be any priests left in fifty years time.
The Methodist colleague I mentioned above was sent by TPTB to a totally unsuitable post which very quickly (and foreseeably) deteriorated. It was in my view a masterpiece of "how not to do it" and my friend became a victim of others' poor decisions.
Equally there are Baptists who, while accountable (one hopes) to their own congregation, pay little attention to their own Association and even less to the national Union. (Admittedly some would say, "But why should they?").
Why should they indeed when both are (arguably) departing rapidly from traditionally understood Baptist polity and practice?
Besides which a significant element of both are unelected and unrepresentative.
You’re lucky, we have ours sent to us by the bishop. Sometimes there’s a good fit, sometimes it’s a disaster.
Mind you, the way things are going there won’t be any priests left in fifty years time.
Good point (and I assume you're referring to the Roman Catholic Church?).
How is this dearth of new clergy (if any) affecting other denominations?
The C of E appears to be relying more and more on elderly priests, staying on long past retirement age (providing they're fit and willing - they aren't forced to stay!), and the joining together of parishes in a variety of ways.
You’re lucky, we have ours sent to us by the bishop. Sometimes there’s a good fit, sometimes it’s a disaster.
Mind you, the way things are going there won’t be any priests left in fifty years time.
Good point (and I assume you're referring to the Roman Catholic Church?).
How is this dearth of new clergy (if any) affecting other denominations?
The C of E appears to be relying more and more on elderly priests, staying on long past retirement age (providing they're fit and willing - they aren't forced to stay!), and the joining together of parishes in a variety of ways.
The Kirk is in a similar position, and in rural and island areas the joining of parishes is becoming ever more extreme. I don't know what the reduction in the number of posts is church wide but it's probably not far off 50% over the last year or so. The number of ministers in training has been far too low, and in some years there have been more prospective ordinands in the SEC than the Kirk.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet: The Kirk is in a similar position, and in rural and island areas the joining of parishes is becoming ever more extreme. I don't know what the reduction in the number of posts is church wide but it's probably not far off 50% over the last year or so.
We are heading towards 3 ministers in a team ministry covering what was once eight parishes, and more recently was five parishes.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet: The Kirk is in a similar position, and in rural and island areas the joining of parishes is becoming ever more extreme. I don't know what the reduction in the number of posts is church wide but it's probably not far off 50% over the last year or so.
We are heading towards 3 ministers in a team ministry covering what was once eight parishes, and more recently was five parishes.
We've just picked our members for the nominating committee of a linked charge that sees us joined to a parish 4 hours away, to call a minister we might see once every couple of months.
And a friend who is minister of Morvern, Ardgour and Strontian has just added Acharacle and Ardnamurchan. This is a vast territory: some countries are smaller.
The C of E appears to be relying more and more on elderly priests, staying on long past retirement age (providing they're fit and willing - they aren't forced to stay!), and the joining together of parishes in a variety of ways.
The problem is that anyone highlighting an issue to which the answers are hard and/or disruptive is not going to be particularly popular or seen as a good member of the organisation, and so the default setting is managed decline. This isn't a problem solely with the CofE and some church groups are further down this road than others.
Let's hope to have a minister who is a Christian (they aren't all), who respects the practices in the chosen church and genuinely believes in pastoral care.
Let's hope to have a minister who is a Christian (they aren't all), who respects the practices in the chosen church and genuinely believes in pastoral care.
Let's hope to have a minister who is a Christian (they aren't all), who respects the practices in the chosen church and genuinely believes in pastoral care.
@rhubarb may well not mean it this way, but the claim that “they aren’t all” Christian reminds me of a meeting I had with a congregations’s nominating committee, as a required part of helping them launch their vacancy procedure. In their Parish Profile they had stated they wanted a “Bible Believing Christian”. I, as duty bound, pointed out to them that all Church Of Scotland ministers believed the Bible. They have to say so in their ordination vows. I waited till the reaction to that had settled and pointed out that what the meant was “someone who interprets the Bible, especially on certain issues, the way that we do.” Uproar again, as of course they didn’t think that they did “interpret the Bible”, they just believed what they read. Oh, that was a fun meeting. In the end I think they left the phrase in, saying that people would know what they meant. In which they were probably right as it is a kind of code these days.
Let's hope to have a minister who is a Christian (they aren't all), who respects the practices in the chosen church and genuinely believes in pastoral care.
@rhubarb may well not mean it this way, but the claim that “they aren’t all” Christian reminds me of a meeting I had with a congregations’s nominating committee, as a required part of helping them launch their vacancy procedure. In their Parish Profile they had stated they wanted a “Bible Believing Christian”. I, as duty bound, pointed out to them that all Church Of Scotland ministers believed the Bible. They have to say so in their ordination vows. I waited till the reaction to that had settled and pointed out that what the meant was “someone who interprets the Bible, especially on certain issues, the way that we do.” Uproar again, as of course they didn’t think that they did “interpret the Bible”, they just believed what they read. Oh, that was a fun meeting. In the end I think they left the phrase in, saying that people would know what they meant. In which they were probably right as it is a kind of code these days.
I'd be considered progressive in the sense of radical (I've been told so). That seems to sit alongside the evangelical/sensible charismatic which is my default although the radical would be on some issues, conservative on others.
Comments
It is possible to learn this, by understanding ourselves and how we come across to other people, forming new habits and discarding old ones.
