There But for the Grace of Clergy Leadership or Congregation, Go I
May 24, 2010 6:55 AM Subscribe
A friend of mine is a candidate to be a UU minister at a particular church. He had to go through a hiring process similar to that of faculty interviewing for professorships. The chaplain at the university where I work is Methodist, and she told me yesterday that every year she has to write a letter to those in charge asking to stay here at the university because any given year they could tell her she'd have to go to this community in this place, and she'd have to. She's been doing this for twenty years. Now I am curious, which religions have a more traditional hiring process where an ordained minister or priest has to interview for their position and which religions have a leadership that tell their priests and ministers where they are going? What are the details of how this process works for the religion you mention?
Best answer: My ex was an Episcopal priest, she had to apply for clergy positions when she came out of seminary like a traditional job hunt. The church has a website where clergy members can check job postings but I can't remember the name of it.
posted by The Straightener at 7:45 AM on May 24, 2010
posted by The Straightener at 7:45 AM on May 24, 2010
Best answer: Speaking as a PK (preacher's kid) of a United Methodist minister, your Methodist chaplain friend is correct (as is beagle). United Methodist pastors are "called" (e.g., placed) by the bishop of each "conference" where the pastor lives. So, yes, each year (generally it's in the late spring), United Methodist pastors learn whether they're staying or going to a new church. While technically they can be moved every year, my experience growing up in the Northern Illinois Conference 20 years ago was that we moved about every 4-5 years.
The process generally works like this: minister gets a phone call from the district superintendent saying "you're moving, start packing." That's a bit of an exaggeration, but generally there's an "interview" (I put it in quotes because it's pretty much a done deal by the time the pastor and the new congregation meet) with the new congregation and then you move about 2-3 months later. Generally, the moves are done in May/June, before "annual conference," which is the annual meeting of all Methodist clergy, so that everyone's in their new places with bright shiny faces. It's fairly rare for either clergy or congregation to say "no" to bishop as that's just not done.
In the United Methodist system, the bishop is the head of the "conference," which is composed of several "districts," each of which has a "district superintendent" who reports directly to the bishop. So the hierarchy is bishop/district superintendent/pastor. (The national organization is called the "general conference"). As a general rule, newly ordained clergy seminary graduates come in a associate pastors for a few years, then they get their own church (generally of smaller size), and then move up to larger churches over the years. My father did then, and then ultimately was a district superintendent for a few years before her retired, during which he was overseeing about 75 local churches in northern Illinois. It's also unusual for a pastor to relocate outside the district in which she/he starts, so you're generally going to stay in roughly the same geographical area your entire career. The geographic size of the "conference" and "districts" within the conference varies depending upon populations and number of churches. So, for example, my father's conference was the Northern Illinois Conference, which basically covered about the top 1/3 of Illinois, including Chicago. I now live in a state that has a significantly smaller total population than Illinois, so our United Methodist Conference covers the entire state.
A close friend of ours is a Presbyterian minister and their system is a whole 'nother ballgame, as beagle mentioned.
posted by webhund at 8:03 AM on May 24, 2010
The process generally works like this: minister gets a phone call from the district superintendent saying "you're moving, start packing." That's a bit of an exaggeration, but generally there's an "interview" (I put it in quotes because it's pretty much a done deal by the time the pastor and the new congregation meet) with the new congregation and then you move about 2-3 months later. Generally, the moves are done in May/June, before "annual conference," which is the annual meeting of all Methodist clergy, so that everyone's in their new places with bright shiny faces. It's fairly rare for either clergy or congregation to say "no" to bishop as that's just not done.
In the United Methodist system, the bishop is the head of the "conference," which is composed of several "districts," each of which has a "district superintendent" who reports directly to the bishop. So the hierarchy is bishop/district superintendent/pastor. (The national organization is called the "general conference"). As a general rule, newly ordained clergy seminary graduates come in a associate pastors for a few years, then they get their own church (generally of smaller size), and then move up to larger churches over the years. My father did then, and then ultimately was a district superintendent for a few years before her retired, during which he was overseeing about 75 local churches in northern Illinois. It's also unusual for a pastor to relocate outside the district in which she/he starts, so you're generally going to stay in roughly the same geographical area your entire career. The geographic size of the "conference" and "districts" within the conference varies depending upon populations and number of churches. So, for example, my father's conference was the Northern Illinois Conference, which basically covered about the top 1/3 of Illinois, including Chicago. I now live in a state that has a significantly smaller total population than Illinois, so our United Methodist Conference covers the entire state.
