Clergy Services Connexion February 2022

Clergy Services Connexion February 2022 Vol. 1 —No. 1 You might be wondering why there needs to be another publication from the Office of Clergy Services. Isn’t the Clergy Connexion enough? Trust me. The same thoughts have gone through my mind as I contemplate the creation of this quarterly publication. Here are some of my thoughts/reasons for this publication.

First of all, the Clergy Connexion is a generalist publication designed to provide a little bit of something to a broader audience. This publication will narrow the focus of the content to be of interest to District Superintendents, DCOM’s, and the Board of Ordained Ministry.

Secondly, the Office of Clergy Services receives lots of requests from one DS or DCOM and the response could be of benefit to other DS’s or DCOM’s. The Clergy Services Connexion will seek to share some of that “wisdom” so that other persons and groups might benefit from the question and the response.

doing something. Why not look at some particular cases and draw some conclusions as to how to best handle them.

Finally, there is only one me—Terry Goodman—I cannot be everywhere at once. I cannot offer the training and advice to all DS’s or DCOM’s simultaneously. Sure I could try to do a ZOOM, but we all know how well that goes when you get a dozen or more people on board. Sometimes—well most of the time—it’s mass confusion. You spend an hour doing what could have been accomplished in 20 minutes. So, this publication will hopefully cut out some of the distraction and allow you to focus an particular items geared towards your responsibilities within the annual conference.

So, I hope that you will find this quarterly publication helpful. I am always open to ideas or suggestions for items that I could cover in this publication, so please share them with me.

Thirdly, practical solutions to more complex A Fellow Servant of Christ, problems might be beneficial to our DS’s , DCOM’s Rev. Terry Goodman and the BOM. Sometimes these entities make Director of Clergy Services. decisions that result in a practical or applicable way of

A Quarterly Publication for District Superintendents, DCOM’s, and the Board of Ordained Ministry

I know that as a group you probably are tired of hearing from my office, but then again, I sense that you are also grateful for the guidance I seek to provide. In this section of the publication, I will try and share things I have learned from you or decided upon that relates to you so that we can all be on the same page. I’ll begin with some scenarios.

Scenario #1—The DCOM has voted to discontinue a local pastor, but we really need to wait until the end of the annual conference year to remove that person. How do we report this?

This scenario raises a few issues: discontinuance, appointability and BAC’s.

On the one hand, you feel that there is just reason to discontinue a person, but on the other hand you need to have this person remain in place. Perhaps, you would not be able to find a replacement for the remainder of the annual conference year. There is a tension that exists between these two competing elements. On the one hand, the DCOM has exercised its authority to discontinue a pastor. On the other hand, as a DS, you need to insure that the church has continued pastoral coverage. So, the expedient answer is to make the discontinuance effective June 30th and have a new person appointed July 1st.

I encourage you to carefully examine the reasons for discontinuance and ask the question, “Will leaving this person in place until the new appointment year do more harm that good?” If the good outweighs the possible harm, then it is easier to make that call and possibly leave the person in place until the appointment year ends. However, if the harm outweighs the good, then you will need to make the difficult choice to remove the local pastor mid-year and all of the fallout that comes with that decision.

The District Superintendent Corner

To further complicate the picture is the impact that this decision has upon the BAC’s. If you discontinue a person, that person is listed as discontinued and cannot come back into the system until the person appears before the DCOM that made the decision to discontinue.

However, if you simply choose not to appoint and do not discontinue, then that person will be placed in the Approved Not Appointed (ANA) pool and is available for re-appointment at a later date without having to appear again before a DCOM. Therefore, I urge caution in your decision making process. Discontinuance with clearly stated reasons invokes a series of future possible events that merely not reappointing

does not. So if there is reason, I urge discontinuance, even if it is delayed over simply not reappointing a person.

You should report that discontinuance as of the date it becomes effective. This would either be immediately or at some subsequent future date (i.e.

June 30th) However, you cannot vote to discontinue, wait until the conference year ends and then reappoint without informing my office of the discontinuance. If you fail to inform Clergy Services, then the person would be listed ANA rather than discontinued.

Scenario # 2—What am I supposed to be doing to prepare for the BAC meeting in May?

Dates for DS’s to Remember....

