Documents from the Ministry Support Task Group

Letter from Rev. Dr. Carol Gierak

To:  Presbytery Chairs of Pastoral Relations Commissions/Committees, Pastoral Charge Boards and Ministry Personnel of Toronto Conference

From:  Rev. Dr. Carol Gierak, President of Toronto Conference on behalf of Ministry Support Task Group

September 2009

Dear Friends;

At the June 10 meeting of the Toronto Conference Executive, a number of recommendations were presented by the Ministry Support Task Group for the Executive’s consideration.  This task group was named in the fall of 2008 after a request was made by the Conference Executive to listen to issues being named by Ministry Personnel in the Conference.  A small group was convened by me for this purpose.  We met six times over the Fall, Winter and Spring, we consulted with others, looked at resources and wrote a report.  The recommendations approved by the June 10th Executive meeting, came as a result of the conversations we engaged in.

Let me share a bit of the background which brought us to this report and its recommendations.  In the last years, it has become more and more clear to those working with Pastoral Relation issues in the Presbyteries that there are some significant shifts taking place in relationships between Ministry Personnel and Pastoral Charges.  In the last three decades as the church has encouraged the leadership of the laity and tried to re-define the role of Ministry Personnel, confusion has arisen.  What does a “call to ministry” signify?  Is the minister a leader or a follower?  Is the minister a paid staff person only?  If the minister is a paid staff person who supervises?  In some Congregations, ministers are seen as the CEO.  What do we understand about the role of Designated Lay Ministers in relationship to those who have done the traditional years of theological training?

The task group began with some common beliefs about the role of Ministry Personnel.  In this report, we are speaking specifically of those who are Ordained or Commissioned.  We understand the calling of those who are Ordained and Commissioned to be a “setting apart” for Word, Sacrament and Pastoral or Congregational Care and justice work in the world.  This role of minister has long historic roots.  To be set apart to teach and preach and interpret the Word demands a certain freedom on the part of the minister to allow for the prophetic voice of the church to be heard.  The same is true of the sanctity of the Sacraments.  There is an integrity to be preserved.

In addition, there is the mission of Christ to the world to be considered and how best to discern how that particular focus of ministry can be accomplished.  This includes time spent as active members of the Presbytery and Conference as well as in one’s own community.

The original task group’s report, the recommendations adopted by the Toronto Conference Executive and the accompanying document “Clustering for Creativity” can be found below.

At the meeting of the 40th General Council 2009 in Kelowna August 9-15, 2009 a report was presented and adopted with minimal revision.  The Report of the Meaning of Ministry Task Group can be found at this link:  http://gc40.united-church.ca/files/wb2_7_commons.pdf

You may be interested in looking at this report which the General Council considered and read it as a supporting document to the recommendations that were adopted by Toronto Conference.

In the coming months, as we get to know each other in our new Presbytery configurations, you are being invited to make these recommendations part of your Presbytery conversations as well as in your own Pastoral Charge board or committee meetings.  Looking at these recommendations as part of a Ministry and Personnel Committee meeting may be a useful and fruitful way to spend some time.  These recommendations are basic to our understanding of our covenantal relationships between Presbytery, Pastoral Charge and Ministry Personnel.

We hope that that these documents which are recommended for your consideration will bring some new insights and new thoughts to our relationships in the church which are so important to the well-being of all.

I wish you every blessing as you each continue to do the work of the church of Christ in your place of life and work with faithfulness and hope.

Sincerely yours,

Carol Gierak, President of Conference

Ministry Support Task Group

Report to Toronto Conference Executive

At the September 10, 2008 meeting of Toronto Conference Executive a motion was made by Allan Parker seconded by Tom Clark that a Task Group be established to examine the following concerns on behalf of ministry personnel in the conference

• To look at current sources of support for Ministry Personnel
• To consult with the Conference’s Division of Ministry Personnel and Education to determine what has been done or has been planned regarding support for Ministry Personnel
• To find ways of helping the Church to be a better employer
• To make recommendation for ways of being supportive to Ministry Personnel in the future.

I, as President, was authorized to establish this task group.  The group consisted of the following individuals, Jan Aylward, Grant Kerr, David Bruce, Rick McKinley, past president and me.  We were joined for our first meeting by Nancy Knox who made an important contribution but was not able to continue to be with us.  The group met in October, November, January, February and March.  At the March meeting we consulted with a number of other colleagues, 14 of us were present in all, representing a wide range in theological position, years in ministry, age and context of ministry.  In gathering the group for the March consultation, we sent out 30 personalized letters and emails to every presbytery.  A few people chose to respond and send regrets expressing their longing to be part of such a gathering but saying they were unable to be present due to work load.  We had no response from many others.