A close friend of ours is a Presbyterian minister and their system is a whole 'nother ballgame, as beagle mentioned.
posted by webhund at 8:03 AM on May 24, 2010
Best answer: I'm not a priest but I have a few among my family and family friends, so this is what I've gleaned at one remove.
In the (Anglican) Church of Wales and Church of England, priests can in principle be sent wherever they're needed. In practice, though, this power is very rarely (if ever) used. There's also a system set up for priests to apply for any move they want, subject to permission from their current boss (probably their local Bishop). They're then interviewed by the Bishop overseeing the destination diocese and their future parishioners, generally the Parochial Church Council of the new parish(es).
In theory, this can be done on a whim and all applications are open to anyone. Some priests certainly do seem to manage it. In practice though, the system mostly seems to center around the Bishop giving you a call and sounding you out about your willingness to move to a specific few places. Or if you've announced a desire to move, you might be strongly encouraged to apply to a particular parish, while others are discouraged from applying there.
In the case I'm most familiar with, a priest and his family stayed in one spot for about twenty years despite intermittent encouragement to move. They don't like keeping priests in the same place for too long, so eventually he was told something like "if you don't apply to move within the next few years, we'll pick a date and send you somewhere". After agreeing to make some applications, he was told the names of a few nice parishes looking for priests, and assured that he'd be the only applicant to the one they picked. So while the hierarchy does have the final say, they're quite reluctant to actually use the power and instead there's a lot of negotiation, accommodation and bargaining.
posted by metaBugs at 8:09 AM on May 24, 2010
In the (Anglican) Church of Wales and Church of England, priests can in principle be sent wherever they're needed. In practice, though, this power is very rarely (if ever) used. There's also a system set up for priests to apply for any move they want, subject to permission from their current boss (probably their local Bishop). They're then interviewed by the Bishop overseeing the destination diocese and their future parishioners, generally the Parochial Church Council of the new parish(es).
In theory, this can be done on a whim and all applications are open to anyone. Some priests certainly do seem to manage it. In practice though, the system mostly seems to center around the Bishop giving you a call and sounding you out about your willingness to move to a specific few places. Or if you've announced a desire to move, you might be strongly encouraged to apply to a particular parish, while others are discouraged from applying there.
In the case I'm most familiar with, a priest and his family stayed in one spot for about twenty years despite intermittent encouragement to move. They don't like keeping priests in the same place for too long, so eventually he was told something like "if you don't apply to move within the next few years, we'll pick a date and send you somewhere". After agreeing to make some applications, he was told the names of a few nice parishes looking for priests, and assured that he'd be the only applicant to the one they picked. So while the hierarchy does have the final say, they're quite reluctant to actually use the power and instead there's a lot of negotiation, accommodation and bargaining.
posted by metaBugs at 8:09 AM on May 24, 2010
Best answer: In the Catholic Church, diocesan priests are assigned to various roles by the local bishop or archbishop. The pastors seem to keep their assignment for a few years at a time; parochial vicars may switch out every year or every other year. In a small diocese, a priest might stay at a church for a decade or more.
Ordered priests are a different matter. There's a nice rundown on the difference between the two here.
posted by jquinby at 8:14 AM on May 24, 2010
Ordered priests are a different matter. There's a nice rundown on the difference between the two here.
posted by jquinby at 8:14 AM on May 24, 2010
Best answer:
1. A position opens up (Bishop, teacher, basketball coach, etc.)
2. People with responsibilities for filling that position discuss and pray about potential candidates
3. When they arrive at a candidate who they feel is the one for the job, they talk to that person.
4. The person is told that through a process of discussion and prayer, they have been selected as the one for the job.
5. The person is invited to take time to pray about the position and discuss it with family or just think about it, if they feel it's necessary; sometimes they already know it is coming and are prepared with a "yes I will" in advance. (had a dream, or woke up one day with a knack for X, or figured they were the only one who could do it, or overheard the Bishop mentioning their name, etc.)
6. The person is then presented to the congregation (how and when varies) and if anyone is opposed, they are invited to make it known and discuss it with a member of the leadership.
7. Usually that doesn't happen, so the person then serves in that position (Basketball coach or whatever) until it's time for a change and they're formally "released" from a calling by the same leadership that approached them in the first place.
Also nobody's paid for anything.
Sometimes people will approach a Bishop (leader of congregations from say 100 to 500 people) and say, "hey, I would LOVE to do X" and the Bishop will bring up their name with his counselors and strongly recommend it.
Sometimes people will approach a Bishop and say "hey, I would LOVE to do X" and they are absolutely the wrong person for the job. Sometimes they repeat that about once a week, because they aspire to become the church's go-to person for X.