•

Feb 7-9: Minister’s Convocation

•

Feb 23: Cabinet has working lunch with representatives from Deacon community

•

Feb 28—BOM will interview candidates for Provisional and Associate Membership

•

March 15 : Deadline for inclusion of items in the Book of Reports—2022

The primary thing my office needs you to do is to • April 15: Conference Offices Closed: Good stay on top of changes. If you know there is going to Friday be a change that results in a change in the BAC’s then • April 17: Easter Sunday don’t wait until the last minute to inform Clergy Services. You simply need to say: John Doe in BAC # • April 21: BOM Spring Meeting 20 should be listed in BAC #25. We need the name, the current BAC and the corrected BAC. If you do this as you notice the changes, then it will help ensure Interim Pastor Training: that we have the most up-to-date BAC possible and April 25-28, 2022 spend a lot less time going through things with a fine tooth comb making last minute corrections on BAC Review day. By the way, we have not yet set the date, New Way to Gather Data time, and location for that final review. As soon as we I will be gathering data in a different way. know it, we will share it with you.

Sometimes, I ask you to supply me with a name or to cast a vote on some issue. In the past, this has been Scenario # 3 : Can You Help Me Find…. done via email. Moving forward, I am going to use This a quite common question. Let me take the time some type of polling device that will allow me to to point you toward the place that most likely has the more effectively capture your responses so that they form or guideline for which you are asking. will be in one place and not nine different emails that get lost in the vast sea of emails I get each day. https://www.holston.org/guidelines-forms This is your one stop and shop place for 90% of the material I have created for use within the annual conference. Check it out and you might find what you are looking for.

District Committee on Ordained Ministry

There are some things on the horizon for which I need DCOM’s to begin thinking about and planning .

Vetting Other Fellowship (OF) Pastors First of all, there is the new responsibility of vetting persons seeking to serve as an Other Fellowship (OF) pastor within the Holston Conference. After many months of discussion between members of the BOM and the Cabinet, we have agreed to a set of procedures that requires Other Fellowship (OF) pastors to pass through three stages of a vetting process.

Stage 1 is with the District Superintendent who will get the person to be Safe Gathering Certified (background check and Safe Sanctuaries style training.)

Stage 2 will be an interview with the Conference Relations Committee (CRC) with the goal of getting a basic understanding of why the person wants to serve a church in Holston and agreement from the person to adhere to United Methodist history, doctrine, and polity.

serve in Holston. If the DCOM gives a go ahead, then the person can be an Other Fellowship (OF) pastor within Holston.

Special training is scheduled for DCOM’s to help them understand their new role in the vetting process.

Also, the DCOM’s will need to take on a follow up role of verifying educational requirements. One of the agreed upon items is that the person would be required (based on level of service) five basic COS courses. We are no longer going to allow Other Fellowship (OF) pastors to serve without their agreement to take courses that will provide a basic level of knowledge about United Methodist, history, doctrine, polity, and practices.

Training for DCOM’s

I am prepared to conduct a four hour workshop for any DCOM that requests it. More importantly, I am creating a DCOM Cohort that will seek to have one member from each DCOM enter into a training process that would give knowledge that could be Stage 3 involves an interview with the DCOM. This is taken back and used at the local DCOM level to increase the efficiency and scope of a DCOM. I will be a much more in depth meeting and will involve examination of Psychological assessments and further contacting persons recommended by the DS from each of the DCOM’s to create this training cohort. questions about the reasons the person seeks to

Psychological Assessments There seems to be some misunderstanding about the use of Psychological Assessments by the DCOM’s. Let me try and clarify. To begin with all candidates for ministry, and now all Other Fellowship (OF) candidates, will have to complete a battery of psychological assessment instruments. This battery is administered by Dr. Victor Barr, our Ministry Assessment Specialist (MAS). His job is to interview the candidates and examine the test scores and paint a picture of the psychological fitness for each candidate.

The Psychological Assessment Team of the BOM has met with Dr. Barr. We are requesting that he also use a Red, Yellow, Green light ranking for each candidate. In this system: Green light means that there are no significant psychological issues that were discovered.

Yellow light means that some issues were discovered that might need to be addressed, but that would most likely not disqualify a candidate.