First, to address our efforts at fulfilling the mandate given to us: we did look at current sources of support for ministry personnel.  All of the people who are part of this task group have had many years of experience in pastoral relations work, so, it was easy for us to name the policies and procedures which are already in place to support ministry personnel.  We acknowledge the Restorative Care Program, Warren Sheppell, our insurance policy coverage for health and dental and the Salary and Housing Schedule used as a guide for Pastoral Charges and Presbyteries.  There is an awareness that the MEPS Unit of General Council works on behalf of ministry personnel in these structural ways.  It was also acknowledged that it is helpful to have a centralized payroll now that ensures that all ministry personnel are paid appropriately and on time.  We know that compensation issues are being addressed by the General Council.  However, there are some significant concerns remaining, primarily these are regarding the “minimums” quoted in the Salary and Housing Schedule.  There is a wide spread awareness that many pastoral charges will continue to pay the “minimum” which tends to keep highly trained ministry personnel in difficult financial straits.

This leaves us with a question: how can we help pastoral charges value the work of ministry personnel in ways that acknowledge their expertise and dedication?
Much of our task group conversation, and that of the larger group we consulted with, revolved around the Isolation in Ministry Report which we are waiting to see implemented.  Since the general consensus of the group is that ministry personnel are not well supported as individuals and as professionals by the United Church, disappointment was expressed repeatedly at the slowness of the Church to address this critical issue.  It was clear from our conversations that one does not need to be geographically isolated to feel isolated.

The second point in the mandate was to consult with the Division of Ministry Personnel and Education on the concerns felt and expressed by ministry personnel.  We did that.  What we heard in asking our question is that the concerns will be addressed by new policies which will be implemented by the General Council after the next meeting in August 2009.  Unfortunately, we felt the division missed the point.  We believe that as a large institution, the United Church may be doing the best it can under the circumstances by developing policies that attempt to meet the needs of all.  However, what the church cannot address and what is more important, are the inter-personal relationships among clergy and clergy and the congregations.  That is the area in which the pain and disillusionment lie.  As Tony Robinson and others have pointed out, we are attempting to fix problems with technical solutions when what is needed is an adaptive, cultural change.

All of this leads us to the third point of the mandate: helping the church to become a better employer.  Our feeling as a task group is that this is beyond the scope of our capability.  Other groups are advocating for changes in the church’s compensation policies that will continue to address some needs.  We are satisfied that what can be done is presently being done.  The one issue that continues to recur in conversation around compensation is the narrowness of the gap between salaries of ordered ministry and designated lay ministry.  This has been a concern expressed for a number of years in various courts of the church.  We are left again with another question: how does the United Church value an educated clergy?

The last point in the mandate is to recommend to the new presbyteries ways in which the new structure may be more supportive to ministry personnel.  It was this last point which prompted us to gather people together which we did on March 11, 2009 at St. John’s, Alliston.
During the four hours we spent together in conversation, questions were asked and some answers received.  The afternoon session was reserved for the following three questions:

1. What are the gaps in our feeling/experiences?
   
   
   • What we heard is that there is a lack of knowledge among our colleagues concerning the support that is already available to them.  Only a few of those present were aware of the services of Warren Sheppell and that they are all covered by that service.  A few who had accessed their services in the past found it hard to communicate their circumstances to people who were not aware of how the church functions.  They were also not aware that that concern has begun to be addressed.  Some did not know that our insurance coverage includes psychological counseling and some alternative therapies.
     
     
   • We heard there is a sense of lack of trust among colleagues at presbytery.  Some there are perceived of as “power” people and one doesn’t know how power and knowledge will be used against one in some circumstances.  How can we re-define a sense of belonging as we begin life in our new presbyteries (do we need help from people outside of the church who specialize in change management?)
     
     It was also noted that we need to separate accountability from support.
     
     
   • Congregational understanding: congregations don’t seem to grasp the role of the minister, either in terms of identity or in expectation/responsibility.  Clergy are feeling more and more like hired employees rather than as being understood as leaders in a covenantal relationship.  In our society which is in great transition, are congregations aware of the reality they are living out and the impact it is having on the life of the congregation and ministers’ vocational identity?
     
     
   • Institutionally speaking, clergy are not feeling helped by the United Church in an “uplifting:” manner.  It is no one’s fault, but staff are too busy and too pre-occupied with what is in front of them and must be done.  Attentiveness to individuals is lacking in every court of the church, congregation, presbytery, conference and General Council.  There is also deep concern over the various streams of ministry especially Designated Lay Ministry as opposed to Ordered streams such as Ordained and Diaconal.
     