In general it is considered wrong to "aspire to a calling," or to attach any prestige to one's position. There have been many sermons given about someone who's a Bishop one day and the next day is released and called as a Sunday School teacher. I have seen this happen, and often the Bishop is quite happy to change callings, as being a Bishop is a very tough job.
posted by circular at 9:07 AM on May 24, 2010
and which religions have a leadership that tell their priests and ministers where they are going?The LDS Church sort of does this; people who serve in leadership positions do not apply for those positions. They aren't really told where they're going in a "you will or nothing" way though, either. The way it works is:
1. A position opens up (Bishop, teacher, basketball coach, etc.)
2. People with responsibilities for filling that position discuss and pray about potential candidates
3. When they arrive at a candidate who they feel is the one for the job, they talk to that person.
4. The person is told that through a process of discussion and prayer, they have been selected as the one for the job.
5. The person is invited to take time to pray about the position and discuss it with family or just think about it, if they feel it's necessary; sometimes they already know it is coming and are prepared with a "yes I will" in advance. (had a dream, or woke up one day with a knack for X, or figured they were the only one who could do it, or overheard the Bishop mentioning their name, etc.)
6. The person is then presented to the congregation (how and when varies) and if anyone is opposed, they are invited to make it known and discuss it with a member of the leadership.
7. Usually that doesn't happen, so the person then serves in that position (Basketball coach or whatever) until it's time for a change and they're formally "released" from a calling by the same leadership that approached them in the first place.
Also nobody's paid for anything.
Sometimes people will approach a Bishop (leader of congregations from say 100 to 500 people) and say, "hey, I would LOVE to do X" and the Bishop will bring up their name with his counselors and strongly recommend it.
Sometimes people will approach a Bishop and say "hey, I would LOVE to do X" and they are absolutely the wrong person for the job. Sometimes they repeat that about once a week, because they aspire to become the church's go-to person for X.
In general it is considered wrong to "aspire to a calling," or to attach any prestige to one's position. There have been many sermons given about someone who's a Bishop one day and the next day is released and called as a Sunday School teacher. I have seen this happen, and often the Bishop is quite happy to change callings, as being a Bishop is a very tough job.
posted by circular at 9:07 AM on May 24, 2010
Best answer: The Methodist system has gotten coverage already, but I thought I would add some anecdotes. My grandfather has written a family history which discusses in part his father's life as a preacher in west Tennessee in the first few decades of the 20th century.
When my great-grandfather "felt called":
"How do you set about becoming a preacher if you are a farmer (not a land owner, however), have only finished the eighth grade, and have a wife and two children? One way is to simply let it be known that you are a preacher and hope that some church calls (i.e. hires) you as its minister. Many churches are independent and call anyone they please to be their minister because there is no central organization dictating standards (educational, theological, moral, etc.) for persons to be ordained as ministers."
He preached in a Cumberland Presbyterian church for a while, but had been raised Methodist and eventually wanted to switch back:
"The official name of the American church was The Methodist Episcopal Church [now United Methodist Church], and this meant that there were bishops who had considerable power in church affairs, in particular ministers were assigned to churches by the bishops. . . .
"It was expected that in the Methodist Church he would first be assigned to a charge with several churches because it would not be proper for a newcomer to be given a better appointment than the preachers who had been in the Church for some time. And this is surely what happened. Dad was assigned to the Atwood Charge which had four churches. . . . We lived in Atwood for five years, one year longer than the maximum of four which was usually enforced in the Methodist Church in those days."
I believe my grandparents still get a new minister every few years at their Methodist church.
On the other hand, my New England relatives, in a Congregationalist setting, would have always gone to churches where the individual congregation entirely determined its own leadership, without any outside input. Here is an instance of the kind of conflict that could result (the breakaway church in that case is now Unitarian Universalist, and the original church is UCC/Congregational--ah, New England).
posted by rustcellar at 9:35 AM on May 24, 2010
When my great-grandfather "felt called":
"How do you set about becoming a preacher if you are a farmer (not a land owner, however), have only finished the eighth grade, and have a wife and two children? One way is to simply let it be known that you are a preacher and hope that some church calls (i.e. hires) you as its minister. Many churches are independent and call anyone they please to be their minister because there is no central organization dictating standards (educational, theological, moral, etc.) for persons to be ordained as ministers."
He preached in a Cumberland Presbyterian church for a while, but had been raised Methodist and eventually wanted to switch back:
"The official name of the American church was The Methodist Episcopal Church [now United Methodist Church], and this meant that there were bishops who had considerable power in church affairs, in particular ministers were assigned to churches by the bishops. . . .