DCOM Focus Items

Things to focus on in February: •

Things to Focus on in March: •

Another item for consideration is the confidentiality of the psychological assessments.

My office receives the copy from Dr. Barr and we file a copy on the conference server. Another copy is sent to the DS and is kept on hand for the use of the DCOM. Procedures should be

March 25—DCOM Training (Conference Center

Things to Focus on In April •

Red light means that some significant issues were discovered and that these issues might disqualify a candidate.

In the event of a Yellow or Red light, then the DCOM would need to look more closely at the candidate and perhaps even use the Behavioral Health Guidelines found on pages 68-81 in the Guidelines for DCOM/BOM (2019 edition). These guidelines cover a wide variety of topics and offer guidance as to what and how to discuss difficult topics with candidates.

Continue the interview of Local Pastors, Seminary Students, Supply Pastors, and begin preparing to certify candidates as the complete the mentoring process.

Continue to focus on processing those persons that complete group mentoring and be on the look out for their completed psychological assessments. The goal is to certify them as candidates by late April/early May.

Things to Focus on in May •

In general, if not previously done, this month you should be submitting Summary Report Action Outlines (SRAO) for actions you are making concerning candidates and other persons.

•

May 19 -DCOM PE PD AM recommendations due to Brandy Williams and Division of Elders

developed at the DCOM level for use of these documents. I suggest that no more than three numbered copies be made available, when requested, to the interview teams. The chair of the team would be responsible for returning all numbered copies to the DS at the completion of the interview cycle and those copies should be shredded.

This information should not be shared in an electronic format with members of the DCOM.

Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) With the coming of Bishop Wallace-Padgett there has been a renewed discussion centered on confidentiality. Bishop Wallace-Padgett made it clear to the Extended Cabinet that she expected strict confidentiality from the members of the extended cabinet. After discussion, the BOM decided that it would also expect strict confidentiality from its members, who serve at the behest of the Bishop.

To this end, a Non-Disclosure Agreement has been developed which all members of the BOM and persons working on behalf of the BOM, such as interviewers of candidates, would sign. As an extension of the BOM, we are going to ask that all members of a DCOM also sign an NDA. As a member of the DCOM, the things discussed during interviews and in discussions with the DS about candidates is considered confidential in nature. The NDA spells out that concept and seeks to clarify the manner in which information may be shared. Basically, what happens and is said in DCOM stays in the DCOM. The exception would be the sharing of information necessary for Clergy Services to process candidates and/or requests that might come from the BOM in regards to candidates.

More information on when/how to sign an NDA will be forthcoming in the next few months.

DCOM Training As we continue to roll out new processes, there needs to be some updated training for the DCOM’s in regards to Other Fellowship (OF) candidates. The manner in which an OF comes into service has changed and DCOM has a new role in that process. To that end, there will be a training session on March 25th. My goal is to have 2-3persons from each DCOM come to the Conference Center for at least a half day (lunch included) training time. Other issues relative to DCOM’s will be taught at that time as well. So, be thinking, in conjunction with the DS, about the persons are that you send to this meeting. It doesn’t have to be the chair and the registrar (although that is acceptable). It could be a couple of persons that are good communicators and would be able to bring back knowledge learned and share it with the DCOM. I will be asking the DS to supply me with these names. I will then be in contact with those persons and invite them to this training.

Board of Ordained Ministry Focus Items I was having a conversation recently with Susan Arnold. She was talking about seeking persons to review her doctoral thesis. She found that numerous persons just were not able to take on another project—even for a friend. She said that they just didn’t have the bandwidth right now.

Being the tech geek that I am the use of bandwidth in that manner got me to thinking. We talked about how COVID and the stresses and strains of doing things in new and unplanned ways had was taking its toll on ministers. They just don’t have the excess bandwidth to devote to yet another task.

I raise this issue because I am cognizant of the fact that we are about to undertake our spring interviews for Provisional and Associate members. This process is vitally important to our ability to properly discern whether or not the persons coming before us are ready for the BOM to credential them and set them on the path of their ministry with the annual conference. To be honest, we are having a difficult time getting the members of the BOM to step forward and engage in this important role. As I spoke with Susan, I thought of the bandwidth issue and the concept that this might be part of the reason for the hesitancy to step forward.