     
2. In small groups people were asked to complete the following sentence.  “I wish we could…”
   
   
   • work closer as colleagues
   • rid ourselves of the “Jesus” complex
   • be more cooperative and meet in small groups for fellowship and study
   • not be so tied to the ministry of the “building”
   • have someone like a bishop!
   • put our money where our mouth is – all like each other!
   • truly understand how the system works and “play nice”
     
     
   The next question was: “I wish we could structurally…”
   
   
   • really change things
   • have something in the system that bridges the gap between personal hurt and a 363
   • update our JNAC’s more frequently
   • strengthen our Ministry Personnel Committees
   • creatively use a trained chaplain in our presbyteries
   • have a closer relationship between the General Council staff and those “on the ground”
   • help people on the “front lines” feel part of the structure
   • recognize the malaise of the presbyteries
   • equalize salary and housing more fairly
   • “thin” our bureaucracy
   • mandate a pastoral charge and ministerial leadership review
3. Some major themes noted:
   
   
   1. Use of a trained Chaplain in the New Presbyteries - for support, for presence and confidentiality.  There's a yearning for a different pro-active presence in our midst to enable Pastoral Charge ministerial leaders be more effective and productive in their individual commitment to mission and ministry.  It's a kind of outside connection for local personnel.
      
      
   2. Local Congregations - There's a great need for on-going education, and a consistent reminder of the responsibility of local Councils (Boards) and M/P committees in particular - both for accountability and 'fairness' in ministry expectations and local support.  Also congregations need to recognize Ministerial needs re 'experiencing worship' as an individual (not in leadership roles) from time to time...for personal renewal and spiritual growth. (NOT holiday time!)
      
      
   3. Create useful opportunities for local Ministerial leaders to be a part of the National Church - as policies are developed, as hopes are expressed, as changes occur in themes etc.  Included is a much more effective tool for helping local Ministerial leadership to understand (and indeed) be aware of supportive elements already in our policy and procedures.

In conclusion our sense from the stories we heard is that there is a possibility for the new presbyteries to take these concerns into consideration as new models and ways of doing things are being planned and implemented.
We are making the following recommendations:

• That educational opportunities will be available for all pastoral charges to inform and re-orient congregational life to a more clear understanding of the role of ministry, that it is a calling and ministers are not employees.  We are in a covenantal relationship with one another.  In order to facilitate this, I will be sending a letter to each pastoral charge and each ministry personnel encouraging this action.
  
  
• That ministry personnel be encouraged in every way to take time for small group gatherings for mentoring, study and fellowship for mutual nurture and enrichment.  A suggestion for how this can happen is through the establishment of small cluster groups in the new presbyteries.  Pastoral relations committees and commissions may find ways to help facilitate this.
  
  
• That it appears to be a good and helpful thing, to have a trained chaplain available to ministry personnel to be a listening ear.  Each presbytery is encouraged to consider this option.
  
  
• We believe that none of these recommendations is extreme or asks anything beyond our capabilities.  However, the recommendations do require that we take our relationships with each other seriously and that we have care for each other.

THE UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA
TORONTO CONFERENCE

Excerpt of Minutes of a Meeting
of the Executive of Toronto Conference
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
From Pages 655 to 657

Ministry Support Task Group

See p. 08/09-206.  The April 4, 2009 Executive meeting had requested the Ministry Support Task Group to return with strengthened recommendations, and the discussion was postponed from the May 13, 2009 meeting of the Executive.  The members of the task group submitted new recommendations based on the Executive’s discussion, along with a new document entitled “Clustering for Creativity”.

MOTION by Linda Thompson/Marg Walker that the Executive receive the document “Clustering for Creativity” (Appendix D).

MOTION

CARRIED.

 

First recommendation – training and performance evaluations

MOTION by Linda Thompson/Ted Meyers that Toronto Conference encourage each of the Presbyteries within Toronto Conference to sponsor workshops on forming, developing, and sustaining healthy Ministry and Personnel Committees by June 30, 2011, and commit to making standardized resources for annual performance evaluations available to each of their Pastoral Charges and mission units.

MOTION

CARRIED.

 

Second recommendation – Employee Assistance Program information

MOTION by Svinda Heinrichs/Ken Inkster that Toronto Conference encourage each of the Presbyteries within Toronto Conference to prepare a memo outlining those services provided by Sheppell-fgi, and identifying contact information, to be distributed to Ministry Personnel and Ministry and Personnel Committees by December 31, 2010.

MOTION

CARRIED.

 

Third recommendation – return from disability leave

MOTION by Linda Thompson/Linda Parsons that Toronto Conference encourage each of the Presbyteries within Toronto Conference to establish a policy regarding supervision and support of Ministry Personnel returning to work from any kind of disability leave, that takes into account the duration and nature of that leave.