In our last vacancy we drew up a whole list of qualities we wanted for our next minister. We thought this would be helpful in enabling us to whittle down the huge numbers of applicants who would be desperate to be minister to our wonderful selves.
....
After a few months we were starting to reduce our requirements to "must have a pulse" when - thanks be to God - our present, excellent minister applied. I can't actually remember what our initial list looked like, or how closely he matches it, but we couldn't have a better minister.
I do recall one elder wanting "no females of childbearing age, in case they want maternity leave" added to this list. Rather than argue I asked if we also wanted men who wanted to serve on national church committees excluded too, as they would also require periods of leave. The consensus was that "may require leave at some point" wasn't a reason to exclude anyone.
It’s a shame if someone slips through the net, but if they do I’m afraid that only challenge, prayer and example might help.
As I heard it said in a sermon about Jacob, 'Never trust a preacher who doesn't have a limp.'
Trust has to be earned. It also has to be retained.
These things develop over the course of a life time. You can't pick them up from a CV (resume) and are often forged in the school of hard knocks.
There's no fool proof magic formulae for spotting whether any ministerial candidate has or can develop these qualities. Ultimately we can only take a punt based on whatever assessment can be made.
The official form (in case anyone is bored and interested in looking at) lists 33 (I think) leadership competencies, and the pastor nominating committee noted which 10 “are required for the position.” When I was on a pastor nominating committee, for our own purposes we surveyed the congregation as to what it most wanted in a new pastor. We weren’t the least surprised that by far the two top things were “strong preacher” and “good at pastoral care.”
According to Indeed...
That's me out then
I'd put that : A sense of humour to be used in an appropriate manner - it's more than just timing.
What can we draw from that. Be throughly the denomination you apply for?
AIUI, for many parishes the Archangel Gabriel would just about do...
I had a Methodist colleague who somehow appeared "more Anglican than the Anglicans" ... he now is one!
Given what passes for Anglicanism is some quarters one wonders what the limits were.
I can think of Anglican clergy - including one who has left the ministry - who would certainly have been more comfortable in some kind of independent or Free Church setting.
I dare say the same is the case the other way round.
Yes. Our former priest-in-charge started off in a Congregational church (one that didn't join the URC), eventually became an Anglican, and (despite still being in the C of E) now virtually regards Mary as Co-Redemptrix...
Well IME there aren't that many Anglicans who want to ditch the hierarchy and move to congregational government like the baptists
No, because then they'd actually be accountable to someone who knows what they're doing. There are plenty of notional Anglicans who largely ignore their Bishop (Jesmond Parish Church for example) and go their own way.
Mind you, the way things are going there won’t be any priests left in fifty years time.
Why should they indeed when both are (arguably) departing rapidly from traditionally understood Baptist polity and practice?
Besides which a significant element of both are unelected and unrepresentative.
Good point (and I assume you're referring to the Roman Catholic Church?).
How is this dearth of new clergy (if any) affecting other denominations?
The C of E appears to be relying more and more on elderly priests, staying on long past retirement age (providing they're fit and willing - they aren't forced to stay!), and the joining together of parishes in a variety of ways.
The Kirk is in a similar position, and in rural and island areas the joining of parishes is becoming ever more extreme. I don't know what the reduction in the number of posts is church wide but it's probably not far off 50% over the last year or so. The number of ministers in training has been far too low, and in some years there have been more prospective ordinands in the SEC than the Kirk.
I think all clergy or candidates should read Wodehouse's "The Great Sermon Handicap" (available in many languages).
I was more thinking "sounding a general retreat".
Agreed re discretion, as @HarryCH mentions.
The Kirk is in a similar position, and in rural and island areas the joining of parishes is becoming ever more extreme. I don't know what the reduction in the number of posts is church wide but it's probably not far off 50% over the last year or so.
We are heading towards 3 ministers in a team ministry covering what was once eight parishes, and more recently was five parishes.
We've just picked our members for the nominating committee of a linked charge that sees us joined to a parish 4 hours away, to call a minister we might see once every couple of months.
The problem is that anyone highlighting an issue to which the answers are hard and/or disruptive is not going to be particularly popular or seen as a good member of the organisation, and so the default setting is managed decline. This isn't a problem solely with the CofE and some church groups are further down this road than others.
Evidence for BIB?
Care to unpack that?
Bit In Bold
@rhubarb may well not mean it this way, but the claim that “they aren’t all” Christian reminds me of a meeting I had with a congregations’s nominating committee, as a required part of helping them launch their vacancy procedure. In their Parish Profile they had stated they wanted a “Bible Believing Christian”. I, as duty bound, pointed out to them that all Church Of Scotland ministers believed the Bible. They have to say so in their ordination vows. I waited till the reaction to that had settled and pointed out that what the meant was “someone who interprets the Bible, especially on certain issues, the way that we do.” Uproar again, as of course they didn’t think that they did “interpret the Bible”, they just believed what they read. Oh, that was a fun meeting. In the end I think they left the phrase in, saying that people would know what they meant. In which they were probably right as it is a kind of code these days.
Isn't it just?
I'd be considered progressive in the sense of radical (I've been told so). That seems to sit alongside the evangelical/sensible charismatic which is my default although the radical would be on some issues, conservative on others.
How about a church leader from the sea of faith movement who doesn't agree with unique salvation through Christ?
Do they abound in the Kirk, or anywhere else for that matter?