We are all tired. We are all stressed. Some of us more so than others. Yet, we also agreed that through our membership on the BOM that we would engage in the necessary activities to ensure that our annual conference has the best men and women credentialed for service. Though you might feel that your bandwidth is strained to the max, I encourage you to give the effort needed for this important aspect of the work of the BOM.

February Interviews The big item on the agenda for the BOM is the upcoming Provisional and Associate Member interviews. COVID has once again resulted in these interviews being held virtually. We are once again using Don Hanshew’s plan of action.

(He introduced the new interview model for the Full Connection class last October.) We will also continue to use the revised Interview Reporting Sheet (IRS) developed and updated by Clergy Services.

BOMEC/Cabinet Bishop Wallace-Padgett initiated the revival of a meeting between the BOM Executive Committee and the

Appointment Cabinet to discuss matters of mutual interest to both groups. In years past, this was a yearly event and it looks like that it will continue into the future. At the conclusion of the meeting, we had agreed upon the following items: 1.) As soon as we have decisions on Candidates, we agreed to share with Cabinet (this is especially important for spring.)

2.) Bishop Wallace Padgett created a study group to look at the BOM call for diversity and recruitment.

Cabinet reps, Sharon Bowers, and Brad Hyde will compose the group.

3.) Bishop was in favor of at least an annual meeting like the one we held. However, if something comes up, she is open to ad interim meetings.

1.) at the DS level with Safe Gatherings background check being run.

2.) at the CRC level with credentials reviewed and questions as to why the person wishes to serve 3.) at the DCOM level where a full psychological assessment will be conducted.

Only after completing all three stages will the person be granted Other Fellowship (OF) status within the annual conference. The OF pastor must then engage (depending upon level of service) in a minimum of CLS/CLM training up to taking five of the Basic COS courses that we designate.

In the long run, this process will allow us to have a better understanding of the men and women serving as OF’s within the annual conference and, through the CRC, gives the BOM a say as to the validity of the OF’s credentials and reasons for seeking to serve.

4.) The Bishop wants to examine, following each AC, Psychological Assessment Team (PAT) with input from Mickey and myself, the composition of the BOM. Do we have the right people in place?

The PAT has been in discussion with our MAS, Dr. Are districts fairly represented? Are those that are on Victor Barr, and is exploring a further set of the BOM actually showing up and contributing to the psychological assessments for person as they either work of the BOM? enter the Provisional or perhaps the Full Connection phase. Dr. Barr saw no need to repeat the full battery 5.) Instead of asking Rules and Order to add one of tests we currently administer at candidacy, but did person from each DCOM, (as BOM voted upon in see some merit in a test to help get a picture of November) we are going to ask the group to change candidates at one of these later stages. No decisions the composition of the BOM from 37 members to "up have been made and things are still being considered. to 46 members" this will allow the Bishop to more UMCares—New Version accurately balance the composition of the BOM and ensure adequate representation from all districts.

I have been told, but forget my skepticism, I will believe it when I see it, that there is a new version of UMCares that is supposed to debut by the end of March 2022. I am also told that training will be As the new year has dawned, the Conference Relations Committee (CRC) has begun living into some provided during February. The biggest change should of its new roles. Special training was given to help the be customizable tracks that are easy to create and CRC better understand its role in the vetting process use. This could be of benefit our ability to track persons through various processes that now are of Other Fellowship (OF) candidates. OF candidates conducted in a piece meal manner. Stay tuned for must now go through a three stage vetting process:

CRC Training

more information as the new system is revealed.

LPLS-Could there be a Spring 2022 Session?

With two years under our belt of the online courses offered by Candler School of Theology, I have broached the possibility with Susan Arnold, Dean of the LPLS, of sending students to the Florida LPLS. These students would attend virtually and Holston would provide at least one weekend of in person or virtual training for the students on issues relative to Holston. Florida UMC is using the Candler classes and our students would get the same material they would get if we offered it in the fall (which we probably will).

To make it work, we would need a core of 5-7 persons. The advantage is that it allows the Bishop to license persons in July for service beginning in July. I am in talks with my counterpart and with the cabinet to see if there are enough persons that need to attend the school to make this a possibility. It would also need about BOM members to review papers and sermons.