MOTION

CARRIED.

 

Fourth recommendation – small group gatherings for Ministry Personnel

MOTION by Eleanor Scarlett/Marion Meyers that Toronto Conference encourage the new Presbyteries to encourage all Ministry Personnel to take time in every way for small group gatherings for mentoring, study and fellowship for mutual nurture and enrichment.

MOTION

CARRIED.

 

Fifth recommendation – Ministry Personnel clusters

MOTION by Ken Inkster/Pat Edmonds that Toronto Conference encourage the Presbyteries within Toronto Conference to actively consider, debate, and come to their own position on the merits of organizing their Ministry Personnel into clusters, as outlined in the document, “Clustering for Creativity,” by June 30th, 2011.

MOTION

CARRIED.

 

Sixth recommendation – pastors to pastors

MOTION by Allan Parker/Rick McKinley that Toronto Conference encourage each of the Presbyteries within Toronto Conference to seek and identify those persons whose gifts, talents, and availability mark them as suited to a ministry of “pastoring pastors,” and explore with them various models of offering a ministry of presence to Ministry Personnel.

MOTION

CARRIED.

 

Seventh recommendation – housing allowances

MOTION by Rick McKinley/Linda Mitchell that Toronto Conference encourage each of the Presbyteries within Toronto Conference to work toward establishing a fixed, non-negotiable housing allowance for each Pastoral Charge or mission unit based on a reasonable daily commuting distance, and a policy for the regular review of these amounts.

There was considerable discussion, following which a vote was taken after which a new motion was presented.

MOTION

CARRIED.

 

The substitute motion was:

MOTION by Maria Mindszenthy/Svinda Heinrichs that Toronto Conference encourage each of the new Presbyteries to abide by Section 036(f)ii of The Manual (2007).

MOTION

CARRIED.

 

Eighth recommendation – travel allowance

MOTION by Linda Parsons/Rick McKinley that Toronto Conference encourage each of the Presbyteries within Toronto Conference to fix a non-negotiable travel allowance rate for all its Pastoral Charges or mission units that honors or exceeds The United Church of Canada’s minimum.

MOTION

CARRIED.

 

Clustering for Creativity

When Jesus said, “Love one another as I have loved you,” he was speaking to all of his disciples, in light of their commission to carry forward his message and his work as the Church. As ideals, Church unity and collegiality are laudable; as practices, they are often difficult to establish. This is a recommendation for our new Presbyteries which attempts to take into account our need for unity and collegiality while acknowledging the following realities:

• We need to decrease the sense of isolation that clergy and laity alike often feel, whether in rural or urban situations
  
  
• We need to deepen relationships within our new, larger Presbyteries
  
  
• We need more people trained and experienced in routine Presbytery functions such as assisting with Discernment Committees, Joint Needs Assessment Committees, Joint Search Committees, Pastoral Oversight Visits, and Pastoral Charge Supervision
  
  
• We need to work efficiently, reducing the human, financial, and environmental costs of travel
  
  
• We can benefit from the work of those specially trained and gifted for certain tasks

This proposal is simple.

1. The four new Presbyteries, in organizing themselves for the work ahead, should gather their pastoral charges and mission units into “families” of five or six, with attention to considerations of geography, sense of mission, and common concerns.
   
   
2. It should become the stated policy of the four new Presbyteries that, in the case of any pastoral charge  or mission unit requiring the provision of routine Presbytery functions (such as those mentioned above), Presbytery representatives would ordinarily be drawn from within the cluster of pastoral charges and mission units being served.”
   
   
3. Appointments to these functions would remain the duty of the Committee, Commission, or Team responsible for overseeing the actual work, which would retain the authority to appoint Presbytery representatives from beyond the “family,” to make allowances for difficult, sensitive, or otherwise specialized cases to be handled by carefully selected individuals.

It needs to be understood that most Presbyters will regularly be called upon to offer the routine service of Presbytery within their respective “families” of charges and mission units. These “families” would not have any ongoing, formal administrative obligations or decision-making authority, but serve as a “small group” of ministers and ministries.

However, such working relationships could well lead to informal gatherings and helpful conversations. It isn’t hard to imagine circumstances in which this heightened sense of mutuality could be fruitful, from collegial support among ministry staff to the launching of new ministries, haring specialized staff, the sponsoring of new outreach efforts, and other cooperative ventures.

As with any family, some relationships may be easier than others. However, if clustering in families as outlined above helps reduce the sense of isolation that both ministry personnel and pastoral charges and mission units, and lessens the often-felt antipathy between the “us” and “them” of the local congregation as it relates to Presbytery, it can only help us to be more creative in the years ahead, and live into the reality of ut omnes unum sint as disciples of the risen Christ.