"It was expected that in the Methodist Church he would first be assigned to a charge with several churches because it would not be proper for a newcomer to be given a better appointment than the preachers who had been in the Church for some time. And this is surely what happened. Dad was assigned to the Atwood Charge which had four churches. . . . We lived in Atwood for five years, one year longer than the maximum of four which was usually enforced in the Methodist Church in those days."
I believe my grandparents still get a new minister every few years at their Methodist church.
On the other hand, my New England relatives, in a Congregationalist setting, would have always gone to churches where the individual congregation entirely determined its own leadership, without any outside input. Here is an instance of the kind of conflict that could result (the breakaway church in that case is now Unitarian Universalist, and the original church is UCC/Congregational--ah, New England).
posted by rustcellar at 9:35 AM on May 24, 2010
Best answer: I went to a Methodist church as a kid, and they always rotated their pastors. Many denominations do not, tho.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 10:54 AM on May 24, 2010
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 10:54 AM on May 24, 2010
Best answer: I grew up in a Congregationalist UCC church, and they definitely use a locally-run hiring process, with job applications, interviews, and culminating in the nomination of a candidate. After an introductory sermon and some socializing, the congregation meets and votes to accept or reject the candidate. Congregational structure is so ingrained that it's almost impossible to imagine conference-level interference or even individual pressure from any other UCC church over your church's selection. I won't say it never happens behind the scenes -- politics can be complicated -- but publicly it's considered something up to the conscience of an individual church.
This is a bit complicated because the UCC is an ecumenical merger of the Congregationalists and the Evangelical & Reformed churches. From within the UCC these continue to have two distinct personalities (I doubt I would like an E&R church). Pastors often have careers crossing back and forth. Note also that not all churches of those two names are UCC-affiliated, but this also is not a requirement for UCC pastors. There are handfuls of other, more diverse churches within the UCC as well (see below).
I can't speak for Southern Baptists, but the church I still belong to in Illinois was an American Baptist congregation, and had a roughly similar approach. (In fact, despite the historical name, the church was closest in theology to the local UU church and there was a lot of crossover from one to the other. Our pastor was instrumental in reviving the World Parliament of Religions.) At one point there was a consideration of co-affiliation with the UCC and we went through a long democratic process of consultation and discussion that nevertheless nearly split the church. (The vote failed by single digits.) At a slightly higher level, the local Chicago conference had issues (and the ABC had broader issues yet) due to some members choosing "Welcoming & Affirming" status, meaning accepting of LGBT members and potentially performing partnership rituals, and other member churches rejecting continued affiliation even at the conference level because of what other churches had chosen. That was definitely more sturm und drang than I had seen in the UCC, despite just as wide chasms of approach among congregations.
posted by dhartung at 11:11 AM on May 24, 2010
This is a bit complicated because the UCC is an ecumenical merger of the Congregationalists and the Evangelical & Reformed churches. From within the UCC these continue to have two distinct personalities (I doubt I would like an E&R church). Pastors often have careers crossing back and forth. Note also that not all churches of those two names are UCC-affiliated, but this also is not a requirement for UCC pastors. There are handfuls of other, more diverse churches within the UCC as well (see below).
I can't speak for Southern Baptists, but the church I still belong to in Illinois was an American Baptist congregation, and had a roughly similar approach. (In fact, despite the historical name, the church was closest in theology to the local UU church and there was a lot of crossover from one to the other. Our pastor was instrumental in reviving the World Parliament of Religions.) At one point there was a consideration of co-affiliation with the UCC and we went through a long democratic process of consultation and discussion that nevertheless nearly split the church. (The vote failed by single digits.) At a slightly higher level, the local Chicago conference had issues (and the ABC had broader issues yet) due to some members choosing "Welcoming & Affirming" status, meaning accepting of LGBT members and potentially performing partnership rituals, and other member churches rejecting continued affiliation even at the conference level because of what other churches had chosen. That was definitely more sturm und drang than I had seen in the UCC, despite just as wide chasms of approach among congregations.
posted by dhartung at 11:11 AM on May 24, 2010
Best answer: To expand on the Methodist bits and speaking both as a PK and a PB (preacher's brother) itinerancy is fairly fundamental to the denomination as practiced in the US, rising out of the early days of the church when the preachers were circuit riders. In practice it seems like the more senior you are the less likely you are to get moved. I hope that this is because it takes a certain kinda person to be able to run a large established church. The intent of the system is to get a church a preacher appropriate to that church's growth and mission. More details can be found at the UMC website.
posted by Runes at 2:39 PM on May 24, 2010
posted by Runes at 2:39 PM on May 24, 2010
« Older How do I get my dog to take a pill when I can't... | Breaking Load of 1"x12"x30" marble Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by beagle at 7:10 AM on May 24, 2010 [1 favorite]