Bishop Wallace-Padgett Invites Representatives from the Deacon Community to Meet with the Appointive Cabinet In an effort for the Cabinet to better understand the role of the Deacon within the ministry of the church and annual conference, Bishop Wallace Padgett has invited Rev. Rebekah Fetzer and Rev. Stephanie Parrott to meet with the appointive cabinet and talk about the role and ministry of the Deacon. Prior to that meeting, Clergy Services will be creating a catalog of all the Deacons (active and retired) that are related to Holston AC. They will be asked to submit a photo, contact information, and a description of their ministry setting.

This will be shared with the members of the Cabinet.

BOM Upcoming Events

February 28—Provisional and Associate Member Interviews—via ZOOM April 7—BOMEC Spring Meeting April 21—BOM Spring Meeting April 25—Full Connection Orientation Meeting May 26 (Tentative)—Day Apart with the Bishop for those coming into Full Connection, Provisional or Associate Membership June 5—Clergy Session: Prior to Annual Conference at Lake Junaluska

June 5-8—Annual Conference

Conference Relations Committee Conducts Its First Interview of Clergy Person Seeking a Change in Status The CRC has interviewed someone seeking to move from Voluntary Leave back into a pastoral appointment. In the past, this individual would have submitted written requests that would have been posted in a basecamp for BOMEC to read and then cast a vote. In the new process, changes in status requests such as this one, will require an interview with the CRC with the CRC then making a recommendation to BOMEC. While this may seem like an unnecessary step, the CRC affirms that they found it to be beneficial. The CRC was able to hear from and not just read a written request from the pastor seeking this change in status. The recommendation was passed to BOMEC who also have access to the written documents. BOMEC will now be making the decision as to whether to accept the CRC recommendation or override it.

During the process, a procedural question arose.

Specifically, BOMEC is voting to bring someone off of Voluntary Leave. BOMEC is saying this person is ready for service again. However, BOMEC does not appoint, that is the role of the Cabinet. While it is true that a Full Connection member is guaranteed an appointment, there still needs to be a hand-off.

The Appointive Cabinet needs to be made aware of this action of the BOMEC. More work will be needed between the BOM and the Cabinet to insure that this transition works both to the benefit of the pastor and to the annual conference.

Protocol for Less Than Full Time Service Requests I recently had a conversation with the Rev. Jason Gattis about requests for less than full time service.

Such requests require approval of both the cabinet and the BOM. The question was, who initiates such a request? If the pastor desires to serve less than full time, this must be conveyed to the DS and the proper application filed with the BOM. Jason and I came to the agreement that when the Cabinet signals that a person is to be appointed less than full time, that is the Cabinet approval of such a request.

It them becomes the role of the BOM to address the request through proper conversation. The pastor making such a request will meet with the CRC for a conversation and the CRC will make a recommendation to the BOMEC. The change of status in such a request is that the BOD says full time service is the expected norm (status) and anything less than that must be approved by the BOM. I know all of this sounds complicated, but the goal is to have an orderly and repeatable process in place. Our goal is to treat all similar requests in the same manner.

Area for Future Conversation with the Appointive Cabinet and Within the BOM At some point the BOM and Appointive Cabinet will need to discuss the topic of limited-itinerancy.

Currently, this is a matter that is solely in the realm of the Appointive Cabinet. I would suggest that, it goes deeper than just an appointment issue.

According to the BOD, the norm is full time itinerant service for full connection members. The BOM may need to find ways to stress this with the Associate and Full Connection members of the annual conference.

The BOM is beginning to see more Provisional Members seek to set limits on where they are willing to serve. This becomes a counter-productive issue that we might need to address.

The Art of Forging a Meaningful Consensus

BY ANN A. MICHEL ON JUNE 8, 2021LEADING IDEAS

Ann Michel of the Lewis Center staff says that unanimity is not required for a group to move forward. Good leaders drive consensus by extracting different opinions and views, listening carefully for threads of agreement, and then clarifying a way forward.

We’ve all been in church groups that meet regularly but never seem to get anything done. Groups that discuss a problem to death but can’t decide how to move forward. Groups in which one contrarian voice always stands in the way of progress. And groups that always leave their meeting rooms with the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.

Well-functioning ministry teams make difficult decisions and then make sure those decisions are put into action. This requires consensus. Yet the means of forging a meaningful consensus are often poorly understood — in part because they can be quite subtle or even invisible when properly exercised. The leaders of well-functioning groups understand the true nature of consensus and how to achieve it.

Consensus does not require unanimity.

A lot of church groups seek to make decisions by consensus rather than relying on a key leader to make the decisions or doing everything by vote. This laudatory objective is consistent with a culture of participatory decision making. But groups trying to operate by consensus often make the mistake of thinking it requires unanimity. They end up paralyzed and unable to move forward because they are waiting for everyone to be in total agreement. They in essence give veto power to any single individual who holds a dissenting opinion.

“Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with a decision. People with differing views will consent to a group’s decision, even if they don’t agree with it, as long as they feel their ideas were heard, understood, and considered within an environment of trust and respect.”

Moving forward in a constructive way does not require unanimity. Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with a decision. It means the people have given their “consent” to a decision moving forward. People with differing views will consent to a group’s decision, even if they don’t agree with it, as long as they feel their ideas were heard, understood, and considered within an environment of trust and respect. Good leaders drive consensus by extracting all opinions, ideas, and views and then having the courage to move a group forward.

Meaningful engagement is key.

Often, a team leader will try to control the outcome and avoid conflict by keeping a tight lid on the conversation. But this approach is, in fact, counterproductive. Those who have not engaged actively in discussion and decision making are less committed to the outcome, so any consensus achieved is likely to be shallow and fragile. So, the secret to engendering a meaningful consensus begins with an active, engaging

group process that maximizes the input of every participant.

You might think encouraging debate and even disagreement would lead to dissension but, in fact, the opposite is true. If someone feels they’ve had the opportunity to express themselves and be heard, they become more committed to the group’s decision making and will go along with the decision even if the group ultimately goes in a different direction. Commitment is actually born of this kind of constructive engagement.

Techniques for discerning consensus How then does a group move from this type of open, participatory discussion to decision, consensus, and action? These strategies can help.

•

Listen for threads of agreement. Leaders must really listen to the drift of the conversation and be attentive to threads of agreement that appear to be emerging. It can be helpful at key junctures to simply stop and name where you hear commonalities or where you see agreement taking shape.

•

Get a read of where the group stands. If you’re not sure where things stand, a quick nonbinding straw poll can allow everyone to get a sense of the group. Simply say “Let’s have a quick show of hands. How many people favor this approach?” In a small group this can also be accomplished by simply circling around the table and asking people what they think should be done. When I employ these techniques, I am generally surprised to find that there is more consensus than I think, perhaps because debate tends to center around objections, even if they aren’t held by the majority present.

•

Talk one-on-one offline. Sometimes there’s an elephant in the room and it keeps people from airing their true feelings. This can make it nearly impossible to extract a consensus while sitting around the table as a group. When dealing with a particularly sensitive or controversial subject, talking with group members one-on-one offline can help a leader understand their true sentiments and test out potential outcomes.

•

Make room for the Spirit. Simply pausing for prayer when a group gets stymied or off track can get a group moving in the right direction again.

•

State the consensus clearly.

How many times have you come to the end of a discussion and had different people leave the meeting with totally different understandings about what was decided? A meaningful consensus requires that a team avoid assumptions and ambiguity. So, once you’ve driven a consensus in the manner a described above, it’s important to name explicitly what has been decided. This is so simple that it sounds obvious, but you should never leave a meeting without stating clearly what has been agreed to. Stating your consensus clearly gives you a running start the next time the group meets, and it provides an accountability measure for assuring that what has been decided actually gets done.

Related Resources Synergy: A Leadership Guide for Church Staff and Volunteers (Abingdon Press, 2017) by Ann A. Michel.

3 Ways to Lead More Collaboratively by Justin A. Irving and Mark L. Strauss 5 Disciplines of Teams that Thrive by Ryan T. Hartwig and Warren Bird As found at https://www.churchleadership.com/leading-ideas/the-art-of-forging-a-meaningful-consensus/ on January 26, 2022.